The Law recreational drugs decriminalize or not?

[Herne Hill Hammer]

if the "war on drugs" was abandoned and drugs legalized and regulated ah la alcohol they could be taxed, this along with the massive amount of money saved from the war on drugs being over would lead to there being plenty of money for rehabilitation and counselling services. in the long run we as a society would be better off financially and health wise. this would have a flow on affect, the huge amount of police and court resources currently used on the drug issue could be diverted into other areas of concern.

If people now are pinching stuff etc to fund habits, if it's legalized, they'll still be committing crimes to pay for it or are people also advocating that they be given their fix for free?

If it's legalized, people are still going to get locked up for committing crimes while under the influence. I don't think there's too many people currently incarcerated for doing nothing more than taking illicit drugs. It's all the other crap that comes along with it.

What will be the age that people will be able to legally purchase and consume the drugs?

 

[M Malice]

If people now are pinching stuff etc to fund habits, if it's legalized, they'll still be committing crimes to pay for it or are people also advocating that they be given their fix for free?

If it's legalized, people are still going to get locked up for committing crimes while under the influence. I don't think there's too many people currently incarcerated for doing nothing more than taking illicit drugs. It's all the other crap that comes along with it.

What will be the age that people will be able to legally purchase and consume the drugs?

would there be anymore people committing crimes to purchase legalized drugs than there are people who currently commit crimes to purchase alcohol?
hopefully "all the other crap that comes along with it" will evaporate with legalization. not many police or court resources are expended chasing down backyard alcohol still operators.
i say if you are old enough to vote and die for your country and are of sound mind you can put what ever you want in your own body, so i would say 18.

not saying there would not be problems with legalization but the approach that has been used for decades now does not work.

 

[Play by Numbers]

which science is that, country race? there's the obvious pain-relief and appetite increase in cancer patients. what else you got?

There is limited evidence, anecdotal and scientific, for the benefit of using cannabis to treat a number of conditions. The real limiting factor is not will or contrary evidence, it is scheduling and access to cannabis.

However, I would like to qualify my comment.

First, there needs to be a thorough investigation of a number of claims, via rigorous well designed study. There are so many things we don't know. Not just does cannabis have medical utility, or what conditions can it be used to treat, but what chemicals within the plant and which dosages are effective (for a particular ailment). Outside of dosage, things like side effects, effect on developmental pathways in teenagers and children, interactions with medications all need to be explored.

Lastly, what neurochemical and biochemical pathways do the substance effect, to alleviate symptoms or treat a disease. The last obviously, is less urgent and ancillary to use as a medicine.

Whilst I am not against it's free use as a medication in plant form, this is hardly the most effective way to use a medicine. If active ingredients are found to have beneficial effect, they need to be isolated, extracted or possibly synthesized, then prescribed at controlled dosages for a particular plan of treatment, taken in the least harmful way and subject to the same rigors of oversight that any other medication is. Each targeted to a particular condition, for which each medication requires regulatory approval and medical oversight. The application of THC, should be no different to any pharmaceutical.

As for recreational use, I have few qualms. Regulate and tax it. Limit access to adults, if harms from smoking are documented, then like cigarettes, create the right control regime.

Lastly, two conditions where cannabinoids may hold promise as a treatment are for poorly controlled seizures among some severe childhood epilepsies and for MS. The evidence for the first is limited, there are studies of low quality which show both positive and non evidenced effects at varying dosages for CBD.
There is some promising evidence for it's efficacy in treating symptoms of MS: jnnp.bmj.com/content/83/11/1125.full
A friend who was rather critical of available evidence recently attended a conference, where some pretty amazing research was presented on the utility of cannabis as a treatment for MS, I can see if she knows the name of the authors and if they have published.

 

[M Malice]

found this on another thread thought it might be relevant in part to this discussion.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-models-gst-on-marijuana-20160129-gmhjli.html

 

[AM]

All drugs should be decriminalised and made available through pharmacies or the like on strict grounds. Crime would go down, our courts would be freed-up and building jails would cease to be a growth industry.

