The control of supply and distribution of illicit drugs through international and domestic law enforcement has largely been ineffective. The drugs are still available on our streets.

I propose that legal control of currently illicit drugs would provide a mechanism to manage the quality, supply and support to users, which the current enforcement practices can not.

1. Quality.

Any "back yard chemist" can manufacture their own concoctions and supply to the unwary. There is no quality control, no testing as to the efficacy or adverse effects. Buyer beware, oh and by the way it's illegal, so we're not going to assist you with anything related to your purchase.
With govenment control there can be checks and measures to ensure that the informed user is getting what they pay for. It is their personal choice to use, they should be protected by consumer legistlation that they get a quality product. Governments do it for currently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, why not other drugs?

2. Supply

This is currently controlled by the "underworld" or "black market". Crime supports illegal trade. With governments controlling legal products, the crime connections are severed - along with the impact to society of all the drug related crime.

3. Support

I understand that use of illict drugs can cause significant detriment to the user, their family and the community. Why don't we assist the potential and current users to understand what they could/are doing to their bodies and their relationships? Proper government and community support would assist to reduce the drug problem far more successfully than any law enforcement solution.

I'm interested in your views.
Am I naive, misinformed, and just plainly wrong?
Or is this a solution no government in the world would support anyway so why discuss it?.

"Am I naive, misinformed, and just plainly wrong?"

Yes.

There's only one effective solution to the drug problem, provide medical assistance only once.
If a repeat treatment is needed make the user pay, take it or leave it. I'm sick & tired of not getting compensation as a victim of crime yet Government sees it fit to use up much needed medical resources & manpower to help voluntary addicts. To the civil libertarians I say, where's my value for my tax Dollars wasted on these useless morons.
Of course to an innocent victim who has been deliberately drugged we must render assistance.

Considerthis,

You're on the bally money far as I reckon. You're only naive if you think it's going to happen.

Drugs are easy to get in jail — many state government have promised a drug-free prison, none has been forthcoming. So everyone wants harsh sentences for people who break in to their cars, but those people's addictions solidfy in prison, and they come out and break in to more cars. Drug-users are seldom willingly violent — heroin turns you in to a peacenik, if anything — but they need money. Decriminalise drugs and the whole bottom would fall out of the a very vicious circle (to mix a metaphor).

There is, of course, a difference between decriminalising drugs and legalising them. Neither are particularly likely to happen — maybe for grass, but that's it. Even if the government provided legal alternatives, it would probably only do so to addicts. The illegal trade would still exist.

Either way, to jail people for personal use is a mad waste of money and police and judicial time.

Prohibition of alcohol was an abysmal failure. Now it's sale is controlled and earning tax dollars.

At present alcohol causes much greater societal problems, costing the taxpayers much more, than all the illicit drugs combined. So the question must be posed, would legalizing illicit drugs increase their cost to society? Or would the enormous tax excise accrued from legal selling benefit all tax payers and result in a lowering of our taxes?

Alcohol and 'recreational' drugs act differently on the human brain. Alcohol is a CNS depressant, which is why it is prone to making a drunk angry and violent.

Thinking on a practical and rational level legalizing and supplying illicit drugs makes sense. Taxes earned from the sale would help toward dealing with health issues and crime would be drastically cut. Drugs use is a fact.

Drug addicts are irrelevant to this debate. There are alcoholics in our communities and alcohol is still legal.

Considerthis

I tend to lean towards not legalising or decriminalising illicit drugs. The arguments against that resonate well with me include:

1. There are too many 'new' drugs coming on the market and unfortunately the criminals will only replace any newly 'legalised' drugs with a different drug that can be sold and still turn a tidy profit on the black market.

2. The impact of legalising drugs contradicts drug education and sends an ambiguous and a hypocritical message.(eg. as with tobacco and alcohol)

3. In the 80s, after the Drug and Alcohol Summit, the argument for legalisation only covered "current" drug users who would register and have access to (in this case) heroin under the care and supervision of a doctor. Potential or experimental drug users would not be able to access (rightly so) which would still ensure a 'career' in the drug trade possible and lucrative. In fact, the risk is that career drug criminals would build a concerted effort to lure 'new users' (usually younger people) into drug use to build up demand after any initial loss created via legalisation.

4. While it is clear the criminal justice system has failed to some extent to curb the drug trade there are better and newer measures implemented by Customs and Police and these are paying off with more and more drugs being found before they hit the market. A better inquiry might be to look at why the drug trade has been so successful and really spend some money on hitting it where it hurts. This would have to include research into why more and more people are turning to illicit drug use ie. root causes and possible solutions rather than a short term bandaid approach.

5. Legalisation does nothing to change the 'culture' inherent in the drug use community. Often this is a habit just as hard to kick as the drug itself.

Considerthis, I second what Yvonne said.
We need to look at the drug problem in a more pragmatic way and opt for the most effective way to deal with it. Drugs should be a health issue, not a criminal one.

The never-ending war on drugs is a laugh. The USA’s crime bill (1986) stated that America would be drug-free in 1995. America is hardly drug free despite large amount s of money spent on the war on drugs.

To not legalise drugs is more damaging for users than to legalise them. Prohibiting the use of drugs means there is no control on price, causing more crime. There’s also no control on standards (e.g. hygienic manufacturing, quality control, strength labeling, health warnings on packaging), causing bigger health risks.

Like with the use of alcohol, most people who take drugs choose the least harmful ones and use them on occasions; for recreation with some friends or at a party. Some time-out or to relax.
With proper drug education and instructions about dosage, strength etc I donn’t see how legalising drugs would have to be so controversial.

Pelican, there would be less drug dealers who would want to risk selling drugs to under 18s- they can be heavily fined like with the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Neither would they want to risk their reputation and business by selling new, unapproved drugs.
You have a good point about the new drugs coming on the market. Perhaps people would be more inclined to buy legal drugs from a shop then take the risk using a drug that hasn’t been approved yet?
I’ll have to give that some more thought.

The use of illegal drugs is the opportunity for drug dealers to grow and increase the number of dependent users.

I have never pursued the idea that taking illegal drugs should be illegal in itself
.
However, I do believe the way to curtail the supply is to stop pussy-footing around with the trafficker penalties.

My preferred option is

Return of the death penalty

Execution for anyone sentenced to a second drug dealing / trafficking offence.

I am prepared to give those who do transgress into trafficking one change to redeem themselves but that is it.

Second offence, Execution.

It will take time but eventually the message will sink in, those who seek to profit from illegal drugs deserve the ultimate penalty.

I wonder if Schapelle Corby and the Bali 9 would have been so gung-ho about shipping drugs through Indonesia if they had been brought up in a culture which would see them executed for a similar offences here?

Why not consider THIS..... any such legal control scheme would involve onerous licencing requirements, regular quality audits etc.. which only wealthy people or companies could afford.

You would STILL get the el cheapo backyard bods who avoid the cost of all that and offer the stuff.

In the same way that 'legalized/controlled' brothels did NOTHING to reduce the sex slave aspect of the sex industry, so to in this case.

The End.

