“That the global war on drugs is an abject failure is becoming an increasingly common view”

Based on the continued existence of death and injury on Australian roads, one could suggest drink driving and speeding laws are, likewise a failure and likewise there is no point in incarcerating thieves and other criminals because of a high recidivism rate.

The issue of paedophiles preying on children (just like drug dealers prey on children and the young, in a different sense) should not be blindsided simply because those evil perpetrators have got away with it for centuries.

I would further observe such an “attitude” is not what stopped Hitler’s fascist forces, unless anyone wants to argue the overwhelming success of Chamberlains Munich agreement for "peace in our time" - for which a few Poles could make a reasonable counter argument.

The prescribed “too hard so give up” attitude might suit some but it represents the path to greater failure.

Such a policy of “appeasement” will further condemn a significantly larger portion of the population to a state of drug dependent psychotic misfits, incapable of anything.

As Edmund Burke wrote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Greg’s proposal and defeatist attitude would make good proof of Edmund Burkes statement. Just as his attitude of “appeasement” in the “drug war” would have assured (in years past) a parallel dominance of the 1000 year Reich.

Sticking your head in the sand achieves nothing. Legalisation of illicit drugs will only exasperate and enlarge, not reduce or eliminate the problems which they presently produce and such a foolish course will only present an even more critical set of social issues than at present.

Van Nyugen got what he deserved. We should be thanking Singapore for intercepting this filth before he got back to Australia and created his own “body count” of Australian victims from his illicit trade.

Van Ngyuen is not a victim of anything except his own stupidity and criminal activity.

There is nothing new about calling for the decriminalising of drugs. There is nothing new in the knowledge that drug peddlers are winning the war. There is nothing new about expressions of belief that capital punishment is no deterrent.

So, let’s decriminalise the drug trade. Regulate it. “A legal market is the best guarantee that drug-taking will be no more dangerous than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. And, just as countries rightly tolerate those two vices, so they should tolerate those who sell and take drugs”, rants ‘The Economist’, according to Greg Barns.

Hey, Barnsy! Alcohol kills, maims and affects the health of more people than illicit drugs. It is more dangerous than illicit drugs because it is legal and therefore socially acceptable. People who wouldn’t dream of taking illicit drugs are happy to wipe themselves out regularly with alcohol as a way of ‘escaping’ their problems and ‘enjoying’ themselves. Young women, especially, are boozing more and more, to the extent that they are fatter and are developing so-called beer guts to match their boyfriends’. The girls are being caught driving with staggering levels of alcohol in their blood. Domestic killings (by both sexes) are on the rise. Alcohol related cancers and other health problems are on the up.

Governments make a lot of money from booze. They would probably like to make a lot more from other drugs. Unfortunately, they would have no more control over heroin, weed, and cocaine etc. than they do over alcohol.

Adding more drugs to the legal list is plain crazy.

Absolutely agree with Greg. All that the current "war on drugs" achieves is to enrich the Mr Bigs in crime. Stop treating users as criminals and recognise drug addiction as a medical/health issue. We don't treat alcoholics or gambling addicts as criminals, we offer them support.
By all means regulate supply but remove the incentive for the criminals to profit.

I would have to agree with Greg. All through the ages various commodities and behaviour have been the subject of prohibition. There was a time when you couldn't by stick books or porn videos. Prostitution and brothels were outlawed. Even alcohol was banned in the USA during the twenties and early thirties. Whenever there is a percieved benefit to both parties in a transaction, prohibition will not stop it. Drugs will ultimately go down this path just all other prohibition agendas have before it.

What a pity Col Rouge did not address the main issues raised in the article.

The introduction of “pedophiles”, the use of the word “filth” to describe the late Van Nguyen and other emotive arguments and statements don’t recommend Col’s views for serious consideration.

Governments decide that they know what is best for individuals to do to themselves and impose sentences on those who are caught actively disagreeing with them, including state sanctioned murder. We cannot compare this with crimes such as murder as these are offences against other people.
The effect of making drugs illegal is to create opportunities for those who distribute them to make huge profits. Remove the illegality and the profits and the incentive to continue disappears.

We are then left with a medical problem which although it would be expensive to deal with, would be far less costly than the punitive approach which is so obviously unsuccessful.

Controls on the substances and information on their users would be available to fight the problems arising with the opportunity for success which the current approach does not have.

Legalise under two conditions:

1. People who choose drugs as a lifestyle, as opposed to working and contributing to the community, will be exempt from the safety net that we provide i.e. no welfare for no hopers. This still applies even it means they rot in their own filth. This also means we don't pay for their drugs (medicare or otherwise).

2. Drugs are not an excuse for criminal activity. I don't care that you were on "the drugs" when you robbed my house, mugged my grandmother, involved yourself in gangland warefare etc you will be dealt harshly and swiftly by the law. You will be made to understand that criminal activity is not tolerated by the upstanding citizens. We may allow you to plead insanity, which is what you are if you claim you are not responsible for your actions, in which case we lock you up and rehabilite for as long as is neccessary. That might mean you never get out.

Druggies cannot have it both ways. They cannot be given the responsibility of access to hard drugs and also be cradled like babies when they abuse it, at least not on my teat.

There are strong parallels between Greg's argument and the current Greens policy on drugs .... This policy is the only way forward if we are genuinely concerned with saving the lives of young people.

Unfortunatly, during the last federal election, the Green's very sensible policy on drugs was maligned - in fact, dishonestly represented to the public by the coalition. Scare tactics (yet again) won the day; as a consequence young people continue to die un-necessarily. This indicates the coalitions desire for re-election - even at the cost of young australian lives; perhaps this undersrcores the federal govenment's cowardly stance on Van Nguyen’s execution....not to mention the general population's unfathomable response to his execution - and the drugs issue itself.

