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."