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