Decriminalisation of drugs... your thoughts?

[CheapCharlie]

What economics?

some of the cost off the top of my head... Ill miss a truck load here but here are some main areas.

Law enforcement costs: Attempting to restrict drugs is an unwinnable and costly job. There is massive infrastructure needed to combat importation and dealing, most of which is lucky to stop a few percent of drugs reaching their destination. There are various levels of law enforcement trained to combat drugs and ever increasing numbers needed for it. Enforcement of low level drug users and the myriad of crimes they commit to feed their habit...This escalates into the private sector who often need to employ security or spend more money to tighten basics, to stop drug fuelled crimes of opportunity

Costs of imprisonment:All the petty drug related crime and the $$ resources needed to manage the offenders. MOst of that totally avoidable

Corruption. There is a high economic cost to corruption and drugs and crime related to drugs fuel the corruption. There is also a cost to society of increased corruption

Medical: Hospitalisation, rehab, ambulance overdose , transmission of viruses vis shared usage... Most of these are avoidable costs if there was a legalised safe product that could be taken in a safe and clean environment.

Taxes
The government is missing out out on billions in taxes from GST , company tax, etcetera.

Legalisation would boost the government coffers considerably.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Machine guns are safe.
So are F1 race cars.
So are large passenger planes.

Not just anybody can use any of those things.


Your entire argument, as I suspected, is nothing more than war on drugs didn't work, drugs are cool mm-kay.

How does that address medical marijuana usage?

You have claimed repeatedly that marijuana is an unsafe drug, yet the very same drug is being used medically?
How do u explain that?

 

[Number37]

How does that address medical marijuana usage?

You have claimed repeatedly that marijuana is an unsafe drug, yet the very same drug is being used medically?
How do u explain that?

How does 596 US states legalizing medicinal marijuana make marijuana safe?

 

[Number37]

some of the cost off the top of my head... Ill miss a truck load here but here are some main areas.

Law enforcement costs: Attempting to restrict drugs is an unwinnable and costly job. There is massive infrastructure needed to combat importation and dealing, most of which is lucky to stop a few percent of drugs reaching their destination. There are various levels of law enforcement trained to combat drugs and ever increasing numbers needed for it. Enforcement of low level drug users and the myriad of crimes they commit to feed their habit...This escalates into the private sector who often need to employ security or spend more money to tighten basics, to stop drug fuelled crimes of opportunity

Costs of imprisonment:All the petty drug related crime and the $$ resources needed to manage the offenders. MOst of that totally avoidable

Corruption. There is a high economic cost to corruption and drugs and crime related to drugs fuel the corruption. There is also a cost to society of increased corruption

Medical: Hospitalisation, rehab, ambulance overdose , transmission of viruses vis shared usage... Most of these are avoidable costs if there was a legalised safe product that could be taken in a safe and clean environment.

Taxes
The government is missing out out on billions in taxes from GST , company tax, etcetera.

Legalisation would boost the government coffers considerably.

Pie in the sky.

Law enforcement will still be trying to catch illegal drug dealers. Just as they now try to catch illegal liquor dealers, gun dealers etc etc.

Where there is imprisonment for "petty drug related crime" there will still be imprisonment for petty drug related crime.
If weed or any other drug is legal it won't make stealing legal. It won't make assault legal. etc etc

Corruption. LOL
Are you seriously saying that drugs bring corruption but that corruption will magically disappear if they are decriminalized.
I hope that's not what you're saying, because that would be daft.

Medical costs: More LOL.

Taxes: LOL

Huge money for the govt to make from taxes but magically all these drug sales will lead to no medical problems or law enforcement costs or corruption.
That is like the uber drugs are cool mm-kay argument.

Fantasy, wishful thinking, unsubstantiated drivel.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Pie in the sky.

Law enforcement will still be trying to catch illegal drug dealers. Just as they now try to catch illegal liquor dealers, gun dealers etc etc.

Where there is imprisonment for "petty drug related crime" there will still be imprisonment for petty drug related crime.
If weed or any other drug is legal it won't make stealing legal. It won't make assault legal. etc etc

Corruption. LOL
Are you seriously saying that drugs bring corruption but that corruption will magically disappear if they are decriminalized.
I hope that's not what you're saying, because that would be daft.

