Our drug laws aren't scientific or researched based. We basically import them from the US, where the "war on drugs" has more purpose than it does here. There it supports a huge security industry and social control in a number of ways. Its complicated but you can read about it.
Heroin in Australia was OTC until the US put us straight in 1953 (had to do with wars and such in South East Asia); there were no reported OD's in the 10 years before it was made illegal.
We do not have the same income disparities of the US yet so the small time user isn't really persecuted, certainly not faced with your entire life in prison as with their 3 strikes laws. LE simply does not know what to do here - or why is more to the point. Not yet. Advanced countries not as tied to the US have more inventive ways of trying to solve any problems.
We don't really know what legalisation would look like, but here and more so in the US, from where we import our laws, for the privileged few at the top, all drugs are essentially legal, free, pure and abundant. That is simply because money is no object and the chance of having their doors kicked in for smoking a spliff or snorting a line is non-existent. Still, apart from a few OD's (Hoffman springs to mind as do the tributes for a dead junky) the affluent still choose not to take them at harmful levels, because of education, not directed just education in general. They also smoke less, eat less red meat, chocolate cake etc, not through criminalisation but general education.
Drug laws are designed to cause harm and control the dangerous population (that is the general population, who if not kept in ignorance and fear might threaten the position of the elite) but in the US and their "spheres of influence" where wars must be financed and people controlled it matters. Here we just follow on without really knowing how it is of a benefit to us.
Heroin in Australia was OTC until the US put us straight in 1953 (had to do with wars and such in South East Asia); there were no reported OD's in the 10 years before it was made illegal.
We do not have the same income disparities of the US yet so the small time user isn't really persecuted, certainly not faced with your entire life in prison as with their 3 strikes laws. LE simply does not know what to do here - or why is more to the point. Not yet. Advanced countries not as tied to the US have more inventive ways of trying to solve any problems.
We don't really know what legalisation would look like, but here and more so in the US, from where we import our laws, for the privileged few at the top, all drugs are essentially legal, free, pure and abundant. That is simply because money is no object and the chance of having their doors kicked in for smoking a spliff or snorting a line is non-existent. Still, apart from a few OD's (Hoffman springs to mind as do the tributes for a dead junky) the affluent still choose not to take them at harmful levels, because of education, not directed just education in general. They also smoke less, eat less red meat, chocolate cake etc, not through criminalisation but general education.
Drug laws are designed to cause harm and control the dangerous population (that is the general population, who if not kept in ignorance and fear might threaten the position of the elite) but in the US and their "spheres of influence" where wars must be financed and people controlled it matters. Here we just follow on without really knowing how it is of a benefit to us.
Last edited:
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
My only concerns are about how it would all work, because meth/bupe is so easy to get on - the criteria for patients and structure of the program would need to be the same as they have done elsewhere in trials IMO. Should people that need it get it? Absolutely.
