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