What should be done about drugs from Cannabis to heroin, given that many people want to take them and that they do cause serious damage to some or all people? Criminalise or legalise? Should suppliers be liable to users for damages via class actions run by govt.? Should traffickers get longer gaol higher $ penalties, loss of citizenship if given in return for pledge to uphold Aus laws? Your views?

Voter land welcome, good subject.
I had it as part of Sydney gun crime, and found it difficult to sell.
First I hate the effects drugs have on us all, users and non users.
My thoughts tend to be about the middle of the two you offer.
I think we should take it out of the hands of Criminals.
So in part legalise, but within a fence.
Have medical certificates for users, sell to them via a non judgmental,but helpful GOVERNMENT institution.
Continue all laws such as driving or working under the influence.
And raise prison terms for black market distribution.
But keep the price down, not at a loss, to keep black market away.
Side issue but true, current system has produced nothing but more drug users more corrupt polices and others.
We need to challenge the status quo always.

If I may recant a story in a shock jock radio show, featuring a talk back caller. A father whose son had died of a drug overdose. He said his son had died in a lane way etc, he went on to say that his second son was now in the same situation and that all drug dealers should be executed.

It struck me, that had the father had more understanding of the first son's situation, he may not have had to overdose in a laneway, but in a more supervised, or monitored (even home) environment and still be alive today, and now the second son was possibly about to become a victim of the same paradigm. The father again increasing the possibility of harm to his remaining son without learning from the first time or understanding the process going on here.

The shock jock was trying to talk up the death penalty for drug dealers. I'd listened to enough at that point.

In simplistic terms the prohibition of recreational substances is directly linked to the harm caused.

More people die from prescription drug overdoses than illicit drugs today apparently anyway ?, as found in a recent local stats despite prohibition and policing and the accompanying crime and punishment cycle, official corruption, money laundering, tax evasions etc, that directly result from prohibitions.

The massive profits generated by prohibitions draw the corrupt, like bee's to a honey pot. In some countries prohibition has caused their democracies to degenerate into games of power, control, and territory between drug supply factions with sovereign govt's able to do little to stop the carnage.

As the father and his son's may have benefited from more understanding of the process, we all need to re-examine our thinking on this complex question.

Instead of driving victims of illicit drug addictions into lane ways to die and increasing the capacity international villians to profit, we should definitely re think this question and bring the possibility of supervised legalisation into the mix.

Drugs - criminalise or legalise?

That's a really difficult question.
Drugs are extremely addictive and have a high
risk of overdose - will legalisation really
fix the problem? I'm not sure that it would.
I think that legalisation of drugs wouldn't
fix the problem of addiction itself. Even rehab
has its limits. Addiction is an illness and it
is an uphill daily battle to not succumb - even
after years of sobriety - ask any drug addict.

However- I agree with Thinker 2, we need to re-think
the issue - and treat it as an illness - not a crime.
Supervised legalisation would help - so that
addicts don't have to die in laneways. Education is
another vital ingredient in all of this - so that
the public knows ahead of time - what addiction really
means.

Thinker 2 I understand what you are saying.
But,for me if we could get this subject talked about in the wider community,a chance exists for real change, for the better.
You and Lexi,will know i tis salesmanship that is needed.
Those uninterested in change, will target your story, some will say let them die, quite stupid, but it will be said.
Others, as they do with legal shoot up centers say we pander to them.
Hope is worth true debate here.
We must look for a middle way, center way,achievable way.
If government takes a form of control that,
Excludes corruption/black market,and tax's drugs.
While counseling against use, keeping laws about age ext, we can isolate crime from drugs.
Maybe Mexico would want that.
I see need for honest fair reform in many things Welfare for one.
It is us,those who seek change who must craft it in away people want and do not fear it.

We already have a legal drug Alcohol and from it we have criminals come from the use of the drug. More deaths are caused from users of alcohol than all other drugs combined. Legalising drugs will not curb its use or its deadly effects. If we want to increase the loss of productivity and life legalise them, and be prepared for more taxes as the increase the national level of resources needed to deal with their effects. We now have a society of children psychologically affected from their parents use of legal and illegal drugs.

