Ronnie,

It is perfectly legal in this country to eat fatty foods to the point of becomming morbidly obese. A condition as deadly and debilitating as any drug addiction. In fact it is now one the (if not the) biggest killers of Australians.

Australian's are amongst the fattest people on earth and its killing us in the thousands.

By your logic we should prohibit the sale of saturated fat, apply the full force of the law to fast food retailers and jail overweight people. And actually by your logic jail healthy people who like to indulge in the odd burger or pizza.

Oh but of course we will keep McDonalds and KFC open just because we have a cultural conection to them - every other food outlet must be hysterically hunted by the mob. (ie just like we do with alcohol and tobacco).

By your logic that is the only way possible to teach kids not to eat fatty foods.

Sounds rediculous doesn't it Ronnie?

Please enlighten me as to how such a rediculous approach is suitable for drug use then. Something which in this context is extemely comparable to fatty food consumption.

PS Ronnie,

You still haven't told us how prohibition actually solves any of the problems you have listed.

Stickman/Daniel06 your comparisons are wrong because you’re disregarding obvious differences such as how alcohol has varying degrees of effect,( tiddly, half-pissed, smashed); whereas most addictive drugs are fullon from the let’sgo. Moreover, saturated fats are non-addictive and don’t act on brain receptors. Both can be taken in moderation without any serious long term effects. Drugs also do their primary, secondary, etc. harm in different ways.

I think your moralising is wrong and unethical because you are rationalising away the consequences and drawing clearly weak comparisons. You say that (a) is harmful so I want the right to my own (b) newer more harmful substances - rather than considering the impact on society such as vulnerable people who are more likely to more easily get caught up in the drug culture. You say we have an alcohol/nicotine abuse problem and you want to exacerbate this by introducing more addictions. Most addictive drugs harm much worse than moderate alcohol and even alcohol abuse doesn’t damage brain receptors to anywhere near the extent that addictive drugs do. For instance: regular users of ecstasy can “burn out” certain brains cells in the neurotransmitter process and risk long term chronic depression.

If drugs are legalised, this availability will see them saturate society and become culturally embedded - and then the consequences from the proven harmful effects on users’ health will spread and exacerbate existing problems in healthcare - not to mention the increased drain on the tax system from trying to police or govern the who shemozzle.

I haven’t seen any reports on how the increased usage of drugs will effect things like the road toll; cancer and mental illness numbers; marijuana-caused lung cancer and drug induced mental illness which has recently surfaced from this “soft drug” – not to mention the effects from widespread availability of ecstasy , hallucinogenic drugs (like LSD magic mushrooms), cocaine, amphetamines, tobacco (re: nitric oxide), and opioids. You folk are like the naysayers in relation to global warming. They ramp up the damage by playing on the inconclusively of forecasting and granting research money to those studying their position.

We’ve seen the widespread effect of nicotine and despite being exposed to harsh advertising its use is increasing – in must follow that this can happen to families who follow Stickman’s advice on drugs. Once the corporations get their greedy hands on the distribution if you think the entertainment media won’t promote them indirectly, like tobacco and fatty food, then you’re dreaming. Why do you think young girls take up smoking, binge drink and obsess about their looks?

In answer to your disputation of my position re: ensuring our laws reflect our moral and ethical expectations and are not hypocritical - put simply, you’re wrong because of the negative consequences of having hypocritical laws. That you follow David Sweet’s idea that “ something's being legal does not make it moral or sensible” isn’t the point and my observations in relation to Muslim law and Indigenous indicate my agreement - so I’m not sure what you’re point is. I’ll restate: I think that the ideal, and to remain logical, laws must reflect the consequences of the use and abuse of these and proven damaging drugs. I think that this is ethical (because it addresses the rightness or wrongness) and expresses decent moral standard.

Consequentialism is a moral theory anyway. A law can be both ethical (right or wrong re: consequences) and moral. Ethical and moral laws are there for the advancement and protection of democracy, individuals, citizens and society – not drug addicts and drug company’s interests.

Daniel06 you can assert that disagreeable opinions are ridiculous but you haven't shown me how legalising drugs which may saturate society and become culturally embedded is going to be less harmful than prohibition.

You say “Cigarettes and alcohol harm WAY more people than any illicit drugs.” A consequence of legalising them may see this situation reversed. Are smokers and heavy drinkers immoral? No just unwise. Suppliers of tobacco, harmful drugs and people who ply alcoholics with booze are immoral.

Stickman Re: dopamine pathways. Most of the population seem happy enough without relying on illicit drugs

Ronnie,

Firstly, in the Netherlands personal use of drugs is virtually legal (amoungst other fantastic government measure to deal with drug use).

The level of drug use in Hollan is much lower than in Australia! (or the US, or most other countries perusing this crazy ‘war on drugs’).

Therefore your claims are actually ludicrous as stated. You are ill-informed and hysterical to claim that legalisation would lead to a massive increase in usage, when the fact is in countries with liberal drug laws usage rates a substantially lower and the usage they have is substantially safer – read the facts.

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

Continued...

Secondly, Almost any activity you can do in life has an element of risk involved.

Your proposition that people like me must “prove” that drug use has ‘zero risk’ before any consideration of legalizing them is preposterous.

Are you honestly suggesting that we prohibit every single activity that poses anything more than ‘zero risk’?

Goodbye cars, goodbye cycling, goodbye fatty food, goodbye sex, goodbye child-birth, goodbye walking… you get the point. I am sure just sitting in a chair has an element of risk involved - why not prohibit that?

I implore you to read the following document (compiled by a senior barrister).

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

If you can honestly read the attached document and still promote the “law-and-order” approach to drug policy then clearly, in the words of Mr Peter Cleeland (Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee of the National Crime Authority):

you… “just [don’t] understand or [you] are either an idiot or a liar. More than 57 percent of people up to the age of 25 have experimented or have been exposed to [illicit drugs] - that means more than 50 percent of Australians are criminals. The law is a joke when it is ignored by that many people.”

Finally, Ronnie your overview of Ecstasy use is grossly ill-informed. Over the last 10-15 years literally hundreds of thousands of Australians have taken Ecstasy. Only a minute fraction of those people have come to physical or psychological harm - fact.

My personal experience is one of regular moderate use over 15 years with absolutely no adverse effects (the same goes for every other person I have ever met who has enjoyed the clubbing lifestyle at some point or another). My doctor has confirmed that I am substantially more healthy than average.

I also attribute some (possibly a lot) of my self-confidence and openness to this. This very confidence and openness provides me an enriched life, a successful business and amazing relationships with family and friends. All of which is rather enjoyable – why do you think the majority of people do it?