An eminently sensible article from Andrew Macintosh. However, given that this is a Federal election year, I predict that an increasingly desperate Coalition government will run true to form and attempt to whip up some kind of law and order hysteria over the illegal use of recrational drugs in Australia. The recent shameful smear campaigns against the Greens over their harm minimisation policy in the NSW election will undoubtedly be rerun in the Federal campaign.

Christopher Pyne: "... now is not the time to be showing weakness in the face of the war on drugs”.

Now where have we heard exactly the same rhetoric in recent weeks? The "war" on drugs is about as winnable as the "war" on terror. It seems timely that the Chaser's "war on everything" returns to the ABC this week, correctly reframing the conservatives' "wars" on drugs, terror etc as the joke that they are.

Yet in this midst of all this posturing and bluster not one word about trying to dig down to the "worm i'the bud"? Not one person brave enough to question why, in a society recently cited as having the third-highest living standard in the world, this problem exists?

Something, it appears is rotten in the state of Denmark yet, expecially in an election year, lets rather pour billions into papering over the cracks - the rotting woodwork underneath is far too unsightly.

Harm minimisation has only one advantage.

It offers secure, lucrative employment, in an expanding area of totally useless activity, for an increasing number of surplus graduates.

It is only by guatanteeing that nothing is achieved for drug addicts, that an expanding industry can be assured.

"Unfortunately, it is a rare event when any government body decides to make drug policy recommendations that are based on evidence."

Amen. We're in serious trouble as a nation if we're listening to people like Bronwyn Bishop on the issue of drugs. It's like listening to a crocodile comment on bunjee jumping. Opinionated, sure, but not worth much.

No politician is qualified to comment on the issue without at least having a go at psilocybin mushrooms. At a minimum.

The fight against illegal drugs is one-sided. We've been fighting with one hand tied behind our back so it's very easy to say that we've lost. How 'bout we level out the playing field and get a little dirty in this fight.

I think the best way to win the war on drugs is to decriminalise it and only target big time importers and manfactures. The government should supply drugs to addicts in excange for the addicts taking some sort of detox program to try and get off the drugs altogether.

But I am sure the whaa whaa brigade will none of that and for sure will howl it down!

I have had contact with heaps of drug users over the last couple of years. Many of them would and do rob their own families and even children in order to support their habit. Many have been through prison and drug rehabiltion places. Truthful people suddenly become habitial liars when taking drugs.

I don't know what you can do with the people already trapped in this curse. Obviously some manage to escape. I know people personally who have suicided and ended up in the nut house by simply smoking dope.

Harm minnimisation to me sends out the message that its okay to take drugs as long as the harm is minnimised. This is a myth. Lives are and will be destroyed by drug taking.

We have to many individuals who want their own little bit of indulgence despite the clear fact that many are going to be harmed by their actions. Stopping kids from falling down the cliff is far easier than picking up the pieces.

Anyone who has walked the streets of Singapore will easily be able to see how a relatively drug free city is different from places such as we see in Holland.

Why dont you people give the illegal drug industry the same brakes as our fine government. How could they profit from the flesh and blood of their victims without government complicity? Our courts and gaols, and the gallows and machine guns of other nations, ensure that the trade of these merchants shall remain precious and valuable. And then there is the side benefit of allowing national networks commercially exploit the trials of unremarkable criminals.

Now then, dont you think that Australian culture has been enriched by the unfolding lives of the Corbys?

'Truthful people suddenly become habitial liars when taking drugs..'

Heh. I'm reminded of South Park:
'Drugs are an illegal narcotic! I've never taken drugs and I'm fine! Now get off my property before I lose my temper and KILL YOU!'

I'd like to point out, in the interest of balance, that runner's claimed experiences with drug users are pretty much the exact opposite of my own.

Apparently runner personally knows dope smokers who have ended up in nut houses. I have been smoking weed for around 7 years, more regularly (and often daily) in the past 2. In that time I have met countless other pot smokers. I'm talking a LOT of people. Not one, at any point, showed any signs of any kind of mental problem. A few were a bit forgetful.

Nor have I known any drug users who were habitual liars (one girlfriend I had turned out to be a compulsive liar - interestingly, she didn't take drugs. I say drugs, she did drink - but apparently we dont count alcohol as a drug for some reason).

I have had -and continue to have- friends who take acid, ecstacy, magic mushrooms, alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, amyl nitrate, dmt, dexamphetamines, methamphetamines, caffeine, and when they get a headache - nurofen plus (that stuff's amaaaazing).

Not *one* of these people, including myself, has ever, ever done the things runner has described. In fairness, he may be talking about addicts - an important distinction from users who are not addicted.

So there you have it, in the interests of balance - an entirely different experience from runners.

