Daniel06 More than eighty thousand people needed drug treatment, in Australia, 2003/4.

I’d like to see research done on a few thousand “uneducated “ folk who don’t touch drugs and have a few beers and follow healthy-living guidelines compared to a few thousand drug addicts or users. Why isn’t the Civil Liberty mob considering the harm that drugs do to the harm-reducing, law-abiding wider community rather than supporting those who disregard laws made for all our benefit?

You’ve offered no evidence to show that prohibition hasn’t helped to curtail drug abuse. You assert that there is no improvement in the drug problem after 30 years. That is more inherent in the problem (its addictiveness, lawlessness and uncontrolled nature) than the solution. Where is your evidence that law enforcement hasn’t helped?

You look back to prohibition in US; but that situation too supports my concern because grog and its culture quickly saturated the USA. Will criminals market harder stuff once the dopamine receptors desensitise to teasers. Your position re: USA actually backs keeping harmful drugs illegal.

In the eighties when stricter tobacco laws were introduced some tobacco farmers planted a more positive product like macadamia trees instead. Now in Afghanistan there is about 113,000 hectares of poppies (for opiates). Destroy it and plant a food crop instead of feeding the harmful selfish habits of drug users. Big on social justice/liberty? How about the harm done to families who’d be free to have a better life if food was cheaper? Your “evidence” hasn’t considered wider ramifications.

The biased moralising (no consequential arguments just assertion) from those who salg those in disagreement as” idiots , liars, morons, hysterical etc. ” leaves the far-right Bible bashers for dead.

The law is no a joke when it‘s ignored by criminals and self harmers. Those who ignore the law are making a joke of (themselves) and the wider community’s right to a safe and happy environment.

I’m up for alternative lawful methods and laws supported with firm law enforcement.

The law must confirm drugs are seriously harmful to youngsters. Considering the consequences anything else is irresponsible.

CJ Morgan Lots of mays and suppositions from those that wish to legalise more dangerous drugs too. Not to mention the downright contradictory nonsense, if not hypocritical, nonsense, re; evidence and consistency. There’s no real argument for the premise that prohibition has failed utterly.

This is a dishonest rhetorical trick that drug legalisers are playing on the “uneducated”. You’ve keep people on the back foot because one can only guess at the consequences had drugs been made freely available 30 years ago. Where is your conclusive evidence that you won’t make things worse?

I’ve already said that a better approach is warranted. However, legalisation that reflects the dangers of use must remain the centre piece.

Maybe you’ve been taking too much notice of Daniel06’s slag and not what I’m saying. Maybe you need to imagine what will happen (and wonder why some effort isn’t being put into investigating and understanding this side) if a legalise- knowingly –harmful- products policy fails. I has the potential to fail much more dismally and do unimaginable harm than even our current approaches.

The experts use plenty of maybe and suppositions also because it is almost impossible to be intellectually honest and draw definite conclusions from such limited and debatable evidence. Both sides of the debate can only speculate and forecast without any real certainty. When I’ve said maybe, no one has countered with a sensible argument.

The pro-drug lobby simply claimed the intellectual (and moral) high ground just like other religious zealots. Like the experts say - more research is needed. So when Daniel06 et al present conclusive evidence that prohibition hasn’t helped curtail the drug problem; that legalising drugs won’t lead to widely culturally embedding drug culture; won’t be harming people who would have otherwise not gotten involved with drugs because of their career and respect for the law; won’t drain funds from good honest families; and end up doing more harm than good to users; creating more problems by adding to the existing problems that just letting users go for it are likely to cause - I’ll reconsider my position.

Lots of wild guesses going on here. The only thing that I think most agree on is that prohibition is a waste of time and resources. Much better devoted to health and education.

Do remember though even health risks and all the education in the world will not stop someone who wants a thrill or just to try something others have said is great.

Anyone here ever had a great time on drugs? I certainly have. But all these drugs have a tolerance level and the common theme is that you will never achieve the same level of thrill or whatever it is you experience that first time.

I love Daniel's first post where he concludes by asking who wants to prohibit prohibition. Nice one Daniel, I know what you mean but it's just the same line isn't it?

