CJ Morgan “Unsurprisingly, it seems that Col's not only out of step with most OLOers on this subject, but he's also out of step with most Australians:

Australians back medical marijuana, heroin injecting rooms.”

Maybe you could see where I have argued against the medical use of marijuana and where anyone has mentioned heroin injection rooms prior to now.

When you can, you will be right…,

Until then, you are just confirming what I have observed in most of your post….

A snide opportunist so desperate for acclaim at any cost that he reduces OLO to some form of popularity contest

Who has it wrong but for whom reason and accuracy is a secondary consideration to ego and cheap shots.

So I guess you didn't bother to read the article then, Col?

A major current survey conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare indicates that a strong majority of Australians support significant relaxation of current laws against cannabis and the provision of harm minimisation strategies for heroin users, and the best that Col can do is slag off at me because I brought it to his attention in the context of this discussion.

Why am I not surprised?

Col,
“If you legalize other drugs (heroin, cocaine, amphetamines cannabis etc) you will see a far higher incidence of use than now”
You believe that without evidence.
If there is indeed a strong connection then I’d like to see evidence of that. As far as I’m concerned, gambling and drugs are different addictions and involve different sub-groups of the population.

I, on the other hand, have evidence/indication that drug policies don't influence the level of drug use.
'Drugs' is the topic that we’re specifically talking about, not addiction in general.

1. Tobacco.
We have the lowest incidence of tobacco smokers than ever before.

2. Cannabis.
Places with liberal marijuana policies experience no higher use than places with stringent policies:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383
” Findings from dozens of government-commissioned and academic studies published over the past 25 years overwhelmingly affirm that liberalizing marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in marijuana consumption or affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use.”
"It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy."
- Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.

3. Treating the drug problem as a health and social welfare issue results in a decreased drug market:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21603780-5003402,00.html#
"Other governments around the world have already stopped pretending we can arrest and imprison our way out of this problem."
Dr Wodak said it had been proven that a health and social welfare approach to drugs shrinks the drug market to a size law enforcement agencies can tackle.
"The problem now is the drug industry is so large that there is no possibility that drug law enforcement can succeed. It's set up to fail," he said.

But wait, there's more...

And
http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/drugs/default.asp
"Drug policy in the Netherlands aims to reduce the demand for drugs, the supply of drugs and the risks to drug users, their immediate surroundings and society. The Dutch policy on drugs has been reasonably successful compared to the policies pursued in other countries, especially when it comes to prevention and care. The number of users of various types of drugs is no greater than in other countries, while the figure for drug-related deaths, at 2.4 per million inhabitants, is the lowest in Europe."

And
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/editorial_drug_laws_dont_affect_drug_use
“… academics from around the world determined that "[d]rug use does not appear to be related to drug policy, as countries with more stringent policies (e.g., the US) did not have lower levels of illegal drug use than countries with more liberal policies (e.g., The Netherlands)."

And

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141&ct=1
”Research article. Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys
Conclusions
Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones.”

4. Decriminalisation of hard drugs and harm reduction programs has decreased the number of heroin addicts:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7627/966
“Decriminalising drugs has paid off in the Netherlands. Decriminalisation of heroin and other hard drugs has allowed addicts to be treated as patients. As a result hardly any new heroin addicts are registered,3 while existing users are supported and have been helped to get jobs.
Drugs could easily be regulated in the same manner that alcohol and tobacco are regulated and, more importantly, heavily taxed.
The price could still be substantially less than current prices on the illicit market, and the revenue generated from the regulation could then be funnelled into education and other rehabilitation programmes.”

In short, there's no evidence that legalisation/decriminalisation will increase the incidence of drug use.

Celivia “If there is indeed a strong connection then I’d like to see evidence of that.”

Evidence is the increase in gambling problems since it was legalised in Victoria
Evidence in the increase in street violence since licenced drinking times were extended
Evidence also in when things go the other way… say opium was criminalized in China and usage dropped.

If we were to legalise the use of presently illegal drugs their usage would sky rocket.

The problem is, you might be happy with more out of control idiots roaming and driving the streets but I am not.

“'Drugs' is the topic that we’re specifically talking about, not addiction in general.”

It is your failure to connect those two things, drugs use and addiction, which is the white ant of your claim… when you can produce a non-addictive drug, you will be in a different position.

“Tobacco. We have the lowest incidence of tobacco smokers than ever before.”

Not physically addictive nor particularly emotionally addictive, unlike say meth amphetamine, which has a very, very high rate of addiction.

Regarding your website references,

3 are clearly lobby groups seeking to see drugs legalized, the probity of their reviews is dubious.

The courier mail reference is defeatist, re “"no possibility that drug law enforcement can succeed. It's set up to fail,"

So then what, reduce the tax on drugs, feed it to school kids rather than leave it to illegal dealers to feed them.

I would .like us to try executing drug users as well as dealers, before we accept this sort of namby-pamby defeatism.

The Dutch experiment does nothing to address accessibility consequences.

The PLOS Medicine link

“Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy,”

Drug use is influenced by a lot of factors, I suggest when someone knows what they ALL are and their incremental influence, then is the time to decide on strategies. Not before or all you are doing is hoping you are not going down the wrong path… bit like global warming.

BMJ assumes legalisation of drugs will reduce drug related crime. I seriously doubt it will for reasons I have previously posted.

“Drugs could easily be regulated in the same manner that alcohol and tobacco are regulated and, more importantly, heavily taxed.”

And that will negate the efforts to eliminate the illegal black market.

“The price could still be substantially less than current prices on the illicit market, and the revenue generated from the regulation could then be funnelled into education and other rehabilitation programmes.”

The illicit drugs will continue and the purity issues remain because the price will be shift to remain below the legal price. That will see drug dealers pursue new recruits with greater intensity than now, to make up for the commercial losses.

“The pursuit of new recruits” is the real problem.

Legalise drugs and the efforts of illegal drug dealers (also known as “pushers”) will guarantee the already inquisitive young are satisfied and hooked into a downward spiral of addiction and dependency.

Criminalization of drugs of dependency is like a levee. It stops the flood. It is continually tested and needs constant repair and maintenance. This is what the”War on Drugs” is about.

Take away the levee wall and you are opening the flood gates. You have no real idea what will happen

you think it will be all sweetness

Lots of cheap drugs, increased dependency, reduced self reliance (lower tax take by government) and greater social dependency (increased welfare for dependent children whose parents are addicts), as well as drug dependency, the collapse of the social fabric of the state.

What I believe might seem extremely unfashionable, even reactionary.

I do not care. Think of me as reactionary. Better I am reactionary than we hand our children a drug dependent charnel house of corruption, who then have to enforce draconian legislation, as was employed in china in the first part of the 20th century to overcome the plague of addiction it was suffering.