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.