Such an obvious solution YES

But the public perception of the evils of DRUGS is overwhelmed with anti-drug propaganda so any possible changes are unlikely because there are NO politicians brave enough to support what is obviously a better approach to drug misuse.

It is OK for celebrities who suffer from SUBSTANCE ABUSE or are addicted to perscription medicines(supposedly legal), they are not drug addicts like anyone else who uses chemicals for recreation.

My point is the dialogue about substance abuse needs to change, the discourse is so negative, to make change we need to address public opinion first and start framing the conversation in terms of 'social damage' rather than individual problems.

The Portugese removed all prohibitions on drugs including heroin, they now have one of the lowest instances of problem drug users in Europe, an example the rest of the world should follow.

Underpinning drug prohibition is the puritan (Protestant) work ethic , just as the ghosts of this, animated by Charles Dickens in his many works including Oliver Twist, live on in other areas. Such as welfare. Social housing policy. Alcohol is tolerated as is tobacco because both were once widely used, the former still beign widely used whereas smoking is now a minority habit (except among the feral poor). By way of background, I am a non-smoker. Smoking has been banished from most public spaces, thankfully, however apartment residents still cop the lot if they have a few smoking neighbours as it trasmits through the hall and opened windows/balconies etc. In this day and age, booze and cigs are still tolerated as a revenue source with their taxes, as well as providing useless bread and circuses for the unwashed, so they keep their eye off the ball and only concern themselves with leisure, home and proletarian affairs.

Unless I am very much mistaken there are a few misconceptions in the article.

The possession of these drugs for personal use has been decriminalised, and so has the sale of soft (marajuana) drugs, but the sale and possesion of commercial quantities is still illegal.

Secondly Aus has one of the lowest consumption of hard drugs, mostly due to the high price which is in turn due to the low availability. (srong policing)

While the casualty rate from the hard drugs has dropped they are still a long way from zero, so while this might be a better managment solution, there is no doubt that drugs are a problem.

Low availability isn't necessarily strong policing. It has more to do with all that water around us, and the smaller population, hence market.

The only problem I've ever had with drugs is finding a good dealer. I suspect a lot of those who demonise drugs have never tried any illicit substances.

As I've said before, when talking about drugs, we should always narrow the discussion to the effects of heroin addiction. It's not like all those lawyers and marketing departments doing coke in their boardroom, and doctors grabbing those few extra vicodin have a problem. It's only those decadent young people taking Es and talking crap and hugging and dancing all night rather than getting drunk and picking fights that we should be worried about.

Lets keep the sniffer dogs at the rock concerts and not in the law and doctors offices or back stage at the logies.

Shadow Minister: "The possession of these drugs for personal use has been decriminalised, and so has the sale of soft (marajuana) drugs"

Only in some states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis#Australia It is illegal to posses marijuana in any quantity where I live, in Queensland, for example.

Shadow Minister: "Secondly Aus has one of the lowest consumption of hard drugs, mostly due to the high price which is in turn due to the low availability. (srong policing)"

So you go along with that line too? "Common sense" dictates that if something is made illegal, it will reduce. It is not always the case. As an extreme example, making suicide illegal does not effect suicide rates. It doesn't appear that making personal possession of marijuana legal in some states has effected usage rates either. It is just a wild arsed guess on my part, but making it illegal to inflict self harm is at best a complete waste of time.

As stand out example of this is Portugal, where they decriminalised _all_ personal drug use. This did this because, surprise, surprise, the drug money was causing a break down of law and order. Decriminalisation brought no detectable change in usage rates. That isn't saying much as accurate usage figures when drug taking is illegal are hard to come by, but still there was no huge increase. On the other hand, it did solve the law and order problem. And harms plummeted, so less people were dying. All in all, it was a raging success.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

That raises the philosophical question of when should something be made illegal. My answer to that would be when the potential harm to you is less than harms to others. You might like try applying that standard to prostitution, pornography, R18+ games, personal drug consumption, stealing, and drug trafficing (which is still is illegal in Portugal).

the fiction of 10 times/twenty times 50 times stronger dope is a proven lie...its like whiter than white..yet even at stronger dose..THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A DEATH

...the gateway theory is rebutted and as for the schito/linkage..the facts are 4 out of 100 ..NON smokers get a phycotic reaction...[and for smokers of dope its 2/100...thats 2 less..per 100 than non smokers

but you will allways get some docter willing to play the scam..willing to ridicule cannabis..[that has never caused a death..

even if the scitso thing was true...would you rather have a crazey kid or a dead kid...[booze killed 4000..but because of the 'benifitial affects of booze..that true number was reduced in the statistics to 2000...

[so of the 4000 deaths ATTRIBUTABLE directly to booze...2000 disappeared]...time to tax wine..the smokers been carrying the tax burdon for too long..

[the dug law raised 50 million.in 1999]..for qld alone..from 35.395 drug convictions..[35,395 people criminalised for what?...so booze can keep filling our hospitals..while druggies keep filling our jails

obesity from booze costs your tax dollars..them livers they wilfully destroy..the alcohol fueled violence...then the perscribed drugs...

,...yes...we have a drug problem..LEGAL DRUGS

the legalization of alcohol has certainly not helped the countless bashed and raped woman, the destruction of huge numbers of aboriginals and the numerous families mourning family members due to selfish drunk drivers. It is very hard to believe the legalisation would reduce consumption as Evert seems to believe would happen with an end to illegal drug usage .

BBoy: regarding Portugal [could you please attach a link on the statistics, the year and so forth]as I wish to view the information. Also, any info relating to statistics in Portugal on studies done neurologically. Their economic situation poverty etc. Many factors involving proposals to legalise all highly addictive drugs.

we are unique: "could you please attach a link on the statistics, the year and so forth"

This is probably the most balanced assessment.

http://www.idpc.net/php-bin/documents/BFDPP_BP_14_EffectsOfDecriminalisation_EN.pdf.pdf

Changes in drug related deaths:

--Opiates--
2001: 350, 2003: 98
--Other-drugs--
2001: 19, 2003: 54
--Total--
2001: 369, 2003: 152

Those numbers are probably reliable. In summary, drug related deaths halved. The reason is fairly straight forward. Before people seeking help could be prosecuted. Now they get help, so naturally many more seek help.

In drug related diseases, HIV dropped by 17%, and Hepatatis B & C also dropped.

Student drug usage, 16-18 group:

--Canibas--
2001: 12.3%, 2003: 17.7%
--Heroin--
2001: 2.5%, 2003: 1.8%

Those numbers aren't as reliable, as Canibas use in Europe went up in that period, and a major supply route for Europe is via Portugal's sea border.

As drug was no longer an offence prosecutions dropped by 60%. The significance of this is it costs a huge amount to prosecute someone. That money was diverted into treatment. As a result drug users became functioning members of society, rather than a burden in jail. Interestingly, prosecutions for trafficing remained unchanged, which is possibly an indication that drug use overall remained fairly flat. Overall, people in jail for drug related offences has dropped from 44% to 28%, and prison overcrowding has dropped from 119 prisoners per 100 places to 101.

Portugal effectively changed their treatment for drug use from jail to medical help, and it only worked because they did ensure everyone got medical help (wanted or not). There is some debate in Portugal over whether casual soft drug use has increased, if so whether this is a problem. My guess is it probably has, but it probably isn't huge issue as soft drugs are less toxic than say alcohol. If they treated all drugs like they do cigarettes now, the "Underbellies" of this world would be starved of cash, the cost of law enforcement would disappear, and taxation revenue would shift the burden of supporting them from us non-drug users to the users themselves. Sounds good to me.

Just because people harm themselves, does not make it a national problem.

What is lost in the idea that we are justified in criminalising drugs because of the harm that some people do to themselvses, is all those users who don't seriously harm themselves. For example I smoke marijuana probably once or twice a year, have an enjoyable time, and have no other negative side-effect. It does not noticeably affect my ability to work, my personal relationships, or my health. (Although it reminds me of that joke "I'm allergic to marijuana - every time I use it I break out in handcuffs.")