Legalising mind altering drugs is a brainless idea!

without cannabis[a plant] fluffing up the drug statistics
over 90%=cannabis..[a plant]..DEEMED a drug
[though under realestate law..a fixture*]

a plant in the ground is deemed to be asffixt to the ground
thus belongs to the land..[fixt to the gound]; fixture

ground cant be owned
yet the leasie has the privlidge of harvest of fixture
creating fingable..[things that CAN be 'possesed']

but simply speaking even when simply possesion is deemed a crime
the fact police took their possesion..proves we didnt even have that

and for simple posesion..20 out of 21 plead guilt
in ignorance..but its not all bad..all these guilty please..get THE SAME LEGAL AID PAYMENT*..as not guilty

but heck thats why govt formed 'legal aid'
to get guilty pleas..upon ignorants

ignorance of the law is no excuse
but i fixed the law[see wikiseed/wikigeld]

read genesis 1;23/25
then rev 22..same plant as in exodus 25..[the lampstand..masde from the bush that burned but wasnt consumed..all quotes from the highest law book

yet still a plant is deemed a drug
hey i got some asprin[well not actual aspin..but willow bark..CONTAINING asprin..[the plant..of thge lampstand..has 5000 other things not drugs

heck if ya bust a real drug user[feroin]..they only charge for the % of heroin..but not the plant of rev..no that gets you jail..via the lawyer..selling out his due diligence...

but dope never killed anyone..EVER..
1 in 10 hospitalisations..is ADVERSE REACTION..[1/10 die]..
to persribed..and legal drugs..huge killers..and you persicute dopers

treating living plants as fungables
[only god can..make a seed grow]

you must be so proud
80%..of you want to keep the law..
that's a HUGE LIE...JUST THERE*.its al lies

Why are some drugs legal and others illegal? Two extremely dangerous drugs (nicotine and alcohol) are legally sold, and in huge amounts, so some addicts can consume their drug of choice openly while others are hounded by the authorities. Criminalising drug use is counter-productive and corrupts our society. The consumption of recreational drugs is a health problem and should be treated accordingly, the only beneficiaries of the current legal regime are drug dealers.

The American experience of prohibition, nearly a century ago, should have been enough evidence against our current hare-brained drug laws. Instead the Americans have forgotten the lesson and forced their puritanical ideas on more enlightened societies, to all our cost.

There are only two logically consistent approaches-- either prohibit the use of all recreational drugs or treat drug use as a health problem.

Back in the 30s, the Americans tried prohibition of alcohol.
What they got was the Mafia, which irrevocably established itself on the vast fortune it made smuggling booze.
Fast forward to now and what has a prohibition like approach to drugs got us?
Well, for one thing, It's gotten us drug gangs around the world that are far richer, more powerful and more ruthless than even the mafia.
What it hasn't gotten us is any reduction in drug use, as usage has grown steadily throughout the decades since Nixon announced the war on drugs and Australia followed suit.
We have to change our strategy for one reason only. The current strategy has failed disastrouly while introducing the scourge of immensely wealthy drug lords.
We simply have to quit doing what obviously ain't working.
Once we accept that reality, then we can get to figuring out what strategy or combination of strategies might actually solve the problem of growing addiction rates with all its attendent problems.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Legal or not, drug users will use. No drug use - obviously pot, heroin etc - should be legal. Decriminalising will only create a subculture in the work force of stoned twats. I don't want people with an excuse to be more dangerous.

I used to be pro-pot, but now I'm more "what's the point". People who really want to smoke it, will. They can be a hazard and are a real hassle to work with stoned. No, from me.

I worked in an industrial environment as a sales rep only to see young men turn into idiots as cannabis was introduced by one into the lunch room. Production output and quality of the product was so deleterious we had to sack the lot and hire a new drug free work force. I saw highly skilled and valued workers turned into schizophrenic dopes.

If you want drugs freely available as alcohol and nicotine be prepared for the increase in social ills and costs that will accompany such. Most crime and anti social behaviour is associated with users of drugs. To legalize drugs gives assent to a level of anti social behaviour, like DUI, domestic violence etc.

It's a large step from where we are now to legalizing drugs.
The first step to a solution is to recognise that what we are doing right now is an abject failure.
Then we can begin the discussion about what we ought to do.
Lrgalisation? I doubt it.
Decriminalisation? Possibly.
But whae do know is that countries that decrminalise generally do not see an increase in drug use.
But they do see a reduction in the negative associated phenomena, e.g. HepC infection, aids, overdose deaths, etc.
But doing harder what isn't working is no solution.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I put the positive out comes of changing our current approach.
And high light the opposite is true if we do not.
Less over dose deaths.
More chance to save some users
Less corruption including police
Less drug related crime
Some return via taxing drugs
Less down and our drug use driven prostitution
The list could be longer, but can we afford not to look for a better way?

Maybe we should legalise murder and rape as it happens anyway. That seems to be the mentality of those wanting to legalise drugs.

Runner,
You can't see the difference between smoking a joint and raping or murdering someone.
That's a worry.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

To claim that the existing measures are an abject failure is going a little far. Where there is a demand, there will always be a supply, and as prohibition helped kick start organised crime, criminalising drugs creates an business model for the illicit trade. However, the level of drug use is relatively low compared to alcohol and tobacco, and the widespread decriminalisation has serious ramifications as well.

