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.

Is there a middle ground for this where there is a legal and controlled supply chain but not as a new line at BWS?

One that ensures the quality of the drugs supplied and keeps the prices low enough to make illegal supply not worth the risk.

I'm not sure how you would implement that to avoid making currently illicit drugs more mainstream than they are, to provide access for those genuinely determined to use them without forcing them to use criminal suppliers and to avoid the government finding yet another revenue stream that they could not afford to loose.

If that could be done then from my perspective
- users get a better quality drug which as I understand it reduces the risk of harmful side effects.
- users get better access to opt out help, if what they are doing is not a crime then there is less risk getting help to not do it anymore.
- I have a lower chance of someone robbing me to fund a drug addiction
- I as a taxpayer spend less of my hard earned on the police chasing their tails trying to stop the supply.

R0bert

>>Is there a middle ground for this where there is a legal and controlled supply chain but not as a new line at BWS?<<

With party drugs, like speed and ecstasy, people could consult their GP for a health assessment and register as users with the doctor's authorisation. After that, they could take a script to the pharmacist and get 1-3 pills per week, depending on the doctor's recommendation.

There would still be an illegal market under such a system, but it would be much smaller and less profitable, and sales of the vicious methamphetamine ice would be greatly reduced.

"people could consult their GP for a health assessment and register as users with the doctor's authorisation. After that, they could take a script to the pharmacist and get 1-3 pills per week, depending on the doctor's recommendation."

The advantages with this approach is that you know who your users are from the start. It allows the supply and supervised administration of drugs to be conditional upon attending educational programs. And given that medical practitioners and organisations would be legally liable for any morbidity or mortality, it is unlikely that the administration of such a system would be careless. In the long term you gain a far better insight into the nature of drug addiction.

Fester if I was a doctor or involved in an organisation tasked with that responsibility and was legally liable for any "morbidity or mortality" I'd be very disinclined to approve any usage. Like any other high risk activity the final responsibility should lie with the person who chooses the risk. Doctors could provide medical advice but to hold them responsible would destroy the process straight up in my view.

To implement something like this we would have to know just what we wanted to achieve, my thinking is to reduce the risks to users and to undermine the criminal aspects - both from suppliers and users paying for an expensive habit. Lots of other nice to havs but not worth it if we don't get the basics.

Compulsory education classes, registers of users etc are likely to make that option more hassle than most would accept except those wo really want to quit (and then they would have to know that their previous usage outside the system wasn't going to cause trouble).

R0bert

Robert

The reality is that taking a drug carries some risk, and in the case of recreational drugs there is no benefit to offset this risk. Consequently, anyone administering these drugs is putting people at risk of harm, perhaps death. But it is also true that the administration of drugs under strict control is safer for addicts than the current system.

As for drug addicts being unwilling to jump through hoops to get their prescription hit, I would be more inclined to think that those finding it too daunting were unlikely to be drug addicts. Ultimately I would like to see drug decriminalisation protect addicts and the public (through crime reduction). The perception that decriminalisation would make it easier for people to obtain dangerous and addictive drugs is unlikely to win hearts and minds.

Interesting article, Antiseptic.
I’d agree that police would find it easier to cope with crimes if all drugs were legalised.
The problem is not the use of drugs; it’s the abuse of drugs.

That’s right, Fester.
When I go to the chemist for a packet of Nurafen+ I need to show ID and sign, but I can be assured that the quality is reliable. If I’d want to take ecstasy I’d have to grab it off the street and hope for the best, having no idea whether the purity or quality has been messed with.

Sancho,
My imagination is running wild- I see a doctor’s waiting room crammed with people desperate to get their hands on a prescription for a 4-pack of Alco pops, a packet of ciggies, a handful of pot, a paper trip or a line of coce…
Having said that, providing heroin junkies with free heroin to help them beat the habit has shown to be more effective (in the Netherlands) than a methadone program.

I’d be in favour at this stage to have government-run licensed drug stores where a license- to-buy card needs to be shown before purchase of a drug.
Buyers would need to sign a form that they’re willing to take the risk of taking a particular drug.
Perhaps these stores could run special drug information classes for users and these classes could be compulsory as a precondition to enable people to buy drugs.
Perhaps comparable to getting an L plate, which will allow you to go on the road, the D (drug) license (Class A, B or C) could mean that you have passed theory about a certain drug or even a whole class of drugs that you want to take so you are allowed to buy that one at your own risk, from a store that guarantees it’s pure quality

I'd still be a bit wary of decriminilisation, but I'm interested in finding out what we really are achieving with all these resources. A REALISTIC bang for buck analysis.

My main objection is the way the whole debate is limited. When will we ever be able to have a more complex debate than zero tolerance vs decriminilisation. When can we shed the faux moral grandstanding about what is just a chemical. The feeling of Happiness itself is just a chemical.

The simple logic that is ignored is laughable. Tonnes of the stuff is found, and yet the common belief this massive market worth trillions of dollars is all there to support a few poor people stealing DVD players and selling them down the pub. That all the users will end up overdosing or addicted. The risks are massively over-exagerated.

Of course There are some terrible risks, but they affect such a small proportion of users. If not, how are all these poor addicts with no money and no home affording all these drugs? Why are there so few of them compared to the quantities found and size of the market?

There is also so much contradiction. From sniffer dogs for all the young punters at concerts, but none backstage for the performers. No sniffer dogs at the Logies. None in the Law Firms and Advertising agencies. Drug tests for athletes, but none for politicians, doctors and nurses.

When are we going to be honest, and admit that many, many people enjoy these substances. Those who are rich, can do so with impunity, and it is celebrated in movies and the fight against their dealers is glorified in cop shows, the westerns of this age. Those who are poor end up in gaol, and as slaves in the private US prison system.

There's not even any honesty about how the drug money is used. By governments for political control, arms for terrorists etc. Honesty about the reason for a substantial proportion of the risk to users is to do with the illegality itself.

Doctors operate under oath to maintain good health in community and improve human health problems. Doctors prescribe medications for health benifits so the person can enter again into full and active life. They do not prescribe destructive substances to impair human health or maintain harmful addictive habbits that reduces a person's wellbeing and contribution to community.

U-Sus

Thank you for returning to the discussion you established on Friday. If you had read all the contributions everyone has taken the trouble to write, you would be aware that we have discussed the issue that the upper echelon of the illegal drug trade get off scott-free and that it is the low-level users who are punished. I don't think there has been any lack of honesty on this.

This discussion has since moved on to ways of either decriminalising or legalising drugs, how they could be administered (GP, Drug Clinics) and help for addicts (counselling, control over quality of drugs, measured doses etc).

Prohibition and the war on drugs clearly don't work. Do you have any suggestions as to what may work?

A tighter control of chemical ingredient manufacturers (local and imported) should apply.
"Go to the source my son!"

Don't get snooty Fractelle, I never knew it was illegal to start a topic and not post over the weekend. I did read all the comments and thought them quite good.

I wasn't talking about any posters on this forum in my comments about bringing honesty to the drugs debate, rather just outlining my motives for the topic in the first place. I seem to rememeber you were the one who asked if I was calling for decriminilisation, and I was attempting to explain what I was calling for.

I don't have all the answers, and I don't think one must always have a solution to have a right to critisise. I do know when the people who actually get to make the decisions ignore/distort reality that there isn't much hope of a solution.

For a start, the government could start justifying what they are spending, and measuring and reporting what they are actually achieving as per my questions.

As for my thoughts on drugs themselves, Cevilia summed it up perfectly. 'The problem is not the use of drugs; it’s the abuse of drugs.'

I'm saying drugs aren't the problem people make them out to be. All the unharmed users have been edited out of the analysis, and we are left with a doom and gloom prognosis about legalisation. The starting point as I see it, is to have an honest analysis of the proporting of the population of drug users that ABUSE drugs. I expect this value is much smaller and more constant than most people think, like the percentage of drinkers who end up as alcoholics.

Then their are the questions I outlined at the start. The authorities will never justify these questions with an answer, as all that is needed to illicit support for the so-called war on drugs is
'if we can save just one child from an overdose, it's all worth it'.

Such is the society's propensity for emotion over analysis, need for black and white answers and distorted attitude to risk.

U-Sus

"As for my thoughts on drugs themselves, Cevilia summed it up perfectly. 'The problem is not the use of drugs; it’s the abuse of drugs.'"

Celivia's contributions are well reasoned and come from a wealth of understanding and knowledge.

I'm sure you could've at least acknowledged the contributions in your previous post?

It is a very complex issue and deserves sincere debate.

I don't think there is any single perfect solution either - nor does anyone else who has an understanding of illegal drugs: their effects and side-effects.

One of the worst things is that normally law abiding people wind up connected to organised crime in a way that can ruin lives.

Decriminalisation at the very least would eliminate the drug lords and their sycophants.

BTW the most emotive responses have come from those who do not understand drugs, such as Philo's highly emotive and completely ignorant response. Everyone else has made excellent and rational points on this highly contentious subject.

Fractelle,

Who the hell are you, miss Etiquette or something? Perhaps other posters don't need my affirmation or encouragement or validation of their arguments or their ego's massaged. Maybe they couldn't give a toss what I think of their 'contributions'.

Maybe next topic I'll hand out a feminist talking stick, and we'll all have group hugs with lashings of ginger beer, and a hip, hip hoorah for the most worthwhile contribution. God it's forum where people post stuff. We're not changing the world here, lighten up.

Ooooh bad boy Philo. Me thinks you're about to be forever exlcuded from the Fractelles group hugs, you nasty boy. I'm sure there'll be many sleepless nights:-)

Thanks, Fractelle, *blushes*.
”A very complex issue and deserves sincere debate.”
Exactly, I find it an intriguing topic and at least we probably all agree here that there needs to be a more honest and open debate.
I think that most Australians, if given clear and proper facts, would be in favour of at least decriminalising the stuff.
I think baby-steps need to be taken- legalise the most harmless, class C stuff first like marijuana, and then take it from there.
I've said elsewhere that I'm in favour of reclassification of all drugs.

Philo,
Not that I disagree with you about the role of doctors, but I just want to keep in mind that doctors are drug dealers who deal in legal drugs. ALL drugs come with risk, legal or not. Legal does not necessarily mean safe.
While many drugs are, in most cases, necessary, some can do more harm than good as they create new diseases (long term effects).
The pharmaceutical industry is, after all, a profit making industry that does not always financially benefit from permanently curing illnesses.
Look at the enormous amount of ADHD medication that is handed out to even very young children, or how the Pharmaceutical companies have manipulated the cholesterol industry by creating an artificial need for statins.
And why are millions of healthy people taking aspirin daily because they have been told this can prevent a heart attack?

US I agree that the risks of illicit drugs are largely overrated. Far more people die from prescription drugs than from illicit drugs.
The risks of illegal drugs can also be greatly reduced by legalising them and educating people.
For example, a good quality ecstasy pill (MDMA) in itself is not much of a risk, but if you haven’t been informed about how to keep your body fluids in balance, you can face a greater risk.

BTW US, I hope you don’t assume all feminists are gruggers (group huggers). I’m reading Ben Elton atm, “Blind faith” and the crowd there do compulsory grugs (group hugs) that really put me off for life! ;)

I agree that the drug war should end as it's a sham and that all existing police should be immediately fired and the resources wasted on them saved, or put to use in rehabilitation or drug health related policing.

Celivia,

Ev-love! Great book that.

Celivia I think your point regarding classification of drugs is very pertinent. So, as I am so often motivated by someone’s post on OLO, I thought I’d do a little research. This I enjoy and hopefully we will all be better informed.

As many have noted, alcohol and tobacco cause more harm than all of the other drugs put together.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/mar/23/constitution.drugsandalcohol

“Some of Britain's leading drug experts demand today that the government's classification regime be scrapped and replaced by one that more honestly reflects the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco. They say the current ABC system is "arbitrary" and not based on evidence.

The scientists, including members of the government's top advisory committee on drug classification, have produced a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 substances, and believe this should form the basis of any future ranking.

By their analysis, alcohol and tobacco are rated as more dangerous than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.

They say that if the current ABC system is retained, alcohol would be rated a class A drug and tobacco class B.

"We face a huge problem," said Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council and an author of the report, which is published in the Lancet medical journal. "Drugs ... have never been more easily available, have never been cheaper, never been more potent and never been more widely used.

"The policies we have had for the last 40 years ... clearly have not worked in terms of reducing drug use. ..... The principal objective of this study was to bring a dispassionate approach to what is a very passionate issue."”

Before we can start to decriminalise, we need to fully understand the effects of what we are dealing with.

BTW, U-Sus
Your buttons are far too easy to push.
:-)
Instead of ‘reds under the bed’ you see feminist conspiracy everywhere.

As a result you fail to see how frequently many feminists actually agree with you on a variety of issues – like this one for example. Look how much you appreciate Celivia's POV.

Unfortunately Fractelle, it's the extreme activist feminists that counts (this includes for example, all the psychologists 'advising' governments, the activists within government departments, and private activist ngos etc...). This has been represented most strongly in the past and by people like Hetty and Melinda Tankard Reist. MTR for one has close links to the extreme catholics, but hides this from others publicly. I wonder why. This is mirrored in our political system, which has a Federal Minister and an Office for Women's Interests. It is the extremists who drive the news and politics. MTR for example, was an adviser to the extreme pro-censorship catholic ex-senator Brian Harradine. Moderate feminists simply do not count.

Fractelle,

Yeah every time you want to back pedal, just pretend you were joking. If it works for you then by all means. Where have I talked about conspiracy? I merely observe the over-emoting, over-validating, everybody gets a prize mentality I see in you, which happens to conjure up images of the feminist talking stick.
BTW: Drugs isn't a feminist issue.

Fractelle to US “Prohibition and the war on drugs clearly don't work. Do you have any suggestions as to what may work?”

How do you know it has not worked?

Because their has been no peace-accord?

The war on cars speeding has “failed” too, because people still exceed the speed limit.

Because some fools use illegal drugs?

I am not sure how far we should go to protect the foolish from themselves but I see a lot of politicians, trying to ensure intelligent electors, as well as the fools, do not use carbon producing products and services because they think that carbon might be bad (although the science on that as a fact is doubtful)

Because the numbers who do take drugs are more than those who would take drugs if it were legal?

If there were unrestrained use of drugs do you think we would end up with more drug users and junkies on the streets, stealing to buy their legally obtainable junk (drugs and their side effects are a severely limiting factor in the ability to earn a living) than we have today?

In fact you have no evidence to suggest the war on drugs has failed anyone.

I went on the net and looked up “cannabis health” (the ‘entry’ drug for many into the abyss)

This is a SA government site

http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=240&id=2012&np=158

read the bad effects and then tell me cannabis is safer than tobacco
but some quotes

“Cannabis contains more harmful tars than tobacco - one joint can equal about 8 cigarettes.”
“Cannabis users can become dependent on it, and cannabis dependence is much more common than people used to think.”.
“Teenagers who use cannabis regularly are much more likely to suffer from depression.”

More can be found on http://www.mhca.org.au/documents/MHCACannabisfinalLR.pdf

AMA http://www.ama.com.au/youth/code/cannibis.html

Whatever way you look at it, it is not true that “cannabis is safer than tobacco”, that is political spin promoted by those in favour of its unrestricted use.

So you think the war on drugs has not worked? What do you think would happen if cannabis was legalized?

And whilst you are about it, consider these groups

Amphetamines including ecstasy

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/amphetamines?open

Amphetamine psychosis, which includes hallucinations, paranoia and other symptoms similar to schizophrenia. This can lead to behaviour dangerous to the person and to others.
The need to use other drugs, such as sleeping tablets, to balance the effects of amphetamines
Aggression and increased susceptibility to violent rages.

Heroin

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/heroin/a/effects.htm
Infection of the heart lining and valves.
Liver disease.
Kidney disease.
Pulmonary complications
After awhile, the tolerance level to the drug rises to the level that heroin use in any amount stops producing the euphoric effect the user once experience altogether. When this occurs, the addict continues to seek and take the drug just to feel "normal." They become physically dependent upon the drug.

Cocaine

http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=240&np=158&id=2031
When the levels of cocaine in the body start to decrease, the euphoria produced by cocaine will lessen, and the user can start to feel nervous, irritable, tired and depressed - this is the 'crash'.
When a user starts to crash, they may have a craving to take more of the drug straight away to prolong the euphoric effects.

So which ones of these beauties (above) do you think the war on drugs has failed us with and which should be legalized?

Col Rouge you could say the same about legal drugs, like coffee, cigarettes and alcohol. Because a certain proportion of people have bad effects doesn't mean everyone has them. The war on drugs forces addicts into criminal activity and into robbing or assaulting you and me for our valuables, which risks our lives. If an addict is thrown in prison, that is a huge financial expense on our prison system. Then they leave more dependent than ever on breaking into our homes as a way of life. Young people have nowhere to turn because drugs are illegal and are driven underground and encouraged to conceal their use. Then they resort to crimes because they can't be open about it. Meanwhile police at all levels are bloated to deal with these problems which is costly to monitor and police and once legal drugs are continually added to the banned list as well as traditional remedies and ceremonial drugs.

I hope you realise you are quoting a government website, which has an interest in negative propaganda about the effects of these drugs and wants to provide you and other Victorians with many reasons why they should be illegal and why they need more of your money for police forces.

When Scuba diving people can experience Nitrogen Narcosis, leading to divers deciding to just dive down deeper and deeper to the bottom of the ocean.

People break their legs skiing.People eat too much fat and have heart attacks.

People jump out of planes and bungi jump.

People lose hearing from loud music.

People drink and get violent.

Drugs have a risk involved, as do many fun activities. In fact drugs are so much fun, people will always find a way to procure them and pay for them, regardless of the legality. Chances of being caught are low for most, lower for the rich and famous.

'How do you know it has not worked?'
Because drugs are freely available regardless of how much the police sieze, or how many dealers they catch. May I turn this question around Col. What IS actually being achieved?

'Because the numbers who do take drugs are more than those who would take drugs if it were legal?'
I think pretty similar numbers would take drugs regardless. Just those who take them would possibly take more, and pay less, and be sure of the quality of what they are ingesting, and be more able to seek medical treatment if they developed a problem.

The only drug you mentioned I haven't used is Heroin. Of the others, the order in mind alteration (highest to lowest) I would say is
Marijuana,
Ecstacy (Though in a better way than alcohol, no aggression)
Alcohol
Cocaine
Speed

The order of hangover (worst to best) I would say
Alcohol
Ecstacy
Speed
Cocaine
Marijuana

Cocaine, believe it or not is actually one of the mildest drugs, and that's why the rich can use it and also function easily. It helps doctors, lawyers and bankers do crazy hours, and makes celebrities think what they are saying is interesting.

What the government should really be doing, is creating a super drug, a soma if you will. With limited hangover like Coke, and euphoria like ecstacy, and the government controlling it's use, it would do wonders for society, and kill the market for other highs.

Col Rouge's post in particular made wonder why it is so hard for some people to get past just thinking "drugs harms kids" and move onto thinking how to do something constructive about it.

You might start by listing all the negative effects they have on society:
1. Makes criminals better off by creating a monopoly market for them,
2. Corrupts our police force by exposing them to that money,
3. Costs huge of money to police and prosecute,
4. The cost of the drug may financially harm the user,
5. Increases petty crime (drug users paying for their habit),
6. Poor quality control of drugs endangers the lives of users,
7. Creates an underground economy whose produce can't be taxed or exported,
8. The drug itself may harm the health of the user.

There is an implicit assumption behind Col's list - that making drugs illegal reduces their usage. Lets assume that is true. So how many of those 8 items are going to be made worse by making them legal? Definitely the last, as there will be more users so more people will be harmed. No 4 is a bit iffy, as the cost of the drugs will drop. And the rest? Most don't just get better, they go away completely.

And this if the "legalising will increase usage" assumption is correct. It probably isn't, given drug usage is lower in Holland when drug use is legal compared to surrounding countries where it isn't. Put that together with us being perfectly happy to let people make their own choices on whether to engage in just about any other dangerous activity and I wonder why we are having this debate at all.

It looks to me a portion of posters to OLO are not brave enough to go rational thought leads them. Instead they are paralysed into inaction. What is the worst that could happen it we made drugs legal? It all goes to pot and we have to make them illegal again?

Steel “Because a certain proportion of people have bad effects doesn't mean everyone has them.”

Not many folk end up with caffeine psychosis

A few end up alcoholics

As an ex smoker I can tell you, my withdraw from nicotine was relatively mild, despite a 25 year habit, all I needed was a good enough reason (and I had a good enough reason)


But the probability with illegal drugs of an adverse effect is more likely and the significance more debilitating.

I know I was quoting a variety of web sites, government, medical etc. are you suggesting I will get more reliable info off some counter-culture ‘junkies-r-us’ site funded by some Columbian commercial interest?

US “Drugs have a risk involved, as do many fun activities”

But not many ‘fun activities’ are physically addictive or risk singificant withdraw problems, except possibly, gambling and paying women to pole dance.

“Because drugs are freely available regardless of how much the police sieze, or how many dealers they catch. May I turn this question around Col. What IS actually being achieved?”

Well, compared to the 25% addiction rate among male Chinese in 1904, when opium was a legal and available narcotic, I would say a lot.

“Cocaine, believe it or not is actually one of the mildest drugs,”

depending upon how much you use, which the sources I read said was at an escalating rate to avoid the ‘crash’.

“What the government should really be doing, is creating a super drug,”

I have enough problems dealing with governments with too much power.

If it ever came to institutionalized drug use, we will all loose our individuality and ultimately our liberty.

The last thing I want is a government developing things people become addicted to, welfare is bad enough.

Still having trouble getting over the hysteria I see, Col.

Where do you stand on people taking on risky investments?

Several times I've been going to post to this thread, but every time until now it's been distracted into some extraneous obsession or other so I haven't bothered.

However, rstuart's excellent summary of the issues prompts me to (firstly) thank Usual Suspect for raising an interesting topic that I believe is very salient to our society. Anybody who's familiar with my contributions to OLO will know that I'm an advocate of not only decriminalisation of 'recreational' drugs that are currently illicit, but ultimately also their legalisation and consequent regulation.

I respect the views of most contributors to the discussion, who have for the most part addressed the issues seriously, intelligently and politely. I include Col Rouge among those - because, while I disagree with him almost completely on this issue, at least he has taken the trouble to present a reasoned argument based on evidence that he has gone and found. We undoubtedly disagree about the quality of his evidence, but that's legitimate discourse.

Imagine our society where the gaols aren't full of people who are there principally because drugs are illegal. Imagine a society where criminals and corrupt police, bikie gangs and other reprobates didn't make millions out of producing and selling substances that - in themselves - aren't all that harmful if used in moderation. Like most things, actually :)

I think that our society and cultures have produced a way of life for most people that actually generates a demand for the kind of release that recreational drugs provide. Every culture on earth has some way way of getting off its face via some kind of 'drug' - all that's happened is that we've found ways to produce and distribute all kinds of new and improved versions of them. And there's evidently a ready market for them.

Col Rouge: << If it ever came to institutionalized drug use, we will all loose (sic) our individuality and ultimately our liberty. >>

Have you never heard of beer?

CJ not everyone feels the need to ‘get off their face’. :)

I worked in the drug and alcohol field for some years and the issues that have been raised here are not new and it would be naive to simplify the complexity of legalisation.

CJ speaks of a process of decriminalisation, legalisation and regulation. This has been investigated during talks of the heroin trial program. Once you add regulation you open up the market again for illegal drugs. Using heroin as the example, the regulation was to allow registered and known heroin addicts (only) access to heroin/methadone via prescription from their GP. One positive for heroin addicts was the health system could continue to monitor their wellbeing and open up access to longer term rehabilitation.

However, this system does not consider new and potential users who don’t meet the criteria under regulations and will continue to be exploited by drug pushers. You could argue to make all drugs legal and be able to buy them over the counter but who will make these drugs - pharmaceutical companies who will want to make a profit – all the illegal manufacturers have to do is undercut the price and increase turnover. Or if the government subsidises production this will only reduce the revenue stream for other subsidised drugs which are not ‘recreational’ but vital to life. I for one prefer my tax dollars to fund preventative health or critical infrastructure rather than other’s recreational activities.

The money that some posters argue will be saved on law enforcement would only be transferred to funding management of legalisation and little will be saved on law enforcement in any case because there will still be an illegal element.

Also how are governments or pharmaceutical companies to keep up with the ever-increasing stream of ‘new’ recreational drugs on the black market. Do we legalise the more insidious drugs like ICE? It will be an impossible scenario of the cat continually chasing its tail. If legalisation does not get rid of the black market why go down that path?

