The recent big pension rise has a great potential to undermine the effectiveness of tobacco excise in reducing tobacco demand among a great many full-rate pension recipients. Also rising incomes, as pensions generally increase in line with MTAWE, have made tobacco more affordable as excise has not kept pace. I put it to the writer, and all posters here, that tobacco excise needs another big increase, initially 10c per stick and in another 6 months a further 10c per stick, in order to achieve further demand reductions as currently demand has plateaued and not going down at a great rate at present.

Also society has the smoking in multi-unit residential buildings problem. In the Strata division of my state's tenancy tribunal (CTTT) an owners corporation can prohibit smoking wholly in the building even on individual lots, protecting neighbours from smoke drift into windows from neighbours etc. However as a government housing tenant I don't have this right and am daily assaulted by the foul and toxic emissions of neighbours in the building. My local MP, now the Premier, would not assist me, and the Greens, with I assume an eye to their Pot-smoker constituency, also ignore the issue and would not support total smoking prohibition in multi-unit sites so smokers' neighbours don't have to cop all the toxic gases and foul stench.

I had me last fag in 1989. I can not handle the foul stink of someone that smokes. Last week we were dining at a local sports club, unfortunately our reservation was near the door that leads to the smoking area. The night was busy and every time someone opened the door a great rush of cigarette smoke entered the dining area.
Next reservation i make there, i will be stipulating where i want to be seated.
I recon $100 / pack sounds fare to me.
Stinking filthy dirty habbit.

Good article. If pot killed as many people as other drugs or obesity or car accidents then their might be some validity to it being banned. As it stands it is demonised by vested interests corrupt politicians and stupid godbotherers.
Having said that pot is virtually legal here compared to many places. If you keep it to yourself and dont go out selling it at raves etc the police have very little interest. Just look at the explosion of hydro shops in oz. They aint there for tomato gardeners LOL.

You anti smokers are beginning to get on my nerves. As if in your separate apartment you can smell your neighbors durrys while ignoring the pollution from cars, trucks, buses, factories, aircraft, your own wastes and all the other assaults on our health and senses. No only the ciggie smoker is to blame. When you start slagging off all pollution I will take you seriously on how much tobacco smoke effects your lives.

Oh and P.S. If your anti smoking rant was because you fear pot smoke. It is possible and preferable(health wise) to vaporise or eat pot rather than smoke it and if it was legal that would be the way most people would use it.

Good article!

Let's take the profit motive out of it for criminal gangs, bikies and other related thugs. Plus property crime would halve overnight.

I warn you though, get ready for the brainwashed masses to come running at you with the usual idiotic rants about keeping our children safe from the evils of drugs, since "tough on drugs" is obviously working so well at present, isn't it?

What say you, runner?

WTF?

Prohibition has never worked.

The use of drugs either legal or not has always been tagged to profits for someone or some corporation.

The criminalisation of marijuana can be linked to the rise in nylon manufacturing.

The removal of opiates from once commonly used painkillers and cough medicines can be linked to U.S. purchasing contracts of Tasmanian opium.

It would be a far softer ride for the taxpayer if drug distribution was controlled rather then the current waste of police and judicial time and prison space.

The gutter rats are surfacing. Everybody is allowed their space in this world.
A handfull of people are resisting the trend not to smoke.
Others are ignorant.
And the rest are playing out as if it were their last day.
There ain't any religion in this at all. I hate religion.
Filthy dirty rotten stinking mongrels.

But someone who uses mind-altering drugs is not just "doing their own thing" and it is not simply about a consenting adult who should be able to do what s/he pleases. Drug abuse (and I include alcohol abuse) impacts the lives of many more people than just the user. Try being married to a druggie, or having one as a parent or a boss, and you'll see what I mean. And then, of course, the non-druggies have to assume responsibility for the consequences of the druggies actions. Provide the living, doing the parenting, doing the work and paying the bills for those who have smoked or drunk themselves into permanent incapacity. People who are regular dope users can be relied upon to understate the cost (of which the financial cost is the smallest part)of their habit that they foist onto others. Just as alcoholics convince themselves their actions do no harm to others. They claim it's their right to smoke a bit of weed or get drunk. But what about the rights of a child with foetal alcohol syndrome or the rights of a child whose parents are drug-stuffed ? Or the wife of a violent alcoholic or a dope user who's pickled his brain and simply doesn't function as a parent or partner any more ? We've tried the tolerance to drugs approach and it has failed miserably. A lot of people are doing it tough out there because of someone else's drug/alcohol abuse. It's time to think of them for a change !

WTF?

Sorry huonian - you have missed the point entirely.

You mention a number of problems linked to alcohol abuse. Alcohol is a legal and easily obtainable drug. This article refers mainly to those drugs that are outlawed.

That there are problems linked to drug abuse is not in question here. The psychologically deficient abuse drugs – always have and always will.

The question is - why is one drug legal and another not? I believe that it has to do with who makes the profit.

I partake in no recreational drug use – not even coffee. My choice.

I believe that prohibition creates more problems then it solves.

Bravo.
For those who missed it, the point is that Prohibition causes more issues than the drugs themselves. When alcohol was banned, the criminal profits and impact on children was eventually realised to be too great...and alcohol consumption *increased*.
Alas, that era generated an overly aggressive police culture and a huge black market that can and does still corrupt police and legal systems.
Hemp was banned by renaming it, using Mexican street slang, using racist connotations to link it to "bad types". Hemp was *never* a threat to society...just the cotton industry. No coincidence that the hemp Gin was perfected just before the cotton family interests started the anti-hemp campaign.
Prohibition is unethical, ineffective, expensive and corrupting. It *increases* consumption (due to dodgy criminal connections with kids) and greatly increases the harm.
"Ecstasy" in Australia is a cocktail of unknown drugs such as garage speed, ketamine, heroin and who knows what else. It is impossible to gauge the impact of drugs, nor provide education when the products are illegal. Deaths from GBH only started rising when it was "discovered" by the authorities and banned.
Prohibition is the main corrupting influence on our police, it funds weapons and other illegal activities and it empowers the folks with the least ethics in society.
Supporting prohibition is supporting criminals and endangering kids. It is that simple.

Anyone who is taken to a medical facility due to knowingly having ingested a harmful substance especially repeat cases should autmatically be referred to the end of the qeue. I for one am fed up with wasting so much resource & effort on these wasters whilst someone with a bad toothache or, as the victim of a crime or accident, has to wait for one of those morons getting treated. Ingest the crap cop the wrap ! Simple ! Oh yeah, how cruel & simplistic I can already hear the outrage. Good ! Get yourself into a situation where the culprit gets preference over you & then see how "wrong" I am.

Great article on drug laws. To my mind these are similar to tax laws. There is a vested interest in the status quo on both sides of the fence. Complex and illogical tax laws work in favour of those who can afford the best advice and the bureaucrats love them because they build compliance empires.

One other point. The best experiment in prohibition was the USA with alcohol in the twenties. didn't work then and dosen't now. It just creates a black market for organised crime to exploit.

For my 2c worth, when thinking about these substances, it really isn't a question of:

ALL or NOTHING

but rather

BALANCE.

All of the aforementioned in reality, tobacco, ganja, alcohol, ekies
when consumed in excess do have the potential to impact adversely on health, and I note I find it difficult to believe that the author is a psych nurse.

The question rather is do consenting adults have the choice to indulge in substance which MAY be adverse, in a responsible manner.

I believe that reasonable, rational consenting adults should be able to, and that for those who go wayward, they ought be lovingly picked up and rehabilitated as a matter of medical significance, not the criminal law of the "T.ransplanted G.enocidal P.om."

Aussies have the right to partake of legal (tobacco, alcohol) drugs and now many partake of illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, speed etc. etc.) with varying results.
Sure we can legalise these drugs. However who picks up the tab for all of the Aussies with their health permanently ruined? What about the resulting increase in psychotic nutters and sundry bods who are now on a disability pension that was all their own fault?
The taxpayer pays in increased costs to hospitals and the health system generally. Innocent bystanders are killed or maimed by 'stoned' drivers.
The costs to the community outweigh the 'benefits' of liberalising the drug laws in my opinion.

Alcohol & Tobacco are by far and away the most destructive drugs mentioned by the last poster, and I haven't heard that anyone has ever died of weed.

I suspect an examination of police records would confirm that in the case of tragic events where an individual has been run down by another under the influence of substance that in the vast majority of incidents that the offending substance has been alcohol.

Who pays, well, those who imbue in a regulated industry, by way of tax on product and proceeds are used purely for medical

(irrespective of whether or not individuals break down due to say unknown genetic predisposition or otherwise)

with any surplus then going to medical research and charity, not to nefarious media campaigns aimed at propagating partisan political agendas - I call that soft KORRUPTION!

Indeed the previous poster appears to be an uninformed individual.

nswnotill: Well I agree entirely.

DreamOn: <"I believe that reasonable, rational consenting adults should be able to, and that for those who go wayward, they ought be lovingly picked up and rehabilitated as a matter of medical significance.">

People who have a psychosis either triggered by or exacerbated by using MJ; amphetamines and other mind altering substances are hardly "reasonable, rational" in their choices when the addiction continues to demand relief. Neither are those whose moods and often personalities are altered, for the worse, by drug use. None of them planned to become the monumental pains in the ass that they are that drive others away from them.

As nswnotill said, we already have many individuals on disability pensions because their thinking and functioning is damaged beyond repair - the best that can be done is to add antipsychotic and various other sedating medication in the hope of rendering them harmless to others.

As for using health services to pick up and care for people with addictions - I agree that people should be cared for respectfully and kindly regardless of their behaviour. However, there is also the problem of enabling. I am also worried about health services that are already miusused as rest services for people who seem unable to function in any domain except in procuring their fix.

Even so, I tend to like the idea of dispensing drugs - the full range - from pharmacies and the like. Let Darwinian principles sort it out - hopefully it wouldn't take more than a generation or two. MJ alone if they are supplied with enough of it on a regular basis will reduce fertility.

I would love to see the drug income ripped out of the pockets of people who exploit others' immaturity and weakness. Some government agency or other could distribute them for a nominal amount. Proceeds could go towards rehabilitation for those who still have enough brain cells and wherewithal intact to make that choice. The more impaired could at least be provided with dry, warm flop houses etc.

Cont/d

Cont/d:

Potential hitches in the plan include the impact of their behaviour on other people. I think especially of babies who are born addicted and others too helpless to escape the neglect or rage of a drug fuelled adult. I think also of drugged drivers. There are legal consequences too. Who is culpable if your local truck or bus driver or building contractor is souped up on government crack?

It might also be that no matter what range of substances the government supplies; that some backyard cook somewhere will soon develop something different that competes.

Some people seem to be able to use drugs and remain fairly unscathed; but there are already far too many who have become damaged and altered beyond recognition. Arguments about vested interests on the prevention and health sides of things, keeping things as are, are irrelevant as legalization will hardly prevent the stream of customers with whom health, legal and policing services presently deal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2HipedgM3I&NR=1

Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 2 January 2010 1:36:01 AM

" ... People who have a psychosis either triggered by or exacerbated by using MJ; amphetamines and other mind altering substances are hardly "reasonable, rational" in their choices when the addiction continues to demand relief. ... "

Do you have a medical/scientific basis for your views or are you just spouting off personal opinion based on emotive grabs from the newspaper?

Or perhaps you have someone close effected and even though you likely know very little about it have convinced yourself that you know the "evil reasons" behind it?