There is a good justification for evidence based harm minimisation, and this path should be explored.

Anthonyve

'Runner,
You can't see the difference between smoking a joint and raping or murdering someone.
That's a worry.'

Whats more of a worry is that you don't seem to understand that many if not most murders and many rapes are drug related. Many of these crimes are done by people who have warped their minds with drugs.

Actually, Runner, that is not correct.
Rape where the perpetrator is under the influence of drugs is quite rare and when it does happen it's almost always the result of alcohol, not hard drugs.
Similarly with murder.
So your assertion is fundamentally wrong.
Where a murder is drug related it usually occurs during a robbery where the perpetrator is trying to get money for drugs - a situation that would be avoided by decriminalisation.
So to the extent that you have a point, it supports decriminalisation.
Moreover, where drug use has been decriminalised, drug associated crime rates actually fall.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Very succinctly put Anthonyve and correct as well. The type of associations you are making are a little hysterical and are mythology on this subject runner.

It also displays a complete lack of understanding for the many and various, and complex reasons people use drugs, alcohol, tobacco or other any form of recreational ingestion. Addiction is only one of them. Being of bad character is specifically not one of the reasons why people do such things to themselves.

As for the mind addling capacities of drug abuse, alcohol comes in king by a mile being a voracious destroyer of brain cells and other organs, and having the additional dangerous capacity to be inebriating. Alcohol is one of a very small group of drugs that has this capacity.

This is why a person who is drunk is thoroughly convinced in their own mind that they are capable of driving a motor vehicle, wish to pick a fight, or think it might be a good time to rape someone.

Is it from your understanding of alcohol that you base/form your understanding of all other substances runner ?.

The bad guys are actually the ones whom supply the illicit drugs whom send their kids to a private school by day, whom may well think just like you do runner, (drugs adle minds,create murderers and rapists etc) but just do it anyway because they are bad people taking advantage of the situation.

Irrational fear should not be the driver on this subject all that will do is create more police with more power, more deterioration in civil liberties, more intrusion to privacy etc and so on.

This will effect everyone even people whom don't use drugs, drink or smoke runner, and the cycle will go on, gun battle's for territory will increase in foreign lands etc and so on. Demand for product will increase not decrease in a never ending self perpetuating loop.

The case for a rethink is strong.

That is right decriminalise drugs and the dregs of society will destroy themselves just like our teenage drunks.

Or do we educate your young on self worth and social contribution? I was involved for nine years in the development of a farm for addicts to encourage abstanance and self esteem. A close friend of mine daughter has a relationship with a young man on drugs and introduced her to cannabis. In the height of her use she could bail up a person with a knife and threaten them for money. He from use is today 15 years later a zombie with parkinsons disease. Decrimanise the stuff and make it freely available at low prices and let the young with low self image destroy themselves.

Why are we increasing the price of nicotine with taxes? to make it less desirable. We have black market trade on nicotine. Obviously decrimalising harmful drugs is not the best answer, it is just that those with that agenda wish to set up shop front outlets so will not give up. They do not have a real answer. They will be the new thugs in our society like the bike clubs. Ask those who have been released from addiction what is the answer.

Apart from runner, nothing said by him can be separated from his VERSION of Christianity.
We should get deeper , some seem to claim change is never possible.
That every thing is set in concrete we just need follow.
I take head on the thought grog kills more, its not true.
And should play no roll in a debate about illegal drug use.
Grass? well OUG I too know about it,even did the draw back, at times with a police officer, it too can kill, the brain for sure.
HOWEVER we talk about how we handle all drugs.
Enforcement will never be possible for grass.
Are we, each of us, happy with the crime corruption coming from drugs.
Politicians police power full people said to have increased their fortune by involvement.
Would contact with every user help SOME get away from it.
Do we have the guts to look for a better way.
Can Australia lead instead of following.
No conspiracy, just truth,do many of us know America, via the CIA traffic drugs to take its young away from protest movements.
And to arm its Friends?
To help the murders in south America, drugs decay our young.

dear runner
cannabis..is a plant..a seed beareing plant[not a drug]
the 'drug' is called thc..it has 3 stages..a pre thc anti-drug
and a post thc form of non drug..[that makes one sleepy]..regardless a drug is a PURE EXTRACT..in this case its called hash..

