Stickman, you are right in differentiating between decriminalization and legalization. Any drug with regular usage, like nicotine, ends up becoming addictive. And really, the merits or otherwise, of using mind altering substances is another discussion altogether.

Contrary to popular belief, drugs are not legalized in the Netherlands, but is decriminalized. The 'coffee shops' are a typically Dutch comprise, they're not actually legal as such. Incidentally, they are struggling to survive. The novelty has worn off.

It seems a bit ironic to make drugs legal when we are coming to the conclusion that cigarette smoking needs to be made as unacceptable as possible. Wouldn't it be great if it became as uncool to be stoned as it is to light up a ciggie? And then, wouldn't it be great if it was really uncool to be blotto or plastered on booze?

'war on drugs'. i think its time to surrender. we could open franchises like 7/11's that dispense any drug one desires. from ciggies to heroin. uppers, downers, fast drugs, slow drugs. your choice could be the very social drugs like your saturday night wine or a very anti social isolating soul destroying one like heroin. upon your purchase ones name would be noted. we could quantify real figures of usage and who is using what. all the loot saved from the 'war on drugs' could be directed towards rehabilitation and education for THOSE THAT WANT IT. any extra cash could go towards hospitals ,schools, pay rises for the socially awkward and supporting the aged. of course the big losers would be the justice system and the empty rhetoric of the pollies

stickman - I'm with you now, my apologies.

About the testosterone, I was making a round-about sort of point that there's a few too many people kickin about in the world today, maybe a lower sperm count isn't such a bad thing. I'm working fairly hard on getting mine down to zero...

Spendocrat - no worries, I figured you had just forgotten where the reference came from :) I totally understood the point of what you were saying, there are a few neo-cons and others who might do with a little more forethought and a little less aggression.

Yvonne - yeah you are right, I think that is a common error to equate legalisation with decriminalisation. None of my posts should be misconstrued as wowserish though, I have tried bits and pieces of most things and know that experimentation is part of life, but am also fortunate enough to know enough about whatever I have tried to know when to stop. I also know what NOT to try! I reckon that more information can never be a bad thing when it comes to drugs.

I agree Stickman, more information in general is a good thing.

I understand you want to differentiate between decriminalisation and legalisation. But what about recreational use? I think this is where the majority of the market is at. The majority of drugs users are clearly recreational users who aren’t addicted to a substance. And yes obviously heroin is highly addictive and there are benefits to treating it as a medical problem, because it is. When a user becomes physiologically dependent on a drug it’s quite clearly a medical issue.

But what about those recreational users of any drug? How many of them are going to want to be registered with a hospital, and are you proposing they can just show up with their prescription on Friday night and walk out with whatever drugs they plan on doing on the weekend?

So decriminalisation won’t destroy the black market. It might destroy the Heroin blackmarket, but the dealers will just move on to other drugs, like they’re doing already (because they know where the money is)

Stabinthedark, it would be great if a democratic society could let autonomous adults do to themselves what they want. To be able to go to a shop and buy your favourite mind altering substance, a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of plonk for a relaxing Friday night.

Unfortunately, these things come at a cost. With cigarettes for instances, it is known that addicted smokers cost society an awful lot of money, dealing with the effects of smoking. Ditto misuse of alcohol.

It is a bit like the law for motor cyclists to wear helmets and seatbelts in cars. I mean, why shouldn't you let the wind blow through your hair if you want? What is it to you if I want to risk my brain? But, some of us even get cranky when public money has to be spent rescuing sailors or bushwalkers,let alone paying oodles for my rehab after coming of the bike without a helmet.

That's what it is really all about. The cost when things go wrong. Because really, what would anyone care if Spendocrat tries different substances to get his sperm count down because he's too scared to go for the snip? (Spendocrat, I know you have broad shoulders and can handle the little dig). I say, everyone to his own, but many taxpayers don't.

The argument that 'the war on drugs' is far more costly and has negligent results than harm minimisation, which is cheaper and has better results is the way to go. Especially for those people who have no personal experience of drug use, or who have only been exposed to the horror of drug abuse. Like a lung cancer victim has no sympathy for anyone taking up smoking.