The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Tough on Drugs’ is inherently flawed > Comments

‘Tough on Drugs’ is inherently flawed : Comments

By Kathryn Daley, published 10/9/2007

The zero tolerance approach to drug abuse pushes the issue behind closed doors, further forcing it into the hands of criminals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
I must say that I have to agree with much of this article. It seems that the reasons why our youth feel the need to take drugs is never addressed.

The sexualisation of young children is a significant issue because our youth is being pushed towards sex too young and they need drugs/alcohol in order to cope with what is being expected of them at such a young age. Our youth is not developing emotionally, psychologically and intellectually before they are being pushed to drugs and sex this messes with the body and mind.

Bulling and psychological abuse is a very significant issue for our children and it isn't limited to peers. Bullying and non-sexual abuse in Education by adults is rife and there is no system or process to have these grievances addressed in Australia, or it appears in other countries, so as to protect the children. http://www.stopbullyingnow.com/teachers%20who%20bully%20students%20McEvoy.pdf

The fact that the Education system protects and supports bullies and those who do wrong is quickly realised by students as it becomes obvious that it doesn't pay to be good.

If these children/students do not join in to the drug taking and carrying on they are ostrasized and made fun of and they get left to the side and nobody will give them the time of day and/or give a damn about how they are being treated. That is the environment that is available for our children to grow up in. Things need to change.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 10 September 2007 10:09:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NO WRONG DOOR is NOT a revolving door. The Australian system (in all areas) appears to be having major problems with things that squeak differently.

ZERO TOLERENCE does not help to PROBLEM SOLVE the issue's for people taking drugs (self-medicated or other wise)!

ZERO TOLERENCE means ZERO OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE with authories, familys and friends about the key disturbances occuring in an individuals life when it comes to understanding what is happening to them in relation to their sense of "WELL-BEING" and their relationship to why they make take drugs.

I am heart felt to SEE this article. We (AUSTRALIA) need to do much more work in this area.

If we understand ourselves we will have more opportunity to help others... PEER-TO-PEER is a notion for building stronger Networks and PARTNERSHIPs.

TAKING THE TIME TO pro-actively LISTEN and to PRO_ACTIVELY ENGAGE.

INTER_RELATIONSHIPS at all GROUND LEVELS has never been more important to Australia's Future as is now.

Be it through our business networks, community networks or in our relationship to GOVERNMENTs everywhere.

SHAKE AWAY your FEARS. Grow HUMAN "with a "NO WRONG DOOR" awareness.

PUT "INCLUSIVENESS" as a first goal when putting our actual COMMUNITY SAFTEY FIRST!

FIGHT FOR MENTAL HEALTH - Norman Sartorius - Director of the Division of Mental Health at the World Health Organization, and President of the World Psychiatric Association. READ Norman Sartorius book advocating for greater equity and honesty.

Dr Norman Sartorius has asked the UN to call for a "Global Emergency on Mental Health"

Peer-to-Peer Support for consumers is to 'look at the phenomenon of mental health recovery'.

WHAT ARE WE DOING with our FOCUS AUSTRALIA?

Find more about A NO WRONG DOOR and PEER TO PEER RECOVERY on http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:19:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too agree with the premise of this article. Drugs are, to a certain extent, a symptom of of problems within society.

Drugs are essentially a method of escapism, and so those with the most to escape will be the most likely to use drugs. It will be those with the greatest hardship, those without the support networks, that will be most outwardly affected by the drugs and hence wind up in the public eye in hospitals or in court. It's the observation of these people and the assumption that they are indicative of all users that leads to the association of drugs with crime, prostitution and poverty.

Although the solution to the drug problem may lie in dealing with the root issues, we should not understate (or overstate eg. "epidemic") the additional damage the drugs themselves inflict upon society. They significantly burden not just on the emergency health services, but the criminal justice system (both directly and indirectly), the education system and cost the economy through lost productivity. Aside from the biochemical impact, drugs (as with any philosophy of escapism) will lead to the use-causing problems being neglected and causing them to become amplified, leading to a positive feed back loop of heavier usage and bigger problems.

One thing I have never understood with a zero tolerance approach is the rational of allowing drugs such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine to be so prevalent in society, especially given the damage they can cause.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:51:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the big reasons young people take drugs is because of peer group pressure. What are you going to do about that? Zero tolerance by the police and the courts is a good way of stopping my child being presented with drugs everytime they walk out the door. If the users and petty dealers had genuine fear of being arrested the less chance there is of my child being exposed to drugs.

I tend to agree that society is responsible for alot of the problems which lead to drug-taking. The society that has been produced by 40 years of rights with no responsibilities, hand-wringing, blame-shifting victim mentality has a lot to answer for.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 10 September 2007 12:37:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the author can relax. The zero tolerance is a myth. Everyone know that our judicial system is as weak as water. Whether you rape, push drugs or drive drunk you will find a judge sympathetic to the criminal. The only person not thought of is the mums and dads who lose their kids to these drug pushers. The ads spoken of actually under emphasize the pain felt by victims of crime.
Posted by runner, Monday, 10 September 2007 12:39:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very good article and posts.

Unfortunately, at one point, Kathryn did seem to imply that 'zero tolerance', in some guise, is acceptable:

"I do not want this to be confused with a counter argument of why one should not postulate a stance against drugs or why one shouldn’t apply zero tolerance."

I believe that this is an unnecessary concession.

For my own part, I have no time for any drugs (except for all the usual legal recreational drugs: caffeine, occasionaly, alcohol, and, if it weren't so addictive, nicotine), however, a good many friends and acquaintances, who are well-meaning, decent worthy members of this society, do consume illegal recreational drugs without causing harm to others.

It is wrong that these people stand to be imprisoned, be marked with criminal records and have their careers and personal lives ruined because of laws against their use of these subststances.

I don't like the fact that they take drugs, or at least drugs known to be physically or psychologically harmful, and I think we should do what we can to dissuade them from using those substances through factual reasoned argument, but not through hysteria or criminalising their behaviour.

