Hi guys, I'm here about to wear my 'ham fisted' hippy ideals on my sleeve openly in this forum. Thanks to freediver for setting this up. Want controversy? I am basically going to use this space to advocate and defend the greens line of thinking on drug policy, quite simply the idea is that what you consume is none of the governments business. In philosophy it is simple, but in practice it is also a very effective approach to SOLVING the many drug related issued in our society.

I have three main points under which I believe all drug policy argument falls:

1) Individual freedoms trump government mandated controls when said freedoms do not negatively impact society in a direct way. Much drug policy will circle around this debating point.

2) Free market principles ensure that drug supply will never stop so long as people want it, prohibition creates a black market economy that cannot be taxed, traced or effectively controlled. Quality of goods becomes unregulated and this becomes a dangerous issue.

3) So long as we allow some substances in the form of alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs, the banning of other substances based on arbitrary measures is hypocritical and pointless. Clean every drug off the street and you will just get more pharmaceutical abuse, alcoholism and others. In other words, demand will not go away so long as any form of mind altering substance exists. The UN now recognises that recreational prescription drug use (ie, to get high) is as large a problem in the world as illicit drug abuse. I argue that there is no difference between a prescription drtug and an illicit drug other than quality control and distribution control. Prohibition means governments cannot use these regulatory tools for the illicit drugs. This is strongly hilighted by the fact that every single illicit drug has a history in medicine, every single one of them, many of them are still used in medicine and all lab made drugs were medical drugs long before they became street drugs.

More on this later, I'm a tad busy for now. I hope I have already upset your sensibilities and questioned your strongly held beliefs :)

Do you have any evidence that prohibition leads to an increase in addiction?

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 3:58pm:

Do you have any evidence that prohibition leads to an increase in addiction?

No I do not, but I do not make that point. I do however believe that prohibition puts up barries to people getting over addiction. Addiction can strike anyone for almost any reason, it is the responsibility of the individual to regulate their own behaviour in all aspects of their live in regards to addiction. Does the government use the law to stop nicotene addiction?

I argue more from the perspective that you will never stop people from taking what they want, and therefore prohibition only puts up social barriers that encourage social isolation of users. I believe that prohibition of substance use is an unnecessary cost to the police force and puts drugs in the dangerous ground of unregulated quality control and black market economies and all that go with them.

Note, I do believe police should work against CRIME and this means any crime committed by people under the influence, you CAN do this without actually banning the substance. I believe the government should regulate supply of drugs through licensed sales, and police should continue to take care of black market drug dealers. The problem is you cannot ever get anywhere with this unless you can offer up an alternative supply for the market.

There is actually evidence that suggests when Amsterdam decriminalised marijuana, herion addiction did drop. Don't have the figures on hand so you can take that with as much salt as you like right now :)

No I do not, but I do not make that point.

Yes you do:

Clean every drug off the street and you will just get more pharmaceutical abuse, alcoholism and others.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 4:10pm:

No I do not, but I do not make that point. Yes you do: Clean every drug off the street and you will just get more pharmaceutical abuse, alcoholism and others.

No, that is not the point I made. The point I made there is that people who abuse substances will abuse whatever substance they can get their hands on, take away their substance of choice and they will find another. The point is that substance abuse is not related to the substance itself, but the individuals state of mind, if someone wants to be wasted, they will get wasted, take away their drugs, they will drink, take away the drink, they huff cans and petrol or paint or glue, and so on. There is usually an underlying personal issue that causes abuse of substances, note that I am specirfically talking about abuse, although this argument holds for recreational drug use to a degree.

Isn't addiction to alcohol far less damaging than addiction to cocain, and far easier to recover from?

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 4:44pm:

Isn't addiction to alcohol far less damaging than addiction to cocain, and far easier to recover from?

To my mind that is irrelevant to the discussion, swallowing crushed glass is likely far more damaging than all of them but is it specifically illegal? Although it does make a good emotionally charged argument, the like of which is often drawn upon in this debate.

I honestly don't know, but I do know that alcohol is generally regarded as far more damaging to society than pretty much anything else, including this 'ice epidemic'. You hear countless stories from social workers who claim alcohol is THE problem out there when it comes to substance abuse.

To my mind that is irrelevant to the discussion, swallowing crushed glass is likely far more damaging than all of them but is it specifically illegal?

If it ever became a problem, I'm sure it would be. There's no point outlawing something that isn't even a problem.

