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.