Show me one peer reviewed article, yes including Lancet, that backs your case.

There are none, zilch, zero.

Your comments may relate to our abysmal treatment of the mentally ill, I do not dispute that they use illicit drugs. But why lock them up.

I think you will find that most people at Vinnies or Salvos are alcohol related (its legal and cheaper).

Harm minimisation is the only answer. These people are sick, not criminals.

I have to take insulin injections but most of the cost is covered by the PBS. I often wonder if those with insulin injections could have the same access to needle exchanges, they are less likely to throw their needles in the rubbish. Any needle in the garbage is a bioharzard, as no one is absolutely sure what is in them.

Runner has a good point that insulin injectors should have the same access to needle exchanges as recreational users. This is not just a harm minimisation issue, it is also an environmental issue. Any needle deposited into their biohard bins in the biohazard containers should be rewarded with clean syringes and biohazard containers: in exchange.

Just letting recreational drug users have this service is discrimination against other injectors who have medical needs and are environmentally responsible.

I have raised this with the Greens on various occassions, but as usual, they ignore my letters.

They are behaving like latter day snobs in a do-gooder masonic hall.

A fine article.

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that harm minimisation works at reducing the costs drug use.

In 2002, the US White House, not known for their light drug stance, released a paper titled The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse. (download at http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/prohibition/)

In 1998, the legal cost associated with the prosection and incarceration was about $31 billion US. Incarceration: $1.6 billion US.

Since 2000, California has run a treatment instead of incaceration program (known as Prop 36). It is estimated by the US based Drug Policy Alliance, that this program saved US tax payers:
- $5 for every $1 spent;
- Directed more than 140,000 drug addicts into treatment;
- reduced the number of people in jails so much, that the planned construction of a new prison was halted, saving almost half a billion US.

(see: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/Prop360306.cfm)

Under prop 36, the cost of treatment of one drug addict is about $US3,300. A year of incarcertion costs $US34,000. This approach is similar the Greens approach.

Also see the Australian Drug Foundation:
http://www.adf.org.au/browse.asp?ContainerID=best_practice_drug_policy_

Runner:

It's good to know that you are concerned about aged care. So are the Greens. From their policy on "Older People":

The Australian Greens want:
# a high quality aged care system characterised by high quality support, nursing and personal care, with safe and comfortable surroundings for older people whether in residential, home or hospital care.
# appropriate support services, including home modification, for older people who choose to remain in their own homes, the home of family or friends, and within their own neighbourhood.

The Australian Greens will:
# increase the number of places for aged care and retirement living
# reinstate the Commonwealth Dental Scheme to provide free public dental care for older people on low incomes.
# increase funding to enhance the numbers, skills and salaries of community health nurses and workers in the aged care sector.
# establish a funded scheme to undertake minor home renovations and installation of communication technologies to enable older people to remain in their own homes.

Disclaimer: I recently joined the Greens.

This is a considered, well-written piece. That said, I do have a quibble with the use of the term "libertarian conservative." No such thing exists. It's an oxymoron. It's like saying "socialist fascist" or "left-leaning neoconservative." They're two completely different ideologies, grouping them into a compound ideal is nonsensical.

To grn: Your comments sound quite similar to the sentiments expressed by prohibitionists in America in the early 20th Century. This period exemplifies the results of the criminalisation of recreational substances; soaring crime rates, not just in those breaking the victimless crime of substance use, but in the criminal rackets, gangs etc that surround it (remember Al Capone?).

Prohibition and zero tolerance don't work; harm minimisation does. You can't prevent people from making stupid mistakes, and you can't prevent people from breaking laws that infringe on their liberty (an important part of liberty is this very freedom to MAKE mistakes) but you can create a situation that minimises the consequences of drug abuse.

Most Australians who aren't drug addicts (and that includes the majority of people who have taken some drugs recently) mostly want drugs to have no affect on their life. What other people do in private doesn't bother most people.

To be safe from the affects of drugs the first thing that people want is for the risk of being mugged by an addict to be removed - providing drugs to registered addicts at a reasonable price will achieve this goal.

The next desire is to not have children become victims of drug pushers. Drug pushers are generally addicts who have chosen not to steal to pay for their drugs, so again providing drugs to registered addicts will help.

As for cannabis, the approach in Amsterdam to this problem seems to be the correct one (allow it be sold to adults in registered "Coffee Shops").

ruawake, google 'marijuana and', or 'ecstasy and mental health' for info on drugs and their effects. As if the glib acceptance of eccy Tuesday depression isn't bad enough, arguing that predisposition to mental illness means that drugs do not 'cause' conditions is semantic rubbish. Fiddling while Rome burns.
I never said that drug takers or the mentally ill should be gaoled. The opposite in fact. My proposal was to treat producers and suppliers harshly.
Here's another area where the experts will eventually catch up; just as there IS acceptance of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome there will come the day when Foetal (insert your drug of choice) Syndrome becomes prevalent wisdom.