Although in my humble opinion, I think he's full of crap.

I think when I become supreme leader of Australia and master to all Peons I will make drug testing compulsory for all walks of life.
I will test the young ones at about the time they start experimenting with drugs.
I would rather catch them before they get addicted , or let them know that they might get caught for just experimenting .
Then cut their goolies off if they test positive, hey you got to be cruel to be kind I say

Part of the problem is that we tend to lump nearly all drugs together, while forgetting about the corrosive effects of the most destructive drug of all: alcohol.

People under the influence of alcohol commit murders, assaults, driving offences, domestic violence and rapes.

People actually under the influence of heroin simply relax and more or less go to sleep.

People under the influence of a heroin don't commit crimes whilst they are drug effected. Heroin has a less harmful effect on the human body than alcohol. They commit crimes to get it, or supply it.

I can already hear people yelling that I am an heretic and someone who wants to legalise drugs.

Yes and no:

Cocaine - extremely harmful, no 'safe' theraputic dose, can kill. Should be fought against with more force than the law currently can apply.

Ecstacy - also no safe theraputic dose - should be fought against.

Cannibis: causes mental illness, should not be decriminalised.

Heroin - perhaps it should be sold in bottle shops and chemists in single shot syringes for around $10.00. take the crime out of it, put it on the same basis as booze. Make it available in measured and relatively safe doses and lets all get along with our lives.

Or if you are going to prohibit heroin, take the next step and do the same for alcohol: good luck!

Just remember what drug actually kills more than any other: nicotene in cigarettes - double good luck in getting that banned.

My own experience with drugs may be somewhat closer to runners (although I've also known a huge amount of recreational dope smokers who do not seem off the rails). A very close family member of mine ruined his life with heroin. Heroin addicts generally can only focus on the next hit. While they may realise the damage they are causing to themselves and their loved ones, this cannot overcome the urge for the next hit.

It is for this reason that I support, whole heartedly, a harm minimisation approach and a shift on drug policy. Drug use should be treated as a health problem. Users and addicts need to be offered treatment, not be put in jail.

The reason I think this is that, over years of being around people using drugs, I have never seen any indication that the "tough on drugs approach" works. From my friends in high school smoking dope, my pill popping flatmate, right through to my ill-fated family member, the thoughts of the illegality of their actions never stoped their drug use, even when they got caught. Harm minimisation deals with reality.

There is lots of evidence that supports harm minimisation approachs. Califonia has had for the last few years, a treatment instead of incarceration policy. This policy saved the state money, reduced drug related crime and got many users into treatment program.

Meanwhile, crime and street shooting have dropped in Kings Cross in Sydney since the implementation of the medically superviser injecting center, along with no indication of a honey pot effect (see the NSW bureau of crime stats paper on this http://www.sydneymsic.com/Bginfo.htm).

The war on drugs doesn't work. As one who's been at the coal face, I highly commend this article. Keep the 3 Reductions: Supply, Demand and Harm.

CJ. Did you not suggest shooting all drug users on another thread? Yes you did. That would minimise harm for sure mate. Including all drinkers one presumes.

Andrew. This society is in the death grip of wars. Wars on terrorism, drugs and tobacco. Not alcohol, yet. But that's next.

Pyne is a pain. A temperamental idiot. His big contributon recently was to push for "ice pipes" to be banned. Great idea. No one would ever come up with an alternative now would they? That's the depth of that idiots thinking. ZIP.

As to Bishop. Why isn't she in the Simpsons? She has the harm, just needs a deeper blue. She's a moron. Ignore her and she'll fade away. Even Howard hates her as do most Australians.

Think about these "wars". Are we winning any of them? The answer is no if you don't know. Comedian Bill Hicks made much of this war. What he pointed out is that such a "war" is actually against the citizens of the country and that the war is actually against personal freedom. I can't disagree with that. More things are being banned every day. Why? Simply becuase others can't deal with it.

Remove the criminal legislation, open things up and allow people to do what they want for God's sake. They will anyway. If it's open there will be opportunity to educate rather than allow those that hover to take our children's lives away.

Andrew is right. It's a health problem, not a criminal one.

It's absolutely a health problem. Temperance in the US only created alcohol millionaires. It didn't stop drinking. Only showed that while crime pays there will be people willing to make big (tax-free!)dollars.

As opposed to what Runner thinks, drug use is actually lower and started later in life in Holland than it is here in Australia. Every 4 years drug use is assessed and reported on. They're just more open about the existence of drug use.

I have no idea re Singapore. I doubt that drugs are not causing misery there.

Drug use has been with us since the cave days. Why did you think Auntie Daphne was having her cuppa Tea and 2 Bex? Because she had a headache?