What wake up call?
Nguyen Tuong Van is not going to wake up.
What we need to wake up to is that legal drugs are far worse than illigal drugs because of volume and illegal drugs exist because legal drugs exist.
From cultivation and manufacturing through to use, the global illicit drugs market is worth $US 322 billion. Therefore the legal drugs of cigarettes, alcohol and amphetamines must be worth many times that. So if all people were to withdraw from drugtaking the world economy would collapse. So lets stop ALL drugs, legal and illegal and have a wake-up call.

First, advocating the death penalty misses one big point: Quite often they convict the wrong person and innocents are executed. WRONG!

Second, comparison between drugs and car accidents is not valid. Most of the damage caused by drugs would not occur except for prohibition.

For example, most overdoses occur because the criminal supply chain is unregulated and people occasionally take a huge overdose because they are unaware of the dosage.

Police have told me (after the burglary of my home) that 80% of such burglaries are heroin-related. Don Wetherburn (NSW Crime statistician) recently said only 5% of burglaries are cleared. It is prohibition which sets the price of drugs so high that addicts must beg, steal and prostitute themselves to afford their addiction. Meanwhile we all suffer, and the heavier the prohibition, the higher the price and so the cycle goes...

Cars on the other hand are inherently dangerous and used by far more people. If your arguments for prohibition were honest, you would also have to argue for the prohibition of cars.

Thirdly, we hear a lot of rubbish about the Greens and other libertarian groups 'wanting to make drugs more available to your children'.

The reverse is the case -- under prohibition any kid need only have $20 and a mobile to get drugs.. Under a system of controlled availability however, under-18s could be barred from purchasing and older people could be rationed.

Fourth, if you are going to compare drugs with alcohol and support drug prohibition then logically you must support alcohol prohibition.

Welcome back Al Capone etc. Is that the sort of world you want? Surprise surprise, you've got it thanks to drug prohibition. Drive-by shootings in South-west Sydney, Trevor Haken and corrupt police in Victoria, people being murdered in front of their children, overflowing jails.

The alternative -- a few dysfunctionals on the edge of the drug scene being properly treated -- is far superior and far more civilised.

The idea of legalising drugs appears sound.

It would seem probable it would eliminate most of the drug related crime ... at both ends supply and user. An analysis of the activities of the 'bootleggers' during the prohibition during the 1920's and 30's might lend such a proposition support. The bootlegging gangs resorted to other means of earning income once prohibition ended. I have no opinion on the extent of alcohol related problems during or after probihition.

In my view, although not an economist, subsidising the drug user would in all likelihood seem cheaper than expending public money on incarceration and current drug management programs.

The idea has merit and since it is all to obvious other avenues are ineffective in ending both drug trade and use there seems little point in not at least testing this alternative avenue as well.

Parents would still be faced with the problem of educating their children in the dangers of drug use and the drug scene. The great advantage to parents would be, drug use would be out in the open and therefore much more easily manageable. Especially where teenagers are involved.

Stan1 - Addressing the main issue – I guess I must have addressed something – or you would not have bothered to respond.

If you wish to criticise me, in future you should copy me verbatim. Your whine about me comparing The exploitation of young people by drug dealers versus exploitation by “paedophiles” is somewhat blunted when you fail to spell correctly.

Further – what is “clean” about being a drug dealer? I see it as one of the most degrading and bestial of criminal vocations – “filth” is possibly too gentle an noun (definition “a state characterized by foul or disgusting dirt and refuse”).

Maybe too much “wacky tobaccy” (deliberate spelling error) is eroding your brain cells faster than you realise.

As for governments – in Australia their are no criminal sanctions for using drugs, only in dealing in drugs. The reason to attack dealers and not users is simple, users destroy themselves – dealers destroy other people. The law is their to prevent to exploitation of the intellectually challenged who are too thick to realise there is nothing to be gained from ingesting / absorbing psychotropic and addictive substances.

Do you think the “medical problem” is large now? Decriminalise drug trafficking and the “medical problem” will explode to the point that services will collapse under the burden of O/Ds, drug induced violent assaults and a huge expansion in the number of sufferers of psychotic dementia.

I do not want to live anywhere near that “hell” – so take your drugs and go where you can crawl under a stone and die (of an O/D).

Like HarryC said “They cannot be given the responsibility of access to hard drugs and also be cradled like babies when they abuse it, at least not on my teat”

Its great to see folks waking up to the damage prohibition has caused. Van Nguyen was killed by prohibition - Australia's prohibition. Those Hon parliamentarians who shed crocodile tears and words of comfort to Van's relatives and friends were a sham and a lie. Our pollies happy to see hundreds of our young people killed every year from contaminated drugs of unknown dose. Most drugs can be placed on prescritpion where they belong to treat the sick drug dependent. Our great problem is to get through to the Greg Barns's of this world that drug depnedence is an illness not a crime. Greg, some people just can't say no - their genes won't let them. It's not within their will power - they are driven by subconcious drives. Killing users and suppliers will not change - has not changed a thing except we are all poorer for this slaughter. We are all angry that people become ill and die as a result of using substances, but hurting them more and killing as a deterant is and never was the answer. Violence and cruelty will not change people for the better.
Barfenzie

Drugs are evil, regardless whether they are illicit or legally distributed by doctors and pharmacies: it is not proper to interfere with the divinely-crafted body that we received in ways not intended by nature (yes, this also includes piercing and tatoos).

Yet it is even worse to interfere with another individual's personal choices... so long as they do not hurt others of course.

