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!