But even if I did harm myself - so what? Why is that someone else's business more than it is mine? Just because there's a harm, doesn't mean we are justified in criminalising it.

What about all the heart attacks caused by butter? Or the deaths caused by cars? Everything involves risk; that doesn't mean we should prohibit them. People have a right to choose for themselves as a matter of principle; and so long as they are not aggressing against the person or property of others, should be free.

Ideas can be far more harmful than drugs - should we prohibit communications of ideas that we think harmful too, as the puritans, and the neo-Marxists maintain?

The impulse to take intoxicants has, and always will, persist despite the malevolence of any retributive punishment. And the key difference lies in the fact that not all drug users become drug addicts.And not all drug addicts destroy the fabric of society. Legislation fails to acknowledge this and therefore fails to base itself on rational thought and fails ultimately to take care of the citizenry it so aims to protect.
The tragic fact of prohibition is we are only ‘allowed’ a miniscule amount of intoxicants. Humans, being inquisitive, will always want to know what's on the other side of the fence. Except that taking the leap into possibly different pastures also means rubbing shoulders with some of the less salubrious members of our citizenry. With that they are by themselves in many ways and will need to deal with the producers of these intoxicants who are not governed by quality control or health and safety regulations.
By ‘criminalising’ a substance and creating a ‘war’ as such on it, legislators are in a sense increasing the harms associated with the use of substances. Rather than saving us from ourselves, they are creating a situation whereby the health of drug users is actually causing far more harm than good.
A recent report, 'After the war on drugs: Blueprint for regulation', comprehensively highlights the harms caused by the prohibitionist stance. In its foreword it cites some alarming figures gleaned from WHO sources and looks at HIV/AIDS statistics as an example of how legislative zealotry harms human beings. Outside Sub-Saharan Africa 30% of HIV/AIDS infection are attributed to injecting drug use. In Europe and Central Asia a whopping 60% of this blood-borne death sentence is contracted via injecting drug usage.
Time to wake up and smell the cofee. Hang on, that's a drug!

One can't help but wonder at the game of ping-pong being played in the field of cannabis research. Last year the report from the Keele University Medical School concluded "This study does not therefore support the … link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders" (http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=76), yet only a few days ago the UQ's John McGrath and his team's report stated "Among all the participants, a longer duration since the first time they used cannabis was associated with multiple psychosis-related outcomes," (The Age, 27/02/10). It seems academia generally operates on an a priori basis and will gather evidence supporting the conclusion they want, hence two completely different findings.
So now my two bob's worth; pot smokers are prone to mental illness, not because they smoke pot, but because they are born/made that way from infancy. I personally believe that those of us with an artistic temperament are drawn to altered states of consciousness because of a deeper perception of the world and a keener sensibility to its vagaries. This world is ruled by a rampant military-industrial plutocracy, a class of people who kill to achieve their greedy, planet destroying ambitions, and then get drunk to celebrate their latest conquest, while the peace-loving, artistic folk, driven to despair by such evil, seek alternative ways to cope with a world gone mad and turn to such things as “illicit drug” use. We are not mad, we are normal, the real abnormality is the status quo, the powers that be, the mad men (and a few women) who wage war against the people, and then incarcerate us for wanting to escape the madness by smoking a joint or shooting heroin. We are the enemy of uber-power and we have to be kept in check by proscriptions against our normal behaviour and being vilified as deviant by the truly degraded. And even these SOBs are free to indulge in their high-grade cocaine with impunity while the crack addict is criminalised. If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, the enforcers of the war on drugs are the hypocrites.

And here is a list of just a few famous folk who were opiate users:
Robert Downey Jr., David Bowie, James Taylo,r Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, Irvine Welsh, Jim Carroll, William Burroughs, John Belushi, Kurt Cobain, Miles Davis, Bill Evans, John Coltrane, Thomas De Quincy, Ben Franklin, Jerry Garcia, Boy George, Billie Holiday, Bela Lugosi, Charlie Parker, Edgar Allan Poe, Keith Richards, Tom Sizemore, Dr. William Stewart Halsted, Senator Joseph McCarthy, Marcus Aurelius, Charles Dickens, Florence Nightingale, Janis Joplin, Billie Holiday, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who with the exception of McCarthy, contributed so much to the betterment of human kind, despite the early deaths of many of them, but if heroin was properly administered under medical supervision, then as Dr Ingrid van Beek so cogently argued in her book, In the Eye of the Needle: Diary of a Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, Janice, Billie, Trane et al may have given us many more years of talent cut short because heroin use is a criminal offence. Which is offensive, really, as these people were only made criminals because of the stupidity of drug laws.

John DG

Agree with every point you have made. The only reason for the continuation of drug prohibition is that too many people are either making too good a living off the criminal proceeds, or for misguided reasons such as religious affiliation, or sheer bloody-minded wowserism (control). Or even a combination of all the above - hypocrisy has never recognised boundaries.

This article forgest about the rights of a person who just wants to walk down the street without being accosted by someone high on drugs.

There are a few contradictions - first to argue the government has a vested interest in prohibition for revenue reasons is laughable particularly in a later paragraph you argue for dispensed heroin to be highly taxed.

I might be critical of governments at time but I don't think they are in the business of fostering and encouraging drug trafficking for the purposes of raising tax. This is tin foil hat thinking.

Why do you assume that drug trafficking and dealing will suddenly cease when say heroin is made available via pharmacists? There are new drugs coming on line all the time that will continue to feed an illicit drug trade. If the government had to keep up, I strongly suspect that it would be expending the same if not more on the drug issue.

There are some really practical and human right reasons for continuing prohibition in relation to illicit drugs. It is too easy just to dismiss this issue as religious or wowserism.

Listing a bevy of celebrities who use cocaine - I don't get the point. Most drug users and those affected by drugs are not rich spoilt millionaires to their detriment.

We would be better off putting more resources into fighting the drug trade and improving rehabilitation services for users.

Pelican

Point of fact, you are more likely to be accosted by a drunk when walking down the street.

Drug users of the pot or heroin variety are usually only out and about because they need to score. An activity which brings them into contact with people you really won't want to know.

Amphetamine users - party drugs are another issue and are often used in conjunction with alcohol. The pernicious drugs are often cut with substances like Ajax or even Draino on the black market. At the very least, controlled production would eliminate danger.

"fighting the drug trade" the war-on-drugs has not worked. Decriminalising would eliminate the criminal element.

Prior to rehab, education is better, however not in a preachy manner, just hard facts along with photos - like is done with tobacco - the most lethal of all drugs, legal or otherwise. Perhaps a nice piccie of someone who has eroded their nasal passages from snorting too much powder would be nice.

Finally, humans being what they are, there is no perfect solution. But there are better ways than creating criminals out of otherwise decent people.

pelican,

'Listing a bevy of celebrities who use cocaine - I don't get the point.'

The point is that drug use is explicitly condoned for the rich and demonized for the poor. cocaine is basically legal on Wall Street, crack has people in jail. The poor black man's drug vs the rich white mans drug.

Ever see a celebrity or lawyer or banker caught with drugs (and they only get 'caught' when they crash their car with 10 grams in the glove box) go to jail?

Secondly the point is that people assume all drug users are street living video steeling heroin fiends. It changes this perceptive to educate people that that nice young doctor or accountant probably does lines with his mates every weekend. They create no cost to society and live respectible responsible lives.

We are criminalising these people who are doing no harm to others. When such a massive amount of people ignore a law you really should look at the law.

When you look at the quantities of drugs seized by police, you must accept that a hell of a lot of people leading normal productive lives, not hurting anyone, are using these drugs.

pelican: "This article forgest about the rights of a person who just wants to walk down the street without being accosted by someone high on drugs."

