At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, it is certain sectors of the legal profession who benefit most from ineffective and futile drug laws - particularly if they're not too fussed about whether they're prosecuting or defending. Funny how so many of these self-declared experts on everything end up as politicians, eh?

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone had a go at "the left" in this debate as Brent and others have. For a start, some of Corby's supporters are distinctly from the right - they talk about Indonesians the way One Nation supporters would. Their line of argument is to compare the reduced sentences of some of the Bali bombers to the harsh sentences meted out to Corby and the Bali Nine. And although I am coming from "the left", I find that hard to argue against. Don't take drugs - you'll be shot. Blow up some Westerners instead.

Secondly, "the left" do not necessarily condone drug usage. And some of "the right" are all for it. Lion Nathan and Carlton United come to mind. And this relates partly to the problem of younger people taking drugs like ecstacy. It is cheaper and you last the night longer on ecstacy than you do on approved drugs like beer or wine. Sure, there's a huge risk. But when you're younger (or sometimes older) risk is part of the excitement.

Australia's drug culture is divided into "approved" and "non-approved" drugs. So not surprisingly, some people don't accept this double-standard.

Not all drugs are good, now, remember that. Some are great.

‘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". ‘
Of course, because when someone has an opinion about a particular issue it causes others to commit crimes! Stop having opinions, you damn lefties! It’s a good thing this has been ‘explained to me’ now, because all this time I’ve been believing totally wrong things and I just needed one person to say one sentence and now it’s all clear.

‘In any event, what gives all of you people the insight to know what it right for the rest of the world, typcially (sic) left wing arrogance.’
Yeah, saying people should be able to make their own choices about things like drugs, that is pretty arrogant of us. Of course making bizarre laws against relatively harmless things like marijuana, that isn’t telling other people what’s right for them at all. Yes sir, no arrogance there.

‘So what if sentencing is tough in a number of Asian countries?’
Yeah! Sure, it may result in a few Australians receiving incredibly harsh punishments for puny crimes, or even no crime at all, but so what? So what. I ask you, SO WHAT??

‘how unfit they are to be setting policy at any level as they fail to understand any notion of responsibility.’
Yeah because challenging irresponsible, unnecessary and unfair laws demonstrates a total lack of responsibility from the left. Damn hippies.

‘at the expense of people who are going to take them. Yes these crimes are clearly victimless.’
Yes, because ALL people who take drugs are victims, not just the addicts. Anyone who’s ever had drugs will tell you what a horrible time they’ve had and how drugs have nothing positive to offer whatsoever.

Well, I’m glad Brent has educated me on how all this really works. Of course legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine cause more problems than all the illegal ones combined, but so what? SO WHAT! Thankyou, Brent, thankyou.

I am an Australian-trained lawyer who lived in Indonesia for 9 years. I think that if any one of those posting opinions here knew what really goes on in Indonesia and how little help Australian citizens receive there from our government, you would all agree with Mirko - whether you are left or right politically. The point about proportionality is abolutely right. But while the sentences are harsh, due process is also lacking. It's a double wammy! Article 66 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedural Code says that "the onus of proof is NOT on the defendant". But in Schapelle Corby's case, the onus WAS placed on her defence team. To do and say nothing about Schapelle's case as is vehemently demanded by the unholy alliance of the Howard Government and the left-liberal intelligensia helps no one except Indonesian facists wanting to prove a point about decadent Westerners. It does a great disservice not just to Schapelle Corby who has to spend the next 20 years in jail for a crime she almost certainly didn't commit but it also denies Indonesians the chance for the application of the law of rule in their country.

Mirko Bagaric, an insignificant academic unknown to most people, says that the Australian Prime Minister’s attitude to morons involved with drugs in countries such as Indonesia is impertinent! What a cheek!

The usual waffling from academics centres on cultural relativism – but not with Bagaric. He compares Indonesia’s system directly with Australia’s. What happens to transgressors in Australia is irrelevant, but Bagaric fouls his own nest by holding up our system as an ideal, and claiming that death penalties don’t work. Death certainly prevents recidivism, whereas our much more humane system does not. Our ‘controlled doses’ of punishment are worthless as a preventative in most cases. In any case, since Barlow, no Australian has been executed overseas, and the underwear model suddenly turned Muslim will get a jail sentence as has Corby. The Bali 9 deserve whatever they get. I don’t believe in capital punishment for anything but terrorism, but the Indonesians think differently. End of story. Do your drugs in Australia. That these sentences seem, to us, to be way out of proportion don’t matter to anyone but the idiots who have ignored them. It works both ways – we don’t tell other countries what to do, they don’t tell us what to do.

Like others of his ilk, Bagaric is concerned about the ‘rights’ of criminals and fools. In Australia, one can be forgiven for thinking that the bad guys have more rights than the good guys.

Our Government does not need “to continually press Indonesians about their barbaric drugs laws”, as Bagaric opines. Nor does it need to provide “the best possible legal representation and counselling” for these idiots who know full well the drug penalties in Indonesia. The harshness of the laws is no excuse for ignoring the fact that they exist.

Leigh (and some others), you miss an important point. It is not just about overly harsh penalties. In the US, they have harsh penalties, but they also have due proces and safeguards against erroneous convictions. In Indonesia, you can be convicted even if you are totally innocent. No one's legitimate interest is served if we let our citizens get sentenced without proper legal safeguards and a fair trial.