Paul.L

If you had a 15 year old who overdosed you would certainly see yourself as a victim of the drug pushers. I for one have not heard the churches push anything on this topic so I am not sure what you are on about here. In actual fact you would probably find some church groups agree entirely with the author while others would not. So your comments seem a bit twisted.

There was never any intention to demean victims of pedophilia whether by clergy or doctors. I thought that the point was clear that by reducing penalties you send out a message that it is not that important. The same could be said of the drug pushers. Slap them over the risk and they see little wrong with their crime.

runner knows very well that a search of Mr. Sabhlok's article yields no allusion to specifics of future policy, but is remarkably constrained - given the reality of prohibitions failings - in advancing that "we need a more rational drug policy".

To place runners allusion to sexual deviance in perspective, the word "legalisation" is not in the original piece. runner is using the false claim we have "a pervert industry" and deliberately confuses increased protection of witnesses, improved detection, honest community education, and less threat of discrimination when seeking treatment with what is a greater level of exposure, reporting, public outcry, conviction, and resultant legislative changes.

To falsely link human rights of users to abuse vulnerable children, in an attempt to promote disgust toward liberal drug policy in the Australian community, is despicable. If the prohibitionist argument need now rely upon such demonstrably malignant tactics, Mr. Sabhlok's only fault may to be guilty of understatement.

Sukrit has echoed the international resolutions of the Vienna Committee on Narcotic Drugs. This "Beyond 2008" forum is easily accessible as are submissions and resolutions. UN Human Rights changes, forbidding criticism of abuses if deemed Sharia, place further responsibility of democratic nations living off the fat of multiculturalism. The Nth. African/Middle East submission looks more favourably upon harm reduction measures than does Australia's critics of the Beyond 2008 resolutions.

the constant agitating for perpetuating of drug war ideology in the West can now be seen as naught but self sabotage. That this superstitious guesswork continues at a time when geopolitical challenges demand a critical eye and dismissal of political correctness, is unacceptable.

The claim that evidence backed arguments that highlight the need for open, honest discourse are in effect "for legalisation" of crimes as revolting as child abuse tells us much more of the religious fundamentalist/conservative mind than of the point in question.

As for cannabis I fear the need for skepticism renders such a grandiose and clearly false claim, simply bizarre.

runner knows very well that a search of Mr. Sabhlok's article yields no allusion to specifics of future policy, but is remarkably constrained - given the reality of prohibitions failings - in advancing that "we need a more rational drug policy".

To place runners allusion to sexual deviance in perspective, the word "legalisation" is not in Sukrit's piece. runner is using the false claim we have "a pervert industry" and deliberately confuses increased protection of witnesses, improved detection, community education, and less threat of discrimination when seeking treatment with what is a greater level of exposure, reporting, public outcry, conviction, resultant legislative changes.

To falsely link human rights of users to abuse of vulnerable children, in an attempt to promote disgust toward liberal drug policy in the minds of Australians, is despicable. If the prohibitionist argument need now rely upon such demonstrably malignant tactics, Mr. Sabhlok's only fault may to be guilty of understatement.

Sukrit has echoed the international resolutions of the Vienna Committee on Narcotic Drugs. This "Beyond 2008" forum is easily accessible as are submissions and resolutions. Recent UN Human Rights changes, relating to abuses and Sharia Law, place further responsibility of democratic nations living off the fat of multiculturalism.

The Nth. African/Middle East submission looks more favourably upon harm reduction measures than does Australia's religious backed critics of the Beyond 2008 resolutions to focus of health and rights. It's a neat trick when Christian fundamentalism not Islamic fundamentalism, is our "enemy".

the constant agitating for perpetuating of drug war ideology in the West is naught but self sabotage. That this superstitious guesswork continues at a time when geopolitical challenges demand a critical eye and brutally realistic responses to global health challenges, is bizarre.

The claim that evidence backed arguments that highlight the need for open, honest discourse are in effect "for legalisation" of crimes as revolting as child abuse tells us much more of the religious fundamentalist/conservative mind than of the point in question.

As for cannabis I fear the need for skepticism renders such a grandiose and clearly false claim, simply bizarre.

http://firesnake.org/index.php?post_id=362796

Good afternoon to you all...

The war on drugs could and should be won. As a retired copper of many years (part of which was involved in drug investigation) there are a couple of 'log jams' that continually thwart, impede, and inhibit the successful interdiction of drug proliferation in Australia -

BRIEFLY:

(a) Allow police to use and exercise ALL their powers;

(b) Ensure that the judiciary dispense meaningful and realistic sentences upon those who are found guilty;

(c) Turn Gaol B A C K into gaol with strict adherence to non-parole periods; and

That ALL political parties embrace and espouse a total 'zero tolerence' policy to all pushers and traffickers on a bi-partisan basis.

Adopt all of the above and we may, I repeat may, start to turn around our losing war on drugs.

Didn't we have this very discussion just a few weeks back?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2042

I really couldn't be bothered going over the same tired ground, but it is good to see Australia's own "failed war on drugs" located in a global context. Rationality may prevail some day - but I can't see it happening soon.

runner: << As someone who has spent a fair bit of time with people suffering from Schizophrenia... >>

Why am I not surprised?

On the other hand, it's nice to be able to agree with Paul.L for a change.

Drugs could be managed better, by not taking them at all.
Some how the young are not being educated about the dangers of drug use. Or they are being instructed in a way, that is not believed.
So there is another way in the war on drugs.