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.