Medical costs: More LOL.

Taxes: LOL

Huge money for the govt to make from taxes but magically all these drug sales will lead to no medical problems or law enforcement costs or corruption.
That is like the uber drugs are cool mm-kay argument.

Fantasy, wishful thinking, unsubstantiated drivel.

So your counter point is "LOL" ?

 

[Toump Ass]

By your argument marijuana is not safe, so why do 33 states in America use Marijuana for medical purposes?

ICYMI marijuana has been legally available for medicinal purposes in Australia since 2016, originally for "exceptional circumstances" (ie: young children, terminally ill) but these rules have been relaxed significantly in recent times.

Andrew's plan is for Victoria to be the marijuana growing capital of Australia. Very smart move on his part- it's clear legal recreational marijuana use is just around the corner so why not set up the infrastructure to mass produce it now?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-26/victoria-set-to-become-medicinal-cannabis-capital/9696330

 

[CheapCharlie]

ICYMI marijuana has been legally available for medicinal purposes in Australia since 2016, originally for "exceptional circumstances" (ie: young children, terminally ill) but these rules have been relaxed significantly in recent times.

Andrew's plan is for Victoria to be the marijuana growing capital of Australia. Very smart move on his part- it's clear legal recreational marijuana use is just around the corner so why not set up the infrastructure to mass produce it now?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-26/victoria-set-to-become-medicinal-cannabis-capital/9696330

Victoria is at the front of many social issues happening in Australia. It will be no surprise to see them leading the way here

There are a number of Australian cannabis companies on the ASX now

 

[CheapCharlie]

There is a definite opposition to legalisation or decriminalisation from many of the entrenched social services and upper enforcement areas.
It's a protection of job and status, clinging to petty power. Once the laws changed, some areas of work will be redundant and some law enforcement and social counselling roles wont be needed anymore

 

[Snake_Baker]

ICYMI marijuana has been legally available for medicinal purposes in Australia since 2016, originally for "exceptional circumstances" (ie: young children, terminally ill) but these rules have been relaxed significantly in recent times.

Andrew's plan is for Victoria to be the marijuana growing capital of Australia. Very smart move on his part- it's clear legal recreational marijuana use is just around the corner so why not set up the infrastructure to mass produce it now?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-26/victoria-set-to-become-medicinal-cannabis-capital/9696330

Try getting a doctor to prescribe it.

 

[Number37]

So your counter point is "LOL" ?

Yep.
You have made a series of unsubstantiated wishful thinking assumptions.
There is nothing to counter.

You might as well have written drugs are cool mm-kay. Or.
Parties are better when people take drugs because drugs are cool mm-kay.

 

[Toump Ass]

Try getting a doctor to prescribe it.

Fair enough, it's not quite as relaxed as some places but I have a friend who has it prescribed (cancer patient, early 30s). Much easier to get then it previously was. It's a step in the right direction.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Pie in the sky.

Law enforcement will still be trying to catch illegal drug dealers. Just as they now try to catch illegal liquor dealers, gun dealers etc etc.

Really? There is a cabal of illegal liquor dealers operating out there? Moonshine out in the burbs of Penrith?
I haven't heard about this massive organised crime racket in liquor.
Can you give us all more details how this currently works in Australia?

Of course you can't and Ill tell you why. Because there is no major problem in Australia with illegal liquor sales.
Government puts a tax on alcohol and collects revenue.
Government collects GST
Government collects company tax
Individuals get employed by alcohol industry and pay taxes
The cost of enforcing a prohibition on alcohol would be how many hundreds times the cost of having it being legal?

Illegal drug dealing will be backyard guys making pennies. The big money that organised crime made will vanish overnight.
All those billions being made by drug cartels with zero tax being paid?
Government puts a tax on the drug and collects revenue
Government collects GST from sales of drug
Government collects company tax
Individuals get employed by industry and pay tax

The majority of people will buy the drugs legally and safely, taking away demand and profit motive for the illegal dealers.

Where there is imprisonment for "petty drug related crime" there will still be imprisonment for petty drug related crime.