but lets ask god
genesis 1;29/30..please fel free
to judge drugs with drugs and plants with plants
[get it straight..this is satans realm..and its built on lies

as one justice staples famously said
how absurd a law..that seeks to classify a plant a drug

if i sold you wilow bark..calling it asprin..you would rightfully say thats not asprin..[cannabis is not a drug]..but by the lie of deeming the whole plant..AS IF it is a drug..has made yet further lies

please read the damm rule book
what is the plant mentioned on the last page of the book?
its design..is described...in exodus.25;31-40//please read 40 very carefully

''and look that you make them..after the patern''..
[of the burning bush]..''you saw on the mount..!

please read the holy texts..and stop making satans laws
and worse defending the indefensable..this isnt rape[except to the 37,ooo qlders criminalised last year alone..via the lie of a plant..being a drug

1%..of our population
mainly kids..gets criminalised every year
its satanic stuff demons deliver to their master..[and you defend it]

ignorance of the law is no excuse
god made a fixture...your satanists made it a drug
god gave us all the seed of the plant...that its fruits..be revealed

not just one fruit..per month
but 35.000 in a year..and thats just product refined from the stem and seed..

a drug..is a powder/or concentrait..of puyre 'drug
a plant cant be a drug..and even if it is..read genesis 1;29

you defend man
yet dispute god?

yes belly many have tried it
and some like it..[my kids didnt]

now you smoked with a cop[hey me too]
thing is all you can feel..is the affect..of your arteries opening
physiological response..is all it does..the arteries expand[thus the red eye's..[nicoten narrows the arteries]..that 'rush'..people cal it..is a rush of blood presure lowering..as the pipes relax

this relaxation makes the bodies endorphine have their seeming affect
[hence the comfort eating]..sure its illegal..but made illegal by a lie..

see how your 'trying' it..was done with your mind filled with all the madeup fears assosiated with breaking a law..and maybe becomming a drug death

BUT MATE>>NOT ONE DEATH EVER*
this is fact../you claim deaths..PRESENT DETAILS

there arnt any
yet the spin/lies and deciete go on
[its conspirede and inspired...crim inalise a plant..lol
only god can make a seed grow..]

if you think getting revenge on me
is worth criminalising kids..millions each year..that reveals much about your thinking..[and the thinking that says clean up that mess..unionist]..cause its not poisen..asbestos woint hurt you..ddt is a vitamion..c02 is a poisen

mate read the signs
dont die in hate by ignorance
its lies mate..lies..just like your seeing a glimpse of at your topic

yet fail to see here
read genesis 1.;29 mate..is god wrong
is your acceptance of lies so strong..its a lie

now how to fix it
how do you take back half a century of lies
[and there are even then yet bigger lies..like the one people are ignoring you trying to fix

you only got one lie your trying to correct
i got 5

one under god,
Not all plants are safe for human use, not even comon garden plants.

great joseph
make them into 'drug'..[under the act]
and lets have a faux drug war on them.their trust[the people]

mate if afganastan..isnt about drugs..[control of supply]
then what is it really[an excuse for cia to render the drugs globally via 'secret rendition'..delivery systems..[flying the stuff in/out with drones

thing is the drug war is a real war
fought by too clever people..with capitalist intel adgendas
drug sniffing dogs and dawn raids..[to lock up the parents..and steal their kids..

[ITS A REAL WAR OUT THERE!]

by what reason has authority been given
to govt[any govt],,to DECLARE WAR ....*ON ITS OWN KIDS?

legal drugs for the rich
drug sniffing random inspections for the poor

20 out of 21 plead guiltyy..in ignorance..out of fear!
cause court is designed to waste three days..[then when you cant pay the 'fine'..you get arrested for failing to pay bribes..to govt..

who then get to work for PRIVATE PRISON INDUSTRY
for buck fifty per day...lol[endebited slavery]

private prisons=work camps

its a standover teqnique
so clever its criminal..

[lawyers getting 250 for a guilty plea]
10 of them in a morning..its a great industry..
[for cheap lawyers..wanting nice steady govt cash..not getting the real criminals stealing our union/retirment funds and bailing out bankers

bah on the lot of em

keeping police busy..policing policy not criminal law!

and lawyers dont need to know law..to convince a kid
to plead guilty...[i wil get you off]..till you get his bill..PLUS THE FINE

thenm defaiult fine[go to jail]

plus..*he claims govt subsidy
legal aid..wasted education time on fraud/drug war lore

its great mate

take that away
the drug law fails over night

or refuse to play their game...turn yourself in..
dont pay bribes to corrupt colluder's of treason upon the people

hoover began this..along with randel hurst news media
cause they had mates that wanted that hemp was doing[wanted to bankrupt the drug fibre..[then buy up the processing machines and industry once they cornerd supply..AND PRODUCTION

its all about taxing others
while bailing out ya party mates

The question should have been "should we legalise drugs or criminalise people ?."

