Nicky

Question

Do you think capital punishment should apply to people who knowingly inflict suffering - such as live animal exporters?
You will probably say ‘no’ that the Government should Ban it.
My point is when you knowingly inflict that degree of suffering on any other living creature you certainly doing not deserve assistance of any kind.
It’s the same with drug dealers because make no mistake they fully know, but they don’t care, about anything but the money- just like live animal exporters.

You say you were in the prison system and many of the people that were there would not have been there without drugs.
My experience of getting them into prison for years paints a different story. First you have the poor parents that are victims of drug dealers who lost a loved one- closely followed by the good doers saying don’t goal him your honor he was only dealing to pay for his habit? Someone give me a hanky. I

What about the victims and their families.

What a waste of tax payer’s money. Then you will possible raise the argument of the younger ones busted on pot that probably shouldn’t be there. Again my point. If it were decimalized your younger soft target wouldn’t be in goal.

That would leave more time and resources to target dealers. Of course you would also be aware the drugs are available in prison.

May I enquire what you mean by the following? =
Will the government start compromising welfare recipients because they drink/smoke/use drugs?

IMOP Welfare people should not be given cash if they drink or take drugs- ‘simply.’
pls don’t think I am having a go at you because I am not.

I just get irritable and frustrated by all the warm fuzzy feeling going out to the dealers

First, I would like to congratulate Celivia for daring to mention ‘the elephant in the room’. That is: Pot, ecstasy, speed etc are fun. Agreed, there is nothing like a superb glass of cabernet sauvignon with a sumptuous meal. But for relaxing - pot; for partying - coke or speed.

And while, I no longer go night-clubbing like I used to (no more speed for me) I do intend spending my retirement growing a few plants for my own consumption – nothing like a relaxed old age.

That a minority of people will abuse all drugs is a given. That we could manage this problem better than we have is yet to be seen. Until then…

The war on drugs is a failure.

And will continue to be so while the law attacks the users instead of controlling the production of drugs themselves. Many of us have already referred to the medicinal value of many of these drugs. We have also noted that the quality could be controlled if legitimised; less deaths by overdose being just one example.

There is no magic bullet. But legalisation will eliminate to a great extent the black market trade. It won’t be perfect, yes ‘chop-chop’ tobacco, home distilling of alcohol, and all the other assorted drugs will still be available.

However, the huge profits the black markets are currently making would be severely curtailed. And the growers of opium or cannabis would have a legitimate income stream – as I have already pointed out with regard to Afghanistan.

Until then…business as usual...

Al Qaida, the Taliban, and drug cartels the world over continue to profit because the demand for their business continues. Illegality makes very little difference to this trade. Yet it could be reduced a lot if our governments simply had the cojones.

Finally, PALE.
ROFL.
I have no doubt that if I claimed the sky is blue you would claim it is green – such is the absurdity of your posts

Fester “A genetic predisposition puts drug addicts in a similar category to diabetics.”

And diabetics can avoid the consequences of their diabetes by controlling their diet.

Your point, that becoming a junkie is the result of some random fatalistic process of genetic accident would apply if drugs were legal.

As it is, drugs are illegal and a drug addict therefore cannot compare themselves to a diabetic because “sugar” is not an addictive or mind altering substance.

“The research I cited found your figure to be out by a factor of 10. Dr Newman”

Maybe Dr Newman is a egoistic aberration, common evidence is he is only right in the same way David Irving is right about the holocaust and in conflict with recorded events.

Fractelle “The war on drugs is a failure.”

Nothing new from this quarter,

same old Rubbish,

“Many of us have already referred to the medicinal value of many of these drugs.”

“Medicinal values” tend to be satisfied on volumes significantly lower than the intake used to get high.

“Al Qaida, the Taliban, and drug cartels the world over continue to profit because the demand for their business continues. Illegality makes very little difference to this trade. Yet it could be reduced a lot if our governments simply had the cojones.”

