Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)

[Rosy]

You continue to ignore evidence based research Rosy. Please read Evo's post above.

I have read it. What is the relevance of the evidence based research in regard to this discussion and your reasons for legalising drugs? The situation in Portugal is very different to what you're advocating here.

You also keep misprepresenting me about "Ice parties' being unleashed on unsuspecting hordes. Please read my post 30.

I don't think so. That was an example. Many drugs you advocate legalising and controlling production of are already known to have negative affects and put members of the general population at risk.

You also misprepresent me on treatment of children. Please read my post 30 - I suggest doubling penalties for tra to kids.

I don't misrepresent you at all. I haven't referred to trafficing to kids in any way. Making the drugs legal and more readily available makes them more accessible to kids imo.

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.

So you think legalising drugs will lead to usage rates dropping? I think acceptance and ready availability will lead to a wider market...therefore the more people exposed to dangerous and addictive drugs and a wider target for the underworld.

 

[lamb22]

I have read it. What is the relevance of the evidence based research in regard to this discussion and your reasons for legalising drugs? The situation in Portugal is very different to what you're advocating here. No its not, I advocate an incremental approach based on success at each earlier earlier stage

I don't think so. That was an example. Many drugs you advocate legalising and controlling production of are already known to have negative affects and put members of the general population at risk.Controlling production actually assists in eliminating or ameliorating negative effects

I don't misrepresent you at all. I haven't referred to trafficing to kids in any way. Making the drugs legal and more readily available makes them more accessible to kids imo.I advocate makingthem less accessible to kids - at present any one can push pills at schools or clubs - no one protecting your kids there, If a safe regulated supply is available which as a condition of their licence prohibits transmission to minors - it becomes harder for kids to score drugs color]

So you think legalising drugs will lead to usage rates dropping? I think acceptance and ready availability will lead to a wider market...therefore the more people exposed to dangerous and addictive drugs and a wider target for the underworld.What you think and what the studies show are two entirely different matters - the underworld as you call it would have been played out of the game. It's because politicians are too scared or compromised to take the underworld on - that the underworld market in drugs exists at all!

 

[Rosy]

Yeah; Portugal is considered a first world country and is a member of the EU.

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 was referring to Portugal at the time they changed the laws because of their growing drug problem. The example in your quote is far more recent and also is an overall measurement that fails to take into account the significant gap between rich and poor that was a problem. My wording as a poor country wasn't a good choice of words but was never intended to reflect on the modern, overall economy figures. It wasn't also necessarily meant to mean poor financially. Literacy wasn't as good then either. Poor healthwise is also relevant. They had the highest aids rate in Western Europe and it was growing. Their situation was vastly different to ours in Australia and their reasons for decriminalising, as opposed to legalising and regulating production and supply as advocated on here, are vastly different to those given on this thread.

 

[evo]

fair enough.

 

[lamb22]

If I could summarise the arguments against legalisation appear to me in effect to be:

(1) people trust organised crime more than government or government licensed and controlled manufacturers to supply drugs
(2) people prefer the proceeds of drug sales go orgainsed crime rather than a controlled manufacturer or to government.

As studies there is likely to be no discernable changes in usage rates or rates of addiction or a possible decrease it seems silly to me but there ya go!

 

[glantone]

Legalizing dope.
Great, just what we need, even more family arguments with the shopping trolley.
‘Oh, come on dad, we always get Himalayan Gold’

http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2206

 

[Rosy]

I advocate makingthem less accessible to kids - at present any one can push pills at schools or clubs - no one protecting your kids there, If a safe regulated supply is available which as a condition of their licence prohibits transmission to minors - it becomes harder for kids to score drugs

I'm sure we'd all advocate making drugs less accessible to kids. I don't know how big a problem it is with drugs being sold to kids in the school yard now but I don't see how legalising drugs would make any difference. They still wouldn't be legal for kids but the more available something is, as legalising would lead to, the easier it is to "score".

Even if a licence prohibits transmission to minors, and even if that's strictly adhered to, those who are licenced have no control over what those who purchase their products do with them.

What you think and what the studies show are two entirely different matters - the underworld as you call it would have been played out of the game. It's because politicians are too scared or compromised to take the underworld on - that the underworld market in drugs exists at all!

I'd appreciate some information about the studies you refer to. How do you know the underworld, (for want of a better word... from memory you called them Mafia Inc?) would be played out of the game? If there's a market for them, and a profit to be made, there's a fair chance they will continue to play the game...much as legalising tobacco doesn't take them out of the equation.