Dear Josephus, without wishing to be rude your comments are hysterical. There is no connection between cannabis and Parkinson's Disease. Nobody has ever held any up with a knife to pay for cannabis. Cannabis does not produce the physical addiction symptoms that are the usual driver for such events for a start Josephus.

A morbid fear of the unknown may produce a life that has boundaries just as restrictive and unproductive as one produced by drug addiction.

If we drill down to the facts about this subject and applied the kiss principal, we could simply state that "if you allow people whom wish to use drugs access to them, then you will no longer have to fret so badly about the possibility of one them stealing your TV set" Josephus.
This is primarily because the servicing of a costly addiction and all the crime associated with that, no longer exists.

As for the question of encouraging drug use by doing this (legalising I mean), I believe the opposite effect would most likely occur. Existing drug addicts would soon learn that they can live more fulfilling lives by tempering their addictions, instead of being trapped in a never ending cycle of payment of bootleg prices for un-monitored/un-regulated product more risky alone by the sheer nature of it's illicit underground manufacture. With the mystique removed, the young can look at the actuals, the facts, the truth, and make informed decisions about what it is they wish to do with their lives in later adulthood.

Instead we press on with this process of maximising the harm that we consider wise, these prohibition philosophies,these crime and punishment, policing and profit cycles that are clearly not working, and it is fair to say that they largely perpetuate the problem.

Criminals will most likely move on to cyber crime, or just have to go back to robbing banks, with opportunity removed to profit so handsomely from illicit drug distribution.

There are a lot who are much brighter than me in this forum.
And almost every one is better educated.
But we often do not show it, I understand some, childishly,do not want to talk to others.
And yes I too understand OUG when in comes to smokeing or grass is fixed in his views.
Here however is a subject we could make great use off.
An opportunity to be better for change.
I am not posting every link of interest, but this morning saw, in the SMH.
It reminds us our waterfront is as it always has been, a center for CORRUPTION.
You can get guns drugs anything, past those we pay to load unload search,we feed criminals and we kill, in the name of corruption.
Party's like, very briefly, greens formed in hope of sustainable change.
Infected by every lost thought and idea that party is dead standing up, waiting for a place to fall.
Labor and Conservatives have been tainted by disclosed ties to drug cash.
Both lack the guts to act.
Are we content to see our country continue to see this blight get worse?
Change is the only way forward.

We have legal drugs in alcohol and nicotine so do not pretend things will be far better off by making them available to any and all who use them. These two legal drugs cost the nation billions in loss of family life, productive employment and personal health.

More people die from the affects of these two drugs than ever died from aspestosis yet the companies that produce these legal drugs have not been brought to account as James Hardy to pay for loss of health.

Decriminalising to make it cheaper and readily available is not the answer to the social need of the addict.

If you can convince me that alcohol does not cause death, violence and criminal acts I will concede my opposition to other drugs being freely available.

It seems to me that much of the argument in this thread is driven by values and belief systems, about which there will never be agreement.
So, why don't we start from the data?
Which is telling us, loud and clear, that our currrent strategy, i.e. "war on drugs" has been a complete failure.
I say that because:
1. Drug usage has steadily increased throughout the period since war was declared back in the 70s.
2. Drug related crime has increased steadily over the same period.
3. Convictions for drug related corruption has increased over the same period.
4. Drug funded international gangs have grown in power and ruthlessness over the same period. (e.g. the 50 beheaded bodies found in Mexico this week)
5. The sizes of intercepted drug shipments has increased over the same period.
So, by any measure, we are abjectly losing the "War on Drugs"
Do you not think it's time that we, as a society, at least consider trying another approach?
So, what has worked?
Well, programmes aimed at reducing drug usage related illnesses and deathshahve workd very well. Aids, Hep C infections, OD's and so on are falling.
But the strategies that have brought about these achievements were not based on treating users as criminals; they were based on treating users and people with an illness.
In summary, what we have done for the past for decades is measurably failing.
Whan we try something different, things improve a little.
I think there are a couple of clues there.
Anthony
http://www.observatinopoint.com.au

Anthonyv as usual you are quite right.
It is our refusal to leave our personal biases in the bucket by the door and come equipped to think in other ways that condemns us.
I however have hope, in youth and new ideas.
One day a truly nonpolitical group will come running online polls and handing the results on the media and Parliament.
Such will see progress here, the victims of drugs corruption and all the droppings of both deserve better.

There is so much great information here that we need politicians to know about and heed.

Belly, your comments are great, you should be involved in FairGO and Voterland.

Hip pocket nerve works well. What about criminals liable to users for the damage they cause. Class action run by government.