If adults, who are made aware of the enjoymnt and benefits that drugs can bring, as well as the harm that they can cause, nevetheless choose to use them, then that should be their choice alone and we should not cast judgement on them for having made that choice, that is, unless it causes them to harm others.

---

Some good material about drug harm-redution can be found on the web site of the Canberra-based group, Friends and Families for Drug Law Reform at http://www.ffdlr.org.au
Posted by daggett, Monday, 10 September 2007 12:52:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bozzie:

Zero tolerance will not reduce the risk of your child becoming exposed to drugs. Firstly as it pushes the issue underground, those who are already users will be less likely to have their issues addressed and thus the number of users will increase. Secondly, if your child becomes associated with a group that includes drug users, the users will need to reduce the risk of someone ratting on them by pressuring others to becoming involved and hence become just as guilty.

At risk children are typically already under a lot of pressure, adding the weight of the "law" will not help reduce that risk. Drugs are a prime example of today's instant-gratification damn-the-consequences culture. Changing the consequences will do little towards changing the choices made in such a culture.

Additionally, if and when your child becomes involved in drugs, wouldn't you want them to receive the help they need to get their life back on track. Would you really condemn your child as an evil drug using monster, labeled for life as a junkie, just because of a few poor choices they made under pressure?
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 10 September 2007 1:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tough on drugs is inherently flawed.

and so too is the assumption that everyone who uses psychoactive substances must be dealing with some sort of personal problem or disorder (i.e. poor self esteem, depression, bipolar disorder).

if we apply the same logic to those that have a glass of wine with/after dinner - it doesn't apply. why does it apply to those who smoke a joint after dinner though, as one example?

binge drinking is socially acceptable in australia, yet moderate use of psychoactive substances is marginalised and criminalised.

substance use is not always 'symptomatic of something greater' - it is part of human nature. we would be wise to remember this.
Posted by shelley, Monday, 10 September 2007 1:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the article “drug use stems from a lack of self worth.”

I knew plenty of folk who had plenty of “self worth” but still used drugs. I also know some folk who have low self esteem but who do not use drugs.

This throw away line is a lie and should be “thrown away”.

Re “the idea that “ice-psychosis” is causing chaos and backlogging hospital emergency departments is dubious.”

Today, in a court is Australia starts a case in which a girl, suffering chronic psychosis, induced by excessive marijuana use is appearing.

Her “crime”, during one of her psychotic episodes, she stabbed her boyfriend to death. The effect of drug induced episodes choke more than just the emergency departments of hospitals, they also choke the police cells, secure psychiatric units and mortuaries, unfortunately, not always with the just the drug users.

Most criminal activity is directly attributable to illicit drug use.

I still cannot understand why we (Australia) remain half-hearted about drugs. Drug dealers deliberately wreck other peoples lives and we still do not execute them. – why not?

Second offences drug dealers should be summarily terminated
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 10 September 2007 2:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

You need to read some of the literature on drug use in Australia before you make the sweeping statements you have made in your post above.

Sounds like you bought that analysis straight out of the Daily Telegraph.

You have just advocated the 'termination' of a good percentage of Australians - most of whom are young people who will most likely their cease drug use before they experience problems.
Posted by shelley, Monday, 10 September 2007 3:05:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, I take it those executed would include all employees of tobacco and alcohol producers and retailers? I guess it would begin to solve the earths current population problems.
Posted by teopaez, Monday, 10 September 2007 3:29:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Summarily executed? Damn Col. That's a bit much innit?

I was rather amused to see that many of the headlines that went for the shock factor came from the Hun. Surprise surprise.

There's one particularly interesting thing I've noted in this debate - those who have the most experience of Australia's illicit and illegal drug trade all believe that the zero tolerance approach isn't working, and other options need to be considered instead.

Obviously, a great deal of this will be because if you favour zero tolerance, by the very nature of the argument, you can't be in nay way involved in the situation, except from afar.

But those who are out there, assisting those battling addiction or financial stress caused by drugs (which are the extreme rarities - the author is right in that most users are everyday people) all seem to favour other approaches.

It's interesting huh? Those who advocate zero tolerance are flying in the face of statistics and the experience of those who have the most knowledge of the situation. It can't be any other way.

So, by taking the argument to its logical conclusion - those who are pushing zero tolerance don't know what they're talking about by definition.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 10 September 2007 4:49:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shelley “You need to read some of the literature on drug use in Australia before you make the sweeping statements.”

I have read plenty but more importantly, have experienced things directly, not just “second hand”, from books or TV.

I have smoked marijuana in the past. That was back in the early 1970’s, when we were all young and stupid and did not have much to “read” regarding the dangers of brain damage from those drugs.

The first of my friends who died of an overdose did so almost 40 years ago.

I still mourn him but unfortunately he was not the only one.

I have experienced people who have decided to share their “psychotic episodes” with me. I have seen reasonable people turn into useless, self-centered and selfish tossers who think nothing of stealing from their family to feed their addiction.

I spoke earlier about someone murdered by a drug crazed lunatic. Well, I have also watched how that act not only ended the boys life but how it devastated his family, leaving his mother questioning whether there was any point to life itself.

I suggest anyone who wants to challenge my view, you are free to do so but don’t bother with the platitudes, righteous indignation or fatuous opinions like

“most of whom are young people who will most likely their cease drug use before they experience problems.”

I note “most” acknowledges that some will not cease their drug use but go on to suffer and inflict their “problems” not just on themselves but on everyone else they come into contact with.

Teopaez - Check the history books, there is a reason why alcohol and tobacco were not made illegal, the way opiates, cocaine and now crack is.

TurnRightThenLeft “those who are pushing zero tolerance don't know what they're talking about by definition.”

Cheap words.

I am not a politician, being popular has never been a barometer of being right.

Tolerate drug dealers and you can kiss you and your childrens’ futures goodbye. Anyone who thinks being a psychotic looney is sustainable, may as well die now.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 10 September 2007 5:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Desipis: That's my point. As it is now, everytime young people go to a nightclub or party, drugs are freely available. Most kids know how to get drugs if they so desire. If users and dealers had something to fear from prosecution then they may not be willing to be so public about their activities. It would indeed be driven underground and anyone wanting to procure or experiment with drugs would actively have to seek them out, as opposed to having them shoved in their face as they do now.