Continued..

Continued on...

As I said, our system is not perfect but money would be better spent on targeted law enforcement, more checks and balances to reduce corruption and continuing the focus of meaningful drug education. Once you legalise a drug it is a bit hypocritical to continue to educate against it. Smoking and alcohol is already too late, you can only continue to educate and inform knowing that some will still choose to drink in excess or take up smoking.

Why don't we learn from this and not go down the same path for other drugs. Alcohol is the most pervasive drug in our society and is the leading cause of disease and it is LEGAL. Legalisation does not solve the problem only exacerbate it.

The real fear or ‘risk’ that some of posters have alluded to is not governments making drugs legal but facing the truth as to why so many people turn to drugs when we all are well aware of their impact.

The reason is that they already know why and the courage to re-examine current 'thinking' and make some change to the way we use ‘economics’ as the all-pervasive influence in Western societies is what requires courage. Economists and governments promulgate the myth of economic growth to the detriment of other factors such as community, the way children are raised, work-life balance, fairness in industrial relations and in the way income is spread, etc.

I should add that I have been in the camp for legalisation myself and wavered many times on either side of the line but after researching and deliberating on this over the years I believe legalisation would be a monumental mistake.

Col,
As a Libertarian, what would you say is wrong with the Libertarian view that the war on drugs imposes on individuals’ personal freedom and responsibility and that our communities would be safer when drugs are legalised?

I can’t think of a good enough reason why it would be anyone’s business what substances people choose to take. The very act of smoking, drinking, sniffing, chewing, swallowing or injecting anything into one’s own body does not harm others.
If the result of abusing drugs, e.g. too much alcohol, or taking any other substances results in anti-social behaviour or crime, then THAT behaviour or crime needs to be punished. We punish drink driving, not drinking. Why should, for example, the act of blowing a joint be punished if all the person does is blow and admire the colours of the wallpaper?

Anyway, if you are not ready to see how users of drugs as well as non-users will benefit from the legalisation of drugs then what is your opinion about harm reduction programs?
I see this as some kind of middle ground between legalisation and prohibition of drugs.
Harm reduction programs focus on finding a way to reduce the negative impact of drugs on both the user and the community. For example, needle exchange programs.

Just for the record, I think that the best harm reduction program would be to legalise and regulate drugs.

Look at the article Fractelle linked to and the one I gave about re-classification of drugs in our other debate. We need to base classification of drugs on science, not on historical beliefs about drugs or on emotion.

Pelican,
Are illegal manufacturers of alcohol and tobacco undercutting the price of these legally available substances?
Re-legalisation of alcohol in the US in the 1920s got rid of the black market for alcohol. When it was illegal, the black market thrived. Drinking alcohol was more risky because the quality was tampered with, too.
There were far more problems with alcohol during the period when it was banned, which was the reason to re-legalise it.

Today, the government receives NOTHING from the sale of illegal drugs but we have to clean up the mess with our tax dollars anyway.
When legalised and regulated, the government will receive tax from the sales of these drugs, rather than losing it to a black market.

Drugs don’t really cost much to manufacture- the reason they cost so much on the street is because drug dealers are free to set any price they want especially when supply is low. Especially when the government keeps seizing them.
The price of illegal drugs is not set by manufacturing costs but by demand-supply, and greed.

If the government regulates the price like with tobacco and alcohol, the price will be stable and tax can be spend on health care and drug prevention programs.
It will not be worthwhile for dealers and pushers to create a black market, and one would be foolish to buy from an illegal drug dealer when one can obtain a drug from a licensed dealer, especially when users are required to be educated about the substance they choose to take.

Celivia
I never said the cost of illegal drugs were largely derived from manufacturing costs. I was referring to the cost of manufacturing by governments or pharmaceutical companies should they be made legal. Do you think the pharmaceutical companies are charities? They will want to make a profit and so will their shareholders. The only way the government can regulate is to provide subsidies under programs like the PBS and that was my point, we will be paying a lot more under a legal system than not.

You are right governments don't get anything from the sale of illegal drugs just as they don't get anything from the sale of burgled items or from white collar crime. Governments won't get anything from legalisation either, only a greater cost.

Cannabis is probably one exception in the case of pain relief or for the terminally ill under a prescribed program under the care of a doctor. Particularly in cases where other forms of pain relief may not work or have other side effects.

While the jury is still out on the effects of marijuana, I have seen too many cases of paranoid schizophrenia from marijuana use even in quite young people so legalisation would pose greater problems and greater costs. Some of those patients talk quite openly about their conditions and the effects that drug use has had on their lives. I know some of you will disagree, but for me drugs are not fun, including cannabis.

http://www.abc.net.au/health/minutes/stories/s1885496.htm
http://www.drugfree.org.au/resources/library/marijuana/

The second link has lots of information about drugs that some might find interesting.

In my view, if a substance is illegal less people are apt to use it and the better off we are as a society.

If there is a problem with law enforcement on the 'war on drugs' lets look at fixing that instead of making the problems worse and creating new problems.

Pelican

You have seen the tragic results of the drug black market - yet you claim that legalising, with all the inherent controls and regulation would be a "monumental mistake".

Many here have providing well thoughtful and evidence backed reasons why legalisation works better than prohibition.

Could you please explain how a regulated market for drugs would be inferior to the current situation afflicting Australia?

In 2003 the AIC found:
http://www.incb.org/incb/annual_report_2003.html

"Law enforcement intervention has often been seen as the only viable response to violence and other crimes associated with drug abuse, but there is a need to explore other means of addressing such crimes. It is suggested that persons who abuse drugs and engage in crime and violence should be reformed through a multidisciplinary approach including:

(a) Introducing effective drug demand reduction programmes;
(b) Introducing effective and efficient policing of neighbourhoods and communities to prevent illicit drug trafficking;
(c) Offering assistance to drug-dependent persons so that they can seek treatment;
(d) Referring drug-dependent persons for treatment through the justice system as an alternative to incarceration;
(e) Involving the community in drug abuse prevention;
(f) Creating employment opportunities, thereby providing such persons with a legitimate means of earning an income."

and
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.dutch.html

" The Dutch example shows that liberal drug laws can be beneficial....
In 1972, after an exhaustive study by a team of top experts, President Richard Nixon's hand-picked National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended decriminalization of marijuana. Five years later, President Jimmy Carter and many of his top cabinet officials made the same recommendation to Congress.....

At about the same time, however, the Dutch government's own national commission completed its study of the risks of marijuana. The Dutch Commission also concluded that it made no sense to send people to prison for personal possession and use, so Dutch officials designed a policy that first tolerated and later regulated sales of small amounts of marijuana."

continued...

continued

"Creeping Totalitarianism

Having scapegoated drugs for so long, U.S. politicians cannot tolerate a tolerant system like the Dutch. They compete for votes on the basis of whose rhetoric is "tougher" on drugs. The Right-wing Republicans who currently control Congress call President Clinton "soft on drugs" even though more drug users have been imprisoned during his administration than under Reagan and Bush. ....

....The number of drug offenders imprisoned in the U.S. has increased 800% since 1980, mostly poor people of color. This has helped the U.S. achieve the highest imprisonment rate in the industrialized world — 550 per 100,000 population, compared to the Netherlands' 79 per 100,000. Under the banner of the war on drugs, a kind of creeping totalitarianism tramples more human rights and civil liberties each year. Tens of millions of citizens — most of whom have never used drugs and all of whom are supposed to be presumed innocent — are subjected to supervised urine tests to get jobs and then to keep jobs. Hundreds of thousands more are searched in their homes or, on the basis of racist "trafficker profiles," on freeways and at airports. Houses, cars, and businesses are seized by the state on the slimmest of suspicions alone. And U.S. school children have been bombarded with more antidrug propaganda than any generation in history....

.... After more than a decade of deepening drug war, U.S. surveys show that illicit drug use by American youth has increased almost every year since 1991. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration admits that hard drugs are just as available, less expensive, and more pure than ever. Hard drug abuse and addiction among the urban poor remain widespread. HIV/AIDS continues to spread most rapidly via injection drug users; meanwhile, the needle exchanges that help stem its spread in every other modern nation remain criminalized in the U.S."

PS

To CJ Morgan - as someone who is not averse to 'stirring' - I think your holier-than-attitude towards my teasing of US not a little hypocritical.

Excellent additional information from all since my comment. Of course I agree with Celivia's and Fractelle's positions. While I understand where Pelican's coming from, I have to say it's exactly this kind of 'half-pregnant' approach that has produced the mess we're in.

Clearly, the illegality of most recreational drugs doesn't stop a very large number of people using them - and doing so in the most hazardous and uncontrolled ways possible. It's hard to imagine how the problems caused by currently illegal drugs could possibly be made worse by legalising them and regulating them strictly, as we do with alcohol and tobacco. Further, there's no evidence to suggest that significantly more people would use them, nor that those who currently do would use them more. Indeed, my reading of the evidence suggests the reverse.

Fractelle - I wasn't having a go at you. Rather, it'd be nice to read a thread in which US or Steel participate where the issue of the evil feminists didn't come up. Even Col Rouge has managed to avoid bringing 'socialism by stealth' or 'dearest Margaret' into this one - likewise Philo didn't make his usual obligatory Christian reference.

However, US managed to confuse his own thread with his hypersensitivity to anything that might be vaguely 'feminist', to which Steel responded like a dog to a whistle. I was trying to imply that it was that obsession that I found distracting from the actual topic, rather than your lampooning of it :)

Rstuart “making drugs illegal reduces their usage.”

It does, guided by what happened when opium was legally available in China.

Making anything ‘illegal’ is to socially curb its availability and will curb its use by both the casually curious and the law abiding, be it drugs or hamburgers.

Pelican agree the ‘wavering’ is a constant challenge. I dislike government interference in my choices but some things produce greater harm if legally available than when illegal.

Drugs of addiction being the most obvious.

The harm is not only in the direct use of the drug, it is in the deterioration of the individual users, their inability to work to support themselves, which leads to not only greater welfare burden for the un-addicted to support but greater crime because, economically you just cannot support an escalating ‘habit’ on welfare.

Celevia “As a Libertarian, what would you say is wrong with the Libertarian view that the war on drugs imposes on individuals’ personal freedom and responsibility and that our communities would be safer when drugs are legalised?”

That depends on how many addicts you are prepared to accept and support.

“classification of drugs on science, not on historical beliefs about drugs or on emotion.”

It should be based on three things

Science including medical science
Statistics especially the likely explosion in use if legalised
Societal values: what sort of society we want, drug ravaged or drug addict limited.

I would have no problem with anyone imbibing in their drug of choice if it only affected them alone.

Problem is, it does not.

Legalise drugs and we will see

More psychosis and major organ damage, to burden tax paid police and medical services

Fractelles point (f) “work opportunities” is an absolute joke, just too funny.

Creating “work opportunities” for people who are too wasted, crashed or ‘tuned out’ to turn up.

So, we tolerate an explosion in junkies, too stoned to work in sheltered workshops, remaining reliant on inadequate welfare to support their habit, who end up robbing me to meet the economic demands of their chosen life style.

I don't think so.

Col

Why do you make the huge assumption that drug abuse would increase dramatically if legalised?

Where is your evidence?

Quite the reverse situation occurred in Holland.

As for work programs, I would've thought you'd prefer that junkies contribute taxes like most of the rest of us (except for shifty "creative" accountants of course).

Better that drugs be regulated by government instead of profiteers.

Is your stance in fact, due to your anachronistic abhorrence of government 'interference' in anything people choose to do?

"Col

Why do you make the huge assumption that drug abuse would increase dramatically if legalised?"

Of more interest to me is why Col hates drug addicts so much? He speaks of them as if they are an inferior race of human beings deserving of nothing more than the big flush. I can just see Col holding up the bar with schooner and durry, telling his reluctant and bored witless listeners yet again of the evildoers with habits even more disgusting than his own. But sadly Col's irrational hatred of drug addicts is all too common, and perhaps the main reason they are managed criminally instead of medically.

Could someone please explain the health benifits to users of illegal drugs? If there is medical researched paper showing how Doctors can justify prescribing such to improve the health of a user? Doctors do not prescribe alcohol or nicotine to improve the health of those addicted to such.

Stop comparing legalisation to china with opium a century ago. That's like me saying that hospitals today are a health hazard because of the conditions and lack of sanitation a century or more ago.

Philo some doctors do issue medical clearances for risky activities - diving medicals being one. Maybe the exercise in diving counts as a health benefit but given how unfrequently many divers get to dive thats hardly a compelling case for doing so.

The doctor is involved to minimise the risks associated with a risky activity. Possibly the same could be said for doctors associated with professional sports teams some of whom give painkillers to players to enable them to finish a game. No health benefit in that.

R0bert

fractelle “Why do you make the huge assumption that drug abuse would increase dramatically if legalised?”

Since casinos and poker machines were allowed in Victoria

Do more people attend than when they had to drive to the NSW Murray River clubs ?

people gambling, no worries, it is not physically addictive

Since the liberalisation of drinking laws in Victoria,

have the incidences of drunkenness, drunken assaults and anti-social behaviour increased or declined compared to the days of the six o’clock swill ?

I drink in moderation, for the vast majority, it is not physically addictive.

If increases happened with gambling and alcohol, which are not (or less) addictive,

It is an absolute certainty that it will happen with drugs

because they are more addictive.

but illegal drugs, including cannabis, are physically addictive.

Of course, some legal drugs are equally addictive. That is one reason why the are supposed to be only available under prescription and the supervision of an attending doctor.

Useful websites

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_house_hearings&docid=f:63346.wais

http://www.gargaro.com/drugs.html

which includes the comment

“Has anyone considered that the reason that people committed a crime was because they were ON drugs in the first place - legal or not? That they weren't necessarily committing a crime to get illegal drugs, but the drugs themselves caused a violent behavior (which would not magically go away if the drugs were legal)”

Fester your patronizing comments are noted and discarded beyond

“He speaks of them as if they are an inferior race of human beings deserving of nothing more than the big flush”

I am a person who values equally “self control” with my right to exercise self determination.

Drug addiction deprives the addict of both his self control and ability to exercise self determination because all his attention is focused on his addiction.

You say I am treating drug addicts as inferior,

Well I certainly find, in addiction and dependency, nothing to aspire to.

Steel, up yours

I do not "come to heel" on your command.

difference opium : modern derivatives / alternatives
todays are more addictive and therefore greater danger.

Col,
Good point about gambling as an addiction, at least you made me think about it.
I wonder if getting rid of casinos would not just direct compulsive gamblers to other sources where they can satisfy their compulsion, like internet gambling or illegal gambling. What did gamblers do before casinos were built?
Casinos are no problem for most gamblers who just want to enjoy this form of entertainment.
The line, again, can be drawn between users and abusers.

I don’t think that prohibition works to address any type of compulsion. I just want to see evidence before I accept that.
Banning all drugs is dangerous; when they have become unavailable, people will find something else, perhaps far more dangerous, to satisfy their addictive nature, like sniffing petrol or spray cans with cleaners or develop a pica for pesticides. It is far less risky to regulate drugs that are on demand and treat all addictions as health issues.

As a health issue, addictions need funding for prevention education, research, treatment etc.
Just banning things will interfere with the freedom of other people’s choices, people who enjoy the occasional night out at a casino as entertainment, to enjoy the occasional drug of choice as recreation.

There are sex-addicts, too, yet even you would probably agree that outlawing all sex for everybody would be intrusive.

Even religion can become an obsession for some and turn some people into complete paranoid nutcases even at the point of becoming dangerous to others, but nobody has ever suggested outlawing all religions.

Are you saying that alcohol is not addictive?
It’s not addictive when used in moderation, but that goes for a lot of illegal drugs as well.

Thank you, Pelican, I see what you mean and I will look at your links when I get more time and may get back to you later.

Fractelle, thanks for the article, which confirms that there is no evidence that decriminalisation will increase use or abuse.

There’s one point I unfortunately thought of that opposes my own arguments, but I don’t really care because we all care about the health of others, we just don't agree on the best way to achieve it.

OK... in isolated communities like remote aboriginal communities, it seems to have helped the alcohol problem when alcohol was made less available and it helped the gambling problem when pokermachines were limited.

I don’t know the details, but it seems to me that this can only successfully happen in isolated communities with very high numbers of addicts and where people have no access to other resources.

Can others pretty please give some thoughts about this? I’m curious.

Fractelle,

"You have seen the tragic results of the drug black market - yet you claim that legalising, with all the inherent controls and regulation would be a "monumental mistake". Many here have providing well thoughtful and evidence backed reasons why legalisation works better than prohibition."

I thought I had provided the same but from the opposing view. :)

Just because I have seen the results of the drug problem does not mean that any other alternative put on the table is the solution. I don't work from the premise that anything but what we have now has to be better.

There are many who work in this field who hold varying views and yet we all have the same experiences. Your comment supposes that just because someone has a particular experience that they will all think the same way.

One thing is for sure, all those who have posted so far have good intentions just a different approach to solving an awful problem.

I posted this link (I think) once before when having this discussion with Vanilla some time ago. The primary topic was homelessness but drugs and mental health feature heavily in the discussions and submissions if anyone is interested.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/oasis/report/report.htm

Just how serious is the ‘war against drugs’ anyway?

Surely, even Col would agree the Taliban and al Qaida should be neutered. These organisations are funded by trade in illicit drugs.

http://littlurl.com/us7q3

“TRUE or false? People who grow opium are bearded Afghans in turbans and long shirts, selling their resin to Taliban-linked dealers, or Wa-hill tribesmen in Burma under the thumb of Chinese drug warlords.
The raw product is refined in illicit factories and smuggled by Nigerian couriers or dupes like the Bali nine, or hidden in commercial cargoes. Eventually it is cut, packaged and injected into the arms of addicts in rich countries.

Actually not always. Opium growers can be farmers in woolly jumpers in Tasmania, where about 1500 landowners are licensed to produce the opium poppy, or similar respectable counterparts in Britain, France and Hungary…

…Turkey now has licensed opium cultivation, sharing a guaranteed 80 per cent of the US pharmaceutical market with India. Tasmania has access to the other 20 per cent, along with non-American markets…..
…Why not induct the Afghans into the net of licensed opium production? The US spends about $US600 million ($735 million) a year on opium eradication in Afghanistan, out of its $US10 billion a year effort to stabilise the country. Britain is spending almost as much. That is a total of $US1.2 billion by these two governments alone.”

Pelican

Thanks for the link – very informative (although I only had time to read the section devoted to drugs and alcohol). It clearly illustrates just how complex the issue of drug and alcohol is and that there is no easy magical solution.

However, what it doesn’t do is provide clear proof that the current war on drugs has resulted in lower usage. What it does illustrate is that a strong support network, affordable housing, accessible health services, education and a liveable income goes much further in helping people than does criminalising addicts.

To Philo
Legally obtained drugs like sedatives and painkillers are abused ALL the time, what do you suggest should be done about those addicted to legal substances?

Fractelle,
Are you suggesting that Doctors continue to maintain the perscriptions of those who abuse legal drugs? These days Chemists have access to a persons perscriptions so they cannot gain several perscriptions on the same medicare number. To gain several perscriptions illegally is not a legal act.

Who cares Philo. The war on drugs is a sham and we are all paying for it when we need every penny we have to build a stronger country. The war on drugs forces our own people to attack and rape us, and prey upon our homes for valuables.....the federal drug police need to justify their own existence, salaries and funding, as does the costly prison system, by demonising drugs every chance they get...and they do so while demanding ever more increasing amounts of money to deal with "the problem" which just doesn't ever go away, but requires them to keep running in circles for their whole lives

"Fester your patronizing comments are noted and discarded beyond"

A pity, Col. That's the stuff that could really help you.

Why justify your own habits above others? And why make a phony distinction between drug addiction and other addictions? And I would like to see how many drug addicts would fit the warped mold you have made for them.

What is needed is intelligent and considered management based upon fact, not ignorant and prejudicial management based on warped fantasy.

Steel,
I have worked for 20 years as a manager in the manufacturing industry in Australia, and seen good workers destroyed by the introduction of recreational drugs. The company no longer produce products in Australia because drug users reduced our productivity. Drug users if supplied with drugs will not make for a productive and healthy society. The increase in work accidents, absenteeism, schizophrenia and parkinsons etc among the workers left the company with no option other than to import products. Your dream of a productive society of drug users is a myth.

Celevia “Good point about gambling as an addiction, at least you made me think about it.”

Thanks C.. however, please realize, the problem if narcotics are legalized is this

Gambling is not physically addictive.

Cocaine, heroin and Amphetamines, in their various forms are.

Gambling, like drug abuse, consumes the individuals resources

however
Gambling does not cause physical medical issues
Gambling does not cause psychosis
Gambling does not prevent someone from holding down a job (Philos comments)
Gambling does not limit a persons ability to reason (beyond the level of worry about their indebtedness)

If you think there are problems attributable to the legalization of gambling, they are nothing compared to the range of problems which legalized narcotics would unleash upon the entire society, not just the junkies.

And I never suggested alcohol was not addictive, simply that it becomes addictive for a far smaller % or users.

“Sex addiction”, like gambling, is not a physical addictive, or producing any symptoms of physical withdraw.

Fractelle read my posts, I have already acknowledged the medical uses for opiates and the licenced Tasmanian growers

Australia cannot dictate terms to the Afghani government.

As the greenies say, “think global but act local,”

Actions achieve, thoughts do not.

Fester “A pity, Col. That's the stuff that could really help you.”

What part of

“I can just see Col holding up the bar with schooner and durry, telling his reluctant and bored witless listeners yet again of the evildoers with habits even more disgusting than his own.”

Is ever going to help anyone?

If my comments bore you witless (which a sentence of more than ten words is likely to do), I suggest you exercise manners and ignore them, rather than demonstrate your feeble wit by commenting.

I am contributing to the debate, from your posts, I have yet to see you contribute to anything other than the ad hominines’.

“What is needed is intelligent and considered management based upon fact, not ignorant and prejudicial management based on warped fantasy.”

From the history of your posts here, I will not hold my breath for your input.

Philo, in all the utter rubbish that you've written here over the years, I haven't been aware of you telling actual porkies. However, that last post just begs for some kind of substantiation.

Surely, if what you've written is true, this is a malady that must be experienced across the manufacturing industry in Australia. If so, why have we not heard a word about this epidemic of "work accidents, absenteeism, schizophrenia and parkinsons etc" due to recreational drugs that is apparently crippling our manufacturing industries (I mean, as opposed to globalisation, removal of tariffs, the emergence of China and India etc etc)?

Somebody should tell '60 Minutes', 'A Current Affair', or 'Today Tonight' about this. They'd be all over it, wouldn't they?

The one thing we can’t do as a society is legislate against stupidity.

We can set up programs to minimise harm, however, with the illegality on commonly used drugs like heroin, marijuana, amphetamines this is difficult to effectively monitor.

If drugs addicts are required to register with rehabilitation and health programs it is possible to actively monitor and communicate with the majority of drug users. Unlike gambling where harm reduction is more difficult to implement due to relative anonymity of gamblers. Not until a chronic gambler's world comes crashing down around them do we discover the extent of the problem. Whereas with requiring drug addicts to register before receiving aid, their recovery has a far better chance of success.

PS

CJ - thanks for the clarification, life is too short to spend justifying oneself before even making a contribution to a debate.

Speaking of clarification, Philo, I asked YOU what YOU would suggest doing on the issue of abuse of legally obtained drugs. Please reread my post. Thank you.

Steel “The war on drugs is a sham and we are all paying”

Prove that it is a sham.

You make grand claims

Now stand behind them and prove them.

As for your statement “That's like me saying that hospitals today are a health hazard because of the conditions and lack of sanitation a century or more ago.”

You might think your drug of choice, being made by some hairy biker mixing matchstick heads with farm chemicals and cooking the lot in drain cleaner, then shipping the ‘product’ in the crank case of his Harley Davison is “sanitary”, but I suspect it is even worse than drinking the outflow of a sewer.

Or your cocaine and heroin being cut with baking soda or cleaning chemicals is sanitary and healthy.

Fractelle “The one thing we can’t do as a society is legislate against stupidity.

We can set up programs to minimise harm,”

Agree, That is why illegal drugs are illegal,

Making them illegal is the program which minimizes harm,

Agree, you will still get stupid people but the numbers exercising “stupidity” will be fewer if these substances are prohibited, rather than legally sanctioned.

Same was speeding fines and drink drive limits do not stop everyone but they do stop a lot.

“If drugs addicts are required to register with rehabilitation and health programs it is possible to actively monitor and communicate with the majority of drug users.”

Assumes drug addicts want to rehabilitate.

Harder to do when a drug is legal

Drug addicts got where they were by disregarding societal norms and expectations.

I doubt they would register simply because you want them to.

If we, legalised drugs resulting in far more drug addicts reliant on tax paid public order, social welfare and public medical services that we all contribute to

At what point

Do they overwhelm those services?

What happens to service queues for the genuine non-addicts whose taxes pay for those services?

When do we say, junkie “volenti non fit injuria,”

Fix it yourself or die alone

Col Rouge "As for your statement “That's like me saying that hospitals..."

I think you misunderstand that statement as it's actually the reverse. You want people to be forced to consume drugs that are illegal and have dangerous mixes that end up killing them.

Steel “I think you misunderstand that statement as it's actually the reverse. You want people to be forced to consume drugs that are illegal and have dangerous mixes that end up killing them.”

HA HA HA

What twisted, perverted logic, Steel.

So you think because I think something should be illegal, I am ‘forcing’ (= your word) people to consume illegal drugs which are more ‘harmful’ to them.

I am not forcing them to do anything,

I am trying to minimise the ‘harm’ which they are attracted to, by making it illegal.

You think that by making illegal drugs ‘legal’ you are going to do away will the harmfulness?

Do you think a ‘legally induced psychotic episode’ is less harmful than an illegal one?

You think that just because you supply something legally, you automatically stop the illegal?

Well if that were true -

we would not have chop-chop illegal tobacco
we would not have illegal gambling
we would not have people who operate unlicenced, illegal drink clubs
we would not have illegal prostitution

Making something 'legal', does not automatically stop an illegal trade

The real problem is

What is a tiny minority of drug addicts, sucking off the welfare system today

Will become an epidemic of dysfunctional junkies crippling the welfare system and still stealing to get the illegal drugs which will be cheaper (and as polluted as they are now) than the legal supplies (‘chop chop’ tobacco being the classic example).

I suggest your twisted logic is a symptom of using too much of your own illegal drug of choice, it is certainly impairing your reasoning.
I only hope you do not drive a car or operate heavy machinery.

If drug users only harmed themselves I would not give a rats.

They do not harm only themselves,
they harm their families,
the people they steal from,
the innocent bystanders who get attacked by psychotics,
the people waiting in medical queues because the medical services are overloaded dealing with junkies.
Other road users involved in accidents because some pot-smoking tool cannot respond properly to the movement of his vehicle.

Col

Steel's point: "You want people to be forced to consume drugs that are illegal and have dangerous mixes that end up killing them."

The words 'harm minimisation' aren't in your vocabulary are they?

You have failed to convince that you even have a rudimentary understanding of drug prohibition. You are still repeating yourself over and over:

"Drugs are illegal, users must be terminated... (sorry I mean) punished"

I can't get this image of Davros out of my head.

I will try.

Col.

Hypothetical

If alcohol was prohibited (as it was in the USA in the 1930's) would you?

a. Abstain from that glass of cabernet.

b. Be first in line at the local speakeasy.

Col Rouge you are like stevenimeyer who will say there will be an epidemic of muslims across europe and the world, taking over. If you utilise simple mathematics, rather than emotions, you would see that this is far from the truth, or rather it would take hundreds of years.

You think we all will suddenly start taking drugs, as if tomorrow we will start smoking or becoming alcoholics. It's absolute nonsense. Sane rational people will not do this. Users who are currently criminalised and forced into a life of crime, will be able to do this in safety without stealing from people.

I never claimed the illegal trade would stop. But listen to yourself for a minute. If alcohol were made illegal, you would be talking about executing all these drug users and saying the same things about them. You have no rational reason, to support your position other than to cry about these evil people, most of whom would otherwise be law-abiding citizens. Do you demonise the wealthy who regularly take drugs, but manage to get along fine? Admittedly some don't but that can be attributed to the illegality of the drugs in the first place.

Col

You might realise that your error is in believing that invalid statements like

"Gambling is not physically addictive.

Cocaine, heroin and Amphetamines, in their various forms are."

define human behaviour, when in fact they are only invalid observations of human behaviour. The latter observation might raise the question, "Does this apply to all human beings?". Clearly, it does not. Hence Robert's comparison of drug taking with activities like scuba diving.

"Gambling does not cause physical medical issues
Gambling does not cause psychosis"

Quite wrong, Col. e.g.

http://www.wesleymission.org.au/publications/r&d/suicide.htm#problem

"Problem gambling, with its potentially devastating impacts on the finances, personal lives and relationships of the affected gamblers, is related to heightened anxiety, depression, and in extreme cases, to suicide."

I could go on but I see no point in explaining to a moron why their ideas are moronic. I mean, what you really need is an IQ boost. And I wouldn't have made any comment on your stupid musings but for the fact that seeing a moron vilifying human beings and inanimate objects just grates me.

Fractelle “The words 'harm minimisation' aren't in your vocabulary are they?”

I wrote, immediately above “I am trying to minimise the ‘harm’ which they are attracted to, by making it illegal.”

(memory loss becoming a problem for you?)

"Drugs are illegal, users must be terminated... (sorry I mean) punished"

I can assure you, a drug user is doing more to ensure his ‘early termination’ than if he followed the statutes, which I support and not imbibe in illegal substances.

“I can't get this image of Davros out of my head.”

Sounds like “Davros psychosis", fractelle.

Does he talk to you too?

Steel there is no comparison between Muslims and illegal drugs. Your analogy of me to stevenlmeyer is therefore, facile.

(but I would rather be compared to stevenlmeyer than you)

“You think we all will suddenly start taking drugs,”

No but you will create the social values which, through legalization, endorses a habit as being more generally acceptable.

That will influence children as they grow and you will see the use of presently illegal substances rise and rise.

Chinas opium addiction epidemic in the end of 19th century did not happen overnight, it took around a century to get that bad and legalizing drugs of dependency today will be no different,

worse because modern derivatives are more addictive than the old stuff

Fester, fester, “moron why their ideas are moronic. I mean, what you really need is an IQ boost.”

So you have come back here to throw ad homenines around, as usual,

You cannot argue the point, have to attack the man.

No problems with my IQ, probably a lot higher than yours but modesty induces me not to say how much.

“a moron vilifying human beings and inanimate objects just grates me.”

May you choke on your own hypocrisy.

Keep up the ad homenines, you condemn your own views with your insane posting (and strengthen mine).

As Margaret Thatcher Said “. . .if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

. . . just the rattle of empty vessels

Col,
I understand that you are mainly worried about the social costs of drug legalisation and not about the private costs of drug users/abusers.
Then, why are you not advocating outlawing other drugs that have social costs, like tobacco and alcohol?
Alcohol is, socially, more damaging than any other drug.
Smoking has social costs as well.
According to the CSIRO:
”In 1998 - 99, the social costs of tobacco use in Australia were an estimated to be $21.1 billion, about 2.3% of the gross domestic product.”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=NB04021.pdf

I still think it’s inconsistent of governments to legalise some drugs and not others that are equally or sometimes even less harmful than the legal drugs.

The majority of illegal drug users are no different than the majority of alcohol users.
There are abusers on both sides. The abusers cause the most social damage, not the users.

It is wrong to punish drug users when they do not cause social harm.

I agree that legalising a drug may not completely get rid of black markets but these will be greatly reduced because there will be far less demand for it.
When legalised, at least users will have a choice- buy from the legal market where there is control and regulation on quality, strength etc., or buy from the odd black market with the risk that the quality has been tampered with and strengths can vary, increasing the risk of overdosing.

Also, legalising a drug may actually reduce use. An example is tobacco.
According to the Cancer Council,
“Australia has succeeded in cutting its daily smoking rates in half over the last 20 years, from 35.4% of adults in 1983 to 17.7% in 2004. The World Health Organization rates smoking as the second major cause of death in the world.
In 1945 approximately 72% of Australian men smoked. In 2004 only 18.6% of Australian males were daily smokers.
In 1945 26% of Australian women smoked. In 2004 women were smoking at a slightly lower rate than men with 16.3% still smoking daily.”
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=37

Col You can't do simple mathematics like stevenimeyer... the comparison is fine. You even defeated your position with your last comment, by describing a process that took over one hundred years. Such a process is not an "epidemic" as you keep claiming. I've said before that is like saying hospitals today are as dangerous as those 100 years ago...the conditions are so different, it's stupid. We have vast amounts of information and education as well as ways to help actual addicts who abuse them. Your constant repetition of this epidemic doomsday scenario in an educated, somewhat rational society, is as credible as stevenimeyer's claims about the imminent takeover of muslims of countries across the world, when it would take hundreds of years under strict conditions, which obviously is not credible, but very scary to those who are gullible enough to believe it.

Cevelia “Alcohol is, socially, more damaging than any other drug.”

Only because it is more commonly used than other drugs.

And the number of alcohol addicts is not a high % because of number of users.

Smoking, whilst legal is being tolerated less and less, illegal use in offices, enclosed public areas, even in cars with children.

It is diminishing.

I smoked for 25 years. I went ‘cold turkey’ and stopped. No symptoms of physical withdraw. It is not physically addictive.

“The majority of illegal drug users are no different than the majority of alcohol users.
There are abusers on both sides.”

You continue to ignore the point that illegal drugs are far more addictive and harmful than alcohol or tobacco and their legalization would send a flag of acceptability, encouraging people toward a life of addiction and dependency. A dependency far more insidious than tobacco or alcohol.

“It is wrong to punish drug users when they do not cause social harm.”

It is the slope to greater addiction which does the harm.

Making acceptable to people the idea that using a drug of dependency is acceptable behaviour instead of condemning its use through legal prohibition.

Your example of using the reduction in tobacco use is invalid because. Like I said previously, it is not ‘physically’ addictive.

Steel the Chinese addicts to opium was 25% of Chinese males.

That was an “epidemic”. It was the growth which determined its use would be made illegal.

“the conditions are so different, it's stupid”
The conditions are… modern derivatives are more addictive than opium

therefore the speed and level of saturation of addiction will be greater and develop faster than 100 years ago.

That is simple logic, even someone like you should understand it.

“Your constant repetition of this epidemic doomsday scenario in an educated, somewhat rational society,”

“Addicts” have surrendered their “educated values” and any pretense to “reason” to the “monkey on their back”.

“ways to help actual addicts”

Better way is to minimise / prevent addiction by prohibiting drugs of dependency.

You are the gullible one, consistently denying the obvious consequences.

Col

Thank you for proving conclusively that you have no idea of the meaning of the words ‘harm minimisation’. I guess there are just some things that are difficult for you - like spelling Celivia’s name correctly more than once. While we all have our little foibles, clearly you require special care.

Now for your claim that alcohol is only worse than hard drugs because it is legally available.

Wrong.

Alcohol is more addictive than heroin - particularly for young people under 21 years of age.

http://www.healthfirst.net.au/content/view/1203/42/

“Alcohol is a legal mood-altering and addictive drug. It can be purchased by anyone of legal age according to local law.

Alcohol is by far the most common drug of abuse across all age groups. Alcohol is involved in nearly 50 percent of all major injuries, including motor vehicle accidents, assaults, stabbings, and shootings….

….People who begin drinking before age 15 are four times more likely to develop alcoholism than those who begin at age 21. Many people have been exposed to alcoholism in some form in their family; they grew up with or married an alcoholic or a problem drinker or had a relative who was an alcoholic or problem drinker.”

As alcohol is more readily available it is more frequently a gateway drug to hard drugs than is marijuana.

http://www.caan.adf.org.au/alcoholandeffects/

• Short-term/acute effects of alcohol include the following* :
• relaxation
• elevated mood
• decreased inhibition and judgment
• decreased reaction time, alertness and co-ordination
• impaired vision and perception
• emotional lability
• aggression
• slurred speech
• sleep disturbances
• memory impairment

And something Col needs to consider:

• Long-term / chronic effects of alcohol include the following:

• brain damage
• cancer
• hepatitis
• liver cirrhosis
• pancreatitis
• heart disease
• mental illness, e.g. alcohol dependence, depression, anxiety
social problem

Unfortunately, it looks like Col is reverting to form in this discussion. He started by stridently arguing a pro-prohibition case, using any dubious references he could glean from the Internet, but as these have all been refuted by other posters he has become increasingly obnoxious in his long-winded argumentation.

Now we have Col belligerently pushing his point of view, while insulting anybody who happens to argue against it. It's a pity really, because Col has on (rare) occasion shown himself to be open to persuasion - unfortunately, in this case it seems that his tabloid-fuelled prejudice has rendered him impervious to reason.

In which case, there's not much point in arguing with him about the stupidity of maintaining the 'war on drugs' in its present form. Meanwhile, our gaols will continue to be filled with people convicted of drug-related crimes, the police will continue to be corrupted, and Col and his partner can continue to derive their incomes from working in the penal system that prohibition maintains.

Let's face it, Fractelle, for someone who claims to be a bean-counter, poor old Col isn't very good with numbers.

The Age carried a story this morning quoting Mick Keelty in relation to the recent "successes" of the AFP in seizing large quantities of drugs and precursor chemicals and charging some allegedly responsible for the importation.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/thirst-for-party-drugs-will-keep-trade-thriving-keelty-20080815-3we4.html?page=-1

Mr Keelty makes the obvious point that these people are catering to a large market demand and that people are prepared to pay a premium price for the drugs that are imported. Let's do a simple set of calculations and hope that poor old hysterical Col can keep up, shall we?

The AFP claims to have intercepted 14.6 tonnes of such substances in the past three months, largely either ecstasy or amphetamines or pseudo-ephedrine, which is a precursor for amphetamines. A generous dose for either ecstasy or speed is perhaps 200mg (that's 5 doses per gram for you, Col), which means that these chemicals would have provided, at a minimum, 14600000g x 5 = 73 million doses. For Col, that means that there was enough seized to provide every Australian with 3.5 doses. Mr Keelty himself says that while this is a large amount, it will have no impact whatever on the price or availability of the substances, nor on the demand for them. These things are popular, widely used and widely available. Many of those who use amphetamines would use perhaps 10 or more doses across a weekend and happily turn up at work on Monday, probably less grumpy and certainly more capable than Col, who stuck to his bottles of plonk. Imagine how Col would be if he'd drunk 10 times the effective dose of alcohol over the same time?

Over that weekend, there would have been many hospitalisations for MV accidents and personal assaults, nearly all of which would have involved Col's favoured drug and few that would have involved amphetamines alone. You still keeping up, Col, or has the hangover got you down?

Antiseptic,
A friend attended an ecstasy party (Netherlands) with about 30-35 people present. A bowl with around two hundred ecstasy tablets sat on the table for people to grab. There was no alcohol present, just water, juice and sports drinks.
The police turned up to warn about the loud music after a neighbour had complained about it and spotted the bowl of ecstasies. They told everyone that there wouldn’t be a problem if the music was kept down and nobody would drive home. Only two people had arrived by car anyway because they were going to sleep over, but they were asked to hand in their car keys, which they could pick up from the police station the next day.
The police left, the music was kept down and there were no problems whatsoever.

Col,
Why would it be a crime if a group of people wanted to choose ecstasy over alcohol at a party but caused no one harm?
Can you imagine how much time it would have taken the police to make arrests, do all the paperwork for no good reason? And taxpayers would have to pay for 'the service'.
There was no crime, no violence, just a fun party.

The police were able to get on with chasing the real criminals (probably alcohol-induced violence) and the party could continue.
Nobody at this party needed to be over-protected by some interfering government.
These people and many others use ecstasy on occasions, for fun and recreation.

During my teenage and young adult years ALL of my friends have experimented with drugs at some stage, and even some of the older generation, like my grandmother, wanted to try stuff to find out “what all the fuss was about”.
I only know of one who has never taken an illicit drug.
Nobody I know however has become addicted or turned into a psycho; in fact the vast majority have become health-conscious, responsible people with jobs and families and who either use recreational drugs very occasionally or not at all.

But I have known several alcoholics who died from their drinking habit.

Hmmm, decision, decisions.

I could post a well thought through and reasonable post like Celivia's (wish I was a teen again but this time in Amsterdam)

....or....I could go with....

CJ & Antiseptic

I imagine that dear old Col won’t be surfacing for a while yet, his last post was made at 3.00 AM – an odd time for a chap his age to still be online. One considers whether he had indeed been partaking of a bottle of red or two.

OK. What we know about Col.

1. Prison Officer partner
2. Sees drug addicts as crims
3. Professional tax avoider (bean counter)
4. Abhors government ‘interference’
5. Worships individualism over cooperation

CONCLUSION
Col supports the black market, admires the drug lord entrepreneur and any attempt to legalise drugs would threaten his income stream.

CJMorgan “insulting anybody who happens to argue against it.”

I am arguing against Celivia, I see no insults from her, you will find none of her from me.

Steel “Col You can't do simple mathematics “

Antiseptic “Let's face it, Fractelle, for someone who claims to be a bean-counter, poor old Col isn't very good with numbers.”

Fractelle “clearly you require special care.”

When people want to abuse me, I make no apology for responding in kind.

So CJM, your usually vacuous comments, running like a wimp behind the pack, ready to pick up some missed piece of offal from when the pack attacks, I have the measure of you CJM and to be honest

It don’t add up to much.

To the posts concerning the dangers of alcohol and tobacco

Making the most convincing case to reduce public accessibility to alcohol or tobacco, in no way supports a case to decriminalize drugs which are presently illegal.

Celivia “Col, Why would it be a crime if a group of people…..”

If you think the case for the legalization of ecstasy is so compelling, you can find some here-today, gone-tomorrow politician to support your cause, then do so but until then, popping ecstasy is no different to any other illegal act.

Having condoned one 'illegal act'

How and where do you draw the line, someone ODing on your sofa?

Persuading yourself there is no harm in it is for you and your conscience but do not ask me to condone the illegal.

“During my teenage and young adult years ALL of my friends have experimented with drugs”

Me too, with Cannabis and friends who injected.

“But I have known several alcoholics who died from their drinking habit.”

Likewise and people who OD when they were only 20 too…

The point is, to ‘OD’ on alcohol usually takes a lot longer than heroin or illegal pills (I do not wonder why).

“Nobody I know however has become addicted or turned into a psycho;”

You are lucky, it has happened in front of me and I know people who died because of it

Col,
“popping ecstasy is no different to any other illegal act”
I just want to point out that it makes no sense to outlaw a drug that is less harmful than a legal drug.

Agree that taking drugs can be harmful; that drugs harm people’s health and that some people overdose on drugs.
However, the chance of overdosing is much higher when drugs are illegal than when they are legal, regulated and controlled.

When someone takes an illegal drug there is the risk that the ingredients are less than pure, that the quality is poor.
But when drugs are legal, like alcohol, people can choose to buy their drugs from a licensed seller who sells pure, standard strength and quality drugs, rather than from a risky black market.
Legalising drugs would reduce overdosing because the strength of the drug would be constant and known to the user.

“The point is, to ‘OD’ on alcohol usually takes a lot longer than heroin or illegal pills (I do not wonder why).”
You're correct but you’re comparing a legal drug to illegal drugs. Legal drugs are controlled and regulated, whereas illegal drugs are not. That’s not a fair comparison.

Alcohol can cause instant deaths if alcohol were not legalised, not regulated and controlled.
That happened in the US in the 1920’s and it is happening today in countries where alcohol is illegal.
For example,

“PAKISTAN: Illegal alcohol continues to cause deaths.
MULTAN, 21 September 2004
Pakistan's human rights activists have criticised the government for what they call its disregard for public health after 42 people died after drinking poisonous home-made alcohol in the eastern city of Multan in Punjab province. Consumption of liquor by Muslims is banned in Pakistan under the country's prohibition laws dating back to the 1970s.

Officially two breweries operate in the country to serve non-Muslim communities, who form just 3 percent of the 150-million-member Muslim state. But potent home-made liquors are manufactured illegally in several parts of the country in often unhygienic conditions and using dangerous ingredients.”
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26367

Do you understand what I've been trying to say?

Col

"So you have come back here to throw ad homenines(sic) around, as usual,"

My assessment of you as moronic is based on the standard of your reasoning. And you continue to maintain your standard.

"I smoked for 25 years. I went ‘cold turkey’ and stopped. No symptoms of physical withdraw. It is not physically addictive."

For you perhaps, but your own experience is not a measure for society. Yet your whole approach in this thread has been one of making unsupported assumptions and pronouncements, with a good deal of scaremongering and vilification of drug addicts thrown in.

And what is my contribution? I have no idea of the best way of managing illegal drugs, but I would rather see a system come about empirically than by the dictate of a conceited old windbag. I think that large numbers of intelligent and informed people, working in a coordinated fashion to define and solve a problem can offer far more. There is so much about addiction which is unknown, and it is the unknown which causes fear and irrationality, both of which are major barriers to understanding.

Col Rouge: << So CJM, your usually vacuous comments, running like a wimp behind the pack, ready to pick up some missed piece of offal from when the pack attacks, I have the measure of you CJM and to be honest It don’t add up to much. >>

Thanks to Col for demonstrating perfectly my point. There's no point in arguing this issue with Col - he's now reduced to bluster, bile and bigotry.

Fortunately, his obnoxious blather can only garner support for the more humane, reasonable and rational approaches to drug problems that have been suggested by other contributors.

Col stated in his reply to Celivia:

>>>“Nobody I know however has become addicted or turned into a psycho;”

You are lucky, it has happened in front of me and I know people who died because of it."<<<

Col, when this incident(s) you claim occurred, drugs were still illegal. Instead of lobbying for a better approach to drug control, you suppport the same laws that were in effect when your acquaintance/friend(?) went 'psycho'.

You cannot claim that this psychosis was a direct result of cannabis - this mental illness may have occurred eventually. And it IS a mental illness that you are intent on punishing. Had you a shred of empathy, I would've thought that this incident would impel you towards a rational approach to drug abuse than the heavy handed and inappropriate action of punishment we still implement.

I have known many people who have suffered mental illness from the effects of alcohol and to a far lesser extent from pot, but that is anecdotal. We can monitor the effects of alcohol abuse, but cannot apply the same to abusers of cannibus, herion, speed, ecstacy, etc.

Illegality didn't prevent what happened to your friend(s) and the continued prohibition remains a complete failure. The only people who are profiting are protected by layers of small time dealers and addicts - why do you want this state of affairs to continue?

BTW You deliberately avoided answering my hypothetical question whether you would stop drinking alcohol if it was prohibited. Your silence is a very telling answer.

Celevia “I just want to point out that it makes no sense to outlaw a drug that is less harmful than a legal drug.”

http://www.reachout.com.au/default.asp?ti=53

the long term harmful effect of ecstasy are uncertain.

50 years ago the harmful effects of taking tobacco in cigarette form were uncertain, although tobacco was introduced to western society around 500 years ago.

Alcohol is known to have certain negative effects when taken in excess (some beneficial effects when taken in moderation).

“people can choose to buy their drugs from a licensed seller who sells pure, standard strength and quality drugs, rather than from a risky black market.”

Purifying the product will not prevent overdose, someone who wants to get ‘high’ don’t bother to read the labels and the psychosis will be the same, regardless of the legality of the product.

And my previous point, illustrated with chop-chop tobacco remains true, because a legal source may be available does not ensure the elimination of the illegal trade.

“You're correct but you’re comparing a legal drug to illegal drugs. Legal drugs are controlled and regulated, whereas illegal drugs are not. That’s not a fair comparison.”

It is the “addiction” which makes any comparison unfair, the illegal drugs will remain highly addictive if legalized; alcohol not so (or to the same level of significance).

“Alcohol can cause instant deaths if alcohol were not legalised, not regulated and controlled.”

But that does not compare to the addictive features of the drugs which are illegal nor the opportunity to overdose (I found the limit on overdosing on alcohol when I did drink heavier, in my youth: any overdose was prevented by ones glass being unable to find ones mouth : - ) )

Fester, you and CJMorgan have one thing in common, a capacity to rely on abuse when you could have used analysis.

You admit you “have no idea … managing illegal drugs”

So you just hurl your insults at me and fail to anticipate my response.

As for ‘addiction’.

A lot unknown but at least we all know it is a thing to be avoided if one wants a peaceful and productive community, rather than one driven from one fix to the next and the fabric on which we all rely left to fall into rack and ruin, the opportunity of future generations lost to the addicted and befuddle non-reasoning of todays addicts.

As for Fester’s assessment of me, well phone someone who cares, for sure, I measure people for their contributions and you, as you said “have no idea”

Fester yours is a non contribution from a non-entity. Your opinion (of me) is directly proportional to the shadow cast by your ‘entity’.

