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).