At last! Something honest and realistic about the drug debate was long overdue. Gambling, alcohol and tobacco cause far more social breakdown than the 'soft' drugs. Can this be sent to Julia?

The author is wrong here. Its not an emotional argument that is proffered by anti-drug campaigners. The fact is that if alcohol and cigarettes were illegal there would be far fewer deaths form their usage and much lower usage rates. Its the illegality of the drugs which limits their usage. Legalising drugs is just a way of legitimising and increasing drug use.

Doctors etc using recreational drugs?? Seems like the author is OK about a soft drug using Doctor operating on them or their family. What an amazing admission.

No way would I want a Pilot or Surgeon I use to be a casual Ecstasy user. Seriously this is complete lunacy!

'Safe' drug use? Think I have heard this term before with the 'Safe' injecting rooms at the Cross where people overdose regularly and often die.

The debate should not be between pro-drug and anti-drug (myself I am anti-drug, including the legal, prescribed variety), but between pro-war-on-drugs and anti-war-on-drugs.

We know already of the logical arguments against the war on drugs, how it actually increases drug use, its financial costs, its taking police resources away from real crime, etc., but that doesn't mean that all emotional arguments are on the side of the war-on-drugs:

If you were ever robbed by junkies desperate for money to feed their illicit habit, or perhaps you were not robbed yet, but you are afraid to walk the streets because of them; or if your home was broken into and those junkies left all that mess, much worse than the strictly-economic damage, or perhaps you tried to resist them and they ended up burning your house, then you would really wish they could instead just pay $5 for their poison, or grow/produce it themselves and leave you alone.

If you ever faced the humiliation of being searched, stripped, arrested or had your home invaded by the police on suspicion of having/producing drugs, despite that you wouldn't touch even the legal/prescribed variety with a 3-meter pole, then you too would side with the enemy-of-your-enemy, the drug-takers.

At the time, I supported the war in Afghanistan, not because I cared for the western "terrorist" rhetoric, but because I saw that as an opportunity to free the oppressed women of Afghanistan and restore basic freedoms cruelly suppressed by the Taliban. But did it work? were the women freed? was listening to music allowed? There is partial and shaky success in the capital, Kabul, but for how long? our troops are about to leave (those who haven't left already in body-bags) and then it's back to how it was.

Other than fear, the anti crowd not only don't know what they are talking about, but they are inflicting real harm. In far too many cases, the two most dangerous aspects of recreational drug use are buying a dodgy product, and having to deal with criminals.
If recreational drugs were legalised, quality control would become established. With no more dodgy mixing of who-knows-what to cut a backyard product to maximise profit, how many of the deaths mentioned by anti-legalisation campaigners would be avoided?
And consider the possible income as opposed to the current outlay. A clean product sold at a fair profit and taxed just as alcohol and tobacco are taxed would generate income. Opposed to this is the huge expense of policing, apprehending, trying in counts of law, and incarcerating far too many people for what is essentially the now ridiculous crime of a good night out. Add the careers and wages lost through the stigmatisation of a criminal record blotting a person's record, and the high price we are paying for illegal drugs is seen as simply absurd.
Look carefully at the story now being played out in Portugal. They legalised, or at least de-criminalised, almost all recreational drugs, and the nation's drug use plummeted. The lure of doing something illegal is as big an attraction at a certain stage in most young lives as is the effect sought from recreational drugs.
Recreational drugs are part of the modern life. Many may not approve of that, but they would be doing themselves and the rest of us a favour if they could see the woods for the trees and get used to it. It's not as if using would suddenly become mandatory.

Cannabis may be a relatively 'soft' drug, but cocaine, ecstasy and non-needle drugs (meth? ice?) - to classify these as 'soft' is 'soft in the head'!

The author doesn't compare apples with apples when comparing tobacco deaths to illicit drug deaths - tobacco is a slow killer, with long term side-effects on circulation and in lung disease and various cancers, but overdose doesn't kill, and no-one has died from a single use. You might just as well use motor vehicle deaths as a comparison - that would be equally ludicrous.

He and so many others also ignore the positive side of tobacco use - that its moderate use improves concentration and relaxation, particularly in dealing with stress - even as so many in our increasingly competitive society suffer life-threatening conditions because of stress. Tobacco does NOT cause delusion or loss of inhibition, or lack of control, mobility, perception, judgement or sense of personal responsibility. Can the same be said of alcohol or any of the other so-called 'soft' or 'hard' drugs?

Alcohol in moderation does cause some of the above detrimental effects, but generally at a moderate level. Chronic use is another matter of course, but, in my view, just as with the abuse of all illicit drugs, the remedy is in psychological or psychiatric intervention - and not in swapping to an alternative 'soft' or 'hard' drug.

Halduell, >>Recreational drugs are part of the modern life.<<

What a sad indictment on our society, particularly given the freedoms, security and opportunity our society offers. Perhaps our society is too free, and stricter parental control and better example is what is missing. Escapism is a crutch, and its most detrimental effect is that it replaces or precludes embracing life and opportunity for meaningful accomplishment and self-fulfillment.