Like Severin, I was bemused by that comment. It is a sweeping generalisation that looks to have been plucked straight from the latest media beat up on drugs. Suffices to say I have never been accosted by anyone but smokers, and it wasn't because they were smoking. It simply isn't an issue.

pelican: "I might be critical of governments at time but I don't think they are in the business of fostering and encouraging drug trafficking for the purposes of raising tax."

What an amazing statement. Why do you think they are so keen on gambling, it is wasn't for raising tax? Our government are perfectly happy to introduce an anti-social vice to raise tax revenue. Read the link below. What do you think the primary concern is? Tax, or "smoking kills"?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/25/washington-cigarette-tax-hike-results-in-decreased-revenues-as-smokers-buy-outside-city-limits/

pelican: "If the government had to keep up,"

Quite right. There are new drugs appear all the time, and as you say until the government catches up they can be imported freely. The current response is to change a schedule in the criminal law, the new response would be to change a schedule in the tax law. Are you saying it is much harder to change the tax law?

pelican: "There are some really practical and human right reasons for continuing prohibition in relation to illicit drugs"

That statement would be more convincing if you listed them.

All that aside, you seem to think taxation doesn't address the problem. There is very convincing evidence it does. In Alice Springs, they trialled taxing plonk (cheap sherry and port) at the same volume metric rate as beer. The murder rate halved during the trial. http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/1323.html The World Health Organisation described the scheme as the "single most effective". Our wine industry screamed blue bloody murder over loosing their tax concessions. They claim it will cost jobs, implying jobs are more important than murders. So far, it seems our politicians agree.

Severin
I agree, that I may also be accosted by a drunk person and if I lived in Melbourne that is probably highly possible on selected streets and at certain times. But that is a separate issue. Responsible alcohol use does not lead to the same problems as other substances especially Crack cocaine or Ice. Heroin use has long term effects on the brain and the effects of heroin use on foetal development is well documented. Heroin is highly addictive.

I agree that alcohol abuse is a problem too, but that is partly my point why add to the list of legally obtained substances.

I have been around people high on drugs and it is not always fun nor do people behave considerately towards others under the influence - no matter how the film industry or other entertainment media attempt to glamorise drug use.

In many criminal cases drug use has led to the committing of serious and not so serious crime including murder. And I am not talking about the drug trade but what people might do during a drug induced neurosis. Even if one does not subscribe to that view, further research is certainly required if we are to go down a legalising path.

There is mounting evidence that drug use causes a variety of mental illnesses in some people genetically predisposed particularly in relation to seemingless harmful drugs like cannabis.

Why is it we seek to legalise substances instead of investigating more into what it is that draws people to drugs? Shouldn't we all be investing in achieving a healthier society.

Civil liberties does not just apply to users.

pelican,

You can arrest people for breaking the law as a result of their drug use. As you can arrest terrorists under the existing laws that say you're not allowed to blow stuff up. There's no need to criminalise two people who enjoy riding motorcycles meeting each other to stop violent crime.

There is no need to outlaw the drug because a few cant handle it. And it is a few in comparison to how widespread drug use is through all walks of life in the community.

What we are really doing is criminalising poverty. We turn a blind eye or give a slap on the wrist to the rich and middle class when they take drugs. It's only those pikeys who need to be prevented some of the life pleasures of the rich and middle class. Legalising drug use would bring the price down, allowing the poorer the same joys as the rich. Cant have that can we? We keep all the coke for the rich, and leave the more damaging crack to the poor, then jail them for using it. Then in places like the US with privately run jails, they are used for slave labour. All for wanting a simple joy the rich are allowed.

'investigating more into what it is that draws people to drugs? '

It's simple. It's fun! It feels good! Why don't we investigate what draws people to sex?

pelican: "I have been around people high on drugs ... [they don't] behave considerately towards others"

True, but irrelevant. Firstly no matter how you feel about the inconsiderate behaviour of people high on drugs, I happen to rate drug death rates as far higher consideration. So is how well drug users function in society, and I rate receiving medical support, holding down a job, being home for the kids as better on that scale than being jailed for six months. How about you? And finally the discussion here is not about how people behave when under the influence, it is about how to avoid being under the influence.

You statement implies illegal means less consumption, but figures presented show the reverse. So where is your counter evidence? Here, more evidence your "common sense" beliefs are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Results_of_the_drug_policy

pelican: "further research is certainly required if we are to go down a legalising path."

Ah yes. That old canard of "further research required". I am surprised you stooped to it, given how common it is. We have had prohibition for 40 odd years. Look at the table 4.2 in http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/soduia06/soduia06.pdf Absolutely no change drug usage from 1991 to 2004. Isn't 40 years of this failure to improve enough for you?

pelican: "There is mounting evidence that drug use causes a variety of mental illnesses in some people genetically predisposed"

True, but your point again escapes me unless you are subvertly trying to say "cannabis use will go up if we legalise it". By the by, the evidence also says those very same people will use cannabis, illegal or not, because they are ill, desperately need a solution and so self-medicate with it.

pelican: "Why is it we seek to legalise substances instead of investigating more into what it is that draws people to drugs?"

You're kidding me. Are you really claiming that is the choice we face? Are you really saying if we legalise drugs we will not investigate them? Tell me you aren't saying that, please. If you are, explain the continuing investigations into the effects of smoking.

Pelican

I know you are as concerned as I and I want you to know that I understand an respect your position even while disagreeing.

"Why is it we seek to legalise substances instead of investigating more into what it is that draws people to drugs?"

A fair question. In my own case it was to both deal with depression and yes, to have fun. I use different drugs for different purposes. This is a typical reason for humans to use drugs since primitive man first ate some overripe and therefore fermented fruit. While saying drug taking is part of human culture sounds trite, it is nonetheless true. We can no more legislate against drug taking than we can against stupidity. However, we can mitigate the damage.

I also disagree that heroin causes more and worse brain damage than alcohol.

Please consider:

"Alcohol can kill brain cells directly, or nutritional problems associated with alcoholism can do the damage. Chronic heavy drinking is associated with an increased risk for an alcohol-related form of dementia.

Heavy drinkers are less likely to consume adequate levels of essential vitamins and minerals and additionally, alcohol’s effects on the gastrointestinal system can limit the body’s ability to absorb these essential vitamins and minerals.

Alcohol-related dementias are not the same as Alzheimer’s disease, though they share some similarities. Alcohol-related dementia impacts cognitive capacities more globally, affecting far more than just memory. In addition to memory problems, symptoms of alcohol-related dementia include:

* Changes in personality
* Altered judgment
* A reduction in social skills
* A reduction in logical planning skills
* A loss of coordination"

http://www.drug-rehabs.com/alcohol_related_brain_damage.htm

Or consider what won't be achieved by continued criminalisation:

• Stop gangs from selling other drugs to our kids (since illegal drug dealers rarely check for ID);

• Stop drug dealers from brutally murdering rival traffickers for the purpose of controlling the remaining criminal market for other drugs;

• Stop drug dealers from firing on cops charged with fighting the senseless war on other illicit drugs;

• Stop drug dealers from killing kids caught in crossfire and drive-by shootings;

Cont'd

Cont'd

"Stop overdose deaths of drug users who refrain from calling 911 (000) out of fear of legal repercussions;

• Reduce the spread of infectious diseases like AIDS and hepatitis, since marijuana users don’t inject their drug like heroin users (who sometimes share dirty needles and syringes because prohibition makes it hard to secure clean ones);

• Stop the bloody cartel battles in Mexico that are rapidly expanding over the border into the U.S;

• Stop the Taliban from raking in massive profits from illegal opium cultivation in Afghanistan."

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/144573/former_police_chief_norm_stamper:_%27let%27s_not_stop_at_marijuana_legalization%27/

I understand why you say:

"I agree that alcohol abuse is a problem too, but that is partly my point why add to the list of legally obtained substances.".