Education and harm minimisation are the way to go. Where it has been used it works.

In Holland there are places where you can check up where the cheapest prices are on your favourite substance. Horrible for those wanting to make big profits. Nothing like good old competition to get prices down!

yvonne - yeah, I was confused about runner's depiction of Holland too. It's an awsome place. So friendly, open and fun. There's nowhere else in the world like it. And it proves that decriminalisation doesn't just work well in theory, but in reality. So decriminalisation proponents arent simply hypothesising, we know it works because, well, just have a look.
No higher rate of addicts or drug related deaths or drug related crime or ANY of the reasons used to justify prohibition.

Really, what more do we need?

Runner - did you know that masterbation sends you blind?

Its true you know coz I knew someone who tried it once and then they went blind...

hhttp://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5728#78623

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5728#78626

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5728#78796

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5728#78795

If drugs are legalised they’re more likely to saturate society and become culturally embedded (like tobacco) the consequent harmful effects on users’ health will spread and exacerbate existing problems in society and healthcare.

Addictive drugs bind to receptors and desensitise them. This tolerance creates a need to take sequentially larger amounts for the same effect and addiction. This increases the likelihood of overdose.

Addictive drugs alter levels of neurotransmitters mainly serotonin, dopamine, endorphins and noradrenaline in the brains reward circuitry on the limbic areas (ventral tegment/nucleaus accumbens). Other brain areas involment cause differing effects of the various drugs .

Ecstasy stimulates serotonin production and floods the prefrontal cortex to give feeling euphoria, meaning and affection. The extreme rush of neurotransmitter and its mechanism, if used regularly, can “burn out” the cells and create temporary withdrawal symptom and long-term risk of chronic depression.

Halluccinogenic drugs (like LSD, magic mushrooms) stimulate or contain serotonin production which mimics dopamine rush. Temporal lobe activity causes hallucinations.. Bad trips result from stimulation of the amygdala, which produces feelings of extreme fear. Psychedelic drugs may trigger long-term psychosis and unpredictable” flashbacks”. LSD creates mental impairment such as loss of ability to think abstractly.

Cocaine knocks out the process that removes excess dopamines. Cocaine long-term use can include psychological conditions like formicaton , hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety.

Amphetamines release dopamine and noradrenaline. This creates energy but feelings of anxiety and agitation. The harmful side effects – include changes to blood pressure, blood volume, salt balance and benign and malignant liver tumors.

Mairijuana: dependence more than addiction. Is carcinogenic - metaplasis already seen. Strong evidence that induces mental illness.

Nicotine mimicks dopamine neurons’ effects. Extra acetycholine is produced which boost memory. Lung cancer, blood pressure etc etc.

Opioids like morphine, heroin fit into receptors that normally take endophins and enkphalins and creates a dopamine rush. This disengages the person from pain. The withdrawal effect of heroin are the harshest and is associated with steep rise in stress hormones that activate the brain’s urge-making areas. Liver dysfunctions, pneumonia, lung abscesses, brain disorders and severe addiction itself.

Alcohol abuse known.

Ah Ronnie,

We meet again in a new thread...

Listen can I ask you to do yourself a massive favour?

Firstly, calm down (I mean that in the most non-patronising way I can). Drugs are not the menacing evil you beleive them to be.

We all know that various drugs, chemicals, substances have a degree of danger associated with them. You would do well to put that danger in its correct context. The danger you so hysterically pronounce (for most drug use) is no more than many other day to day activities such as cycling or rock climbing.

More importantly Ronnie (and I implore you to please take this in) Prohibition does not solve a single one of the conserns you have raised - not one.

Making drugs illegal does not reduce any of those harms you so passionately beleive exist. In fact Prohibition massively increases those dangers.

If you were really concerned about the harms associated with drugs then you would realise that prohibition is in fact the cause of the problem and not the solution.

Ronnie, seriously mate if prohibition worked then don't you think after 30 years we would have some level of improvement?

30 years on and we are in a mess far greater than when drugs were legal - no one can deny that.

Also Ronnie,

Why do you continue to beleive that legalising = a massive increase in usage?

If that were the case then wouldn't Holland have a much higher usage rate than Australia?

An besides even if there were an increase in usage (which I don't beleive there would be as most people take drugs anyway) the usage would be massively safer and so the net damage would be far far less.

I mean legally produced Ecstacy is less harmful than Paracetamol - who cares if 1-2% more people take it when its safe and legal?

Why do you insist on blindly supporting a policy which has been proven as total failure? Did you even bother to read the article I posted in the other thread? It was pure logic and fact - how could you possibly still be a prohibitionist after reading it?

Daniel 06 says: "An besides even if there were an increase in usage (which I don't beleive there would be as most people take anyway) the usage would be massively safer and so the net damage would be far ke drugs an far less."

No evidence to back this up. Your comparison to Nederlands isn’t conclusive and the researchers have warned against taking too much stock. Researchers referring to their own works have said “The methods for collecting data on illicit drug activities vary from country to country, applying different methods and logical approaches.” .

And : “One key problem in currently available prevalence estimates from countries is still the level of accuracy, which varies from country to country. While a number of estimates are based on sound epidemiological surveys, some are the result of guesswork. In other cases, the estimates simply reflect the aggregate of number of drug addicts found in registries which probably cover only a small fraction of the total drug abusing population in the country.” P.206 of EMDDA report.

Nevertheless, the surveys show Australia has about four percent and Nederland a debatable one point five percent –not a significant a difference. This doesn’t mesh with your belief that “most people take drugs anyway”. You’re report says: four percent take drugs. Make up your mind. Oh wait a minute you’re including yuppie Jill who had one cannabis smoke and ticked the box.

The report says: “Drug offer a wide range of complaints such as (HIV, HCV) and social problems. But far less recognised are the mental health problems related to addicts, which complicate treatment. Fifty to 90% of drug users in treatment (in the relatively liberal EU) have personality disorders and one fifth suffer from psychiatric complaints. There hasn’t been a great push for prohibition in the EU reports I’ve read but their not from political (I.E. Civil Liberties Council subjective report)) or religious organisations.

Things like dealing with co-morbidity in the Nederlands were handled by investing in programs to ensure well trained staff.

You've convinced me that laws must reflect the dangers of illicit drug use.

Declaration of interest - I've never used illicit drugs, never smoked and drink very lightly.

The main question I have in this debate is how much of the harm to society and the users is attributal of the war on drugs and how much to the drugs themselves.
o If drugs were manufactured under the oversight of the FDA or similar would they be safer to users than when manufatured in someones garage?
o Would my car, home and life be less likely to be taken or harmed by an addict if they had access to affordable drugs than the current situation where many drugs are only affordable for the super rich and criminals?
o Do we take some of the appeal out of the more dangerous drugs if the illegality is removed? What would those who do this stuff because it's illegal do as an alternative?

My guess is yes to the first two and no idea on the third.

I'm left wondering how we handle the message sent by decriminilisation that others have commented on. If they are legal is the message to kids who pay some attention to the law weakened or are those kids the same ones who will listen to the health warnings anyway.

I'm left wondering if we decriminilise some of these drugs how do we stop governments becoming dependant on them for revenue.

I tend to side with the personal liberty approach to the ethical issues around self harm but am not hard line enough not to see some responsibility for society especially in regards to marketing.

If advertising was banned would celebraties be paid by manufaturers for drug placement?

I'm all for harm minimisation, it seems to me that the debate is about how that is best achieved - by prohibition and enforcement or by other alternatives.

R0bert

To clarify something in case a mistake I made confuse youall. “There hasn’t been a great push for prohibition in the EU reports I’ve read” should have read “There hasn’t been a great push for or against prohibition…” . Also, re: figures. That Nederland still has more demand than supply which may explain low figures. Moreover, lax laws in one region may mean more drugs in another.

Now to the intellectually-dishonest heading “prohibition vs. harm minimising” and this mistaken concept that skews the debate. Prohibition is a method; whereas minimising harm is an outcome. To be truly honest the discussion should address prohibition vs. freely available drugs or acknowledge prohibition also minimises harm. It suggests that it’s been established that legalising drugs will reduce harm. The premise that harm minimisation through making drugs freely available is a given, as the heading and baseless assetions that prohibition "isn't working" suggest, when it's an substantiated opinion - rather than an objectively-researched position based on unbiased evidence.

Daniel06 says: “We all know that various drugs, chemicals, substances have a degree of danger associated with them. You would do well to put that danger in its correct context. The danger you so hysterically pronounce (for most drug use) is no more than many other day to day activities such as cycling or rock climbing.”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5656#78809

(There’s nothing hysterical in presenting medical facts of various illicit drugs which you push as harmless fun. When I presented you with more medical facts you harangued me for citing internet material even though it was a Doc-reviewed ADF site. You’ve attacked me for being “uneducated”. But when I presented you medical material from “educated” experts you attacked that as “ hysterical” too. An effect of long term drug use is delusions of grandeur which maybe you’re mistaking for “confidence”.)

The positive health effects of harmless activity like cycling, (albeit riskywithkiller cars) free up hospital beds for those who fall ill through no fault of their own. Whereas, drug addicts (and in controlled situation like Nederland it’s no better) drain the system and thereby harm innocent people

Ronnie, "Prohibition is a method; whereas minimising harm is an outcome. To be truly honest the discussion should address prohibition vs. freely available drugs or acknowledge prohibition also minimises harm." - well put.

That is part of what I was heading for on the closing parts of my post but you have put it much better.

R0bert

There are a couple of threads going on this topic. The frustrating issue is that posters will commence to go on on the merits or otherwise of drugs and the usage thereof.

The fact is that drugs, all drugs, are substances that will affect humans to greater and lesser degrees. Even Panadeine, freely available over the counter is actually quite addictive and very, very harmful. In fact, when I did some research for a work related project, I was shocked by the number of children who die each year or have permanent liver damage because of overdosage of Panadol. If there is one drug that should be harder to get it is Panadol.

Throughout the ages humans have used and misused drugs or found substances in nature for their hallucogenic affects. Why and is there any benefit whatsoever? Interesting topic, but not really at issue here. This fact is not going to change no matter how we deal with illegal drug use.

Illegal drug use comes at a great cost to society and to the user. One biggie being the involvement of big crime. The 'War on Drugs' has over decades cost societies across the globe billions of dollars with negligible results. It keeps some special police branches occupied and corrupts others, all the while making obscene amounts of money for the more unethical humans amongst us. The resistance and part of the economy in Afganistan is said to be driven on the Opium poppy alone.

Generally speaking, in medicine say, if one treatment costs a lot without benefits other methods are looked at. Why are we so hell bent on staying with this losers script? It only benefits Crime syndicates.

I, for one am sick of my tax dollars keeping big crime in business and thriving. It is ridiculous.

Yvonne/RObert there will always be evil in the world. To opposite of idealism is corruption. Too much control leads to corruption. Whatever, we do we cannot risk introducing more people to addiction. Drug use harm is established in the medical profession and yet Daniel06 et al flick between harmless - harmful dichotomy.

The only argument I’ve far is cigarettes and alcohol are harmful so let’s allow illicit drugs because they’re harmful too. Logically and given the pro-legalisers inevitable “moralising” they should be saying lets ban all drugs including alcohol.

Of course we could remove moralityt and use Stickman/ Daniel06’s original position based on their idea of consequentialism. Instrumental reasoning comes under this “umbrella” term. So let’s go. Shut down all the tobacco farms, poppy, marijuana farms and breweries. Close all the nightclubs until the duff, duff crowd wake up to themselves. Find one drug, one beer, one cigarette on one person the owner is shot dead. Line all the drug suppliers up and shoot ‘em - dead too. That’s war on drugs using their reasoning. But that wouldn’t be moral in the minds the rest of us.

The pro-drug legalisation appeal to consequentialist thinking and attacking morality is another rhetorical trick. In “normative ethics” ( morals) we gather our opinions on what is moral from being with people and living among others. The clearest example would be Christian moral teaching in Australia which is still the dominant influence. Within that there is the drug culture. Like other assumptions, antagonists, like Daniel06, have assumed that opponents have only a moral position based on “uneducated” Christian grounding. So what?

Their trick is in confusing meta –ethics with normative ethics and asking people philosophical questions that have nothing to do with the debate - except to make them feel unworthy and thus discourage varying opinions. Not many understand meta-ethics (myselfincluded) so they can’t know that they're being scammed. Because even the best philosophers in the world haven’t answered the vexed question of whether you can lodge a rational argument until you resolve the meta-ethical problem. Using knowledge in this way is wrong

Ronnie,

I actually have a Bachelor's degree in Applied Ethics and your pseudo-intellectual attempt to sound intelligent by saying I am trying to confuse Meta-Ethics with Normative Ethics is hillarious - how much more uneducated do you want to appear?

Also I am an agnostic/athiest (you claimed that I was a religious zealot in another post)

Ronnie, clearly you are an ignoramus.

Even a basic understanding of the basis of law in every Liberal Democracy would give you the knowledge that the onus is squarely on the law to prove its legitimacy - not for society to prove its illegitimacy.

That being said 60%-80% of people breaking the current laws, a massive ice epidemic, gross violations of civil liberties (for drug users and abstainers alike), corruption on an unrivalled scale and billions of dollars wasted resoundingly proves that prohibition is totally illigitimate.

Simply magnifying prohibition even more with your crazy death squad idea has proven to be an even worse failure - just look at Singapore.

Ronnie, Australia didn't have a drug problem before prohibition. If you honestly think that the introduction of the current system has improved things you are just further proving that you truely are ignorant beyond belief.

Save your precious blood pressure and spare me any more of your dribble.

Ronnie, "Whatever, we do we cannot risk introducing more people to addiction." - an important point. I remain undecided though if the current approach is better or worse than other alternatives.

I'm fairly confident that prohibition results in worse outcomes for me personally as I think there is a high flow on crime rate. Not just the direct crime of supply and use of drugs but the thefts, bashings, murders etc that go with it. Then I have a son so I have a personal interest in reducing the likelyhood of drugs being an issue in his life as he grows.

If I've understood the earlier discussion regarding drug usage in Holland and Australia correctly there are no clear indicators that drug usage is more prevalent in Holland than here.

If that is the case then is prohibition actually reducing the levels of addiction or just adding a whole lot of pain to something that some people will do regardless of the law?

R0bert

R0bert,

Regarding your question about Holland v Australia and drug use.

Holland has a substantially lower drug usage rate than Australia.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_volume2.pdf

Ronnie's claim that the Dutch don't report their usage as much as Aussies is actually incorrect. The Dutch system has a 4 yearly review of their policy which is the envy of the world. I can't imagine why anyone would need to hide their drug use in Holland when there is no legal repocussion for using them? I would think that more Australians would lie to avoid the law here.

When was the last time Australia reviewed our policy? Well 1997 when John Howard decided to fail even more by ramping up the law and order approach.

It is also the case that the level of drug harm in Holland is substantially lower as well.

There are many differences between the Dutch policy and that of Australia's 'tough on drugs' stance. I won't list them all but the major difference is that Holland has substantially more liberal laws around the possession and low level dealing of drugs and an emphasis on Harm Reduction/Minimisation.

I just can't understand how people can proclaim to want a reduction in addiction and drug harm and yet denounce the very policies that have proven to best achieve those aims.

Daniel you're absolutely right about Holland. Unfortunately not too many people can read Dutch and access some of the excellent research that has been done and is indeed done every 4 years.

It is a statistical fact that drug use is started at a somewhat later age on average in Holland than here and substantially later than in the USA.

This goes for both so-called 'soft' drugs and 'hard' drugs.

It is also very easy for drug users to find out the going price if you will for drugs. This is very inconvenient for those who want to make profits.

In Holland drug usage is seen primarily as a Health issue.

The number of addicts is also dropping. Due to fewer new addicts and the known addicts getting older and subsequently dying. The average age of an addict is increasingly rising, because fewer young new addicts joining the ranks.

Surely this is what any society wants?

Honest factual education and information is needed. Especially for very young people. Telling them only horror stories is not going to do the trick. There is too much personal experience and observed experience for this to be credible.

This is not to negate the horror of drug abuse and addiction. But it is a fact that the large majority of those of have tried drugs simply have not all become raving addicts. Otherwise, most Australians from a certain age wouldn't be leading ordinary lives today.

Daniel06, thanks for your comments.

I'm still at the stage of trying to work out what is spin and what is reality in this debate. If anything I would have expected that drug usage in Australia would be the hardest to quantify and that estimates of usage here would vary according to the agenda's of those making the estimate. Sometimes those making estimates are also seeking funding for their own work in an area so there is a tendany to inflate fugures to make the issue seem more serious.

I tend to think that the war on drugs has failed and we need to take an honest look at alternatives but I'm still watching the debates to get a better feel for the issues.

R0bert

R0bert,

I don't blame you for feeling the way you do. How can decades of 'tough on drugs' rhetoric and misinformation be so conclusively wrong?

Surely every politician, police officer and law maker who passionately promoted the prohibition of drugs can't be ignorant, ill-informed liars? Can they?

I am not suggesting that they were/are - I am sure that the creaters of the current system had every good intention to help society, but despite all good intentions they have failed terribly.

I think that it is one of those situations where the government will lose so much face, so much of its prestige if it actually admits it has made a terribly expensive and unfortunate mistake.

But to continue to make such a tragic, costly and ineffective mistake with all the proof we now have that it is a mistake is a gross injustice.

R0bert as a person with an obvious interest in politics, morality and society you are obligated to inform yourself about the facts.

The internet is packed full of fantastic resources for people searching the truth through all the bs.

http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP83.pdf

http://www.qccl.org.au/documents/Sub_PA_1Nov93_Cannabis_Law_in_Queensland.pdf

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103102.htm

Daniel06: "R0bert as a person with an obvious interest in politics, morality and society you are obligated to inform yourself about the facts."

Then why Daniel06 do you assume to know more than experts like Sir Michael (below)? Why do present as facts information that experts are dubious about; ignore your own advice, your cited experts and established medical knowledge; rile for legalising dangerous drugs and assert that harm prevention is an established fact when the researchers warn otherwise? Do you think mere BA indicates that you know-it-all? Maybe you’ve mistaken that drug-induced confidence you boast of for arrogance.

“ Finally, we note that Sir Michael argued strongly that we should take into account the fact that ‘This is an area in which it is extraordinarily difficult to do research’, giving the example of the ethical and practical problems posed by volunteer studies involving ecstasy.[186] We do not dispute that research of that nature would present significant challenges but we also note that other methodologies have been successfully employed which do not entail such ethical difficulties. There are, for example, large numbers of publications based on observational studies of patterns of use among existing users, prospective studies of patterns of use or harm, policy change studies and clinical intervention studies. We do not underestimate the challenges involved in undertaking scientific studies concerning the misuse of illegal drugs, but the Government must not use this as an excuse for not fulfilling its obligations to undertake proper evaluations of the impacts of its policies and to fund research for the public good.”

I have more important things to do than argue with self-deceiving zealots lobbying for a free-for-all drug culture that will arguably make the damage that legal drugs are doing pale into insignificance. You have little data or evidence to back up your claims that legalising illicit drugs’ supply won’t create a worse mess for society. You haven’t fulfilled the obligation you impose on others.

RE:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2563/25633101.jpg

Why not post: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/drugs-alcohol/dn9914 which lists the dangers?

You love uneducated people because you assume you can pull the wool over their eyes.

Ronnie, you can get a lot of information on the Netherlands' drug management from the Trimbos Institute http://www.trimbos.nl/default2.html
Unfortunately, the information is only available in Dutch. If you can read Dutch scroll through the tables on comparisons to other Nations you'll note that the sources are given and a warning on some of these sources re reliability of these figures.

The Trimbos Institute is concerned with Mental Health, Addiction and Social Care. It also provides detailed information on drugs, the side effects and additictive qualities.

I've read your suggested sites and am confused how these support persisting with prohibition and spending lots of money on maintaining this stance.

As to Daniel et al. I didn't get the feeling that there was a call for a blanket legalisation of illegal drugs. There is a long road between Prohibition and legalisation.

We could start with decriminilising the usage of drugs. All or some.

Even if discussing legalisation this does not necessarily mean you can go to your nearest Coles and buy whatever is your favourite hallucogenic or indeed make your own. Alcohol and Cigarettes, also come with many, many restrictions. It is a crime for instance to grow your own tobacco. Till recently, it was a crime to brew your own alcohol.It is still a serious crime to sell your own brew. You can only buy these products in special areas and there are age restrictions. Have you tried to buy Codral Cold and Flu tablets lately at your pharmacy? Without ID, which is recorded, it's a no-go.

The thing is, only Drug crime sydicates have a vested interest in the status quo. The number of drug users is growing, not staying steady, not diminishing. This fact can be simply ascertained by the increasing numbers of persons admitted to hospital. So, even if Prohibition reduces harm it is not reducing it enough.

Daniel06RE: your appeal to conseqentialism (a term that encompasses any moral theories that state the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness of an action and is solely dependent on the results that it produces). You argued that morality was not acceptable in the process of finding a solution. Now all you’ve done is revert to your compensatory behaviour which consists of name-calling and more intellectual dishonesty. Your ability to actually analyse the evidence in an unbiased manner is evident. The first thing a student of philosophy learns ( some do) is the necessity to separate ideological stance from their philosophical studies. You’ve failed to act this way and have let your ideology override your thinking.

Anthony Flew was my source for the distinction between normative and meta-ethics and the observation that morals are must. He says: “ ...until you have decided whether moral beliefs reflect some objective truth or are in a logical sense or are dependent on the personal desires of their holders you cannot know what form of argument is appropriate for he support of refutation of any given belief. Indeed, you may not know if any rational argument is possible at all.” It is wrong for the pro-drug mob to trick ordinary folk with this rhetoric.

I try to make assessments on action rather than bling,blingf or talk. Your logic is to harangue those without a formal education. You slag their intellect but retreat from their arguments and compensate with slag off. It follows,using your logic, that if another graduate has higher marks or is postgrad then you must be the idiot. It also follows that the holders of all knowledge must rule rather than people –thus you oppose democracy. That’s arrogance and arrogance is bigotry.

The more I look into the methods of the pro-drug lobby in this debate - which are laced with self-deception and deceptions( like bedazzling people with the idea morals aren’t a major part of the process ), self-interest and intellectual dishonesty - the more convinced I am that not enough effort is being put into unbiased research on law enforcement methods

OK Ronnie,

I am trying to listen to you, but your arguement is highly emotive and doesn't particularly follow a strong logical line.

That being said I am gathering that what you are saying is that you simply find the act of consuming potentially harmful drugs 'immoral' regardless of the fact that scientifically the consequences of doing so are in the majority benign?

You are entitled to think that, but then it does lead to the somewhat hypocricy of you drinking alcohol.

It also begs the question again that just because you find it immoral that does not justify locking other people in jail for doing it.