Flies in the face of the evidence of the Victorian gambling results.

Anything which becomes “legal” has a social endorsement and acceptability which does not exist when a thing is illegal. If presently illegal drugs were sold legally you would get a network of the equivalent of tobacconists on every corner,

The difference, having a quiet fag does not leave the user "spaced out" on the pavement (like heroin) or raging at passing traffic and attacking other people (like Meth amphetamine) and I have never seem someone “overdose” on cigarettes.

I do not know what sort of horror you want to leave to your descendants but that is something I will do my utmost to ensure does not become the “norm”

Hi all
I don't pretend to have the solution to this, but I do not believe that Australia should go down the path of capital punishment under any circumstances. In my experience, the "soft targets" are only incarcerated if they are also dealing or are serial and serious (repeat) offenders. Unfortunately, usually they come out of prison worse people than they went in, and the prison systems are hopelessly inadequate in terms of addiction and pre-release programs.

On the other hand, those who manufacture "Ice" and like drugs are more deserving of the worst the prison systems have to offer, and believe me, that can be pretty bad. If you keep a maximum security inmate locked in a cell for 23 hours a day, what is going to do to them?

It is more cost-effective to address the issues effectively while they are in prison and better prepare them for release back into society so that they do not re-acquaint themselves with old associates and old habits. It's a bit of a pipe dream, because justice/corrections are not vote winners, so do not get the funding needed to address the problems - hence the "revolving door" we see in terms of recidivism. Unfortunately, it's usually the dumb ones who are in prison; the key players are too smart for that.

PALE, are you suggesting that we should "hang live exporters by the neck until they are dead"?

Nicky

Col

"Maybe Dr Newman is a egoistic aberration, common evidence is he is only right in the same way David Irving is right about the holocaust and in conflict with recorded events."

You continue your absurd and defamatory attack on a respected and accomplished historian. Dr Newman's reputation is based on dedicated scholarship, whereas David Irving, according to this website,

http://www.geocities.com/irving_challenger/

"tends to distort, bend or entirely falsify the truth.". This might be why Dr Newman has been made a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society by his peers, whereas David Irving is generally despised.

"Your point, that becoming a junkie is the result of some random fatalistic process of genetic accident would apply if drugs were legal."

No, Col. The point is that exposure to drugs or sugar will only result in addiction in genetically susceptible individuals. It raises the possibility of genetic testing to determine susceptibility. And as the development of a drug addiction requires factors in addition to genetic susceptibility, it is unlikely to develop solely on the basis of availability. And I would point out that I am advocating availability under strict regulation, not unregulated legalisation.

"As it is, drugs are illegal and a drug addict therefore cannot compare themselves to a diabetic because “sugar” is not an addictive or mind altering substance."

Sugar may be an addictive substance according to this site:

http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_sugarAddiction

"Drug addiction often includes three steps. A person will increase his intake of the drug, experience withdrawal symptoms when access to the drug is cut off and then face an urge to relapse back into drug use. Rats on sugar have similar experiences. Researchers withheld food for 12 hours and then gave rats food plus sugar water. This created a cycle of binging where the animals increased their daily sugar intake until it doubled. When researchers either stopped the diet or administered an opioid blocker the rats showed signs common to drug withdrawal, such as teeth-chattering and the shakes. Early findings also indicate signs of relapse. Rats weaned off sugar repeatedly pressed a lever that previously dispensed the sweet solution."

"Ban addictive things because they are bad. Except the legal ones..."

*YAWN*

Our society will be going nowhere fast (...in fact i think it's showing strong signs of regression right now...) if people keep up this premise that things should be banned because the government says so or because it 'offends' a certain group. We accept risks related to automotive industry and we try to minimise the negatives. A similar system could be applied to drugs. There really is no credible disagreement to be had on that-only appeals to fear, general pouting or ideological opposition. All the arguments I've seen opposing this qualify only as one of those.