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

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

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.