I always take news of large illicit drug shipment siezures with a bit of unease.

What then happens is that because supplies are reduced the price goes up and/or the quality goes down.

As a result, the incidence of violent crime and theft goes up as does the number of medical emergencies due to overdoses or tainted drugs.

Both end up costing me more as a taxpayer and as a insurance policy holder. More people suffer and more people die.

Meanwhile, the scourge just keeps going on and on.

The war on drugs is over and the drugs have won.

If we took control of supply and distribution away from the dealers then they would go out of business overnight. Perhaps then each identified addict could be approached and offered assistance to overcome their problem out from the shadow of criminality.
Not a perfect solution but it could take away most of the social problems the current situation creates.

But of course, this can never be allowed to happen.

As long as there is money to be made by criminals and influential members of society and laundered by respected businessmen then it will always be with us.

Unfortunately, moving to a position where drug possession and usage are decriminalised would involve political will. There are major vested interests in the status quo who will use their political and financial clout to prevent change. The most obvious amongst those interests are the drug enforcers and the drug lords, both of whom would find their livelihoods threatened by decriminalisation.

Add that to a significant proportion of the population who would see decriminalisation as being soft on crime. These people are unable get beyond the idea that drug users are criminals, overlooking the fact they're only criminals because we have irrational and inconsistent laws against drug use.

So decriminalisation is a nice idea, and would provide significant benefits, but it's not going to happen.

The issues are certainly complex and there are valid arguments in both camps particularly about harm minimization for drug users.

As per my first post which dealt only with the more criminal aspects - it is not as simple as it might appear. I tend to agree with Col regarding tougher penalties for drug manufacturers and suppliers (I don't agree with the death penalty though).

We could just declare all drugs legal and it would be a free for all but I think that is taking it too far and I don't believe the majority of Australians would be comfortable with that. Studies on the impact of drug availability in Amsterdam indicate that legalisation does not solve the issues surrounding drug use and can indeed make it worse.

There is growing evidence that links high cannabis use to schizophrenia and other mental illnesses in some people but I know some of these studies are controversial. (A quick Internet search brings up a lot of varied research and views on this issue alone).

I am not absolutely sure of my feeling about this issue either having been invovled in the Alcohol and Drug Summit indirectly in the 80s I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to increasing access to illicit drugs. And I believe there is a risk that those who might not think of using drugs now may behave differently if the image of drugs was to become more acceptable or part of the 'norm' (and this would only take a generation or two after legalisation).

The death penalty? Jeez, what a square.

Personally, I think adults should have the right to ingest whatever they want. We have had so many gazillion drug campaigns that it's ridiculous to suggest people take drugs without an awareness of what they do to one's body, the risks of addiction etc etc. Why can't I decide what goes in to my body?

Of course addiction is a risk. So are mental health issues. But people are going to use drugs regardless of whether they are illegal or not. Pelican, a quick Google Scholar search shows there's also an awful lot of journal articles claiming benefits from Amsterdam's drug policy.

Over the years, I've known a few people who have died of overdoses. In every case, they would be alive today if they'd been able to get in to rehab at crucial points. Throwing one of their drug dealers in jail — which is the government's current plan — does bugger all.

How many people do you know who have stopped using drugs because they couldn't get any because the police locked their drug dealer up?

Hmm... it's a tough one - funnily enough, I tend to think the status quo isn't the abysmal failure it's made out to be when you consider the alternatives.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in any instance for a wide variety of reasons, but that's another debate - I am curious though, Col, as to which illegal drug dealers warrant the death penalty.
Are you talking about pot dealers who deal a few bags here and there, or heroin dealers? Is there any sliding scale here?
I suspect that if you're proposing the death penalty for small time dealers of marijuana or amphetamines, you're proposal sounds more than a little overboard.

To the other aspects:

Firstly - jailing users is a bad idea. As mentioned earlier, putting them amongst hardened criminals is hardly going to make them any better.

I've no problems with going after the large dealers, which is more or less what the status quo is.
Hitting the big ones makes some sense.
Discerning between users and dealers is nigh on impossible when it's only very small scale dealers anyway.

Vanilla “The death penalty? Jeez, what a square.”

If that means your policies are the rounder sort, which roll and run with the wind, then you will bring on the an even greater epidemic of illicit drugs.

Conversely, “Square” is good, it don’t get blown around with the variable winds of fashion.

“Personally, I think adults should have the right to ingest whatever they want.”

Me too.

I was specific, the penalties should apply to dealers not to users.

The penalties should apply to those who profit from the abusive trade and not to what many might consider the “victims”, despite how voluntary a victim they may be.

“Of course addiction is a risk. So are mental health issues.”

I know someone who is turning paranoid, largely due to an over ingestion of marijuana. He is destroying every relationship he has and despite the love and care of his mother, has carried on regardless to the point he is about to find her recognition that despite her support, which has cost her in excess of $10,000 in the last year, she is recognizing that all her efforts are only enabling him to maintain a dissolute life of dependency upon her and is, thus about to pull the security blanket out from under him.

And before we talk about legalizing marijuana, what about legalizing methamphetamine or heroin?

Where are you going to draw the line between what might be considered by some “benign” and what is considered physically and cognitively “corrosive”.

If a drug was not habit forming or addictive, I guess we might consider it, regardless of any momentary affects being basically benign but all the illicit drugs are addictive and the legal ones (like alcohol and tobacco) are addictive too.

The single most important thing with addictive drug use is it deprives people of the freewill which they once had to develop and grow for themselves and those around them. Addiction reduces them to substance slaves.

This is the UK BMA review for legalization
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/legalisingillicitdrugsresource~decriminalisation

This is the UK BMA review against legalization
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/legalisingillicitdrugsresource~against

my personal view is,
whilst legalization may seem an appropriate course for say marijuana, the observable increase in paranoia and other side effects of modern variants of hash, compared to the older / original product suggests, basing acceptability on an old product standard is fraught with dangers in regard to the new variant.

The rest of the stuff, should remain illegal. Legalization may help present users but it will certainly encourage wider acceptance and greater social use, which whilst appearing to alleviate the present problem will lead to a far larger future problem, than if the stuff were to remain illegal.

Vanilla

You are right, the literature and research in this field is wide and varied generally - that is what makes it a complex problem. Even the drug experts/researchers/sociologists are at odds the best ways of tackling some of the drug issues.

I should have added that Amsterdam has not legalised illicit drugs, at this stage it is only marijuana but I was more using it as an example of the failures of legislation (as highlighted in some of the more recent literature) and yes acknowledge the literature is varied on this as well.

I do tend to agree with Col that the effect of legalisation of illicit drugs is potentially fraught with danger and may create a bigger problem in the future.

What about the other important questions we need to ask?

Why do people turn to drugs, particularly younger people in spite of the education provided from a very young age.

What are the lessons we should (or could) learn from legal drugs such as alcohol or tobacco?

Alcohol and tobacco are only bigger problems at present compared with illicit drugs because they are legal and readily attainable from shops ie. socially acceptable despite community knowledge of alcohol abuse etc

Col Rouge, this subject must touch a sore point with you. Calling for the death penalty is a very emotive response. Illicit drugs are not nearly as costly as sensationalist news stories make out.