CJMorgan read the above and insert your name where you see “Fester” you are not worthy of further comment.

Fractelle “And it IS a mental illness that you are intent on punishing”

Mental illness?

Illnesses are things which effect people by some unpredictable act of ill-providence or fate.

Taking illegal drugs is not an action to which the consequences can be put down to ill-providence or fate.

Deliberately taking illegal drugs causes psychosis and addiction, not some ‘illness’.

Not taking illegal drugs prevents the consequences.

“Had you a shred of empathy, I would've thought that this incident would impel you towards a rational approach to drug abuse”

A drug addict will steal, lie and corrupt everything around them to support their habit. They will scream and argue their entitlement to everything and totally disrespect the people who actually love them.

My “rational approach” is for someone addicted to drugs to be left to hit bottom sooner, rather than see his/her family suffer the fortitudinal and financial costs of pretending that “supporting a junkie” helps.

And better “quality” narcotics will not reduce their psychotic effect nor the addictive consequences.

“You cannot claim that this psychosis was a direct result of cannabis”

Wrong Cannabis alone and also cannabis in combination with alcohol or as a gateway drug to other substances.

Re “this mental illness may have occurred eventually.”

Well that’s the same as saying the morbidly obese are fat, regardless of the amount of crap they shove in through their mouths because they would be morbidly obese anyway.

The difference, compare the probability of someone becoming an addict from a single exposure to crack and those who become morbidly obese because they ate a donut.

“BTW You deliberately avoided answering my hypothetical question whether you would stop drinking alcohol if it was prohibited. Your silence is a very telling answer.”

Lost in word limits..

Answer, I would argue against banning alcohol but support its licencing and presently would support greater licencing.

I enjoy moderate use of alcohol

But my life would not be particularly diminished if I were not allowed to drink ever again.

I prefer to be in control of myself than out-of-it, on anything.

Col

"You admit you “have no idea … managing illegal drugs”

Try putting the whole in, instead of one edited by your distorted sensibilities i.e.

"I have no idea of the best way of managing illegal drugs, but I would rather see a system come about empirically than by the dictate of a conceited old windbag."

The sad thing Col is that you think that you do have the answers, whereas I look to the work of experts in the field. e.g.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0955395904000489

Col,

I am trying to decipher your lengthy rants, I think you are saying that if a person develops psychosis as a result of smoking cannibis, they only have themselves to blame.

Hmmmmm

I guess that means an alcoholic is at fault for taking that first drink, that they should've known beforehand they would turn into a demented, brain damaged cretin and, therefore, should be punished.

Is that what you mean?

That people who develop mental illnesses should be punished if they do any risky activity that might result in illness or disablement?

Your partner will be run off her tiny little feet.

PS

Brevity indicates a clarity of mind and detachment from the emotive, suggest you do ease off the turps.

And here is a link to further expert support of the harm minimisation approach:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=684231

The article ends with this comment:

"If only more of us were willing to change our positions based on evidence, we might finally begin to make progress against this terrible affliction called drug addiction."

This raises the question of what evidence would change your opinion, Col? For example, if a heroin injection trial were shown to have benefits to the community and addicts above those of other management strategies, would you support the adoption of heroin injection programs?

When you have seen hands cut off in presses from lack of concentration, staff not turning up on mondays after a heavy weekend on both legal and illegal drugs; staff develop permanent medical conditions from continual use of drugs, persons imprisoned for dealing drugs it is time to look for a new work force. China at least delivers on time quality products to fulfil demands with no insurance claims.

Fester, Nice links. Thanks.

Fractelle “I am trying to decipher your lengthy rants,”

They are not that difficult, for anyone who can manage words of more than two syllables.

As for rants, well what you think of as ‘reason’ is something completely lacking is underlying logic, so it is easy to conclude, what real people consider ‘reason’ appears like ‘rants’ to you.

“I guess that means an alcoholic is at fault for taking that first drink,”

More importantly, he is also responsible for taking his last one.

And “deciphering” what I wrote also depends on reading all the words.

As I wrote “Cannabis alone and also cannabis in combination with alcohol”

Try to read all the words fractelle

Like you said “Brevity indicates a clarity of mind and detachment from the emotive, suggest you do ease off the turps.”

I guess avoiding some of the words adds to your “brevity”,

( turps might be you alcohol of choice it should suit you, it is after all cheap but It is not mine.)

As for detachment from the emotive, I did not think I was being emotional but maybe early psychosis makes you hypersensitive to every nuance, it seems that way.

“That people who develop mental illnesses should be punished if they do any risky activity that might result in illness or disablement”

You have that arse about face.

The point is

“people who engage in risky activities, fully aware they are exposing themselves to serious and permanent mental illness, should not be cosseted, recognised or rewarded for their stupidity”

Their action could invalidate any insurance policy which they carried or disqualify them from obtaining the everyday insurance we use as security.

If they fail to consider their own health, why should I give a rats, beyond seeking to protect the rest of us from the burden the stupid place upon our tax funded services, including possible the cost of their incarceration.

Like I said a few posts ago “Volenti non fit injuria” it is a long standing maxim all who want to play with their own wellbeing need to consider(google it for translation)

I think Col is too proud to change his mind. That's all it is. I have changed my mind before Col it's not so bad.

It looks to me a portion of posters to OLO are not brave enough to go rational thought leads them. Instead they are paralysed into inaction. What is the worst that could happen it we made drugs legal? It all goes to pot and we have to make them illegal again?
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 12 August 2008 7:40:30 PM

pale comments
I think that rstuart has made a fair comment in saying this and Celiva has made some very good comments.

Years ago I met an wise old Greek man and he told me how they cleared a particular island up after everything else had failed.
They deregulated it and did nothing.

Everybody would watch as they familys sadly would come to beary the dead. Brother carrying sister and visa versa.

The effect was that you cant to this day find one neelde there.
Sad way to learn but it worked and possibly was the best lesson for the sibblings.
The point is it worked.
Interesting thread and many interesting comments

PALE,
Thanks, interesting story. Do you know the name of that island? I’m curious to find out the details.

Col,
This is probably the time to round off the debate for me otherwise I’ll just be repeating arguments.

Perhaps I’d like to add one more:
People are not, by law, obliged to take care of their health or to worry about long term effects of anything they consume.
Adults should be free to choose their lifestyle.
At the same time, food and drug companies need to be subject of control, meet certain standards and label their products. This reduces risks for consumers.

We also need to inform people to enable them to make educated choices about their health. They can ignore facts, but that’s their choice. Most people do care about their health.
We’ve already significantly reduced the number of smokers because tobacco regulation works.

Your point, that other drugs are more addictive than nicotine, is true, but several factors play a role in addiction- not just the drug itself. That’s all the more reason for having a good social and health system in place, specifically a wide variety of rehab programs to cater for different needs.
Not every drug addict responds to the same program. Unsuitable programs can be the cause of relapses.

The criminal law and government are insensitive to label drug addicts as criminals- drug addicts need to feel safe to seek help without being stigmatised, labeled, or arrested.

While some people abuse illegal drugs and destroy their health in the process, others destroy their health by abusing legal drugs and junk food.
I love Fester’s links about diabetics and needle exchange programs; it makes much sense.
People who have destroyed their health create costs for society, but that’s life.

While some children are allowed to grow taller than others; some then may turn out higher maintenance than others.

Continued.

But, drug abusers are not the only ones creating costs for society; an unnecessary criminal law creates costs, too. So does an ineffective, too large government.

The war on drugs is an invasion of liberty and creates economical, social and environmental costs.
The war on drugs is as effective as mopping a floor while leaving the tap running.

Governments all over the world have been trying to deal with drugs through the criminal system for decades or even centuries. It’s now time to realize:
“If you keep on doing what you always did, you'll keep on getting what you always got.”

Gr’ugs for all :)

CULPABILITY and RISKY BEHAVIOR.

There are many behaviors where we become totally to blame for the outcome.. but the degree of cuplability and self blame is directly proportional to the level of information we have prior to embarking on the behavior.

If we KNOW that the chances of having serious problems through particular drug use are extremely high...then who else is to blame..but ourselves?

I wonder if those trying to deflect the blame away from themselves are indulging in a bit of self justification due to just such behavior?

Celevia I agree, we are going over old ground again

if you read back through my posts, you will notice the emphasis of my posts has been to attack the supply side, more so than the demand side.

I recognize all which you said about people being free to do what they want with their bodies

Polycarp has said

“CULPABILITY and RISKY BEHAVIOR.”

And as I have said
“volenti non fit injuria”
And my consistent referral to people accepting responsibility for their actions

Combined with the frequently and repeatedly published knowledge to the dangers of illegal drugs

No one can say “well I did not know it was dangerous”

And then it becomes

Why should the law abiding taxpayers have to subsidise the reckless stupidity of users of illegal drugs?
Be pushed into queues for tax funded medical services because the attention diverted onto people who ignored the warnings and jumped through a window ‘high’ on some drug or other?

Why should the non-drug users have to use heavier locks and bars on their windows because the junkies rob and steal to support their habit and even if the stuff were legal, would still rob and steal because it is easier than trying to hold onto a job?

Why should parents have to bury their children because the kid went to a party and someone spiked a drink or introduced them to something?

Comparisons to diabetes or any other disease

People do not ‘sign up’ to become diabetic, but they use illegal drugs with eyes wide open.

Your attempt to corrupt one of the Thatcher quotes (some children grow taller. .) is a pretty cynical deployment to which I would say

Some people are born less able and find life harder but still do the right thing. They are the first to suffer deferment in public services because of the sense of self-entitlement which accompanies illegal drug use and are the first burgled and likely to be the victim of assault, a lot more so than those who did “grow tall”.

“unnecessary criminal law creates costs, too. So does an ineffective, too large government.”

http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/mono64-l~mono64-l-ch5

drug-attributable fractions for violent crime, 2004/05
24% of all violent crime is attributed to illegal drugs, noting the small percentage of illegal drug users is a lot smaller than that. Therefore the probability of someone enacting criminal violence from using illegal drugs is a greater likelihood.

‘alcohol’ is a factor in 15%, illustrating a lower probability of drinking alcohol leading to violent crime and victims.

And making illegal substances “legal” will not eliminate or even reduce their incidence, per the continued market in illegal tobacco and illegal drinking establishments and illegal gambling.

Re “Governments all over the world have been trying to deal with drugs through the criminal system for decades or even centuries. It’s now time to realize:

“If you keep on doing what you always did, you'll keep on getting what you always got.””

Change is not necessarily beneficial.

When opium was legal, a one in four addiction rate in China. That was one of the reasons for making these substances illegal in the first place.

You seem to believe the only negatives in illegal drug supply as being from the efforts to police them.

You need to think about two or three steps ahead of that to the longer term and overall effect of wider scale addiction and greater incidence of public disorder, more people unable to maintain a job to support themselves and greater burglary to support a licenced addition which will still cheaper to satisfy through buying the more dangerous illegal substitute (eg chop-chop tobacco).

Legalization will achieve a spread of drug abuse (gambling participation rates in Victoria as an example), albeit legal instead of illegal, leading to deterioration of the basic values which prevail through the fabric of the nation, ultimately leading to a deterioration of the quality of life for everyone through increased crime, increased violence, fewer people contribution positively to taxes and more people turning to crime when their welfare runs out.


That is not something I want to hand on to my daughters or grand children.

Obviously some believe all adults are responsible people and can make responsible choices. Therefore if this is fact we should not have any form of laws at all for persons over 18 years of age. Just make every activity an adult engages in legal even murder and we will have no crime or criminals and no need to spend money on police investigations. Supplying drugs that cause a death could be ignored and no need of police investigation.

Big Savings on the Public purse.

Obviously someone has been on drugs too long their thought processes have been affected.

*PALE,
Thanks, interesting story. Do you know the name of that island? I’m curious to find out the details. *

Celivia
No I don’t recall. I have often tried to because I have mentioned the place in Greece many times when talking about drug abuse and crime.

Theo would be long gone by now. Old Crime Boss from down South.
I first met him when he had a problem with one of his night clubs and asked my company( at the time) to help. Two blokes died in one of his night clubs from stabbings. Reckoned it was bad for his restaurants reputation which was just upstairs. Hilarious but that was Theo.

Deep down he was really shattered that someone died in his place and I suspected he was quietly deeply religious. It shook him up a fair bit and those who knew him best said he was never the same after that.
Some people you never forget and he is such a person in my life. I still recall to this day the way in which he described that Island. He would learn on his car and star into the mountains at 2am in the freezing cold just telling stories of Greece and Drugs and police and how they solved their own problems and how the cops and polys would come and ask for help from time to time.
You would be frozen just standing their listening to his descriptions of the users the dealers and their families.

One thing he said all those years ago was welfare payments should not be paid direct to people to buy grog and drugs. It should be given to their landlords and food stores and petrol stations on their behalf.
I agree with that one hundred percent.
These users get their welfare and go out and buy a hit or grog with our hard earned money then come back asking Church organizations for food.
Its stupid and ought to be changed.

Nice to see you on OLO again
PS de criminalize drugs is the answer and shake off the dealers

*PALE,
Thanks, interesting story. Do you know the name of that island? I’m curious to find out the details. *

Celivia
No I don’t recall. I have often tried to because I have mentioned the place in Greece many times when talking about drug abuse and crime.

Theo would be long gone by now. Old Crime Boss from down South.
I first met him when he had a problem with one of his night clubs and asked my company( at the time) to help. Two blokes died in one of his night clubs from stabbings. Reckoned it was bad for his restaurants reputation which was just upstairs. Hilarious but that was Theo.

Deep down he was really shattered that someone died in his place and I suspected he was quietly deeply religious. It shook him up a fair bit and those who knew him best said he was never the same after that.
Some people you never forget and he is such a person in my life. I still recall to this day the way in which he described that Island. He would lean on his car and star into the mountains at 2am in the freezing cold just telling stories of Greece and Drugs and police and how they solved their own problems and how the cops and polys would come and ask for help from time to time.
You would be frozen just standing their listening to his descriptions of the users the dealers and their families.

One thing he said all those years ago was welfare payments should not be paid direct to people to buy grog and drugs. It should be given to their landlords and food stores and petrol stations on their behalf.
I agree with that one hundred percent.
These users get their welfare and go out and buy a hit or grog with our hard earned money then come back asking Church organizations for food.
Its stupid and ought to be changed.

Nice to see you on OLO again
PS de criminalize drugs is the answer and shake off the dealers.

PALE “de criminalize drugs is the answer and shake off the dealers.”

In this Greek island, How did decriminalisation affect the numbers of addicts – did the number increase or decrease and is a proposal transferable from a small island (presumably of just a few hundred / thousand people) to the worlds largest island (with 20 million of people living on it)?

“shake off the dealers”

What does this actually mean and how was it achieved ?

"When opium was legal, a one in four addiction rate in China."

Twisting the facts again, Col? The opium problem in China was a result of prohibition, not legalisation. The problem occurred because the British Government was conducting an organised dope pedalling operation. Why? Because the Brits had little else that the Chinese wanted to trade, and prohibition made opium attractive as a commodity. Before prohibition the problem of addiction was small in comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium

So Col, the truth is:

"When opium importation was illegal, a one in four addiction rate in China."

Logically, your opinion should change unless you hold another piece of evidence more highly. So what is the best piece of evidence for your opinion, Col?

Col

I would have thought by your posts you were a basically well informed person. However its possible that your question is sincere. Based on that assumption I will answer your questions as best I can.
Mind you I might be more forth coming if I used an alias as many do on OLO

Q
In this Greek island, How did decriminalisation affect the numbers of addicts

A. I don’t think they actually decriminalized that Island officially. They were too much of hurry for that and needed results quickly apparently for political reasons.
That is why they sought the assistance of the crooks in the first place. (They being police and pollies).

Q
did the number increase or decrease and is a proposal transferable from a small island (presumably of just a few hundred / thousand people) to the worlds largest island (with 20 million of people living on it)?
A
Decreased- stopped.

Q
and is a proposal transferable from a small island (presumably of just a few hundred / thousand people) to the worlds largest island (with 20 million of people living on it)?

A I don’t see why not. I suppose.

Remember however its pretty tough love so it would take a strong Government with the opposition onside as well to work. Who knows it might. Nothing else is working.

Q
“shake off the dealers”

What does this actually mean and how was it achieved ?

A. To remove anything from the black market takes away its value and ‘severely’ hurts the dealers and growers as well..

It would also hurt some people involved that have another reason for wanting drugs to be sold that is not necessarily about the profits. ( mind you they don’t mind taking the money either.)

PALE “However its possible that your question is sincere.”

Insincere people do not ask, they simply jump in, half cocked, like Fester and other trolls do.

“I don’t think they actually decriminalized that Island officially”

So not sure how you can assume that is evidence of “success”

“assistance of the crooks in the first place. (They being police and pollies).”

I Would hope we have greater ethical standards than to assume the police and politicians are the prime movers of illegal narcotics, so I cannot see a basis of comparison on that count.

“Decreased- stopped.” So how many to start with and how did it stop, did they all die off and were all buried?

“I don’t see why not. I suppose.”

The issue I would speculate as being similar to asking why the “kibbutz lifestyle” works for small dedicated communities but breaks down when people develop their own families and the numbers grow beyond everyone knowing everyone else, that presents a ‘scalability’ problem which I doubt would be overcome onto a larger population.

“To remove anything from the black market takes away its value and ‘severely’ hurts the dealers and growers as well..”

I cannot see aussie dealers rolling over and accepting that…

To be honest (and sincere), what might work for a small community on a small Greek island, is unlikely to be scalable to work on a national or Aussie state basis.

Festering” Twisting the facts again, Col? The opium problem in China was a result of prohibition, not legalisation.”

Wrong, dullard, the last part of the 19th century, China had legal opium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Prohibition_and_conflict_in_China

"Following China's defeat in the Second Opium War in 1858, China was forced to legalize opium and began massive domestic production."

And

"Official Chinese resistance to opium was renewed on September 20, 1906, with an anti-opium initiative . . . . "

you are a numb-nuts, Fester.

I have not “twisted” anything but a moron like you finds ‘twists’ in everything,

I have no reason to change my opinion, except of you and that has sunk even lower than it was.

ColRouge. The USA has a stronger intolerance of drugs than Australia by about x10. Mere possession of a substance (as I understand) can get you imprisoned and a criminal record, or worse. And what do they have for all this? Nothing. Except a huge hole where the billions and billions they spent and are spending still used to be and some extra crime.

Steel "The USA has a stronger intolerance of drugs than Australia"

I did not realise this was a "competition" between Australia and USA.

Please direct me to where that has been mandated.

#Would hope we have greater ethical standards than to assume the police and politicians are the prime movers of illegal narcotics, so I cannot see a basis of comparison on that count.#

Well there’s your first mistake. Once the rot sets in many deal on a daily basis with these people without even knowing it.

Ever hear of money laundering? Never mind. Or do you think all drug dealers and junkies are getting around with their seat out of their pants.

I hesitated before replying to you TBO . Then I thought that would be rude.

You have no idea what I know about drug operations and I am not going to bother to respond to to in future. I spent half of my life working on many operations but of course you know better.

In all honesty I simply made a comment to Celiva end of stor

Pale, thanks for your reply.
I was going to leave the thread because I had to resort to repetition, but since then a few points have come up I’d like to shortly comment on. I’m very busy atm so I have to make it short.
While I love the story of that old man, I do take what he said with a grain of salt.
The logic simply doesn’t add up.
I have tried to do some research about this island and found nothing.
I just figure, that if anywhere in the world there has been a place that effectively got rid of a drug problem, then surely one article or reference must be placed on the internet.

And if the drug problem was solved on this island, then why didn’t the rest of Greece adopt the same method as well?
If for example, Tasmania had a certain method of getting rid of drugs, and it worked, wouldn’t the rest of the states follow Tasmania’s example?

Also, one of the links Col provided about the drugs and abuse is worth looking at- when I have more time hopefully over the weekend I might get back on that.

I really think that drug use numbers have nothing to do with drugs being legal or illegal- people will use them anyway. So it’s better to regulate them so they are safer to use and harder to come by for children and teens.

And I agree with PALE in part- that legalising drugs will get rid of a large part (but probably not all) of the black market.
But I think I've discussed this before so won't go into details here.

Celivia

I too had grown weary of repeating myself, no matter how much research and evidence that has been offered by so many of us, Col and Philo hold an entrenched position from which there is no enlightenment.

I also tire of Col's puerile personal insults such as: "you are a numb-nuts, Fester." Hardly intelligent riposte.

However he made one utterance that deserves placement into the bin of 'deliberate attempts to avoid issue.'

And that's his comment to Steel regarding the USA to make any difference to the illegal drug trade, "I did not realise this was a "competition" between Australia and USA."

Well, no it isn't Col. America is an example of the 'war on drugs' being a complete and utter failure. Your arguments are increasingly feeble.

While I am skeptical with regard to PALE's 'fantasy island', there is a well documented example of drug legalisation working and that is the often mentioned Netherlands.

Many thanks to Fester, CJ Morgan, Antiseptic and others, but with special commendation to Celivia whose patient, reasonable and informative posts simply ran rings around those who have a lot of knee-jerk reaction combined with a paucity of genuine knowledge regarding the black market trade in drugs.

Adios amigos

Oh, are you gonna hand out smiley stamps Fractelle.

Fractelle,



'Sure' theres a lot more to the story about that Island as there was the man himself.( A well respected old crook who lived half a year in Greece and half here he was very infulential. Use your imagination.


Why Didnt Greece adopt that idea the whole of the country? Gee , I dont know you would have to ask them that. Has it ever occured to you that some people might not have wanted everything to change just a particlar section.


It leaves a lasting effect. No assistance what so ever. No ambulance no police. Just the public shame a that their family member did not deserve these services.
It did however put those brothers and sisters "off drugs forever" he said . A lasting memory of carrying the dead that is normally mopped up by police and other services.

Theo said you couldnt see one needle on that Island in the end. It was said by some that Theo also changed his view on drugs and was deeply upset by what he saw. When he told me about the grief he wittnessed he had tears in his eyes although he hid it well.

Of course you wont darn well find something on Googles about it!

I already said it was done very quietly at the request of the ploys and police. My point 'was' that it can be done.

I honestly dont know about some of the people who come into OLO. It seems they only post to pick arguments.

Tell you what however Fractelle you share with us your hands on expereince with the war against drugs and I will share just a little of mine.

I dont have all the answers. Never said I did. I hold a low veiw of users and dealers but a even lower veiw of corrupt police and polys.



I prefer to see funds being spent on assisting those who did not bring it on themselves like cancer suffers and our elderly TBO

I approve of the death penality for dealers as its destroying our youth and our country.

PALE “Once the rot sets in many deal on a daily basis with these people without even knowing it.”

I trust you can support your claims and NOW prove the police and politicians are the prime movers behind drug dealing…

I and all Australia wait in anticipation of these “revelations” (sell it to today-tonight)
.

“Or do you think all drug dealers and junkies are getting around with their seat out of their pants.”

I expect the dealers to be “better heeled” than their junkie “clients”.

“You have no idea …and I am not going to bother to respond to to in future. I spent half of my life working on many operations but of course you know better.”

I never questioned you depth of knowledge or ‘sincerity’ or made issue with it,.

And you have no idea how broad the experiences I have acquired in life. \Nor do you have any comprehension of the people I have mixed with over that time.

You can run away from responding to me.

That is the simple course which those who have more opinion than fact often take, it makes the mountain of their bigotry seem a less assailable rock.

Celivia, I recognize your contribution is as sincere as my own and whilst we may disagree, we manage to do so without the ‘theatrical omnipotence’ which some here take unto themselves.

Fractelle “no matter how much research and evidence that has been offered by so many of us,”

And I acknowledge your own enormous capacity to completely ignore the predictions, research and evidence I have supplied.

“"you are a numb-nuts, Fester." Hardly intelligent riposte.”

I do that with people who call me “moron”,

Steels comments were an unsubtle and “'deliberate attempts to deflect issues.'

Anyway I realize I am not your favourite poster-boy fractelle,

Which only means my image is not hanging up in the dour and mean spirited garret of malcontent which you seem to emanate from.

Usual Suspect - Which, all in all, means I guess, no smiley stamp for me (I will have to suffice with a gold star)

'the ‘theatrical omnipotence’ which some here take unto themselves.
'

Hahaha. Classic Col:-)

I think Fractelle has a crush on Celivia, who always gets a special mention in Fractelles summaries of the goodies and badies. OLO is lucky to have such a wonderful judge of the merits of all 'contributions'.

PALE “I approve of the death penality for dealers as its destroying our youth and our country.”

Oh you are in rare territory there PALE.