 

[Rosy]

Legalizing dope.
Great, just what we need, even more family arguments with the shopping trolley.
‘Oh, come on dad, we always get Himalayan Gold’

Maybe they'll sneakily sample them then sit cross legged in the aisle, staring smilingly at the shelves, contemplating the choice for hours on end. Sounds like more fun than pilfering the odd cherry or grape.

 

[dukeos]

Rosy, on the chop chop, the only reason it is popular is because of pricing.

It could be argued that Government control/legalisation would greatly reduce the price of heroin ect.

I agree the main risk of legalising drugs is making it mainstream, and possibly opening up doors to people who normally wouldnt do the illegal thing. But, what we have at the mo is not working.

That bloke who was holding up people at knife point was trying to satisfy a $350 day habit. Wonder if it was legalised if he would have needed to bother.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

If I want a year's supply of valium T74 my doctor wont prescribe it. If it was illegal and Mafia Inc was happy to give me as much as I want for a price I'd get as mich as I could afford.

I think its about time people stopped confusing cause and effect. People self harm with scissors and razers. We can not stop all instruments of which people can harm themsleves but we can try to search for the causes and help in their remediation.

And to those adults who take a course of action where they accept the consequences of their actions, enjoy that course of action and do no harm to others - there comes a point where others should just stop butting in!

Agree with some of what you are saying re current methods not working but unfortunately too many adults do not take responsibility for their actions and on many occassions those actions are going to have an impact (generally negative) on others eg I could imagine there would be many more motor accidents with legalised drugs such as dope and herion (NB I have no facts to support this last bit).

 

[lamb22]

I'm sure we'd all advocate making drugs less accessible to kids. I don't know how big a problem it is with drugs being sold to kids in the school yard now but I don't see how legalising drugs would make any difference. They still wouldn't be legal for kids but the more available something is, as legalising would lead to, the easier it is to "score".

Even if a licence prohibits transmission to minors, and even if that's strictly adhered to, those who are licenced have no control over what those who purchase their products do with them.

I'd appreciate some information about the studies you refer to. How do you know the underworld, (for want of a better word... from memory you called them Mafia Inc?) would be played out of the game? If there's a market for them, and a profit to be made, there's a fair chance they will continue to play the game...much as legalising tobacco doesn't take them out of the equation.

Rosy at the moment we have a virtual monopoly supplier of illicit - bad guys.

If a new entrant eners the market we actually get competition - so lets say good guys government procures or supplies controlled substances at a cheaper price. It obviously reduces the market unless of course they grow the market. Possible but you should regulate issues like marketing and increase spending on education.

Fronted with a safer product at a cheaper price, bad guys will need to make their product safer or cheaper or both. If bad guys are unauthorised manufacturers the authorsued manfacturers (eg pharma companies probably) will make sure they call in their political favours to try to stamp them out. You will actually see political will and enforcement on behalf of an important constituent.

With less clandestine operators there will be less drugs in school. If kids do arrange drugs it is likely they would do so via getting someone to get into the legal system (say an older friend) but as licensee distributiuon points (say pharmacies) would have strict issuing policies it would take time and effort to gather substantial amounts to traffic.

And you keep trotting out this chop chop red herring - look 88% authorised ciggies 12% unauthorised. No one said this is a perfect world but if you eliminate 88% of the bad guys drug market you've done OK!

 

[Rosy]

If I could summarise the arguments against legalisation appear to me in effect to be:

(1) people trust organised crime more than government or government licensed and controlled manufacturers to supply drugs
(2) people prefer the proceeds of drug sales go orgainsed crime rather than a controlled manufacturer or to government.

As studies there is likely to be no discernable changes in usage rates or rates of addiction or a possible decrease it seems silly to me but there ya go!

What a load of utter

 

[lamb22]

Hypothetically Rosy.

If an incremental approach to legalisation by way of staggered trials showed that:

(a) usage and addiction rates were similar; or
(b) that regardless of usage rates there was less harm suffered by users;

would you still prefer organised crime to supply the drugs instead of the government or authorised licensees under govt regulation?

 

[Rosy]

No time for the hypotheticals and loaded questions sorry Lamby.  Those ridiculous summarisations have diminished my interest in discussing it further at this stage.  You continue to mention results of studies you show no evidence of. If an actual precedent for what you're advocating exists in any other country I'd be interested in the details otherwise I'll leave you to it for now. 

 

[lamb22]

I'm going to to leave it too after this post .

