The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ending drug prohibition > Comments

Ending drug prohibition : Comments

By Evert Rauwendaal, published 4/3/2010

If the government is serious about crime and substance overuse it must abandon the policy of arbitrary drug prohibition.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
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.
Posted by John DG, Friday, 5 March 2010 1:15:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Severin, Friday, 5 March 2010 7:50:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 5 March 2010 8:08:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Severin, Friday, 5 March 2010 8:30:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 5 March 2010 8:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 5 March 2010 9:34:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy