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