The death penalty will only make the money to be earned from trafficking even more lucrative. That’s the market talking. The greater the risks the greater the rewards, just like anything in a free market. See it from a purely business transaction Col.

Do you know which drug is very dangerous, results in an extraordinary number of admissions to casualty every week due to deliberate overdose, causes death in approx 4 children a year in Australia and has far reaching health problems? Panadol.

It is sold by the bucket load in pharmacies and supermarkets. It causes irreparable liver damage.

It never ceases to amuse me how the Netherlands always comes into these kind discussions. And it never ceases to amuse me the myths that surround what actually happens in the Netherlands.

For accurate information check the Trimbos Institute. Drug misuse is seen as a Health issue. The Trimbos Institute is the body that oversees Mental Health and Addiction. Drugs are not legalized, not even Marijuana. It is decriminalized.

The Netherlands falls about middle in drug use in Europe. The UK tops Europe, France is second in use of all drugs. France is now looking at how the Dutch manage drug use.

The average age of first experimenting with drugs is higher (by about 2 years) in the Netherlands than it is in for instance in the UK. The misuse of alcohol amongst youngsters is presently a more serious issue in Holland than drugs.

The major problem that drugs cause our community is the crime that comes with it. Major and petty crime. That affects us, directly and indirectly.

Legalizing prostitution did reduce crime. It certainly reduced police on the take.

Maintaining our current stance on illicit drugs is illogical, it is emotive.

Regulation and control of the drug market can and will save lives. As Vanilla and Yvonne said, when we decriminalise drugs, drug addicts can be treated as patients. These people can be offered medical and financial support rather than a jail sentence.
Drugs, once decriminalised, like alcohol and tobacco, can be taxed and sold for less than they cost underground.

Binge drinking has increased and hospitals are treating FAR more alcohol related cases than illicit drug cases.
There are so many problems with alcohol that I find it hard to believe that it is still being advertised especially at sport events.

Yvonne, I never knew that Panadol is such a dangerous drug! That sounds scary.
Even prescription drugs can be a greater health risk than illicit drugs, if I’m not mistaken.
Heath Ledger, for example, died from an accidental overdose of prescription medications including painkillers, anti-anxiety drugs and sleeping pills, and many were surprised that he didn’t die because of an overdose of illicit drugs.

Col, “...basing acceptability on an old product standard is fraught with dangers in regard to the new variant.”
I see what you mean. But once decriminalised, drugs can be labeled according to strength and proper information can be given out about strengths and risk etc.
Once people have information they can make up their own mind about what they want to take.

the positives of decriminalising drugs are way, way outweighed by the negatives. we must ask why people, especially the very young, try drugs in the first place. is it frustration or stupidity. are they driven to drugs by the selfishness of money only focused adults ? Let's face the truth here just for a moment. what can youngsters actually do nowadays without being told "no, you can't do that !" or, do you have a permit ?, or you have to be a member, or, that'll cost you so much, or we'll play stupid music & movies till you spend your money, or if you don't win you're not good enough, your academic results aren't good enough, etc. etc. all these pressures are imposed by adults who can't see the damage they're doing to the young in their pursuit of money. just take a good look at TV or have a good listen to the radio. what do you see & hear ? crap, utter crap ! everything is a competition. there's no allowance for innocent fun. no, it's always about winning. life's not about that for a decent human being ? it's about being content. how can youngsters develop with so much idiocy thrown at them by adults trying to exploit them every step of the way. we don't need decriminalising of taking drugs, we need decriminalising of common sense & criminalise the breeding of senselessness.

This is what I meant when I asked what can we learn from the legal legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

Legalisation didn't alleviate alcohol abuse or cigarette smoking, why would it with other different drugs? The biggest problems with alcohol such as binge drinking and long term alcoholism are only getting worse. Legilising drugs doesn't make the problem go away and I would argue it would get worse once our social psyche adapted to newer forms of drugs available on the market.

Drug users are already treated like patients and many resources are already allocated by governments and charities for drug rehabilitation, food and housing, education, needle exchange etc. Not only should we ensure this support remains but we should step it up a notch to ensure that no-one slips through the cracks when the user makes the difficult decision to kick the habit and actually seek help.

I strongly believe the better path to take with this problem is to look at why people use drugs? What are the root causes and then take appropriate action to combat the problem from the take-up end not just allocate money to the bandaid end of the problem.

You won't reduce drug use by legalisation and you will only add to the problems of an already overburdened underfunded hospital (incl. allied health services) system.

Pelican, Drug users are generally NOT treated like patients. Sure, Australia has a harm minimisation policy in place, but drug users are still charged and tried. Most addicts end up in prison at some point, where it is basically impossible to clean up. They learn more about participating in crime to feed addictions, and they learn more about drug use. Ten per cent of injecting drug users use needles for the first time in prison. (See: http://www.ffdlr.org.au/commentary/Drugs%20in%20perspective.htm )

It's an excellent point about alcohol and tobacco, but do remember that legalising heroin doesn't mean making it available for sale. It generally means giving it to addicts in controlled programs.

We shouldn't fool ourselves that kids start taking drugs because they're messed up. People take drugs, first and foremost, because they feel good. Then they want to take more. I believe the best thing we could do to improve drug-related problems (which will never be completely eradicated) is to educate children about drugs — properly, not have a cop go in to some Year Ten classroom and say speed will make you feel anxious, which half the kids know is untrue and they other half are about to find out — and about addictions. Have addicts talk to the kids.

No one dreams of being a drug addict. It's no one's goal in life. So let's ask those people who ended up there HOW they ended up there and how other people can avoid it.

This is one of those vexed topics that rolls around with monotonous regularity. Clearly, the criminalisation of illicit drugs is about as successful as the prohibition of alcohol was in the USA, with similar unfortunate side effects like the rise of organised crime and the filling of prisons. Any truly rational analysis has to conclude that the whole exercise is a monumental waste of resources and effort, and doesn't work anyway.

A viewing of the current TV Drama "Underbelly" gives some idea of how making drugs illegal spawns all kinds of criminal problems that are ultimately worse than the drugs themselves.

However, as others have pointed out, there are so many vested interests and such a shortage of political balls that it's highly unlikely that rationality will ever win out when it comes to recreational drugs - so lives will continue to be wrecked, crime will continue to flourish, gaols will continue to be full, and the moralists will continue to deny that prohibition of illicit drugs is a complete and utter failure.

Col: "
I know someone who is turning paranoid, largely due to an over ingestion of marijuana. He is destroying every relationship he has and despite the love and care of his mother, has carried on regardless to the point he is about to find her recognition that despite her support, which has cost her in excess of $10,000 in the last year, she is recognizing that all her efforts are only enabling him to maintain a dissolute life of dependency upon her and is, thus about to pull the security blanket out from under him."

What to do then? Shoot his importer, which will mean he takes risks to find another. In the unlikely event shooting his importer has interrupted his supply (the death penalty may make citizens feel better, but doesn't do much to halt supply), he can ramp up his addiction to ice, which is homegrown and much harder to eradicate.