No one says that zero tolerance of drugs means zero tolerance of the problems they produce. They are two separate issues.

My day-to-day dealing with people has shown me that the ones who are keen for a relaxed attitude to illegal drugs and drug taking are the same ones who scream for more stringent steps to be taken in relation to junk food and smoking. How come fat kids are the victims of themselves and their parents, but druggies are victims of society?
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 10 September 2007 6:30:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge your diatribe has so many sweeping generalisations and you miss the point so comprehensively I've no hesitation in labelling your argument hopelessly flawed.

1) Not all drugs are the same, though you speak of them as if they are.

2) Psychotic episodes happen. They're rare. I also have known users and what you describe is the exception not the norm.
You can't simply chalk everthing up to 'psychotic loonies.'

3) What you're saying is entirely beside the point. The article and the responses are all about limiting drugs. It's all coming from the same side here.
The question being asked is whether or not zero tolerance policies are really effective in limiting drug use. You've not addressed any of that in the slightest. You've made no argument as to why zero tolerance policies are more effective.

As far as 'executing' second time offenders, you make an idiotic argument, with no realisation of how widespread this issue really is, and the reality on the ground. Your plan would have Australia putting such a wide variety of people to death it's sickening.

Evidently you've had tough experiences with drug users in the past. That is unfortunate and I wish you hadn't had to suffer. But it has clouded reason with emotional rhetoric.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 10 September 2007 8:10:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

You are using chicken and egg logic. You call for the execution of drug traffickers, but such a call simply equates a human life with a quantity of drugs. Humans, being what they are, will ensure that the transaction occurs on a regular basis, both for the supplier and end user. It is a great way to turn human lives into money, but does it solve anything?

I believe that all options should be properly evaluated. Surely the best solution is what works best, and how can anyone intrinsically know what that solution is?

Addiction is a complex issue in society. Many a politician would support a "tough on drugs" approach because that is what the public wants, yet how many would support a referendum on poker machines?
Posted by Fester, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:32:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well col rouge if we are going to execute drug pushers, lets start with the tobacco companies the biggest killer of drug addicts, and move on to achohol the second biggest and then make a move on prescription drugs, the executioner is getting busy here and where will he stop.
The reason we have the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" is simple, politicians long ago discovered that fear wins votes, so we had Prohibition in USA in the 1920's, then "The Red Terror", "The Yellow Peril", and so on, Hitler used this to great effect in the 1930's.
John Howard is a past master at it and George Bush could barely keep the smirk off his face after 9/11 as his adviser's had told him play this one right and you will win a second term.
And you col rouge are the sucker that falls for it every time.LOL.
Posted by alanpoi, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:59:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

How do you define these drug dealers you want to execute? Is a fifteen year old who buys some marijuana for him/her and his/her friends because they ask for it, someone you want to execute? Because that could easily be your or my child.

Drug use/abuse is not a simple problem and it doesn’t have a simple answer, much as we would all like it to be so. I understand your fear for your children, as I share it myself, but zero-tolerance is not the answer. Criminalising the behaviour of children is counterproductive and draconian as well.

Some people seem to have the impression that adult drug dealers hang around the school gate waiting to entrap their children. But almost invariably, children/teenagers come into contact with drugs through their peers. The person most likely to be encouraging your child to take drugs is their best friend. Making these young people accountable by throwing them in jail won’t work; it will only help ensure that they continue making bad choices.

Much of the advertising which seeks to dissuade kids from taking drugs are counterproductive. The worst –case-scenario type ads are often directly at odds with the experiences of kids and their peers. They see that their friends have taken ‘ecstasy’, and had fun and not been killed and completely write off the totally valid message the authorities are trying to get across.

America has zero tolerance programs on drugs. It hasn’t had any success. Much of Asia executes drug traffickers, whilst pardoning murderers and rapists. It hasn’t even dented the flow of drugs coming from that area.

The most degenerate members of our community are generally those afflicted with alcoholism. This drug destroys many, many more lives than illegal drugs ever will, yet we continue to hide our head in the sand.

Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal one. The more we make it a criminal issue the more harm we are going to do. The answer is in quality education and professional treatment. Take away the drug takers and drug dealers become irrelevant.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:04:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zero tolerance towards drugs is a myth. A few ads do not a policy make. Nor a few speeches. There is no coherent drug policy in oz. Court decisions can mock and undermine a no drugs stance. The entertainment industry too often play the subject for laughs. Many an artist has revelled in their outlaw druggie images, and made drugs themselves their subjects. On FM radio particularly, drugs are part of their 'comedy' routines.

A few well meant ads don't stand a chance.

We need a coherent drug policy that includes realistic education, plentiful counselling for users and consistent penalty for sellers and producers of drugs.
Posted by palimpsest, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 6:17:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The difference between legal and illegal drugs is a mere peice of legislation, and what makes drugs illegal is a policy of prohibition that never worked before, doesn't work now and will never work at any time.
Substances colloqually referred to as drugs are either legal or not, but their effect is always negative, and even more negative when their production, distribution and sale are unregulated regarding price, quality and availability.
Legalising them all is the more acceptable answer than the current practice however utterly unpalatable that may be. Kinda like the difference between being hung or being strangled.
Getting tough on drugs is a pointless and expensive operation, and will never be addressed until someone in the political sphere does a cost/benefit analysis on legalisation, and either comes up with a result that will fill coffers or, like smoking, will see that treatment costs outweigh income from various taxes/levies and it will be effectively eliminated.
Posted by enkew, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 6:47:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zero tolerance should be a part of any anti-drug campaign. Especially in respect to importers and manufacturer's. If these people were facing harsh penalties with no options for parole they would think twice and correspondingly, the jump in street cost might save those who's approach was initially recreational and not driven by addiction. And maybe in a few years we could halve the line-up going through our revolving-door-treatment centres.
The only way is to make the street cost high enough to be prohibitive and the only way to do that is by interdicting supply. It is supply and demand driven. Cut the supply lines and quit with the cheap headline gatherings and filling our jails with 'dimebaggers'. Expend the resources given in removing the supply line and never mind the PR routine.
If you get the drugs before they hit the street you don't have to worry about the street level drug scene or where your child might get access.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 10:43:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Turning the drug issue into a medical problem rather than a criminal problem again releases people of taking responsibility for their actions. One could argue that child abuse is also a medical(mental) problem. I don't think people who bash 90 year olds for their next hit can be defined by anything more than having serious character flaws. Our humanistic philosophy that we can do what we want, when we want and nobody can tell me what to do has led us to this epidemic of drug use. We have simply reaped what we have sown.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 11:22:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the Article “Substance abuse is usually symptomatic of something greater, which these advertisements fail to recognise let alone attend to.”

