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.