Won't happen cos it's not in the interests of the movers-n-shakers, most notably the police.

 

[Long Live HFC]

All drugs should be decriminalised and made available through pharmacies or the like on strict grounds. Crime would go down, our courts would be freed-up and building jails would cease to be a growth industry.

Won't happen cos it's not in the interests of the movers-n-shakers, most notably the police.

everyone seems to have their own pet theory for why cannabis/narcotics are illegal. what benefit do police get from criminalisation? are you referring to funding? jobs? why/how do you think the police are able to control legislative change?

it seems many want there to be hidden, nefarious causes of drug laws when the reasons are pretty basic: political conservatism. there simply haven't been enough like-minded elected representatives in the same place at the same time; politicians generally don't like the idea of legalising drugs and have a (mostly) misplaced sense that prohibition reduces the amount of harm that drugs cause society.

we've seen a few jurisdictions (ACT, WA, NSW off the top of my head) that have flirted with decriminalisation and/or on-the-spot fines for cannabis possession/minor cultivation. so there's definitely been a shift in the past decade or two, and i think that can only increase as older, more conservative australians shuffle off to the big dutch oven in the sky and more Gen Xs and Ys are elected to office.

A group of eminent Australians, including former federal police chief Mick Palmer and former New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery, has released a report which says the 'war on drugs' has failed and concludes that Australia should consider legalising some substances.

vs

"I support a police regime that represents a de facto decriminalisation of lesser drugs at the margins," Senator Carr told ABC News Breakfast...

Today he said he did not back the wholesale legalisation of drugs like heroin.

"I don't believe a legalised drug regime can work, I'm opposed to that," Senator Carr said.

vs

Today Prime Minister Julia Gillard said she did not back the decriminalisation of drug use.

"I'm not in favour of decriminalisation of any of our drug laws," she said.

"We want to keep supporting people who need our help to break out of a cycle of addiction and we need to keep policing so that we are tackling those that are seeking to make a profit out of what really is a trade in incredible misery."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-03/eminent-group-calls-for-end-to-drug-prohibition/3928706

 

[Showbags]

The proponents of drug and alcohol prohibition have always gone by the theory that if you target the suppliers and reduce the supply of drugs then the price would rise enough to discourage people from using the drug.

This is rubbish. Basic economics tells you that if supply is restricted then yes, prices will rise. But what they don't say is that the attractiveness of producing and selling the drug would rise as well. Rival drug dealers will increase production and/or new drug dealers will step into the breach where the previous drug dealer was removed. This is because the risk/reward ratio is all of a sudden a lot more attractive and more people are willing to take the risk to supply the drug. Therefore supply will increase and we will be back to square one again.

All governments that insist on prohibition are doing is just playing an expensive and unwinnable game of whack a mole. You knock one drug dealer down and another will eventually pop his/her head up again to pick up the slack.

Targeting supply will never win the drug war as long as their is a demand for the product being sold. Much better off focusing your attention and law enforcement dollars on rehabilitation and health related programs.

 

[AM]

everyone seems to have their own pet theory for why cannabis/narcotics are illegal. what benefit do police get from criminalisation? are you referring to funding? jobs? why/how do you think the police are able to control legislative change?

it seems many want there to be hidden, nefarious causes of drug laws when the reasons are pretty basic: political conservatism. there simply haven't been enough like-minded elected representatives in the same place at the same time; politicians generally don't like the idea of legalising drugs and have a (mostly) misplaced sense that prohibition reduces the amount of harm that drugs cause society.

we've seen a few jurisdictions (ACT, WA, NSW off the top of my head) that have flirted with decriminalisation and/or on-the-spot fines for cannabis possession/minor cultivation. so there's definitely been a shift in the past decade or two, and i think that can only increase as older, more conservative australians shuffle off to the big dutch oven in the sky and more Gen Xs and Ys are elected to office.

The Police and their various unions are all about expanding their numbers and power base so decriminalisation - ie possession no longer triggers criminal sanctions - is antithetical to that powerful push. Some might suggest some darker reasons too - not me though.

