the war on drugs: is it time we admit what we're all thinking?

[oxx]

Drugs are fun, people like them, it's impossible to stop them from getting in to the country and it's a waste of money to try.

LMAO Rick.

I know what u're saying.

They dont really try to stop it though,imo.

Its all a ****.

 

[The Legend]

It doesn't work if you are talking about the complete non-use of drugs within a society. Illegality does help prevent SOME people in trying drugs, especially so in SOME cultural groups.

Some-not all. And that's the problem with prohibitive measures. There's one (or 1000) in every crowd. Like any number of legal/illegal commodities, if people want-people get. The only way to effectively police drug usage is by demanding that people submit to urine/saliva analysis. And even then that type of testing isn't 100% accurate. But I'm off track.

In my past work experience with an acute adult mental ward in Sydney, almost all of admission were related, if not directly caused by poly-substance abuse/misuse.

If you looked at the backgrounds of those people you would find commonalities among the majority of them (unemployment/lower socio-economic background/past instances of a variety of abuses/poorly educated et al). As we've both posted, drugs are a trigger in those who are pre-disposed to some type of mental illness. Not necessarily the cause of the illness.

One point I need to make here though;Instances of Cannabis induced schizophrenia are now being put down to people smoking Hydroponically grown hooch. Which is as dodgy as a meth lab imo (all my stuff is soil-grown. I know this because I grow it).

I can tell you many mental and general health professionals are not conservative.

Quite right. I'm thinking more along the lines of Politicians and Media. Although I'd cast the net a bit further and possibly find people in the AMA or Directors of large public health institutions who rely on figures for funding giving it a good bash as well.

But to touch on your point a little further;I have a very frank and open Dr/Patient relationship with my GP. I tell him everything about myself to enable him to do his job better. While he isn't happy about my substance usage, he describes it as mild-moderate, and therefore (aside from the illegality) says I'm in the "no risk" category. He quantifies that by pointing out that I am successful in my chosen occupation and in my relationships with family and friends, and am also quite motivated. But, yep, I'm in the minority here.

And since we don't really know why and how schizophrenia occurs, wouldn't it be better to be cautious?

Possibly, but we (as a society) are also aware of the harm caused by smoking and drinking-both legal. I'm sure it would be accurate to say that the dollars involved in treating cancer or alcohol related illnesses balloons right out in comparison to treating drug users and their mental health issues (and lets face it-it aint gonna be a priority anyway).

As with everything else in life-enjoy in moderation. Perhaps a more fruitful (or fruity) suggestion would be to stop channeling the money into policing some types of drug usage, and pour it into mental health research.

Remember when it used to be okay to go out once a week after work and have a few beers? Nowadays its called "Binge Drinking" and health professionals encourage people to abstain from the practise. And while I agree that there are obviously people for whom this is a problem, we tend to want to blanket everybody and treat them all as if they have a problem.

= Nanny-State.

Now before you think I am an anti-drug conservative whose sole purpose in life is to preach "drugs are bad", the point I am trying to raise is that criticism of certain aspects of harm minimisation from practical perspective is valid. I have seen devastating effects of drugs on individual's bio/psycho/social life and am cautious about the claims of harm minimisation. (conversely I have also seen many socially functioning users).

I didn't get that impression at all. I figured that you're coming at the debate from the perspective of one who has spent extensive and exhaustive hours assisting with the management of health issues which have arisen (arguably in some cases) as a result of substance misuse. And that perspective is valuable and much needed.

The bottom line is that people will do what people will do, whether its safe or unsafe, regardless of the best advice that may be presented to them. A long bow to draw, but extreme sports are unsafe too, and that industry relies on people who are daring enough to take those risks-despite the inherent dangers involved. We should clamp down on that. We should clamp down on Booze, Ciggies, Coffee, Masturbating-you name it.

If its proven without question to be bad for you-it should be against the law! But our lawmakers tend to be a little selective on these sorts of things.

