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.