Australia as a nation has a duty of care to protect the most productive and valuable members of it's society, not the other way around. The concept that "the rich" should subsidise "the poor" is a good principle only up to a point. That point, is when unproductive " poor" realise that they can sponge off the productive "rich" forever, and the numbers of "poor" just keep increasing through immigration and birth rate differentials, (along with their political clout) until the "rich" get sick and tired of being ripped off. At that point, the productive "rich" (read "anyone who gets up every morning and goes to work") will flee the place, and go to some other place where productive people are welcome. Look at Detroit USA, and learn from history.

The problem for productive people, is that we are running out of places to go once the unproductive increase their population and take over political control. What Jaime de-Loma Osario Ricon and his social worker socialist friends are doing, is essentially running a protection racket. He is saying that productive people must fork over more dough, or he and his co workers will not be able to keep the unproductive and counter productive ratbags we fear and loathe under control.

Jaime's claim that legalising drugs is better than prohibition can be seen as Jaime and his co workers touting for work. Legalising extremely addictive drugs will mean a vast increase in addicts and in other counter productive dysfunctionals. That will necessitate a vast increase in the numbers of police officers, prison guards, lawyers, and of course social workers to deal with the increase. "Buggins Law of Social Workers" states that "Social problems increase in direct proportion to the number of social workers employed to solve them."

That may be good for Jaime and the public service, but bad for the prosperity of our nation. Sooner or later, Australia will revert to a totally dysfunctional and bankrupt society, the sort of place which Jaime fled from in the first place. Where will you go to after you have ruined Australia, Jaime?

Dear Mr LEGO,

This article was an attempt to contribute to public debate about an issue that I consider very important. I would welcome any attempt from your part to address the arguments used in my piece using evidence or logic.

Unfortunately you seem to prefer personal attacks, generalisations and wrong assumptions. I am not a social worker, I do not consider myself to be a socialist and I definitely did not flee my country of origin. I also feel I have reasonably contributed to this country's society since I have been here, even if you clearly would prefer for migrants of certain ethnic origins to be prevented from settling in Australia.

In relation to the point you make about the consequences of legalisation, there is a mounting body of evidence indicating that rates of drug abuse have decreased in those jurisdictions that have attempted to regulate rather than to prohibit drug consumption. Portugal as a recent example and Holland as a more established one are two examples that come to mind.

Best regards,

Jaime de Loma-Osorio

Lego Do you think the status quo is ok. No need for a system change.

I think it best to strive for a solution rather than do what is being done now. Which is not solving the scourge of illicit drugs.
Drugs worth multi millions selling on the streets is never going to stop while that sort of money is to be had.

How do you know numbers will increase if the substance was controlled.

Once users are in an environment of not buying of the street. You have control of human flesh to manipulate.

Besides that the relevant authorities could be self funded. With no correction in action we are going to be paying forever for the misery that is caused by drugs being available on the street, plus the costs of the authorities trying to alleviate the problem as is.

Dear Mr Osario.

I treat with suspicion and deep mistrust any public servant such as yourself, who wants more money to solve Australia's social problems. Public servants presenting their own departments self interest in terms of high minded idealism is a very effective tactic, and it does work very well will naive young idealists like Susie and Doog, but it won't work with me.

And of course I prefer that migrants from failed, dysfunctional and alien societies to be prevented from immigrating to my country. Multiculturalism is exactly like Socialism, how many times does it need to fail before "intelligent" people realise that it does not work? The importation of some ethnic groups into western societies has been a social and economic catastrophe. That is self evident and beyond dispute. The suburbs these ethnicities inhabit become ghettoes with high rates of criminal behaviour, welfare dependency, and now terrorism. If you really want to reduce crime, support a more discriminatory migration policy which excludes the most troublesome minorities. But you won't do that, will you? If you supported such a commonsense solution, which would not cost the Australian taxpayer a penny, your own staff at the Banksia Gardens Community Service Centre would burn you at the stake for conduct unbecoming a trendy, left wing, ideological zealot.

Holland legalised marijuana and the last I heard, they were backpeddalling and trying to stop "drug tourist" non citizens from coming to Holland to get stoned. All that their stupid policies did was make Holland attractive as a tourist destination to the sort of people they prefer to keep out of the place. Nobody is stupid enough to legalise physically addictive drugs, because even socialists are smart enough to figure out the consequences if they did. Whatever statistics you claim support your case, I would treat with as much distain as the climate statistics from the Climategate guys at the East Anglia Climate Research Institute.

To Doog.

No, I do not support the status quo. Most illegal drug abuse in Australian society is a product of our failed immigration policies, coupled with our failure to effectively control the entertainment media which is now the unofficial advertising arm of the illegal drug industry.

Vietnamese, Arab, and Chinese, and are very disproportionately represented in drug trafficking, according to ABS statistics concerning "Prisoners by country of birth." The Vietnamese Sydney suburb of Cabramatta and the Vietnamese Brisbane suburb of Springvale are Australia's heroin capitols. You could argue that Australia once had a moral obligation to take Vietnamese refugees from South Vietnam, and I would agree with you. But due to the very high incidence of Vietnamese drug trafficking, it is insanity to keep importing people from that country. Deporting those guilty of serious criminal behaviour is the most efffective way of preventing Vietnamese crime. Assassinated Labor MP Peter Newman once declared that "deportation is the only thing the Vietnamese criminals fear."

If we ban advertising for cigarettes, why do we tolerate a pop music industry which quite openly promotes drug abuse to our youngest generation? Overdose deaths among pop stars is now so common that you can hardly be considered a serious pop star unless you have OD'd. Some pop songs contain direct references supporting drug abuse. Songs are named ECSTASY by Bone, Thugs, and Harmony. LET'S GET HIGH by Dr Dre. Youth disk jockeys constantly make casual references to illegal drugs, implying that drug taking is fashionable and cool. One Australian magazine listed the most fashionable nightclubs in Perth, where the cities fashionable young set could be seen dancing to the music, "clutching their water bottles."

Singapore does not seem to have a serious problem with drugs, but then again, the Singaporeans are smart enough to hang those who kill their kids with drugs.

Lego The country is failing to protect people from drugs. The question is what do you suggest we do about it.

Your anti immigration stance does not solve any problem.