http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132153106546066.html?m...

Well no great surprise there.
Only the naive and ideologically manacled just say no campaigners ever believed that prohibition would be an effective strategy against drug use.
As if they were unaware of the pitifully hopeless outcomes of the nearly 50 year old war on drugs, they maintain that with just a bit more effort we can stop it.

Well smarter heads are starting to face reality, the drug war is lost.
We now have terror organisations as major drug traffickers, way to go you conservative cretins.
Enabling terrorism by providing an easy source of funding which provides them with millions, if not billions of dollars.

We will all pay the price for that folly, sooner rather than later I fear.
We already do pay a significant financial and social cost for our foolish drug policies.
We pay for it with crime figures, and insurance, and jails so full of people from drug related offences that judges and bureaucrats have to give shorter sentences for really violent crims because of the chronic overload our system is under because of the illegal staus of drugs.

It is madness, and there is only one answer, there has only ever been one answer, take the money out of it.
As long as people can make huge profits from it, it will flourish.

Drugs need to be supplied and distributed by governments.
They need to control strength, what is available.

The bottom line is people love to get high, they always have, and always will, and some of our greatest figures throughout history have been users of opium, cocaine, heroin, etc., so while I agree that some drugs like those from the amphetamine family would need to have a special approach, because of their propensity to induce psychosis in so many, the people that use those drugs would be content with much weaker, less dangerous alternatives, if they could get a satisfying buzz off something else.

So wake up world, the drug war is killing you.

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 9:37pm:


Better not. The private sector always seeks to promote and advertise whatever it sells, even things like water and electricity in places where it has no competition. We don't want drugs promoted for profit; just supplied without hassles.

Another thing to consider is that the drug war might only be "lost" in the same sense as the second world war was "lost" years before it ended. The losers fought on ferociously and did not stop until leadership headquarters were over-run and destroyed. Until the leaders of the drug war are similarly dealt with, you can expect them to continue their war despite evidence of it being a lost cause. It's all at our expense, after all!

If they want a real war on drugs, then they should start with religions.

At least most mind altering drugs are merely a temporary delusion.

I am sure he was just kidding Tallo.
We know very well that many religions have incorporated mind altering substances into their rituals since the eraliest days of civilisation.
We still se rastifarians using pot most enthusiastically, and all supporters of freedom of religion would necessarily respect that.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 12:54pm:


The term 'war on drugs' is a bit of a  furphy as there is mainly only one side doing the dying.
Dealers and manufacturers serving time in gaol are treating their short stint in comfortable surroundings like attending an education workshop boning up on new techniques and gaining new contacts.
The reason the 'war' is getting away from us because the penalties to provide a deterrence aren't there in the first place.
It's good that you mention history because that is always a good place to start.
China did not fight three deadly Opium Wars with Britain on Chinese soil two centuries ago because they wanted something to do.
The forced importation of Opium into China in exchange for the export of Tea and spices to the Empire was the deal.
No Free Trade Agreement there, and the British weren't prepared to lose money on the Chinese renegging on the deal so war it was all three times.
The importation of Opium into China resulted in addicts deaths in the millions, the wars cost China thousands of dead in each one.
The Chinese initially sought to restrict the trade by allowing only one port in China for importation, but this attempt failed.
Queen Victoria also eventually banned Opium and Marijuana because of the impact it was having in British society, despite the government receiving revenue from it.
So by all means, mention the past.
The idea that governments can control supply, distribution, quality and what is available is also a furphy.
Chop Chop tobacco is still today been grown and sold illegally on the Far North QLD Tablelands and being send southwards despite cigarettes and tobacco being available everywhere.
Who doesn't know someone with a home brew kit at home?
Homes all over the country are making their favourite 'doom juice', and the home brew kit business in this country is absolutely flourishing.
How can the government control what is available in the future when they can't do so now?
Sourcing and the manufacture of new drugs will continue, surely you don't suggest 'everything' is legalised?
Do we really want 'Ice' legalised?
We can expect that there will still be drug labs out their making their own improved version of the governments 'low carb' product.
Drug manufacturers and dealers will not donate their time in Aged Care facilities singing songs to the oldies, or get real jobs if drugs are legalised.
They will simply find another activity to sponsor their tax free illegal lifestyle, that's human nature.
However, you are right that our gaols are full of drug dealers etc, whilst the 'real' violent criminals get short sentences because of overcrowding.
Although if the truth be known, most offenders have short stays today.
Even the Anita Cobby animals have already had their life sentences halved, and none are more violent than them.
You want to empty the gaols out for 'real' criminals and provide a deterrence for drug dealers and manufacturers, then that can be acheived.
If the government was deadly serious about the 'War on Drugs', then we would see dealers and manufacturers in the morgues rather than getting free education on Her Majesties pleasure.
Now, that's a deterrent.

Quote:


Possibly, however, the main intent in taking drugs is to feel cool.
I don't know many people who take drugs because they are after a bad trip. It's the promise of some desirable feeling that intiates the intent.

And for all intents and purposes, if there is a drug (of choice) that makes one feel cool, then they probably will be cool whilst the drug is having the desirable effect.
But of course most drugs do have a tradeoff. The tradeoff may vary amongst different types of people and may very often be relatively minor whilst the user is in control.
Society often warps that tradeoff for controlled drug users into a straight out lie, this will cause nothing but mistrust in the long run ..IMO.

In that vein, I think that the only lesson that Ben Cousins has learned is to tell them what they want to hear, and then rake in the cash for doing so from these dummies.
$600k for a doco that puts him in the limelight, just where he so desperately wants to be? Why would he bother busting his guts playing footy?
Forget about wearing white boots on the footy field to get noticed, get out there with a white nose and the gratuities will come rolling in.
I think that most rational teenagers would much prefer Cousins as a role model than that fat-ass booze swilling Les Twentyman, or many other (supposed) role models for that matter.

[Edit] ...If Cousins wasn't a pretty boy, then he would've been gone and forgotten long ago without a penny being added to his name. ..not that there's anything wrong with that.iii

Quote:


Somebody always dies anyway. That's the non-negotiable deal that we are all involved in.
Breaking news: Humans have dabbled in mind-altering substances or practices ever since they've had the cognitive ability to do so. And even before that.

A political system will always fail when it builds itself around a psyche of we are not, rather than what we are.
There is no better method IMO than to educate people upon the dangers in an honest and upfront manner. If that doesn't work, then adjust the political system around what is, rather than what isn't.

It's for that very same reason that a "one size fits all" Religio-Political system has never worked, and never will.

This thread is a tad hypocritical IMO in that the war was never there to be won. The war on drugs is in essence a war on yourself.