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.