More like “stoned stupidity” on your part Greg. I'd sooner fight you in this state than some person who’s off his brain on hardcore illicit drugs. Your "stoned stupidity" heading is very clever in that it highlights the immediate effects of “soft” illicit drugs. Why not "raging-uncontrollable- I'll- faaaking-kill-the-faaacken'- lot -ya'-faaacken'- caants kind of drug-induced stupidity of illicits that also wind the endocrine system into kill-kill mode?

Greg says: "Let's end the unwinnable war on drugs now." No this wrong. We must resist regardless. GB’s argument is a bit like saying that it is too costly to control the drink drivers so let’s just roll over and let the drunks go for it. Also, it is like saying that alcohol/ cigarettes are damaging but legal - and more importantly, right or wrong, have a kind of cultural embeddedness - so let's legalise and embed other even more damaging products as well. Where's the long-term, wider harm minimisation?

So fellas start buying up big on your "drug" of choice. If you get off on guns go for it; like danger - refuse to wear your helmets, seat belts; paedophiles just keep stealing those kids lives; if enough of you do it and ignore the laws that are made for our safety and guidance then eventually some politician will rollover and submit to anarchy. Join together and muck the laws and thus democracy up. Moreover, to have a valid and, I think, moral argument, you'd have to argue to ban grog and fags too.

My main concern is this. In our democracy, which is really a kind of republic, our laws are themselves the example of what is the best way to live and what is good for society's well being, safety and social cohesion. I think that is most important to build and present strong moral and ethical foundation for our youngsters to at least influence their life choices. Yes some will rebel and if they get hooked on illicit drugs they shouldn't be the ones to take the full consequences of their unwise choices - it must be the pushers.

Hi Yvonne,

I agree harm minimization is important and that decriminalizing drugs will make this more effective, but I question just how much more effective.

If we take your example of cigarettes for instance. Looking at this study (which is slightly out of date I’ll admit), the cost of hospitalizations from cigarette smoking would be somewhere close to $1 billion.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_01_020106/letters_020106_fm-2.html

And yet tax revenue from cigarettes currently measures somewhere up over $5 billion. So we’re actually in the black, quite considerably, with regards to costs.

I’m just curious as to how decriminalization would be handled with regards to drugs. Are we talking all drugs? Or just some? What regulations or penalties would remain?

Having said that (above), it is often these kids who do indeed suffer serious consequences even after they have given away drugs - some end up with serious brain chemical imbalances and a quality of life that is truly sad . Not to mention any poor soul who happens to get their head knocked off by some person who specifically takes an illicit drug that is known to induce an uncontrollable rage or the parents and friends of youngsters who have long-term effects from “soft’ drugs. So I think we must honour life-affirming laws rather than roll over for the sake of expediency.

I question how serious the police are in drug control. I was recently at a gig with some fairly wild-looking folk and other people approached them trying to score. Don’t the police do undercover? Of course you can pick one a mile off.

I d agree that the demand is there and I don't think anything will stop people from rebelling or self-harming in this way but to roll over and stop trying to nail the pushers and in a sense join them is plain wrong. Assisting folk with killing themselves; harming their brain function, and thus long-term happiness; and allowing users to take drugs that endanger others (even in a controlled situation) minimises expense but in the long term, I think, will lead to more harm (Why would you want to take a party drug in a controlled situation?). Medical assistance for users yes but wage war on the suppliers.

Anyhow, given that it is already illegal except for licensed companies and individuals to grow or market tobacco do you really think that new now-legal drug dealers are going to be able to compete especially as they will be putting themselves into an even more culpable position than tobacco companies in relation to compensation claims? It is a lot easier to produce tabs illegally than to be straight and face the undoubted profit-destroying law suites. Law enforcement will still have to expend time and energy keeping things I check.

And it’s just plain wrong.

Ronnie Peters.

Despite your passionate ranting nothing you are saying is actually based on “EVIDENCE”

Do you honestly think you know more than medical experts like Alex Wodak? Do you?

Or Nobel Prize winning philosophers’ and economists like the late Milton Friedman or Gary Becker?

Shouting very loudly, but with a mob-like lack of intelligence is really not the answer.

I bet it makes your skin crawl to know that people like me have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with drug use, whilst having hugely successful, healthy and happy lives - just like 65% of the rest of the Australian public.

I bet all the money in the world that your ranting is with a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

Ah the old chestnut of gross hypocrisy. I just love uneducated people.

Daniel06 my post is based on evidence, albeit some anecdotal and some established knowledge. For instance: the link between mental illness and drug usage is well established as is the behaviour of potent amphetamine-based drug users.

”Ice” is a street name for crystal methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a powerful, synthetic stimulant drug. Stimulant drugs speed up the messages going to and from the brain.” Now it is also a vasoconstrictor and hence stimulates the endocrine system, as I stated, so show me where your medical expert would disagree with that

Moreover, here’s an instance of your weighted “evidence “ which is not proven reflective generally of drug users true happiness. You assert unsubstantiated nonsense like : “ I bet it makes your skin crawl to know that people like me have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with drug use, whilst having hugely successful, healthy and happy lives - just like 65% of the rest of the Australian public.” You could practice what you preach.

Let’s look at some of your “ evidence” here in detail. You say: “I bet it makes it makes your skin crawl…” (where is the intelligent argument in that? I can see the rant, the baseless assumption, the irrelevance, but little else).

You continue with “…people like me have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with drug use…”(Says who –you? What drugs heroin, cocaine, ICE? What do mean positive? Where is your evidence? ) and on you go:… whilst having hugely successful, healthy and happy lives …(How do you possibly know that? Is a drug-affected users perception of happiness the same as a non-user, don’t you think that the very fact that a user relies on a drug for comfort or good feelings suggest a deep settled unhappiness?) and you say: ... - just like 65% of the rest of the Australian public.” (Wouldn’t it have been less weighted to tell me what percentage level it is for illicit drug-users compared to that 65% of Australians?).

You’ve produced no evidence that drug users level of happiness is the same as Australians generally. continued

Continued: Daniel06. I know that Wodak, Feidman and Becker don’t have as much education as me – they are apparently, in my opinion, considering my first hand experience, uneducated or misinformed in some aspects of real life. I respect their intellect and position.

I can’t help notice that you haven’t responded to my main concern re: the example of good laws as a foundation for what is right and wrong. Greg, and your argument, seems to be that the effect of beer is damaging so lets allow illicit drugs to further damage people.

I drink beer - a maximum of a sixpack a time. Max few times a year. A light stubby a night (yeah I know I’m a soft cock). Oldmate told me once grog makes a fool of good men - so I stay sober. Six dollars a can at gigs is robbery anyway. I don’t smoke anything.

Re: Cig/grog claim. You owe me all the money in the world because I didn’t have a beer whilst writing my post as you falsely assumed then claimed(if it is in writing it is a legally binding contract). Hmm. Maybe I’ll just settle for all of your money. Jus’ kidding.

My doctor’s medical opinion is that an occasional beer is actually good for me. Now you get me a Doctor to show me how taking illicit drugs is generally good for the average person.

Re: your claims of hypocrisy. If I was taking hardcore drugs and at the same time condemning them, then you’d have a valid point. Any person with a ounce of education and intellect would have worked that out. Now get some evidence of your own to counter my experience -based and other research- based evidence instead of indulging yourself in a little of your own “passionate ranting”.

You don’t seem too happy to me, sunshine, and even though you make elitist accusations about others “mob-like lack of intelligence” your opinions, I think, nay I have shown, don’t live up to the response you demand from us supposed thick wits whose position GB classes as “stoned stupidity”.