I personally find abortion morally wrong in many cases - but I surely do not think we should go around locking people up for doing it. I would love to see the abortion rate drop substantially in this country but the last thing I would suggest is jailing people for doing it. A reduction will only occur with education and options for people.

The exact same applies to drug use, abuse and harm.

Ronnie you keep confusing your morality with what is right and just for our law makers. Just becuase you or others find a particular activity immoral does not justify our law makers locking people up.

The only justification our law makers have for locking people up is if they are harming other people - that is the basis of Liberal Democracy.

The law and morality are not one and the same and are not mutually exclusive.

Daniel06 says that I “simply find the act of consuming potentially harmful drugs 'immoral' regardless of the fact that scientifically the consequences of doing so are in the majority benign?” This is a deception.

All read my posts and you’ll see my position is - it is wrong for a government to allow illicit drugs because of the fact that scientifically the negative consequences for the health of users doing so are well proven and that the pro-drug lobby are actually relying on a flawed moral response without considering other consequences to drug addicts and to the wider community. Moreover, they have no scientific or proof that legalising drugs won’t do immeasurable harm in the future. That the pro-legalisation lobby have relied on uncertain and often arbitrary research and presented it as conclusive evidence has shown a lack of intellectual rigour. The pro-drug evidence is weighted because the researchers haven’t asked “What can be done?” but “Let’s prove drug legislation is harmful (and in your case depending how it supports your argument let’s prove illicit drugs are harmless and ordinary folk are stupid and need to shut the faack up)”. So the “evidence” comes from the position of trying to prove an established position.

You need to work on your honesty and analytical skills.

Moreover and i.e.
A BA would distinguish readily between a “claim” and “implying” between a direct claim and a simile . You are “like” a religious zealot and “you leave Bible bashers for dead” clearly implies a moral position. How you gleaned that I “claimed that [you][were] a religious zealot in another post” is beyond me? It suggests you’re justifying your own slagging. Your attention to detail and ability to put your own self-interest aside is poor. An ethics student name-calling and behaving like a snob/bully? Hmmm. Fail. A marker would report you to the Faculty Head for abuse. I certainly hope you don’t work for an organisation like Council for Civil Liberties. Indeed, that submission from the CCL is an insulting disgrace to intellectual honesty.

RE:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5656#78809 How can established facts from doctor-reviewed medical sources be “hysterical”?

Daniel asserts: “.. clearly you are an ignoramus. “ Why? because you’ve failed to address my concerns? Because you’re compensating for your own failure to present sensible evidence-based responses even though you attack others for not doing so? Is it to hide your failure to adhere to advice of experts re: caution with statistics/evidence?

The law in regards to illicit drugs has proven its legitimacy. Society has approved it’s legitimacy at the elections. Just because you’re a mere BA doesn’t mean you’ve the right to override their choices. My argument is for informed decisions- yours has been - do as the academics say or you’re an idiot. Your contempt for the lay person is pathological.

You say that 60% -80% (you skewed figures again - illicit drug users consist of around 5%) are “ignoring the current laws a massive ice epidemic, gross violations of civil liberties (for drug users and abstainers alike), corruption on an unrivalled scale”. Why then legitimise such damaging behaviour without proof that you won’t make it worse for all society? And where’s your conclusive proof prohibition hasn’t curtailed the problem? Inconclusive stats from Nederland.

Law enforcers have gone soft on drugs lately and that’s why this epidemic is happening - reduce the sentences for users fair enough -but go hard –shut the rave venues down if they can’t clean up their act.

Rave dance venues hold regular events where ecstasy is available. This regular supply can lead to addiction unlike the old days when a regular score was unlikely.

The “crazy death squad idea” -as you dishonestly put it - was to show the absurdity of your consequentialist logic without a moral basis.

Daniel says: “Australia didn't have a drug problem before prohibition”. There weren’t as many illicit drugs then. Thank God they did prohibit or we’d be in a bigger mess now going on the alcoholic cigarette problems. Society was much different then too. Given Daniel06’s many baseless assumptions and compensations in this discussion I question how you earned a BA.

Ah the old chestnut of personal name slagging - the last bastion of a non-intellectual losing an arguement baddly.

Do you realise how sad you look slagging me of for having a 'mere BA' and implying that even a monkey could get one, and yet you yourself don't even have one? That makes you less intelligent than a... well I won't stoop to your level.

If they are such an easily achievable Degree go get one yourself Ronnie boy.

You would have loved the Nimbin rally yesterday - 15,000 people pushing for law reform. It was a fantastic event. Change is in the air and your looney laws are on the way out sooner or later.

http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/03/prohibition-not-effective.html

Great article printed in the Age