And I reiterate we can't legislate against the human disposition towards taking drugs, but at least with alcohol we have support programs and abusers are not charged as criminals as well.

Had I been caught for taking illegal drugs in my past, I would not likely be here today discussing this issue with you as I do not see how a criminal record would've in any way assisted me in recovery than the actions I took myself.

rstuart
Where have I said smoking is a good thing? And there have been much in the way of scientific evidence that now points to smoking as harmful, hence the continued efforts to reduce smoking. Much more difficult to make illegal once it is legalised.

I haven't subvertly said cannabis use will go up - I openly claim that it WILL go up as I have said many times on this issue on OLO.

It is sometimes difficult not to sound repetitive when the same issues arise. You are welcome to delve and find any of my other comments on this issue in the OLO archives.

Hysteria and contrived outrage doubting my integrity in raising research issues (clearly needed) only makes your position weaker rstuart.

Houlley,
Yes the rich get away with much not just in the area of drug use but in white collar crime and tax evasion. It is wrong in both cases. Sex does not have the same impact as drugs. But thanks Houlley and Severin for taking a more reasoned and thought out response without an accusatory tone.

Severin
We must have posted at the same time as I did not read your newer comments until now.

As you will no doubt remember our previous discussions on this topic, I have been on the decriminilising side of this argument as well, and do understand the good intentions and some of the more valid points of those wishing to legalise.

The argument that we should not legalise/decriminalise other intoxicants/evils is meaningless...as others have pointed out, the actions of the Portuguese Government or the blind eye policy in the Netherlands have not led to significant increases in "illicit" drug use, and the stigma of a criminal record and the repercussions such as diminished employment opportunities are avoided, and the money saved in the policing/legal systems can be used elsewhere.

pelican: "Where have I said smoking is a good thing?"

Nowhere, which is why I didn't claim you said it. You said: "... instead of investigating more into what it is that draws people to drugs?" implying there is some sort of trade off. I used smoking to show there isn't.

But to answer your rhetorical question directly, if you legalised drugs and taxed them, there would be both large savings in enforcement and a huge revenue stream created. The government pouring more money into research is possible under that scenario. It doesn't look likely now.

pelican: "Hysteria and contrived outrage doubting my integrity"

I am targeting the way you are debating the topic.

You say: "I openly claim that it WILL go up", but offer no supporting evidence. If you have supported it in earlier threads a link would be helpful.

Then you say: "I have been around people high on drugs and it is not always fun", which is irrelevant to this debate unless usage goes up. No one here but you thinks usage will go up and you have made no effort to support your claim it will, so it is just irrelevant.

Then you say: "In many criminal cases drug use has led to the committing of serious and not so serious crime including murder". Again irrelevant unless usage went up, and serious crime went up. So another red hearing. And then "There is mounting evidence that drug use causes a variety of mental illnesses in some people genetically predisposed particularly in relation to seemingless harmful drugs like cannabis" .. ditto.

All these red hearings, with no attempt justify the claim they rest on. I am not sure "Hysteria and contrived outrage doubting my integrity" would characterise my attitude. It is more one of annoyance, as you can do better.

pelican: "raising research issues (clearly needed)"

More research is always helpful, but I doubt many here would agree is it is needed (yet alone clearly needed) to justify the move to decriminalisation. If you think it is, support the point by saying where and why.

pelican

How do you explain that tobacco consumption is falling despite cigarettes being widely available (think for sale at every corner store and supermarket)? The sale of tobacco is legal but use is falling, so why would injecting heroin use rise if the sale of heroin were legal?

Do you think that life-long drinkers are going to quit drinking to start injecting heroin (even though they'd be doing less damage to their body)? Do you think that people with no history of using tobacco or alcohol are suddenly going to start injecting heroin?

Kind thanks rstuart for taking time to attach the link and outlining the ratios too. Greatly appreciated.

My stance over 30 odd years is and always will be, never to legalise heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and not to legalise the use of ice, ecstacy including all pills.

I have worked in drug and alcohol detox centres in the city.

Legalising the new array of drugs such as ice, ecstacy, and drugs producing adverse personal harm and the heartache and harm to drug users' families, friends, work colleagues and the community in general: no way.

I mix with young people daily and notice the differences in their normal behaviour as opposed to the symptoms of occasional social weekend drug use and the longer term use of pills.

Why would some OLO posters recommend the legalisation of drugs [all drugs] when few trials into pills and newer pills hitting the Australian market daily have not been done. It will be quite a few years before results on studies will be completed. You all are such loving caring people to our new Australian generation.

Gee....if only you cared about our future children, grandchildren, neices and nephews as you all care about our Environment. There wont be our families living in the 'wonderful clean polution free environment' or perhaps they may. Neurologically significantly impaired, limbless, cancer ridden, and a debt to society [much worse than marijuana users and/or heroin users.

Most of the kids popping regularly shift from one job to another, thieve, carry out break and enters, damage others' property from time to time [for the thrill of it], act irresponsibly towards their friends family and colleagues not to mention the abuse factor.

Marijuana addiction: varies from person to person on factors such as short or long term useage, genetics, health of individual; generally not producing flesh eating symptoms and rapid self harm re; pills.

The crap in these pills and the symptoms produced are hazardous; not only to the young users and their families; the hidden effects do impact upon their friends, work colleagues and their community

Further, I could sit quietly and not object to a potential trial for the legalisation of heroin and marijuana over say the age of 25yrs. For kids while growing and developing, learning strategies on how to cope in this lack of extended family environments: NO. Legalisation of pills: NO.

we are unique

The same restrictions that apply to alcohol and tobacco would apply to all other drugs of addiction.

Better that the illegal drug trade be eradicated (which BTW destroys many more innocent lives, both users and small-time traffickers and has been explained in detail in previous posts).

Better that drug use among the addicted be monitored and treated, than the continuation of prohibition, which didn't work for alcohol as you, no doubt, already are aware of this piece of history.

Pelican

I acknowledge that you and I have been over this territory before. I have an ulterior motive, that is simply to lead by example, that it is possible to disagree and still communicate with each other in a respectful manner. It is only through civil debate and exchange of ideas that we reach solutions, OK I know we aren't solving all the world's problems here, but it is great to thrash it out and rethink our views.

I do consider carefully the points you and others have made, as a result I know that there will never be an ideal solution. Therefore I would rather that the effect of drugs be mitigated through government control than that of drug cartels.

Severin
"I do consider carefully the points you and others have made, ...I know that there will never be an ideal solution. Therefore I would rather that the effect of drugs be mitigated through government control than that of drug cartels."

Thanks severin for your rational approach. I do very much consider points you and others raise. Agree there will never be an ideal solution. The current state of affairs is far from perfect.

As for the second point. IMO drug cartels are not going to be diminished even if some currently banned substances are distributed under government control. That is my main beef with the legalisation aspect. Cartels will come up with newer and more potent drugs to gain a market share. Also if heroin can be bought cheaper on the streets than at the chemist drug cartels may rely on turnover rather than a high profit margin.

strayan: "How do you explain that tobacco consumption is falling despite cigarettes being widely available (think for sale at every corner store and supermarket)? The sale of tobacco is legal but use is falling, so why would injecting heroin use rise if the sale of heroin were legal?"

Tobacco use is falling because of a strong government campaign on anti-smoking, quit smoking and MOST importantly due to the continuing tightening up of non-smoking areas including now in some states outdoor public areas. Smokers I know feel like they are made to feel like pariahs. Smoking uptake by young people is still high.

For me there is sad irony of legalising a substance like heroin, then spending millions of dollars to make ads and run educational campaigns to deter people from using heroin.

And we will have to agree to disagree on the take-up issue. Young people who may not have tried heroin when it is illegal may well take it up when it's use has been legitimised by governments. I think many would - that is my own feelings.

It is a point we cannot prove one way or the other and I hope we never have to find out.