Symptomatic of what exactly?

This article complains and whines about the wrongs of “zero tolerance”, points out the supposed shortcomings of “zero tolerance” but offers not one suggestion or benefit to be derived from an alternative to “zero tolerance”.

“The inability to read, being bullied at school, relationship endings, perceived failures, lack of ambition, inadequate employment and unhappy living arrangements“

has effected members of every generation since the beginning of time. This generation is no different or “special”.

What is remarkable is how “the same” it is.

More of the usual brainless babble from someone suffering OWP (“Opinion Without Purpose”), the most common side effect being to tear down what might work simply because they don’t understand.

TurnRightThenLeft “Your plan would have Australia putting such a wide variety of people to death it's sickening.”

Better than your “plan”, turning streets over to drug crime and suffer the greater harm to the innocent which will prevail.

Fester “Addiction is a complex issue in society.” So is living, so what, self control and responsibility is always the only solution.

Paull “Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal one.”

robbery, violently assaults and murder are “criminal problems”.

So Paull, you tell me, which part of the following murder trial, conducted only yesterday, was “medical” and which part was “criminal”

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/09/11/6764_news.html

I know, firsthand, the impact this “drug-induced psychosis and chronic paranoid schizophrenia“ has had on the victim and his family and hear that the impact on the criminal offenders “family” has been worse.

Alanpoi “And you col rouge are the sucker that falls for it every time.”

read the referred article and then tell me who is the sucker?

The demented, psychotic young woman who will now be incarcerated for the next 25 years or Me ?

When I receive such a negative response to anything I write, I know I must be close to the truth, thankyou all for your confirmations.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 2:17:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge: "This generation is no different or “special”. "

This generation is no different in its drug taking habits, nor is the current societies view of looking down on addicts historically different. What does seem different is the desired systematic demonisation and persecution of anyone with an association of drugs.

"robbery, violently assaults and murder are “criminal problems”."

Yes, they are criminal problems, but drugs only lead to these in a very small minority of cases. Equating drugs with violent crime, is the same as equating Islam with blowing things up.

Drugs will be prevalent in society no matter what the law says, or police do. Just look at the asian countries where they have the death penalty, and how wide spread the drugs still are.

"Fester “Addiction is a complex issue in society.” So is living, so what, self control and responsibility is always the only solution."

Addicts have as much ability to control themselves as you do to flap your arms and fly. Ironically it's people who believe that they are in 100% control of themselves that are the easiest to manipulate.

As for the article you linked, you'll notice the court concluded that it was a medical issue.
Posted by Desipis, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 3:02:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despisis” Yes, they are criminal problems, but drugs only lead to these in a very small minority of cases.”

".. 80% of property offences have some drug involvement. Between 45% and 60% of convicted offenders committed property crimes to support drug habits. 64% of offenders admitted using drugs to commit an offence."

source
http://www.ffdlr.org.au/resources/Crime%20and%20Illicit%20drugs.htm

arrestees in major USA conurbations 2003, urine test results
using cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, opiates or PCP, 67%
risk of dependency among arrestees, 39.1%

source
http://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/adam/ADAM2003.pdf

“Drugs will be prevalent in society - Just look at the asian countries where they have the death penalty,”

That makes dealing with the problem harder, it is not an excuse to do nothing.

“Addicts have as much ability to control themselves as you do to flap your arms and fly.”

The reason for ‘zero tolerance” to illicit drug is

to help people avoid becoming “addicts”

and the serious negative influences which a drug dependent and drug impaired lifestyle brings to both the addicted and the surrounding community (the victims of elevated rates of drug related crimes).

“As for the article you linked, you'll notice the court concluded that it was a medical issue.”

“not guilty by reason of mental impairment”, is not “not guilty by reason of medical impairment”.

And the REAL POINT “drug-induced”

her “drug use” was not a result of her “mental impairment”,

her “mental impairment” is a result of drug use,

I would note, “incarcerated on a custodial supervision order for the next 25 years”

When imposed by a judge in criminal court, sounds more like a prison sentence

than some doctor diagnosing a patients medical condition.

Re “current societies view of looking down on addicts”

I lookup to those who deal with the adversities in their lives.

What is there to "lookup to" in those who rob and assault others to feed their drug addiction?

May God preserve us all from “the apologists for a junkie society”
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 7:23:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

You see oblivious to the concept that the criminal persecution and criminal behaviour of drug addicts are different parts of the same process. That you see the link but dont understand the process is much like someone noting that eggs come from chickens, but failing to understand that chickens also come from eggs.

Oh well, at least you have half your wits, Col.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 10:37:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Was there any drug related murder / violence / mayhem in the centuries before the prohibition began ?
Posted by aspro, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 10:55:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's good to read stuff about the propaganda on drugs pushed by a thoughtless media. Newspapers whip up hysterical stories to sell to the gullible public. This only increases the anxiety of readers who then lash out with cruel and thoughtless comments like some of those posted here.

Politicians have no special insights or training and are led by the media into populist attacks on drug users rather than scientific approaches recommended by expert bodies. Governments have repeatedly failed to enact the recommendations of experts since the Standing Committee on Drugs in the 1970's. Had these recommendations been adopted thousands of lives could have been saved.
Cruelty towards drug dependent people is endemic in our institutions with little understanding of the issues.
In order to discuss drugs we need to break the subject up into its relevant issues. Pharmacology, law, media, medical treatment, education and culture to name a few. When we mix up these discussions we end up confused and arguing rather than learning and getting insights. This article confuses some of these issues.