GOvernment would subside usage for some areas of society or more likely the price will be driven down, enabling safer and cleaner and more efficient doses.
Crime which is driven by desperation to get a hit will decrease dramatically, leading to a large decrease in drug related incarceration

If weed or any other drug is legal it won't make stealing legal. It won't make assault legal. etc etc

Obviously. No one but a an idiot would make the case that stealing or assault would be illegal.
But what will happen is a massive drop in drug related crime and assault, which will lead to lower incarceration rates and as a result will lead a massive drop in expenditure in this area.

There will still be some drug related crime, but it will drop dramatically

Corruption. LOL
Are you seriously saying that drugs bring corruption but that corruption will magically disappear if they are decriminalized.
I hope that's not what you're saying, because that would be daft.

Did i say corruption would magically disappear?
Corruption related to drugs and selling drugs will crash overnight.
This has a positive effect for society as a whole

Medical costs: More LOL.

Yes, medical costs.
Legalising will bring with it safe usage spaces and clean usage spaces, with less risk of injury and harm brought about by using unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
There will be less tainted drug batches. The dosage you are meant to get is what u will get.
Due to the safe drug using spaces where legal drugs can be consumed there will be less overdoses and less medical emergencies and less ambulance call outs. Whats one of those billed at? Almost $500 a call?
There will be less shared equipment resulting in less chance of spreading viruses.
Assessment and treatment will be far more readily managed for problem users.
All of that will result in lower medical costs short term and long term

Taxes: LOL

Yes, taxes
This is how governments raise money to provide services.
Currently all that money from drug sales goes into the pockets of criminal organisations
Government will collect the tax revenue

Huge money for the govt to make from taxes but magically all these drug sales will lead to no medical problems or law enforcement costs or corruption.

No one reasonable is saying there wont be some issues
As stated, there will be issues, its just the issues will be easier to manage and less than under the current regime

That is like the uber drugs are cool mm-kay argument.

Fantasy, wishful thinking, unsubstantiated drivel.

Your solution so far is:
It dont work now, but don't try and fix it...because 'LOL"!

 

[Snake_Baker]

Fair enough, it's not quite as relaxed as some places but I have a friend who has it prescribed (cancer patient, early 30s). Much easier to get then it previously was. It's a step in the right direction.

It carries professional stigma.

It shouldn't, but it does.

I'd appreciate it if you could P.M. the particulars of this doctor to help a friend of mine who is in a bad way and has little in the way of alternatives.

 

[Number37]

Really? There is a cabal of illegal liquor dealers operating out there? Moonshine out in the burbs of Penrith?
I haven't heard about this massive organised crime racket in liquor.
Can you give us all more details how this currently works in Australia?

Of course you can't and Ill tell you why. Because there is no major problem in Australia with illegal liquor sales.

LOL.
You spend wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to much time making up s**t.

Who said there was a cabal of illegal liquor dealers?

There's laws in place and those laws are enforced. SIMPLES.

Decriminalization of drugs would be the same. There would still be police trying to catch drug dealers because selling drugs would still be illegal. Derrrrr

GOvernment would subside usage for some areas of society or more likely the price will be driven down, enabling safer and cleaner and more efficient doses.

You've been reading wayyyyy too much of SnakeBakers garbage.
Lower price --> safer and cleaner & more efficient doses. LOL
Because drug use is all about safer, cleaner more efficient doses. LOL
You really should watch some of those docos on Portugal where the drug users scoff at FREE drugs because they don't provide the required hit, so they head on down back to their crack dealer.

Crime which is driven by desperation to get a hit will decrease dramatically, leading to a large decrease in drug related incarceration

Interesting theory. What about assault? Is that driven by desperation as well?

What about if the only way to get drugs was via prescription? You don't think there would be desperate junkies criming it up for that?
Or decriminalization = utopia, because drugs are cool mm-kay?

Lets also not forget that decriminalization = people will use drugs safely. LOL
Are you off your face right now? Seriously, that is some primo nonsense.

