http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5QEUyLaZYjAC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=drug+use+legalization+effects&source=web&ots=lEMLP2UbhS&sig=uQ5qzi7sQECwteygTXb6EqvpzxI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA98,M1

Check out the table on page 95, all the indicators to increase in drug use and the second to last paragraph on page 98..

“Legalization might indeed open the flood gates”

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990616b.html

“What science has come to show as the "changed" brain of the addict is in fact what we have come to believe causes the compulsion to use drugs. Once a person becomes addicted, they become preoccupied with their quest for seeking and using drugs. The negative consequences that may result from taking the drugs are no longer an important issue for them. It is the behaviors that accompany this compulsion that are the elements responsible for the enormous health and social problems that drug addiction brings in its wake. Drug abuse and addiction have tremendous negative implications for not only the health of the individual, but for the health of the public as well. Drug use, directly or indirectly, is a major factor in crime and delinquency, work productivity, and is a vector for the spread of HIV/AIDS and other serious infectious diseases”

We can go on, I do not intend to make this a competition in finding the most number of references.

The real point is this

The depenalization and decriminalization of drugs of dependency will have an effect on the fabric of the society we have becomes used to living in.

The experiences of the INCIDENCE of financial harm from the legalization of gambling in Victoria and the experience of the increase in longer alcohol licencing hours on alcohol based violence act as clues in predicting the impact of liberalization of addictive drug use

Numbers of users will increase considerably
Numbers of addicts will increase with number of users
Drug related crime will continue and increase because the driver to fund the addiction will not be satisfied by legal drugs.
Illegal drugs will remain a feature by under-pricing legal supplies with cut and contaminated supplies because criminal gangs will not forego their illegal incomes (tobacco chop-chop).

We will have opened Pandora’s box and have no benefits to show for it.

yes like the fabric of our society will be destroyed by gay marriage.

So destroyed that Helen Mirren recently became known as a cocaine user and enjoyed it thoroughly on many occassions. Look at how much damage was done to her career.

Fear-monger.

Col Rouge

Increasingly shrill, he claims:

On Celivia’s valid point:
“Tobacco. We have the lowest incidence of tobacco smokers than ever before.”

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

Wrong old man,

>>>”Tobacco is as addictive as heroin (as a mood & behavior altering agent).
• Nicotine is:
o 1000 X more potent than alcohol
o 10-100 X more potent than barbiturates
o 5-10 X more potent than cocaine or morphine
• A 1-2 pack per day smoker takes 200-400 hits daily for years.

This constant intake of a fast acting drug (which affects mood, concentration & performance).. eventually produces dependence.
Pressures to relapse are both behaviorally & pharmacologically triggered.

Quitting involves a significantly serious psychological loss... a serious life style change.” <<<

Source: http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html

Just repeating something doesn’t make it true:

<<<Numbers of users will increase considerably
Numbers of addicts will increase with number of users
Drug related crime will continue and increase because the driver to fund the addiction will not be satisfied by legal drugs.
Illegal drugs will remain a feature by under-pricing legal supplies with cut and contaminated supplies because criminal gangs will not forego their illegal incomes (tobacco chop-chop).>>>

Wrong again (still?). As Celivia has already established, tobacco – a LEGAL drug, has (in spite of tobacco companies efforts) been radically reduced in number of users. Even Col himself admits to finally quitting the nicotine habit.

The same results can be achieved for other drugs.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Yet again, Col offers no evidence for his repetitive claims. In fact one might conclude that Col has an addiction to his beliefs – and is unable to change.

No-one has claimed that the black market will disappear, but it will be massively reduced. While small-time crims will continue their sleazy business, Drug Cartels will lose their market. The big dollars will no longer be there.

And how often do we have to explain to dear old Col, that regulated, quality control combined with education will reduce the numbers of addicts?

Just as regulation, control and education has reduced Tobacco users.

One elephant that keeps evading Col is that many of the adverse medical consequences of illicit drug use result not from drugs themselves but from the practices involved in obtaining drugs. This is also true for the cost to society of addiction including most of the criminal activity. The harm reduction approach to managing addiction acknowledges that for many addicts it is simply unrealistic to expect them to remain drug free. Instead, harm reduction tries to minimize the harm to the individual and to society caused by the person's addiction.

And Col would have the addict: “I would .like us to try executing drug users as well as dealers, before we accept this sort of namby-pamby defeatism.”

Guess we’ll need Nazi style execution to cope with the numbers of drug users.

As a former user of illicit drugs does Col mean I should've been executed? And if so, should I have been murdered back when I was a user or does the death penalty still stand today?

Col claims: "What I believe might seem extremely unfashionable, even reactionary."

Harm reduction has nothing to do with fashion.

Your 'reactionary' stance is more the reaction of someone addicted to authoritarianism than the libertarian you claim to be.

Steel” yes like the fabric of our society will be destroyed by gay marriage.”

Only when you believe you are going to be burgled because someone needs a gay-fix or you are going to get bashed by someone experiencing a psychotic moment because of their sexuality. Or being gay leaves a driver less responsive when driving.

As for Helen Mirren, I wonder how much better she could have been if she had not taken drugs?

Fractelle “Harm reduction has nothing to do with fashion.”

I figure “unavailability” is a

“harm reduction strategy”

which seems to go right past you.

“Yet again, Col offers no evidence for his repetitive claims. In fact one might conclude that Col has an addiction to his beliefs – and is unable to change.”

You are either a liar or completely stupid… which does not matter, because you are also completely ineffectual

Evidence
Gambling in Victoria is evidence
Incidence of violence as a result of longer licencing hours is evidence
25% male population of China in end of 19th century is evidence

Ignoring what is evident is not sustainable

As to the rest of your piffling diatribe of the banal

Some people are born dumb,

some people have dumbness forced upon them

rarely have I seen before but here we have Fractelle

promoting dumbness as a virtue.

But I have grown to expect little else from Fractelle.

and she did write "“As a former user of illicit drugs”

Enough said

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

Yes it is called accepting responsibility for ones own actions..

In the best interest of children and the law abiding, those who indulge and participate in illegal drugs use should bear the consequences of their self abuse and dealt with using the ultimate criminal penalty, just as those who profit from the illegal sale of illegal drugs should be dealt with in the most serious manner.

Better we have a society based on accountable people than the charnel house where no one accepts personal accountability.

Fractelle

I'm grateful to Col for taking the time to participate, as I am to other participants for sharing their knowledge. And the difference of opinion has made the thread all the more interesting and informative.

I cannot understand Col's belief that a greater availability would lead to a surge in the number of addicts, when the credible evidence suggests that perhaps less than 5% of the population is susceptible to becoming an addict, and susceptible individuals can become addicted to substances both legal and illegal. In short, the evidence seems to the person over the substance.

Nor can I make much of Cols claim that organised crime would still make similar money from a legal system. As Celivia pointed out, pharmaceutical heroin would cost as much as aspirin to produce. This would reduce the cost of a gram from $1000 to about 16 cents, a 99.98% reduction. Given that an addict could seek a safe and cheap product, I would imagine that the crims would be looking for a more gainful employment, like flipping burgers at a fast food outlet. The biggest danger would be the prohibition inflated arbitrage between countries. No prohibition = no profit.