So long as we live in this world, evil is here to stay, and for example, as I shave daily, I am not free myself from interfering with my body and trying to "improve" on God, hence I have no right to deny others the right to use their drugs - let the one who is free of vices cast the first stone.

Shooting Galleries DONT WORK.

Hard drugs should not be legal.

A bit of hooch maybe, but only to curb the barons, and not the hard stuff. Look at alcohol and its social acceptance, it will have dire health consequences for many.

Imagine if in 30 years kids parents practiced their drug habit just as they do their alcohol habit.

We would all turn to crap. then, when we are addicted to something we cannot go overseas for fear of being picked up, as you will take the drugs your body needs with you. Being without drugs overrides all else when you are addicted, and you need them, no matter what.

I think they should do what they do in Nimbin, use discretionary powers but leave it at that.

Greg has taken a brave stance - but I have to admit I agree with him for the most part:

We regualte tobacco and alcohol - and both have more mortality and morbidity associated with their consumption than do the other forms of drug taking.

It is largely the associated culture that gives narcotic use a bad name - theiving, prostitution, needle sharing are all bad down stream effects from having a habit for an over priced, poorly made and unregulated substance - as opposed to the others that are well made, reasonably priced and regulated - narcotics are as cheap as chips to make - taking its production from the hands of the bad guys would remove a great deal of the crime; acces could be controlled and regulated and the doses standardised.

Using mind altering substances has long been part of most cultures - but usually within agreed parameters - like alcohol is to day; no harm can be dne talking about it.

The opponents of the suggestion seem to harbour a very low opinion of drug takers - there are some who dont steal - they have jobs money and careers they buy clean, use clean - Drug abuse while not wide spread amongst the medical fraternity still remains a bit of a problem - but even then majority of drug users who do the odd burg and may even be a bit malodorous do not deserve unqualified contempt such as is meted out to them.

Why wouldn’t you wipe out the mindset that promotes substance abuse, inculcate a higher level of education instead of confining our kids to hell in a hand basket, and denounce it’s use on all fronts, instead of harking about recreational drugs and whatever that is, it still cooks the brain, and is a major contributor to decaying mental health issues as well as a deadly effect on a young physiology, Let alone the social consequences and the after effect’s.
No, under no circumstances would I agree to legalize any form of drug’s, it is criminal and a human portrayal to suggest such a thing.
We already have State sanctioned anarchy , add legalized drug’s, might just as well decriminalize Murder , Armed robbery and Rape, How stupid of me, they have. Our progress into the abyss is further than our Moochers and Looters thought. (Oxymoron)

As a former heroin user I agree that it has to be regulated. Greg Barnes article included all the major points for this case, which is hard to refute on any grounds other than emotional.

Regulated heroin, much like methadone, has had excellent effects in Europe. But, as I have found in making this case to peers, you must come at it from terms they understand.

Tell the non-believers that it's better to have drugs available for addicts, in a registered manner, not a free for all, because it means they're grandmother doesn't get robbed at bingo, they don't pay as much for car insurance, and so on.

Could you imagine the cash a government would have if they didn't have to employ all those people in prisons (roughly 80% of all inmates are involved in drugs) counsellors, solicitors, and so on. THIS IS THE POINT THOUGH. HAVING DRUGS ILLEGAL IS A GREAT EMPLOYER.

People are uninformed though, prejudice. No one suffers more prejudice than the drug user.

It's time for debate. On Nguyen though, although I disagree with death penalty, you must understand why Asian nations are so tough. All we have is a few Asian communities, and look how bad heroin is there (Cabramatta is Australia's heroin capital). Imagine a whole nation of Cabramatta's!

"Further – what is "clean" about being a drug dealer? I see it as one of the most degrading and bestial of criminal vocations – "filth" is possibly too gentle an noun (definition "a state characterized by foul or disgusting dirt and refuse")."

All a drug dealer does is sell a product to people who are willing to buy it? Do you think deli owners are filth too for peddling cigarettes to addicts? It's exactly the same thing only one is legal and one isn't.

"The reason to attack dealers and not users is simple, users destroy themselves – dealers destroy other people."

This doesn't make sense. If it's users who are destroying themselves then how are the dealers destroying anyone? The short answer is they aren't. Nobody is forcing anyone to shoot up heroin at gunpoint - it's a choice the addict makes for himself.

"Decriminalise drug trafficking and the "medical problem" will explode to the point that services will collapse under the burden of O/Ds, drug induced violent assaults and a huge expansion in the number of sufferers of psychotic dementia."

Overdoses are caused by incorrect dosage because heroin isn't regulated and labelled. Codeine is just as deadly if taken in large amounts - but nobody overdoses on it because it comes in pills which are clearly labelled with the dosage.

Heroin does not make the user violent or aggressive - the vast majority of "drug induced violent assaults" are committed under the influence of alcohol.

And which drug is it that causes psychotic dementia?

You've got no idea what you're on about mate. Perhaps you should go to the library and do a bit of research before regurgitating from the letters to the editor of the Herald Sun.

From what I've briefly read of the European experience it seems that it applies only to hardened drug users who have spent years on the illegal drug and when other avenues of treatment have failed. This is essentially what we do already with methadone. Now don't kid yourself methadone seriously whacks people up, the benefits are that OD is less likely, the high is less intense and more drawn out, and the needles are done away with (I'm not a medical pro but that's what I've heard).

I can't see how the above really has much affect on the illegal supply. You are only treating people once they have acquired a serious drug habit, a drug habit that was fueled by the illegal market. And until the user is recognized as a habitual user they will be driving the illegal market and doing the unsavoury things that druggies do now.

If the author is intending for legalised administration to habitual users then there really isn't much to see here. If they are proposing for hard drugs to be supplied to any adult that wants to get whacked then I stand by my post above.