'Drugs' diminish and not enhance the human condition. All should embrace 'life', and not some drug-induced figment. A night or two in the 'tank' might bring some reality to occasional 'social' users, and would do them a world of good - if it causes a re-think of any repetition.

Halduell, >>Recreational drugs are part of the modern life.
Yes, it goes hand in hand with advanced stupidity.

Saltpetre & individual
and alcohol? and tobacco? Are you saying neither are part of modern life?
Your arguments make me think of one used back in the 60's. It went something like, "Is your ashtray handy? How's your drink? Right, let's talk about kids and drugs."

Halduell,
I gave up Camel Plains 20 years ago & so far as alcohol goes I have a few cans every day. I can honestly say I haven't had my daily beer let get the better of me. I know more than enough sober people who are sillier than me even if I had a couple.
Most of my co-workers are the same. We've had beer since we were 14. Yet we now have some idiots in bureaucracy telling us we'd be deemed drunk after two pots. Get lost morons.
They want us to drink soft drinks with our counter lunch. If I drank as many soft drinks as I have beers I'd now be a fully blown, useless fat twerp with Diabetes. Maybe that's what these morons want ? Maybe they're just hellbent on wasting more & more taxpayers' money on useless fat people & forcing decent workers to become fat & useless also.

individual
There are many good reasons to allow the responsible use of recreational drugs - yours among them.
Enjoy your beers.

Dear Halduell,

<<There are many good reasons to allow the responsible use of recreational drugs>>

I can't see any good reason to allow, but I can list 20 different reasons why the state should not forbid that use. Good parents, on the other hand, should forbid their children to use drugs.

Yes indeed, drugs are a part of the modern life - and that's just one reason (among others) why modern life stinks!

Also among the ills of modern life are police helicopters hovering over your house, looking for suspicious patterns of light/heat that could possibly be related to hydroponic drug-operations, loud rotor noise and strong flashes of light penetrating the night's rest.

Why accept such a life-style with either being part thereof?

Atman says "No way would I want a Pilot or Surgeon I use to be a casual Ecstasy user. Seriously this is complete lunacy!"

Unfortunately the only lunacy here is from Atman.
Why would it be an issue for a surgeon to be a casual ecstasy user any more than a casual drinker? Provided they are not intoxicated at the time they perform surgery or fly a plane then the fact they have used ecstasy in the past is completely irrelevant.

Individual bemoans the restrictions on his own liberty. Fortunately his choice of poison is one which he can be honest about without risking arrest, being fired or having his property confiscated. This is the problem the author was pointing out. Individual can defend his habits and his liberty to enjoy them whilst those whose habits are currently illegal cannot even join the debate. Just as Individual clearly finds life with beer better than life without, there are many drug users from all walks of life who feel that their drug of choice improves their quality of life. Except for addicts (who make up only a tiny minority of users) they wouldn't use these drugs otherwise.
It appears that the most avid anti drug people are also the most ignorant, almost always being non-drug users themselves. If we let the teetotallers make the rules regarding alcohol, this drug too would be on the banned list

<<If we let the teetotallers make the rules regarding alcohol, this drug too would be on the banned list>>

That's unfair, Rhys, I am a teetotaller and would never contemplate doing that. On rare occasions I even serve my guests with wine.

Halduell and Rhys, to make these 'recreational drugs' safely available to the public, it would mean decriminalizing or legalizing them, and this would only be possible if you could also eliminate (or severely limit) the downsides - the illegal labs, dealers, street trade, addictions, addicts and crimes committed by those needing a fix and not having means to pay for it.

Not a bad objective - if it's not possible to get society away from their use altogether.

To meet the necessary criteria, it seems clear that these drugs could then only be legally available through a pharmacy on prescription, and that prescription would have to come from a qualified medical practitioner familiar with all these drugs, and with a detailed knowledge of the individual client's physical and mental health. There would also have to be limits, to minimize street re-sale.

Quite a few extra doctors and pharmacists, a new manufacturing industry, and approved importers and marijuana growers. Could be a boon to the economy and jobs. (But skills shortage could be a problem at the moment.)

More drug clinics and rehab, because some will still become addicted, and these facilities could also cater for gambling and alcohol addiction, and general psychological and psychiatric health services. An increase in the relevant health budget, but offset by anticipated reductions in chronic health, ambulance, and hospital emergency services.

To have some assurance against inappropriate use, there would have to be records - so if someone operating heavy machinery, etc, fails a drug test, their future supply would have to be limited and they would have to undergo therapy. More jobs. But, there would also have to be a complete indemnity from prosecution or damages claims extended to all the links - doctors, pharmacists, labs, clinics and rehab services. (The individual makes their choice and bears all consequences - including if they cause damage, injury or death to others.) More drug testing.

Possible, maybe, but I still think it preferable if people could get their jollies at a dance, the movies, triathlon, or church.

Saltpetre, why would drugs need to be on prescription. Alcohol and tobacco aren't. Nor are many other drugs such as panadol which are potentially dangerous. You don't need a doctors prescription to ride a horse so I don't see why you should need one to take an ecstasy tablet which is much safer. After all, we are not talking about medical care here are we. No need for doctors to be involved at all. Otherwise, good post. Nice to see some people thinking of alternatives to the current system.