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