 

[- PC -]

If you looked at the backgrounds of those people you would find commonalities among the majority of them (unemployment/lower socio-economic background/past instances of a variety of abuses/poorly educated et al). .

Some vague generalities here. Boy George was on a heroin addiction that cost $1000 a day... he could afford it and got good stuff.Its when you start getting filtered stuff that hurts

One point I need to make here though;Instances of Cannabis induced schizophrenia are now being put down to people smoking Hydroponically grown hooch. Which is as dodgy as a meth lab imo (all my stuff is soil-grown. I know this because I grow it).

I would suggest that the person is already pre-disposed to schizophrenia etc and its the drugs that highlight these issues in people. I dont know if it is the method of growing that can be attributed directly to mental illnesses. You may well be a well balanced individual. If your theory was correct then you would see a marked difference when people smoke different stuff.. I guess its like a beer drinker going psycho after drinking scotch... is it the scotch or is it the concentrated alcohol level taking them to a higher place?

As with everything else in life-enjoy in moderation. Perhaps a more fruitful (or fruity) suggestion would be to stop channeling the money into policing some types of drug usage, and pour it into mental health research.

I have no problem with this ...but like revenue from speeding we all know where that goes

 

[Clark Kent]

Agree with your points. The number of alcohol-related injuries seen at a hospital casualty ward on a Saturday evening should be enough to convince most of us of the evils of socially acceptable, and legal drugs. Add to this the effects of tobacco products on the population.

I think, overall, we'd see a DECREASE in spending on health, rather than an increase, if some of these drugs were controlled and decriminalised.

Contemplate for a moment what the biggest problems our society current perceives as being the consequence of illegal drug use.

1. Life Endangerment - the hazards associated with our youngsters (and oldsters!) getting their hands on a chemical whose origin and nature they don't really know much about. Result - OD's, and other serious health outcomes.

2. Crime - that in order to access drugs from their sources, users often resort to prostitution, B&E, armed robbery, assault, murder etc.

3. Disease - needle sharing, and its resultant medical issues, including HIV and Hep.

The controlled legalisation and management of drug use would go a long way to overcoming these above issues. But I suspect that too many people with too much to lose in a financial sense currently also have too much sway on the matter.

 

[FIGJAM]

Is there huge black market in legalised drugs eg. tobacco and alchohol?

In Australia, alcohol is dirt cheap. On my trip to Norway however, it's practically prohibitively expensive. My family over there had an illegal hooch set up in their basement, and it's as common as owning a fridge.

Their only other alternative is to pick up as much as legal from Sweden, or preferably Denmark.

But weed and alcohol are fairly easy in that regard, to produce a consumable product (with varying levels of success).

Tobacco is fairly expensive, but unprocessed tobacco that you can pick up at the market tastes like rubbish. As such, the processors of tobacco have a "value added" component to processing (as f'ed up as that sounds).

If alcohol was taxed out of the average man's price range, or we all of a sudden hit a depression, illegal booze would be everywhere. No doubt in my mind.

There's pretty much a hydro shop in every suburb of Melbourne too Fig.

The pertinent point is marijuana use more widespread in Adelaide compared to Melb/Syd.Genuine question,I've never studied the figures.

No doubt there's plenty of hydro set ups in Melbourne. I don't know if pot is more widespread in Adelaide, but they definitely have greater volumes per user.

Not sure of your point here.If drug companies are government sanctioned they'll be able to produce it alot cheaper.Drug runners will look to other countries to peddle their illegal version.

Well, I don't understand your point! Is it a sensible thing to be able to sell, say, eckies for less than $30 a pop? Is it a good thing if you can buy a ten pack for $30, with kids eating them in an hour? Where's the price set? If it's legal, then why can't people import it readily thus reducing the price via volume?

Too many questions.