Without an understanding of the pharmacological effects and medical consequences of drug taking no rational argument or action can be taken. The law as it stands has nothing to contribute to the understanding of drug dependence, its treatment or appropriate management. The law is simply a war on drug addicts and like all wars will destroy countless lives and is leaving a terrible scar on this country.
Posted by Barfenzie, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 11:09:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The posts already made above show just what a difficult problem drugs pose. I am no expert just a parent and someone who has in a previous job had to deal with ex-drug users who now suffer permanent brain damage or mental illness, so I will be honest, my experiences have shaped my hard-line outlook. I can see the benefits of decriminilisaton for example, but I can also see the downside. If hard drugs are not given illegal status, will they become more acceptable or part of the norm such as is the case with alcohol? I can't answer that really, but as a parent it worries me.

I tend to agree with the writer, that not enough is done to examine why young (and other) people turn to drugs for mind altering experiences. What is it that is missing from our lives that makes some want to escape it? I agree that children are sexualised too young, they do not get to enjoy their childhood for very long, we are becoming more isolated from each other due to the advances in information technology. A chat on MSN or texting does not have the same 'warmth' as talking face to face. We are bombarded with images constantly wanting us to buy something and children are the most vulnerable group.

It is all about marketing and profit driven business over the needs of the family and the community. Taxpayer funded leaflets are not going to help unless we are brave enough to address the underlying issues.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 8:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

First I'd like to point out the fact that you argued that crime implies drugs when I was arguing the that drugs don't imply crime (different issue). I dare say a substantial proportion of property crime is committed by people of lower economic status; I guess we should lock up all those poor people before they rob us.

Secondly, a few quotes from your link:

"Strenuous law enforcement efforts have been ineffective in reducing the supply of drugs"

"Why law enforcement is ineffective and even promotes illicit drug use"

"Using the law to force users to stop their use and to deter newcomers from taking up an illicit drug is counter productive"

Quite simply the chain reaction to zero tolerance is:

Harsher Law -> Greater risk to dealers
Greater Risk -> Higher prices
Higher prices -> More crime performed to pay for drugs
Higher prices -> More financial stress on users
More stress -> More violent and brazen crime
More stress -> Higher emotional dependency on drugs
Higher dependency -> Dangerous spiral

If you still can't see how heavy handed tactics on drugs drives drug related crime up, imagine if we decriminalised drugs and handed them out for free to current addicts. They'd have nothing to gain from criminal behaviour and everything to lose, just like the rest of us.

But we don't have to imagine, from your own link the results of trial of such a policy were:

- Income from illegal and semi-legal activities decreased dramatically: 10% as opposed to 59% originally.
- Both the number of offenders and the number of criminal offenses decreased by about 60% during the first six months of treatment (according to information obtained directly from the patients and from police records).
- Court convictions also decreased significantly (according to the central criminal register).
Posted by Desipis, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 8:51:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge - you're guilty of one of the most commonly used misleading debate tactics around these parts.

I do get rather sick of people exaggerating their opponent's viewpoint, so they can then stomp on it and make their own look more palatable. It's weak and it's not constructive.

Col : "Better than your “plan”, turning streets over to drug crime and suffer the greater harm to the innocent which will prevail."

And the other chestnut: "apologists for a junkie society"

Funny, I don't recall saying that. I seem to recall saying things like zero tolerance should be reviewed. I think we need to consider alternative treatment plans to prison in some instances of users. Mostly I just think putting people to death for addiction is cruel and stupid.

From what I've seen most people here are simply trying to address the problem, rather than creating a 'junkie society.'
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 9:27:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft “Mostly I just think putting people to death for addiction”

I did not suggest that.

I said “Second offences drug dealers should be summarily terminated”

for profiting from and exploiting addicts.

If they are caught offending for a second time, they have obviously demonstrated complete contempt for the lives and well being of their fellow citizens.

I made no comment to the benefits or otherwise of alternative strategies but pointed out the author suggested no alternatives, merely whined about zero tolerance

Desipis the link supports the fact that "80% of property offences have some drug involvement. Between 45% and 60% of convicted offenders committed property crimes to support drug habits. 64% of offenders admitted using drugs to commit an offence.".

The references you refer to were interpreted suppositions, they do not carry the same objective value as statistical fact.

“I was arguing the that drugs don't imply crime” – then prove it.

From what I have seen, there is a significantly greater certainty that those suffering drug dependency will rob someone else, to fund there addiction or the drug delusional will assault someone because they fail to respect the rights of others, compared to the action of the non-drug dependent / impaired.

In response to the idea of ”the chain reaction to zero tolerance ”

Accept drug abuse and you will get more addiction
Addiction debases the fabric of the community
Debase the fabric of the community and you diminish the quality of life for all

I personally want my children and grandchildren to inherit something better than a cesspool populated by clapped out junkies.

I want somewhere my daughters are safe from being attacked, abused or robbed by some junkie needing money for a fix or just experiencing a psychotic episode.

The best way of ensuring that is “zero tolerance” to the aggressive antisocial behaviour adopted by drug addicts (be the drug of dependency alcohol, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana (despite its detrimental effects, the only drug of dependency I know of which does not induce “delusions” of some sort is tobacco).
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 3:33:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge: "...they have obviously demonstrated complete contempt for the lives and well being of their fellow citizens."

One could say that about everyone who breaks the law more than once, including those who speed, park illegally and jay walk.

"The references you refer to were interpreted suppositions, they do not carry the same objective value as statistical fact."

Wow, way to cherry pick. If you understand anything about statistics, you'd know they rarely carry clear objective values, especially when they're taken from a conservatives politician's comments on the launch of the Australia National Council on Drugs.

As for the correlation between drugs and crime, one thing against zero tolerance is that harsh drug laws increase this correlation. During the prohibition in the early 20th century there would have been a significant correlation between crime and alcohol. However, today we see plenty of people enjoying a drink or two responsibly.

There are at three factors behind the correlation.

