WEAPON.... "EXACTLY".. which was my whole point in the other post where u suggested I was on the turps.

We have our laws, and if anyone wishes to come here, they can abide by them.

The problem is, that many of those laws have been compromised by ethno/religious pressure groups, hence my point by point solution. If you don't have a starting point (an identity) you have nothing to say.

The X rated porn thing was me using an opportunity to follow up on something I've been in communication with the government about.
If the states outlaw the sale and hire, duh.... then they are saying "Its a nono". Possession, access via internet or whatever.. the choice is yours, go for your penile content, u can live it 24/7. But the idea of sneaking it into Vic 'around' our existing laws is social terrorism.

You.... can do what you like. (u can even sound like a whingeing pom if u want :)

But anyone who thinks they have have their Australian cake and eat it in Indonesia is not only stupid, they are insulting to another sovereign nation. No matter how we might regard some of their laws, they are THEIRS and they are sovereign.

So, if some drug taking Aussie screwball wants to go there.. the old law of 'reap what you sow' applies and no sympathy is required.

Telling the Indonesians how they should shape their legal penalties sounds just a bit like Neo Colonialism.

Duck. So B.....y what ? plenty what.. Their culture, their laws, their society.

Drug use is a health concern not a criminal concern. Government needs to concentrate more energy and resources on providing health care and education rathere than policeing.

PS Boaz_David if you keep it up you'll go blind.

It seems to me that the main issue here is whether or not the Australian government has a responsibility towards its citizens who fall foul of draconian laws and judicial systems while abroad.

Some people seem to take the view that the laws and customs of sovereign states are immune to criticism and pressure to change from outside their borders. Surely if that were the case, South Africa would still have apartheid, Berlin would still have a wall and Saddam Hussein would still be esconced as Iraq's dictator. That this type of claim is espoused by others who have proudly admitted in these forums to going to another country in order to bring about religious conversion just underlines the disingenuousness of this argument.

I realise that my plea for the Australian government to set an example by repealing ineffective laws that attempt to prohibit the recreational use of some drugs, and replacing them with a regulated system of production and distribution, will be seen as too radical by the mostly relatively conservative contributors to these forums.

However, that doesn't mean that prohibition of drugs has worked anywhere. On the contrary, the extraordinary waste of time, money, resources and lives associated with the illegal drug industry globally is almost entirely attributable to the fact that the drugs are illegal, rather than anything inherent in the drugs themselves.

Some day people will wake up to the fact that the 'War on Drugs' approach that has been dominant in the USA and its client states (including Australia and Indonesia) since the 1970s has failed utterly to contain the production, distribution and use of recreational drugs globally - in much the same way that they will wake up to the fact that the 'War on Terror' has only succeeded in proliferating more terror. That's what I mean by 'getting real'.

Speaking of which, several people have suggested that Leslie imported the 'shabu-shabu' (methamphetamine) tablets she was busted with into Indonesia - where is the evidence for this, in the media or elsewhere?

If there was a prize for missing the point, the write of this article would get the gold.

As a barrister who has both prosecuted and defended drug related matters, I find his comments disturbing and offensive.

So what if sentencing is tough in a number of Asian countries?

People know the law when they go there (if your fly into any of these countries as I have it is on the immigration documents that you are given). Noone has suggested that they were unaware of the state of the law.

People don't seem to understand that Schapelle Corby probably would have been convicted in Australia on the same evidence. The only difference would have been the sentence.

For those of you who have never had a client up on repeated drugs charges, let me explain something to you. The reason why people continue to commit offences is people like you who talk about "health" and "harm minimisation" and "victimless crime".

I have seen the benefits of tough sentencing early. Oh and before you talk about "proportionality" maybe my learned friends might read the Penalties and Sentences Act Qld and specifically, the section relating to part of sentence should be to send a message that the community abhors the activity. In any event, what gives all of you people the insight to know what it right for the rest of the world, typcially left wing arrogance.

Further, may I draw your attention to Schapelle Corby and the Bali nine who imported drugs for a quick pay day at the expense of people who are going to take them. Yes these crimes are clearly victimless.

The posts on the forum indicate 2 things:

1. how out of touch the left is when it comes to drug related crimes and

2. how unfit they are to be setting policy at any level as they fail to understand any notion of responsibility.

Brent, you have missed one important point.......Schapelle Corby said that the drugs weren't hers..........end of story.

What if the government is actually providing a reasonable level of consular assistance to the accused, while ministers maintain a stern public attitude in an effort to ram home the message to Australians who travel ? Dont you think this would be more benefical to travellers than a guarantee that regardless of what they do OS the goverment will get them out of it ? I dont know that this is the case, but I think that regardless of what is happening in private, the public face of the government on this matter is probably the best one it can take.

As to Mirko's call for taxpayer funded "Rolls Royce representation", I dont know exactly what he means but if we consider that Schapelle's " Commodore" lawyers have already cost the Oz taxpayer $125K (the goverment didn't get much credit for that in the media did it ?) I'm guessing Mirko means we should be forking out something in the region of $250K per case.