If it's government controlled at least there's more opportunities for Meth users to enter the 'straight world' where they can be provivded access to counsellors,doctors etc.

Why? There'd simply be an exponentially greater problem, with a greater requirement for more counsellors and psycho rooms in hospitals.

Society all of a sudden becoming some sort of sensible utopia whereby all "victims" of drugs can be eased out with common sense, is absolutely laughable. Sometimes the sword is a better option than the pen and keeping drugs out of reach of idiots, is one of those occassions.

 

[evo]

Why? There'd simply be an exponentially greater problem, with a greater requirement for more counsellors and psycho rooms in hospitals.

This works on the assumption that legalising would increase drug use exponentially.Come on Figgy,you're been around I'm sure.Are you trying to tell me if Mrs Figgy suggested a couple joints before bed may just give that extra spark tonight it would be impossible to get your hands on some.

On your way back from Norway,did you pop into Amersterdam by any chance.If you did you may have noticed that even though you can readily buy dope in cafes not everyone is walking around stoned all the time.Hell there's people even walking around in suits and ties.

Society all of a sudden becoming some sort of sensible utopia whereby all "victims" of drugs can be eased out with common sense, is absolutely laughable.

Thats a misrepresentation of the argument.No ones ever suggested all people are going to be eased off drugs.

It's an acceptance that drugs are in society and maybe it's time to look for a better way to manage it.

Sometimes the sword is a better option than the pen and keeping drugs out of reach of idiots, is one of those occassions.

Yeh,they've been trying that for the last 75 odd years.Hows that working out then?

 

[CoggaRules]

In Australia, alcohol is dirt cheap. On my trip to Norway however, it's practically prohibitively expensive. My family over there had an illegal hooch set up in their basement, and it's as common as owning a fridge.

Their only other alternative is to pick up as much as legal from Sweden, or preferably Denmark.

But weed and alcohol are fairly easy in that regard, to produce a consumable product (with varying levels of success).

Tobacco is fairly expensive, but unprocessed tobacco that you can pick up at the market tastes like rubbish. As such, the processors of tobacco have a "value added" component to processing (as f'ed up as that sounds).

If alcohol was taxed out of the average man's price range, or we all of a sudden hit a depression, illegal booze would be everywhere. No doubt in my mind.


No doubt there's plenty of hydro set ups in Melbourne. I don't know if pot is more widespread in Adelaide, but they definitely have greater volumes per user.


Well, I don't understand your point! Is it a sensible thing to be able to sell, say, eckies for less than $30 a pop? Is it a good thing if you can buy a ten pack for $30, with kids eating them in an hour? Where's the price set? If it's legal, then why can't people import it readily thus reducing the price via volume?

Too many questions.


Why? There'd simply be an exponentially greater problem, with a greater requirement for more counsellors and psycho rooms in hospitals.

Society all of a sudden becoming some sort of sensible utopia whereby all "victims" of drugs can be eased out with common sense, is absolutely laughable. Sometimes the sword is a better option than the pen and keeping drugs out of reach of idiots, is one of those occassions.

so you are suggesting that the problem isnt really growing exponentially now? Do you live on this planet?
On your point about the sword sometimes being the better option, how can you suggest it can, when the the other option hasnt really been tested.
What those who suggest it should suggest this.
That the now options are really having JS effect in curbing the problems for users and only effect the bank balances of sellers. Now if the option that is in place now does that and the option that isnt in place, does something to lessen any part of the scenario, that the now option hasnt, then how can that not be a positive, when at the very least it has made some difference, when now they are making no difference.

 

[rick James]

It's legal in Holland, yet Australians, New Zealanders and Americans smoke far more per capita than the Dutch.

How does legal weed = more weed smoked exactly?

when I was young we smoked instead of drank mainly because it was much easier to but weed from someone than it was to get booze. Move weed into stores and it will be harder for the kiddies to even get to it.

