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.