You hear countless stories from social workers who claim alcohol is THE problem out there when it comes to substance abuse.

That's because it isn't prohibited. Which side are you on again?

Possibly due to availability?

Good subject Zoso - I am in full agreement with the drugs policies proposed by the Greens.  As you pointed out the biggest danger in prohibition is the unregulated market which is more than likely to lead to increased deaths.

Governments have been fighting the trafficking of drugs for years with little success and a huge cost.  The only way to eliminate the market is to offer a supervised medical supply by a harm minimisation approach.

Regardless of what some governments have said about the Methadone program.  I have personally known people who have been on this program for many years.  They work and live normally - a complete turnaround from their drug addicted former life.  There will always be a small group who abuse a service such as this - but the majority are no longer stealing, lying, cheating or depriving their families of essentials.

Governments have been fighting the trafficking of drugs for years with little success and a huge cost.

How do you measure the 'success' of prohibition.

Obviously prohibition isn't successful.  The fight for drug trafficking would still continue I assume even if they bring in harm minimisation, but eventually the demand for drugs would be reduced greatly and consequently the same would occur with the supply.

Why would demand be reduced eventually? The reason why prohibition does not stop supply is that demand is relatively insensitive to price.

It was only theoretical Freediver - in regard to the harm minimisation policy of the Greens.  We have prohibition now on drugs - it doesn't work and is only getting worse.  I can't see why supply legally through a health service wouldn't slow down and eventually eliminate drug trafficking in Australia.

But saying that prohibition does not work is not an argument in favour of decriminalisation. If you apply the same standards, decriminalisation is even worse. That is why I'm asking what you mean by saying it 'doesn't work.'

In comparison to alcohol - perhaps the figures are slightly better - but the Greens were talking about harm minimisation.  At the moment we have horrific problems with Ice and white and blue collar workers are becoming quickly addicted - not to mention ecstasy as a favourite recreational drug.  No-one knows how these drugs have been formulated or what substances are used, which often results in death.

Under the Greens Policy of harm minimisation - there would still be prohibition on drugs (I assume), but for all those addicts who have been written off or others at the start of their addiction, wouldn't narcotics on prescription and taken under supervision be preferable to their wellbeing?  The demand for these drugs would certainly lessen.

To be quite honest - the more I look into it, the answer seems to lie nowhere.  To me - if I compare it to the action the government took in regard to methadone for junkies - harm minimisation seems well worth trying.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 5:52pm:

Governments have been fighting the trafficking of drugs for years with little success and a huge cost. How do you measure the 'success' of prohibition.

Simple, if prohibition worked, supply would drop. It hasn't, for all intents and purposes it has increased.

Regardless of whether you use prohibition or harm minimisation tactics to combat drug demand, you have to find social ways to make people choose the correct path for themselves. Fear of retribution does not reduce demand, the only way demand will drop is if the desire to consume drops.

State governments and police are gradually realising that end user prohibition simply does nothing, take out a user or street level dealer and a dozen more are lined up ready to fill the void. The way to fight illicit drug trade is to cut it off at the head, but with prohibition in place demand is still focused on illicit means of supply. Cut off the snakes head and two grow back. Remove prohibition, give a legal means of supply to the consumers, cut off the snakes head and it is less likely to come back, since people can source their goods elsewhere. If you talk to any moderate recreational drug user they will tell you that they would much prefer toavoid the shady drug dealers if they had the choice. Prohibition encourages organised crime, and petty crime.


Quote:

Why would demand be reduced eventually? The reason why prohibition does not stop supply is that demand is relatively insensitive to price.

You really think that? You have a degree in economics right? And you are going to sit here and publish on record that you do not think demand of drugs is sensitive to price? I take it you have never actively sought out drugs for personal use ;)

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 5:00pm:

To my mind that is irrelevant to the discussion, swallowing crushed glass is likely far more damaging than all of them but is it specifically illegal? If it ever became a problem, I'm sure it would be. There's no point outlawing something that isn't even a problem.

Find me some figures that suggest drug abuse is actually a problem worth spending the vast quantities of money that we spend. If eating crushed glass were a problem, I would still be arguing this same line of argument, bugger the government, they have absolutely no right to tell me what I can consume and what I can not! Obesity, smoking and drinking are responsible for far more deaths than illicit drug use in this country, are they regulated? Do you want the government fining you for eating too many hamburgers?? What kind of Orwellian society limits what people put in their mouths?


