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.