 

[FIGJAM]

This works on the assumption that legalising would increase drug use exponentially.Come on Figgy,you're been around I'm sure.Are you trying to tell me if Mrs Figgy suggested a couple joints before bed may just give that extra spark tonight it would be impossible to get your hands on some.

I could pick up ounces within the hour if I wanted to. But we're not just talking pot here!

On your way back from Norway,did you pop into Amersterdam by any chance.If you did you may have noticed that even though you can readily buy dope in cafes not everyone is walking around stoned all the time.Hell there's people even walking around in suits and ties.

The "exponential" side to my argument isn't necessarily claiming that all individuals will be lured to the dark side; more that those with a propensity to indulge in drugs, may abuse them in idiotic proportions.

The only thing stopping many people from popping 50 eckies a night is the cost. If it was as cheap as Panadine, I know blokes who would have set records in this regard. They would probably be dead mentally or physically.

Thats a misrepresentation of the argument.No ones ever suggested all people are going to be eased off drugs.

It's an acceptance that drugs are in society and maybe it's time to look for a better way to manage it.

What's the "better way to manage it"??

Yeh,they've been trying that for the last 75 odd years.Hows that working out then?

If cheap, readily available drugs is the alternative, then my brother would be dead. It's working better than you'd care to admit!

 

[FIGJAM]

How does legal weed = more weed smoked exactly?

Ahhhh...so we've gone from "drugs" in general to just pot. Brings me back to my original post, which I fear maybe 100% accurate in your case rick:

"Legallising all drugs is generally the "brainwave" of pot smokers who wouldn't have any idea of what happens outside of their Mother's garage, which is where they currently live."

 

[CoggaRules]

Ahhhh...so we've gone from "drugs" in genereal to just pot. Brings me back to my original post, which I fear maybe 100% accurate in your case rick:

"Legallising all drugs is generally the "brainwave" of pot smokers who wouldn't have any idea of what happens outside of their Mother's garage, which is where they currently live."

and keeping it illegal is generally the "brainwave" of who FJ? those who dont have any idea what happens iniside their mother's garage?
You seem to generalise when it comes to pot smokers huh? like going by what you suggest, there are a hell of lot of people, that have no idea what happens outside their mother's garage, dont you think?
Maybe we should continue to leave the solving of the problems to those who dont know anything about what happens inside everyone's mtoher's garage. Hell, they have their finger on the pulse dont they? The proof is front and center, drug use is decreasing at alraming rates, so they really know what they are doing dont they?
But you are quite static in your thinking arent you? WHy? because you dont want it legalised, hence, leaving things as they are. So if say they opted for the legal avenue, and things stayed as they are, then nothing much has been achieved, not much damage done. If they actually go the way as you, "hypothesise", because you are only doing just that, whereas the other side is using facts at hand in their side of the debate, lets say they do go bonkers, then are you suggesting that the law makers, cant go back to the old law? like once its locked in, there aint no going abck huh? Of course not
You do project a very simplistic angle dont you?

 

[FIGJAM]

The proof is front and center, drug use is decreasing at alraming rates, so they really know what they are doing dont they?

Source?

BTW, you don't use drugs by any chance Cogga??

 

[BlueMark]

Just thinking now of the mental institutions overflowing from drug users and emergency rooms filled with people who have shot/stabbed/run over etc.. people because of drugs.

)

They are now so what would change?

 

[rick James]

Ahhhh...so we've gone from "drugs" in general to just pot. Brings me back to my original post, which I fear maybe 100% accurate in your case rick:

"Legallising all drugs is generally the "brainwave" of pot smokers who wouldn't have any idea of what happens outside of their Mother's garage, which is where they currently live."

Pot is the only drug I have evidence in regard ot legalising not increasing use. hence I used it for that example. Try harder, you're struggling.

I'm hardly a stoner either btw.

 

[evo]

I could pick up ounces within the hour if I wanted to. But we're not just talking pot here!