As I recall, only one other poster here has ever suggested 'topping' drug dealers.

Check out the thread “Death Penalty as a Sentencing Option”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1990

look at the very first post, about half way down, the words

“For me, so too drug dealers.”

Then cast your eyes to the bottom of that first post and see who wrote it…..

PALE supports the death penalty for drug dealers? ...Amazing...

Such grace and wit, Col. Sticking with your strong points, I guess.

"I have not “twisted” anything but a moron like you finds ‘twists’ in everything, "

Not only twisted Col; heavily edited truth also. The opium problem in China has more parallels with the high fat/sugar fast food and caffeinated drink industries than anything the experts are proposing for managing drug addicts. Supply of drugs to addicts is only a small part of the picture.

I would also ask you to think about what "a one in four addiction rate" means. If it means that 25% of Chinese men used opium, then under a government operated drug peddling scheme, 75% of Chinese men did not take opium. This would make opium far less addictive than tobacco. And dont forget than opium and its derivatives was one of the few effective analgesics for those times.

I'm more interested in what the experts are finding. The information is much clearer, and does suggest that there are far better systems of management than that used currently.

Col Rouge
That’s nothing new to me.
I am pretty sure we would not have commented in the past too much on this topic.

TBO I am not really too interested. I have always found your posts to be unnecessarily rude and at times crude. I don’t know why you feel the need to do that but I don’t talk to anything less than gentleman in my real life so prefer not on the net.

Some of your comments on the forum caught my interest and I thought it was good somebody far more experienced in IT work had picked up on things.
Good on you for that.
We are from different paddocks-

Steel
Why so? Many people support the death penalty for drug dealers.

There is however a HUGE problem with the system we operate under.

So I guess I should have said providing they are’ really guilty’ of the crime and not used as patties.

Before you start yes! That includes the poor little darlings who knowingly traveled overseas to import drugs to kill other people’s sons and daughters.
I have zero tolerance for junkies dealers and the corrupt leaders who knowing turn a blind eye.
That is ‘another reason’ but not the first I hate live exports.
Ever wondered what else goes back and forth on the self operated ships?
How often have you heard on a NCA or Federal copper with his hand up the rear of a cow.
Yup these live exports ships are VERY a lucrative.

As you were guys have fun and I will cast off to more interesting topics.
Ships ahoy.

Fester, unable to challenge the reasoning and references in my posts, descends to whining and micro dissection of ever diminishing points of irrelevance.

What fallacious drivel you have spewed forth in your latest post

“The opium problem in China has more parallels with the high fat/sugar fast food and caffeinated drink industries”

Except

Fat, Sugar, Caffeine: do not induce a mind altering state and are not a “Physically Addictive”

Opium well, that does actually induce a main altering state and it also happens to be physically “Addictive”.

How about you elaborate more on these “parallels” Fester?

May be illuminate us with the “parallels” of chalk and cheese.
At least neither of them induces a mind altering state and neither is “physically addictive”.

“what "a one in four addiction rate" means. If it means that 25% of Chinese men used opium,”

No, it does not mean 25% used… 25% addicted, a rate of usage a lot higher than that when including non-addicts.

As for tobacco. Well tobacco tends to come up short in the “mind altering state” compared to opium.

“I'm more interested in what the experts are finding. The information is much clearer, and does suggest that there are far better systems of management than that used currently.”

Then why not google some of their research as a source for your posts instead of whining on and on and calling me names?

Or are their findings contrary to your delusions?

Why not suggest some of these supposed “far better systems”

No one is stopping you.

I am happy to challenge them or even support some, in the remote chance they have merit.

PALE thank you for you kindly condescension to answer me in the first place, I feel quite privileged you took time out of your important schedule to recognize my humble posting.

If I knew you spoke only with ‘gentlemen’ I would have stood up when typing my post (and maybe worn trousers).

I am a bit confused over the live export business though, strange the way your neural synapse misfire… now you just slander and run,

coward.

Col
Well at least you have a sense of humour and you know a gentleman should stand. I suppose in this day and age that something:)

look I am not trying to be rucde the topic does bore me TBO. Perhaps thats selfish who knows.

*I am a bit confused over the live export business though, strange the way your neural synapse misfire… now you just slander and run,*

Dont be confused Col its really quite simple. What else do you think goes back and on these ships?
Gun running drugs a who odd people in and out ....

Dont you worry however because we always have good old livecoupre looking after our sercuity.
Yup the old captain in ME sends a fax to these ( four people in the office last time I checked.)
Livecoupe is a shiping agents for animals .

It usually reads Captain Mohamed leaving... For Australia. Staff on board as follows mohamed mohamed Mohamed Mohamed.... about 40 times.

yeh sure we are real serious about stooping drugs getting into Australia.

I think not.

Like i said its another reason to stop these live animal export ships but not the number one reason in my book.

The fact is if people in this day and age are stupid enough to take drugs then its self inflicted.

On the other hand these animals are innocent itims of human greed and cruelty.

I hope that explains my feelings more clearly to you and explains reference to live animal export ships.

You can sit down now.

I see that Col's continuing to raise the intellectual level of the debate.

He's a legend in his own mind - who needs drugs?

You see, i found it amazing PALE, because as an advocate for the ethical treatment of animals...

When you express that you want the state to execute Australians, for the crime of supplying drugs in a voluntary exchange, you would think that there would be some kind of self-respect involved in such a position.

But yet as someone who believes animals should receive ethical treatment it's ...very awkward (putting it lightly) for you to casually disregard the lives of drug dealers. You know that is on the level of the Chinese i suppose.

So an animal-lover has no problem at all killing Australians who sell drugs...I can't remember PALE did you want drugs legalised? I suppose you would execute the government or company employees that supply drugs if they were legalised?

Your disclosure here is a remarkable sign of corruption. This to me, is a great example of people behind ngos and their schemes. NGOs are often very corrupt organisations.

From my experience of animal lovers, that's pretty typical to be more interested in animal rights than people's rights.

Steel,

I advocate for the ethical treatment both people and Animals.
That would include the people the parents and friends and loved ones parents of those who have been murdered through by drug pushes.

I do feel however the animals get a rough go because of peoples selfishness and also because most do not know the truth as to how that lovely chiken to dinner was kept and slaughtered or that steak or pork.

Usual Suspect,

Really. I have never found that to be the case.

Typical, you want drugs stopped but its bleeding hearts everytime there is a suggestion of having some laws to deal with it.
All the good doers regually get youth off in court after they are charged.
Oh your Honour, you cant goal him, hes got a drug problem, and only broke into the 80 year old ladies house for money for drugs.

He needs help your Honour. Hes a victim your Honur.

The very same people come crying when drugs effects their kids lives.
You cant have it both ways. You either want to protect your kids and have laws in place or you cop more of the same.

Personally I prefer a hard law that might just save a few INNOCENT lives rather than protect those whpo knowling sell drugs to kids that kill them.

Your free of course to join the long line of wingers who want it both ways.

Col,
I figure that if something, anything, is not legally for sale, and there is a demand for it, then it isn’t surprising that it will be produced and sold illegally.
Drug dealers think like Al Capone, “I’m like any other man. All I do is supply a demand.”

A government can never control drugs that are the property of an illegal market; neither can it control the black market itself.
All it can do is somewhat suppress black markets, but it won’t succeed in controlling it.

Col and PALE
The communist party in China after WWII may have eradicated the opium problem, but how long did this last?
Addicts as well as dealers were executed and sometimes whole families were killed.
All we’ve learned from all these executions is that drug problems can be temporarily ‘solved’ by draconian laws and totalitarian states, but that this ‘success’ won’t last.

We need to look at the problem realistically.
Drug abuse (not use) and addiction is a problem and the most effective way to handle a problem is to control it as much as possible, not to let it run wild.
Since controlling an illegal market is impossible, and controlling a legal market is possible, why not sell drugs legally and control and regulate them?

Governments should be pragmatic and not waste taxes on ineffective methods.
Regulating tobacco has been successful- tobacco use has sharply declined over the past few decades due to campaigns, education, warnings and rules. Which is why roughly 30% smoke whereas a few decades ago, about 75% smoked.

There is no evidence that legalising a drug would increase use. We have seen increases in drug use in places where it is illegal.
The USA, decades ago, said they’d have the drug problem fixed by 1995. Hmmmmm.
Countries that treat drug abuse as a criminal problem have more drug problems than countries with a softer approach and that recognise it’s a social and health problem.

US,
No need to be jealous, once you start to make sense, people might get crushes on you, too :)

"How about you elaborate more on these “parallels” Fester?"

Col, presumably there is some consequence of addiction that concerns you? The idea of opposing something solely for being addictive would be trite. Perhaps it is the cost and damage? It may interest you that the estimated cost of obesity in Australia is about $58 billion per year:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/obesity-risks-higher-than-thought/2008/08/21/1219262472405.html

"Fat, Sugar, Caffeine: do not induce a mind altering state and are not a “Physically Addictive”"

Until the physiological basis of addiction is understood, comments like this are more speculation than fact.

"No, it does not mean 25% used… 25% addicted, a rate of usage a lot higher than that when including non-addicts."

Not according to this historian, Col.

http://www.upf.edu/materials/huma/central/historia/asiaweb/practics/0708/newman.pdf

"if we assume that drug dependency began somewhere in the lowest category of daily smokers, we should assume that about 16 million Chinese (or about 3 1/2 percent of the population) were drug dependent in that sense, but that addiction from recreational smoking would have been limited to a smaller number, perhaps about 2 1/2 percent of the population"

"Why not suggest some of these supposed “far better systems”"

I have provided links earlier, Col. II would find it helpful if you could clarify what you use to compare the potential harm of substances. You speak of mind alteration and physical addiction, but surely there are better measures of harm, like damage to health and loss of earning potential?

Selling drugs to a voluntary buyer is not murder. Sorry PALE but such a position is simply not logical or rational. If that is indeed the case, then bars, nightclubs and retailers across the country are murdering Australians by selling them the alcoholic drug... Which is obviously absurd. I think you should change your position on this because it certainly will damage your credibility if you maintain such a position.

I thought I had done with this thread, however some people just don't know when to remain silent and leave us in no doubt as to their ability to reason.

U-Sus - I find intelligence very desirable and attractive in all people, female and male. Whereas your sycophantic support of Col is increasingly, er, suspicious.

PALE - beyond the pale, I guess some animals are more equal than others. Drug addicts are victims, legalisation would eliminate the majority of the parasites who supply illegal and unsafe drugs.

Col - your links to sites such as:

http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/mono64-l~mono64-l-ch5

Does not provide a shred of evidence that the continued 'war on drugs' has had any success whatsoever. It merely provides a few stats that we already knew, which is that alcohol alone and alcohol taken with drugs may result in violence. If anything the link proves (inconclusively due to under-reporting) the cost to society that drugs cause: robberies to support illegal drug use:

"It is not possible meaningfully to disaggregate these joint fractions back to the individual drugs. Accordingly, drugs in total explain 46 per cent of violent crime with the remaining 54 per cent being explained by non-drug factors."

and consider money laundering:

"A report prepared for the Australian Institute of Criminology (see Walker, forthcoming) estimates that around $2.8 billion of the proceeds of crime in Australia was laundered in 2004. Of this amount, Walker estimates, around $300 million was attributable to the market in illicit drugs.
However, money laundering has extremely complex economic effects (for example, on the allocation of productive resources, on the distribution of income in the community at large, and on tax revenues and public expenditures) which are beyond the scope of this paper to analyse."

and finally:

"Bryant and Williams (2000) concluded that only about 30 per cent of alcohol- or other drug-related violence was reported to the police."

All in all, an inconclusive report which does nothing to support your position on drugs.

Drugs as recreation or abuse are used by persons who see no value or higher purpose for their life. The nation must educate with action on the purpose and reason for life. It is a spiritual problem. Those that have been released from such addiction and use identify deep spiritual need as the basis for its use.

Fractelle, what are you 'sus' about? Are you homophobic or something? It wouldn't surprise me.

Fractelle the only thing Col and myself have in common is an appreciation of your sheer arrogance, flakiness, and high and mighty opinion of yourself. But you just keep putting yourself up as the final word on whose 'contributions' are worthy and welcome, preaching about ettiquette and behaving like a little school girl.

Philo,

'Drugs as recreation or abuse are used by persons who see no value or higher purpose for their life. The nation must educate with action on the purpose and reason for life. It is a spiritual problem. '

Does it ever occur to you Philo, that there is no value or higher purpose in life? I don't see spirituality as any superior to drug use. Both are a distraction to the cold hard fact of life that we're all just going to end up as worm food.

CJMorgan “I see that Col's continuing to raise the intellectual level of the debate.”

As you insist on reducing it. Enough said.

Celevia EVERY product or service for which there is a demand, regardless of its legal use and accessibility or otherwise, will have a parallel illegal “black market”

be it illegal drugs, the availability Illegal tobacco, stolen goods or GST-free plumbers.

“All it can do is somewhat suppress black markets, but it won’t succeed in controlling it.”

And the result, a lower level of black market activity than if the government were to tolerate it.

And that is where the “success” for all anti-illegal-drug strategies lies.

The point you make and the point Fractelle (“the continued 'war on drugs' has had any success”) claims is similar to proving a negative.

An intolerance to drug abuse will never succeed absolutely unless the genes which generate the diversity of our attitudes as rich as it is were limited to those genes which a government decreed allowable and the outcome of that would be far more horrific.

So I accept that just as not all people are good and some are bad and some are weak and some are anarchistic then some will risk using illegal drugs.

That said, we commend heroism and excellence and condemn stupidity and addiction.

Giving up the policing of illegal drugs will encouragement to dealer and users and imply tacit approval for their use.

“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

To ask to Suspend ‘war on drugs”

is to ask for ‘good men’ to do nothing.

Philos comments re reformed addicts are the best, the experience of those who survived the horror of lost and wasted years.

US we agree and disagree across a range of topics and whilst we argue the point both with passion and sincerity, we do not argue the person.

I remain hopeful that the likes of fractelle and a number of others will get the message one day but they are individuals in a liberal society, it is up to them.

Col's view of legalisation is that it will bring about the collapse of modern civilisation via mass addiction. He has given the example of drug legalisation in China as evidence for this. Yet, to my surprise, reading the work of an historian who looked at the evidence, perhaps only 2.5% of the adult population were addicts, and:

"a substantial proportion of these people would have led normal lives."

http://www.upf.edu/materials/huma/central/historia/asiaweb/practics/0708/newman.pdf

As part of the conclusion the author wrote:

"It is not the existence of addiction that requires explanation so much as the fact that, in a society in which opium was cheap and widely available, so many people smoked lightly or not at all."

I would be interested to hear the take of Col and other contributors on this article.

Fester “Col's view of legalisation is that it will bring about the collapse of modern civilisation via mass addiction.”

Interesting how you presume to foresee my ‘view’.

You probably do the same any prediction of the future, by interrogating the entrails of a goat.

Poor goat.

I do not see the collapse of civilization as we know it.

Before that were to happen, I would see the likelihood of several things

1 a serious increase in drug use, just as the liberation of gambling has seen a significant increase in participation in Victoria over the past decade or so.

2 a serious increase in drug related crime, regardless of the “legality” of drugs, there will still be a black market which will vie with the legal to supply and will use barter in stolen goods as currency.

3 a significant increase by government on taxes on working people, required to fund the increasing medical needs of drug addicts and those chronically incapable of looking after themselves, emotionally as well as physically or financially.

4 a backlash by the unaddicted majority in protest to being forced to support the indolent and parasitic existence of the junkies, leading to more a draconian attitude than today where penalties for addiction or crimes to support an addicted habit will include un-supported withdraw, regardless of the health consequences and longer prison sentences for repeat offenders.

Now all you folk who think drug abuse is cool and protest about my stance, I suggest you decide the sort of world you want your children to inherit from you.

One where drugs are commonly and legally available but drug addiction means a mandatory interment until someone decides to let you out or worse,

Or

one where we maintain a prohibition against drugs of addiction, more addictive than the opium which crippled China in the late 19th century and fight those criminals who seek to exploit the weaknesses of some by dealing illegally in drugs of dependency.

For my money I agree with PALE and would welcome the instigation of a death penalty for second offence dealers

So fester finds a reference which disputes the opium trade.

You should read David Irving on the matter of the Holocaust fester, he would tell you that it never happened, was a hoax, a prank by those naughty Jews to slander the Nazi state.

As to the dangers of opium

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=A6lWNwuO-f0C&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=opium+trade+dangers&source=web&ots=lou4x2VflF&sig=3Xs7dPXuyIvuXPrJ8kRuqvvZO7s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

people almost a century ago who had seem the horrors of wide scale addiction enshrined a few laws and standards, to quote form the text

“the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 arose directly from an international agreement about the control of narcotics which had begun with the International Opium Convention signed at the Hague in 1912.”

But fester has found a “denier”.

If I wanted to find a denier on anything, I would simply google and one would pop out.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” classic anti-semitism, (invented by the Russian Czars Secret police)

How about “Phony Moon landing” try http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=124

You can get “anti-everything to order” there, like a Chinese takeaway menu.

Fester, your previous posts portrayed you as someone completely lacking in credibility and this last post has just confirmed it.

Col

"I do not see the collapse of civilization as we know it."

But you later said this:

"the opium which crippled China in the late 19th century"

So what change do you see, Col? If not a collapsed civilisation, then a crippled one? And again, the latter statement is in stark contrast to what a scholar found from the available evidence.

http://www.upf.edu/materials/huma/central/historia/asiaweb/practics/0708/newman.pdf

"The depiction of the Chinese opium smoker now finds its echo in the popular image of the modern junkie, 'screwed up' by heroin into an emaciated human wreck. These mental images seem to be ineradicable,despite the fact that many chronic opiate users are indistinguishable in everyday life from their fellow citizens and despite the scientific studies which have uncovered 'either only minor injurious effects or none at all that can be traced directly to the drug'."

Fractelle,
Thanks for discussing some points from that govt site, I’ve been wanting to comment on that as well but lacked the time and now it’s been done for me- magic :)

Col,
“EVERY product or service for which there is a demand, regardless of its legal use and accessibility or otherwise, will have a parallel illegal “black market” ”
True. Glad we agree about something ;)

“a lower level of black market activity than if the government were to tolerate it.”
True also.
But not sure what you point is because legalising something doesn’t mean tolerating crooks and black markets.
GST-free plumbers will still be punished when caught, won’t they?
Unlicensed drug dealers will be punished when caught, too.
And just like licensed pubs that ignore rules and regulations, licensed drug stores will be fined and their licenses may be taken away if they don’t obey the rules, e.g. to not serve minors.

“And that is where the “success” for all anti-illegal-drug strategies lies.”
Agree that they have some success at suppressing a small portion of the black market for drugs.
But how come that the black market for everything illegal is bigger than the black market for everything legal?
We could have more success (or less failure) than we have now by legalizing drugs because a large part of the black market would automatically disappear.
Big black markets are harder to eradicate than small ones.

Fester,
thanks for your links, I will have to look at them later when time allows, but I do find the topic very interesting. I don’t know a great deal about the opium trade in China I’m afraid, but one can only learn.

Col

Didn't you say that you believed in playing the ball and not the man? Your response to R.K. Newman's work looks more like an example of the latter than the former. Perhaps you could indicate a site which challenges the evidence presented instead of another installment of your abundant flattery.

Philo,
“Drugs as recreation or abuse are used by persons who see no value or higher purpose for their life.”
I’d agree if you mean that drug addiction and abuse is worse for one’s overall health (including physical, mental, and spiritual depending how one defines the latter) than non-drug addiction and abuse.
However, depending on the drug and its quality and quantity, occasionally using certain drugs for recreation and medical reasons can add much value to one’s life and can have a positive effect on one’s health (e.g. medical cannabis, and ‘shrooms for a spiritual lift).
Even the Jesus you believe in must’ve known the value of recreational drinking otherwise he wouldn’t have been so creative with H2O ;)
Value in life and purpose for life are personal choices, meaning one man’s trash…

“It is a spiritual problem. Those that have been released from such addiction and use identify deep spiritual need as the basis for its use.”
Drug abuse could be, besides a social and health problem, a spiritual problem, I suppose.
Addiction seems to be very personal; people who are generally unhappy are more at risk of becoming addicted to anything than generally happy, balanced people. I suppose I could agree with you that you could include people who feel spiritually unfulfilled.

“The nation must educate with action on the purpose and reason for life.”
I’m not sure what the nation would have to be educated about concerning purpose and reason for life.
Everyone’s purpose is a personal choice.
And the reason for life- nobody knows what the reason for life is, one can only speculate.
I agree with US here, I don’t think that there necessarily is a reason for life. We just happen to be born and can make the best of life if we want to. We can all find our own purpose.
We all end up dead and the only thing you leave behind are memories and atoms that will forever be recycled within the universe.
Educating a nation about THE reason for life would come dangerously close to mass brainwashing, I’m afraid.

Col Rouge: << US we agree and disagree across a range of topics and whilst we argue the point both with passion and sincerity, we do not argue the person >>

Very droll, Col. I suppose you meant that in all sincerity too.

However, Usual Suspect's last post was nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Fractelle, while yours are too numerous to count, even in this single thread.

Talk about self-delusion... but thanks for the belly laugh.

Celevia “Big black markets are harder to eradicate than small ones.”

I disagree, it is easier to brush small black markets under the carpet, pretend all is lovely and that would work if drug use was not addictive and not “the active ingredient” in greater crime from theft and public disorder to more serious acts of violence.

Additionally, drug addiction and the pattern of criminal and violent anti-social behaviour which accompanies it are harder to minimize when founded and endorsed as a legally accepted practices, than when legally ostracized

The easiest way of increasing the aggregate deprivations produced from drug abuse, drug addiction and their attendant evils is to legalise them.

US I agree with the sentiment of Philos post, although my words would differ.

How we end up (worm food) is irrelevant to how we life and balance responsibility for self against respect for others. Funding a drug habit be stealing because one is incapable of holding down a job and attacking people because of a drug induced psychotic episode is “All Self” and no responsibility.

Fractelle, the numbers of people who use drugs is a small minority, a far smaller % of the population than the 24% of violent crimes they incur. Therefore, it can be reasoned with some reliability that taking drugs increases the users probability to degenerate into criminal violence.

Far more people use alcohol than illicit drugs, whilst they contribute to 15% of violent crime, it can be reasoned the probability of alcohol users degenerating into criminal violence is less probable than if using illicit drugs.

The rest of your rant is to ‘fractured’ to comment on.

Fester – as one who initiated calling me names and indulging in attacks upon me because you could not challenge my reason, I hardly think you are in a position to criticize my attitude to the works of anyone you trawl up from the depths of where-ever. Like I said, you want a “denier”, they are easy to find. Far easier than REAL initiative of suggestions.

CJMorgan I see you choking on your own hypocrisy

Col

No not legalize it- decriminalize it.
Under that act you can still go for the big fellows and yes if you like make it death after two charges -pending size of the operation and bust naturally.

Think about this this. The global illicit drugs market is worth billions at the wholesale end of the market. The next largest “legal” global wholesale export market is meat. From cultivation and manufacturing through to use, the global illicit drugs market is worth billion +billion. The global illicit drugs industry is larger than the GDP of 88 per cent of the world’s countries. That’s because demand is high - 5 per cent of the world’s population - 200 million people - use illicit drugs.
These figures - unbelievable though they may sound - are tabulated in the 2005 United Nations Drugs Report.


And just as one country’s drugs industry is slowed down by law enforcement and crop eradication, another is booming. While Columbian coca production has declined by 50 per cent in the past five years, this year, Afghanistan produced 400 tons of heroin valued at around 2.7 billion.
.
The links between organized crime, terrorist activities and drugs are well established. And the victims of the current zero tolerance policies include impoverished subsistence farmers in countries such as Bolivia, Thailand and Afghanistan, as well as countless numbers of young men and women who languish in jails around the globe as a result of committing drug induced crimes.
“What if we decriminalized drugs?” “If you knock out all the profits, then there would be no more Colombian cartel. There would be no more Mexican cartel. They would be broken,” he said. Drug offences should be treated as a medical problem. Out, “ Think what could we do with the money we spend on sending people to jail?” for the elderly and aboriginal just to mention a few.

Fractelle, said

PALE - beyond the pale, I guess some animals are more equal than others. Drug addicts are victims, legalization would eliminate the majority of the parasites who supply illegal and unsafe drugs.

Pale replies
Crap drug abuse is self inflicted. More often than not by people on welfare. The Government to stop paying alcoholics and junkie’s cash money about pays their rent instead. MY goodness they advise parents of these people NOT to give the kids cash so why does the Government do it?