..

From what I know about the area people who have some form of mental pathology in the vast majority of cases cannot tolerate consumption of stimulates any longer and if they do imbue they suffer greatly as a consequence. But here again, in the absence of a decent mental health system, often these people are "self medicating" in an effort to self treat.

Even in the case of our own military, many come back with latent and altered states of consciousness, often described as "P.ost T.raumatic S.tress syndrome" and are left to flounder. Now, undoubtedly, some of these characters can be extremely dangerous, but I personally don't blame them for that, but rather the gutter trolls from the liberal and labour pary and their parasitic cohorts in the A.ustralian M.oney grubbers A.ssociation.

Again, though you may note that from my earlier posts in this thread that I am very much aware of the harm that some substances when abused can cause, or in the case of predisposed individuals very quickly, brain chemistry is a very complex area and some individuals benefit greatly from a bit of this or that to relieve stress or otherwise.

..

1/2

2/2

For example, I would point out that the vaso-dilatory effects and the appetite stimulant effect of ganja are still utilised in a controlled manner in some medical facilities as whilst all drugs have side effects, the weed side effect profile is far less, being a natural, than anything synthetic we have on offer currently.

Likewise, Ecstasy was for a long time prescribed by psychiatrists until its long term effects were known, and our own Vietnam troops went packed with a nice baggie of weed to boot.

As already stated, many of these substances can do great harm, but so can food to a person with a specific allergy. I would suggest that if you seek to impose abstinence on mature adults, as history attests, you will not only fail, but you will also fail to avail yourself of the benefits of certain currently illicit substances, which is why of course we also keep and study highly virulent viruses.

Why don't you go and live with Muslims if you want to understand what the results of forced abstinence can be?

As for your comments what ought be done with those suffering a psychosis, I find them to be a most ignorant and offensive generalisation and on behalf of those so inflicted, am pleased to to have the opportunity to tell you so.

DreamOn,

All of my comments have a basis in research literature; which isn't to say that all researchers are in agreement.

Anyway, there are two client groups - people with mental illness and disorders; and people with substance abuse problems. Where there is overlap it is in the group whose mental illness or disorder emerges or worsens after drug use; and it is also *theorized that some people develop a mental illness first and then self-medicate with various drugs. Some researchers and clinicians would say that theories about the last group are baloney. I am undecided either way.

What I have noted is that the only point at which many substance abusers consider reduction of or abstinence from drug use is when they are about to confront the beak on various police charges. Then it is panic stations while their solicitor tries to sham up a case for seeking a mental health exit (that would be a Section 32 under the MH Act).

What irks me most about all of this isn't that people get into a pickle using drugs and need assistance to reduce or abstain. I have endless compassion for those people. However, good, law abiding people who happen to have a mental illness or disorder are lumped along with a lot of irresponsible, self-indulgent, selfish smarties who are quite astute about how to avoid responsibility for the outcomes of behaviour in which they choose to indulge and which they have no intention of modifying. The more we pander and excuse, the less likely people are to alter their behaviour and the associated draining of health resources.

There is no shortage of alcohol and drug services for people with addiction problems but they are unlikely to work unless the person chooses to work with them.

Now what were you saying about my comments? Which particular bit did you find offensive - please be specific.

Well, to be specific again re one of your offensive remarks:

" ... the best that can be done is to add antipsychotic and various other sedating medication in the hope of rendering them harmless to others. ... "

otherwise known as the chemical straight jacket.

To say your comments are based on research without citing is meaningless and will be no doubt be noted as such by other quality information handlers in this place.

Now, whilst I am not an expert, there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests all people with a psychosis are a danger to others and the last person I spoke to regarding that was the legal member of the w.a. mental health oversight committee, as a matter of professional interaction.

Or perhaps you would care to cite evidence to the contrary?

And of course, to state S32 also is meaningless unless you also advise which state's law you are referring to.

..

Re LAW, it is contrary to the Australian system of the Rule of Law to suggest that people ought not make use of their legal avenues to the fullest extent. Perhaps you can cite the provision in question and express a view as to how it is failing the public interest?

As for self medicating, I offer the following for your consideration. One of the common characteristics in a number of mental health conditions is that the pathology induces repetitive, fixed states of consciousness. This can be observed by P.E.T. as sparse areas of limited brain activity.

On the basis of qualitative research with the afflicted, a common theme that comes from probes re: why continued illicit substance abuse is that it is in attempt to have different thoughts and different feelings, which even though it usually comes at the cost of co-morbidity, is a temporary relief of sorts.

Regrettabley, currently available antagonists tend to compound the problem of "all blue mondays," which is understandable when you inhibit the biochemical electrical potential of neuronal pathways.

Thus, from time to time, people will seek, for example, illicit stimulants.

DreamOn: Whether we like it or not, medication is the basis of treatment for people experiencing a psychosis or behaving in unpredicatable ways due to other causes (eg: some dementias).

http://www.eppic.org.au/docs/Fact3recovering.pdf

<"The current atypicals are much more effective against the psychosis of schizophrenia than against the other, more enduring aspects of this disorder, e.g. negative symptoms and cognitive dysfunction.
At present, the atypicals use a “pharmacological shotgun” strategy to treat aspects of the disease in all patients.">

Shitij Kapur and Gary Remington (2001) ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS: New Directions and New Challenges in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto

What do you think actually happens when someone who is psychotic comes into contact with MH services ?

What do you recommend for treatment to relieve their distress and ensure a safe resolution ?

Do you propose that ED staff just light up a toke?

Daily Pot Smoking May Hasten Onset of Psychosis:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091220144936.htm

Daily Consumption Of Cannabis Predisposes To Appearance Of Psychosis And Schizophrenia, Study Finds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325132328.htm

There are many references available through University libraries (as the first I provided) but you might not be able to access. In any case, if you are going to go to bat with some POV on these topics, please do some searches for yourself.

I am sure you mean to be kind, but you can't see that you are advocating for increased harm and despair, especially for people who try to provide support and care to others with addiction problems.

Pynchme, dreamOn, this is all fine, but if I may just attempt to swing things back to the point of the original article. Which was that no one is doubting that there are potentially negative sequelae to using psychotropics (legal or illegal) but that simple prohibition DOES NOT WORK, and that we need to seek alternative ways of dealing with those sequelae.

This has been proven time and time again, in countless societies in different centuries. Those posters that have proposed that drug use would increase with decriminalisation (not legalisation), provide zero evidence for such a claim. Because there is none.

Yes, I quite agree *Stick*

I note that *PynchMe* has degenerated into incoherence and hasn't risen to the challenge of my responses, which is perhaps not surprising.

People like (her) would ban all woman from having a drink because some drink pregnant and develop children with fetal alcohol syndrome;
Or everyone else coz some people drink to excess and have their brains shrink;
Or ban everyone from smoking durries coz some people die of corony heart disease;

..

(JESUS! had a mate croak from exactly that not so long ago. Was moving slabs in the garden with his young bloke (who does part time emergency services work)) when he fell back, gurgled, clutched his chest and died. His young fella worked his bod with CPR and got him going again , but he spewed upon reanimation and it went into his lungs and he promptly died again, finally, and for the second time!)))

Small Song:
" Koffy, Koffy, what a Hell of a way to DIE
Koffy, Koffy, what a Hell of a way to DIE
Koffy, Koffy, what a Hell of a way to DIE
and he aint gonna smoke no more! "

..

*PynchMe*

You don't seem to know the difference between a citation and a quote, from say a web site, which whilst interesting, is not was called for to establish evidence to substantiate fact.

And on your "Science Daily" link, there is a study which demonstrates the exact opposite of what you're trying to prove.