Thanks for the quote Col.

An excellent articla, although marred by the statement :

"... the Australian Government has made valiant attempts to prevent Van Nguyen’s barbaric execution by the Singaporean authorities."

I think the Government's efforts to save the life of Van Nguyen, whose crime could not have conceivabley harmed the people of Singapore, given that he was trying to smuggle heroin into Australia, were feeble. They should have insisted on Van Nguyen's extradition to Australia and have been prepared to use economic sanctions against Singapore if the Singaporean government had not agreed.

I agree with all those who advocate ending the prohibition of heroin. Prohibition has obviously turned what was a managable problem into what we have today.

I move in the circles of Sydney's underworld. The extraordinary high prices induced by prohibition are cause of much suffering poverty and misery. People I know may never get all the medical treatment they need because of prohibition-induced poverty.

I'm not into much, but know who to ask, or how to find them, how to ask and how much it is. All it takes is the money. It's like a waterbed, push down on one part and the rest moves up. Prohibition doesn't make it go away because the high money amounts involved make it so attractive to those who want to sell drugs as a business. An escalation in prohibition and law enforcement may mean higher drug prices for a while, but also attract more of the product to the marketplace.

so there's no way to win until we seriously consider legalization or medical prescription programs for diacetylmorphine HCl [heroin].

I have sorrow for all the victims of drug abuse, war, victimization, and codependency. The list does go on. I also feel sorrow for countries whose government supports substance abuse by not doing something to eradicate it from the massive use it is at today. There is no way there could be as much drugs in the world today without massive farms. The USA had a chance in Afghanistan to eradicate the large poppy fields. There are massive fields that could be easily bombed. At least to reduce the large volume and it would not be any worse than bombing Iraq; perhaps less worse because the people could be forewarned. I think the governments around the world profit from the drug wars, because the argument of "These poor farmers have no other way of making a living…" is cra_. It would be less expensive to feed them than to fight the war on their drugs.

I agree with Greg Barns.

If adults want to do dangereous things like rock climbing, getting pregnant or ingesting toxic chemicals then that should be their business.

Now that D_D_nabbit is how problems are commonly solved.

Thinking outside the square. A great suggestion. Subsidise the poppy growers not to grow poppies.

It's not so silly, after all the Americans and the Europeans subsidise their farmers to grow crops nobody needs.

Inner Sydney

Good to see you on this strand.

OK, I agree that HCL should be legalised. Much safer than the so-called "safe" injecting rooms. I bet we both agree on that.

But the author of this article is calling for legitimising all illicit drugs.

So are we going to legitimise?: ice, E, daitura, mms, acid, speed et al? You know as well as I do that hooch today is about 10 times more powerful than it was, say 10 years ago. It's all scarey stuff.

My lengthy experience in nursing young drug addicts tells me that legitamising all illicit drugs is a recipe for disaster.

Even so, I think that the legal drugs, vis a vis: alcohol and nicotine are being used by young females in hazardous proportions. My 13 years old niece has been smoking, been drunk, and has already had sexual intercourse. Saddens me beyong belief.

I am very sad for you. Your parents sound like ar**holes.

Have a Merry Christmas and stuff

Cheers
Kay

Zero tolerance of drugs is the only viable policy that will work.The only way to stop this evil is to increase the punishments.Just recently a whole new approach was taken by the local magistrates court in Perth.

Offenders were made to listen to hours of boring trite speeches by intelectuals,and politicians.In one case an offender was made to listen to a speech given by John Howard given to the Country Womens Association in Perth for three hours,the change in this offender was remarkable his drug addiction was cured forever.In another case a hard line drug dealer was given a combination session of one of Alexander Downers,Amanda Vanstone,and Peter Costello's speeches that ran for some four hours.Not only was he cured he went on to to be a missionary serving in South Africa.Apparently he has been nominated for the Nobel prize for medicine.

What a stupid article. This website is such a massive waste of space. Why am i even writing this? Why dont y'all go out and speak to a real person. Writing anonymous posts on the internet doesnt actually achieve anything. How do i unregister?

If the drug trade was legalised, then it would not be as profitable as it is, so Van Nyugen would have been forced into some other profitable (and probably illegal) activity in order to gain the money he wanted. I think that the way Van Nyugen has been treated is obscene, but don't forget that he is not an innocent victim - he willingly participated in illegal activity in order to profit.

I am disgusted that the fact that an Australian has been executed raises public interest. The issue should be whether there should be a death penalty, not that Australians should be exempt from it.

PhilB,

(Is that Phil B, or Philby I wonder?)

Listening to the munchkin (Our most munificent, omnipotent and benevolent south-east asian warlord and despot, all 4 1/2 feet of him [hang on, would our beloved leader be interested in having military parades in Canberra? Perhaps, our single armoured regiment could go past several times to add to the majesty of the display {well going round in circles IS very easy in Canberra}]) speak to the CWA would probably make me turn to drugs, simply to relieve the intellectual trauma imposed.

As for the Academia, their speeches did actually contribute to the whole 'tune in, turn on & drop out' phenonoma of the 1960's.

Moreover, surely such an approach could be demonstrated to constitute 'cruel and unreasonble' treatment, at least if anyone died (of boredom) from such, the lecturer could raise the defence that it was reasonable in the circumstances. This defence would probably be succesful, as otherwise judges would be liable to trial for the same offence.

Trooper Redneck, do you recognise the callsign 80 etc?

I'm unsure that legalisation is the solution. I agree that it would neutralise the drug cartels and clean up needles and streets.