I'll just make the final point that at the moment we have a very extensive and thriving illcit drug industry. It is profitable and it is run by crims. This is a fact not a flight of fancy or belief or supposition.

These crims will fight tooth and nail against any legalisation as it affects their business. If one chooses the status quo against legalisation it is a choice for crims continuing to supply drugs on their terms, quality and price instead of government or government licensed manufacturers.

This is merely stating the obvious. Now I understand and am sympathetic to the argument that legalisation will open the floodgates so to speak. That is a possibility.

However I think we have a duty in relation to the problems kids face. That means we should at least look at other solutions, variations of which have been trialled overseas.

Evidence, some of which I have referenced by link to a New York times discussion piece and which others like Evo have proferred in relation to Portugal suggest that even when access to drugs has been made easier and penalties and sanctions lessened there has been no increase in usage rates and in fact in the case of Portugal a decline.

I think we should try an incremental 'evidence based' lessening of restrictions. If practice proves that usage rates do not increase and/or that users suffer less harm under a legalisation regime, I see no logical reason why you wouldn't move to full legalisation (with approriate restrictions and quality controls which could include prohibitions on patently dangerous drugs) the effect of which would be to eliminate most of the trade presently run by orgainised crime together with all the misery that entails for users and the victims of users in their search for cash to source their habit.

I must say I simply dont understand the argument that the supply of drugs is better left in the hands of criminals rather than governments,

In putting my arguments I dont think I have been pulling anyone's leg, been silly or ridiculous.

I am not saying I am right or legalisation will be the answer, and have made qualifications many times in this thread. I just dont think that "she'll be right mate" is the appropriate response to our drug problem and we should try something different because what we have at present doesn't work.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

No time for the hypotheticals and loaded questions sorry Lamby. Those ridiculous summarisations have diminished my interest in discussing it further at this stage. You continue to mention results of studies you show no evidence of. If an actual precedent for what you're advocating exists in any other country I'd be interested in the details otherwise I'll leave you to it for now.

Serious query: what is ridiculous about the succinct questions that lamby has posed? I think they strike at the heart of the issue.

 

[Rosy]

Serious query: what is ridiculous about the succinct questions that lamby has posed?  I think they strike at the heart of the issue.

I didn't say the questions were ridiculous.  I said the summation below was.  It makes massive, and groundless, inferences and assumptions and don't take into account various concerns that have been raised.  I doubt there is any evidence whatsoever that people either trust organised crime in regard to drugs or prefer criminals to profit from them.

(1)  people trust organised crime more than government or government licensed and controlled manufacturers to supply drugs
(2)  people prefer the proceeds of drug sales go orgainsed crime rather than a controlled manufacturer or to government.

I said lamby's question was loaded and to me it is.  "would you still prefer organised crime to supply the drugs instead of the government or authorised licensees under govt regulation?"   "Still" infers I prefer that in the first place. 

None of my posts suggest I support, approve of or prefer organised crime in any way, shape or form.  I don't.  Seeing we're talking hypotheticals my preference is to wipe out most illicit drugs and the providers completely.  Unfortunately there's about as much chance of that happening as there is of the government legalising and controlling markets for a smorgasboard of highly addictive and very dangerous drugs though.

Edit-If we want to be pedantic I probably should have said question singular.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I didn't say the questions were ridiculous. I said the summation below was. It makes massive, and groundless, inferences and assumptions and don't take into account various concerns that have been raised. I doubt there is any evidence whatsoever that people either trust organised crime in regard to drugs or prefer criminals to profit from them.

But that is what the current system leads to whether you trust or prefer the crims, or not. Lamby has presented an alternative that he views as preferable (which I tend to agree with).

I said lamby's question was loaded and to me it is. "would you still prefer organised crime to supply the drugs instead of the government or authorised licensees under govt regulation?" "Still" infers I prefer that in the first place.

I haven't seen the alternative that you have presented, so the word "still" would be accurate in that context. I know you present the "drugs don't exist" preference, but obviously that has no basis in reality. What we need to work towards is the best way to reduce the harm that drugs inflict on our society. I think everyone involved in this discussion have a similar view in this regard. The current system is clearly deeply flawed, I have seen that firsthand myself, and I would agree with Lamb22 that a stepwise, evidence-based approach to removing the criminal element from drug use and making it more of a medical issue should be explored.

None of my posts suggest I support, approve of or prefer organised crime in any way, shape or form. I don't.