CLUELESS!

Having said that, and as I know and have earlier expressed, some people (the minority) are unable to imbue certain substance less they develop serious adverse health effects and they if they know, are well advised to stay clear of it.

However, that is not a reasonable basis in my view for prohibition of certain substances, like weed. Neither is the fact that some people will abuse it a reasonable basis to ban all people from its legal consumption.

The balance point is what is called, mature, consenting, adult responsibility.

DreamOn,

Uou'll note that I referred to the first reference from a *University library that I provided, not the first link that I provided - which was just an example of hand outs for clients and carers re: that taking medication is the basis of treatment recommended for them.

I used Science Daily because of it's ready accessibility - I was being polite (since another poster once complained about being unable to access references I provided). However, if one has access to a Uni library, Science Daily will point out the items that one might search. Whether or not you choose to equip yourself with some information is up to you.

I am well aware that some researchers have made different findings (hence my comment that not all researchers are in agreement) and have no trouble considering all information available rather than just that which supports some point I am making.

As for being a wowser, I'm not. You might recall my post where I said I could go with the government itself distributing drugs. I think I am actually in favour of it. However, I am not going to sit idly by and see misinformed people like yourself insist that drugs are predominantly harmless and that mental health services should somehow miraculously pick up any slack for poor lifestyle choices. Drugs are not harmless, no matter who distributes them - insisting that we'll all be happily dancing around maypoles in flowered fields does not remove the reality that carers, children, babies and others do and will continue to suffer.

My further point is that people with addictions who want to be less dependent on drugs should access specific services rather than trying to label drug use, and some consequent behaviours, as MH problems (bear in mind the overlap that I described).

I realize that many people with addictions have suffered a past trauma etc etc - except in few cases, drug and alcohol services and a range of private providers are the most useful ports of call for assistance.

While I like the idea of getting rid of the criminal element in drug use, the potential consequences would be worse. And the criminal element will never be eliminated completely.

I have spent too much time with drug-induced mentally ill people to ever wish to see it legalised.

Why would we want to decriminalise other drugs like when we already live with the consequences of legalised drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Alcohol in moderation is not a problem unless abused but the same cannot be said for other drugs.

You will never get rid of the criminal element with legalisation. New drugs come out all the time and become the thing to try - they will be sold on the black market until the pharmacists can manufacture the same and by the time they do another new drug will take its place.

Once you legalise something it becomes by nature defacto 'endorsed' or the norm. Alcohol and tobacco are perceived as normal despite the health risks. What makes you think kids who might now only experiment with smoking or drinking will not be more disposed to try other drugs if they are legal.

Governments turn a blind eye to alcohol sponsorshsp of sport despite the money spent on anti-binge drinking campaigns. That is what I call a vested interest.

There is no conspiracy theories when it comes to drugs. Drug use does not just affect the user but those around them - if it was just a case of Darwinian natural selection where no harm is done to others then so be it. This is not the reality.

Have you ever been with someone high on pot - they cannot tell if the car they are driving is slow or fast. Spend time in a mental ward and find out how many people have induced these conditions by drug use. Visit young people (late 20s) in hospital who have an early form of Alzheimers from using pot. Pot is not the 'la-la-everying is right mate' harmless drug people make it out to be.

IMO, legalising drugs is not the answer.

I disagree with you on a couple of points there, Pelican.

Which drugs can't safely be used in moderation? Some drugs have worse overdose effects, but I can't think of any that are massively harmful to individuals or society when used moderately.

I don't think it's true that "new drugs come out all the time and become the thing to try". Cannabis, heroin and amphetamines are the mainstay of the illicit drug market (with LSD still a minority market), and pretty much all of the other drugs that get about are derivatives and substitutes of those, and only become marketable because supplies of the biggies are limited.