Firstly, by having a harsh punishment for drugs you remove the discouragement from committing other crimes - if you make the punishment for petty theft the same as murder, there will be a lot more violent crimes as thieves have nothing to lose by killing witnesses.

Secondly, the risk factors for drug abuse are the same as those for crime in general: lower economic status, lower education, greater life stress.

Thirdly, as our criminal justice system is full of drug offenders, non drug using criminals are forced into direct contact with drugs, and simple drug users are forced into direct contact with criminals. Harsh drug laws only strengthens this association.

Just because there is a correlation between drug abuse and crime does not mean there is a direct causative link.

"Accept drug abuse and you will get more addiction"
I'm not talking about accepting or condoning drug abuse, or the damage that it does to society. I'm just advocating the approach that has been statistically shown to reduce drug related crime. We should treat addicts to help them become productive members of society rather than damning them as inhuman monsters.
Posted by Desipis, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 5:02:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YES.. I ACTUALLY AGREE... that from one usually characterized as a right wing loony....

The problem with drug taking is not 'how tough' we need to be to stop it... but how empty our lives are as a society.

Barren, dark.. grim... hopeless, decadent, amoral, post modern social disaster areas and train wrecks.. NO WONDER people take drugs.

We have stolen from them all hope and meaning.. robbed them of dignity and self respect.. assured them that their 'strange' feelings are 'quite normal' and bent over backwards to tell them 'there is no such thing as 'sin'.....

But many people are confused, dismayed, empty, and directionless.
Others are quite happy to live a life without an eternal reference point, and consider themselves quite fine...

But I suggest its like the undeveloped print.. the image is there.. just not clear yet.

So..SURE.. lets not be so tough on drugs... let's be TOUGH ON re-establishing enduring eternal values in the community.. that might go further in diminishing the drug problem.

Only empty misguided people 'need' drugs. Life can be quite a blast when God is in our lives.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 8:29:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is wrong for our laws to condone illicit drug usage. The more harmful the drugs to the user the tougher the laws should be. I don't think users should be the target of tough laws, however the dealers should feel the full brunt of law enforcement. Dealers know that they are harming people and that they are taking advantage of serious addiction.

These arguments that good people do bad things because of their addiction just proves how addictive the drugs are and how much the drugs affect a person’s health. Health here being normal homeostasis and behaviours.

The pro-drug lobby’s method, and I've read this on their propaganda sites, is to convince the wider-community that they are doing the wider community a favour by allowing drugs. It's a trick that manipulates the self interest of the general population at the expense of the people who become and are addicted. If we truly are a community with a belief in social justice for all, we owe it to the addicted and the potential addictives to be tough on those who would take advantage of their condition.

I agree with the Kathryn that society tends to push youngsters towards seeking some way to counter the bad feelings that comes with living in a society that doesn’t seem to care about their wellbeing. There is not a lot of validation directed at certain sections of youth .

Selling drugs to disaffected youth and people is the lowest of acts. Just more exploitation, more knocks to their feelings of self-worth.. And the pro-drug lobby wanting the government to make it legal beggars’ belief. We have enough trouble now with alcohol abuse (as opposed to sensible use) without exacerbating the situation by flooding the place with other substances.

I think we need to draw firm boundaries through tough laws so our youth and people know they matter. Helping keep people from addictive substances sends a message that they are worthy of better treatment and that they don’t need to rely on drugs to feel good –especially about themselves.
Posted by donald blake, Thursday, 13 September 2007 12:41:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The pro-drug lobby’s logic is flawed and hypocritical, especially, as they are claiming the moral high ground. For instance: they often argue that it is hypocritical for cigarettes to be legal while other harmful drugs are illegal. They want illicit drugs made legal. So to really hold a moral, ethical and logical argument these pro-drug "moralisers" should be arguing for both tobacco and drugs to be made illegal rather than unleashing more harmful drugs into society.

It’s claimed that ecstasy and marijuana users are usually cigarette smokers too, so these addicts are often already abusing their health with harmful substances. Thus, it stands to reason that they aren’t interested in health or long term consequences of their behaviours.

One symptom that addictive drugs present is the person’s reliance on them to maintain normal feelings (another is self-deception).
AMA QLD President, DR Ross Cartmill, says: " All the evidence shows that people steadily increase dosage to get the same effect. People may think they are managing their usage but it is the insidious nature of the drugs that is their most dangerous aspect."

To supply a drug that alters a person’s physical and mental make up so that they will need more to maintain their normal feelings I think is wrong and too harmful to be made lawful.

The pro-drug lobby counter the scientific evidence , which can be found in any bio-chemistry book ,with anecdotal personal stories - like the ones you’d hear when they realised cigarettes caused cancer.

Their argument that cigarettes are harmful, and yet legal, so it’s only proper that they should be allowed their illicit drugs too, is hardly a basis for claiming a moral high ground. It is hypocrisy.

I think the pro-drug lobby's position is self-interest. This just adds to the perception of a callous, selfish society amongst our youth. They must feel like mere consumers to be exploited. The law must reflect a genuine long-term concern for all its citizens’ health and wellbeing – not just those who want a threat removed or hidden and easy access to their favourite drugs.
Posted by donald blake, Thursday, 13 September 2007 12:46:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The greater hypocrisy is the inconsistent treatment of addiction. Tobacco, alcohol, addictive prescription drugs, and gambling, provide a substantial revenue raising base. Doing the same with drugs like heroin simply would not generate the same economic activity as prohibition, as such drugs would never have the same public appeal to make legalisation a profitable exercise. So the conversion of human life to money will continue. New drugs such as ice might threaten the cosy arrangement by virtue of their greater potential for addiction and harm. Should the cost of prohibition become too great, then other methods of control will become a matter of necessity.

Again, how can anyone claim to know the best way to regulate drugs of addiction? Delivering the best outcome for addicts and society should be the gold standard. Why should the method be relevant?
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 13 September 2007 8:43:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Work commitments, Been unable to get here until today

Desipis “Wow, way to cherry pick.”

No less than you choose the cherry pick elements of my posts

Like “punishment for petty theft the same as murder,” something I never even suggested.

I said second offence drug dealing – execute.