Pelican

<< For me there is sad irony of legalising a substance like heroin, then spending millions of dollars to make ads and run educational campaigns to deter people from using heroin. >>

Are you proposing that heroin would be sold like alcohol or cigarettes? I don't think so. It would be decriminalised, not placed as a consumable on the open market. Also, we have ads warning against drug use as it is, I see no reason why such educational efforts should not continue.

<< And we will have to agree to disagree on the take-up issue. Young people who may not have tried heroin when it is illegal may well take it up when it's use has been legitimised by governments. I think many would - that is my own feelings.>>

I posit that the take-up rate would be no more than the rate for prescribed drugs - an issue yes, but in comparison to current practices where young people are in direct contact with the criminal world? Mitigated to an extent that that alone makes decriminalisation preferable.

As for drug cartels continuing at current levels? Alcohol is brewed at home and there will always be a minority who cook up (or grow) their own drugs - but no longer on the massive scale as that funded by drug cartels and, dare I say, vested political and industrial interests.

BTW

Have you been watching the series "Breaking Bad"? on ABC2? A very black comedy that in no way glamorises the use, procurement and manufacture of amphetamines - last night's final episode of the current series projected the effects of Ice on people brutally and effectively.

pelican: "IMO drug cartels are not going to be diminished even if some currently banned substances are distributed under government control. ... if heroin can be bought cheaper on the streets than at the chemist drug cartels may rely on turnover."

Why do you think that? Cigarettes are taxed at many times their manufacturing cost yet they aren't distributed by drug cartels. I think it is pretty clear people prefer to buy from a legal source where they can.

pelican: "For me there is sad irony of legalising a substance like heroin, then spending millions of dollars to make ads and run educational campaigns to deter people from using heroin."

It is not a sad irony. It is a very fortunate juxtaposition of circumstances. Huge amounts of money are spent of the likes of heroin. Where do you think that money goes? It isn't making the stuff, as it is simple substance derived from a plant that is very easy to grow. That money goes into funding the lavish life styles of criminals. The _entire_ case for legalising heroin is to change who gets that revenue stream, so rather than funding a criminal sub-culture we then have to spend huge amounts of money trying control, we to use use it to help the kids it is harming.

If there is a sad irony, it is that we created a system that causes those huge amounts money to flow into lavish houses, fast cars, loose girls instead of hospitals, schooling and public education campaigns on the dangers of drug taking.

pelican: "It is a point we cannot prove one way or the other and I hope we never have to find out."

You were doing well up until that statement. I accept you may well feel that is the case. But unless that happens to be a royal "we", your statement is just plain wrong. Most of us here don't feel that way, and in fact we have seen enough to believe we already know the answer.

Well, yes rstuart I wanted to make clear the last point was my own opinion. I have raised teenagers and worked around youth issues and previously drug/alcohol issues. It is from that experience that my own opinions have been shaped. And it is why I swapped from the pro-legalising camp to the other.

severin
I don't expect that heroin will be dispensed in the same way as cigarettes or alcohol. The original drug trial was looking at dispensing heroin to registered drug users, it was not going to just provide heroin to anyone who walked into the pharmacy. This is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if it is done as part of a voluntary rehabilitation program.

The issue is that drug cartels will still find a market among newer unregistered users or first time thrill seekers.

severin and rstuart, the illegal smuggling of tax-free cigarettes and tobacco is big business around the world despite smokes being available in the corner store.

In some places higher taxes on cigarettes works in reducing uptake but this also increases the illegal trade, particularly but not confidned to, the developing world.

I am so sick of hearing about the poor druggies.

Why not just flood the market with arsenic laced drugs, at give away prices, after a huge public awareness campaign, & then let the Darwin princile take it's course.

Should cure the problem.

Hasbeen,

You mean similar to how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during the prohibition era?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/26/war-on-drugs-prohibition

http://www.slate.com/id/2245188

Or perhaps similar to how heroin is contaminated with Anthrax in the UK?

http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6285-anthrax-outbreak-seven-reasons-to-get-radical

The tragedy of the criminalisation and official vilification of some drugs - nb. those generally easier to produce by cottage industry - vs officially sanctioned pharmaceuticals - nb. generally produced in expensive laboratory processes - is the higher number of lives that prohibition has destroyed by the encouragement of an outsider lifestyle subculture, enticement of high profits and dangers of imprisonment.
The misinformation and blanket hysteria of official drug education draws more people into risky drug use than it dissuades. Better that young people were educated intelligently, with programs such as the ABC's series, 'What's Your Poison', which presented a more reasoned description of the negative and positive effects of these substances.
In my experience, the majority of recreational drug users lead functional lives, endangered mostly by their exposure to that illicit subculture. Most dysfunctional addictions mask unaddressed psychological conditions such as anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorders.
Along with the dangers of prison - in the 80s I knew one young man doing time for cannabis possession who was stabbed to death, another who became a heroin addict and died of HIV. Perhaps the greatest danger caused by law enforcement has been a proliferation of hydroponic marihuana. When infrared air surveillance drove marihuana production indoors it inadvertently sophisticated the growing processes that have produced a much, much more dangerous substance. And surveillance on importation has reduced access to higher quality substances and encouraged backyard laboratories that produce much more dangerous chemical substances.
Ultimately, young people will always adventure, test their boundaries. Most will survive relatively unscathed and wiser for their experience, some will not. Rather than put the majority at risk for the sake of these few, it would be far better to increase early diagnosis and treatment of psychological vulnerabilities and provide intelligent education of the potentialities of playing Russian Roulette with their most precious possession, their brain, then let them make their own choices.

pelican: "The issue is that drug cartels will still find a market among newer unregistered users or first time thrill seekers."

You state that as if it is a fact. You know what the current Australian government take on tobacco is? $6.7 Billion in 2006. (From http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/soduia06/soduia06.pdf , page x, 4th para) Yet the drug cartels don't move in.

pelican: "In some places higher taxes on cigarettes works in reducing uptake but this also increases the illegal trade, particularly but not confined to, the developing world."

You have repeatedly made what appear to be statements of fact, but are really just wild arsed guesses that happen to support your viewpoint. I don't know which this is as you don't cite evidence supporting it. But assuming it is true, I guess it means legalising drugs would not work as well in the developing world as it would here.

rstuart

I suppose by comparison you think your views are not wild arsed guesses. If you want to play the person instead of the ball then that is up to you but I won't play that game.

My posts are my views but they are based on my own experience in the health/community sector and various experience within government across a number of different portfolios.

You are free to google tobacco smuggling, effects of various drugs including the most current research (there is a mix of research some of it contradictory) and any other relevant string relevant to this topic and draw your own conclusions. I generally try not to post links on OLO because frankly you can always find some paper or some news article that supports both sides of a debate.

Your claims and assertions and those of others are equally written as if fact. I suspect if I had agreed with you my writings would be taken in an entirely different view.

This is an opinion site. They are MY views and I don't claim to be always right and try to keep an open mind - perhaps you should try it.

Really Strayan. Opps, I must stop sticking my tongue in my cheek, it gets me into so much trouble.

I'm a fairly hard hearted bugger. I have very little sympathy for those who break their head, falling off their trail bike, horse, or boat. I can see no reason why the public should pick up the pieces. Incidently, we do, or have done all three, without public cost.

I can see no reason, where drugs are concerned either.

They should be available, on prescription for a reasonable price for those hooked, but that's all.

It always amuses me that it seems that it's those who complain most about tobaco smoking, want to make hemp smoking common.

I do get upset when I hear of so called needle exchange people handing out needles, so they can be left around for kids to stand on.

We are an irational lot.

