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.