In fact, his mother indeed needs to spend that money not on hand-outs to her son, but on rehab. There's a big myth about rehab, which is that the person should *want* to go. I've seen many people who've have been dragged kicking and screaming to rehab, but it's worked for them.

There are no easy answers. Drugs are horrible but they're also amazing. Human have used them since we discovered them to alter our consciousness and heighten our senses.

I don't want to hog this thread but I will just add one more post.

Vanilla when you say "It's an excellent point about alcohol and tobacco, but do remember that legalising heroin doesn't mean making it available for sale. It generally means giving it to addicts in controlled programs."

That is my point which I made in my first post on this topic. If it is given to addicts in controlled programs (which has merit but is not legalising it) how will this halt the criminal aspects of the drug trade or deter new users (potential addicts) in a continuous spiral of addiction. Methadone is already provided to those who are in programs at present as part of the rehabilitation process along with other supports and counselling (I agree that this could be extended and improved upon).

I know full well that no-one aspires to be a drug addict and it is amazing when you think how many people still turn to drugs despite all the education and information available. This just proves there is more to it than just being informed. This is what I meant by the WHY.

As I said earlier, I know this issue is complex and I have often oscillated and waivered on some of what I have stated above but I keep coming back to the the view that the arguments against legalising are stronger than those which support it - and I am aware that some of the arguments for decriminalisation (not legalising) have some merit.

Thank you to all the posters: vanilla, pelican, individual, celivia, yvonne, Col Rouge (for multiple postings) and Mr.Right, BOAZ_David, Wobbles, Sylvian Else, ThurnRightThenLEft, CJ Morgan...

I have appreciated reading all the postings, and it has certainly provided me with more research threads.

What to do?

Nothing will change as far as I can see: no political will, no socitey will, too much pressure from big time criminals/business, and the current legal system is not changing the situation.

How do those who beleive in a new approach get the ground swell needed? Hmmm, any suggestions?

Pelican,

Sorry, I probably shot my mouth off without reading all the posts properly. It is a very complex issue and I oscillate and waver also — but generally come down just over the fence from you. As may be obvious, I have had my own joys and my own addiction problems with drugs, and I guess I look at my life and my friends' lives and judge things that way. I certainly believe that one major failing in all those full-on ice ads and scare-mongering school programs is that they fail to admit that, while addiction can be horrible, taking drugs is usually heaps of fun. It is a rite of passage in adolescence that many people experience and then remember with affection. Kids aren't stupid — people aren't stupid — and they know when governments are scraping all the gild OFF the lily in order to make drugs seem particularly unpalatable. I think honesty, as always, is a better choice.

On the other hand, there are those people who really do turn to drugs to soothe an otherwise horrible existence. Drugs, particularly heroin, are very soothing. What proportion of victims of childhood sexual abuse, I wonder, end up addicts? I think we could cure a lot of addiction simply by forgetting about drug addictions — which are often an effect rather than a cause — and trying to make people's lives less sh!t in general. More family support services in local councils, for example.

I agree that there's little difference between a heroin program and a methodone program.

Very tricky.

Vanilla,
I read a study (in Dutch) where they did controlled trials on heroin addicts in the Netherlands to find out which of the 2 programs gave better results- heroin or methadone. They found that a combination of methadone and heroin was more effective and safer than treatment with methadone alone.
If these studies are valid, then I think that heroin should be part of any rehab program.
Some addicts don’t respond well to the methadone program and for those people heroin should be available as an alternative.
It’s harder for most to undergo the methadone program than the heroin program because methadone has a different effect and relapse after treatment is more common in people who were treated with methadone alone than in people who were treated with heroin or a combination of heroin and methadone.

I agree with what you said about honesty.
I was lucky to have had quite an open-minded drug Ed teacher at High School. Not only did he let us experience with some different types of soft drugs (Marijuana, Lebanon, space cakes etc) and talk and write about the effects (mostly pleasant but not always) but also took us on excursions to the rehab center where we talked with addicts.
It was all very down-to-earth and believe me, that teacher had the best attendance, even parents begged him if for a parent-teacher night on drugs : )

That's what we need- educating the kids as well as their parents!

The police forces are making a lot of money off scaring the public about drugs. Rather than running in circles and getting paid nice salaries, the money could be transferred out of the hands of the police and the drug traffickers and back into the hands of the public. There are people who are not adversely affected by certain drugs because their systems can handle it (it's always a minority of fools or susceptible people who ruin it for other law-abiding citizens).. However there are issues to resolve before this could be acted upon, such as quick and reliable testing for drugs in a person's system and multipliers for criminal offences that involve violence while under such influences (although these are most likely already in place..).

And this isn't even mentioning the health, scientific and industrial developments that may arise or already exist from studying or farming the natural plants of these drugs.

Pelican,

Most of your points have huge holes in them.

1) The drugs that people are addicted to have mostly been around forever. Amphetamines, Cocaine and Heroin have all been used and abused for a long time. Newer drugs like GHB, acid, etc are not drugs that people are addicted to or used in very large numbers.

2) We have had a lot of success in reducing the numbers of people smoking and drinking. Education should always be the first line of defence.

3) There is always some diversion of drugs from programs, and there will always be a small black market whilst ever the drugs are not legal. However drug replacement programs have repeatedly shown that they can return addicts to being useful and productive members of society. Someone very close to me has been a perfect example of this. Her treatment is not a burden on the public purse as she pays for it herself. Some in the public have funny ideas about what exactly addicts are actually getting for free. In any case, treatment proves that in the long run it is far cheaper for the public to intervene early.

4) More and more drugs found are irrelevant because more and more are being sent and used. If you are only catching 2-5% of the drug trade it doesn’t matter what the quantities are. Whether its 2kgs or 2Tonne, you’re still only scratching the surface. The other problem is that as you are more effective, you drive prices up, addicts need to steal more, and importers can afford to pay for more elaborate smuggling and production regimes.

5) This is utter rubbish. Get a grip.

Your major miscalculation comes from the tired old belief that dealers determine the market. Whilst price elasticity has some effect on the market most drug addicts have a particular drug of choice and don’t just take whatever is on offer. The fact is that drug addiction still exists because users continue to take drugs. William Burroughs himself said that to get rid of addiction you need to get rid of the addicts.

Vanilla, I can see we are coming from this problem from a different angle and opinions are based on our own experiences for sure. I had family member who made some horrific lifestyle choices due to her addiction. She has been missing now for many years. I wish you the best in your personal situation.

Paul L. as per 5) I do not belive this to be rubbish. Research from many sources has identified one of the problems for many addicts is not just the issue of addiction but of the ties they hold with their frienship group. It is very difficult to kick a habit when you can be easily pulled into the lifestyle again. A clean break is hard.

2) I would agree with smoking possibly amongst adults but evidence suggests younger people are taking up smoking in greater numbers and alcohol...well if you think there has not been an increase in underage drinking and alcohol abuse I obviously cannot dissuade you.

Paul you stated: "The fact is that drug addiction still exists because users continue to take drugs. William Burroughs himself said that to get rid of addiction you need to get rid of the addicts.".