I write from extensive experience with that illicit subculture, sufficient to assert that most drugs are not all they are cracked up to be. Without the seedy glamma of its dangers and high profits, it is my informed opinion that a significant proportion of users would neither enjoy nor progress past their first experience, and few would be bothered dealing beyond personal use requirements.
I recall a Psychology experiment from the 70s, where groups of subjects were provided with a substance and informed it was one of a number of drugs, and guess what? Those thinking they were taking heroin reported heroin-type effects, likewise those of cocaine, THC and methedrine, when what all groups actually ingested was adrenaline.
The human mind is a marvelous fantasist, creating narrative drama around its experience, and that's how the drug culture comes about - mostly through the dangers of its illegality.
Of those who actually enjoy their drug of choice, many people wealthy enough to access clean heroin, and those assiduous enough to find open-range marihuana, conduct perfectly functional lives. However, dirty or unpredictable strength heroin causes many ODs and super-strength hydro has brought about a new class of addicts with psychotic disorders that need treatment.
The physical symptoms of heroin addiction are really not that difficult to abate, a week of medically monitored discomfort at the most, but the social and habitual patterns are much harder. Far better that those addicts were treated for their underlying disorders than given needles or methadone and let get on with it.

pelican,

We are having two different conversations, and neither of us is budging an inch to accommodate the other.

You are having a conversation you might have with a friend at the kitchen table over a cup of tea, offering your personal experiences. I see the some fellow females here are responding appropriately to such an exchange. They politely acknowledge what you have said, then share their experiences and so you come to understand each others feelings on the matter.

Being male, this social ritual of acknowledging feelings is not my cup of tea. Instead I am discussing how the world works, and doing so in an very mechanistic way. I will say things like "drug users behaviours aren't much effected by legal niceties, therefore changing the legal aspect isn't going to effect their usage". I don't expect you to acknowledge this as my experience. Quite the reverse. I expect you to be openly sceptical at the words from a stranger you have no reason to trust. So I try to provide support for my assertions for the "are much effected" bit by citing sources you do hopefully trust, like government stats and wikipedia. It takes a lot of time to dig those references up, so I am putting a fair amount of effort in.

The flip side of this is I expect to be treated in the same way. But what you give me is assertion after assertion, trying I presume to get me to acknowledge your feelings in the matter. I don't of course. Instead I whinge mightily that you haven't thrown me a bone; given me a single reason to believe what you say. You of course then get pissed off because there are no bones forthcoming from me either, no acknowledgement you are acting in good faith, distilling what you feel to be true into a few words without all those messy details.

Well, I love details. And can we take it as read that I have seen enough of your posts to know you are being honest and sincere. Please?

I respect that is your perception rstuart. We all make assertions. There may be a gender difference in the way people communicate but...well that's life I guess.

I don't know how many times I have to say my opinions or assertions as you prefer, are shaped from my experience in this area including as I have posted countless times involvement in the Hawke Government's Drugs Summit and from working closely with law enforcement and government/community bodies on these issues.

For interest a timeline of drug related policy and legislative changes since the Drug Summit - click on the Time Line updated option:

http://www.dpmp.unsw.edu.au/

There is also some good information on drug policy alternatives and the acknowledgement of the complications and wide disparity of views/opinions/research from a number of sources in that DPMP.UNSW link.

We can all post links to sites that support our view. Some fairly good links below that give a fairly balanced view:

Effects of cannabis: http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Reference/DFA_CannabisPaper.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9914-drugs-and-alcohol-instant-expert.html?full=true

Tobacco Smuggling:

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-9-smuggling-a-result-of-tax-increases-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/8546240.stm

One quote from this link: http://www.globalink.org/en/smuggling.shtml

"From 1979-1991 in Canada, the real price of cigarettes increased by 159% and teenage smoking fell from 42% to 16%. In 1994, Canada reduced tobacco taxes in response to concerns about smuggling, causing the real price of cigarettes to fall by one-third. Teenage smoking increased from 16% to 20% ([10]). Total tobacco consumption ceased to fall, and is now increasing."

Drug Policy

I tend to favour the Swedish model over the Dutch one. People also forget that in the Netherlands even cannabis sales via coffee shops are limited and strict rules do apply.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/sweden/
http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/

While coming at drugs issues in different ways (although not that different for hard drugs) both countries are focussed on harm minimisation.

Harm minimisation should be the ultimate goal and that goal is also achievable without legalising illicit drugs.

I don't think mind altering drugs are beneficial to society and the effects impact on unfairly on others.

There is much more but I could here all night posting government and other links and you are just as capable of doing your own research.

Pelican

I agree that there is a significant black market trade in both tobacco and alcohol. Therefore, my question to you is, if this trade is as pernicious as you claim, then perhaps shouldn't tobacco and alcohol (given the health issues) be criminalised?

You are certainly making a great case in favour of prohibition of tobacco and alcohol. Just because smoking and drinking have attained a social acceptance in our culture does not give them any more credence over heroin, MJ, Ecstacy and so on.

____________________________________________________________________

Rstuart

I don't see what gender has to do with this debate regarding drug prohibition.

I do know that claiming someone talks out of their arse, or views this debate as a simple chat over a cup of tea is nothing more than an attempt at ad hominem attack and, therefore both irrelevant and revealing that you are simply irate because you have not converted Pelican to your way of thinking.

Also, before launching an attack on me - you may wish to consider that I actually share your opinion on decriminalising drugs - as I wrote above - gender has nothing to do with this topic. Get over the fact that Pelican is a woman - she is and always has been a far more eloquent presenter of opinions and ideas than many who post at OLO.

Severin: "I do know that claiming someone talks out of their arse"

No one here accursed has anybody of "talking out of their arse". Well, not at least until you mentioned it. The point I did make it is it hard for an onlooker to distinguish between a wild arsed guess and informed opinion if no supporting evidence if offered.

Severin: "gender has nothing to do with this topic."

Who said gender had anything to do with this topic? It does however have something to do with the way pelican and I go about discussing it. You may not accept that, but I do and it seems pelican does too. Given the way we were discussing it wasn't terribly productive, something had to give, or we had to give up on discussing the topic.

Severin: "an attempt at ad hominem attack"

I've always found it odd that if you say a woman is doing something in a feminine way it can be construed as an ad hominem attack, yet saying a man does something in a masculine way is praise. Are you girls really that insecure?

Severin: "irrelevant and revealing that you are simply irate because you have not converted Pelican"

Pelican and I have crossed swords on other topics Severin, and based on those experiences I'd say my chances of convert her are about as high as her's of converting me. You are right in that there is something that annoyed me, and that is pelican's tendency to ask me to take her at her word. At least that is how I perceive her not offering any support for her assertions. It is dammed frustrating. From my point of view it could be construed as a refusal to present the evidence and allow me to form my own opinions based on that evidence. Except that I am certain that isn't the motivation, it is simply pelican's debating style. Which makes it doubly frustrating, because behind those assertions is probably something of substance.

rstuart
You are the one who raised gender issues.

I don't know what you are asking of me. I can link to as many articles/papers you like. Most of what forms our opinions comes from experience and cannot be linked to in an official form.

Severin
It is very difficult to decrimininalise once a substance has been freely available. The modern tendency to make smoking more difficult such as no-smoking zones and higher taxes is one method of reducing smoking. Similarly with alcohol related taxes, education and drink driving restricitions. All options and drug strategies present unique problems.

My preference is to keep things as they are but to put more resources into policing and border security in relation to drug trafficking and to continue with harm minimisation programs for users in the way of appropriate rehabilitation programs and to deal with the problems of drugs in prisons.

I have always thought it a better option to enforce drug rehabilitation for those committing pettier crimes due to a drug habit. Treatment within a caring environment focussed on a case by case basis rather than a prison sentence - which may exacerbate the problem. Drug trafficking, drug related murders and dealing are of course separate issues.

The real trick would be to reduce drug addiction. That would be the optimal method for eradicating drug cartels - get rid of the market. But this is also not an easy option and gets into a lot of the health and wellbeing, parenting and social support aspects of living in communities.