The BMJ did a piece on Portugal who decriminalised the use of all illicit drugs over a decade ago. Essentially the findings were:

"Portugal enacted one of the most extensive drug law reforms in the world when it decriminalized low-level possession and use of all illicit drugs nearly a decade and a half ago. Results of the Portuguese experience demonstrate that drug decriminalization – alongside a serious investment in treatment and harm reduction services – can significantly improve public safety and health."

"No major increases in drug use"

"Reduced problematic and adolescent drug use"

"Fewer people arrested and incarcerated for drugs" " Reduced drug-induced deaths"

" Decriminalization, Treatment and Harm Reduction: A Health-Centered Approach"

"Independent Research Conclusions Nearly a decade and a half later, Portugal shows that decriminalization does not inevitably lead to increases in drug use, nor does it lead to a culture of lawlessness. Indeed, none of the fears of critics have come to pass.

Instead, law enforcement and the criminal justice system function more efficiently, and Portugal has been able to invest in improving the health and wellbeing of people struggling with drug problems. "

There's also an interesting piece in The Conversation on the matter.

http://theconversation.com/decrimin...g-evidence-in-the-drug-law-reform-debate-6321

 

[M Malice]

The proponents of drug and alcohol prohibition have always gone by the theory that if you target the suppliers and reduce the supply of drugs then the price would rise enough to discourage people from using the drug.

This is rubbish. Basic economics tells you that if supply is restricted then yes, prices will rise. But what they don't say is that the attractiveness of producing and selling the drug would rise as well. Rival drug dealers will increase production and/or new drug dealers will step into the breach where the previous drug dealer was removed. This is because the risk/reward ratio is all of a sudden a lot more attractive and more people are willing to take the risk to supply the drug. Therefore supply will increase and we will be back to square one again.

All governments that insist on prohibition are doing is just playing an expensive and unwinnable game of whack a mole. You knock one drug dealer down and another will eventually pop his/her head up again to pick up the slack.

Targeting supply will never win the drug war as long as their is a demand for the product being sold. Much better off focusing your attention and law enforcement dollars on rehabilitation and health related programs.

great post Showbags, my feelings precisely. also with the resulting rise in the price of illegal drugs, the low level users ie. the break and enters that are committed to finance their habit must by necessity increase, thus continuing the never ending cycle.
politicians in the main win votes from the populace by being tough on crime, and until this is seen as a health issue and not a crime issue i can not see that changing. i did have an association with a high ranking police officer in the QPS 12 to 15 years ago and believe me they do not think this war can be won.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The Police and their various unions are all about expanding their numbers and power base so decriminalisation - ie possession no longer triggers criminal sanctions - is antithetical to that powerful push.

sorry AM, but this just reads like the sophist bollocks one might hear in high school legal studies. do you have anything substantive to offer in support of this hypothesis? as per below, you're ignoring the fact that policing resources could and would be utilised elsewhere.

The BMJ did a piece on Portugal who decriminalised the use of all illicit drugs over a decade ago. Essentially the findings were:

"Portugal enacted one of the most extensive drug law reforms in the world when it decriminalized low-level possession and use of all illicit drugs nearly a decade and a half ago. Results of the Portuguese experience demonstrate that drug decriminalization – alongside a serious investment in treatment and harm reduction services – can significantly improve public safety and health."

"No major increases in drug use"

"Reduced problematic and adolescent drug use"

"Fewer people arrested and incarcerated for drugs" " Reduced drug-induced deaths"

" Decriminalization, Treatment and Harm Reduction: A Health-Centered Approach"

"Independent Research Conclusions Nearly a decade and a half later, Portugal shows that decriminalization does not inevitably lead to increases in drug use, nor does it lead to a culture of lawlessness. Indeed, none of the fears of critics have come to pass.

