Mmmm.... (notice Col) four M's and four dots. Don't go outside the little square, which is no doubt right (and I lose that term loosely of course!) where you're sitting. Your stance on the scum of the earth (which would appear to be whomever disagrees with you) or whom you have never even borne witness to, I hope you would never be called up on jury service even in this great country. If the accused didn't speak your dictionary, or was not of your ilk, send them to DEATH! They are but a mule! I hope you enjoy your FIGJAM on toast every morning.

Actually, I've noticed that Col's bluster is usually an effort to avoid the issue. I have pointed that the illegal status of drugs has never prevented or even reduced (except temporarily) their production, distribution and use. People, as individuals, clearly want to use them - for whatever reason. The fact is that they do, and have done for millennia. I can't think of a culture that doesn't use some kind of intoxicating drugs, either recreationally or ritually (not to mention medicinally).

Col STILL hasn't addressed my point that his aggressive trumpeting of the hard right prohibitionist line is completely at odds with his supposed championing of the rights of the individual. To my mind, drug laws are gross infringements of civil liberties - all the more so, given that they clearly don't work.

Is Col capable of addressing this point without an accompanying stream of rabid invective?

After reading the to and fro abuse amongst contributors, I have lost the thrust of what I intended to say. This is my first time here. I thought it was going to be different from Yahoo and Talk City chat rooms - which are often filled with personal abuse and show paucity of argument. I will have to go back to the drawing board on this on!

klw, unfortunately some of the debate does get nasty at times but please try and look past that part and you will see a lot of reasonably good natured discussion. Some of that is from different fairly different viewpoints. Almost every spirited debate appears to include some name calling but most also has significant valuable content.

In regard to the current topic I am finding it very interesting to see the points put forward. I tend to come from a similar starting point to Col but am being given cause to wonder if there is a better way society can deal with this situation. I'm mostly sitting on the sidelines of this and trying to follow the content. The debate is useful and there are good people here on all sides of debates (even if they do not always post at their best).

For the rest please keep up the debate on the topic I am still working thru this one.

The illegal drug industry is not a house of cards - if only it was that easy. Drug runners tend to be the very young and gullible - they rarely become drug lords themselves for two reasons - they're too stupid and the life expectancy for a 'mule' is pretty low.

Do they deserve punishment - sure if it is combined with rehabilitation - they're young they still have a chance.

As garra has suggested legalising drugs would indeed bring down the drug lords more effectivley than shooting the mules - after all there are always more mules available. Before anyone goes off on an insulting rant (Col) I am not advocating free and easy access to drugs, rather controlled programs for those already hooked. Also the legalising would take away much of the 'mystique' the young find so tempting.

Stuart Rees asks if we have to co-operate with a justice system that still imposes the death penalty, as ringtail pointed out we co-operate with america. So the answer is: yes we do, especially if we can bring these 9 idiots home to serve their sentences in Australia.

Ambo – “Before anyone goes off on an insulting rant (Col)” since it is not your practice to cast insults my way their is no likelihood that I would need to express anything other than agreement or disagreement (plus elaborations or embellishments without personal attacks) with your view Ambo.

Since someone else initiated an attack on me with four letter words and has pursued that course even to the post immediately below my last one, I take it that such a display is inviting an appropriate repost.

“FIGJAM” all you like Di – that you cannot post here without continuing the thread of vitriolic insults, which you started leaves me to assume your own limited capabilities lock you into attacking those who do not agree with you. Ultimately, just like the drug peddling mules, you being a creature who seeks the easy option, will bring about your own demise through lack of appreciation of the environment which you pollute – so be it – this site will not be diminished by your absence.

Garra – nothing inconsistent with demanding people accept full and total responsibility for their actions – especially when those actions contravene established laws. If you don’t like a law – work, democratically, to have it repealed – until it is repealed you are simply demanding the right to behave with impunity in pursuit of a criminal action – such a course is akin to morally contradictory anarchy.