Pelican -
looks like I am going to have to engage with your debate, since you seem entirely unwilling to respond to any of the points I've made. I'd like to take issue with your statement that you don't approve of the use of mind-altering drugs and think the use of such impacts unfairly on society.
That's why we have had over half a century of life destroying laws that persecute people who don't think like you. You are entitled to your opinion, but there are a multitude who disagree on both counts, and their opinions are often based on experiential evidence, whereas yours is obviously based upon prejudice.
There will always be people with self-destructive psychological conditions - if not some form of drug it will be another, perhaps more destructive behaviour. You have not taken into account the terrible costs on the incarcerated individual, the social cost of criminalisation, along with the cost of keeping them in gaol. What a terrible waste! Far better, and cheaper, to develop effective retreats and therapies for those more vulnerable souls.
Much of the damage to society from drug use comes from the high prices and what people do to feed their addiction, a direct product of illegality and high profits. If good quality organic drugs were easily obtainable, I doubt many who would bother dealing crack cocaine or ice if the price was closer to its manufacture costs - its the illegality and risk that pushes prices up.
Its the moralisers like yourself that want to impose your prejudices on others who are the problem. Human beings are diverse, irascible, cranky, wonderful, infuriating, fabulous creatures, and mind-altering substances have been a part of our varied civilisations longer than history. And we are not alone in this, as many creatures partake in some form of seasonal, plant-based intoxication.
That's fine if you don't, but I've managed to live an effective life, gain four degrees, and still enjoy some recreational mind-altering substances, and know many others like myself. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Despite your claims of irrelevance Severin, what was very relevant was pelican's last post. I'll take some credit for pushing her into giving information we can all look at, and thus enable us to make our own opinions based on the evidence she has presented.

The evidence on trafficing and smoking was mixed. We have the Canadian experience, but then we have this quote from http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-9-smuggling-a-result-of-tax-increases- "However there is no evidence that tax increases or high taxes per se lead to an increase in large-scale smuggling. ... The prevalence of cigarette smuggling in any given country seems to have more to do with government policing of payment of tax liabilities".

The newspaper articles about one off crimes aren't helpful. We know people break the law. What we need to know is how often they do it.

pelican also cited the Swedish experience. The link she gave was a good summary of what they do, but gave no insight into how well it works. If you look at the "overdose death rate table" here: http://www.ffdlr.org.au/commentary/docs/Swedens%20drug%20policy.htm you can see they don't do too well compared to countries that are more tolerant. Deaths/Million: Holland=0.8, Australia=1.5, Sweden=3.0.

pelican: "Harm minimisation should be the ultimate goal and that goal is also achievable without legalising illicit drugs."

The statement "that goal is also achievable without legalising illicit drugs" is just saying what you believe. I know what you believe. What I want to see is evidence it is right. Something that explains why, after 40 years with drug harms are essentially flat in the last 20, you believe it will suddenly change.

I presume you also believe "legalising illicit drugs" will lead to an increase in harms. It hasn't elsewhere, so I want to know what evidence you have to support that assertion. I know you base it on personal experience, but since that is evidently impossible to share (or at least you haven't attempted to do so), citing personal experience isn't helpful. As an extreme example, runner says his experience is that atheists murder babies.

Pelican:

"My preference is to keep things as they are but to put more resources into policing and border security in relation to drug trafficking and to continue with harm minimisation programs for users in the way of appropriate rehabilitation programs and to deal with the problems of drugs in prisons."

Border security? Around Australia? "Keeping things as they are" isn't working. So here we are back where we started:

1. Drugs users gaining criminal records as well as other experiences from being found guilty of taking a drug.

2. Drug lords (includes politicians, eminent business people, actual underworld figures) will still be raking in the dollars.

3. Crimes committed to raise funds for drugs will continue.

4. Babies will still be born to drug addled parents - BTW I do believe that drug abuse would actually decrease rather than increase, if decriminalised. Just one example is the '6 PM swill', when people drank as much as they could until the pubs closed in the afternoon.

5. Drugs will continue to be 'cut' with far more dangerous substances than the drug themselves.

And so it goes...

Rstuart

If you are going to start making comments on gender as you did with Pelican you can expect to be called out on it. It is particularly stupid, because I happen to agree with your opinion, however there is no need to imply that because Pelican is female, she is out of touch; as you have done. It is not relevant to your argument - I don't care how many times you have crossed swords with Pelican in the past. Play the ball, man.

rstuart
You are still missing my earlier point. There is a lot of literature and media coverage regarding the drugs debate and I can link to numerous articles and papers as much as you want, cherrypicking those that suit my stance, as can you.

I will always try and link with articles that are more reasonably balanced but more often than not most of us will link to that which supports our view.

Your criticism about 'evidence'of what works and what doesn't equally applies to you but you are so blinkered by your own world view you cannot see it.

If world health/law enforcement 'experts' cannot agree about what will work or won't work what makes you think we can solve it here? You could read 20 different articles about the policies in Sweden or in the Netherlands and all would vary in some way as to efficacy.

All we can do is give our own educated guesses, commonsense reasoning and offer why we choose one path over the other.

@Severin: imply that because Pelican is female, she is out of touch ... Play the ball, man.

Oh for Pete's sake, I did not say or imply pelican is out of touch. Given you have twice now accused me of saying something I didn't, accusing me of not playing the balls on the court is a bit rich.

And no, asking Pelican to change her style of debate from presenting personal observations to something based on evidence isn't playing the person either. It is a perfectly reasonable request.

@pelican: I can link to numerous articles and papers as much as you want

Yes, it is possible to link to many articles where people express an opinion one way or the other. The problem is that isn't hard evidence of anything but one persons opinion.

Ideally, evidence is an some observation I could make myself. Thus "grass is green" is good evidence, because I can go out and check grass is indeed green. Unfortunately that sort is usually impossible provide. The next best thing is to quote someone else who has done the observing who I can trust to report in a reasonably fair fashion. Government statistics, peer reviewed science - that sort of thing.

For example, if your point was cannabis is associated with psychosis, you might use this as supporting evidence: http://www.ukcia.org/research/young/psychosis.php It has all the hall marks of being a fair report, not in the least because it in turn cites all the evidence it rests on at the end.

As a counter example, what you would not use is something from Nils Bejerot, the man who championed Sweden's current drug policy. His motivations weren't scientific, rather he was on a political crusade. His arguments are light on hard figures and heavy on "common sense" reasoning. Reasoning isn't evidence.

So no contrary to what you say, there is not that much evidence out there. On a personal note, I don't learn too much by reading posts here at OLO. Instead, learning comes from when I try to justify my position, and find the evidence is scant, or worse.

Rstuart

I am really getting bored with this:

"Oh for Pete's sake, I did not say or imply pelican is out of touch."

Then read through your posts before uploading, please. When I read stuff like:

"You are having a conversation you might have with a friend at the kitchen table over a cup of tea, offering your personal experiences."

You are being patronising and playing the (wo)man. Despite your claim of playing the ball. In fact Pelican has offered plenty of evidence in support of her opinion. I don't happen to think it is valid evidence - that it does not stack up against the evidence that government control over mind altering substances is better than by criminals, but nonetheless, she has constructed her arguments well.

Now this may be simple semantics, but saying someone's opinions are "half-arsed" is the same as claiming s/he is speaking from one's orifice.

There is nothing wrong with arguing from passion, however your arguments lose credibility when accompanied by insults. The reason I am pointing this out to you here, is because I actually agree with you on many points, so you can't use disagreement as the usual lame excuse.

@Severin: In fact Pelican has offered plenty of evidence in support of her opinion.

Nope. She has listed a whole pile of harmful things drug taking does. No one disagrees with any of them, but in subsequent posts she listed more and more as if they supported some point. That point is she evidently believes those harms will increase if we loosen the legal restrictions. The disagreement arises is over that claim and not that drugs cause harm. Most of us disagree with that legalising drugs will increase harms.

