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.