But the reality is that a preference for the current prohibition and criminalisation based system leads to the production, distribution and profit resting solely in the hands of organised crime groups. Obviously that is not something that you, or any other opponent of the decriminalistion/legalisation of drugs approves of, but that is one (of the many) consequences of such a system.

Seeing we're talking hypotheticals my preference is to wipe out most illicit drugs and the providers completely. Unfortunately there's about as much chance of that happening as there is of the government legalising and controlling markets for a smorgasboard of highly addictive and very dangerous drugs though.

To claim that trialling the decriminalisation and/or legalisation of illicit drugs is as fanciful as the blinking the drug trade out of existence is a bit rich. I also think that you are presenting a strawman when you continue to claim that the government would be marketing or even approving of the use these drugs. Accepting that there is a problem and putting that problem under the control of the government and the medical establishment is not the same as saying "come and take some drugs!". Quite the opposite, the education side of the system should very clearly and accurately illustrate the dangers and long term effects of the use of such substances.

 

[Rosy]

............
I haven't seen the alternative that you have presented, so the word "still" would be accurate in that context. I know you present the "drugs don't exist" preference, but obviously that has no basis in reality.

To ask if I'd "still" prefer organised crime to supply drugs instead of the government to is not accurate at all considering I never preferred that in the first place. Whether I gave an alternative or not as you say is not a reason for such an assumption. I only answered your question to be polite. The inference is there and I have no interest in a he said/you said kind of discussion with a third party.

I know you present the "drugs don't exist" preference, but obviously that has no basis in reality.

I don't think legalising the drugs and giving everybody the option to use them has a lot of basis in reality either. You said yourself that "No one is discussing it thinking that is about to happen as far as I can tell." I don't think there's too much likelihood of either happening, although increased surveillance and technology is resulting in some massive drug rings being broken. Maybe supply could be severely restricted in the future.

I also think that you are presenting a strawman when you continue to claim that the government would be marketing or even approving of the use these drugs. Accepting that there is a problem and putting that problem under the control of the government and the medical establishment is not the same as saying "come and take some drugs!".

I didn't say the government would be marketing the drugs at all. I said "control" the marketing. Who, if anyone, do you envisage would control marketing if not the government?

There are strict government controls on marketing of tobacco. Advertising in the media is largely forbidden for example. Tobacco licences aren't issued unless the grower/manufacturer can prove an acceptable market to sell the product. It is also taxed heavily to pay for education and treatment of victims. I imagine they'd tax drugs if they were legalised and want to have a say over how they're manufactured and marketed too. Lamby, and that's who my comments were addressed to, mentions drugs being grown under licence and strict control. If that wasn't a reference to the government then who was it referring to?

Not much has been said about putting the problem under the control of the medical establishment as you mention in response to my comments. Lamby's first action as King of Oz would be to legalise cannabis. I don't see someone wanting a joint )or some ice or some acid or any recreational drug ) as having anything to do with medical establishments but am happy to listen, based on your strawman comments to me, to how you envisage that happening.

As for my comment you refer to about government approval, legalisation is approval, ie given consent, sanctioned. Strawman indeed. :blah

 

[lamb22]

Rosy, I said I'd had my say but just quickly in relation to the involvement of medical establishments being involved. You seem to think that legalising means some tattslotto style party and free show bags for everyone.

The thing about trials is that peple will find out how best to control both the production of drugs and their distribution.

The thing about evidence based solution is just that - if they prove to work good if not you try a different method.

In relation to the medical establishment involvement it may be that you need a prescription for a recreational drug and it is dispensed through pharmacies. Doctors could prohibit/limit distribution to at risk patients. Some drugs which may need to be injected could be distributed in purpose built facilities where doses are closely monitored and clean needles provided. Histories and follow ups would be taken of such people and help to wean them off if requested together with ancillary health services.

Again my own non tested belief is that if a recreational user knows he can get a happy pill on the PBS but has to wait in a doctor's surgery, make his request, take it down to the pharmacy he or she might say mehh this isn't too glamorous seems more like I have a medical problem than being a sick rager, Ill stick to the grog or diet coke.

If he or she does get the pill they will know its contents are standard and be aware of its strengths, warnings will be given on use and side effects.

If a drug can then actually be used safely and without unduly affecting one's health or lifestyle you haven't got a drug problem have you?

With marijuana I believe people should be allowd to grow limited quantities for personal use. Again suppliers of seeds would be regulated. people would know the strength and be provided with advice on growing and using and also reminded of prescribed limits.