fractelle “Why do you make the huge assumption that drug abuse would increase dramatically if legalised?”

Since casinos and poker machines were allowed in Victoria

Do more people attend than when they had to drive to the NSW Murray River clubs ?

people gambling, no worries, it is not physically addictive

Since the liberalisation of drinking laws in Victoria,

have the incidences of drunkenness, drunken assaults and anti-social behaviour increased or declined compared to the days of the six o’clock swill ?

I drink in moderation, for the vast majority, it is not physically addictive.

If increases happened with gambling and alcohol, which are not (or less) addictive,

It is an absolute certainty that it will happen with drugs

because they are more addictive.

but illegal drugs, including cannabis, are physically addictive.

Of course, some legal drugs are equally addictive. That is one reason why the are supposed to be only available under prescription and the supervision of an attending doctor.

Useful websites

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_house_hearings&docid=f:63346.wais

http://www.gargaro.com/drugs.html

which includes the comment

“Has anyone considered that the reason that people committed a crime was because they were ON drugs in the first place - legal or not? That they weren't necessarily committing a crime to get illegal drugs, but the drugs themselves caused a violent behavior (which would not magically go away if the drugs were legal)”

Fester your patronizing comments are noted and discarded beyond

“He speaks of them as if they are an inferior race of human beings deserving of nothing more than the big flush”

I am a person who values equally “self control” with my right to exercise self determination.

Drug addiction deprives the addict of both his self control and ability to exercise self determination because all his attention is focused on his addiction.

You say I am treating drug addicts as inferior,

Well I certainly find, in addiction and dependency, nothing to aspire to.

Steel, up yours

I do not "come to heel" on your command.

difference opium : modern derivatives / alternatives
todays are more addictive and therefore greater danger.

Col,
Good point about gambling as an addiction, at least you made me think about it.
I wonder if getting rid of casinos would not just direct compulsive gamblers to other sources where they can satisfy their compulsion, like internet gambling or illegal gambling. What did gamblers do before casinos were built?
Casinos are no problem for most gamblers who just want to enjoy this form of entertainment.
The line, again, can be drawn between users and abusers.

I don’t think that prohibition works to address any type of compulsion. I just want to see evidence before I accept that.
Banning all drugs is dangerous; when they have become unavailable, people will find something else, perhaps far more dangerous, to satisfy their addictive nature, like sniffing petrol or spray cans with cleaners or develop a pica for pesticides. It is far less risky to regulate drugs that are on demand and treat all addictions as health issues.

As a health issue, addictions need funding for prevention education, research, treatment etc.
Just banning things will interfere with the freedom of other people’s choices, people who enjoy the occasional night out at a casino as entertainment, to enjoy the occasional drug of choice as recreation.

There are sex-addicts, too, yet even you would probably agree that outlawing all sex for everybody would be intrusive.

Even religion can become an obsession for some and turn some people into complete paranoid nutcases even at the point of becoming dangerous to others, but nobody has ever suggested outlawing all religions.

Are you saying that alcohol is not addictive?
It’s not addictive when used in moderation, but that goes for a lot of illegal drugs as well.

Thank you, Pelican, I see what you mean and I will look at your links when I get more time and may get back to you later.

Fractelle, thanks for the article, which confirms that there is no evidence that decriminalisation will increase use or abuse.

There’s one point I unfortunately thought of that opposes my own arguments, but I don’t really care because we all care about the health of others, we just don't agree on the best way to achieve it.

OK... in isolated communities like remote aboriginal communities, it seems to have helped the alcohol problem when alcohol was made less available and it helped the gambling problem when pokermachines were limited.

I don’t know the details, but it seems to me that this can only successfully happen in isolated communities with very high numbers of addicts and where people have no access to other resources.

Can others pretty please give some thoughts about this? I’m curious.

Fractelle,

"You have seen the tragic results of the drug black market - yet you claim that legalising, with all the inherent controls and regulation would be a "monumental mistake". Many here have providing well thoughtful and evidence backed reasons why legalisation works better than prohibition."

I thought I had provided the same but from the opposing view. :)

Just because I have seen the results of the drug problem does not mean that any other alternative put on the table is the solution. I don't work from the premise that anything but what we have now has to be better.

There are many who work in this field who hold varying views and yet we all have the same experiences. Your comment supposes that just because someone has a particular experience that they will all think the same way.

One thing is for sure, all those who have posted so far have good intentions just a different approach to solving an awful problem.

I posted this link (I think) once before when having this discussion with Vanilla some time ago. The primary topic was homelessness but drugs and mental health feature heavily in the discussions and submissions if anyone is interested.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/oasis/report/report.htm

Just how serious is the ‘war against drugs’ anyway?

Surely, even Col would agree the Taliban and al Qaida should be neutered. These organisations are funded by trade in illicit drugs.

http://littlurl.com/us7q3

“TRUE or false? People who grow opium are bearded Afghans in turbans and long shirts, selling their resin to Taliban-linked dealers, or Wa-hill tribesmen in Burma under the thumb of Chinese drug warlords.
The raw product is refined in illicit factories and smuggled by Nigerian couriers or dupes like the Bali nine, or hidden in commercial cargoes. Eventually it is cut, packaged and injected into the arms of addicts in rich countries.

Actually not always. Opium growers can be farmers in woolly jumpers in Tasmania, where about 1500 landowners are licensed to produce the opium poppy, or similar respectable counterparts in Britain, France and Hungary…

…Turkey now has licensed opium cultivation, sharing a guaranteed 80 per cent of the US pharmaceutical market with India. Tasmania has access to the other 20 per cent, along with non-American markets…..
…Why not induct the Afghans into the net of licensed opium production? The US spends about $US600 million ($735 million) a year on opium eradication in Afghanistan, out of its $US10 billion a year effort to stabilise the country. Britain is spending almost as much. That is a total of $US1.2 billion by these two governments alone.”

Pelican

Thanks for the link – very informative (although I only had time to read the section devoted to drugs and alcohol). It clearly illustrates just how complex the issue of drug and alcohol is and that there is no easy magical solution.

However, what it doesn’t do is provide clear proof that the current war on drugs has resulted in lower usage. What it does illustrate is that a strong support network, affordable housing, accessible health services, education and a liveable income goes much further in helping people than does criminalising addicts.

To Philo
Legally obtained drugs like sedatives and painkillers are abused ALL the time, what do you suggest should be done about those addicted to legal substances?

Fractelle,
Are you suggesting that Doctors continue to maintain the perscriptions of those who abuse legal drugs? These days Chemists have access to a persons perscriptions so they cannot gain several perscriptions on the same medicare number. To gain several perscriptions illegally is not a legal act.