Instead, law enforcement and the criminal justice system function more efficiently, and Portugal has been able to invest in improving the health and wellbeing of people struggling with drug problems. "

i am well aware of the results in portugal. none of that is relevant to my question, unless you're attempting to imply with the bolded that the decriminalisation of drugs in portugal has had a significant impact on policing numbers and their "power base". i would suggest that this "more efficient" criminal justice system has merely shifted its resources to focus on other forms of crime (with the $$ saved in legal proceedings being moved into treatment and prevention).

 

[AM]

sorry AM, but this just reads like the sophist bollocks one might hear in high school legal studies. do you have anything substantive to offer in support of this hypothesis? as per below, you're ignoring the fact that policing resources could and would be utilised elsewhere

Putting to one side your puerile ad hominem remark. Anyone who isn't aware of the power and influence of the TPAV and their desire to grow and assume more power must be living in a parallel universe. I suggest you start by reading some of Paul Mullet's writing and acquaint yourself with almost any political apparatchik who has had dealings with them as you clearly don't follow the news. All unions attempt both, it's just that some -by virtue of their role - are in a better position to use it.

Whether decriminalisation would stem the growth or lower your numbers -probably by attrition - neither of us would know.

i am well aware of the results in portugal. none of that is relevant to my question, unless you're attempting to imply with the bolded that the decriminalisation of drugs in portugal has had a significant impact on policing numbers and their "power base". i would suggest that this "more efficient" criminal justice system has merely shifted its resources to focus on other forms of crime (with the $$ saved in legal proceedings being moved into treatment and prevention).

Well! We differ again. Put simply, you don't see the benefits of decriminalisation. The Portugal experience demonstrates there are considerable benefits.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Putting to one side your puerile ad hominem remark. Anyone who isn't aware of the power and influence of the TPAV and their desire to grow and assume more power must be living in a parallel universe. I suggest you start by reading some of Paul Mullet's writing and acquaint yourself with almost any political apparatchik who has had dealings with them as you clearly don't follow the news. All unions attempt both, it's just that some -by virtue of their role - are in a better position to use it.

Whether decriminalisation would stem the growth or lower your numbers -probably by attrition - neither of us would know.

so, that's a "no" then I take it?

Well! We differ again. Put simply, you don't see the benefits of decriminalisation. The Portugal experience demonstrates there are considerable benefits.

where the hell did you get that from? we're not talking about the benefits to decriminalisation. we're talking about your assertion that the status quo will never change because the policing forces benefit from criminalisation and control legislative change (I even provided 3 AU jurisdictions where you're demonstrably wrong. do we need to reference the US too?).

 

[HARKER]

In it's most simple sense, you can be deemed a criminal for smoking some weed.
I got busted many years ago and had to go to court for it. I had a record for choosing to smoke some weed. Hard to comprehend, isn't it?

Of course drugs will be decriminalized. It's not that I'm an advocate for them but I am an advocate of the principle of one making ones choices for themselves.....good or bad as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else.

I wish we were just honest about the issue and deal with it head on as opposed to waiting until the numbers stack in a certain direction.,

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I have a 3-point plan to solve the issue of drugs. All drugs.

1. Legalise them

2. Regulate them

3. Tax the s**t out of them

 

[M Malice]

I have a 3-point plan to solve the issue of drugs. All drugs.

1. Legalise them

2. Regulate them

3. Tax the s**t out of them

love it. all stated in my OP. but the way you have more succinctly worded it is sublime.

 

[james Dean]

I have a 3-point plan to solve the issue of drugs. All drugs.

1. Legalise them

2. Regulate them

3. Tax the s**t out of them

So you think drugs such as heroin and ice should be regulated and sold by the government to consumers?

I mean I'm all for de-criminalization and treating drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one, but this is too far

 

[M Malice]

So you think drugs such as heroin and ice should be regulated and sold by the government to consumers?

I mean I'm all for de-criminalization and treating drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one, but this is too far

not sold by the government, by private business as happens with alcohol. the government just regulates for quality and strength. the reasons for this have been discussed extensively in this thread. would be interested in your theories on ways that we may win this unwinnable war on drugs that consumes vast amounts of taxpayer money in policing, court resources and incarceration. what we are doing now is certainly not working. i would expand on Illinois Nazi 3 points and add a 4th. use money raised through taxation on these products and the large amount of money that would be saved through police and court time being caught up in this never ending cycle.
4. greatly expand rehabilitation and counseling services.

