lorikeet points out that addicts are often involved in robberies to finance their addiction. He is right. However, these robberies and other crimes are purely a creature of prohibition. If heroin were legal, it would be cheap and these people would not need to steal to finance their addiction. That would be a huge benefit, not only to the addicts but to the rest of society.

If heroin was legal, there would be even more dead bodies and ruined lives. I wish some people would also stop to think about the damage to people's mental health caused by illicit drugs, and the concomitant cost to society.

I believe doctors should recommend alternative therapies for many health problems, as they are less likely to come with negative drug/alcohol interactions and various damaging side effects.

A lot of processed foods contain appetite enhancers, and too much sugar, salt and saturated fats. If the government regulated the use of these substances, fewer people would be overweight or have conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, fluid retention, stroke and heart disease.

BTW Lorikeet is a she.

'All drugs should be legalized. Firstly it would dispose of the mobster element and would cut heavily into their profits which in turn would lose them considerable political power. The state would be able to raise revenue through taxation and still sell the drugs at a lower price.'

Although I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, this is fanciful.

In the current OH&S and litigious climate, no government or company would be able to afford to allow access to new drugs. This threat and the insurance to cover it would really increase the price massively, along with the ever increasing tax take. I mean nobody files a civil suit against their dealer at the moment, but that's because it's illegal in the first place, and dealers are hard to come by and have a reputation for using violence.

There would also always be a market for even wilder drugs that companies and government just wouldn't touch as they're so dangerous. Then you'd have to import the drugs to get them so cheap (pissing off the US in the process), or pay first world wages in the production cycle pushing the price up further.

The only benefits I can see is that I will have more access to illicit drugs, they will be more normalised so there will be less social stigma, and they will be of more consistent quality.

The gun-crime will just move to a more profitable venture, say child prostitution or fixing sport results or something like that.

' My principal question is why people need to take illicit drugs, and what can reasonably be done to curb or minimise this need?'

It's not a need for most. It's a want. It's not a fringe activity either, as illustrated by the massive quantities the police seize, which are plainly the tip of the iceberg. Measure the cargo-ship size quantities of coke and other drugs seized against the supposed % of the population taking the drug. It doesn't add up as a fringe activity.

It's also not the stereotypical junkies and wall street coke heads, it's the doctors, Lawyers, the IT crowd, teachers, it's all the respectable members of society who turn up to work every day too. They're invisible as they have the means to support the habit, and the intelligence to keep themselves under control, and have more to lose by not doing keeping their habit under control.

So the lower echelons of society get frowned upon for their drug use, while the romanticisation of the rich cool people taking coke continues, the fine wines are indulged in by the rich while the pikey who buys a slab of beer is ridiculed, and the kids are arrested and searched at concerts where the entertainers they've paid to watch are all high on drugs.

I agree I'm addicted to tobacco (nicotine buzz), and am probably heading for emphysema and lung cancer, but it's not that easy to give up. I also have a bit of a coffee addiction (caffeine buzz), (but at least I am only an occasional social consumer of alcohol - mostly a nice red).

Maybe, as Rhys Jones suggests, marijuana is not addictive, or at least not as addictive as tobacco, but mj does appear to lead to dependence (psychological?), at least in some cases, and heavy use has been linked to development of neurosis, and possibly psychosis. Heroin/opioids, amphetamines and cocaine (or derivatives) do however appear to have far greater addictive properties, often with dire consequences for both the user and society at large. (I haven't heard of any tobacco, alcohol or coffee wars lately, or related assassinations or drive-by shootings etc.)

Mexico is not a good look, and Columbia is working hard to rebuild itself, and around the world a great deal of strife and human degradation may be squarely blamed on illicit drug production and use - obviously harming many more people than it helps.

I believe the excessive use of non-medicinal drugs (including my use of tobacco and coffee) is a cop-out, and a popular means to drop-out and/or to shirk civic responsibility - with the degree of opting-out directly dependent on the drug of choice and the extent and frequency of use. Accordingly, in my view, some relaxation regarding use of MJ may be in order, but other currently illicit drugs should continue to be banned, and their use stamped out by any and all legal means available - including through regulated harm minimisation by way of a staged and mandatory full rehabilitation program.

We need full employment (no shirkers), no-one living 'rough', and health care to restore health - and not to simply prop-up those too selfish to get off their backside. Everyone can do something constructive if they are given the means and the motivation.

There is no evidence that the Swedish drug policies have succeeded; Netherlands also has a low rate of drug use with different policies. Dominic says the Swedish policies work but he doesn't provide any evidence or a link.

This link isn't so sure

http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/mythbusters/swedish-model

If there was evidence that the Swedish system worked, it would be well known and everyone in the industry would be jumping to apply it. Stupid to suggest that people are advocating useless policies to ensure their income.

Drugs - especially alcohol - have been available in almost all human societies. Perhaps the Australian Aborigines are the only people who didn't develop a mind altering substance. Perhaps they were happy enough not to need this; until we found them of course.

The reasons that often underlie alcohol addiction in Aboriginal communities are somewhat the same as the addiction that leads ice addicts to pick holes in their bodies. It's about self-medication, dulling the pain of living, about self-destruction and self-punishment.

The scenario goes like this; some humans are more impressionable than others. Some people are easily led. They are 'weak'; weak people take things to heart. When their society tells them they are bad people for making the wrong choices, for being the child of a 'welfare bludger' , they take it to heart and they feel pain.

There are enough people in our society who, like Hasbeen, believe in individualism and that everyone should and must take full responsibility for themselves. He seems convinced that those of us who need other people are worthless.

It is difficult, especially for weak people to maintain their self-esteem in the face of such criticism. Some people need kindness to flourish and it is the individualistic requirements of our society that actually creates conditions in which these people are 'hurt', give up and turn to drugs as a substitute for success.