Yes, medical costs.
Legalising will bring with it safe usage spaces and clean usage spaces, with less risk of injury and harm brought about by using unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
There will be less tainted drug batches. The dosage you are meant to get is what u will get.
Due to the safe drug using spaces where legal drugs can be consumed there will be less overdoses and less medical emergencies and less ambulance call outs. Whats one of those billed at? Almost $500 a call?
There will be less shared equipment resulting in less chance of spreading viruses.
Assessment and treatment will be far more readily managed for problem users.
All of that will result in lower medical costs short term and long term

So drug users will never ever need medical attention because decriminalization is a magic wand that magically dispenses safe drugs and drug users will only ever take the correct dosage and they will never ever misuse drugs because unicorns can fly. Right?

Your solution so far is:
It dont work now, but don't try and fix it...because 'LOL"!

How unsurprising that you need to make up more s**t to try to make another point which is no more than a load of s**t, like the other s**t you made up.



Your solution so far is:
Magic.
Drugs are cool mm-kay.
Let's ignore all the evidence of the harm that comes from drugs and drug use and pretend it's all the fault of the war on drugs.
Drugs are cool mm-kay.
Who wants to go to a party without drugs, drugs are F'ing cool mm-kay... mm-kay.

 

[CheapCharlie]

LOL.
You spend wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to much time making up s**t.

Who said there was a cabal of illegal liquor dealers?

There's laws in place and those laws are enforced. SIMPLES.

Decriminalization of drugs would be the same. There would still be police trying to catch drug dealers because selling drugs would still be illegal. Derrrrr

You implied that Policing of illegal drug sales under legalisation would be a huge issue, as big as the policing for illegal alcohol sales/manufacture.
The policing of illegal alcohol sales is minuscule, so we can expect the same when drugs are legalised.

Are you now backtracking on this claim of yours?

You've been reading wayyyyy too much of SnakeBakers garbage.
Lower price --> safer and cleaner & more efficient doses. LOL
Because drug use is all about safer, cleaner more efficient doses. LOL
You really should watch some of those docos on Portugal where the drug users scoff at FREE drugs because they don't provide the required hit, so they head on down back to their crack dealer.

Portugal's policy has worked across the country, decreasing drug deaths, decreasing transmission of HIV , decreasing murder and assualt rates, decreased value of illicit street drugs, drug related criminal cases reduced, increased uptake in treatment, etectera etcetera
Just because you saw some sensationalist documentary featuring a few drug addicts - It doesn't represent the actual stats

Interesting theory. What about assault? Is that driven by desperation as well?

There will be less assault related to drugs

What about if the only way to get drugs was via prescription? You don't think there would be desperate junkies criming it up for that?

prescription is still better than what we have now
You live in fear of change

Or decriminalization = utopia, because drugs are cool mm-kay?

Lets also not forget that decriminalization = people will use drugs safely. LOL
Are you off your face right now? Seriously, that is some primo nonsense.

People will be able to use drugs safely and openly, most likely in the place they buy from

So drug users will never ever need medical attention because decriminalization is a magic wand that magically dispenses safe drugs and drug users will only ever take the correct dosage and they will never ever misuse drugs because unicorns can fly. Right?

There will be less problems.
I didn't say zero problems
Any system has abuses, but legalisation will see less abuses than what we have now

How unsurprising that you need to make up more s**t to try to make another point which is no more than a load of s**t, like the other s**t you made up.

Your solution so far is:
Magic.
Drugs are cool mm-kay.
Let's ignore all the evidence of the harm that comes from drugs and drug use and pretend it's all the fault of the war on drugs.
Drugs are cool mm-kay.
Who wants to go to a party without drugs, drugs are F'ing cool mm-kay... mm-kay.

I have provided you with a multitude of reasons for legalisation or decriminalisation, which will lead to better outcomes than we have now

You have provided nothing but false equivalency and strawmen in an attempt to justify your intractable stance, punctuated with 'LOL' and 'drugs are cool mm-kay'
Your attempt at ridicule might have worked in grade 9 but on this board it really makes you look like...you are in Grade 9

 

[ShanDog]

ICYMI marijuana has been legally available for medicinal purposes in Australia since 2016, originally for "exceptional circumstances" (ie: young children, terminally ill) but these rules have been relaxed significantly in recent times.