 

[james Dean]

not sold by the government, by private business as happens with alcohol. the government just regulates for quality and strength. the reasons for this have been discussed extensively in this thread. would be interested in your theories on ways that we may win this unwinnable war on drugs that consumes vast amounts of taxpayer money in policing, court resources and incarceration. what we are doing now is certainly not working. i would expand on Illinois Nazi 3 points and add a 4th. use money raised through taxation on these products and the large amount of money that would be saved through police and court time being caught up in this never ending cycle.
4. greatly expand rehabilitation and counseling services.

Well I clearly said that I agree it is a waste of time treating this drug addiction as a criminal issue, and I agree that it is a waste of taxpayer money policing it.

I personally would rather see the money used on policing drugs be redirected into health clinics and treatment centers to assist drug users in becoming clean.

I believe that creating easier access to highly dangerous and addictive drugs, will not help the issue at all. It will simply create a higher number of people addicted.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Well I clearly said that I agree it is a waste of time treating this drug addiction as a criminal issue, and I agree that it is a waste of taxpayer money policing it.

I personally would rather see the money used on policing drugs be redirected into health clinics and treatment centers to assist drug users in becoming clean.

I believe that creating easier access to highly dangerous and addictive drugs, will not help the issue at all. It will simply create a higher number of people addicted.

Evidence does not support this theory. Nor do Bruce Alexander's rats

 

[james Dean]

Evidence does not support this theory. Nor do Bruce Alexander's rats

What evidence are you referring to exactly?

 

[M Malice]

Well I clearly said that I agree it is a waste of time treating this drug addiction as a criminal issue, and I agree that it is a waste of taxpayer money policing it.

I personally would rather see the money used on policing drugs be redirected into health clinics and treatment centers to assist drug users in becoming clean.

I believe that creating easier access to highly dangerous and addictive drugs, will not help the issue at all. It will simply create a higher number of people addicted.

i completely agree with your first 2 paragraphs.
on your final point. i don't see vast numbers of people running out to try cocaine or ice if it was made legal, you would have a few sure but at least you would know what you are getting, and my philosophy is if you are a sound of mind adult you should be able to ingest what ever you like into your body.
alcohol and prescription medication causes more societal/family unit problems than all "illegal" drugs combined.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I believe that creating easier access to highly dangerous and addictive drugs, will not help the issue at all. It will simply create a higher number of people addicted.

while this is an understandable assumption, the experience in Portugal suggests otherwise. there has been no change to drug use in the medium to long term (though am pretty sure I read in about 2003 that cocaine use did experience a short spike). it now has one of the lowest death rates for drugs in europe, massively improved health statistics (eg spread of HIV), and more/better treatment options for addiction.

 

[james Dean]

i completely agree with your first 2 paragraphs.
on your final point. i don't see vast numbers of people running out to try cocaine or ice if it was made legal, you would have a few sure but at least you would know what you are getting, and my philosophy is if you are a sound of mind adult you should be able to ingest what ever you like into your body.
alcohol and prescription medication causes more societal/family unit problems than all "illegal" drugs combined.

And do you not think that ease of access is the main reason for that?

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

What evidence are you referring to exactly?

Portugal

 

[james Dean]

while this is an understandable assumption, the experience in Portugal suggests otherwise. there has been no change to drug use in the medium to long term (though am pretty sure I read in about 2003 that cocaine use did experience a short spike). it now has one of the lowest death rates for drugs in europe, massively improved health statistics (eg spread of HIV), and more/better treatment options for addiction.

Yes, but Portugal have simply decriminalized drugs, they have not made it available OTC like an earlier poster suggested should be the case. I believe one of the main reasons people are afraid to check into rehab or go to hospital after an OD is because of potential criminal charges