I strongly disagree with you regarding the effects of cannabis. Driving on pot should be (and is) illegal, as it is with alcohol or any other perception-affecting drug, but cannabis-induced psychosis is exclusively the product of heavy, long-term abuse, not an occasional joint.

One of the stumbling blocks in the drug debate is that there's little public discrimination between desperate self-medication and genuine recreational use. Opiates are a perfect example. To this day, many people are wary of taking morphine for pain relief because they fear they'll leave hospital with a heroin addiction, although the research clearly indicates that that doesn't happen.

The confusion is because addiction is assumed to be intrinsic to the drug, rather than a result of people using it to treat emotional pain (remembering that psychological pain activates the exact same parts of the brain as physical pain, and is relieved by the same drugs).

When I lived in Canberra I saw a huge amount of amiable heroin use. People on 80k jobs would shoot (or smoke) up on their leisure time, then go back to being conscientious professionals on Monday, so I can't believe that smack is the irresistible, all-destroying monster it's made out to be.

Flat-out legalisation may be a big step to take, but I'd like to see a trial system where people can register to receive a pre-determined quantity of dexamphetamine or heroin each month, and see how it affects drug treatment and crime rates.

I had a mate who smashed his legs up hell badly after a really bad prang on a rice rocket, and he came out from months of hospitalisation and morphine with a heroin addiction.

I've seen more than my fair share of people who have ended up needing involuntary treatment but the majority of them, following inquiries into their history, are shooting up rock, smashing down all manner of pills, drinking and smoking to great excess.

It is little surprise that a number of them end up with problems.

It is also true that a small minority with "likely" genetic predisposition can trigger serious illness by but one exposure to certain illicits.

But the data to date suggest that they are the unfortunate minority and again, serious side effects for a very small minority are the hallmark of virtually every drug, and I am obviously also referring to prescription medication here as well.

..

When you take the thrill out of "risky behavior," and normalise it, it no longer has the same appeal for some.

Marajuana has a number of medical benefits and is one of humanities oldest medicines. It is true though that it has been selectively bred for a long time resulting in some much higher THC strains than those available during the Flower Power era, and this has very likely added to the victim pool, especially if combined with some of the nastier amphetamines such as ICE/ROCK/METHAMPHETAMINE, let alone mention the likes of PCP.

However, it is worth noting that up until the late nineties and early new millenia, that ganja wasn't even recognised as possibly having a causal role in psychosis. Before then, there was simply no medical evidence to confirm the hypotheses.

Even now, with so much cocktailing going on ...

However, in partial support of comments by *Pelican* and someone's mum, if an individual already has an affliction, then more often than not further consumption will put them into a bad health spiral dive and keep them there if they can't get clean in accompaniment with quality treatment.

This battle is a perennial one and

people must ask the question

Why, 100 or so years ago

Were heroin and other drugs of dependency deemed illegal yet alcohol and tobacco not?

Well since that time the only thing which has changed has been in the development of synthetic narcotics and more potent cannabis, which has expand the range and risk of “recreational drugs” beyond what was available then

“Sweet” things like methamphetamine and pills like ecstasy.

Pills which do not just induce a dependency but

Cause violent and other (theft and burglary etc) anti-social behaviour and (like previously existing narcotics), differing degrees of psychosis and paranoia.

The notion of going soft on drugs is to accept that greater levels of violence and attacks on innocent family member, paramedical, police and bystanders will be inflicted by psychotic idiots.

A better solution would be to elevate the punishment for dealing and using illegal drugs

I would seriously suggest a referendum on the return of the death penalty and add to the list of “execution” offences second offence drug dealing

Playing that, along with forfeiture of all assets, it might not reduce the demand side of the system but it would sure be a big disincentive to the “supply” side.

Regarding users – compulsory “detox” in a penal environment.

You can accept and tolerate stupid idiots doing harm to others and supporting their dependency by an increase in property crimes

or not

But you cannot have it both ways

Any “entitlement” to use narcotics brings with it the “obligation” to do no harm to others, yet too many consistently fail to meet their obligation when under the influence of their drug of choice.