What is your point - you are stating the obvious.

Oh Pelican, no, I gave the wrong impression. My experiences are all buried deep deep deep in the past. I'm a proper, well-adjusted person now. I have had a drug addiction, but I am in the school of Stephen Fry, who was once asked about his "cocaine problem": ""It wasn't a problem; it was far from a problem; it was perfectly enjoyable. But one has to be very careful what you say on these matters because people are so greasy and sanctimonious and Daily Maily about it... if you say anything other than that it's the most wicked and appalling thing and it caused me nothing but misery and heartache and I vomited every night and my nose exploded with blood, you are vilified."

Cleaning up from an addiction is unbelievably, horribly hard. I wouldn't wish withdrawal on anybody. But the fact that I did it made me very strong indeed. And I enjoyed taking drugs. The brutal truth is that, despite the difficulties of my first year clean, the experience taken in toto was a positive one. This is a *deeply* unfashionable thing to say about drugs. Particularly the really bad ones. Obviously it is a far from universal experience, but it is more common than generally reported.

There are all sorts of (private) reasons why I managed to cope during that time, and one of them directly relates to point 5 on your list. When I quit I removed myself ENTIRELY from the group of people I used drugs with. I completely disagree with Paul that this is "rubbish" — it is, in fact, crucial.

Also, Paul "We have had a lot of success in reducing the numbers of people smoking and drinking." Ok, smoking, yes, I get that. But drinking? What's your source?

On the other hand, Paul's point 4 is critical. Law enforcement is NEVER going to make much of a dent on supply. (Unless there's some amazing, revolutionary change.) I heard we currently get 10%, but whatever, who really knows? Only two words matter. Tip. Iceberg

Vanilla “What to do then? Shoot his importer,”

Suits me. Shoot the importer to stop him “developing his business”

Eventually, when enough are dead they will get the message and seek other ways to make a living, maybe even get a job.

I could not tell if what makes a drug dealer is nature or nurture, either way, they are not the sort of people I would want see breeding.

The best thing about “underbelly” was they were efficiently wiping one another out and from the ones left, the wifes and girlfriends who lived off the proceeds of depraved indifference, they seemed to be a bunch of worthless skanks which the world would be better without.

“Drugs are horrible but they're also amazing.” Oh I know.

I survive by taking rat poison every day but they do not affect my consciousness, except some I take warn about drowsiness.

As for heightening senses. I smoked pot when younger, enough times to count on one hand. I had an out-of-body experience (it was a big joint), that was enough.
I am happy with my life experiences which are real, not hallucinatory. I prefer to remember the whole event, not just the possible vomiting and humiliating myself in front of others.

There is no dignity in being an addict or a drug dealer.

Legalizing that which is illegal might alleviate some social problems today.

However, it will not eliminate illegal dealers, just as smoking laws do not eliminate “chop-chop” and gambling laws do not eliminate illegal gambling.

The real issue for me would be, if what is presently illegal were to be legalized, the social authorization will induce a greater participation in all forms of mind bending drugs and when the damage of that participation is realised, there will be more drug crazed and damaged users and fewer able people prepared to indulge them. What happens then is a whole new nightmare.

Junkies come from good and bad homes, loving and neglectful parents. They rebel, like we all did, against the old folk but some never find their way back on the tram

There's too much for & against in the struggle against drugs & it's users & producers. My view is as I stated earlier; do not use public funding for treatment of voluntary drug users. It will not stop the use or rather misuse of drugs but it will ease the burden on those taxpayers who do not take drugs & should therefore not be expected to fund those who have no self-control. I am a proponent for user pays. The same must apply to addicts if they want treatment. ANYONE who VOLUNTARILY & CONSCIOUSLY performs an act or ingests or administers substances harmful to one;s own & others' body & mind does so with the knowledge of potentially & inevitably causing harm. There's NO EXCUSE ! Full Stop ! & do not EXPECT others to pay for your STUPIDITY ! See if you can find an insurance company to cover you.

Col,

Why stop at shooting dealers, why don’t we shoot, alcoholics, the mentally ill, the old, Christian fundamentalist, muslim fundamentalists, other crims. In fact why don’t we each get a gun and go and shoot whoever it is we think deserves it? I’ve got a few pet hates of my own, opinionated old pricks are right at the top of my list. The Soviets tried the hardliner approach, all they got was a massive aids epidemic and the Russian mafia. Not a great cost/return on your investment

Only at the very top of the market are the dealers not addicts themselves. Of course there are exceptions but these only prove the rule. Drug addictions’ biggest cost to the community is in the crime addicts commit to pay for their drugs. The reason drugs are so expensive is because they are illegal. Reducing the cost of drugs reduces the amount of crime required to feed a habit. Heroin trials have shown this to be absolutely true. In fact the only reason we don’t have major problems with alcoholics is because their drug of choice is reasonably priced.

Holland launched a trial in 1998 to supply a small number of addicts with heroin. This trial proceeded successfully and was widely extended. In 2003, Holland recorded the lowest levels of heroin addiction in the EU. It just isn’t borne out by the evidence that such liberalization ensnares more users. That’s just an old wives tale.

>> “ However, it will not eliminate … dealers, …“chop-chop” and … illegal gambling.
How many SP bookies do you know of now? There used to be one for every block. And chop-chop is a reaction to massive taxing of tobacco, which makes illegal tobacco attractive.

>> “Junkies come from good and bad homes, loving and neglectful parents. They rebel, like we all did … but some never find their way back…”
Only sensible thing you said. These people are our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Shooting them is quite out of the question unless you’re up for a bit of infanticide or patricide

Pelican

I misread point 5). I thought you were talking about the music scene or some other cultural phenomena. I agree that hanging around with people who use is bad news for many would-be sober ex-addicts. As for the lifestyle stuff, that is the rubbish I was talking about. There are plenty of addicts who work and live average lifestyle’s but still struggle with addiction.

My point about Burroughs is he wasn’t advocating locking up drug dealers, he was advocating locking up drug users. That is most definitely not obvious.

In terms of drinking, I’m not as sure that we have reduced it much, but I reject the idea that it has increased. When I was at school 20 years ago virtually all my classmates drank every weekend from grade 10.

Individual,

What about children? Are you going to prevent children under 18 from accessing health care? The cost to the community is much, much higher if you refuse to help people get off drugs.

That is an undeniable fact. Putting people in jail costs an awful lot more than drug outreach programs. Programs often are very effective at reducing the impact on the community.

What drug dealer ever did you any harm? There are already laws which cover violent behavior. It’s far more likely members of the public have had a run in with a drug addict who robbed them or stole their VCR.

Drug dealing itself is a victimless crime. Drug users search out dealers to find drugs. The very idea that dealers chase down their clients and force drugs on them belongs in those American films about the horrors of the “marijuana addict”. The real crime, which affects families and communities, is drug taking, in particular because of the incessant need to pay for your next fix. If you could pay for your drugs out of your weekly wage then you are much more likely to be a contributing member of the community, rather than a drain

Vanilla

I agree with most of your post, but what drugs were you using

Paul: "... opinionated old pricks are right at the top of my list."

