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]