Those that want it legalised want to see sellers legally able to make money from its sale like alcohol and not be chased by the task force as criminals. This is the active voice behind this lobby to decriminalise sellers. This is the force behind the scene of the current turf wars. Make crime legitimate as it happens anyway is their logic.

It then can be sold in clubs, hotels, tobacco outlets etc without the sellers being classed as criminals. Addicts and users are merely the ones being sold a lie. They believe drugs will be cheaper, better quality and easier to purchase from legitimate dealers.

It is a lie to tell society that the current situation is a failure even as it is a lie to say that because alcoholics still drive on our roads there the DUI laws are a failure and those DUI should not be classed as criminals because this stigmatises the user.

Well said Belly, we are a truly non party political organisation. I have run Votergrams then FairGO, then Voterland for 25 years covering all Parliaments, issues, and view points in Australia, without bias. My interest is that Government do what the voters want. What I want is in the scheme of things of little importance at all. My goal is to help others make the most of democracy.
The reason government does not do what voters want is lack of effective and determined communication. I have been surprised to learn that it is the voters who are most at fault, rather than the politicians. We treat Politicians as if they are physic, praise congratulate and reward them rarely, vote for them even when they offend us. We would love to help you make the most of democracy in the way you want.

Well Josephus,
If it's a lie as you assert, then please provide some data to support your assertion.
You are accusing me of lying when I say that the war on drugs has failed.
Yet I based my claim on data that is readily avaiable and that experts in the area don't disagree with.
If you want to call me a liar, then fine.
Just provide your data.
Otherwise, it's just so much hot air.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Thanks voterland I will look up your site.
I am concerned about an apathy that grows on this country.
We take our right to protest as a given.
But very few care to act
Josephus,sorry if that is badly spelled, no way you can truly think like that surely?
Apathetic as we are some always stand tall, in doing that voterland Anthonyv we can be proud.

votergland/quote..""Hip pocket nerve works well.""

yes cash flow is great
especially if its a tax..paid by fear..mainly upon drug users
[funny how rich drug lords got lawyers..actually there to defend them

but such is life..blissfully ignorant that govt allready seizes proceeds of 'crime'[look up what crime means sometime..;its about not hurting other's..or violating contract

[AND GOVT HAS VIOLATED ITS CONTRACT>>..
actually declared a revenue raising war..on its own people..geezz...yep the nerve...reveals yet more sin

""What about criminals liable to users
for the damage they cause.""

yes the real white collar crims..that steal our pensions/saving's funds[the real crims that got free lawyers..family trusts..and tax avoidance..sure hit them

BUT YA LOT OF GUTLESS MASGGOTS
prefer to criminaslise kids..lol..for drug choice

""Class action run by government.""
lets have a class action against BAD govt...and their colluding treason asets and family trust funds[often made by selling drugs..or dasngerous product..like asbestos..or ddt..or releasing ammonias gass lawfully..by the tons each day

get a life
wakke up to what govt has set up police to do..police policy
[let off the protected sacred ones]..wearing their conspicious wealth

the ritchest woman..isnt a womasn..its a family trust[ythat avoids paying any tax[billions of tax avoidments..but heck lets jail kids for a joint..

[MAKE GOVT steal her assets...
not their peoples assets..underr threat/dspin..by fraud]

OUG who do you target as gutless Margot?
Afraid I see the impacts of drug use here in more than one poster.

Anthonyve,
Under age alcohol abuse is a higher percentage per teenage population than it has ever been and it is not detected by the police who only deal with violent street drunks and teenage drivers. Serving alcohol to under 18 year olds is an offence under the law. Should the police not charge suppliers and teenagers found drunk and unruly because it criminalises them. The larger part of social disorder is due to alcohol abuse should we abandon the laws because it happens anyway, and it is on the increase?

Such thinking as to remove criminal charges is brain dead logic. Are you going to dob in an illegal drug seller? Or are you one of their lobbying supporters?

We will se how you value the life of our young minds!

Josephus,
Once again, you have a little rant.
But where's your data?
Also, you are confusing alcohol with drugs currently illegal.
Ask youself this. If a law was to be passed today banning alcohol, making alcohol as illegal as other drugs, would it reduce alcohol consumption?
Answer: Absolutely not.
How do we know this?
Because of the US experieince with Prohibilition. (Clue: as the Spanish philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it).
You can carry on about alcohol and draw false comparisons all you like, but you cannot escape what the data tells us loud and clear, and that is, that what we are doing about illegal drugs now is failing. Fact! The data is inescapable.
Ergo we shouldn't try to solve a problem by doing harder what isn't working.
Or, to quote Einstein, "There's a special kind of madness in repeating the actions of the past and expecting a different result."
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

