Col Rouge's post in particular made wonder why it is so hard for some people to get past just thinking "drugs harms kids" and move onto thinking how to do something constructive about it.

You might start by listing all the negative effects they have on society:
1. Makes criminals better off by creating a monopoly market for them,
2. Corrupts our police force by exposing them to that money,
3. Costs huge of money to police and prosecute,
4. The cost of the drug may financially harm the user,
5. Increases petty crime (drug users paying for their habit),
6. Poor quality control of drugs endangers the lives of users,
7. Creates an underground economy whose produce can't be taxed or exported,
8. The drug itself may harm the health of the user.

There is an implicit assumption behind Col's list - that making drugs illegal reduces their usage. Lets assume that is true. So how many of those 8 items are going to be made worse by making them legal? Definitely the last, as there will be more users so more people will be harmed. No 4 is a bit iffy, as the cost of the drugs will drop. And the rest? Most don't just get better, they go away completely.

And this if the "legalising will increase usage" assumption is correct. It probably isn't, given drug usage is lower in Holland when drug use is legal compared to surrounding countries where it isn't. Put that together with us being perfectly happy to let people make their own choices on whether to engage in just about any other dangerous activity and I wonder why we are having this debate at all.

It looks to me a portion of posters to OLO are not brave enough to go rational thought leads them. Instead they are paralysed into inaction. What is the worst that could happen it we made drugs legal? It all goes to pot and we have to make them illegal again?

Steel “Because a certain proportion of people have bad effects doesn't mean everyone has them.”

Not many folk end up with caffeine psychosis

A few end up alcoholics

As an ex smoker I can tell you, my withdraw from nicotine was relatively mild, despite a 25 year habit, all I needed was a good enough reason (and I had a good enough reason)


But the probability with illegal drugs of an adverse effect is more likely and the significance more debilitating.

I know I was quoting a variety of web sites, government, medical etc. are you suggesting I will get more reliable info off some counter-culture ‘junkies-r-us’ site funded by some Columbian commercial interest?

US “Drugs have a risk involved, as do many fun activities”

But not many ‘fun activities’ are physically addictive or risk singificant withdraw problems, except possibly, gambling and paying women to pole dance.

“Because drugs are freely available regardless of how much the police sieze, or how many dealers they catch. May I turn this question around Col. What IS actually being achieved?”

Well, compared to the 25% addiction rate among male Chinese in 1904, when opium was a legal and available narcotic, I would say a lot.

“Cocaine, believe it or not is actually one of the mildest drugs,”

depending upon how much you use, which the sources I read said was at an escalating rate to avoid the ‘crash’.

“What the government should really be doing, is creating a super drug,”

I have enough problems dealing with governments with too much power.

If it ever came to institutionalized drug use, we will all loose our individuality and ultimately our liberty.

The last thing I want is a government developing things people become addicted to, welfare is bad enough.

Still having trouble getting over the hysteria I see, Col.

Where do you stand on people taking on risky investments?

Several times I've been going to post to this thread, but every time until now it's been distracted into some extraneous obsession or other so I haven't bothered.

However, rstuart's excellent summary of the issues prompts me to (firstly) thank Usual Suspect for raising an interesting topic that I believe is very salient to our society. Anybody who's familiar with my contributions to OLO will know that I'm an advocate of not only decriminalisation of 'recreational' drugs that are currently illicit, but ultimately also their legalisation and consequent regulation.

I respect the views of most contributors to the discussion, who have for the most part addressed the issues seriously, intelligently and politely. I include Col Rouge among those - because, while I disagree with him almost completely on this issue, at least he has taken the trouble to present a reasoned argument based on evidence that he has gone and found. We undoubtedly disagree about the quality of his evidence, but that's legitimate discourse.

Imagine our society where the gaols aren't full of people who are there principally because drugs are illegal. Imagine a society where criminals and corrupt police, bikie gangs and other reprobates didn't make millions out of producing and selling substances that - in themselves - aren't all that harmful if used in moderation. Like most things, actually :)

I think that our society and cultures have produced a way of life for most people that actually generates a demand for the kind of release that recreational drugs provide. Every culture on earth has some way way of getting off its face via some kind of 'drug' - all that's happened is that we've found ways to produce and distribute all kinds of new and improved versions of them. And there's evidently a ready market for them.

Col Rouge: << If it ever came to institutionalized drug use, we will all loose (sic) our individuality and ultimately our liberty. >>

Have you never heard of beer?

CJ not everyone feels the need to ‘get off their face’. :)

I worked in the drug and alcohol field for some years and the issues that have been raised here are not new and it would be naive to simplify the complexity of legalisation.

CJ speaks of a process of decriminalisation, legalisation and regulation. This has been investigated during talks of the heroin trial program. Once you add regulation you open up the market again for illegal drugs. Using heroin as the example, the regulation was to allow registered and known heroin addicts (only) access to heroin/methadone via prescription from their GP. One positive for heroin addicts was the health system could continue to monitor their wellbeing and open up access to longer term rehabilitation.

However, this system does not consider new and potential users who don’t meet the criteria under regulations and will continue to be exploited by drug pushers. You could argue to make all drugs legal and be able to buy them over the counter but who will make these drugs - pharmaceutical companies who will want to make a profit – all the illegal manufacturers have to do is undercut the price and increase turnover. Or if the government subsidises production this will only reduce the revenue stream for other subsidised drugs which are not ‘recreational’ but vital to life. I for one prefer my tax dollars to fund preventative health or critical infrastructure rather than other’s recreational activities.

The money that some posters argue will be saved on law enforcement would only be transferred to funding management of legalisation and little will be saved on law enforcement in any case because there will still be an illegal element.

Also how are governments or pharmaceutical companies to keep up with the ever-increasing stream of ‘new’ recreational drugs on the black market. Do we legalise the more insidious drugs like ICE? It will be an impossible scenario of the cat continually chasing its tail. If legalisation does not get rid of the black market why go down that path?

Continued..

Continued on...

As I said, our system is not perfect but money would be better spent on targeted law enforcement, more checks and balances to reduce corruption and continuing the focus of meaningful drug education. Once you legalise a drug it is a bit hypocritical to continue to educate against it. Smoking and alcohol is already too late, you can only continue to educate and inform knowing that some will still choose to drink in excess or take up smoking.

Why don't we learn from this and not go down the same path for other drugs. Alcohol is the most pervasive drug in our society and is the leading cause of disease and it is LEGAL. Legalisation does not solve the problem only exacerbate it.

The real fear or ‘risk’ that some of posters have alluded to is not governments making drugs legal but facing the truth as to why so many people turn to drugs when we all are well aware of their impact.

The reason is that they already know why and the courage to re-examine current 'thinking' and make some change to the way we use ‘economics’ as the all-pervasive influence in Western societies is what requires courage. Economists and governments promulgate the myth of economic growth to the detriment of other factors such as community, the way children are raised, work-life balance, fairness in industrial relations and in the way income is spread, etc.

I should add that I have been in the camp for legalisation myself and wavered many times on either side of the line but after researching and deliberating on this over the years I believe legalisation would be a monumental mistake.