O Sung Wu,

How is it that policing by itself can be effective when drug misuse was a problem even for the stalinist regimes who had TOTAL power over their citizens.

How do you think more punishment will deter people when huge numbers of people risk the death penalty every day to carry drugs in and out of South East Asia?

The more we criminalise drugs the further into the general community you push drug dealers. Vast numbers of people who have never, and most likely will never break any laws become criminalised by this mindless approach. When such a large proportion of the community is involved in taking drugs recreationally, criminalising their behaviour is pointless and only serves to provide funding for organised crime and more police time devoted to what should be an issue of personal choice.

Runner,

If you had ever met any 15 year old drug users you WOULD know that by and large they have bought their drugs from their friends. The idea that shady drug dealers are out there waiting for children so they can HOOK them is simply NOT the way things are.

I actually have a 15 year old and we've had this discussion about drugs and the damage they can do, and I will be holding HER fully responsible for any drug taking (although I'm hoping we never have to worry about that) including any overdoses. You who is supposedly Christian seem to have entirely dismissed personal responsibility.

Besides that, the damage from drugs is SO TINY in comparison with the damage that abuse of alcohol does to kids, it doesn't even bear thinking about. You are just knee jerk reacting to the situation without giving it any thought. Thousands of times more damage is done to children by alcohol, yet the majority of funding and policing is aimed at drugs for this exact reason.

Tell me, are you also going to send alcohol manufacturers and retailers to prison because 15 year olds get drunk and fall off balconies or walk in front of cars or simply overdose?

'evening to you PAUL L...

Of course 'a policing option' is not the answer alone. However, I do not agree that there would be a significent increase of illicit drug use if the dealers; pushers; and traffickers were substantially taken out of the equation.

Personally, I'm of the view that users are more the victim rather than a criminal. Further, it's true that some users do resort to pushing, in order to simply pay for their own habit and not just to earn money, per se.

If there was a way to literally truncate the availabilty of illicit drugs maybe that could be of assistance too ? Though, it would also create more crime against property and the person. Because of the much higher costs associated with the substantially curtailed availability ?

At the risk of furnishing a rather simplistic and facile solution, I still hold the view that law enforcement assets should be specifically directed towards the pushers; traffickers; and importers; et al. In fact any organisation or individual who has a primary business that makes huge money essentially from providing illicit drugs.

A medical/social intervention should be directed to the user.

Same old “failure because (someone’s polemic demand of the outcome) is not a perfect result”

Regarding failure, that could only be compared if we had the result to what happens when different strategies are deployed

Pelican I would agree with your post (you should have posted on the recent “Side Effects of Drug Policing”, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2042 )

The issue of legalization and your observation to an increase in usage I totally agree with,

Regarding “This might include rehabilitation, education and skills training and after-prison support to give them the best possible chance of making a new life.”

This happens already (in Victoria at least), although there will always be a debate to how much money should we be prepared to flush down the drain to save any incorrigible and habitual offender.

Regarding MichaelG “often occurring because users add cheap pharmaceuticals to their dose, with unpredictable results.”
And they might continue to employ that practice with “government issue” narcotics too.

“Household surveys show that controlled availability would not cause many more people to use drugs.”

That is not the experience with what happened in China at the end of the 19th century

Nor has it been the experience (in what some might say is another addictive process) the activity of casino gambling and poker machines, since they were legalized in Victoria a decade (or so) a go.

Nor the increase in public intoxication and violence since Victorian licensing laws and late night opening were relaxed.

I further fully endorse o sung wu’s observations. Zero tolerance

PaulL the victims of drug use

Include

the people whose possessions have been stolen by junkies to fund their habit,

the families of junkies who died.

Those people who are in accident emergency queues because someone high on Meth amphetamine are smashing into the doctors and their equipment which is being used to bring the idiot down

or even the time and effort spent on someone O/D on ecstasy, utilizing scarce medical resources.

The recipients of drug induced violence. Including police and Ambos as well as the general public.

Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.

