An interestingly pointed conclusion. This is really the question, although Babunda frames it as the question we are not supposed to ask ourselves:

"Whether to violate the inviolable principle - to cede to the inevitably of illicit drug use and introduce palliative responses into our policy repertoire."

Illicit drugs are often harmful, but public debate has great difficulty acknowledging that they can also be benign, enjoyable, and occasionally even beneficial.

The thing is, a very large number of people everywhere on earth actively believes this principle. Since they are the people using the drugs - the people whose behaviour everyone else is so keen to change - there is good reason to work with this view. Denying it sends it back underground.

Just keep your ears open on a train or bus sometime, if you catch them. Or listen to what the pop musicians keep penning into their songs. As the Beatles could have told you 40 years ago, Bob, it is inevitable. Cede to it!

I find it reassuring to see that zero tolerance advocates are expanding and promoting their treatment options, alongside their better-known punitive options. Still, there is a reality problem. Telling all drug users they are wrong to take drugs is itself wrong. It is a false salvation.

Not to mention illiberal.

Could such a notion as propagated by babunda and Howard be a thinly veiled sop to the religious right. The key tools of the faith industry in attracting and retaining people are their notions of sin, shame and self-denial. Its obviously no accident that the Prime Minister has hand-picked members of the ANCD who are going to put the point of view he wants.

The current policy has failed and has no evidence, rational stuff, to support it, but is powerfully underpinned by religious notions of shame, sin and self-denial which is why it can be said that current policy leaders in Canberra will never countenance reform under any circumstances.

Since the eighties and nineties, the public service has been highly politicized which is why its no surprise at all that Babunda is spouting the ANCD-Howard-Religious Right group think that any non-medical use of drugs is bad, even when according to UK/European direction of diacetylmorphine prescribing being indicated in opioid dependant persons.

There are similar parallels to the government's attitudes on euthanasia, censorship, abortion, same-sex marriage etc.

"..Its advocates will argue ad nauseam that “the evidence” shows tolerating a little bit of drug use reduces a lot of harm. This may indeed be so, but it ignores the fundamentally moral character of the entire debate..."

Yeah! No one of proper morals would pay attention to "evidence"! What has this "evidence" ever done?! Nothin for nobody!

‘To begin with, about 60 per cent of the federal government’s $1.4 billion “Tough on Drugs” strategy has been spent on prevention and rehabilitation, with the balance on law enforcement.’ Really? Where? How?

What a load of crock. Maybe on bureaucracy, but certainly not at the coal face in providing beds and available staff for drug addicted. And that’s the issue isn’t it. There’s negligible prevention-I have teenage children at school, so I know this. There are some places for the addicted suffering from psychotic episodes, but not nearly enough. Mental health is not a priority for any government. These patients and their families have limited voting clout.

A person who is not addicted, and it is a myth that ‘zero tolerance’ promotes that every drug user is addicted, will get one iota of ‘support’ to see the ‘error’ of their ways. In the meantime loads of money is being made by criminals and by pharmaceutical companies who provide ingredients.

Considering rehabilitation and prevention is shambolic with supposedly 60% spend on that, the 40% left to deal with the criminal side is scary. Especially as that also includes drug users ending up with a criminal conviction that follows them the rest of their lives. Fabulous prevention and rehabilitation!

If ‘zero tolerance’ had the same agenda as with tobacco smoking:-massive and comprehensive education and increasing restrictions to reduce usage, but no criminalizing of users, now that could be saleable to taxpayers. Hey, that sounds a bit like ‘Harm reduction’!

Full prohibition of certain drugs (namely these ones http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/html/bringmed/apendixb.htm ) and criminalization with a zero tolerance philosophy has been the policy of the Australian law enforcement agencies for nearly forty years. We have enjoyed an explosion of drug related deaths, drug use among children, schizophrenia, depression, a skyrocketing in property crime and violence to name a few differences between 1967 and present day Australian society.

The Dutch however, boast lower recreational drug use, far lower drug related crime and an older age of first time users than Australians. Does this model make inevitable drug use safer and less widespread? Yes, on many levels. Does this model eliminate a large proportion of organized crime, police corruption and the black market economy? Of-course. Does this model re-direct public funds to areas of necessity as well as national and commercial growth? Absolutely. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Drug-laws-dont-protect-public-study/2007/04/23/1177180511324.html )

As a drug re-legalization lobbyist I am among a large number of Medical, Psychiatric, and Human Services Professionals who have concluded that prohibition and zero tolerance clearly DO NOT WORK. Those who advocate that this criminalization is suddenly or gradually going to rid society of the scourge of drug addiction are NOT EXPERTS and are unqualified to ramble about a matter of this national importance in the public arena.

Are drugs dangerous? Yes. Illustrated by the lethal dose of Paracetamol being one packet costing $4:00. (This is not recommended as a suicide method as it takes five days of agony while your organs shut down one at a time.) The Dutch model is not about saying drugs are not harmful to society, it is about acknowledging that Prohibition will not and has never improved the quality of life of normal Australians.

Will public opinion change anytime soon as a result of conversations like these with stubborn traditionalists? Absolutely not. The direct action movement grows restless.

What do you suggest we do Mr. Babunda? Wait another 40 years in the hope it all goes away? You probably do.

The more I look at this article the less sense it makes.

'But many accept that these prices are worth paying to be true to their ideals..'

Well I don't. Does that not count?

And what sort of ideal is this anyway? The ideal that those who choose to ingest specific substances are unfit for society? What kind of nonsense ideal is that? And what ideal makes obvious concessions (ie alcohol) despite the fact that they run in direct conflict with the nature of the ideal itself?

What complete rubbish. The main reason cited for magic mushrooms being illegal (because there's no evidence they cause any harm) is that the wrong ones may be picked, which may be poisonous. The poisonous ones aren't illegal though. So you have a substance that is not dangerous and illegal, because a dangerous and legal one may be mistaken for it. If anyone can frame a rational argument in favour of these laws for me, I'll bake them a pie.

Anyway, addicts who've ruined their lives can't exactly blame the substance. Take away the heroin, they'll drink. Take away the drink, they'll sniff glue. Take away the glue, they'll drink listerine. Take away the listerine, they'll bash their head into a wall until they're unconsious. Take away the wall and the roof will fall on their head. Take away the roof, ground, air, sunshine, all particles of matter and waves of light, and, well, maybe then zero tolerance will have the desired effect.

Morals, ideals...honestly. It's almost like you don't even believe what you're writing.