Right,so you could probably get speed or eckies in an hour and half.No,we aren't just talking pot here.

The "exponential" side to my argument isn't necessarily claiming that all individuals will be lured to the dark side; more that those with a propensity to indulge in drugs, may abuse them in idiotic proportions.
The only thing stopping many people from popping 50 eckies a night is the cost. If it was as cheap as Panadine, I know blokes who would have set records in this regard. They would probably be dead mentally or physically.

Let's take heroin addicts.Cost hardly deters addicts from taking ever increasing amounts.They just have to go and burg more houses,or hock themselves more often.

What's the "better way to manage it"??

Something along the lines of the way government currently dispense morphine to registered addicts.With accompanied advise from chemists,doctors,psycologists etc.Rather than the current format of gettting advise from "Knarkle' your friendly neighbourhood herion dealer

If cheap, readily available drugs is the alternative, then my brother would be dead. It's working better than you'd care to admit!

Fair enough.I don't know the exact circumstances of your brother.But if he was a heroin addict I think it's preferable to have him 'in the system' rather than an outlaw.

NB.It's about 10 years since I smoked dope.And a good 20 years since I liveed in my mums garage.

 

[FIGJAM]

Pot is the only drug I have evidence in regard ot legalising not increasing use. hence I used it for that example. Try harder, you're struggling.

I'm not struggling, you're just using a **** example!

You're using an example of a drug which is arguably not physiologically addictive, although to those who like and have used it, know that it is addictive mentally. There's also only so much weed you can smoke before you're gutsed and don't want any more. Not all drugs have this effect.

I smoked pot up until I was about 21. I was always more of a party drug man though, preferring alcohol and anything which could sustain and/or enhance alcohol consumption. As was my brother, and most of his/our mates.

I have been involved on benders in my mid-20s, whereby we hunted down pills from wherever to sustain the usually weekend long high. Mates of mine could munch up to 20+ pills, with the only thing stopping them being their wallet. I never got anywhere near that sort of idiocy, but the fact remains that I know absolutely that if ecstacy/speed or whatever was cheap and easily available, some of my friends would be dead, as the only thing preventing them from further lunacy, was sourceing or affording the drugs.

Also, if you've ever seen a hardcore drug nut in full flight, you will know that their drug of choice changes from "product x" to "whatever". Going from alcohol and ecstacy, to whacking up smack, is an easier step than most would believe. Imagine having heroin at your friggen chemist!

I agree that marijuana legallisation would have limited effect on an increase in abuse, although I would argue an increase in quantity would lead to more being smoked by those who like it. The effects on dope smokers are actually quite pronounced and easily spotted by non-pot smokers, but they will always swear black and blue that it's fine and has no effect on them. Makes me shake my head in disbelief!

Suffice to say, I reckon there's a frightening danger in permitting the legalisation of amphetamine type products especially, but pretty much all chemical drugs.

 

[The Legend]

Imagine having heroin at your friggen chemist!

Once upon-a-time, you were able to buy Cocaine at the local chemist.

 

[evo]

Once upon-a-time, you were able to buy Cocaine at the local chemist.

not to mention Laudunum made from opium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum

Lord Byron was a big fan.

 

[CoggaRules]

Source?

BTW, you don't use drugs by any chance Cogga??

source? my eyes, whats yours?
yes i use quite alot of drugs, you can buy them over the counter at chemists, and if you really need a hit you can buy them over the bar. They come with different additives too, like vodka and lime, scotch and coke, you name it, it affects you legally. Ooopps i forgot, i did smoke aome weed once, but hey, i didnt inhale. Does that make me a candidate for the garage or the whitehouse?

 

[FIGJAM]

Right,so you could probably get speed or eckies in an hour and half.No,we aren't just talking pot here.

Not any more, but could once. Still, it's hardly like having it downstairs at me local chemist. Eitherway, I don't really understand why this would be any sort of argument in favour on endangering the general public!

