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.