No one also has responded to Robby's statement that all thoughts and feelings you have are actually chemically inspired. Either naturally or artificially. He's right.

How many can recall the first cigarette, the first drink, the first stone/trip and so on? All, as that experience is vivid and stays there as a tempter.

I guess the thing I find most ridiculous about this issue is that most often the people who want to ban something have never tried it. So fear is the key as they say, as it is in politics. Scare people enough and they will follow you if you promise to protect them (always a lie).

Ronnie, please just list the Commandments you use so we know what is wrong and right. Long list I'd guess. But please do. Multiple posts as usual?

Ronnie,

It seems that you are pretty set in your opinions and there is little that any amount of expert evidence is going to do to change your mind.

The fact that you think prohibition is a successful policy when even the people who originally set it up now believe it to be an abject failure is a true insight into the scale of ignorance that exists in society.

Your blindness to the facts is the very definition of ignorance.

The fact is Ronnie by this time next week hundreds of thousands of pills, budds, lines and hits will have been taken by a massive proportion of the population with zero regard for the law. The only difference that prohibition has made to those people is that the price they pay for their drugs is inflated and the quality possibly compromised.

The drug dealers will be that much richer, the government that much poorer and the chances of all of us being a victim of crime are multiplied even further.

I just love your idea of success...

Daniel06.
This league chart, which at first glance appears to show that alcohol causes similar harm to amphetamines and ecstasy is an example of the weak and inconlusive “evidence” presented to force the will of illicit drug users on society.

League charts have come under attack lately from experts in England. . League charts are not regarded as anything but a snapshot. For instance: league charts can’t show trends or long-term effects of addictive substances.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7329/95

“League tables provoke anxiety and concern among health service providers for several reasons, including concerns over adjustment for case mix and the role of chance in determining their rank “

Nevertheless, the charts actually confirm my position and show the weak evidence on which Daniel06 want to abolish prohibition aspect of current harm-reduction measures.
.
According to your expert figures - that you sent me to when it backed your argument and that you’ve since apparently changed your mind on because it blows your other argument that nearly everybody does illicit drugs- under 5% of Britain’s population do illicit drugs and about 20% of those do amphetamines. It must follow that less than 2% of the population do the same damage as those many fold Britain’s who drink alcohol regularly and occasionally. Adjustments aren’t indicated are arbitrary anyway and open to dispute. Thus you’ve failed to present reliable evidence and indeed, shows that ecstasy to be many times more dangerous than first glance indicates.

Maybe that is the real reason that alcohol isn’t a (b) class substance . As far as cigarettes are concerned well I know that the push there is manipulative and plays on the self interest of other addicted people. It would be unfair for these people to allow illicit drugs while they indulge in harmful drugs themselves. I think, to be morally and intellectually honest, according to your “evidence”, cigarettes should be reclassified to (b) or torch the crops.

Where’s the intellectual honesty when you don’t mention things like the physical restraints of administration. “Jilly’s a bit down take the smokes away in case she overdoses?” Hmmm.

Ronnie,

As always your interpretation of the data is commensurate with your complete lack of intellect.

Please read the following link which explains the science behind the table I posted earlier. You will see that the above table is actually calculated to factor into it the dissproportionate use of say alcohol and tobacco over drugs like LSD etc.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf

Ronnie I don't beleive that prohibiting even the worse drugs on the table has had any effect what so ever. My decision in life not to take Heroine has absolutely nothing to do with its legal status at all.

I simply posted it to blow your crazy "drug laws are based on the harm caused by drugs" claim right out of the water. Clearly if your claim were true then alcohol and tobacco would be illegal would they not?

Just like prohibiting alcohol was an abysmal failure and recognised by all today as insanly stuppid. The experts are all in agreement that the exact same applies to other potentially harmful drugs.

The fact is Ronnie boy despite various studies providing slight differences in data - the overwhealming, resounding, unequivocal conclusion from the experts points squarely at the failure of prohibition.

So what if one study says alcohol is 10 times worse than ecstacy and the other says its 5 times worse. Its still substantially worse and yet its legal and you drink it!

Next time you sip your hypocritical beer just think Ronnie people are put in jail for taking something scientifically proven as much safer - a situation which is grossly unjust.