Let's take heroin addicts.Cost hardly deters addicts from taking ever increasing amounts.They just have to go and burg more houses,or hock themselves more often.

I do agree with this, but if the **** was available at a chemist, why would they stop hocking themselves and burgling to not up it even further to the point of absolute tollerance or death?

Something along the lines of the way government currently dispense morphine to registered addicts.With accompanied advise from chemists,doctors,psycologists etc.Rather than the current format of gettting advise from "Knarkle' your friendly neighbourhood herion dealer

If it works in one case, then all of that will be worthwhile, however, I can guarantee you though, that lecturing to drug addicts is close to futile. If they ain't willing, then they're simply serving their time and nodding in all the right places. I've seen it in action.

Fair enough.I don't know the exact circumstances of your brother.But if he was a heroin addict I think it's preferable to have him 'in the system' rather than an outlaw.

He had taken smack, but fortunatly thought it was rubbish. It's the extreme benders that would have seen him whack just about anything, and if smack was available at the chemist as opposed to an expensive, time consuming trip to Bourke Street, he'd have done it more and would be dead (if not, he'd be dead shooting ice or just drink).

 

[FIGJAM]

source? my eyes, whats yours?

You said drug use was "decreasing at alraming rates". Do you even know what you wrote and/or are replying to??

 

[The Legend]

not to mention Laudunum made from opium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum

Lord Byron was a big fan.

LOL. They had a ball in those days didn't they?

Some folks probably wonder why the 1920's were referred to as "The Roaring 20's". I'd say its because folks were roaring with laughter from all the drugs they were able to access so easily at their local Amcal

 

[The Legend]

not to mention Laudunum made from opium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum

Lord Byron was a big fan.

I loved this passage from Wiki;

"Laudanum is still available by prescription in the United States. It is classified as a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Its most common formulation is known as 'deodorized tincture of opium,' and is manufactured in the United States by Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals. The only medically-approved uses for laudanum in the United States are for treating diarrhea and pain."

I know what I'll be asking my GP for the next time I get a case of irritable bowel syndrome.

 

[evo]

LOL. They had a ball in those days didn't they?

Some folks probably wonder why the 1920's were referred to as "The Roaring 20's". I'd say its because folks were roaring with laughter from all the drugs they were able to access so easily at their local Amcal

Yeah.I guess it explains the Charlston eh.

Drugs have been freely available legally in most countries for millenia.Society didn't break down.Einstein still discovered E=mc2. etc.

Granted there's are more exotic type drugs available now but I can't see that decriminalising/legalising drugs would herald everyone to 'tune in,turn on and drop out'

 

[Mofra]

The "exponential" side to my argument isn't necessarily claiming that all individuals will be lured to the dark side; more that those with a propensity to indulge in drugs, may abuse them in idiotic proportions.

The only thing stopping many people from popping 50 eckies a night is the cost. If it was as cheap as Panadine, I know blokes who would have set records in this regard. They would probably be dead mentally or physically.

a. If you are arguing about availability, I seriously doubt price would come down on whichever substance the government would choose to legalise - look at the percantage of alcohol & tobacco cost that is made up in government taxes & charges. Remember, Chop-Chop is much cheaper than buying the equivalent weight of cigarettes.

b. The Dutch have less people smoking pot per capita than many countries who still enforce this as an illegal substance.

c. Recently, the NSW government have introduced a legally definable difference between organically or ground-grown marjuana and hydro. Yes there have been some scientific studies that link marijuana to and increased risk of psychiatric disorder, but none that can prove the link between organic marijuana and the same increased risk. There are studies being undertaken to determine whether the additives used to increase growth production and/or weight gainers for cut pot (such as hairspray) have the same effect, but I haven't read about any results to date.

d. I think there are many substances that should stay illegal - but the current approach of "bury our head in the sand and pretend we can win the war on drugs" is ludicrious.