Steel
You would feel different if your child died. Then you might call drug dealers murders! Of course they are. The only difference is they don’t know their victims personally- there’s too many of them.

Philo,
Yes but as long as the person is free ‘to choose’ their spiritual counseling and not like the one government set up with old Tony Abbott for the women’s counseling... As a favor to the Churches in return for votes. Nasty business that was and we are trying to move away from corruption not embrace more:)

You must be aware for eg of the high corruption of police when abortion was illegal and the people who died. We don’t want the same system for drug users because it spreads corruption and only serves to assist the drug dealers.
Philo said
China at least delivers on time quality products to fulfill demands with no insurance claims.
PALE comments
"Oh so blind." Every good parent supplies its children as each Government is responsible

Polycarp,
Well said.
Celiva. Good work as usual.

It's good to see that the usual posters are not allowing themselves to be prevented from making a comment on a subject just because they don't know anything about it. Consistent, if hysterical and pointless.

Col

Dr Newman is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

http://www.royalhistoricalsociety.org/aboutus.htm

"The Royal Historical Society began life as the Historical Society for Great Britain; in 1868, after a campaign championed by Henry Austin Bruce, Lord Aberdare, it received its 'Royal' Charter from Queen Victoria.

Since then the Society has evolved from being a club for scholarly gentlemen to its current status as the foremost body for those engaged professionally in the study of the past. The membership of nearly 3000 Fellows and members draws together individuals from across the world, engaged professionally in researching and presenting public history, whether in archives, libraries, museums or the heritage industry. The Society aims to maintain professional standards within the discipline, and to represent the views of its membership to government bodies and to the public at large."

http://www.royalhistoricalsociety.org/membership.htm

"Fellowships are awarded to those who have made "an original contribution to historical scholarship in the form of significant published work", normally a book or several substantial scholarly articles or alternatively "by the organisation of exhibitions, collections, or conferences, or by the editing of local history serials"."

I couldn't find David Irving there. The challenge to Newman's work comes from the fact that only English language records were used, not the scholarship.

"Far easier than REAL initiative of suggestions."

Medical research has far more to offer, like the potential of vaccines to control opiate addiction.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-4J72Y01-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=15b333db5610ac98980866c3289f921f

"I found the limit on overdosing on alcohol when I did drink heavier, in my youth: any overdose was prevented by ones glass being unable to find ones mouth"

Didn't help this kid, Col:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24123891-2,00.html

The following is an extract: the full article is at:
http://www.australian-news.com.au/drugs.htm

The Current Situation
Tobacco.

Smoking kills more than 18,000 Australians a year. One in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit.

• Smoking is responsible for 30% of all cancers and 25% of heart disease and costs Australia $12.7 billion a year in health care and other related costs.

• Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals, at least 43 of which are known to cause cancer of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, kidney, cervix, vulva, penis, bladder and anus.

Alcohol

Alcohol is responsible for every sixth hospital bed and around 3,200 Australian deaths per year from car crashes, assaults, suicides and medical problems such as strokes and cirrhosis. It is also responsible for family breakdowns, bashings, violence and sexual assaults.

Notwithstanding the enormous carnage created by excessive alcohol consumption, (the) Australian governments, bowing to the lobbying muscle of the legal-drug corporations, allow ..saturation advertising of alcohol in all media, while raking off billions in taxes to finance .. re-election campaigns.

The marketing blitz has created a culture of binge drinking amongst Australian youth.

Heroin.

Heroin is a prohibited drug, responsible for around 1,000 deaths per year mainly because of quality control problems. However, its prohibition causes enormous secondary damage to the community.

• Massive amount of crime associated with addicts desperate attempts to get funds to pay extraordinarily high prices for the product due to the supply and demand situation.

• Jails filled with ordinary people turned into petty criminals.

• Addicts sink to a life of despair and degradation, mainly associated with committing crime or resorting to prostitution.

• Huge sums of money flows to organised criminal gangs, who use some of these funds to subvert or murder law enforcement officers. International drug trade estimated at US$400 billion per annum.

The war on drugs is lost. Criminals have won.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Think this through – you are probably willing to tolerate the idea of hordes of drunken, aggressive people (maybe your sons and daughters) tumbling out of night clubs in the early hours of every morning, brawling, urinating on footpaths and risking lives by driving cars and yet you react in horror at the thought of a person injecting an hallucinatory substance into their arm which sends them into a state of euphoria. Heroin certainly is addictive but so is alcohol.

A brief history of prohibition

Prohibition in Australia has its origins in the 1920’s when the temperance movement was gathering pace. Regulations restricting the use of heroin, morphine and cocaine were introduced during the 1920’s and 1930’s in accordance with international treaties, predominantly led by the US.

In 1953, despite opposition by the Australian medical profession, the Menzies government, under pressure from the US and its captive UN agencies, passed a law banning the importation and manufacture of heroin.

This convention conferred a trade monopoly upon the some of the most dangerous and evil people on the planet; the drug lords. The business empires of these evil tycoons have an annual turnover of US$ 400 billion, about 8 per cent of global trade.

Before the 1953 law, a heroin addict could get a prescription from his or her local doctor and collect a dose of pharmaceutical-grade heroin, in the form of heroin linctus, from the nearest pharmacy. In 1953, users suffered few indirect side effects from heroin. Property crime linked to narcotics was non-existent and although trafficking in heroin was a criminal offence, there were no prisoners in any Australian jail in relation to drug dealing.

Now under prohibition, heroin will kill about 20 people this week, mainly because of the uncontrolled dosage. Australia ’s 150,000 addicts and regular users, will need, at an estimated $1,000 per head, a massive $150 million this week to feed their habit. This will result in a monstrous amount of muggings, burglaries, armed hold-ups, home invasions, stolen cars and traumatised victims.

Cont’d

Cont’d

The bulk of the $150 million will go the drug lords and their army of enforcers, crooked cops and marketers. According to a 1997 report by Access Economics, farmers get 6 per cent of the end price, processors and wholesale traders share 4 per cent, and drug traffickers collect 90 per cent.

AS MOST US FOREIGN POLICY IS DIRECTED TOWARDS PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF POWERFUL US LOBBY GROUPS, ONE WONDERS WHICH US INTERESTS BENEFIT FROM THE HUGE EFFORTS IN MAINTAINING DRUG PROHIBITION.

Looking logically rather than emotionally at the issues, the inevitable conclusion is that prohibition is doing more harm than good. Can prohibition be removed without the world falling into a moral morass?

I believe it can.

How?

• Take the distribution of drugs out of the hands of criminals and put it under government control (at least we get to vote for these crooks). Governments have no qualms about raking in billions of dollars as their take from the distribution of the killer drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

• Remove penalties for possessing small amount of “soft” drugs, such as cannabis and for drugs supplied under prescription.

• Make hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamines available by prescription from pharmacies and doctors at a price that does not force addicts and users into crime.

• The government to tax all drugs and to put all revenue back into drug rehabilitation and anti-drug advertising.

• Legislate for harsh penalties in relation to:

Operating any machinery while under the influence of any drug.

Exporting drugs

Trafficking in drugs outside the government-controlled distribution network.

• Prohibit the advertising of all non-medicinal drugs, including alcohol.

What would the result be?

• Most addicts, freed from the degradation of mugging, prostitution and stealing to feed their habit could lead a more or less normal life.

• Addicts could be more clearly identified and coerced into rehabilitation programs.

• Overdose deaths would drop dramatically as the quantity and purity of drugs would be controlled.

• The massive flow of money to criminal empires would dry up.

Cont’d

Cont’d

• Strong, continuing anti-drug campaigns should reduce the amount of drug-taking in society. The modest anti-smoking campaigns of the past 20 years has turned smokers from cool people into social pariahs, while considerably reducing the level of smoking.

• Jail populations would decrease by around 70 per cent.

• The police could concentrate on other law enforcement areas.

• The level of muggings, home invasions, bank hold-ups and violence would dramatically decrease.

• The savings to law enforcement, health, legal and correctional institutions would amount to billions.

• Replacing alcohol advertising with anti-alcohol messages would save thousands of young people from a life of misery.

Is there any proof this system would work?

In a five-year trial in Switzerland, prescription-grade heroin was supplied to hard-core addicts from a series of clinics. Each addict was injected under supervision. The results were:

• There were no overdose deaths for the five years of the trial.

• The crime rate amongst addicts was down 75 per cent.

• Homeless participants fell from 12 per cent to one per cent.

• Participants with jobs rose from 14 per cent to 32 per cent.

Naturally there will be howls of protest at such an idea. Some of the howls will come from people conditioned to howl. But many protests will have more sinister origins. The billionaire drug lords and the drug kings of each city will not give up their lucrative businesses and lavish lifestyle without a fight. However, they will fight through their paid politicians and crooked officials.

Many government and law enforcement agencies thrive on the ongoing drug problem. A sudden decrease in crime would reduce the career prospects of police officers. Many health officials and social workers depend on drug-related problems for their livelihood.

A degree of international cooperation is needed to ensure a number of countries moved down the road of removing prohibition. A single country promising prohibition repeal would incur the wrath of the powerful United Nations bureaucrats.

Why wouldn’t every sane, sensible person not support such a proposal?

In the long run, do we have any other choice

PALE “No not legalize it- decriminalize it.”

I could see the possibilities of that working with cannabis / marijuana.

Self-grown, not for resale.

No different to home brewed beer.

But even for those which can be “home grown”, it becomes more difficult to police infractions a “CANNOT SELL RULE”, when produced in an ambiguous environment of “legal for own use only” versus “illegal for sale”.

The temptation (which will certainly be taken) by “cottage growers” to ‘expand’ into growing for family, growing for friends etc etc. then home use will end up as “growing for profit and personal gain”, commonly called “dealing / trafficking / trading”.

I have no doubt to the criminal scale of the illegal drug trade. The rewards it offers are enormous but I truly believe

legalization will amplify the use of drugs of dependency, the harmful effects, implications and attendant evils associated with those drugs and their addiction.

To links between terrorists and drugs. The biggest dealers in drugs in Ireland are IRA.

However, legalizing will not stop the trade.

Tobacco is grown, legally in Murtleford, Victoria and the crop management supervised by ATO/Customs, yet we still have an active blackmarket in illegal”Chop-Chop” tobacco.

Regarding payment of government welfare benefits to drug and alcohol addicts, whilst I dislike the “nanny” implications of such a move, I would agree with your view to the supervised management of tax payers funds.

Fractelle makes the point “Jails filled with ordinary people turned into petty criminals.”

People have choices, they can decide to protest to get a law changed or accept the law as it is.

Deciding to ignore the law displays both anarchy and hubris.
Characteristics neither of which should expect condoning or exempting.

“Addicts sink to a life of despair and degradation, mainly associated with committing crime or resorting to prostitution.”

Actually, I consider “despair and degradation” a consequence of the addiction to drugs.

Fractelle further puts the cart before the horse. “Crime and prostitution” are not among the causes but among the consequences of addiction.

Fractelle “The war on drugs is lost. Criminals have won.”

The weak and the feint hearted said similar before WWII.

Fortunately most people are equipped with greater fortitude, ethics, morals and determination.

It is a bit like dearest Margaret said to the war against IRA Terrorism

“All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail. It must be business as usual.”

Likewise, all attempts by criminals to overrun the institutions and structures of the Australian democratic processes will fail

Because, to allow them to succeed will destroy the very reason decent and law abiding people bring children into this world.

Fractelles illustration of drunkness does nothing to change the deprivations of heroin use.

It merely illustrates how we need to deal with those who go beyond “using alcohol” to “abusing alcohol” and that day is not long off.

The inevitable backlash of the law abiding tax payers, as they sicken at the abuse of their cities and safety by

“hordes of drunken, aggressive people. . . brawling, urinating on footpaths and risking lives by driving cars”.

Heavier fines, harder prison terms.

Her analysis of the merits of legalization ignore the prevailing and undeniable issues with drugs of dependency:

They are addictive.

They varyingly induce altered mental states which severely impair reasoning skills, induce permanent psychosis and cause physical damage to a users body.

Legalisation will not remove the illegal trade.

One of her self-delusions

“Make hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamines available by prescription from pharmacies and doctors at a price that does not force addicts and users into crime.”

The black market, not bothered with costs of licencing, product quality, purity, safety etc will undercut the prescription price.

Addicts, seeking the best ‘hit’ for their buck, will use illegal supplies and since addiction will debilitate them so much they cannot work, they will still rely on theft to fund their addiction, regardless of buying legal or black market supplies.

And easier “legalized” access will expand the numbers of people tempted to experience something which will cause a catastrophic impart on their lives and life quality.

CJ,

'However, Usual Suspect's last post was nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Fractelle'

Actually it's a defence. Fractelle, and yourself for that matter have made it your business to attack me wherever possible. You both can dish it out but cant take it. You think of yourselves as the judge or police of all forums, selectively singling people out for their supposed 'attacks', while yourselves attacking anyone you like with impunity. Good on you if that's what does it for you.

Fractelle,

While i agree with your stance on drugs, you're not the only one with google. It doesn't advance your case or make you right because you can use a search engine and cut and paste.

Col,

'Fractelle, the numbers of people who use drugs is a small minority, a far smaller % of the population than the 24% of violent crimes they incur. Therefore, it can be reasoned with some reliability that taking drugs increases the users probability to degenerate into criminal violence.
'
I think the perception is badly flawed that such a small proportion of people use drugs. As I constantly argue, look at the MASSIVE quantities found, and the authorities admission that these massive quantities represent but a very small temporary dent in availability.

The sky is blackened with smoke, but I keep hearing people say it's just a few people having a BBQ.

US “I think the perception is badly flawed that such a small proportion of people use drugs”

I understand your point and you might well be right

However, if the statistics were run,

those who have ‘used’ marijuana include people like me who recognize the risks exceed the benefits.

“drugs” is a global term and should be classified into main groups

Cannabis & Co
Opiate based
Cocaine based
Amphetamine ‘light’ –ecstasy etc
Amphetamine ‘heavy’ – meth Amphetamine

Etc etc.

And that is borne out by

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/drugs/drug_use.html

charting usage in past 12 months selected years from 1991 to 2004

cannabis run at around 15-19% (and any time use could be around 50-80%)

the rest around 2-3 %

significant is the growth in ecstasy and tiny % of heroin.

I have no view of the reliability of the data other than to assume it is reliable, objective and not arranged to support any particular agenda.

As for Fractelle and CJ Morgan. They promote the rhetoric because the substance of their views is so lacking.

Fractelle “Addicts could be more clearly identified and coerced into rehabilitation programs.”

I find that statement contradictory.

Pretending you are “helping” people by “coercion” (def “use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance”) conflicts with itself (nothing new in Fractelles posts)

“• Overdose deaths would drop dramatically as the quantity and purity of drugs would be controlled.”

That is pure theory.

Regardless of production purity, the drive to make money will still be there and will still induce some to cut and contaminate drugs and sell to friends. The ability of a junkie to measure small quantities accurately is similarly dubious.

“The massive flow of money to criminal empires would dry up.”

An event which will not go unchallenged by those “massive criminal empires” who will still maintain a parallel black market, just like chop-chop

Fractelle, try doing some real research in future. Instead of copy-pasting the ramblings of what reads like a year 10 assignment from an underdeveloped adolescent.

PALE, thanks.
While decriminalisation is better than no change at all, I’d rather see drugs legalised properly because decriminalisation still gives criminals the monopoly over drug sales without providing any tax revenue. And, keeping drugs illegal means that the government actually protects this monopoly of the illegal drug market.
Anyway, I suppose we must take baby steps.
I also realize that Col has a point when he says that there will always be an illegal market for everything, but this market would be much smaller and at least consumers would have the choice to buy legally.

Fractelle, great info.
We ALL google for information, no objection from me.
“Massive amount of crime associated with addicts desperate attempts to get funds to pay extraordinarily high prices for the product due to the supply and demand situation.”
Heroin used to cost the same as aspirin before it was criminalised; meaning production costs are low, leaving space to tax it.

Col,
You disagree that big black markets are harder to eradicate than small black markets.
Well, I suppose it doesn’t matter that you disagree because supporters of the ‘war on drugs’ as well as supporters of ‘legalisation of drugs’ want to see the black market minimised.

“drug addiction and the pattern of criminal and violent anti-social behaviour which accompanies it are harder to minimize when founded and endorsed as a legally accepted practices, than when legally ostracized”
But how do you know that your premise is correct? You are only speculating.
Why wouldn’t it be possible that drug-related anti-social behaviour is easier to minimise when legal than when legally ostracized?

I think I gave a link somewhere to show that since heroin was legally and freely supplied by doctors to heroin addicts as part of a rehabilitation program, the number of heroin addicts sharply declined so that the Netherlands now have the lowest number of heroin addicts in Europe. Heroin-related crime rates dropped as well. I think the same happened in Switzerland.

Celivia I am not sure what you are getting at about small versus large black markets. I know I would certainly seek to see every legal effort made to discourage them, big small and one method is to execute those who profit from that black market, being the dealers.

I could suggest, unless you agree with me on that (executing dealers), you are only paying lip service to the idea.

“But how do you know that your premise is correct? You are only speculating.
Why wouldn’t it be possible that drug-related anti-social behaviour is easier to minimise when legal than when legally ostracized”

There is NO difference in my speculation to your speculation of the impact of legalizing drugs which are presently illegal.

Except,

the Gambling changes in Victoria would support a prediction that legalisation of illegal drugs will increase drug use.

Further: “Drug-related anti social behaviour” is a consequence of “drug use”.

As legalization will increase drug use, through greater social / legal acceptance, “drug related anti-social behaviour” will increase at least in line with use (linear relationship).

The only ways of reducing “drug related anti-social behaviour” are to curb drug use or to make the consequences and penalties for “anti-social behaviour” more onerous than now (which would also suit me)..

I presume you have not used data sourced from “stopthewarondrugs.com”

I have had difficulty in finding a reliable source to read to the results of those Netherlands tests.

Any program of rehabilitation pre-supposes addicts wish to “rehabilitate”. Not sure about heroin but with other drugs, amphetamines particularly, “rehabilitation” seems to figure only for a few addicts.

Whilst we tend to treat these drugs of dependency as a single “class” we should distinguish between them more.

I have no problem divorcing the approach to cannabis away from the approach to heroin or amphetamines or cocaine or derivatives within those base sources. I think it might make debate easier.

As I have said before, just as we have “medical” opium poppies growing in Tasmania, we could have “medical” cannabis grown in similar circumstances for a similar purpose.

Col

You might find this interesting:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2008/2342505.htm

What I found interesting was that different addictive substances tend to act on the same part of the brain. The expert opinion was that the predisposition to drug addiction was probably genetic.

No-one chooses to become an addict.

No-one sipping their first alcoholic drink, smoking their first cigarette, toking their first joint or snorting their first line of coke does so with the intent of becoming addicted.

And the majority of drug users do not go on to become addicted.

Fester pointed out the disposition to become addicted to drugs is most likely genetic.

Col, once again you attack the person and not the argument: “Fractelle, try doing some real research in future. Instead of copy-pasting the ramblings of what reads like a year 10 assignment from an underdeveloped adolescent.” BTW my last posts were taken from a right-wing website. :-)

Anyone who has followed this thread would know that my posts consist of well reasoned knowledge and research, as well as links to where I have obtained my research. In fact I draw your attention to your (googled) links which I have demonstrated as not offering any evidence to support your continued argument of punishing the addicted rather than helping them.

You forget many people read these pages and do not post. They are, no doubt, able to follow an argument. They know who has presented cogent debate and who hasn’t.

PALE, do you not see a contradiction in your support for Celivia’s POV? I am sure that Celivia, can confirm whether or not she believes in the death penalty for any criminal offence. Strange bedfellows indeed, Col Rouge and PALE united in favour of death.

Finally, most people who do develop addiction generally start very young before their brains are fully matured (adult maturation is generally complete at age 25). Therefore, it makes good sense to ban children from any drug – including caffeine (consequences of 'power' soft drinks are not fully understood; ADHD?). This can only occur with informed discussion about the consequences of drug taking and leadership-by-example from parents.

It is not possible to stop drug experimentation and never will be. Drugs have been around as long as there have been humans. We start with education, and, if people do become addicted we continue with understanding and compassion.

*No-one chooses to become an addict.

No-one sipping their first alcoholic drink, smoking their first cigarette, toking their first joint or snorting their first line of coke does so with the intent of becoming addicted.

And the majority of drug users do not go on to become addicted.

Anyone who has followed this thread would know that my posts consist of well reasoned knowledge and research, as well as links to where I have obtained my research.

Finally, most people who do develop addiction generally start very young before their brains are fully matured (adult maturation is generally complete at age 25). Therefore, it makes good sense to ban children from any drug – including caffeine (consequences of 'power' *soft drinks* are not fully understood; ADHD?). This can only occur with informed discussion about the consequences of drug taking and leadership-by-example from parents.

Pale comments
Stone the crows! are you on drugs or something- You sound like your a member of PETA . For memory I thought that was the case.
Of course people have a choice unlike their victims who they rape bash and murder.
What I said was lets get rid of the big pushers. They kill thousands every day.
Try thinking of the real victims. Mean time I must pop down the shop for my soft drinks before you make them illegal while hugging cold hard murders to death
Because thats what drug dealers are. Cold hard murders of thousands.
Celiva's comments are always well thought out which is why I entered this thread in the first place.
We might not always agree but its always a pleasure to read her comments because shes a lady and doesnt attack the writer but the topic.
Anyway I dont have much time to give this thread. It was just a bit of light reading for me
I can see you are very interested in this topic which is to your credit but in the real world and if you were out there fighting drugs I assure you that you would think very differently.

Fester “predisposition to drug addiction was probably genetic.”

Yes, I am aware of that. I could even give you names where it incidence presently applies.

However, a “pre-disposition” identifies a greater likelihood, it does not commit or condemn someone to addiction as a irresistible fact and the easiest way of avoiding the risk is to avoid taking an illegal drug in the first place.

Fractelle “Col, once again you attack the person and not the argument:”

Oh your hypocrisy is rank.

“And the majority of drug users do not go on to become addicted.”

Just as a majority of car hoons do not die in accidents.

However, they present a significantly elevated risk to other law abiding citizens who happen to be using the roads.

So too drug abusers have a greater likelihood of becoming involved in violent crimes against people and in property crimes due to a loss of contact with reality (psychosis) and a need to fund an addiction (regardless the drug source being illegal or legal).

“Anyone who has followed this thread would know that my posts consist of well reasoned knowledge and research,”

You flatter yourself

“You forget many people read these pages and do not post. They are, no doubt, able to follow an argument. They know who has presented cogent debate and who hasn’t.”

I rely on it.

I note you have not even attempted to challenge one observation of mine

Observing, the legalization of gambling into Victoria saw a significant increase in gambling activity across the full spectrum of society, versus when casinos and poker machines were banned.

Indicates the legalization of presently illegal drugs will similarly erupt and increase exponentially as gambling did.

Further gambling is not physically addictive. The addictiveness of illegal drugs will ensure their use and consequently the numbers of addicts will exceed the numbers of “problem gamblers” and the social consequence of more drug addicts will result in

An explosion in burglary and theft crimes
An explosion in the demands placed on public services both legal enforcement and medical and judicial by drug related illness and crime.

Fractelle,
Yes I have expressed my stance on capital punishment, mainly in Col’s thread about the death penalty. Capital punishment is never justified, for many reasons.

Col (and PALE if you’re still in this discussion),
Ask yourself whether countries that apply/have applied the death penalty for drug dealers have fewer problems with drugs than countries with a softer approach.

Even if we did have the death penalty for murderers, that does not mean it’s justified to apply it blindly to all drug dealers because you’d have to have proof that every individual drug dealer actually has contributed to someone’s death.
And even then, the drug user took the drug of his own free choice- addiction is not 100% good enough reason to redirect his responsibility to the drug dealer. An addict can go to his GP and ask for help with his addiction. His choice was not to do that but continue taking drugs with the knowledge that risk is involved.

There’s no proof that ALL drug dealers have been the cause of the death of drug takers, because some drug dealers might have supplied drugs to people who were merely recreational users and in that case the drug dealer might have contributed to the drug user’s hours of fun at an XTC party.
You can’t give the death penalty to anyone for ‘potentially’ contributing to somebody’s death. The worst a drug dealer could be charged with is manslaughter. Australia would never give the death penalty for manslaughter.

