-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)
- Thread starter lamb22
- Start date
lamb22 said:
Think you will find that thinking is changing as Italian society is infiltrated by other cultures. Binge drinking is becoming an issue in Italy as much as anywhere but there's a point there somewhere maybe. At least when it comes to their attitudes to wine.
You have certainly made some valid points in an interesting thread lamby.
Personally I think the answer is in education over prohibition when it comes to drugs but in my mind the legalisation/decriminalisation argument is far from clear cut.
I guess I am fearful of the free for all mentality because the current education re alcohol abuse hasn't really worked all that well to date. Could be wrong but if you legalised more dangerous drugs and tried to do the same (educate, regulate etc.) I'd expect that there would be far more chaotic results than there are currently but then perhaps not. :don't know
lamb22 said:
This is good thinking but the 'health hazard' line is a very grey argument. Hard to name a drug that isn't harmful in some way. That's the problem!
I guess a crude example is if someone tells you not to drink methylated spirits from a very young age because it's poisonous then you won't drink it, even though it's readily available. Is that the gist of it?
lamb22 said:
on this point - I wasn't referring to your posts alone. You are one of several here taking this view (legalize drugs), and I was commenting on it as a whole
lamb22 said:
I get your viewpoint, which is why I jumped in on this. I get the argument about criminal elements, distribution, and pricing - which is why I haven't commented on this much (not much to disagree on).
Rosy made the point on chop chop however, highlighting how even with regulated drugs criminal involvement can occur and be very lucrative.
TBH I really am not fussed on the MJ debate, its the ice/heroin/coke side I am more concerned with. On that basis I tried to think of anything similar to these substances that has been legal and has an use risk issue. The obvious one was prescription painkillers.
There will still be the incentive to import/make cheap illegal product (similar to the chop chop supply for tobacco), as unless the govt doesn't tax these substances (highly unlikely if alcohol and tobacco are a reference) there will still be a price advantage for illegal product. Also the dodgy guys don't really care about restricting volumes.
On methadone, I didn't disagree with what was posted here because I agree. Had some friends on the program some time ago, and it messed them up worse than when they were on heroin. Went to multiple clinics, became even worse, and after a while gave up the illusion and went back to heroin. This probably underlines my reluctance for govt programs sanctioning use, from my personal experiences I haven't seen much success (small sample of course).
Tiger74 said:
Fair enough, just keen to point out I advocate an incremental approach based on success in each stage - ie evidence based.
I also believe children should be protected and patently dangerous substances prohibited. A lot of responses to me seemed to miss all these points.
I understand the allure of prohibition. Not sure it works though!
lamb22 said:
Last sentence is a good one, it doesn't work, but neither IMO does opening the door.
Personally I don't think we will ever get rid of the problem entirely, and its gunna be a case of finding the least awful solution. People will still die, crime will still exploit, but hopefully not as much.
And no issue on the kids. No-one wants kids effected, and we are talking strictly adults here.
Tiger74 said:
Sorry to highlight this T74 but people want to equate legalisation or 'sanctioning use' with some sort of bureacratic monolithic big brother brake on common sense.
Food is regulated by government and the common law (eg negligence laws) - That's why our food is generally safe and of good quality.
Our utilities are regulated - that's why our water is generally safe and our gas and electricy lines generally work safely.
Our medicines are regulated.
Industry is regulated so that we dont get anti competitive behaviour = this means more choice and competition for consumers.
Cars are regulated so they meet minimum standards.
Buildings are regulated so they dont fall down on our heads.
Work places are regulated so that work conditions are safe for workers.
I dont want to be rude but people need to stop and think about what regulation means and how in the 20th century it helped see the rise of clean water, food standards, building standards, building standards, safety at work standards etc.
You really must stop listening to AW ;D
lamb22 said:
my turn to pull you up ;D
a big chunk of what you just listed is voluntary.
standards are developed by Standards Australia, a govt body but most of the committees are manned by industry experts. The whole process has recently been overhauled because Standards development has gotten bogged down for a lot of the committees. Also moving forward more committees outside "public interest" will require private funding for development.
reason i mention this is a lot of the products and services covered by standards are not actually validated against them. You would be surprised the sectors which has extensive standards, yet have minimal industry adoption of them.
the regulators do pick up some standards and make them mandatory, but this is far from extensive. For instance, the ACCC for product safety only has about 30 odd mandatory product standards.
Govt does some stuff really well, other not so.
Tiger74 said:
You get my gist though. If any drugs are sold under licence they'd have all stakeholders involved medical , users, government, do gooders, do badders, bankers (wanting to make money) drug companies (wanting t make money), controls and standards would be adopted and publicised. Some people will like them some people will criticise them as being too soft/too hard (much like PRE) but you'd get a consensus of sorts on production, warnings, and restictions.
