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