Did Indonesia and China get rid of their drug problems because they apply the death penalty? Their drug problems are greater than in the Netherlands or Switzerland or Sweden with their softer approach.
France is talking about copying the Netherlands drug policy because they have fewer drug problems than all the surrounding European countries and especially the UK.
The USA with their tough policies doesn’t make much progress in reaching their goal either.

Continued

I reminded you that even the communist party in China wasn’t able to get rid of the drug problem long-term and think about it: they shot drug dealers AND drug users. Did that do much good?

This is only one story from one city but it gives an example of a soft approach:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/24/drugsandalcohol.davidrose
“Two countries took the drugs test. Who passed?
In Holland, there is no war on drugs. They believe this is a social problem, not a criminal one. And all the evidence suggests that their policy works”

Gambling is a different social and health problem than drugs- it’s better to compare apples with apples.
At least I'm looking at different countries with different drug policies and it's obvious that some work better than others.

Celivia “Gambling is a different social and health problem than drugs- it’s better to compare apples with apples.”

The point with gambling and drugs, it is a comparison of “apples with apples”

Gambling is a voluntary pursuit in which many people seek to indulge and it can cost them a lot of money and in Victoria poker machines and casino games were, for many years, prohibited.

Illegal drugs - almost likewise

Gambling was legalized in the mid 1990s and since that time the numbers of people ending up in court, in bankruptcy and in dire straits has increased considerably.

The only difference between gambling and illegal drugs

Gambling is not physically addictive.

Legalizing illegal drugs will increase their usage, just like legalizing gambling, with the numbers of people ending up in court, in bankruptcy and in dire straits increasing considerably.

It will also INCREASE the number of DRUG ADDICTS which will in turn increase, exponentially, the crimes of theft, burglary and the deprivations and destruction to families and children, more so than that caused from the harmful affects of excessive gambling because of the “Physically Addictive” nature of drugs.

I have no statistics on that other than the 25% of male addicts in China following a century of legal opium and the relationship to gambling.

“At least I'm looking at different countries with different drug policies and it's obvious that some work better than others.”

China is “a different country” but more importantly,

I ask, what real data do you have to challenge my reasoned observations, apart from a couple of small scale tests, the outcomes of which are ambiguous and a bunch of pro-junkie propaganda?

I would like to see changes made but the changes you are seem to be proposing lack the national based research and do not reasonably support or give comfort to achieving any real and positive benefit which would warrant their adoption.

Hi all

I think capital punishment is wrong in all circumstances; it is state-sanctioned murder and makes us no better than the offender. Having worked in prison systems, I can reliably point out that a large percentage of inmates would not be there if it were not for illegal drugs.

And gambling is every bit as addictive as drugs. It's worth remembering that a large proportion of those who deal in drugs (and I don;t mean the big-time non-users) deal because they are addicted themselves and that is how they finance their own habit. It is also true that there is an "inherited vulnerability" to an addictive personality.

I think education is the key, but once someone is addicted (to drugs, alcohol, or gambling), they have to WANT to give it up. And where do we draw the line in the sand? Will cigarettes become illegal in our lifetime/s? Alcohol causes as much, if not more, social damage as drugs per capita. Will the government start compromising welfare recipients because they drink/smoke/use drugs?

Cheers
Nicky

Col

A genetic predisposition puts drug addicts in a similar category to diabetics. Perhaps you owe more to your genes than your character in avoiding drug addiction?

I would recommend that you read the transcript or listen to the podcast if you have the bandwidth.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2008/2342505.htm

For example, you differentiate between drugs like nicotine, alcohol, amphetamines or opiates on the basis of them being "physically addictive". Yet, from the transcript:

"The most addictive drugs appear to be nicotine and opiates; these are the ones that are hardest to stop but the probable reason for that is the way that those drugs are taken. At least the way nicotine is taken by smoking is intensely reinforcing because a very rapid spike of nicotine gets to the brain each time you puff on the first puff of the cigarette and that rapid gradient in concentration is what stimulates the reward pathway, just as injecting opiates intravenously produces a rapid gradient. The route of administration and the rapidity of onset of the drug is what makes for the particularly addictive properties."

"I have no statistics on that other than the 25% of male addicts in China following a century of legal opium and the relationship to gambling."

The research I cited found your figure to be out by a factor of 10. Dr Newman calculated total opium production from the available English records, then allocated amounts of opium to the population. The calculation showed that there could only be a small percentage of addicts unless the production figures had been grossly underestimated.

It is a shame that research into vaccines to combat drug addiction gets no support from drug companies. It makes me wonder how much addiction to prescription medication exists, and whether such vaccines would threaten profits from these drugs.

http://www.elon.edu/pendulum/Story.aspx?id=723

Nicky

Question

Do you think capital punishment should apply to people who knowingly inflict suffering - such as live animal exporters?
You will probably say ‘no’ that the Government should Ban it.
My point is when you knowingly inflict that degree of suffering on any other living creature you certainly doing not deserve assistance of any kind.
It’s the same with drug dealers because make no mistake they fully know, but they don’t care, about anything but the money- just like live animal exporters.

You say you were in the prison system and many of the people that were there would not have been there without drugs.
My experience of getting them into prison for years paints a different story. First you have the poor parents that are victims of drug dealers who lost a loved one- closely followed by the good doers saying don’t goal him your honor he was only dealing to pay for his habit? Someone give me a hanky. I

What about the victims and their families.

What a waste of tax payer’s money. Then you will possible raise the argument of the younger ones busted on pot that probably shouldn’t be there. Again my point. If it were decimalized your younger soft target wouldn’t be in goal.

That would leave more time and resources to target dealers. Of course you would also be aware the drugs are available in prison.

May I enquire what you mean by the following? =
Will the government start compromising welfare recipients because they drink/smoke/use drugs?

IMOP Welfare people should not be given cash if they drink or take drugs- ‘simply.’
pls don’t think I am having a go at you because I am not.

I just get irritable and frustrated by all the warm fuzzy feeling going out to the dealers

First, I would like to congratulate Celivia for daring to mention ‘the elephant in the room’. That is: Pot, ecstasy, speed etc are fun. Agreed, there is nothing like a superb glass of cabernet sauvignon with a sumptuous meal. But for relaxing - pot; for partying - coke or speed.

And while, I no longer go night-clubbing like I used to (no more speed for me) I do intend spending my retirement growing a few plants for my own consumption – nothing like a relaxed old age.

That a minority of people will abuse all drugs is a given. That we could manage this problem better than we have is yet to be seen. Until then…

The war on drugs is a failure.

And will continue to be so while the law attacks the users instead of controlling the production of drugs themselves. Many of us have already referred to the medicinal value of many of these drugs. We have also noted that the quality could be controlled if legitimised; less deaths by overdose being just one example.

There is no magic bullet. But legalisation will eliminate to a great extent the black market trade. It won’t be perfect, yes ‘chop-chop’ tobacco, home distilling of alcohol, and all the other assorted drugs will still be available.

However, the huge profits the black markets are currently making would be severely curtailed. And the growers of opium or cannabis would have a legitimate income stream – as I have already pointed out with regard to Afghanistan.

Until then…business as usual...

Al Qaida, the Taliban, and drug cartels the world over continue to profit because the demand for their business continues. Illegality makes very little difference to this trade. Yet it could be reduced a lot if our governments simply had the cojones.

Finally, PALE.
ROFL.
I have no doubt that if I claimed the sky is blue you would claim it is green – such is the absurdity of your posts

Fester “A genetic predisposition puts drug addicts in a similar category to diabetics.”

And diabetics can avoid the consequences of their diabetes by controlling their diet.

Your point, that becoming a junkie is the result of some random fatalistic process of genetic accident would apply if drugs were legal.

As it is, drugs are illegal and a drug addict therefore cannot compare themselves to a diabetic because “sugar” is not an addictive or mind altering substance.

“The research I cited found your figure to be out by a factor of 10. Dr Newman”

Maybe Dr Newman is a egoistic aberration, common evidence is he is only right in the same way David Irving is right about the holocaust and in conflict with recorded events.

Fractelle “The war on drugs is a failure.”

Nothing new from this quarter,

same old Rubbish,

“Many of us have already referred to the medicinal value of many of these drugs.”

“Medicinal values” tend to be satisfied on volumes significantly lower than the intake used to get high.

“Al Qaida, the Taliban, and drug cartels the world over continue to profit because the demand for their business continues. Illegality makes very little difference to this trade. Yet it could be reduced a lot if our governments simply had the cojones.”

Flies in the face of the evidence of the Victorian gambling results.

Anything which becomes “legal” has a social endorsement and acceptability which does not exist when a thing is illegal. If presently illegal drugs were sold legally you would get a network of the equivalent of tobacconists on every corner,

The difference, having a quiet fag does not leave the user "spaced out" on the pavement (like heroin) or raging at passing traffic and attacking other people (like Meth amphetamine) and I have never seem someone “overdose” on cigarettes.

I do not know what sort of horror you want to leave to your descendants but that is something I will do my utmost to ensure does not become the “norm”

Hi all
I don't pretend to have the solution to this, but I do not believe that Australia should go down the path of capital punishment under any circumstances. In my experience, the "soft targets" are only incarcerated if they are also dealing or are serial and serious (repeat) offenders. Unfortunately, usually they come out of prison worse people than they went in, and the prison systems are hopelessly inadequate in terms of addiction and pre-release programs.

On the other hand, those who manufacture "Ice" and like drugs are more deserving of the worst the prison systems have to offer, and believe me, that can be pretty bad. If you keep a maximum security inmate locked in a cell for 23 hours a day, what is going to do to them?

It is more cost-effective to address the issues effectively while they are in prison and better prepare them for release back into society so that they do not re-acquaint themselves with old associates and old habits. It's a bit of a pipe dream, because justice/corrections are not vote winners, so do not get the funding needed to address the problems - hence the "revolving door" we see in terms of recidivism. Unfortunately, it's usually the dumb ones who are in prison; the key players are too smart for that.

PALE, are you suggesting that we should "hang live exporters by the neck until they are dead"?

Nicky

Col

"Maybe Dr Newman is a egoistic aberration, common evidence is he is only right in the same way David Irving is right about the holocaust and in conflict with recorded events."

You continue your absurd and defamatory attack on a respected and accomplished historian. Dr Newman's reputation is based on dedicated scholarship, whereas David Irving, according to this website,

http://www.geocities.com/irving_challenger/

"tends to distort, bend or entirely falsify the truth.". This might be why Dr Newman has been made a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society by his peers, whereas David Irving is generally despised.

"Your point, that becoming a junkie is the result of some random fatalistic process of genetic accident would apply if drugs were legal."

No, Col. The point is that exposure to drugs or sugar will only result in addiction in genetically susceptible individuals. It raises the possibility of genetic testing to determine susceptibility. And as the development of a drug addiction requires factors in addition to genetic susceptibility, it is unlikely to develop solely on the basis of availability. And I would point out that I am advocating availability under strict regulation, not unregulated legalisation.

"As it is, drugs are illegal and a drug addict therefore cannot compare themselves to a diabetic because “sugar” is not an addictive or mind altering substance."

Sugar may be an addictive substance according to this site:

http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_sugarAddiction

"Drug addiction often includes three steps. A person will increase his intake of the drug, experience withdrawal symptoms when access to the drug is cut off and then face an urge to relapse back into drug use. Rats on sugar have similar experiences. Researchers withheld food for 12 hours and then gave rats food plus sugar water. This created a cycle of binging where the animals increased their daily sugar intake until it doubled. When researchers either stopped the diet or administered an opioid blocker the rats showed signs common to drug withdrawal, such as teeth-chattering and the shakes. Early findings also indicate signs of relapse. Rats weaned off sugar repeatedly pressed a lever that previously dispensed the sweet solution."

"Ban addictive things because they are bad. Except the legal ones..."

*YAWN*

Our society will be going nowhere fast (...in fact i think it's showing strong signs of regression right now...) if people keep up this premise that things should be banned because the government says so or because it 'offends' a certain group. We accept risks related to automotive industry and we try to minimise the negatives. A similar system could be applied to drugs. There really is no credible disagreement to be had on that-only appeals to fear, general pouting or ideological opposition. All the arguments I've seen opposing this qualify only as one of those.

PALE, are you suggesting that we should "hang live exporters by the neck until they are dead"?

Nicky
Posted by Nicky,
Nicky

No Of course I am not. I think there should only be one punishment for them.
To put them on a ship along with the Government leaders who supported it and make them go through what the animals do.

However I suppose we must be reasonsible and think of the costs.
So i suppose a quick bullet through the head would have to do.
Pity about that.

I think that they should should accompany Yabby on the bottom decks of the "Al Kuwait or the "Maysora" or the "Torrens" (aka "Farid F") for a 26+ day, multi-port destination journey. Then upon arrival those still standing should be unloaded as the animals are, transported and handled like the animals are ... and you know the rest.

Maybe it IS all about making the punishment fit the crime.

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky

Fantastic! idea.

May I ask you a question - Do you feel there is a connection between drug trafficking crime bosses live exports ships and trucks companies etc.?

Fester “It raises the possibility of genetic testing to determine susceptibility.”

Maybe government could use it as a qualifier to exclude some from selective breeding (btw I am joking).

You are attempting to parallel the accepted tolerance of other substances to justify your stupid pretense to the supposed harmlessness of drugs of addiction.

Your argument is fatuous.

Maybe next you will suggest we are all addicted to oxygen. I know every mammal has a high dependency upon it.

You also need to consider the difference between a psychological addiction versus a physical addiction and the real implications of withdraw.

We are ultimately individually responsible for the stupid things we do. Those aware, often through observation of their parents, that they have are genetically disposed to a susceptibility to addiction, need to heed the warnings.

If they do ignore the warnings, it is no different to driving a car and ignoring the warning signs to the end of the road at the top of a cliff…..

You are busy fabricating excuses. I have better things to do.
I prefer to live my life in peace and free of scumbag junkies who burgle and rob to support their habits and out-of-control psychotics who cause destruction in their high moments and useless cannabis smokers, filling up the dole queues because they cannot get it together enough to hold down a job, regardless of their genetic disposition.

I have a condition which can be related to a genetic predisposition (as in my brother and father lived with the same thing) and pay for medication to regulate it.

I do not make it an excuse to sign on for the dole or rob people or going crazy and attack others. I earn and pay my own way. Regardless of my medical circumstances, it is “business as usual”.

Everyone else is free to make their own choices but the bottom line is I expect them to manage their own lives accordingly, without excuses and without asking me to subsidize their stupidity.

Hi all

PALE, I have absolutely no idea. It seems like rather a long bow to draw, however.

Col Rouge, I take your comments on board, but as I asked before, where do we draw the "line in the sand"? Alcohol and nicotine are legal drugs and both are powerfully addictive. The former causes massive social dislocation, often manifested in serious violence.

Some people do not use alcohol because of deleterious effects, but use cannabis because it (mostly) does not cause violence. Alcohol can kill too, and death from it is not pretty (cirrhosis).

Not everyone who uses cannabis is on the dole queue, just as not everyone who drinks alcohol is. Some people function quite normally in society and have responsible jobs (although drug testing in employment is growing in popularity).

Just a few observations.

Cheers
Nick

Col,
I think that you’re stereotyping drug users and I agree with Nicky that many have responsible jobs (and are able to function well in their jobs).
I have known both functional and disfunctional drug users/abusers.
I've known people who regularly snorted cocaine off their executive desks and other professionals who use illicit drugs and hold responsible jobs as well as some stereotype addicts.
However, it is usually only the stereotypes that people recognise, the other group is not obvious at all.
In the beginning I made the distinction between users and abusers.
Addiction is a very complicated issue and involves many aspects.

There’s also the question of the chicken or the egg- did drug users on the dole become unemployed because they use drugs or did they use drugs because they are unemployed and live among others who are drug users? I’m sure both situations are true.

Anyway, I think for me it’s time to stop the lengthy and repetitive arguments that we’ll never agree on anyway.

I second what Fester said, “…availability under strict regulation…”
However, I realise that many people wouldn’t be ready to take this big step. I suppose I want to do something new and negotiate for the fun/sake of it, rather than stretch out the arguments that support legalisation.
Like legalisation, capital punishment (CP) for drug dealers is not likely to happen either. I’ve already pointed out why.

Continued

Besides, I find CP absurd; sellers of legal drugs are contributing no less to ill health and total damage to families and society than sellers of illegal drugs.
Illicit drug use is responsible for about 2% of the total burden of disease in Australia, while 3% is attributable to alcohol consumption and 8% to tobacco use.

And the burden of illicit drugs would decline if only we had an effective harm reduction program including clean needles, because Hepatitis C and B are major conditions responsible for deaths attributable to illicit drug use. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/soduia06/soduia06.pdf

Executing drug dealers of illicit drugs who do less damage to society than sellers of legal drugs is unjustified especially since much damage is preventable.

As my negotiation, I offer decriminalisation combined with effective harm reduction programs. Harm reduction programs don’t only help drug users and abusers, they also help to make communities safer and reduce costs in the long term.

As Fractelle said, people will not stop experimenting with drugs and a proportion of the population will, as a result, become addicted. It’s inevitable.

But we can aim to minimise drug abuse by involving different directions and sectors- not just leave it up to the police and the judicial system to cope with drug problems.
Reduce harm, educate about drugs, in the mean time go after the big criminals, not users and little dealers- but no death penalty!

What would your offer be if you agree to negotiate?

"Backyard labs blamed for drug death spike"

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/backyard-labs-blamed-for-drug-death-spike/2008/08/27/1219516554865.html

Good riddance, eh Col?

Great article, CJ, it shows that the ‘war on drugs’ is not about saving lives at all.

Probably no need to spell it out but I will anyway: even when drugs are illegal, if they were decriminalised, and there had been a comprehensive harm-reduction program in operation, these users would’ve had access to a service that checks out the purity/strength of their drugs before they took them and the users could have pointed the police in the direction of the dealers who sold these dirty drugs without having to be afraid of being arrested themselves.

Where have I heard a similar story before, ah I remember: http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=2636

I did it again- cut off the last number, here's the complete one:
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26367

Nicky “Col Rouge, I take your comments on board, but as I asked before, where do we draw the "line in the sand"?”

The “line in the sand” was drawn for us by our forefathers.

I have no problem in moving the line, except when it is moved, I want it to move to produce a ‘better outcome’.

Pretending the general sale of addictive drugs (decriminalization, as being promoted by some and argued against by me) is going to produce a ‘better outcome’ is like believing in fairies.

Regarding alcohol, if you think the destructive influences of alcohol, that influence is a comparative small one.

If you legalize other drugs (heroin, cocaine, amphetamines cannabis etc) you will see a far higher incidence of use than now with downsides affecting a more significant percentage of users, leading to an explosion in the “massive social dislocation, often manifested in serious violence” which you talk of.

Celivia “sellers of legal drugs are contributing no less to ill health and total damage to families and society than sellers of illegal drugs.”

And the point you repeatedly ignore is the “legality” issue and the relative negative impacts of alcohol compared to the illegal substances.

You cannot excuse the actions of someone who cynically exploits illegal drugs to make profit by comparison with the actions of someone who behaves within the law.

“Harm reduction programs don’t only help drug users and abusers, they also help to make communities safer and reduce costs in the long term.”

Describe some… not simple buzz words but what actually happens and how they make communities safer and reduce costs in the long term

As to CJ Morgans article, “volenti non fit injuria”

Of course, a better thing would be if the ‘kitchen’ where these drugs are being cooked were to explode, killing the chef.

“users would’ve had access to a service that checks out the purity/strength of their drugs …. pointed the police in the direction of the dealers who sold these dirty drugs . . .”

Just like the buyers of cheap illegal alcohol …. garbage

Unsurprisingly, it seems that Col's not only out of step with most OLOers on this subject, but he's also out of step with most Australians:

"Australians back medical marijuana, heroin injecting rooms.

MOST Australians would support clinical trials of cannabis for medical use, a new survey of more than 23,000 people has found.

People were quizzed about their personal use and attitudes to drugs for the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Almost half the respondents said they would support regulated heroin-injecting rooms.

The nationwide survey found overwhelming support for legalising cannabis for medical reasons, backed by nearly 70 per cent, while approval of clinical trials for cannabis approached 75 per cent.

Most people also looked favourably on needle and syringe programs, supported by more than 65 per cent."

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24258577-952,00.html

Interestingly, their online poll on the issue is currently showing these results:

"Do you support the legalisation of marijuana?"

Yes - 60% (115 votes)
No - 16% (32 votes)
For medical purposes only - 23% (44 votes)

CJ Morgan “Unsurprisingly, it seems that Col's not only out of step with most OLOers on this subject, but he's also out of step with most Australians:

Australians back medical marijuana, heroin injecting rooms.”

Maybe you could see where I have argued against the medical use of marijuana and where anyone has mentioned heroin injection rooms prior to now.

When you can, you will be right…,

Until then, you are just confirming what I have observed in most of your post….

A snide opportunist so desperate for acclaim at any cost that he reduces OLO to some form of popularity contest

Who has it wrong but for whom reason and accuracy is a secondary consideration to ego and cheap shots.

So I guess you didn't bother to read the article then, Col?

A major current survey conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare indicates that a strong majority of Australians support significant relaxation of current laws against cannabis and the provision of harm minimisation strategies for heroin users, and the best that Col can do is slag off at me because I brought it to his attention in the context of this discussion.

Why am I not surprised?

Col,
“If you legalize other drugs (heroin, cocaine, amphetamines cannabis etc) you will see a far higher incidence of use than now”
You believe that without evidence.
If there is indeed a strong connection then I’d like to see evidence of that. As far as I’m concerned, gambling and drugs are different addictions and involve different sub-groups of the population.

I, on the other hand, have evidence/indication that drug policies don't influence the level of drug use.
'Drugs' is the topic that we’re specifically talking about, not addiction in general.

1. Tobacco.
We have the lowest incidence of tobacco smokers than ever before.

2. Cannabis.
Places with liberal marijuana policies experience no higher use than places with stringent policies:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383
” Findings from dozens of government-commissioned and academic studies published over the past 25 years overwhelmingly affirm that liberalizing marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in marijuana consumption or affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use.”
"It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy."
- Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.

3. Treating the drug problem as a health and social welfare issue results in a decreased drug market:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21603780-5003402,00.html#
"Other governments around the world have already stopped pretending we can arrest and imprison our way out of this problem."
Dr Wodak said it had been proven that a health and social welfare approach to drugs shrinks the drug market to a size law enforcement agencies can tackle.
"The problem now is the drug industry is so large that there is no possibility that drug law enforcement can succeed. It's set up to fail," he said.

But wait, there's more...

And
http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/drugs/default.asp
"Drug policy in the Netherlands aims to reduce the demand for drugs, the supply of drugs and the risks to drug users, their immediate surroundings and society. The Dutch policy on drugs has been reasonably successful compared to the policies pursued in other countries, especially when it comes to prevention and care. The number of users of various types of drugs is no greater than in other countries, while the figure for drug-related deaths, at 2.4 per million inhabitants, is the lowest in Europe."

And
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/editorial_drug_laws_dont_affect_drug_use
“… academics from around the world determined that "[d]rug use does not appear to be related to drug policy, as countries with more stringent policies (e.g., the US) did not have lower levels of illegal drug use than countries with more liberal policies (e.g., The Netherlands)."

And

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141&ct=1
”Research article. Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys
Conclusions
Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones.”

4. Decriminalisation of hard drugs and harm reduction programs has decreased the number of heroin addicts:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7627/966
“Decriminalising drugs has paid off in the Netherlands. Decriminalisation of heroin and other hard drugs has allowed addicts to be treated as patients. As a result hardly any new heroin addicts are registered,3 while existing users are supported and have been helped to get jobs.
Drugs could easily be regulated in the same manner that alcohol and tobacco are regulated and, more importantly, heavily taxed.
The price could still be substantially less than current prices on the illicit market, and the revenue generated from the regulation could then be funnelled into education and other rehabilitation programmes.”

In short, there's no evidence that legalisation/decriminalisation will increase the incidence of drug use.

Celivia “If there is indeed a strong connection then I’d like to see evidence of that.”

Evidence is the increase in gambling problems since it was legalised in Victoria
Evidence in the increase in street violence since licenced drinking times were extended
Evidence also in when things go the other way… say opium was criminalized in China and usage dropped.

If we were to legalise the use of presently illegal drugs their usage would sky rocket.

The problem is, you might be happy with more out of control idiots roaming and driving the streets but I am not.

“'Drugs' is the topic that we’re specifically talking about, not addiction in general.”

It is your failure to connect those two things, drugs use and addiction, which is the white ant of your claim… when you can produce a non-addictive drug, you will be in a different position.

“Tobacco. We have the lowest incidence of tobacco smokers than ever before.”