The crime is more heinous than, say a murder acted out of passion because the drug dealer is indifferent to the victim, similar to a serial killer selecting victims at random and a second offence means “serial activity”.

As for “We should treat addicts to help them become productive members of society”

That presumes addicts sincerely want to be free of their addiction – but I never suggested a death penalty for addicts, lets face it, they have sought one for themselves in their pursuit of a narcotic abdication from real life.

So how do you “treat” those who decline and evade treatment?

Fester your attempt to adjoin the use of crack cocaine etc. with smoking or gambling is pure hysteria and sounds like desperation.

Many things can be compulsive / addictive, including internet posting and solariums. The difference with alcohol, gambling or smoking versus methamphetamine is simple, the probability of addiction, premature death and hallucinogenic delusion and violence is significantly less in the former than the latter.

The only good drug dealer is a dead one and only when the police and authorities balance the penalties for dealing commensurate with the rewards from dealing, will we see real change. That means confiscation of assets, a dead dealer needs none and their value could help fund government like government is funded through legal pursuits
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 15 September 2007 11:24:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Fester your attempt to adjoin the use of crack cocaine etc. with smoking or gambling is pure hysteria and sounds like desperation."

So you understand the nature of addiction do you Col? Congratulations on a human first. Having such an understanding would reveal why some are easily drawn to addiction whilst others are not. It would also lead to corrective medical therapies.

Yet the solutions you draw from your phenomenal insight confuses me Col. Seeing addicts as worthless humanity and calling for executions doesn't strike me as advancing civilisation. It also seem to be in contrast with other advances in medical science, like treatments for bacterial infections, diabetes and mental illness.

Hopefully a successful medical treatment for addiction will be found soon. Then the chorus of biggoted ignoramuses can go off and find themselves another nigger.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 15 September 2007 1:48:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fester “So you understand the nature of addiction do you Col?”

Only since you ask, I understand giving up smoking is tough. After 25 years of smoking, I went cold turkey. I guess, I understand more than you will ever know.

“Seeing addicts as worthless humanity and calling for executions”

I have not posted anything which suggests a social value of addicts.

I have suggested second offence (serial) drug dealers, not addicts, be executed.

“Hopefully a successful medical treatment for addiction will be found soon.

I am sure they exist already, the problem is getting addicts to use them and to then stay clean.

“the chorus of biggoted ignoramuses can go off and find themselves another nigger.”

Well don’t feel blue, with regard to that cheap line, your nigger is “zero tolerance”.

As for “doesn't strike me as advancing civilisation.”

Surrendering society to drug abuse and the degeneration which ensues will not advance it one little bit, it will accelerate the rate and likelihood of decline.

But don’t you worry about that, drugs will allow you to withdraw into your own confused fantasy, oblivious to reality.

For me, my life is very, very good and “drug free”. No hangovers, no DT or withdraws.

Any junkie you know who wants to know how to live that way, send them to this site and I will be happy to “share” with them.

Lesson 1 – be responsible for your life and the consequences of your actions.

Lesson 2 – a drug fantasy lasts but for a few moments but reality will always be there. Escape from ones own reality is never possible.

If you ask nicely, I will share more.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 15 September 2007 3:56:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I have seen reasonable people turn into useless, self-centered and selfish tossers who think nothing of stealing from their family to feed their addiction.”

One of my siblings has a problem with alcohol, and despite this, has achieved much in life, and continues to achieve. So the above comment I find personally offensive, Col.

“Only since you ask, I understand giving up smoking is tough. After 25 years of smoking, I went cold turkey. I guess, I understand more than you will ever know.”

This is very true, Col. But the difference is genes and environment, and perhaps only genes. Maybe I could go cold turkey and not have any problem doing so, though I would first have to start wouldn't I? I'm sure there are some who could, and hopefully they dont share your view that the ability to quit is a measure of one's character.

““Hopefully a successful medical treatment for addiction will be found soon.”

I am sure they exist already, the problem is getting addicts to use them and to then stay clean.”

Then it isn't a successful treatment, is it? I could tell an obese person that he would lose weight by eating less. This would be a successful treatment but for the fat man's compliance.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 15 September 2007 9:40:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fester what you are talking about is more drugs to try to stop the use of other drugs.

Addiction is a weakness in character, it has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with personality and environment
Posted by Jolanda, Saturday, 15 September 2007 9:45:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fester “One of my siblings has a problem with alcohol, and despite this, has achieved much in life, and continues to achieve. So the above comment I find personally offensive, Col.”

Last night I spent with 4 other people for 3 of which it was a once in 25 year reunion. They recalled the indulgences of their youth, drug use including as one fellow said, the ingestion, injection and inhalation of every substance which he could think would given him a high.

That included datura tea, he described his descent into a hallucinogenic maelstrom and the side effects which lasted several days.

I know one of the others suffered secondary conditions from drug pursuits of those days and regrets that they are self-inflicted.

I lost friends 30 years ago to overdoses. I think they and the datura tea brewer were tossers too, for trying to escape their reality instead of dealing with it.

So I guess, your personal sensibilities are not the issue, this is not just about you.

“the ability to quit is a measure of one's character.”

Not at all, it is the inability to stay off addictive substances which is the measure of lack of character, addicts continue to run away from the realities of there lives

“Then it isn't a successful treatment, is it?”

The treatment is fine but it does not fix the lack of character.

I do not expect applause, gratitude or recognition for not taking drug of dependency or giving up smoking. My life my choice.

Drug dealers sell marijuana laced with other drugs with the intention of creating addicts from casual drug users. You might consider dealers as “redeemable characters”, I don’t.

Serial drug dealers (second offence) do not deserve to share air with other people.

A death sentence is all that those who are second offence drugs dealers should have to look forward to.

When that happens we will be a little closer to real “zero tolerance”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 16 September 2007 4:43:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

"The crime is more heinous than, say a murder acted out of passion because the drug dealer is indifferent to the victim, similar to a serial killer selecting victims at random and a second offence means “serial activity”."

The national annual death toll for illicit drugs is about 1,000. Motor vehicles kill 1,600; alcohol claims 2,000; tobacco 19,000; heart disease 50,000+. I'm guessing we should start stringing up all those car salesmen, bottle-shop workers, checkout chicks and lining up the 15 year olds from the local fast food joint to be shot. Clearly they are indifferent to their victims.

