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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.