Not physically addictive nor particularly emotionally addictive, unlike say meth amphetamine, which has a very, very high rate of addiction.

Regarding your website references,

3 are clearly lobby groups seeking to see drugs legalized, the probity of their reviews is dubious.

The courier mail reference is defeatist, re “"no possibility that drug law enforcement can succeed. It's set up to fail,"

So then what, reduce the tax on drugs, feed it to school kids rather than leave it to illegal dealers to feed them.

I would .like us to try executing drug users as well as dealers, before we accept this sort of namby-pamby defeatism.

The Dutch experiment does nothing to address accessibility consequences.

The PLOS Medicine link

“Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy,”

Drug use is influenced by a lot of factors, I suggest when someone knows what they ALL are and their incremental influence, then is the time to decide on strategies. Not before or all you are doing is hoping you are not going down the wrong path… bit like global warming.

BMJ assumes legalisation of drugs will reduce drug related crime. I seriously doubt it will for reasons I have previously posted.

“Drugs could easily be regulated in the same manner that alcohol and tobacco are regulated and, more importantly, heavily taxed.”

And that will negate the efforts to eliminate the illegal black market.

“The price could still be substantially less than current prices on the illicit market, and the revenue generated from the regulation could then be funnelled into education and other rehabilitation programmes.”

The illicit drugs will continue and the purity issues remain because the price will be shift to remain below the legal price. That will see drug dealers pursue new recruits with greater intensity than now, to make up for the commercial losses.

“The pursuit of new recruits” is the real problem.

Legalise drugs and the efforts of illegal drug dealers (also known as “pushers”) will guarantee the already inquisitive young are satisfied and hooked into a downward spiral of addiction and dependency.

Criminalization of drugs of dependency is like a levee. It stops the flood. It is continually tested and needs constant repair and maintenance. This is what the”War on Drugs” is about.

Take away the levee wall and you are opening the flood gates. You have no real idea what will happen

you think it will be all sweetness

Lots of cheap drugs, increased dependency, reduced self reliance (lower tax take by government) and greater social dependency (increased welfare for dependent children whose parents are addicts), as well as drug dependency, the collapse of the social fabric of the state.

What I believe might seem extremely unfashionable, even reactionary.

I do not care. Think of me as reactionary. Better I am reactionary than we hand our children a drug dependent charnel house of corruption, who then have to enforce draconian legislation, as was employed in china in the first part of the 20th century to overcome the plague of addiction it was suffering.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5QEUyLaZYjAC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=drug+use+legalization+effects&source=web&ots=lEMLP2UbhS&sig=uQ5qzi7sQECwteygTXb6EqvpzxI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA98,M1

Check out the table on page 95, all the indicators to increase in drug use and the second to last paragraph on page 98..

“Legalization might indeed open the flood gates”

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990616b.html

“What science has come to show as the "changed" brain of the addict is in fact what we have come to believe causes the compulsion to use drugs. Once a person becomes addicted, they become preoccupied with their quest for seeking and using drugs. The negative consequences that may result from taking the drugs are no longer an important issue for them. It is the behaviors that accompany this compulsion that are the elements responsible for the enormous health and social problems that drug addiction brings in its wake. Drug abuse and addiction have tremendous negative implications for not only the health of the individual, but for the health of the public as well. Drug use, directly or indirectly, is a major factor in crime and delinquency, work productivity, and is a vector for the spread of HIV/AIDS and other serious infectious diseases”

We can go on, I do not intend to make this a competition in finding the most number of references.

The real point is this

The depenalization and decriminalization of drugs of dependency will have an effect on the fabric of the society we have becomes used to living in.

The experiences of the INCIDENCE of financial harm from the legalization of gambling in Victoria and the experience of the increase in longer alcohol licencing hours on alcohol based violence act as clues in predicting the impact of liberalization of addictive drug use

Numbers of users will increase considerably
Numbers of addicts will increase with number of users
Drug related crime will continue and increase because the driver to fund the addiction will not be satisfied by legal drugs.
Illegal drugs will remain a feature by under-pricing legal supplies with cut and contaminated supplies because criminal gangs will not forego their illegal incomes (tobacco chop-chop).

We will have opened Pandora’s box and have no benefits to show for it.

yes like the fabric of our society will be destroyed by gay marriage.

So destroyed that Helen Mirren recently became known as a cocaine user and enjoyed it thoroughly on many occassions. Look at how much damage was done to her career.

Fear-monger.

Col Rouge

Increasingly shrill, he claims:

On Celivia’s valid point:
“Tobacco. We have the lowest incidence of tobacco smokers than ever before.”

Col imagines that: "Not physically addictive nor particularly emotionally addictive, unlike say meth amphetamine, which has a very, very high rate of addiction."

Wrong old man,

>>>”Tobacco is as addictive as heroin (as a mood & behavior altering agent).
• Nicotine is:
o 1000 X more potent than alcohol
o 10-100 X more potent than barbiturates
o 5-10 X more potent than cocaine or morphine
• A 1-2 pack per day smoker takes 200-400 hits daily for years.

This constant intake of a fast acting drug (which affects mood, concentration & performance).. eventually produces dependence.
Pressures to relapse are both behaviorally & pharmacologically triggered.

Quitting involves a significantly serious psychological loss... a serious life style change.” <<<

Source: http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html

Just repeating something doesn’t make it true:

<<<Numbers of users will increase considerably
Numbers of addicts will increase with number of users
Drug related crime will continue and increase because the driver to fund the addiction will not be satisfied by legal drugs.
Illegal drugs will remain a feature by under-pricing legal supplies with cut and contaminated supplies because criminal gangs will not forego their illegal incomes (tobacco chop-chop).>>>

Wrong again (still?). As Celivia has already established, tobacco – a LEGAL drug, has (in spite of tobacco companies efforts) been radically reduced in number of users. Even Col himself admits to finally quitting the nicotine habit.

The same results can be achieved for other drugs.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Yet again, Col offers no evidence for his repetitive claims. In fact one might conclude that Col has an addiction to his beliefs – and is unable to change.

No-one has claimed that the black market will disappear, but it will be massively reduced. While small-time crims will continue their sleazy business, Drug Cartels will lose their market. The big dollars will no longer be there.

And how often do we have to explain to dear old Col, that regulated, quality control combined with education will reduce the numbers of addicts?

Just as regulation, control and education has reduced Tobacco users.

One elephant that keeps evading Col is that many of the adverse medical consequences of illicit drug use result not from drugs themselves but from the practices involved in obtaining drugs. This is also true for the cost to society of addiction including most of the criminal activity. The harm reduction approach to managing addiction acknowledges that for many addicts it is simply unrealistic to expect them to remain drug free. Instead, harm reduction tries to minimize the harm to the individual and to society caused by the person's addiction.

And Col would have the addict: “I would .like us to try executing drug users as well as dealers, before we accept this sort of namby-pamby defeatism.”

Guess we’ll need Nazi style execution to cope with the numbers of drug users.

As a former user of illicit drugs does Col mean I should've been executed? And if so, should I have been murdered back when I was a user or does the death penalty still stand today?

Col claims: "What I believe might seem extremely unfashionable, even reactionary."

Harm reduction has nothing to do with fashion.

Your 'reactionary' stance is more the reaction of someone addicted to authoritarianism than the libertarian you claim to be.

Steel” yes like the fabric of our society will be destroyed by gay marriage.”

Only when you believe you are going to be burgled because someone needs a gay-fix or you are going to get bashed by someone experiencing a psychotic moment because of their sexuality. Or being gay leaves a driver less responsive when driving.

As for Helen Mirren, I wonder how much better she could have been if she had not taken drugs?

Fractelle “Harm reduction has nothing to do with fashion.”

I figure “unavailability” is a

“harm reduction strategy”

which seems to go right past you.

“Yet again, Col offers no evidence for his repetitive claims. In fact one might conclude that Col has an addiction to his beliefs – and is unable to change.”

You are either a liar or completely stupid… which does not matter, because you are also completely ineffectual

Evidence
Gambling in Victoria is evidence
Incidence of violence as a result of longer licencing hours is evidence
25% male population of China in end of 19th century is evidence

Ignoring what is evident is not sustainable

As to the rest of your piffling diatribe of the banal

Some people are born dumb,

some people have dumbness forced upon them

rarely have I seen before but here we have Fractelle

promoting dumbness as a virtue.

But I have grown to expect little else from Fractelle.

and she did write "“As a former user of illicit drugs”

Enough said

“I would like us to try executing drug users as well as dealers, before we accept this sort of namby-pamby defeatism.”

Yes it is called accepting responsibility for ones own actions..

In the best interest of children and the law abiding, those who indulge and participate in illegal drugs use should bear the consequences of their self abuse and dealt with using the ultimate criminal penalty, just as those who profit from the illegal sale of illegal drugs should be dealt with in the most serious manner.

Better we have a society based on accountable people than the charnel house where no one accepts personal accountability.

Fractelle

I'm grateful to Col for taking the time to participate, as I am to other participants for sharing their knowledge. And the difference of opinion has made the thread all the more interesting and informative.

I cannot understand Col's belief that a greater availability would lead to a surge in the number of addicts, when the credible evidence suggests that perhaps less than 5% of the population is susceptible to becoming an addict, and susceptible individuals can become addicted to substances both legal and illegal. In short, the evidence seems to the person over the substance.

Nor can I make much of Cols claim that organised crime would still make similar money from a legal system. As Celivia pointed out, pharmaceutical heroin would cost as much as aspirin to produce. This would reduce the cost of a gram from $1000 to about 16 cents, a 99.98% reduction. Given that an addict could seek a safe and cheap product, I would imagine that the crims would be looking for a more gainful employment, like flipping burgers at a fast food outlet. The biggest danger would be the prohibition inflated arbitrage between countries. No prohibition = no profit.

Fester “I cannot understand Col's belief that a greater availability would lead to a surge in the number of addicts,”

The increase in the number of drug addicts will either remain in line of increase (due to taking more, cheaper hits) in relation to the increasign number of users. The number of user will increase as observed by what actually happened when the state government of Victoria made casino gambling and poker machines “legal”.

Legalization is to effectively condone and accept a practice which is presently considered illegal and criminal.

(It is like this, if rape and burglary were to be made legal, would the number of rapes and burglaries increase of decrease?)

“Nor can I make much of Cols claim that organised crime would still make similar money from a legal system”

If we look at tobacco and alcohol, the price of the delivered product is significantly effected by government taxes and duties.

Regardless, the end-production / wholesale price, the delivered price of any legal product, after tax, will, like tobacco and alcohol be significantly increased.

And against this increased price the criminal elements will find their margin, just like chop-chop tobacco.

Government will supply legalized duty-free (presently illegal) drugs at some time after it decides to remove the duty and taxes from tobacco and alcohol.

And the value lost on unit sales will be compensated for by the increase in the number of users per the observation of gambling in Victoria.

Col

Your assumption is that it is the substance which causes the addiction. My assumption is that addiction is a potential quality of the person, and that only a small percentage of the population has this quality.

"It is like this, if rape and burglary were to be made legal, would the number of rapes and burglaries increase of decrease?"

More to the point, would people be committing such acts because they were legal, or because their character allowed them to commit such acts? Perhaps there is a point at which external stresses might bend one's character and make it fit for such acts. An example might be the compulsion of an addict to satisfy an addiction. So supplying drugs to an addict could reduce crime, and this is what has been observed. Comparing drug taking with rape and burglary also seems unreasonable to me. Perhaps you could expand on how taking heroin is so much like rape?

"And against this increased price the criminal elements will find their margin, just like chop-chop tobacco."

The money made from chop-chop is minuscule compared to the legal trade. And you wont find many willing truckies to transport it either, as to get caught is to lose your rig. Do you know of anyone smoking chop-chop? Is it in the media of late? The tax office was worried a while back, but the police crackdown was quick and very effective. How effective would it have been were the price ten fold or 100 fold?

What I would like to see is the careful trial of ideas. This will give an idea of what works and what doesn't. It will also indicate whether your beliefs are well founded. As far as I can make out, your ideas seem more based in personal experience and trauma than an uninterested evaluation of evidence.

Fester I acknowledge some people have a greater genetic propensity to addiction than others, just as if you have a Celtic heritage, you have a greater propensity to have ginger hair and freckles and intolerance to a lot of sunlight, if you are negro, you have a higher risk of sickle cell anemia or if your parents have heart problems, you are more likely to have heart problems and if your parents have a history of substance abuse, you are likely to have a greater propensity than other folk to substance abuse.

If your mum or dad was an alcoholic or drug addict, avoid taking drugs and over-imbibing.

As for all these “qualities”, I fail to see anyone acquiring “quality” from being a “junkie”. You can only be the most you can be, taking drugs and excessive alcohol reduces who you are and substitutes a temporary caricature of something else, the negatives far exceed any temporary “positives” of the caricature.

I disagree with your assertion that legalization of presently illegal substances will not cause a seriously increase in their use based on reasons previously stated and illustrated.

“Do you know of anyone smoking chop-chop?” yes

My use of the chop-chop illustration is valid
The “scale” is irrelevant.

Every month a road roller is used to destroy bootleg CDs seized. They are cheaper than the real thing (because the distributor steals from the copyright and royalty holder). The same will apply to the excise free drugs which would compete if a legal version were available.

Africa is awash with fake medication because the profit to be made from bootleg pharmaceuticals, which do not contain real medicines and are not manufactured in a properly maintained environment.

What happens is the illegal product will always find its way into the market if a price opportunity exists.

as we know with tobacco excise, the price opportunity exists, just as it will with drugs of dependency.

An illegal market, based on marginal pricing, exists for every product (legality regardless) and you arguing / pretending it does not only shows a high degree of naivety

fester “As far as I can make out, your ideas seem more based in personal experience and trauma than an uninterested evaluation of evidence.”

I have previously stated my support for the “medicinal supply” of cannabis.

I suppose you are suggesting I should ignore the evidence presented before my own eyes in favour of some theory being bandied around by social reformers who erroneously believe the world will be a safer place when we let drug dealers sell likely-polluted but price-competitive substances to the weaker minded (you have to be if you take drugs) at prices below a legal supply and to school children ?

Because the scum, who I would see executed but who you think is worth whatever, work on school children now and they will in the future, regardless of creating a legal supply.

Legal alternatives will not reduce the attraction or opportunity of the illegal supply, regardless of the your theories, as my previous post details.

“increase in street violence since licensed drinking times were extended.”
Good point. Isn’t it terrible that some pubs have to serve alcohol in plastic cups instead of glasses because of violence? Last week on the news they announced that 80% of hospital admissions during weekends are alcohol related. Alcohol induced violence and accidents are most occurring on Saturday nights.
Something needs to happen to reduce these incidences. For a starter, no more alcohol should be served to people who obviously had too much to drink already.

However, I wouldn’t like to see alcohol decriminalised because that would punish all light to moderate drinkers.

“say opium was criminalized in China and usage dropped.”
But Col, there is a large range of drugs that are criminalised all over the world including China. Has usage stopped anywhere despite draconian measures?
Before prohibition, when people could buy drugs from their pharmacy, there were no pushers. Prices were average, and in line with other drugs or remedies sold over the counter.
“Images from the preprohibition era when many psychotropic substances were legally available in America and Europe.”
http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm

"If we were to legalise the use of presently illegal drugs their usage would sky rocket."
Well that’s your speculation.
Mine is that drugs would be strictly regulated and the black market would shrink.
Some of the links I provided showed that when drugs are tolerated in combination with a harm reduction program, usage remains in balance and definitely does not increase.
That’s not surprising because whether drugs are illegal or legal, people have access to drugs all over the world.

While drugs have always been there, casinos have not; they’re quite recent.
If gamblers had had as much access to illegal casino’s as drug users have to illegal drugs, then we wouldn’t have seen an increase in gambling- it would just have been out in the open.

Since you agree with medical cannabis and morphine I wonder if you agree with prescribing heroin as an alternative to, or in combination with methadone as part of rehab programs?

Continued...

"The problem is, you might be happy with more out of control idiots roaming and driving the streets but I am not."
What makes you think I’d be happy about that?
I’ve been advocating harm reduction consistently. You just assume, without evidence, that drug abuse will increase when it is legalised. You refuse to consider that when drugs are legalised there can be more control over it than there is now, and regulation too.
I reiterate that taking drugs persé shouldn’t be a crime- it’s government interference in people’s private life and choices- but driving under influence should be treated like a crime, just like drink-driving is punishable.

“Tobacco… Not physically addictive nor particularly emotionally addictive”
Now I’ve heard it all!
While I agree that most illicit drugs can be addictive, and some more than others, they don’t have to be addictive for everyone. As Fester pointed out, it can depend on the personality. There can be many aspects involved in drug addiction, and medical scientists are still not done with investigating addiction.
Some people are even addicted to a placebo!
Not sure why you say that Fractelle is dumb- I think she has made a great argument that tobacco is addictive, where as you just claimed that tobacco is not addictive without a source of that information.

"So then what, reduce the tax on drugs, feed it to school kids rather than leave it to illegal dealers to feed them."
Not sure what you mean. How many licensed alcohol sellers feed alcohol to school kids? They can lose their license and be fined. Why would that be different in the case of licensed drug sellers?

”I would like us to try executing drug users as well as dealers…”
Perhaps build a number of orphanages first.
Glad to see you deviate from Libertarian philosophy and now wanna be like communist China was.

“…assumes legalisation of drugs will reduce drug related crime. I seriously doubt it will. ..“.
Well, I gave you an example about the managing of the heroin addicts in Utrecht where harm reduction works to reduce crime.

Continued

”The illicit drugs will continue…”
Yes but the illegal market will shrink so that it’s more manageable.

”…and the purity issues remain because the price will be shift to remain below the legal price. “
Yes, but users will have the choice whether they want to take the risk and buy illegal drugs.

”drug dealers pursue new recruits with greater intensity than now, to make up for the commercial losses.”
AHA isn’t that what happens every time a drug gang is arrested or drugs are seized?
The drug business becomes a little more risky, which means a little more profitable than before because demand does not reduce.
But when drugs are legalised, the demand from the illegal market DOES reduce because now the drugs are legally obtainable.
Drug dealers may get a proper job, perhaps even get their license to open up their own little cozy legal drug store.

People, I've not been replying promptly as I'm very busy atm.
Forgive me if I am a bit slow with my comments- I do follow the discussion whenever I can as I find it interesting.
I also need a breather and do something else or I'll become too emotionally involved.

Like Fester, I want to find out as much as possible and look at different viewpoints and yes, everybody's contribution is valued no matter what the stance.

BTW Col,
the link to the book Drug War Heresies looks like a good read.
I hope to get some time later on to read more of it because I think it will help me to get a wider perspective.
Have you read the whole book? From skimming it, it seems pretty balanced.

Celevia “Has usage stopped anywhere despite draconian measures?””

Not stopped but reduced.

“Before prohibition, when people could buy drugs from their pharmacy, there were no pushers. Prices were average, ..."

Not sure the model of a “modern pharmacist” is an accurate one for that time.

“Images from the preprohibition era when many psychotropic substances were legally available in America and Europe.”

And these products were in their natural state, not refined, opium versus heroin, chewing coco leaves, not snorting or injecting the active substance. Old style Hash, versus the more powerful versions of marijuana.

“Well that’s your speculation.”

Speculation based on observation and facts from

Gambling in Victoria
Longer Licensing hours in Victoria
The opposite of criminalization in China.

You are talking synonyms, all predictions are "speculation".

But I have more confidence, if ever legalized, in the "Probability" of an explosion in drug use than usage remaining the same or declining. I would put money on it.

The same way you would agree with me the incidence of rape would explode, should it be declared “legal”.

“While drugs have always been there, casinos have not; they’re quite recent.”

Gambling probably predates drug use, casinos have been around for centuries in Europe but they are merely the venue, not the "substance" of ganbling. Victoria demonstrates the conserquences of a change.

“I wonder if you agree with prescribing heroin as an alternative to, or in combination with methadone as part of rehab programs?”

Strictly in rehabiliatation, monitored and supervised and inspected but I would object to a government “shooting up parlour” in my street and thus anywhere else.

“You just assume, without evidence, that drug abuse will increase when it is legalised.”

And you "assume" it won't.

This is a repeat, the harm to non-users will increase with the greater prevalence of drug use as previously “speculated” on.

“Some people are even addicted to a placebo!”

Genetic susceptibility to addiction. I could even give you some names of people I know.

However, the law is blind, it does not distinguish between colour, height, race or genetically inherited characteristics (and nor should it).

“Fractelle is dumb”

anyone who hurls ad hominines at me, thinking they will go unchallenged, is dumb.

“Why would that be different in the case of licensed drug sellers?”

Because the unlicencable dealers, biker gangs etc. would not go away.

“Glad to see you deviate from Libertarian philosophy and now wanna be like communist China was.”

That is coincidence.

Libertarian philosophy believes in people being free but accountable for their actions.
Illegal drug users risk their own and other peoples lives in their abuse of illegal substances.

Those who think freedom comes without responsibility are called anarchists.

I happened to note this as I read the herald sun, over breakfast this morning

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24300797-2862,00.html

I can think of at least three families who would sooner have seen this drug crazed bastard executed before he got into his car.

(Note same Paper, compared to 10 years ago, swing increase in those opposing legalization of cannabis and on abortion, only 4% think it should be illegal)

“Yes but the illegal market will shrink so that it’s more manageable…. Yes, but users will have the choice whether they want to take the risk and buy illegal drugs.”

And

“But when drugs are legalised, the demand from the illegal market DOES reduce because now the drugs are legally obtainable.”

Wrong, the gross number of users will increase, absorbing the legal supply and likely increasing overall demand for the “price point advantaged” illegal supply.

“Drug dealers may get a proper job, perhaps even get their license to open up their own little cozy legal drug store.”

HA HA That is “out with the pixies” thinking and you know it.

I really can’t seriously believe you would even suggest that C….

“People, I've not been replying promptly as I'm very busy atm.”

Despite our different views, I always value and seek out your responses, C and hope to rise to opposing them with reason : - ),

“Have you read the whole book? From skimming it, it seems pretty balanced.”

No, like you, we are all “busy”, life continues…

Hi Col,
I have also enjoyed the discussion despite disagreements.
I’m not going to attempt to refute your previous arguments simply because you probably already can guess my responses and I can anticipate yours.

I simply don’t have anything new to add to the particular cycle of arguments we’ve had, so at this stage I’d need to do some more research for new information.

The point you made about the chop-chop industry is one that I found the most challenging - I don’t know a lot about that and must do some reading.
Any suggestions are welcome.

The point I made that I found you refuted the least strongly is that tobacco use has significantly reduced because it’s treated as a health issue, regulated and controlled.
I want this argument to remain standing because it might well be the key to how we want to deal with other drug abuse in the future (when they finally realise that there must be a better way to reduce drug abuse than same old same old prohibition).
To educate the public about the dangers of smoking and strict rules/regulations have been effective in creating a reduced demand for tobacco.

Why would harm reduction and demand reduction policies and programs not be effective in creating a reduced demand for many other drugs as well?

One thing I might have overlooked to say is that there is quite a lot of information about the link between the illegal drug market criminals and terrorism.
For example, “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise Enables Terrorism”
http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm

May I suggest you do some reading about this, as I understand that your main concern is the (potential) harm of illicit drug abuse to non-users of drugs, such as their safety.
I will do some more reading on that myself as well.
Perhaps the time has come (for me) to round off this discussion because of the lack of new facts and information.
Thank you all!

Celivia

Thank you for your patience and perseverance on this topic. You are, by far, more polite and tolerant than I.

An interesting book has been written by an associate professor at Monash University, Tony Taylor, titled “Denial: History Betrayed”
He analyses major cases in 20th and 21st centuries that illustrate the nature of prejudice and how it relates to techniques of the instigators of denial, including their use of popular media and the Internet. At a time when most debates seem to accept the arguments of the deniers at face value the book will focus on the pathology of denial as an abuse of history through distortion of events and self-deception.

I mention this book, because of Col’s continued stance on illegal drugs. He is not interested in truth – just finding opportunities for self-aggrandisement and wilful insult to his OLO peers. Oooops, I guess I should be very afraid, Col will doubtless, hurl another load of self-righteous bile for this jibe. Just can’t help myself, Col is such fun to poke a stick at. I love it when he gets all emotional.

To everyone else who have contributed, I thank you. I enjoy a challenge and have learnt much in researching the subject for this debate.

That there is no easy ‘magic bullet’ answer for the problem of drug addiction is very clear. That we can no longer continue to put our heads in the sand and hope that zero tolerance will make the problem go away is undeniable.