Stuff you dont get from Chopper!
lamb22 said:
depends upon the agency though. I agree the pharma controls in Australia are pretty good (sometimes too restrictive if anything - but better safe than sorry). Problem is they would not be running this type of program. It would be someone like the Dept of Health, who's record is patchy at best.
one thing though, if something was done, it better be federal. if the states decided to run this, given their track record they would balls it up completely
"3AW talking points"..hehehehe, so true.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz0erw5s3gI
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.
"The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's "drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantities of drugs.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz0erw5s3gI
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.
"The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's "drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantities of drugs.
lamb22 said:
If Valium was legalised for general use, as I think you're advocating for drugs, rather than on prescription it would be far more accessible to the public. There are reasons it's not. Doctors won't be prescribing ice and heroin and dope for non-medical purposes either.
You continue to ignore the fact that hard, mind altering drugs can be the cause of harm to others in many ways. Nightmare on Elm Street would be more like Sesame Street compared to the carnage that could occur at an Ice party gone wrong.
Legalising drugs gives a perception that they are ok. There would be a large element who don't try drugs because they are illegal and not that readily available to those who don't mix in that kind of crowd.
lamb22 said:
I think tobacco is more of a relevant precedent in regard to drugs than cars or buildings. It is regulated too yet 12% of all tobacco (and $600,000,000) used in Australia last year was illegal. Chop-chop is not subject to quality control and typically contains a lot of contaminants. Regulating drugs won't
Despite regulation, and it being illegal to sell tobacco to children under 18, it is still readily accessible for them.
I assume you don't think there would be similar problems if drugs were legalised lamby? I think the opposite. Those producing illegal drugs now won't suddenly disappear if they become legalised and government controlled. They have their networks and resources firmly in place. In fact I suspect they'd find a wider market if similar drugs are approved for general usage.
The concern is that, unlike tobacco that doesn't show instant harmful side-effects, with drugs one single dose can be lethal and prolonged use can lead to extreme addiction.
evo said:
Very interesting evo and eye opening, though it is only one isolated example.
These results could differ quite considerably in different cultures.
Food for thought though.
evo said:
I'm not sure why the article was posted without adding any comments but Portugal is very different to what Lamby, Disco and Panthera are advocating on this thread. For starters it is a poor country that was spiralling out of control in regard to drug addiction. There situation was brought about by necessity. It's not about giving people the right to freely choose because it's a nanny state to restrict them, or to boost the budget, both as Lamby alluded to in his initial post
It's interesting that despite their "success" the drugs are still illegal with harsh penalties for those who provide them. Manufacturing and providing the drugs is not government approved or regulated like people on here want. The drugs are still illegal. They haven't been made acceptable and available on the streets. There are still penalties to pay for being caught with the drugs.
I'm all for more focus on decriminalisation of drugs and actual treatment rather than jail. I think that's largely the case now, although not necessarily officially. For example needle exchange programs are provided and use encouraged rather than locking people up for possession of the drugs. I doubt there are too many clogging the prison system here for possession of illicit drugs for personal usage.
rosy23 said:
You continue to ignore evidence based research Rosy. Please read Evo's post above.
You also keep misprepresenting me about "Ice parties' being unleashed on unsuspecting hordes. Please read my post 30.
You also misprepresent me on treatment of children. Please read my post 30 - I suggest doubling penalties for trafficking to kids.
And your point about chop chop actually proves my point - 12% unregulated use is better than 100% unregulated use. And cigarette rates are dropping without criminal penalties but education and social prressure against smoking.
Again it was always anticipated that unauthorised production would take place. Please read my post 30.
I understand and appreciate your passion but as the portugal study shows there is a better way to reduce addicton rates and help our kids. Your "what message does it send" is i suppose intuitive and might make sence in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
From my point of view it is sad that our kids continue to suffer despite arguably good intentions but patently wrong policies.
Yeah; Portugal is considered a first world country and is a member of the EU.lamb22 said:
The Economy of Portugal is a high income mixed economy. The Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009 edition placed Portugal in the 43rd position out of 134 countries and territories.[1]
I don't think it is unfair at all to extrapolate to other Western democracies. As the article has said, since the inception of decriminalisation of drugs it has fallen when compared to the rest of the European Union.
To me that is a lot more valuable piece of empirical information than Tiger74's drawing upon the 19th Century opium wars of China as evidence drug use would skyrocket.
lamb22 said:
Interesting your focus has been on legalisation, reducing crime rate, plumping up govt coffers, civil rights, government approval and control of supply etc etc. Far removed from Portugal's situation where the drugs are still illegal and suppliers subject to harsh penalties.
lamb22 said:
<
Australian Economics
|
Brexited
>