Col,

You say >> “victims of drug use include, the people whose possessions have been stolen by junkies to fund their habit,

There is a law against stealing, maybe you’ve heard of it? The people who lose their possessions are victims of theft. By the way, drug addicts generally don’t steal for fun, or to get rich, so if drugs were legal you would see a massive drop in that type of criminality.

You say >> “or even the time and effort spent on someone O/D on ecstasy, utilizing scarce medical resources”

I agree to a certain extent except to say that there is absolutely no reason to NOT include ANYONE who is in hospital because of their own behaviour. So attempted suicides, xtreme sports enthusiasts, risk takers, smokers, over eaters etc. Can you tell me why any of these people who cause their own injuries should be treated differently?

Also do you know how many people overdose on ecstasy? The numbers are tiny.

“Ecstasy related deaths are rare compared with the likely frequency of its use. If you compare it to heroin, for example, 2% of the Australian population has tried heroin and there were six hundred deaths in 1997. 5% percent of the population have tried ecstasy and there were four deaths in 1997 – from all stimulant deaths (not just ecstasy). “http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/dillon.htm

You say >> The recipients of drug induced violence

Again there is a law against violence, Col. And the recipients of drug induced violence pale into absolute insignificance when they held up against the victims of alcohol induced violence. Yet I’ll bet you aren’t a supporter of banning alcohol. This whole idea that alcohol is not a drug just does not bear out. It clearly is, yet we make this artificial distinction. We’re quite happy to live with the fallout from over drinking, yet a handful of drug related violence cases turn some people apoplectic.

TBC

To Col Rouge:

Quote: " Regarding MichaelG "users add cheap pharmaceuticals to their dose, with unpredictable results.”
And they might continue to employ that practice with “government issue” narcotics too." Unquote.

Why would they, Col, when heroin is the most desirable drug (and would be legal) and pharmaceuticals are a poor substitute (and would be illegal)? A junkie outside my front door, offered prescription pills and unaware that I could hear, said: " That crap shouldn't even be on the market. I'd only use it if I was hangin' like a dog".

Quote: “Controlled availability would not cause many more people to use drugs.”

That is not the experience with what happened in China at the end of the 19th century" Unquote

That's not a valid comparison. Opium was imported in huge quantities from India by the Brits for profit. Its use was not regulated, medically supervised or rationed, as would be desirable in our current environment.

Quote: "Nor has it been the experience (in what some might say is another addictive process) the activity of casino gambling and poker machines, since they were legalized in Victoria" Unquote

Again no comparison, Col. See above. Also, it's a lot less risky and less difficult to drop a coin in a pokie than shooting up. Like I said, if heroin was legal, would you stick a needle in your arm? No? But I'll bet you've used a pokie. Different animals, Col.

Re 'zero tolerance' : if they can't keep drugs out of jails, how can they do it across whole countries? Have you any idea how much it would cost? How much tax you would pay? How many innocent people would be shot in the street, like the 1,400 or so that Thaksin murdered in Thailand when they tried it? It is simply not worth it, Col.

And you don't seem to understand that the profit available from illegal drugs corrupts the very people who enforce prohibition. Just like under alcohol prohibition in the US. And that IS a valid comparison.

Can't agree more with this article. Thr "War on ......Drugs" is nothing but propaganda. There are thousands of people who use these "dangerous" drugs, such as Helen Mirren an extremely successful role model who did at one time. The media, politicians and police forces always pretend that these thousands of people never exist. Helen Mirren is an extremely successful person who took cocaine on a regular basis. The publicity about drugs is nothing but fearmongering to control what people consume (that's why governments are always trying to eliminate smoking and alcohol). The drug war is also used to oppress the consumption of cultural and traditional medicines. The amount of money spent chasing traders all over the planet in a kind of neverending circus is also immoral. Police do not want the drug war to end because it creates so much crime and legitimacy for them, just like the "War on Terror" is now another infinite war where normal people like Haneef are pursued for show even though it cost taxpayers millions of dollars...they just wanted to throw it away on their publicity campaign.. which the public "need to open their wallets and fund forever". This is why the police will usually not speak out against it in any official capacity...they will be fired or silenced for doing so.