I often wonder if Law enforcement agencies have any sophisticated goals in attempting to stop drug use, or harm of the users, rather than just stopping whatever drug dealers they manage to catch. I gather they are often attempting to work their way up the tree to catch the big boys (letting known lesser lights continue dealing with impunity while they gain the information they want), but I wonder if their are any tactics to do with the relative harm of different drugs.

Last year police intercepted a shipment of 4.4 tonnes or 15 million pills of ecstasy. Last month Customs officials seized 150KG of cocaine, although that's chicken feed compared to the 25 metric tons of cocaine seized in Columbia last year.

Now the massive quantities here make a mockery of some posters on OLO who see drugs as a fringe activity undertaken by a very small amount of people who all have their lives ruined. The cliche of the son stealing his parents VCR seems about the depth of exposure to this world for some. I think it's plain to see drug use is very widespread, and a large proportion of users are not done a lot of harm.

With the amount of drugs still on the market, I imagine these seizures aren't as impressive as they seem. So what are the likely effects.

1. Supply is decreased (to what extent is unknown, though from anecdotal evidence I don't think a very drastic decrease) and cost goes up, availability down. Curtails drug use.
2. Quality of drugs decreased by backyard boys filling in the shortage, increasing the risk of more harmful substitutes passed off as Ecstasy etc. More deaths.
3. Users switching to another drug, which could be more or less harmful.
4. No effect at all as drugs find their way into the market anyway through corrupt police, or another dealer very quickly takes over the territory.

Now taking into account all the money and resources used, I think on balance, very little is likely to be achieved, and possibly some harm.

US

I agree with all the questions you have raised.

Just what war is being waged here? And who is winning?

A war waged against victims (the addicted) and the winners are the dealers at the top of the hierarchy, insulated by many layers of people (small time dealers, drug mules etc).

Are you calling for decriminalisation of contraband drugs? If so, you have made a very good case for it.

While I understand the reasoning behind the points you are making US I don't think legalisation of illicit drugs is the answer (if that is what you were recommending).

The problems you raise but will legalisation (or decriminilisation) reduce the overall drug problems? It could make the problems worse. The only advantage is that if supply is cheap and legal then the Mr Bigs lose ground. But what about the overall war on drugs ('scuse the terminology).

We don't need another tobacco or alcohol problem - once you legalise something it becomes the norm. Look at smoking and the criminal (but overlooked) behaviour of big tobacco.

There could be a more pro-active regime for drug rehabilitation for sure particularly for minor offenders or minor players. Particularly in prisons and a more stringent and serious look at how drugs continue to enter prisons.

Even though the current system is not perfect the alternative would be worse in my view.

Legalisation of drugs is not the perfect answer but banning drugs creates more problems.

Be a proponent of a ‘war on drugs’ when you agree that:
* A free market is always better than a controlled market.

* Mafia-like, black market gangs should have total control of the quality, quantity for sale per person, and price of drugs.

* People who want to experiment with class C drugs like cannabis should be forced to buy them from the same dealers who benefit from pushing and selling class A drugs like heroin and ice.

* It's not worthwhile to see a reduction in criminal behaviour such as burglaries by drug addicts if this means we'd have to legalise drugs.

* Drug dealers who mess with the quality of drugs to gain more profit should face the same punishments as sellers of drugs who supply pure, high quality, controlled quantities of drugs and who give out warnings of possible side-effects.

* Drug users should not be protected from unnecessary health hazards and risks.

* The government should have no control over growers, manufacturers and suppliers of drugs.

* A drug-free society is possible.

It seems the police wuld rather have people using some illicit drugs than the legal ones...

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24150585-952,00.html

A quote:""We're at the point where we're saying thank God 80 per cent of them are using an illegal drug rather than alcohol, even though in 10 years they'll be suffering manic depressive disorders," the officer said."

There's no evidence that I can find to support the officer's contention in relation to the long-term impact of MDMA (ecstasy), but it is interesting that front-line police are aware that the immediate social impact of the use of the stuff is much lower than that of the legal stuff peddled by the truckload.

I must say that MDMA is not something I've tried. When it first started coming into this country, much of it was not MDMA at all, but various other substances, some artefacts of the manufacturing and some adulterants. I have a preference for knowing that what I ingest is what it's purported to be. My party days are pretty much over now, so I confine myself to a bit of pot and the legal stuff sold by Woollies (BWS) these days and I'm not tempted to give the eccy's a go.

"We don't need another tobacco or alcohol problem - once you legalise something it becomes the norm."

This has not been the case in the past, and I can hardly see myself taking a wide range of potentially lethal drugs on the basis of their being legal. The damage done by alcohol and tobacco eclipses that of any other drug, but who would consider prohibition a feasible solution, and better than the current system? I would be more concerned that the supply of such drugs be carefully regulated, as occurs with prescription medication. Regulation can have the advantages of strictly controlling the conditions of use of a substance, giving health authorities better scope for managing addicts, whilst cutting illegal supplies by making drug supply unprofitable for criminals.