Quote:

You hear countless stories from social workers who claim alcohol is THE problem out there when it comes to substance abuse. That's because it isn't prohibited. Which side are you on again?

Horsebull! The uniquely famous example of US alcohol prohibition proved that prohibition of alcohol INCREASED consumption, and INCREASED organised crime to the point that certain cities were under virtual mob rule. Consumption of substances is not a criminal problem! Policing does nothing to stop the underlying social issues that drive people to consume. The reason alcohol abuse is such a huge problem is because of the complex social situations that drive people to desire that particular kind of escape. Prohibition would not stop this, and you are blind to history if you think it would.

Simple, if prohibition worked, supply would drop. It hasn't, for all intents and purposes it has increased.

Doesn't supply increase even further when drugs are decriminalised?

And you are going to sit here and publish on record that you do not think demand of drugs is sensitive to price?

I said it is relatively insensitive to price. The black market is effectively a tax on drugs. Prohibition increases their cost to the end consumer. Yet it does not 'work.'

Quote:

Doesn't supply increase even further when drugs are decriminalised

Interesting point Freediver - perhaps more people will become addicted.  I'm not an expert on drugs - only my experience with some people who were addicted to heroin.  Once they went on the methadone program - I would assume there were 2 less people demanding it.

In decriminalising drugs - it would only be for those addicted.  There is no point continually arresting drug users - it has to be stopped at the source.

Maybe illicit drugs will be a continual merry-go-round - when some get off, some get on...you need an expert to answer this question.

This is a difficult subject and I have been on both sides. I am an ex heroin addict and have strong views on the side of zero tolerance.
Prohibition and government supply would solve many anti social type problems, such as robberies, break and enters etc. What it does not solve is the fact heroin, speed, ice and drug addicts in general should not procreate, drive cars or vote.
bugger EM!
Marijhuana is probably on the same level as alcohol.

mantra wrote on Jun 29^th, 2007 at 5:44pm:

Quote: Doesn't supply increase even further when drugs are decriminalised  Once they went on the methadone program - I would assume there were 2 less people demanding it

That's absolute bullshite, the methodone stops them from feeling withdrawls between hits.

I thought peope get hooked on methadone and it is harder to get off than smack ?

They do, and it is. But they don't stop taking smack when they are on the methodone, or they use smack to get off the methodone.
I tried the methodone program for 3 months, in the end I just took a good hard look at myself and my life, went cold turkey and moved away from any influence. now 4 years on I can visit old friends who are still farked up and just laugh at them, needless to say they don't welcome me anymore. It is always just a phone call away but self respect is stronger than addiction, I don't care what the "save the junkie" people say, Addiction is not an illness, it is just piss weak.

The physical pain and no sleep lasts about 2 weeks, then deminishes, the mental struggle last about 8 weeks.
10 weeks of agony and turmoil is a small price to pay for life.
0 TOLERANCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER

Quote:

They do, and it is. But they don't stop taking smack when they are on the methodone, or they use smack to get off the methodone.

That's a bit of a generalisation.  There may be some who abuse it - but many others don't.  I have seen people get back on their feet after going on the Methadone program and turn their lives around.

They may be physically addicted to it - but that's the extent of it.  As long as they can get their regular dose from the local chemist or doctors' surgery - they have no need to lie, cheat and steal to buy heroin and can resume a "normal" life.

mantra wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 1:58pm:

Quote: They do, and it is. But they don't stop taking smack when they are on the methodone, or they use smack to get off the methodone. That's a bit of a generalisation.  There may be some who abuse it - but many others don't.  I have seen people get back on their feet after going on the Methadone program and turn their lives around. They may be physically addicted to it - but that's the extent of it.  As long as they can get their regular dose from the local chemist or doctors' surgery - they have no need to lie, cheat and steal to buy heroin and can resume a "normal" life.

mantra,

my sister has been using drugs in one form or another all her life.

She is now onm methadone..But as I see it ,it is worse than the actual drugs she ws on.

She has to go thru all this redtape if she wants to obtain methadone to tide her over whereever it is she wants to go..Govt controls are very strict. She went away to attend my brothers funeral and I was told she was seeking and using other druga at the same time she was using her methadone.

thanks for the info merou about coming off theses drugs..I often thought about kidnaping her and forcing her o go cold turkey, but worried i may hurt her physically if I do that.