they are the lawyers
who write laws..that other lawyers make into law

judged by other former lawyers[now judging the law]

then the lawyers judging appeals to the law[the lot of them lawyers running the two party scam..via public service lawyer's..[and many union's..and all faMILY TRUSTS/investments..tranbsphering public assets into private licence

the lot of em..[lawyers]
ignorance of the real law is no excuse
reveal where govt was permitted to declare a real war on its trust

its unconstitutional[except the judges that wrote the laws..now sit and refuse appeal's..based in law[realestate law..is either valid or its not law]..the law of fictures proves a plant aint no drug

just like booze aint jonnie walker
but its still booze..[boozse death statistics,...HAVE CTUALLY BEEN MODIFIED*..[of the deaths by drunk..[5000]..the numbers were REDUCED*]lol]..because of the assumed..BENIFIT..of a drink

really mate
the numbers are changed under accountancy..spin
[heck there was a report..that in the north[by the nnumber's everyone was random drug tested]..yet it was again accountants..[using modifiers]

much like the lies used in the fagerette tax
35 billion social cost..[ie all costs including bying it]
when the actual medical cost TRUE MEDICAL COST..was only 800 million

i told your lying lawyers then
and i told you..but i still got the new big tax

ha ha[and now there going after fatty food and suger[diabetus]
who are the biggest cost user..to medical aid[purely diet and life style disease[costing heaps more than smoking ATTRIBUTED deaths[as previously told to you

GOVT DOES NO AUTOPSIES[re cause of death]
if a docter has attributed one

[and they get govt gifts/trips..
for writing death 'by smoking'

sure big business has highjacked the adgennda
but the lobby did its job..[it got govt cash]..enough to buy out their targeted/hated multinational..suplier

[next the booze haters buy up boze merchants
tax you[put huge burdens on it]..send the bludgers broke
tyhen onto[next big big suger..big transfat..big unions..nurses super your banbked savings..your invested savings

evil runs this realm
by their silence are they revealed and reviled..

Anthonyve,
The percentage of useage will increase by legalizing it as has the use of alcohol.
Please answer my questions.
Do you supply illegal drugs?
Do you use illegal drugs?
What is your answer to free users off mind altering drugs?
Do you work in areas of deliverance?

Josephus/OUG sorry but in my honest view you both kill threads such as this.
I can play devils advocate but you two are way out there.
Except please, your personal biases are blinding you both.
RIP yet another thread of great interest and much more worth while than the feeble attempts to protect drug use.

Josephus,
No
No
I have absolutely no problem with people using mind altering drugs if they so choose. (I note in this question you use the phrase 'mind altering' and not 'illegal'.
No.
However, please note the following:
I have a brain and I use it;
I have access to reliable data.
I try to formulate positions based on examination of available data.
And finally, what I personally do and don't do has no bearing on the debate.
You can wriggle all you like, but until you back up your assertions with either:
a. A well thought out and argued POV; or
b. Data to support your argument,
then - to repeat my earlier point - you're just blowing hot air.
Why not try putting your emotional position to one side, look at available factual information and see where it leads you.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Josephus, I will add a little more in reply to your last post as an example of what we discover when we look at the data.
In countries where the use of drugs has been decriminalised, the useage does NOT increase. nN fact we find it stays about the same.
What does happen is that many associated ills, e.g.
>Incidence of crime to get money for drugs falls;
> Aids infections, HepC infections, etc, reduce;
> Prostitution to support drug habits falls dramatically.
Moreover,if we look at data from the US Justice Department we find that The US has:
> More of its citizens in jail than any other country on earth;
> Varying from state to state we find that between two thirds and three quarters of inmates are in for drug related crime;
> Of those who are not users when they go to jail a high proportion are users when they leave, prison creates drug dependency.
Reputable authorities, (see recent speeches by the now retired police chief of Seattle WA), point out that if the money spent on incarceration of drug users was spent on preventing drug abuse, then drug usage would fall dramatically.
Once again, see where facts lead us.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve,
I'm not sure where you live but in NSW the Government is considering jailing parents who allow service of legal drugs to persons under 18. Why? Because the problem of youth drunkedness is out of controll and is costing the State revenue in police, medical and social services.

I suggest you tell the Government just to let it happen and we all put up with the cost.

Belly, "Josephus/OUG sorry but in my honest view you both kill threads such as this".
We can deal with sociall issues merely by talking about, or by facing real issues in society. I was for 9 years involved in developing a rehabilitation farm for addicts. The programme was sucessful in over 80% of addicted users including all substances.