"Drug dealers sell marijuana laced with other drugs with the intention of creating addicts from casual drug users."

Lack of quality control is a side effect of making drugs illegal. Also this an urban myth for the most part, its quite a competitive market and such tactics would drive their customers to other dealers.

"A death sentence is all that those who are second offence drugs dealers should have to look forward to. "

Bringing in the death sentence would mean drug dealers have nothing to lose. They would arm themselves, never submit to police and thus there would be a dramatic increase in the number of armed gangs in the country. Given the estimated annual revenue of the drugs trade is of the same order of magnitude as the total national police budget, the drug dealers could potentially out man and out gun our police force if they were pressed into an all out confrontation. Unless you're prepared to accept a massive tax increase to pay for extra police and prisons, as well as a massive increase in the amount of violence in our society, and significantly more drug trade related deaths (including police and innocent bystanders) then you shouldn't push for such punishments.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 17 September 2007 10:08:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“what you are talking about is more drugs to try to stop the use of other drugs.”

If this results in a better outcome for the patient then what is your concern, Jolanda? Isn't this the aim of pharmacology? Would you rather people be hopeless drug addicts or pop a pill and become productive members of society, much like insulin addicts regularly shoot up to do likewise?

“Addiction is a weakness in character, it has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with personality and environment”

Can you prove this Jolanda?

Col

Thanks for your thoughts. I have trouble accepting that drug abuse is totally a matter of conscious control. You might have experienced the lack of rational control in otherwise normal people suffering phobias.

Nonetheless, would you support options other than zt if they gave better outcomes for addicts, their dependents and families, and the community at large?
Posted by Fester, Monday, 17 September 2007 5:43:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despipis “death toll for illicit drugs is about 1,000. Motor vehicles 1,600; alcohol 2,000; tobacco 19,000; heart disease 50,000+.”

I have never heard of someone with a heart condition robbing others to get a fix of angina medication.

I have never heard of a smoker running amok during a tobacco induced psychotic episode.

If you want to promote ridicule of your posts, you are going the right way about it.

The illegality of psychotic, addictive drugs is as much down to what the user does to others as it is what he does to himself.

Legalize heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana etc. and the death rate from those drugs will explode in 20 years time. Not just the death of users but also the death of innocent bystanders, slain during a users psychotic rages.

I have recently and more than once, overheard someone, completely deluded, ranting on over a mobile phone for more than an hour about how the world owes him and how he wants to get even, the result of extended marijuana use and experiments with ecstasy.

“Lack of quality control is a side effect of making drugs illegal. Also this an urban myth for the most part, its quite a competitive market and such tactics would drive their customers to other dealers.”

The first time I personally saw something laced with foreign drugs was 1966. it was no myth.

As for the competitiveness of the market ensuring “quality standards”,

Ingesting drugs made from battery acid, ammonia derivatives and other substances, the side effects of which are to cause the skull to breakdown and weaken, or to convince the user that bugs are growing under their skin are not urban legend.

Yet you stand here and defend those who would profit from such trade?

You must be very short of righteous causes if you are going to suggest that scum like the Moran’s and Mokbel’s deserve to walk free among us.

The one good thing about the recent Melbourne drug wars was the dealers were killing each other, instead of worthwhile people.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 1:45:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col:

I'm not advocating the complete legalisation of all illicit drugs. I'm disagreeing with your draconian, militant approach to dealing with them. (For the record, Zero Tolerance would be execution on the first offense)

I take it you've never heard of:
- reckless driving resulting in death;
- alcohol related violence;
- dangers of second hand smoke;
- theft to cover gambling addiction debts or alcohol addiction?

There are plenty of things that lead people to cause harm to others just as much as drugs do, none of which call for the death sentence.

"As for the competitiveness of the market ensuring “quality standards”,"

I wasn't implying that the competitiveness ensured quality, just merely those who sought repeat customers would attempt to please them by provided what they were after and thus lacing drugs to get people hooked would in fact lose the dealer business. Because of the illegality, there is no regulation and there are those out there who would sell 'laced' (on purpose, or just poorly managed) drugs to make a quick buck.

"Legalize heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana etc. and the death rate from those drugs will explode in 20 years time. Not just the death of users but also the death of innocent bystanders, slain during a users psychotic rages.
...
Yet you stand here and defend those who would profit from such trade?"

You're looking at one extreme and running towards the other without considering what its going to be like when you get there. The best solution is going to fall somewhere in the middle.
Posted by Desipis, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 4:15:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

So now its the drug Armageddon is it? What evidence do you have for this? You seem to demand very high standards of evidence for global warming, yet the drug apocalypse you describe blows away the rantings of agw fanatics.

Now whether you think agw is all a big conspiracy is by the by, Col. But why do you think that agw needs evidence and your ideas dont?

I always thought that drug prohibition came about because the Mafia needed a racket after alcohol prohibition ended. Some explicit photos of J Edgar Hoover having sex with his boyfriend sealed the deal.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 10:27:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Victoria scientific method was abused by Swinburne University Simulator research funded by VicRoads to support a world's first zero tolerance of drug driving which has nothing to do with competence to drive. In the public media on the Catalyst ABC radio show Swinburne and Monash researchers let the interviewer state that "the morgue results leave no doubt", yet Professor Drummer has published in the Bristish Medical Journal an article on the unreliability of "morgue results"

In summary the Swinburne research was inadequate to support zero tolerance error prone saliva testing of drivers because it was:

A. A simulation on an inadequate single screen model
B. A pilot study sample of 40 subject
C. Not replicated by other studies
D. There was disclosure of VicRoads and Victoria Police funding

The abuse of science to support repressive laws seems to me to be sponsored by some Pharmaceutical companies.

My editorial with more information of this deeply flawed research being used as false evidence for zero tolerance drug testing.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Editorial.html#Simmodels"

Tim Anderson
http://www.hereticpress.com"
Posted by Heretic, Saturday, 6 October 2007 1:05:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy