Damiel06. The fact is Netherlands has not legalised drugs. The harder stuff and even cannabis are still illegal. Cannabis legislation has reclassified it. There is a big difference between what you are asking for which is lawful use of drugs and drug prevention programs implemented in the more progressive European countries.

I don’t, and researchers, don't think it is wise to take statistics at face value.

For instance: You are correct that in 2001 (long time ago) 6.1 percent of Dutch folk used cannabis as did 13.3 percent of Australians (2004). It is plausible to argue that Dutch coffee shops who have permission to sell five grams a time don’t record all their sales. According to EMCCDDA report, more cannabis users are turning up in drug treatment centres. The report notes that the highest proportion of cannabis users needing treatment is Germany and Nederland. The report says this may be because home-grown hydroponic cannabis (stronger) is more common in Nederland and indeed, it’s estimated that half of Nederland’s supply is locally grown.

I think it doesn’t follow that such high numbers would come from such small population of six percent of users unless you’re suggesting that cannabis is more dangerous than you wrongly believe (EMCCDDA evidence conflicts with your beliefs). It could be that home growers are not registered or accounted for.

The report noted that “Further research is urgently required on the extent to which such cannabis users develop the type of health or social problems that would lead them to seek help.” So your assessment of the situation in liberal European countries is questionable.

You just have compare the Beattie government reports of how ubute
the state of QLD’s hospital system is to reality to see this.

Also Nederland and Belgium produce most ecstasy so maybe supply is less likely to be recorded. According to the document’s researchers: “Causal links between a policy and the drug are difficult to draw. The picture is often confounded by socio economic and broader societal factors”. I still hold that the law must reflect the harmfulness of illicit drugs.

Daniel06 you still haven't told us how legalising drugs minimises harm to society.

Re: the harmfulness of esctasy the experts disagree with the drug pushers.

For instance: "Serotonin and Dopamine play a part in regulating body temperature. MDMA users may
ignore the fact their body is overheating, because the messages of discomfort are
prevented from being transmitted. High numbers of heat-related casualties and fatalities
associated with the use of ecstasy are due to this effect. This appears to be the most common
risk so far that is associated with ecstasy use.

People can develop tolerance to the pleasurable effects of ecstasy. This means that more ecstasy
is needed to get the same effects as before. Although unclear whether physical dependence can
develop, psychological dependence is a risk.
Those who become accustomed to partying and socialising while on ecstasy may feel unable to
communicate, make friends, or enjoy themselves without using MDMA or a similar drug.
Counselling and support may help with this dependency.
Extreme reactions to ecstasy are sporadic and impossible to predict and appear unrelated to the
amount taken. Reactions depend on a number of uncertain factors and relate to the individual’s
reaction at that particular time and place.
People who should never use MDMA or similar drugs include those with high blood pressure,
a heart condition, diabetes, asthma, epilepsy, depression or other mental illness. Extreme
reactions can include convulsions, mental disturbances, blood clotting and kidney failure as well
as hyperthermia - all of which can prove fatal. Regular users have also been reported to risk some
liver damage. Some people appear to be more susceptible to the ill-effects of ecstasy.
Long-term risks are relatively unknown as yet, and research is continuing. Laboratory research
with animals has pointed to the possibilities of long-term brain damage due to destruction of brain
cells that produce serotonin and ultimately failure of the brain to produce serotonin. Health
professionals have also reported some users continue to have psychiatric problems including
delusions, depression, panic attacks, disorientation and depersonalisation. In a few cases, these
symptoms have been permanent, or lasted weeks or months."

Source:
http://www.fds.org.au/pdf/FactSheet7_Ecstasy.pdf

ronnie - lots of maybes and suppositions there, but no real argument against the premise that prohibition has failed utterly, and that therefore a new and radical approach is warranted, i.e. legalisation and regulation, similar to other drugs (including alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs). It's hard to imagine how a policy could fail more dismally and obviously than current approaches to drug use and abuse in our society.

And what does "ubute" mean?

Ronnie,

I am starting to think that perhaps you are just blindly ranting. I could hysterically rant about the dangers of a million other activities scientifically proven to be far more risky than drugs. No one in there right mind would suggest prohibiting them in a free democratic society.

For the 10,000,000th time please tell us how Prohibition actually addresses any of your supposed claims? See you just can't do it can you? - why don't you add another 3 risks your hysterical list instead?

Even if most illicit drugs were remotely as dangerous as you hysterically claim Prohibition has proven to be the most useless, costly and ineffective policy in even denting the use/abuse of said drugs - let alone controlling them. And has massively curtailed civil liberties and created a black market the size of the petrol industry in Australia. Wow what a resounding success!

Only a total moron would continue to support a policy which is ignored by between 60-80% of the population, cost billions and billions of dollars, seen drug usage rates explode, creat a massive criminal black market, corrupt police forces and officials and massively increase the harms associated with what was once a relatively benign personal liberty.

Your continued blind ignorance to the mountains of evidence, expert testimonials and resurch is really making you come across as quite idiotic.

I am so glad that I don't actually know anyone as blindly ignorant as you in real-life. It is just scary...

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

I suppose you are going to tell me that you know more than the British Science and Technoogy Committee, hey Ronnie boy?

You enjoy your "healthy" beer. I'll stick to those killer pills hey?

PS the ratings the above table are for the illicit street versions of the drugs tested. Hospital grade versions would rate as substantially safer.

I've said my piece on another thread re my preference for harm minimisation as opposed to prohibition.

I want to address Daniel specifically here. These kind of discussions often get taken up with a discussion on the safety or harmlessness of hallucigenic drugs and this is used as a justification for changing from prohibition. Rest assured, that for every opinion on this subject there is an opposing opinion.

In a way it is immaterial whether hallucigenic drugs are a good thing or not, or are dangerous or not. Drug usage, from alcohol, to cigarettes, to prescription drugs, to illegal drugs all cause harm to society to greater and lesser degrees.

And yes, there are many things humans do that involve risks, but that is not really at issue here either. Though, just on that note, there are some risks we do make laws for to minimise them. Like wearing helmets on motor bikes, seat belts in cars.

This debate is about how we can deal with the harmful effects of illegal drug use most effectively. The involvement of crime is one. The dreadful consequences of addiction is another.