But not so you say..

It realy is sad OB I wish I could tell you about an easy way, unfortunately it is hurts and it's draining. You could kidnap her and hold her for as long as you like, she will just be waiting for her chance. The only way is if she is willing.

Mantra, you might think they are living a normal life, if they don't want you to know then you will not know, not every junkie is drawn and sick looking, not every junkie is a thief but they all lie to some extent.I had my last 2 boxing fights as an addict.

Oceans , srry to hear that. she has to want to do it herself, i believe.

Yes, junkies are EXCELLENT liars. They are ALWAYS thinking and obsessing about their next hit.
Most are on smack for about a decade (or so), then come off it by  their own accord.
If they are still alive.

Merou - that's why I put "normal" in inverted commas. I have no illusions about the nature of a junkie.   Like Oceans - I have a sibling who has been using the program for many years - and he is an angel today compared with what he used to be like.

He works, pays his bills and fulfills his obligations.  To  me that is 1000% better than the life he led as a junkie not to mention the pain he put our family through.

A friend works for a chemist supplying methadone and many of the people who come in for their dose are office workers, sales people, executives, tradesmen and of course the occasional dreg.

But if half these people can lead some sort of responsible life - good on them and good on the program.

mantra wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:47pm:

He works, pays his bills and fulfills his obligations.  To  me that is 1000% better than the life he led as a junkie not to mention the pain he put our family through. But if half these people can lead some sort of responsible life - good on them and good on the program.

I guess it must be hard to have to say "well he's better than he was" sometimes, I know, you have to accept that the person you love has no will to take control of his life. I'm sorry for you, but I remain unmoved on my stance, he's just piss weak.
Get a farkin life ya loser, is my advice to him, grow the bugger up and take a hard, unbiased look in the mirror.
It's when he can look in the mirror and say "you farkin useless piece of shite, you can't even take long weekend to visit your family because you need permission from a chemist". thats when he can want more for himself, and if he doesn't, well he doesn't deserve the life he has. kids with cancer deserve a shot at life they could have done something with it. Life is precious. pfffft Theres no excuses, you live and learn or you waste your life.
Sad but true.

Yes well that's a direct answer Merou - and fortunately only your opinion.

Do you believe that everyone gets off heroin when they are ready?  I don't think so.  Rather a piss weak human being who has a prop that isn't harming anyone - than a dead one.

His children wouldn't share your views.

Merou I'm a bit confused about your idea of shooting adicts after a certain period of time, given that you have been one. Is there any scientific basis to chosing 5 years? What's to stop someone changing it to less than the period of time you were addicted for? It seems like you are just drawing a line in the sand across your own toes. Are you just trying to find someone who is 'worse' than you to use as a scapegoat?

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2007 at 5:54pm:

Merou I'm a bit confused about your idea of shooting adicts after a certain period of time, given that you have been one. Is there any scientific basis to chosing 5 years? What's to stop someone changing it to less than the period of time you were addicted for? It seems like you are just drawing a line in the sand across your own toes. Are you just trying to find someone who is 'worse' than you to use as a scapegoat?

yes you are right,I think de criminilasing it is the best option. Quite afew heroin addicts actualy live a relatively "normal" life, apart from the fact they struggle to pay the bills, and own next to nothing.
I should be more mindful of what I write after a few bundies.
I was addicted for 3years and spent most of the last 2 wanting desperately to get clean, at the end of the day it's up to the addict, all the help in the world is worth nothing unless, in their heart, they want their life back. There is no easy way, and if it is too easy there is no fear of having to go through it again.

Sorry Mantra.

Quote:

his children

that is sad. my father was too selfish to put his children first too.

I'm a strong supporter of decriminilising all drugs.

It only has benefits.

I think it will ruin many lives, but nowhere near as many as the the current stance does.
I believe that at least 50% of crime is directly or indirectly attributed to drugs today, bashing, murder, rape, theft, robbery not tomention the obvious trafficking, possession, manufacture etc.
tens of thousands of crimes wiped out with one policy. political correctness has much to answer for.

yes, overnight one of the main incomes for criminals will stop.   :)

We could get a tax off pot and whatever. One appeal for it would stop.
Cops would have slightly safer lives. I like cops.

It'ld start a whole new industry, employing all the illegal growers now.
One really good point is the relationship between noncriminal drug users and cops would change significantly.

This Topic was moved here from Drug Policy by freediver.