On a personal note, I remember someone who was murdered (repeatedly stabbed and slashed) by a girl experiencing a cannabis induced schizophrenic episode.

Which equates to two lives lost to “recreational drugs”

that is why they are illegal now and should remain illegal in the future

Sancho
I know I come across pretty strong on this issue. Agreed, drug use is not limited to the usual stereotypes. A friend of mine once commented she was shocked at how many suits came in for methadone although most users did fit the stereotype.

Drugs have to be used in the context of drug rehabilitiation but not as a lifestyle choice. It would be a boon for the pharmaceutical industry and a dangerous legalised vested interest is borne.

This issue is controversial with valid points on both sides. At one stage I sat on the other side of the debate. It was only after being exposed to the problem via work that I changed my mind. Admittedley, I probably experienced the extreme end of the spectrum.

Many families of drug users advocate for legalisation because it reduces the negative stigma from their loved ones and reduces the risk of them committing crimes, including against their own families.

While it is a sympathetic position and one that is sometimes difficult to argue I believe the consequences would be worse. It is one of the few issues I feel very strongly about - that legalisation would be a big mistake.

I partly agree with Col (not the death penalty) that we need stronger penalties for all aspects of the drug trade. Users should be treated as victims and put into rehabilitiation rather than prison (IMO). One of the biggest problems is corruption and one wonders how on earth drugs make it into the prison system.

Recent research reveals that marijuana use is dangerous even over a long period even if used in moderation for many people. Moreso in those who possess the vulnerable gene. There are many links on the Net about the latest research - a quick Google should find most of them. It is not all negative, marijuana may have some positive medical benefits for the terminally ill and with pain relief which should be further explored.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16756582?dopt=Abstract

Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006 Jun-Jul;40(6-7):570-4.
Reasons for cannabis use in psychosis.

Schofield D, Tennant C, Nash L, Degenhardt L, Cornish A, Hobbs C, Brennan G.

University of Sydney, Psychological Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia. dschofie@nsccahs.health.nsw.gov.au

OBJECTIVE: To examine the reasons for cannabis use among individuals with psychotic disorders. METHOD: Forty-nine people with psychotic disorders in treatment with community health centres in Northern Sydney were interviewed to collect information about their experience of antipsychotic side-effects and their influence on cannabis use. Other information collected on cannabis use included: amount and frequency, effects of use and other general reasons given for use. RESULTS: It was found that boredom, social motives, improving sleep, anxiety and agitation and symptoms associated with negative psychotic symptoms or depression were the most important motivators of cannabis use. Positive symptoms of psychosis and antipsychotic side-effects that were not associated with anxiety, were not important motivators of cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: As cannabis use ["may"] precipitate relapse in this population, it is important to reduce these motivators of use. Clinician's must assess and treat these problems, thus reducing the need for patients to self-medicate with cannabis, and therefore reducing the risk of relapse.

PMID: 16756582 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The regulated legalisation of all recreational drugs will save the world. At the moment the illegal drug trade is making a few king-pins very rich while the rest of us are excluded from the benifits of this highly lucrative industry. Regulated legalisation would be a boon to all members of society as national governments reap the tax revenue from their legal production and sale (look up Jeffrey Miron for an economic analysis of a legal recreational drug industry).
True, any form of drug taking has health consequences, but there are also benefits, and to deem illegal drugs as wholly detrimental is blinkered, as many an insomniac pot user will attest, it is safer and more effective than benzodiazepan or other sedatives, and it only takes one cup of coffee in the morning to feel bright and chirpy while the 'hangover' from legal medications can last all day.
For those of you interested I recommend the Transform Drug Policy Foundation's website for a rational and reasonable analysis on how a regulated and legal recreational drug system can work.
Legalise it so the tax revenue can benefit us all, not just Pablo Escobar, Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman and their ilk.