Andrew's plan is for Victoria to be the marijuana growing capital of Australia. Very smart move on his part- it's clear legal recreational marijuana use is just around the corner so why not set up the infrastructure to mass produce it now?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-26/victoria-set-to-become-medicinal-cannabis-capital/9696330

I think SA has missed a big opportunity to get in early with this after the Holden factory closed. Would have been an excellent site to start that manufacturing and distribution, as well as create a number of jobs for those who lost them at Holden.

 

[Gough]

I think SA has missed a big opportunity to get in early with this after the Holden factory closed. Would have been an excellent site to start that manufacturing and distribution, as well as create a number of jobs for those who lost them at Holden.

So many experienced growers too, that period of decriminalisation taught a generation to raise a couple of girls.

 

[Toump Ass]

I think SA has missed a big opportunity to get in early with this after the Holden factory closed. Would have been an excellent site to start that manufacturing and distribution, as well as create a number of jobs for those who lost them at Holden.

Fair call... personally I always saw Tasmania as the prime candidate: plenty of arable land, strong agricultural history, high unemployment (and I'm sure many would appreciate a viable career alternative to logging). A massive boost in tourism dollars as well.

 

[Gough]

Fair call... personally I always saw Tasmania as the prime candidate: plenty of arable land, strong agricultural history, high unemployment (and I'm sure many would appreciate an a viable career alternative to logging). A massive boost in tourism dollars as well.

A uni mate of my old man's grows poppys, the good sort, down there.

 

[ShanDog]

Fair call... personally I always saw Tasmania as the prime candidate: plenty of arable land, strong agricultural history, high unemployment (and I'm sure many would appreciate an a viable career alternative to logging). A massive boost in tourism dollars as well.

True, Tasmania would probably be the biggest beneficiary of a new industry popping up almost overnight like that considering their historical high unemployment compared to other states.

I think whichever state pulls the trigger on legislating for the production and legalisation of cannibis first will get a massive windfall. If your state has the infrastructure and distribution sorted before other states eventually follow suit, your state could be the one providing the product to the rest of the country for some time.

 

[Number37]

You implied that Policing of illegal drug sales under legalisation would be a huge issue, as big as the policing for illegal alcohol sales/manufacture.
The policing of illegal alcohol sales is minuscule, so we can expect the same when drugs are legalised.

Are you now backtracking on this claim of yours?





Portugal's policy has worked across the country, decreasing drug deaths, decreasing transmission of HIV , decreasing murder and assualt rates, decreased value of illicit street drugs, drug related criminal cases reduced, increased uptake in treatment, etectera etcetera
Just because you saw some sensationalist documentary featuring a few drug addicts - It doesn't represent the actual stats



There will be less assault related to drugs


prescription is still better than what we have now
You live in fear of change




People will be able to use drugs safely and openly, most likely in the place they buy from



There will be less problems.
I didn't say zero problems
Any system has abuses, but legalisation will see less abuses than what we have now





I have provided you with a multitude of reasons for legalisation or decriminalisation, which will lead to better outcomes than we have now

You have provided nothing but false equivalency and strawmen in an attempt to justify your intractable stance, punctuated with 'LOL' and 'drugs are cool mm-kay'
Your attempt at ridicule might have worked in grade 9 but on this board it really makes you look like...you are in Grade 9

You simply double downed your previous post with the same unsubstantiated nonsense but this time with longer sentences.
Drugs are cool mm-kay is all that you have, the rest is unsubstantiated nonsense.

The war on drugs fail is all that you have to support your unsubstantiated nonsense.
You fail to recognise, or even acknowledge, that there has been a considerable softening of the law in relation to drug use all around the country.

Worst of all you are just repeating the same BS that hasn't done a thing for safer drug use despite being trolled out for the last 30 years.

You will no doubt continue to wholly ignore the reality, you will no doubt continue to misrepresent the reality because your ignorance allows you to write unsubstantiated nonsense dressed up as concern...it is no more than bullshit.

Of course you will say I am the complete opposite of whatever nonsense it is that you're saying + the usual other trash that you write because you simply can't accept that in my view the things that you write about decriminalization are complete and utter garbage which you only ever substantiate with fantasy and wishful thinking.

You don't even have the integrity to just say what you really want is easy access to drugs because drugs are cool mm-kay.

