Dear Lorikeet,

I find no basis to your statement as if "anything that is either legalised or decriminalised is encouraged".

You base your general statement on a single example (homosexuality), which is like claiming that "my cat coughs at night, therefore all cats cough at night".

Take as a counter-example alcohol - it is legal, but not encouraged, in fact it is even taxed!

I have seen not a single comment here suggesting that the government should encourage drugs that are currently illicit.

Sadly, government does encourage the drugs which doctors prescribe, that occasionally save bodies but are probably not less harmful to the spirit than their illicit companions. However, I would never dream of asking to criminalize them - for each their poison and let the person who have never taken one poison or another throw the first stone.

The consumption of alcohol is very widely encouraged. The level of encouragement very greatly outweighs taxation level. For example, it is modelled by the purveyors of the new national religion: Football.

Encouragement = greater collection of taxes + traffic fines.

Want a fresh example?

Abortion used to be illegal. Then Dr Peter Bayliss opened an abortion clinic at Greenslopes here in Brisbane. At first, there were arrests. Then there were no arrests. Then abortion was legalised in certain exceptional circumstances.

Then the law turned a blind eye, and now anyone can get an abortion on demand here in Queensland.

In Victoria, they now have the most recidivist abortion laws in the western world.

Medical Ethicists are now claiming that a perfectly formed newborn baby should have no more rights than an embryo about to be aborted. One of the people who has espoused this idea also considers bestiality to be acceptable, as he is also a leading Animal Ethicist.

Yes, infanticide is now being floated as an alternative for those who feel they cannot financially support their children, and for those mothers whose hearts would be much too broken if they had to give their babies away to childless couples.

These are the depths our society is sinking to, and there always seems to be a connection with green ideology.

@ Lorikket - Methinks thou doth protest too much - What is your hang-up with the unrelated topics of Sex and Abortion? Could you please stick to the topic. Your comments are an insult.

The answer is quite simple really -
I am Sovereign of my Mind and King of my Garden - The 'Law' has no right to either !

What I think and what I grow are my business and no others - iI have a God-given to grow and consume Cannabis - "I give unto you all the seed-bearing herbs of the field" . . .

The arbitrary Prohibition of Cannabis, and certain other Recreational Drugs has no foundation in logic or science. Prohibition policy is the direct cause of many 'symptoms' attributed to the wide-spread use of such substances, not the substances themselves.

Drug Policy is not about 'Health and Safety' - There are far more dangerous things that are perfectly legal and promoted.

Drug Policy is not about 'Societal Norms' - Drug use is accepted in our society and with regards to illicit Cannabis the majority of the population do not support criminalisation.

Drug Policy is not about 'Fighting Organised Crime' - Prohibition creates the opportunity for Organised Crime and fosters corruption throughout the public,police and politicians.

Drug Policy is not about 'Harm minimisation' - My use of Cannabis causes no 'harm' to society and there is no 'harm' to me that needs minimalising - apart from criminality.

We need a factual educated debate - not one which uses classical fallacies like you do . . .

If the drug problem is getting worse, why isn't harm minimisation to blame?

Because 'Harm Minimisation' as a concept has been derailed by Prohibitionists and is currently applied to all manner of things like 'Mandatory Rehab' . . .

'Harm minimisation' does not create the profits that support Organised Crime.

'Harm minimisation' does not inflate the price of products and lead to theft to afford it.

'Harm minimisation' does not ruin thousands of peoples lives with criminal records.

'Harm minimisation' does not make people seek legal alternatives ie Kronic.

'Harm minimisation' does not break the nexus between a plant in your garden and a dealer

'Harm minimisation' does not lead to 'Mexican style' killing sprees, or drive-by shootings .

The real question is
The drug problem is getting worse, so why haven't the recommendations for reform over the past 30 years been implemented despite overwhelming scientific support?

As Einstein (a notable critic of Prohibition) famously said: "The definition of insanity is to keep repeating an unsuccessful action, believing it will produce different results". By that criterion, the policy of Prohibition - pursued for decades in defiance of all the evidence - is archetypically insane.

Macciza,

The Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy - of June 2011 - more or less says it all:

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf

And some reasonable insights are provided by Sir Richard Branson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/digital-lab/richard-branson-answers-reader-questions-on-the-drug-war/article2415508/page1/

However, Macciza, it would serve your humanitarian approach better to be less intimidating yourself in your posts, and to review the posts of other contributors in their entirety on the thread before leaping to conclusions, and to review all posts with greater regard to the rights of all to a considered opinion - and to their right to draw comparisons with other, though perhaps seemingly unrelated matters of social concern and responsibility. Harm minimization also includes courtesy and respect for others - and their opinions - irrespective of any variance with your own views and convictions.

My general comment on the issue at hand: I tend to agree with the entirety of the recommendations of the Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy - of June 2011 - though I admit not having read their report in its entirety. This also represents quite a softening of my former stance on this issue.

Lorikeet's earlier post of 15 May on page 7 of this thread offers a similar insight.