There nothing wrong with being the odd one out, of course. But I would like to know why she takes the position she does. In other words, what has she observed that leads her to think loosing legal restrictions on drug taking will lead to an increase in harms. When I pressed on the issue, she said: "I openly claim that it WILL go up" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10120#163918 which obviously doesn't help. Next we have "Young people who may not have tried heroin when it is illegal may well take it up when it's use has been legitimised by governments. I think many would - that is my own feelings." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10120#163988 Fine, but that isn't evidence.

As I said at the time, given the dearth of evidence I said those feelings looked more like a wild arsed guess. You apparently think that means the same thing as having a half-arsed opinion, so I suggest you look the term up in a dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wild%20ass%20guess

Pelican has now said: "I have raised teenagers and worked around youth issues and previously drug/alcohol issues. It is from that experience that my own opinions have been shaped.", http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10120#164048 which is a definite improvement. Now I have an inkling why she feels the way she does. But it still isn't the sort of evidence I am talking about. Neither is her final addition: "involvement in the Hawke Government's Drugs Summit and from working closely with law enforcement and government/community bodies on these issues." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10120#164232

Where is this evidence you say she has given, Severin?

Severin: When I read stuff like ... You are being patronising and playing the (wo)man.

Apparently you think a conversation you have over a kitchen table is somehow a lesser conversation. Fine. But don't project your insecurities onto me. I happen to think conversations I have with friends over a cup of coffee are just as at least as important as the debates we have here. Just because you think differently doesn't mean I was conducting an ad hominem attack.

The point I was making is the style of conversation you have over a kitchen table does not typically contain citations, and is not usually proceeded by careful fact checking to make sure you aren't misleading yourself or others. Granted, that isn't what most do here. But it sure is a better discussion when they do. That was my point.

@Severin: but saying someone's opinions are "half-arsed"

I have already told you I didn't say that, yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Do you know how to search for words in an web page? Good. Search for the word "half" in this one. Now quote where I said pelican's opinions are half-arsed.

@pelican: I suppose by comparison you think your views are not wild arsed guesses.

Probably. Here is a hypothetical. A doctor recommends getting your leg amputated. His explains he has been a doctor for many years, has seen cases like yours and amputation is the right option based on his experience. You see another doctor, who admits he doesn't have a clue. So he does some research on your symptoms, and presents you with a pile of observations on the outcomes of various treatments, and based on those observations recommends an arm amputation.

The first doctor offered you a wild arsed guess. The second by his own admission doesn't have a clue, but you can see and understand the basis of his decision and trust the source of his figures. You don't know either from a bar of soap, so have no reason to trust ones opinion over the other. Which would you choose?

This is turning into some sort of bizarre threesome. Thanks again Severin for your well tempered posts.

rstuart
I have given you all I can in terms of explaining why I feel the way I do.

You are quick to disect others but not as clear about your reasoning.
Why are you so sure that drug prohibition will end the activities of drug cartels just through legalisation based on some of the issues I raised earlier?

@pelican: I have given you all I can in terms of explaining why I feel the way I do.

OK, well that's that, then.

@pelican: Why are you so sure that drug prohibition will end the activities of drug cartels just through legalisation

It is based on how I think drug consumers behave. I think they are by and large typical Australians. There aren't huge black markets in Australia, even on highly taxed items. There may be in other countries, but there isn't here. I am not going to speculate on why that is the case. I just observe that where there is a choice between getting something illegally and cheaply, or paying a premium and getting it legally Australian's choose the latter.

If there isn't a price premium, the choice issue doesn't even arise. As it happens drug prices are already high compared to their production costs. For example, this article claims the markup on heroin is around 500,000% http://www.opioids.com/heroin/heroin-inc.html Some markup. Just taxing to maintain the current street price means the income is almost pure tax.

The price could be higher of course, because as I said Australian's seem to be prepared to pay a premium for legal. I guess you would start at around the current street price, then keep knocking it up until a black market did show signs of developing. After all, it is not like we actually want anybody buying this stuff, we just want to stop them buying it from criminals.

Despite what you might think pelican, this isn't about making drugs cheaper or easier to get. Making them easier to get would be difficult, because drugs are already readily available to those who have the money. At least that is what every ex user I have ever heard discuss issue has said, and I have not heard anybody contradict it. They fact that drugs are easy to get despite our prohibition is the best indication we have that the prohibition has been a failure.

Rstuart, you asked for it:

<<<<<< You have repeatedly made what appear to be statements of fact, but are really just wild arsed guesses that happen to support your viewpoint....

....Posted by rstuart, Monday, 8 March 2010 9:59:41 AM >>>>>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10120&page=0#164131

BTW OLO is an OPINION forum, people present the opinions formed by research, observations, anecdotes and personal character. Pelican has presented HER reasons, they may not be YOUR reasons, nor are they representative of MY OPINION, but they are valid concerns.

Also, please explain just what you meant by your "over a cuppa" comment if it was not meant to imply that Pelican had not fully thought through her opinions.

I suggest a toke or three on a bong and a good rest. If you can't handle being taken to task over your ad hominem attacks, don't bother posting any.

Rstuart - the reason we need drugs. Ooops I got personal. So sorry.

@rstuart: Now quote where I said pelican's opinions are half-arsed.

@Severin: Rstuart, you asked for it: <<<<<< You have repeatedly made what appear to be statements of fact, but are really just wild arsed guesses that happen to support your viewpoint...

You can see what I asked for, and obviously what you supplied ain't it. You are either incredibly thick, or being deliberately obtuse. From your other posts I very much doubt you are that thick, so I'll go with deliberately obtuse.

Since you could not / would not click on the dictionary link I gave above, or perhaps did but can't bring yourself to acknowledge what it says, I will quote if here.

Definition of wild arsed guess: A Wild Ass Guess (WAG) is an estimate that is based upon experience, similarity and 'windage' and does not have immediately verifiable data that could be used to substantiate the estimate. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wild%20ass%20guess

Definition of Half Arsed (UK) aka Half Assed (US): To complete a job to a very poor standard. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Half+Arsed

@Severin: please explain just what you meant by your "over a cuppa" comment if it was not meant to imply that Pelican had not fully thought through her opinions.

I have conversations over a cuppa too Severin. They are as fully thought through as they can be, just as I assume pelican's comments were. But conversations over a cuppa aren't proceeded by half an hour fact checking on the internet, and don't include citations. This is now the 4th time I have made this same point, using different words each time in order to express it clearly. If you still don't get it continued repetition isn't going to help.

@Severin: BTW OLO is an OPINION forum, people present the opinions formed by research, observations, anecdotes and personal character.

That, I take it, is your opinion on how OLO should work. I guess it won't come as a surprise that I have my own opinions on what constitutes a good post on OLO. Like you, I do let people know on occasion.

That's a very nice hole you've dug for yourself, Rstuart.

See you on another thread, when you've managed to climb out.

Did anyone watch the documentary on ABC1 about Jack Charles. If we were a civilized society rather than the stick weilding Calvinists we are (well KRudd and the Mad Monk are), then Jack would have been put on a prescription heroin programme and would have led a much more dignified life, he wouldn't have had to resort to burglary or ripping off his friends, he would not have done the time in prison, and as the findings of the recent North American Opiate Medication Initiative study infer, he could have been weened of heroin gradually (under proper medical supervision) rather than having resort to that ugly and poisonous methadone (I known people who have been doing the 'done for 10+ years)- go to http://www.naomistudy.ca/ to have a look.
Compassion is the answer, many of us will and do use drugs, it's what we 'ignorant apes' have been doing for millennia, so why all the fuss.
(Tangent) Is it because Mexicans and African Americans were the main pot smokers in the early C20th when the Yanks made it illegal, is it because "degenerat Orientals" smoked opium. At least we won't have to spend eternity with Calvin and the other 143,999 Elect.

wielding