However I wonder whether the underlying problem is not to do with the supply side but with the demand side. What do we know about the lives of those people who take up drug habits? Why do they turn to such releases?
Unfortunately, our governments are so busy building an economy they have lost sight of their effect on society

Legalisation alone would no be enough.

Prevention on the demand side, while drug lords have a chance to make super-profits also won't be enough.

Aaron,
a good idea,unfortunately our one an only armoured regiment is otherwise engaged bringing peace and prosperity to the people of Iraq, thats whats left of it of course.A march by was contemplated for the munchkin in Canberra but a dispute arose amoungst the building contractors for the erection of the podium when it was discovered that Amanda Vandstone was to take the salute.According to the structural engineer a podium certified to take this type of weight could only be designed and built in Holland.The Dutch being masters of heavy salvage operations.

In the end the project was vetoed by the treasurer who said the money would be better spent on an adverising campaign education the public on the difference between poop and clay.

As to cruel and un-usual punishment,the form of for want of a better word re-education, as I described has been used in other country's before remember Hitler.There ve vas drinking a little snapps the next think ve know ve are in Poland

Returning to this discussion I see that we now have over 30 posts. I was sufficiently interested in Greg Barns’ article to check on responses only to find the first post by Col Rouge talking about “paedophiles, “appeasement” and “filth”. To get some balance I criticized his approach and made my own small contribution to the debate.

I now see that Col (11th post) has had a go at me. His criticism of my spelling of pedophile (acceptable nowadays) is a bit rich when he doesn’t know the difference between “there” and “their” and can’t even spell Van Nguyen's name correctly!

Having a look through the various posts there seems to be some variety of opinions and a bit of humour too. Whilst I’m in favour of Greg Barns’ approach, I’m interested in the arguments of those who are not.

There seems to be a small fringe of extreme anti-liberalization people. Taking Col as an example, he seems to be incapable of any sustained argument and to be prone to personal abuse. He’s probably allowed to vote too. Take a cold shower Col and try some meditation. Take a beginner’s course in logic too.

Is “filth” an appropriate term for a 24 year old man who was subjected to state-sanctioned murder last Friday because he was forced by triads to break the law to get his twin brother out of a fix

Ahh the irony. The execution of a drug dealer is evidence of the failure in the war on drugs?

That Milton Friedman thinks the costs of legalizing <b>marijuana</b> are less than the costs of keeping it criminalized does not mean that he believes that for the 'harder' drugs. Of course, you wouldn't know it by reading Greg's article.

Greg's article sounds 'reasonable', yet it doesn't seem to be saying much. As we don't necessarily know the effects of legalization, all it is is a gamble with the lives of those we should be protecting and nuturing.

Given the record of legalized alcohol and tobacco, it is quite clear that it provides a higher level of accessability and acceptability which leads to a higher level of use.

A clear case example is when Britian legalized Heroin use, so that users could register to obtain it from pharmacies. This resulted in a dramatic increase in heroin use (it doubled) and also in illegal heroin imports (it tripled) as users supplemented the legal heroin with higher strength illegal heroin. For those who argue we can ration illegal drugs, this shows how out of touch the idea really is.

Many other examples show that legalizing drugs increases use, even amongst teenagers. A look into the history of marijuana in the US between 1972 and 1978 clearly shows that when legalized, marijuana use more than doubled for teenages and tripled for adults.

As a side note, even though I don't advocate theocracy, I could have written much the same piece but interchanged 'the war on drugs' with secularism, provided many examples of smart people who thought Christian morals are the real answer to the drug problem and so we should make our society a christian state. The logic and content would be virtually identical to Greg's.

I suffer from chronic pain and would like to see certain drugs legalised for ones own use. Yes I can get pain relief medication, but the side effects I end up with are sometimes worse than the pain.
I have 2 choices use an illegal drug or suicide. Come on Tony Abbot and John Howard it is about time you looked at the whole picture and not just the addiction side of it.

I agree with legalising drungs, one one condition, if you commit a crime or injure someone whilst under the infoulence of any drug, you get double the sentence. That should go for tobacco, prescription drugs, alcohol or even chemicals in food as they also alter our mental state.
It is not the drug that is the probl;em, but the economics of it. Shooting rooms, needle exchanges, methodone are all just money makers for large corporations and of no benefit to the user.

I find most things that Barns says to be totally obnoxious and very far from reality. I put that down to his mental state and his use of prescription drugs for his lack of understanding of reality. But he does have a point regarding drugs.

Surely we have matured enough as a scoiety to have laws that punish people who aren't prepared to taske responsibility for themsleves adn their actions. So take your drugs ansd enjoy them, but impose what they do to you on others and copm the consequences big time.

The reason they won't use dope for medicinal purposoes is because they can't control it like they can pharmecuticals and unlike pharmecutical drugs, it actually does relieve chronic pain, rather than just ruin your health

Drug law reform is much needed and long overdue. What is desperately needed is a monumental shift from a criminal focus to a health and education focus. Essentially drug use must be viewed as a health concern not a criminal concern. The money funneled into law enforcement must be alocated to healthcare and education.

It is surprissing that this debate was not raised dureing Corbys trial, the Bali nine, or before the death of Van Nguyen. I hope the debate continues before more innocent children are killed by the 'War on Drugs'.

Speeding should be legalised because many people get a thrill out of driving fast and are being denied their individual rights to buy a suped-up car and go hooning down the highway.

Race car drivers prove that you can safely speed in a car.

Decriminalising speeding will mean many people who lose their licence will not clog up our legal system and end up in jail for repeat offences

Road use should be all about education. Driver training should include training on how to take a corner at 200km/h and all children should have access to a Ferrari so they can learn how to be a speed demon.

If someone kills themselves it is their own stupid fault and if they kill an innocent person in the process - who cares.

t.u.s

t.u.s - I think you are onto something (I hope its not drugs).

The war on speeding has failed. Every year hundreds of people are killed by speeding, and many thousands of otherwise law abiding people are criminalised. If the government legalised speeding they could save a fortune on radar guns and police cars and police, and instead spend it on anti-speed advertising and subsidised roll cages.

Now that I think about it, the wars on paedophilia, murder, hand guns etc have also failed so the only worthwhile alternative must be radical reversal of the current prohibitions.

I really think “the usual suspect” and AndrewM are, in their own peculiar way, on to something.

I like the approach that governments should take as little action as possible in removing liberties from humans.

There are some interesting examples, like the German researcher who had approval to remove every “go slow”, “dangerous bend”, “ beware falling rocks”, “35 kph speed limit”, from a dangerous piece of road, and ending up with less accidents than occurred when the signs were displayed.

It's a nice story anyway.

Take them seriously.

"If someone kills themselves it is their own stupid fault and if they kill an innocent person in the process - who cares."

The difference is that if it's very hard for someone to kill you by taking heroin. In fact, under a legalised heroin regime, it's very difficult for any innocent person to be accidentally killed by heroin.

That's the whole point, you imbeciles. I could sit here and inject heroin into my eyeballs into my eyes until I die and how will it affect you at all? It won't.

Heroin users aren't hurting anyone except themselves, but the government is hurting all of us by fostering a prohibition regime that increases the power base of organised crime.

I think perverting the known world’s Civilizations by using outdated a corrupt ideals of antitheist philosophy and pathological minded, far to antiquated to this argument. Liberalism is:Psychotic attempt to redefine the Metaphysics. Mathematics and logic along with a more responsible realist philosophy and not the opaque simple visionaries version of his conceived, surrealist version of what actually is: Merely coded ethics created to change the psyche of people, Used in the Communist era. “The Great Depression”:ring bells.
Liberalism 's corrupt plan using terms a social justice, and social responsibility.
Economics and money have been corrupted beyond repair by these surrealist Advocates, and a trend now is when these looters and criminals control, we enter the era of The Gun, Murder, and societies Debortuary That Stan 1 is what it has created, not a vision of prosperous National pride and ethics, only a legacy of corrupt valueless society headed to the consciousness of animal instinct for survival. Which many Social depended will not survive. An Irony actually: Remember the movie “ Born Free”. Such is the ethic of liberalism.
“Do you wish to know when the day is coming? Then watch money. Money is a barometer of society’s virtue. When you see trading done, not by consent but by compulsion-when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those that deal, not in goods, but in favors-when you see men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed.
Money is so noble a medium that it doe’s not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive of half property and half loot”

Yobbo “You've got no idea what you're on about mate. Perhaps you should go to the library and do a bit of research before regurgitating from the letters to the editor of the Herald Sun.”

You do not know enough about me or my life experiences to make such assessment. If you want to make a point make it, until them keep your hubris to yourself..

I would recall drug dealing has been illegal, not for ever but for around 100 years. Anyone who thinks legalisation would work needs to “research” the circumstances and reasons it was made illegal in the first place before “regurgitating” the apologist and defeatist “responsibility free view”..

Stan1 “Is “filth” an appropriate term for a 24 year old man who was subjected to state-sanctioned murder last Friday because he was forced by triads to break the law to get his twin brother out of a fix”

So it is the fault of the “triads” maybe it was the fault of his brother for being involved with triads?

Accountability is partly about doing what is “right” and not what is “expedient”.

What was right would have been to go to the police.

What was “expedient” was to become a drug mule for the triad (or any other available excuse for the indolent and spineless)

Now “filth”. Compared to accepting "accountability", instead doing for what is expedient, is the same as suggesting it is OK not to shower (we tend not to smell our self – but everyone else suffers) – and when we do not shower, we end up “filthy”. “Filth” is appropriate for anyone who rejects self "accountability".

The problem for the 24 year old man was, “accountability” caught up with him.

TUS I see you picked up on my “Based on the continued existence of death and injury on Australian roads, one could suggest drink driving and speeding laws are, likewise a failure and likewise there is no point in incarcerating thieves and other criminals because of a high recidivism rate.”

but it still goes over the heads of the “apologists and defeatists”

Col

Your remark about the history of drug use inspired me, for I to tend to look to history for it's lessons.

I found a few sites but the most interesting was the Parliamentary Library site.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bp/1996-97/97bp12.htm#LAWS

Three or four points stuck me as relevant.

Firstly, 'the typical dependent user being a middle-class, middle-aged woman or health professional. This 'user' profile remained largely unchanged until the 1960s.'

Secondly, 'the emergence of international conventions dealing with illicit drugs, played a major part in the development of illicit drugs laws and policies in Australia.' The work later insinuates the probihitionist wowsers in the US were the major force behind many of these conventions.

Thirdly, '...(the) early illicit drug laws had their origins in anti-Chinese prejudice and the temperance movement. They also heralded the emergence of the medical professional as a powerful pressure group,...'

I'd say there were quite a few assertions that could be made on the basis of the above researched information but one could not be that the drug laws were introduced to curtail extensive and/or disorderly use.

It goes way back even before that, The Moslem Assassins during the Crusades were drug users before they went into battle, That is where the word assassin comes from.

I'm all for the legalisation of illicit drugs. I will not, however, allow my tax-dollars to go to maintaining the hospital room of comatose 15 year old girls, and other expenses associated with addicts and abusers.

If we legalise drugs, we first need to privatise the health system so Australians do not have to pay for the mistakes of others.

That is right All, we need to become more literate before commenting on such deep subjects. History will reveal much about people simply by showing they have grown or became stagnate and contaminating. From Wikipedia, the Hashshashin (also Hashishin), or Assassins were a religious sect (often refered to as a cult) of Ismaili Muslims from the Nizari sub-sect with a militant basis, thought to be active in the 8th to 14th centuries as a mystic secret society specializing in terrorising the Abbasid elite with fearlessly executed, politically motivated assassinations (the word "assassin" is generally thought to derive from their name). Their own name for the sect was al-da'wa al-jad&#299;da which means the new doctrine and they called themselves fedayeen from the Arabic which means one who is ready to sacrifice their life for a cause — that term has the modern connotation of "freedom fighter". The name Hashshashin was given to them by their Muslim enemies. The United States has a barbaric pasts as well.

I note Stan1 has felt the wrath of that inveterate warrior Col Rouge: I wouldnt lose any sleep over his critcism or views: like so many self made men as his posts suggest he his - among being an expert in so many fields - he will soon fall to the fate of so many other self made men and suffer at the hands of poor work manship.

Gosh I think he even accused you of "hubris"! Kettles and blackness are brought immediately to mind.

He is not alone however in holding entire classes of people in contempt - it is as much that attitude that fosters abberrant behaviour in others as does any single choice "to do the wrong thing".

The act of taking narcoitcs for recreation is small beans when compared to the act of consuming alcohol for not dissimilar reasons - and inspite of the crime associated with narcotics the cost to the community is relatively small when comapred to alcohol and what it does.

As a community we endorse drug taking, we advertise it, we foster it - large fortunes have been built upon it- legally. Bootleggers were once criminals now people with a similar bent (making booze) head corporations like Southcorp.

It would seem those opposed to regulating what is currently illegal dont like that class of people whose preferred tipple comes in narcotic form more than they oppose the notion of drug taking it self.

S P, I have never heard of a violent act or assault as the result of smoking a cigarette, and alcohol is a drug, but in moderation is also good for you, your GP will confirm that, But, how do you regulate the effects of Narcotics by Moderation, you can not, and the immediate damage it does to Brain cells just by the very nature of the Hit, and the consequences to the rest of the Human biological system.
Besides, have you checked the data for Taxation, what the Government collects in taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, if drugs were so good for you, they would legalize it, and collect an ever bigger tax haul. Some what of an Oxymoron, But:
I would hypothesize why some sections would like to legalize Drug use, considering the nature of existentialism and the dark side of that nothingness, a substitute to ease the realms of reality and to enhance the surrealism of such a void. Escapism. (Cheap shot, but I wonder).
People should choose life, not death, although we all get to that point eventually, I see no need to speed the process up

Those who claim controlled availability will increase the use of drugs may be behind the times. Prescription drugs are now rationed because our Medicare cards tap into a national database. That could apply to chemical drugs that are presently prohibited, and so encourage rationing.

In the 2001 Household Survey on Drugs, hardly any non-users thought they would start using under legalisation, and hardly any (well under 10% of users said they would increase their use.

As for the person who thinks God created us so we shouldn't take drugs, I have to say that God must have therefore also created the drugs. Your argument only holds up if you can prove that God doesn't want us to experience pleasure, which he also created.

The people who think drugs cause heaps of damage, you are wrong. Don't believe the propaganda which makes out that a few dysfunctionals on the edge typify all of us -- drugs do not necessarily fry your brain any more than alcohol does. Moderate use is the key. And all this stuff about cannabis being ten times more powerful is not accurate either -- in the '70s you could get hashish from all over the world, opiated buddha sticks from Thailand, Amazing heads from Qld...

MichaelG,

Whether God wants anything of us or not is not the issue:
the point is that we received the bodies we have from Him (and that includes the natural sensations of pleasure and pain), and the question is whether you consider God to be the superior or an inferior architect. When one artificially interferes with their body's chemistry and/or physiology (and I consider smoking, injecting and distilling to be artificial/unnatural methods), one is basing their actions on the assumption that they can do better than Him and improve on His work.

I also mentioned that we all, myself included, seem to attempt to "improve" our body to some extent or another. I consider it due to having limited faith.

By the way, I should agree with you that it is not anybody else's business what you do with your body and how you exercise your free choice - but you should be aware (and not complain afterwards) that if you take drugs you will end up with a less-than-optimal body, and as some of the other writers in this forum commented, they would be unwilling to carry the financial burden of maintaining such a body for you. Given that we all abuse our bodies to some degree, it is an interesting question to determine where is the cut-point beyond which we should no longer subsidise that abuse in others.

Yuyutsu
An advantage of being an atheist is that you can abuse your body without worrying about whether it will upset God!
I don't use drugs other than a little wine but if others choose to, well that is their choice. If they become addicted and it affects their health we should offer them support as we do for anyone else with a health problem.
Regulating the supply of hard drugs would take out most (but probably not all) of the criminal element. The resources now tied up in the (futile) war on drugs) could be put better use in many ways.

Rossco, you are bursting into an open door!

I agree on both:
About decriminalising drugs - I agree with you and Greg Barns, although I believe that this will remain mere wishful-thinking because the U.S.A will never allow us to do it, and unfortunately we depend heavily on Caesar=Uncle-Sam, without whom we would already been part of China or Indonesia.

And about God - I also agree with you that God will not become upset: in fact, I don't think that anything whatsoever can upset Him! However, it is the drug-taker who may become upset due to their body, mind and spirit not being as well.

Sneekeepete “he (me) will soon fall to the fate of so many other self made men and suffer at the hands of poor work manship.”

Such assessment hardly qualifies when its source is someone who, it would seem, could be likened to the owner of a model construction kit.