This made me laugh really a quite a lot.

Col: "I am happy with my life experiences which are real, not hallucinatory. I prefer to remember the whole event, not just the possible vomiting and humiliating myself in front of others."

And I am happy that you are happy. However, I don't find your choices or experiences inherently superior or inferior to mine or anyone else's. People are allowed to make fools of themselves. People, knowing the risks of addiction, should be allowed to choose what they ingest.

"Eventually, when enough are dead they will get the message and seek other ways to make a living, maybe even get a job."

No, they won't. This doesn't really cut it as social science. There will always be a market for drugs, and therefore there will always be manufacturers and drug dealers. Many of the drugs we get in Australia and grown and produced in countries where those activities carry the death penalty. Many get caught, and executed. You plan will satisfy the nannas who think drugs are evil, but it won't affect demand or supply.

Paul, sorry, I agree with your posts too, but we have reached my threshold of disclosure.

Yvonne “Col Rouge, this subject must touch a sore point with you.”

Not a sore point Yvonne, I just see no point in half measures.

Vanilla “People are allowed to make fools of themselves. People, knowing the risks of addiction, should be allowed to choose what they ingest.”

Oh I totally agree
Now maybe if you go and actually read my posts

My first post Wednesday, 9 April 2008 12:30:38 AM

“I have never pursued the idea that taking illegal drugs should be illegal in itself”

Then my post of Wednesday, 9 April 2008 6:48:16 PM

Particularly the bit which says

(quoting you) “Personally, I think adults should have the right to ingest whatever they want.”

My reply

“Me too.

I was specific, the penalties should apply to dealers not to users.”

So if you want to mix oven cleaner with battery acid, distil it and then smoke it, fine by me

If you want to stick strawberries into turpentine and drink it, fine by me.

but

If you want to sell your strawberry flavoured turpentine or your concoction of distilled oven cleaner and battery acid to others, then you are a drug dealer and profiting from supply of an illegal substance, no different to a methamphetamine drug dealer and worthy of the death penalty on a second offence.

as for ""Eventually, when enough are dead they will get the message and seek other ways to make a living, maybe even get a job."

No, they won't. This doesn't really cut it as social science. "

"Social Science" has the professional credibility of drug dealers, supplying a gullible public with social panaceas and bull dust.

Until execution has been tried as a deterent, you just will not know.

It offends all the wishy-washy small "l" liberals who seem to think, if we were all brought up in nice homes with nice parents we would all be wonderful human beings but the real world is not like that.

People have warts and weaknesses some end up as junkies and some as drug dealers.

Deal with the problem, execute the dealers.

Col,

>> Until execution has been tried as a deterent, you just will not know.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Dozens of countries execute drug dealers. Do you think that any of them have solved their drug problems? The Chinese execute thousands a year with little effect. Whats even more interesting is that rapists, murderers get far lighter sentences. So tell me which is worse. Someone who sells drugs to people who want them, or someone who rapes or murders people?

All that kind of hard line approach achieves is harder criminals and more expensive drugs which means more profits. See the Russian experience. They created a mafia so powerful that it has a stake in global business and just about runs the country.

Wars kill millions of people but armies have very little problems getting new recruits signing up. You won't discourage dealers by threatening them with death.

"Underbelly"? I would say that you belong with the other self proclaimed experts who get all their inside info from "A Current Affair" and movies. Ever heard of fiction? Poetic license?

The melbourne gang members involved in the underworld war deserve death not because they are drug dealers, but because they murdered people. Actually selling drugs was the least damaging of their crimes.

Most of the public and the media get all frenzied about the odd illicit drug taken by a sport hero but don’t seem as worried when whole teams of sport heroes regularly abuse alcohol causing them to behave like beasts.

I agree with much of the opinions of Vanilla and Paul.

Individual,
Should public funding be used for the treatment of diseases triggered by obesity? Should public funding be used to treat people injured by extreme sports? I don’t mind paying taxes for the treatment of anyone at all; people are not robots without emotions and problems, nobody is perfect and it’s comforting to know that people, as social beings, are able and willing to help the ones that need it, even if they got themselves into that situation through their own doing and even if they struggle with self-control. We can’t judge others because we don’t know anything about their situations.

Col, about the death penalty: as a Libertarian aren’t you worried that the government may be incompetent to make decisions especially when it comes to life-and-death of individuals?

PaulL. You definitely did get the wrong impression about 5). :)

I'm not going to continue the debate as such but did anyone see the Oasis documentary on the ABC last night followed by the talk with recovering drug addicts?

See link here and once in, click on Website (in blue) to watch the film.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200804/programs/FA0702H001D10042008T203000.htm

It is really worth a look. It was interesting to see what the addicts themselves had to offer on ways governments should allocate resources to the drug problem but also associated issues such as homelessness and social inclusion.

PaulL “You don't have a clue what you are talking about.”

See below

“Do you think that any of them have solved their drug problems?”

It has stopped those particular dealers from dealing in drugs.

“The Chinese execute thousands a year with little effect.”

A couple of hundred years ago, 1/3 of china was addicted to opium.

1/3 are not addicted today.

Maybe there has been an effect.

“Someone who sells drugs to people who want them, or someone who rapes or murders people?”

A drug dealer trades his wares indiscriminately. Not sure about rapists but of murderers, most murders are committed in a moment of anger or passion.

I am prepared to consider the killer who kills slowly, with callous indifference, to be worse than the one who acts rashly in the moment.

“See the Russian experience.” That is not an example of anything, other than the problem when the brakes come off too fast from a Stalinist inheritance.

As to your comparison between soldiering and drug dealing (the link being death), what a cynical and deceitful thing to suggest.

Most soldiers are motivated by a desire to serve, not a desire to kill. Obviously if that is the best you can do for depth of argument, you are trawling a paddling pool.

“you belong with the other self proclaimed experts who get all their inside info from "A Current Affair" and movies. Ever heard of fiction? Poetic license”

You know me?

You know my credentials, TV viewing / reading habits and experience?

You are the one who seems to be having trouble producing reasoned argument.

“Actually selling drugs was the least damaging of their crimes.” You must be a poet, “romanticism” becomes you.

I am prepared to engage in objective debate with anyone. I am not prepared to submit to the rambunctious arrogance of someone who judges me without knowing my background or me.

Back to the writing prose on toilet walls with you, PaulL, you have lost the debate when all you can do is trawl for reasons to dismiss my view instead of debating them properly.

Cevelia “Col, about the death penalty: as a Libertarian aren’t you worried that the government may be incompetent to make decisions especially when it comes to life-and-death of individuals?”

Governments do not execute people, processes of law do, governments merely enact legislation which solicitors, barristers, judges and juries respond to, each providing a different input.

I am prepared to suggest we have a legal system which is seen to work and be tested through appeal. It is a thing separate to government, typically the “separation of powers” is inherent in the democratic processes.

Pelican, thanks for the link to the Oasis website.

I have been in the room when a person, like the one at the end of the trailer, the tall fella, started to get abusive. It is not nice. The person tried it in my own house and I stamped on him (not physically) for his attitude and he quieted down.