 

[LFTWNG11]

You fail to recognise, or even acknowledge, that there has been a considerable softening of the law in relation to drug use all around the country.

What is the baseline for this assertion? Are you asserting for instance that laws around supply and sale of Meth have gotten softer recently?

Worst of all you are just repeating the same BS that hasn't done a thing for safer drug use despite being trolled out for the last 30 years.

So harm minimisation strategies actually make drug use more dangerous? Interesting conclusion to draw considering all the information out there on the subject.

 

[twotooto]

Number37 - how many ******* times are you going to use 'drugs are cool mm-kay' as a retort? I think this is a valid discussion to have as it's a fairly complex, divisive issue with pros and cons on both sides but it seems you aren't really serious about fleshing it out. You've made up your mind and that's it. That's fine but why are you even here. Are you just wanting to derail this thread?

I think the pro decriminalisation side is a little bit more nuanced than 'easy access to drugs because drugs are cool mm-kay'. FMD.

 

[Number37]

What is the baseline for this assertion? Are you asserting for instance that laws around supply and sale of Meth have gotten softer recently?

At the very best the laws around supply will soften to the same level as medicinal/prescription drugs which are subject to massive regulation ONCE THEY PASS HUMAN TRIALS. To even get to human trials is a massive hurdle.

The idea that the sale of meth (as an example) is simply going to be shifted from drug dealers to pharmacies without meth (as an example) having to go through the process that EVERY OTHER PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG has to go through is patently ridiculous. It simply won't happen like that.
It is not just a question of our laws changing for something like that to happen.

So harm minimisation strategies actually make drug use more dangerous? Interesting conclusion to draw considering all the information out there on the subject.

Where did you get that from?
If someone says X will make drug use less dangerous they need to substantiate it. If you can't, or don't want to, substantiate it is wholly disingenuous to claim that somebody that doesn't agree with your unsubstantiated musings is saying the exact opposite.
You made the claim you need to substantiate, if you can't substantiate it, your claim is nothing which has nothing to do with what anyone else says.

--> obviously not YOU specifically

 

[Number37]

Number37 - how many ******* times are you going to use 'drugs are cool mm-kay' as a retort? I think this is a valid discussion to have as it's a fairly complex, divisive issue with pros and cons on both sides but it seems you aren't really serious about fleshing it out. You've made up your mind and that's it. That's fine but why are you even here. Are you just wanting to derail this thread?

I think the pro decriminalisation side is a little bit more nuanced than 'easy access to drugs because drugs are cool mm-kay'. FMD.

It wasn't me that opened that door.
Quite a few used the 'drugs are bad mm-kay' in response to anyone that didn't agree with them. Multiple times.

I actually posted a series of links about drug use and drugs from highly credible sources.
They were dismissed as 'drugs are bad mm-kay'.

It demonstrated very clearly that the only people that aren't interested in having a discussion about a fairly complex and divisive issue if they aren't told what they want to hear.

The fact that you didn't see those posts, or simply ignored them, suggests to me that you're only here to post yet another F'ing boring ad hom.
If you're going to post ad homs at least make them interesting or funny.

Why are you even here?
The only thing that you have made up your mind about is what you think I have made up my mind about. Again, FO with that bullshit.

The people that are championing drugs for everybody, just because, are doing a great disservice to the same people they want you to believe they are looking out for. Their use of those vulnerable people is nothing more than convenient bullshit.

If you are serious about the debate then go and read what the people dealing with it on a daily basis want to happen. Go and talk them.
There is plenty of information out there. There has been numerous parliamentary inquiries with submissions from all sorts of people. Go read the submissions.
Go find out what they do, how they are inhibited in what they do and what can be done to help them and what they are asking to be done.

Nearly everyone recognises that decriminalization can help but how much decriminalization helps is largely a function of the funding of support services.
This was testified to by people who helped frame the Portugal laws and by people who have actually worked within the Portugal framework.

Better still you can have a look at other models. There are countries that have adopted models other than decriminalization including hardening their drug laws. There are things to learn from all those things.

'The war on drugs' failure is a proxy for all drugs and drug use problems are a function of laws surrounding drugs and drug use.
That is wholly disingenuous because it fails spectacularly at looking at the problem other than through the prism of law enforcement.