News Source I honestly can't believe this topic is getting attention in Australian politics. The issue was going to get raised eventually, but I'd thought it'd be at least another 5 years before a politician had the balls to say something about it. Is this a last ditch effort from Labor or legitimate discussion because it's such a big issue and change is necessary? I'd like to think the latter, however, the PM has already demonstrated she is completely against the drug reform. I know it's an issue close to Bob Carr's heart because he had a son that died of a heroin addiction. On one side of the fence, you have people who are completely anti-drugs and they are of the belief illicit drugs should not be tolerated. I'd like to pose a question to people with this viewpoint. Why is it not up to the individual user to decide what they do/don't ingest in their body? Where does accountability come into it? You also hear people say stuff like decriminalization and making illicit drugs legal will just make them more accessible and will create more drug users. To counter this, I'd like to ask where is the proof that decriminalization or legalization will create more drug users? There is no data to backup these claims, and more importantly, even if that were to happen, why is that a problem in itself? The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people that live normal lives yet indulge in illicit drugs. For some people, alcohol is not their drug of choice. Why should you hold that against them, and more importantly, what business is it of yours when it doesn't affect you? When used in moderation, it allows them to function normally and doesn't negatively impact their work/family lives, etc. Hospitals will tell you the biggest problem they have to deal with by far is alcohol, a legal drug. If you look at marijuana, it's decriminalization in SA/Canberra, in the state of NSW although it's not decriminalized as such, the police pretty much don't view it as a crime when you're caught with small quantities, assuming it's for personal use. Have these lax laws increased marijuana usage, are persons addicted to marijuana posing a problem for hospitals? If they have, the increase has been marginal. If you look at Portugal's drug reform policy that was put in place in 2000, the reported lifetime use of illicit drugs increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin from 0.7% to 1.1%. Not only are the increases across the board fairly marginal, it has been proposed that this effect may have been been related to the interviewees being more truthful in their responses due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use, which makes a lot of sense. So basically the gap in these statistics is likely inflated. Although it's widely known that alcohol is a huge problem in todays society, when looking at illegal drug use, it could be suggested making them illegal is adding to the problem. By handing over the manufacturing and distribution to organised crime syndicates, not only does it make it more expensive to buy drugs, it makes it impossible to have any sort of quality control. In fact, most problems associated with the use of illicit drugs is the lack of purity. Put simply, what you think you are buying isn't what you are getting, and the adulterated ingredients is the main culprit and doing the most harm. Isn't harm minimization and education far more advantageous than just saying no when it comes to drugs? If it were possible to regulate the market, it would ensure what you are buying is in fact what you think you are getting, and the taxes generated from the sale of drugs could be used for important issues like education, drug treatment/therapy, etc. You would have fewer issues because quality control would be in place, and the funds dedicated to education would ensure young people would know about the pros/cons of drug use/abuse and they could become more informed about harm minimization. Not only would it put a massive dent in the huge profits derived from the sales of illegal drugs on the black market, new drug reform would allow current illicit substances to be used in clinical trials to dig deeper into their medicinal uses. For example, several studies have shown the potential of LSD in it's ability to treat alcoholism and other addictions. There has also been suggestion that MDMA is immensely useful to PTSD sufferers. I know it's highly likely nothing will ever come of this conversation, but what exactly is terrible about these proposed drug reforms?
I believe there's too many people pocketing too much, i'm sure you're aware of the huge dollars given to police it. Those benefiting from the status-quo most are the people in charge of setting the rules, not to mention quite tough people to fight with. Military gets huge budget, police get huge budget, DEA's get huge budgets, courts get huge budgets, corporates get huge budgets, jails get huge budgets. None would be arguing for drug reforms, in fact would be fighting tooth & nail to keep it as it is to keep receiving their budgets. Meantime making criminals out of millions and ruining their lives.
Some decriminalisation wouldn't go astray. Police walking down train aisles or along lines of people waiting outside nightclubs with sniffer dogs hoping to catch a druggie is obscene in the extreme. A complete waste of time and money. I personally would like to see drug manufacture and distribution in the hands of specialised people who can monitor usage rather than Mad Mike the Mongrel Mob President who only wants your money and doesn't care about your health. Anyway, it would take an incredibly brave politician to do such a thing and our current government isn't in a position to do so. Bob Carr wasn't speaking as the Foreign Minister when he made this statement, he was speaking as a member of the board of doctors, police etc that came up with the findings.