I am not going to suggest what the tall fellas problems might be other than speculate

He may take drugs and alcohol, to his own detriment. He may have a mental disorder, I noted one of the girls said she was “off her medication” and I don’t think she meant for a heart condition.

I remain at a loss to understand how some parents damage their children so badly. Some parents do their best but somehow the kid turns out bad but far more often, the child is the victim of bad parenting.

To fix the parenting issue we would need to licence people to be allowed to become parents. That, to reinforce Cevelia’s question to me, I would find, as a libertarian, an intolerable intervention.

Ultimately we are all responsible for dealing with our own circumstances. Acting out might release “anger” but only at the price of someone else’s safety or dignity. What the charity workers do is obviously valuable but it is trying to fix the consequences, not the cause.

Addressing the substance abuse which fuels the child neglect and abuse cycle is a good place to start. It is about being accountable and responsible.

Not for the first time, I'm bemused by Col's somewhat OTT position on recreational drugs. As a purported libertarian, Col has to acknowledge the right of individuals to do whatever they like with their bodies, but if that includes using drugs for pleasure then he'd have those who supply such drugs executed.

Is it just me. but is this not just a tad inconsistent with Col's vociferous championing of, for example, violent pornography?

Further, I'd like to acknowledge that I largely agree with Paul.L on this issue at least :)

As a person deemed responsible for those working around and under me I am obliged to manage and care for those around me. This includes stopping people from working who have had even one alcoholic drink, or who are badly hungove, or who I know or suspect have been bonging on or who have had ectasy etc the night before.

Get real you '60's victims- OHS has destroyed your utoptian delusions.

If Billo arrives at work full of tales of derring do and excessive alcohol consumption and or any use of illicit drugs I am legally obliged to keep him from working(off the tools); lest he be injured, and I am deemed to have ignored my responsibilities.

This regime does not just apply to the construction industry, but to transport, aviation and whatever.

This scenario makes just about all the posts above irrelevant.

1. The education - information of people about the drugs and their consequences must be top priority of authorities and parents. More we know about the drugs, higher is the probability to avoid them.
2. Dealers and dealers. There are different kind of dealers and we can not put them in the same level, there are the users-dealers and there the importers, producers or national dealers. TOP PUNISHMENT FOR TOP DEALERS BUT NOT DEATH PENALTY.
3. users or users- small dealers, they are not criminals but victims. Authorities and society must support them, starting from supplying them drugs in low prices and assisting them to stop the drugs.
4. The whole process from the production, distribution of drugs must past on Authorities hands and available in low prices from authorities.
While we can not win the dealers we can make them USELESS.
More we know for users more we can help them.

Col, ok, if you won't take China, how about Vietnam, which has found that executing around 100 people a year has not deterred drug dealing or use. (See here: http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=21785 ) In fact, according to the VN government, drug crimes are increasing. (see: http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns041116144918 )

The war on drugs is a failed policy.

found that executing around 100 people a year has not deterred drug dealing or use.
Vanilla,
I look at this from the viewpoint that drug couriers & pushers in those poorer countries are literally forced to do that just to survive as there simply is no other income. If they get caught & executed that is what they are forced to risk. In a western country drugs & pushing are not a necessity to survive. In our society drugs are purely for self indulgence & when things go off the rails we non-druggies are forced to bail these useless morons out.
I say put a stop to free medical aid for voluntary addicts after one incident.

Palimset, you’re right about OHS but why does that make the above posts irrelevant? Nobody in this discussion claims that people should be able to turn up at work stoned, drugged or drunk. It would also be dangerous to work after taking prescription medication that causes drowsiness.

Pelican, thanks for that Oasis link, I watched the beginning and will watch the rest later. My heart goes out to these young people. No matter how much the charity workers do, there’s no end in sight.
The cause, I’d agree, often is bad parenting.

Col: “To fix the parenting issue we would need to licence people to be allowed to become parents…I would find, as a libertarian, an intolerable intervention.”
I agree. Free and voluntary parenting courses will do some good, but may not reach the parents who need it most.
One of the better options would be (and this is gonna sound repetitive because I’ve said this many times in abortion discussions) comprehensive sex education throughout High School, free contraception so that most unplanned pregnancies can be prevented, and legal, safe abortion including the RU486 non-surgical option to end early pregnancies.

Getting rid of the baby bonus may be a good idea, too; I’m sure that the govt could spend this money more wisely e.g. providing help and programs that benefit all the neglected and abused kids that already exist.
About the govt and law- I understand your perspective but I always assumed that legal rights are somehow connected with the law of the govt.
Anyway, one of the reasons that I object to the death penalty is that I think that the legal system is not always fair and right.

Asymeonakis, good point about different kinds of dealers. Dealers will lose their power when drugs are decriminalized.

Individual, does a civilized society turn its back on people who are struggling with addiction whether it be taking legal or illicit drugs, indulging in fatty foods, taking extra risk by not exercising- or playing dangerous sport… we’d have to judge everyone on their lifestyle choices before treating them.

I tend to agree with most of what Col, Pelican and Celivia have had to say, but there seems to be some aspects not covered.

For example. Col can you, or anyone, find stats relating to the ammount of drug use in a country/society that now has very serious penalties, where they did not previously? In particular on dealers.

For those advocating legalizing drug use. Can you provide evidence that legalizing drugs actually decreases the use? Often alcahol is used as an argument to support legalizing drugs but then it is atated that alcahol is a far bigger problem than ilegal drugs. What is to stop drugs becoming a far greater problem if legalized?

Col,
Or the opposite. i.e. A country/society where previously there were very serious penalties and have since relaxed or lessened the penalties.

Of all the things we have tried, we have never got really serious about penalizing drug dealers. It would be interesting to see if a very tough stance reduces the incidence of drug taking.

Hi Banjo,
Perhaps it would help not to advertise drugs once they are decriminalized. Alcohol is being advertised but smoking has been on the decline ever since they stopped advertising tobacco and educated about the risks of smoking.

I did a quick search as I have to leave soon, but for now this seems an interesting site (albeit stats are from 1998-2001) if you want to see a comparison of the US who are spending millions on the drug war and the Netherlands where some drugs have been decriminalised.
There are some other interesting chapters on this Drug War Facts site as well.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

Vanilla “which has found that executing around 100 people a year”

That is “sampling”, not addressing the problem, when considered against the numbers involved in drug dealing.

The point which individual makes “drug couriers & pushers in those poorer countries are literally forced to do that just to survive as there simply is no other income”

May well be very relevant.

Anyone else care to speculate on the benefits of libertarian capitalism influence the culture of these societies. What I am suggesting is the sooner real economic alternatives to the drug trade will happen the sooner drugs and the diversion the provide will be less attractive or acceptable. Maybe a benefit of a free trade philosophy.

Banjo “For example. Col can you, or anyone, find stats relating to the amount of drug use in a country/society that now has very serious penalties, where they did not previously? In particular on dealers.”

That is a fair question Banjo.

I have tried and will keep trying.