Josephus,
I - and many other thinking people - are telling all levels of government pretty much that.
The message we are sending to governments is that we MUST decriminalise drug USE, because these people are not criminals they have an illness.
And after forty years of experience we now know conclusively that criminalising them makes the problem worse not better, and vastly exacerbates associated problems.
See data cited in my earlier posts.
I know that for many people it feels good to go ahead and punish these poor people, but as a civilised society we make progress by thinking not by just feeling.
And when you look at the date - and think about it - the conclusion is inescapable.
We have to do something different.
I think I've said all I have to say on this topic.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Your well researched and absolutely correct on all fronts Anthonyve, thank you for clearing that up for us.

cheers T2

Obviously you guys have no moral compass, social responsibility or real care for our vunerable youth.

You approve of the use and sale of illegal drugs to yet to be addicted youth. Young people will experiment with the socially taboo things. Removing it as a criminal offence to supply does give a message of unnaceptability by society. That you give a message using and supplying illegal drugs is acceptable for society is not in the social good. I will never hold up the white flag of surrender to socially destructive substances. My message will always be it is a criminal offence to supply destructive poisons to our youth. Those that do are criminals, even as those that give alcohol to those under age.

joseph..
ignoring the other resoning
no one is saying give kids booze or drugs[thats insane]

what we are saying
is what good is making them criminal

drugs= docter/medicine
problems with drugs..is a medical problem
why criminalse kids for expermentation..when they need docters watching..not cops

cops catch a kid with booze;..they poor it out[cal the parents]
with drugs your liocked up..walked though the justice system
fined.jailed...threatend..lied to..and got a criminal record for life

yeah
jesus would be pleased
in qld alone the drug law raised 65 million[in 1999] alone
criminalising 35,o75 kids just for qld..just for drugs..just so lawyers get thousands geting the kid to plead guilty

20 out of 21
plead guilty..to posswesion..of a plant
demed a drug by taxonnomic lies..jesus would be impressed

im not

Voterland like Anthony I have left the thread.
Yet still it talks to us.
See it now has many heads, we are able to see why the debate can not go on.
We feed the victims those who are blind to the worst impacts,of both the drugs and their words.
Claims have been made,of nursing the victims,by posters who used words that saw us flee the thread.
I have to say the very thought no one is injured or that grog is worse, is a self comforting terminological inexactitude.
I once nursed in my arms a child who as a youth, full of Heroin threw himself under a train.
Helped cut down a victim who hung himself.
Yet here, in the defense of ones own habits, in denial of so much pain, we find debate imposable.
A walk in any city's inner areas, looking at the victims will not let me forget them, see you in another thread, until it too is invaded by self interest and a special blindness.

belly..i have a father commited suicide by drinking
and have a cousin..who drowning in his own vomit at his 21st

okm you got a pair too
but lets think of what problems drive people to do these things
how does police making you a criminal fix that

drugs are a symptom of a bigger problem
you dont make problems go away..by adding more
its like a told..a previous poster..is this law helping..or making things worse

and as your own story reveals
its not working..criminalisation only fills private prisons

[i hate booze..so i dont drink
you hate drug's..so you dont shoot em up ya arm]
your drinking with the drunken copper...after he locks me up

by what right does govt declare war on its own kids
its not a war on drugs..only some drugs..most are available in your local

[80%..of police werk..is booze related
according to a copper only a few days ago]

police have a high drop out rate
once they notice their drunken mates..are 2 faced..

Belly,
Were either if the persons you mentioned sentenced to prision? It could appears these persons had deeper personal issues not addressed that could have caused the overdose or suicide.

"I once nursed in my arms a child who as a youth, full of Heroin threw himself under a train. Helped cut down a victim who hung himself".

I manned weekend night shift on "Crisis Line" for four years in 1980's and young people rang up whose friend had overdosed or drunk and threatened suicide it had nothing to do with being criminalised. Because I was on the phone the only step was to phone an ambulance or the police

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/let-state-supply-drugs-cowdery-20120601-1zn5e.html
While I will remain a refugee from this thread,I am pleased the much needed debate continues in public.
And that views not unlike my own are getting air.
Such a change will repel great numbers.
As the legal Heroin rooms do/did.
No change is easy, I feel such a change worth the pain.
effects include less crime less deaths ability to monitor and try to get users off drugs.
A open in full sight problem, may see even greater changes.

On the alcohol/ drugs question, we know alcohol causes massive problems, but criminalizing in America made it worse because it fed crime that has continued to grow. So we don't ban alcohol. Why drugs? Would we not be better taking the profit out of it by allowing those who suffer harm from either to claim substantial damages via a government drug harm recovery body which takes a % of the damages. Might this cut consumption of alcohol and drugs and relieve taxpayers of picking up the costs (but depriving them of the taxes)?