It seems you are becoming more progressive on the issue than we are here. I personally think the same reasons listed as to your reform are also valid within the U.S. as well. Huge budgets to police the *war* on drugs coupled with our overly religious view on certain politics has led to gazillions in wasted dollars and an exorbitant amount of minorities criminalized for minor offenses such as obtaining or possessing a few ounces of marijuana, independent of intent to distribute or sell. If our government would just realize that decriminalizing many of these drugs, or at the very least, marijuana would lead to less money wasted on the war as well as that wasted on housing those supposed *criminals*, lead to a dismantling of drug cartels in Mexico that rely on marijuana capital, and give more freedom to the individual. I realize that I don't know everything that is going on with that situation in Australia, I just felt there is a parallel in the policies and issues surrounding the "war on drugs" between our two countries.
Not progressive enough. This report is basically dead in the water already, the States won't touch it and the Federal Government has enough on their plate with blockbuster tax reforms to sell over the next 18 months to come into this deeply divisive argument. It would take a brave Prime Minister to even have a sensible discussion. Gotta hand it to John Howard for having the courage to institute the gun control laws and the gun buyback scheme. Immense opposition from the gunnies and the Aussie taxpayer paid for it through a special levy. Took real guts, but at least people have realised that they didn't really need those guns to protect themselves after all.
If a government were confiscating all guns supposedly for the "common good." That may be a time when a gun is most needed.
Can we please keep this conversation on topic. This is about drug reform not gun reform. Australians fight with their fists they don't need guns. Thank you.
You could just as easily say: Australians are high on life, they don't need recreational drugs! Anyway, I do agree with the decriminalization of drugs.
you can't really say that at all when you consider the huge demand there is for illicit drugs in Australia. are you suggesting you can't be high on life whilst partaking in recreational drugs?
No. I just thought it made as much sense as >>> "Australians fight with their fists they don't need guns." I do believe it's possible that a happy person could be a drug user. Although, in more cases, probably not. Typically, an individual engaging in frequent use of recreational drugs is trying to escape an unhappy reality. With that said, I still want to legalize drugs. I won't use recreational drugs. I don't even drink alcohol. However, I do believe it's up to each individual to choose. Liberty. It's the same with guns.
Ohh don't try and make any sense of what I said about guns. Gun reform is such a non issue in Australia. I think that would be a more accurate thing to say. The problem is most non drug users can't fathom the idea that it's possible to use recreational drugs without being addicted to them.
The problem is once you have had something, most times you want it again, no matter what it is. Once you have tasted McDonald's most people find out that it tastes okay and sometime in future life will want that taste again, to the point of sometimes hankering for a fillet of fish. Same as drugs like chocolate, dope and alcohol, once you have enjoyed the taste or feeling of anything then why wouldn't you want it again? Why they picked on soft drugs in the first place is very debatable but treaties we have with the USA is the cause of many of our existing drug laws.
It's only natural that if you were to enjoy something you would want to do it again. It's when you can't control that habit when it becomes an addiction.
Yep true - great isn't it. Yes, while sitting there drinking rum and cokes by the dozen, they talk about them damn druggies. One bloke I heard say "I've never used drugs." used to have six stubbies for breakfast. People killing themselves by sucking in nicotine talk about about how hooch is rooning the youth. I love telling the story down at my local lawn bowls club how I was looking for some pain relief and doctors were being uncooperative, so I thought I would try marijuana. I only had to ask two people before I found someone who could get me some. I could have asked a number of family members but the timing wasn't right. It didn't work, but just goes to show how prevalent drugs are.
I think it depends on the "recreational" drug too. Certain drugs are highly addictive, like methamphetamines and oxycodone.
Definitely, and any drug reform policy needs to take this into account. This is not true. Drugs like psychedelics and MDMA can be a lot of fun but they don't make you fiend for drugs like heroin does. Drugs with a high addiction potential mainly relates to the physical withdrawals. Case in point... prescription drugs and heroin.
I pity anyone who gets addicted to oxycodone. It must be the most boring drug ever, and they would to have to have a personality that gets hooked on eggs. Sorry, I've had a lot of it recently. Now morphine, that's different, the journeys in the mind I've had on that (legally BTW), just need to pump enough into the system. Didn't get addicted to that either despite using it for years. Now beer, that's different, I'm addicted to that!
Tobacco isn't necessarily "fun". Most individuals don't enjoy smoking the first few times. Yet, they become addicted. It may take years for them to finally shake the habit. So, I agree that enjoyment doesn't always correlate with the addictivity of a substance. Here's an interesting statistic: Yet, it's legal. Just for clarity, my position on legalizing drugs isn't that we simply legalize marijuana. It's broader than that. I tend to lean towards wanting to legalize all drugs, regardless of how addictive they might be.