The problem with the drug problem is the causes and effects are ambiguous and largely hypothetical, lots of theories and no consensus. A bit like climate change, except its been around and been studied a lot longer.

Simply put, why does one kid from a family take to drugs and the rest do not?

Or one brother turns to crime and the other becomes a compassionate charity worker, based on the same hard childhood?

Thanks for the drugwarfacts link Cevelia, not sure I would accept the linked pages statistic bare faced.

Example, Holland has a different gun control attitude, which may be a more significant influence on homicide rates than drug use.

I just love it when people tell you that you’ve lost the argument. You always know when it happens that person is flailing about in fear of looking stupid.

If you want to go back several hundred years you will find that people were burned at the stake for witchcraft. Some people thought the world was flat. Some thought that the sun revolved around the earth. To seriously suggest that decreased opium use in China over the centuries is a direct result of the communists executing people requires an incredible absence of reasoning ability. Today, drug use in China is getting worse, not better. In any case, if you want to live in China go do it. I doubt you’ll like it much

Who exactly are drug dealers killing slowly? Are you talking about the people who voluntarily go and search them out everyday looking for their fix? Clearly you don’t believe in personal responsibility so how you can hold anyone responsible for their actions is a mystery to me.

The aids epidemic in Russia was a capitalist thing was it? What absolute PAP. And the Russian mafia have been around since way before the fall of the empire. Drugs gave them their powerbase in exactly the same way the US mafia solidified its hold during prohibition.

I wasn’t suggesting that soldiers signed up to kill. What I was suggesting is that the fear of dying did not deter them. The fear of dying doesn’t deter addicts either. You only have to look at the Bali nine to see that this is the case.

Anyone who thinks that selling drugs is a crime worse than rape has no claim to being objective. That is insane. But using a fictional TV show to prove a point is so far from rational it’s on an entirely new plane of stupid.

Banjo,

I have already posted above stats for the Netherlands who have medically supervised heroin trials. They have the lowest heroin addiction in Europe. Compare this with the US where drug dealers face mandatory life sentences, yet addiction is far more widespread.

Individual, does a civilized society turn its back on people who are struggling with addiction whether it be taking legal or illicit drugs, indulging in fatty foods, taking extra risk by not exercising- or playing dangerous sport… we’d have to judge everyone on their lifestyle choices before treating them.
Celivia,
As I stated earlier, the first incident should be treated with the benefit of doubt but the 2nd, 3rd ... NO! There are plenty of insurance companies which will not offer a policy to extreme activities. I'd say taking drugs is an extreme activity. If you don't want to get into trouble stay out of trouble. Don't expect someone else to pay for your plunders. We should all be entitled to some of our tax dollar in the event of an accident. taking drugs & drinking excessively is no accident. I enjoy bush walking & I'm not allowed by law to carry a firearm to defend myself against wild pigs, so I feel I should be entitled to treatment should I require so.

Illict drug taking came from people in labs taking advantage and creating drugs which ended up on th streets.Cociane came from the amazon jungle placed into western culture and the west's noise's fell off.Say no to drugs as there is no real economic basis all it does is cost society money to pick up the pieces of what is left of people.Thank you David.

Individual,
a society should cater for all of its citizens in sickness or in health or else that society will be a dysfunctional and inferior one.
I think it is a horrific idea to leave groups of people to perish for whatever reason- they may not be able to cope with life or learn their lessons as well as others, or they may be disadvantaged. Not all people are strong enough to function well 100% of the time. We cannot judge anyone’s lifestyle choices, as we don’t know anything about them.

Expecting people to learn from their mistakes in one lesson is unrealistic. Rehab centres treat many addicts who are willing and have been trying to beat their addiction for years but they keep re-entering the programs. AA is near useless, and rehab programs don’t suit all addicts.
Countries should aim for a social and welfare network strong and humane enough to cater for all people.

If you had a road accident through your own fault and needed hospital treatment, how would you feel if you were left to die in the gutter because it was the 2nd accident you caused and you couldn’t afford to pay for medical treatment?

Or what if you were treated for a heart attack triggered by problems caused by obesity and years later you had another heart attack and were denied medical treatment because you hadn’t been able to deal with your eating problem?
I gladly see my tax go to anyone who needs help because I have no authority to judge their life style.

Col,
“Thanks for the drugwarfacts link Cevelia, not sure I would accept the linked pages statistic bare faced. ”
True, I have no proof that other things are not playing a role and the gun laws are a good point. I don't know how many killings in the US involved guns.

One thing to think about for everyone against decriminalisation of drugs is that countries with strict drug laws (e.g. Indonesia) have more problems with drugs than countries that are fairly relaxed about drugs.

ConsiderThis,

Legalise all drugs.

Cannabis, heroin, ecstasy and cocaine.

At the moment they are in the hands of the nastiest criminals on the planet.

They have all the control and profits.

Prohibiting means we only have drug abuse.

It didn't work with alcohol.

The current initiatives are no more than mopping up the problems caused by prohibition.

The real solution is legalisation.

With legalisation we can remove the money from the control of criminals and invest in drug treatment and education programs.

Apologies Celivia, missed your comment. My point is that the decrim. will not invalidate the senior law that is OH&S; and what a circus that will lead to. I stand down or sack someone to protect them and self when they have legally done no wrong?

A few more points- if drugs were pursued with the same vigilante enthusiasm as were those who might go a few k over the speed limit things would be different.

Every day millions of us 'just say no'.

Nobody yet has mentioned the topic of drugs and mental illness- something that surely warns us against making drugs any more available than they already are.

Hi, Palimpsest, drugs ARE being pursued in countries like Indonesia with the same enthusiasm as speeding.
The idea that drug prohibition will eradicate drug use is a fantasy. I find it irresponsible to be spending so much money on the war on drugs when this money could be spent on drug education, prevention and health.
Remember, they used to lock people up for drinking coffee.

Drugs will not become more available than they already are when we decriminalise them, the source just changes from dodgy dealers to regulated retail, like with alcohol and tobacco. There will be age restrictions, information on packaging, warnings etc. I reiterate that compared to other countries, drug consumption in the Netherlands is considerably lower.
Foxy said, “With legalisation we can remove the money from the control of criminals and invest in drug treatment and education programs.” I fully agree.

You said, “I stand down or sack someone to protect them and self when they have legally done no wrong?”
Perhaps I’m missing your point about OHS, but rules would be the similar as with alcohol. There can be OHS policy guidelines as there are with alcohol. Disciplinary procedures could be applied.
What do you do right now when someone turns up drunk, or has taken a prescription drug that causes drowsiness?

It makes no sense to prohibit drug use because the act of taking or selling drugs harms nobody else.
It should be nobody’s business.

People’s irresponsible behaviour and actions can harm others, not the act of taking drugs. So, the irresponsible behaviour should be punished, not the use of drugs.
We don’t punish people for drinking alcohol but we punish them for irresponsible behaviour like drink driving or violence.
We don’t ban cars because some people don’t drive responsibly because it would be hugely unfair to punish all drivers; we only need to punish the irresponsible behaviour of that individual driver.

This method should be applicable to all drug use.