Sneekeepete prefers to leave the pieces, still wrapped in their box, too afraid or idle to risk doing something himself. Then comes here and scorns those who strive to assemble the kit and enjoy the pleasure and benefits of the task.

As for “He is not alone however in holding entire classes of people in contempt “

Wrong – my entire construct of the world is based on it being populated by individuals, capable and responsible for their own individual choices and actions.

You are the one who has introduced “class” and "classes" into this debate and from which I can reasonably assume you are the one who uses such divisive collectivist attitudes as the excuse or crutch for your own “individual” shortcomings and deficiencies.

I would further observe, the act of “taking” narcotics of any sort is not a crime. However, the possession and act of trafficking such illicit narcotics often is.

In short, stick whatever poison you want into yourself and vacate this life sooner rather than later if you wish.
I could not care less but do not expect me to pay your medical bills or costs of containment nor expect me to allow you unobstructed access when you try to rob my house and steal to feed your pathetic addiction.

Oh Dear Colonel

I thought my analogy (or is it a metaphor) was much more elegant; model construction kit indeed! Hope I dont run out of glue. And if most of me remains in the box think of the potential that lay before me - how formidable will I be when fully whole.

As for my own achievements I am glad to recognise the interdependance that exists between myself the subjects of my work and those who taught me; believe it or not even the fiercest of indviduals plying their trade don't do it in a vaccuum.

Individualism is and always has been limited in what it can achieve. As a personal philosophy it has its place but as an answer to the great questions we face about drugs, global warming, energy supply and whether or not Warney should play in the one dayers in the World Cup in the Windies - it is found wanting.

my reference to class was founded in your categorisation of people in a very disparaging manner - change the words around if you like - I'm not fussed. Use categories of people instead and your writings still strongly suggest you hold bunches, groups, types,tribes, hordes, gatherings - pick a collective noun - of people in contempt based upon a fairly superficial understanding of them apart from a similarly superficial awareness of that naughty thing they do which you disdain.

And if I did subscribe to some class theory that does not imply I or those who do use it to externalise blame for individual action - that would be plain silly. There is no intrinsic link

He got what he deserved. Why everyone is so worried about drug trafficers is unknown to me, but they are doing a job which takes risks like that. They know the risks so they deserve to be punished.

Think of it this way. Eliminate anyone related to drugs and there will be a reduced amount of drug trafficing and more to the point a reduced amount of people being sold. Its a crude way to solve the problem, but sacrifices have to be made to recive gains.

Van is not the only one anyway to be hanged, why everyone is so concerned about one meager person who is guilty who got hanged like many others day to day. This shows why people dont deserve to vote in this country simply because people need to look in the real world and see the bigger picture ie: Other governments laws and princables.

Sneekeepete "my reference to class was founded in your categorisation of people in a very disparaging manner"

Such is your subjective judgement of me.

I do not care -

That you defend drug pedlars and miscreants in the face of the evidence of suffering their trade fosters is enough to reason that you yourself are either an agent of corruption and fallacious reasoning or you are a simpleton.

Either way - your view is not worth a "toss".

Indeed a great princable, Hannibal:

Eliminate anyone related to _____fill_in_the_blank_____ and there will be a reduced amount of _____whatever_____ ... Its a crude way to solve the problem, but sacrifices have to be made to recive gains.

And should we limit the discussion only to drugs, the first ones to be eliminated should be doctors, nurses, pharmacists, managers and employees of pharmaceutical companies and patients.

Yea, eliminate all sinners and what a cleaner [though empty] world we shall then have!

"War against Drugs" is War against People, targetting the young, the poor , the indigenous, and the counter-culture. Not one dope plant has ever been prosecuted. Not one tab of LSD has been strip searched and abused. Not one unprescribed valium pill has been terrorised on public transport by sniffer dogs. Not one gram of amphetamine has been sentenced to jail. Not one ecstacy tablet has had it's front door kicked in in the middle of the night. Not one cap of smack has been taken away from its children and threatened by a uniformed bully with a gun. Not one vial of methadone stays locked in its house, terrified of being harrassed if they go out, simply because of what they need to do to get through the day.

Stop hitting people.

You have a lovely name.

Stop hitting people “"War against Drugs" is War against People,”

That is so.

It is a war against those who would seek to trade and profit from the misery the drugs they supply will ultimately induce in their victims (the users).

I would note

It is not illegal for anyone to “use drugs”.
It is not illegal for someone to overdose on drugs.

The "Laws" do not apply to “users” regardless that might include “the young, the poor , the indigenous, and the counter-culture.”

However, it is illegal to be caught in possession of drugs and to traffick in drugs

"Laws" apply to traders and traffickers regardless the might include “the young, the poor , the indigenous, and the counter-culture.”

The rubbish about “Not one dope plant has ever been prosecuted.” etc is asinine.
“Objects” do not have the cognitive skills to make value based judgements and thus cannot be “prosecuted” for any action they may be involved in.

However, you do make a valid point in one twisted context.

When someone consumes sufficient “dope” to render them the intellectual equivalent of an “object” – should we

1 exempt them from prosecution because of their “self inflicted” reduction in autonomous decision making capability

or

2 just lower them into a trash compactor and throw the switch?

IMHO, believing that the “right to self determination” is the most precious of human rights and drug addicts have flushed their exercise of that “right” down the toilet (by pursuing drug dependency and the irrational drives which “addiction” induces) -

I wholeheartedly support the second option.

As for Stan1 comments – I agree – cute name although “spankie” is shorter.

Unfortuantely option 2 of Col's is one I cannot support. As a side note I personally am a regular user of crystalline methamphetamine and heroin.