Is the government winning it's war on drugs?

[burnaa]

i dont think they really care about stamping out drugs at all the governments laws were designed to give them the maximum tax profit margin possible if mdma were legal how would they make as much money of it as alcohol or tobacco, alcohol or tobacco doesnt loose its magic mdma is not real profitable compared to alcohol everytime u drink it u get the same effect same with cannabis anyone can grow it in there backyards not much profit there. they make more money off keeping illegal drugs illegal than they could being legall

 

[Sustanon]

Alcohol to me doesnt have any magic to it LOL the only reason why it is so profitable is because thats the one of the few legal options people can choose to party all night long. The government doesnt make any money on illegal drugs that is whats ruining our economy.

 

[hoptis]

It's not just about money either.

A quick read of Ecstasy Discussion or Trip Reports will show you how profound a psychological effect taking MDMA can have on individual minds. The same goes for LSD, case in point being the 60's and the role LSD played in shaping the culture of that decade and the anti-war sentiment against Vietnam.

It doesn't matter that LSD is not addictive or non-lethal, the same goes for the lack of deaths or addiction attributed to pure MDMA. A war on drugs is as much about fighting dissent and maintenance of the status quo.

Imagine if the government were to say tomorrow that MDMA would be taxed and regulated like alcohol, what do you think would go through the minds of people who - following such an announcement - tried legal MDMA for the first time?

They'd probably think; if the government was wrong on drugs, what else might they be wrong about?

Alcohol prohibition failed because people had living memory of what alcohol was like.

That is not so the case for illicit drugs... many people in society now have no experience of LSD, MDMA, heroin or even marijuana, so for the most part, the media, the police and the government can say what they like about the negatives of such substances without most people understanding the "other side"; the side of which we are aware and that is what we get out of taking these drugs.

For the average Joe, the story they hear is all doom, gloom, addiction and death.

We fight a war on drugs for the reason that government has no idea how to admit it's been wrong for so many years, as much as any other reason.

Busty St Claire: Alcohol-related violence is not as detrimental to the legalisation platform as you describe. On the surface I can agree with your sentiments, but at the same time, there are other possibilities.

Everybody recognises, even police will admit it off-record, that many of the illicit drugs are less prone to causing violent behaviour than alcohol. Perhaps one day when politicians and bureaucrats have enough balls to actually say this publicly, society can frame a drug policy discussion that honestly evaluates whether alternatives to having a million people drunk in a CBD the size of say, Melbourne, every weekend might be a good idea.

In some ways, the drawbacks of alcohol itself as a recreational substance; the violence in particular, can also work as strong arguments in favour of drugs that are currently illegal.

There are a great many people in society who are neither for drugs, or against them strongly. These people carry the attitude that if you want to blow giant holes in your brain, that's your responsibility and it's for you to live with the consequences.

For these people, framing an argument for a drug like MDMA, if constructed around how it will bring less violence onto their streets and shift more of the burden onto the individuals who are indulging is one angle that could produce real results.

Let's face it, we live in a cynical and selfish society. Arguments for drug law reform should revolve around 1.) it will cost society (you) less and 2.) a raver or smack-fiend is less threatening in a dark alley than a drunk.

 

[Luude]

Some great posts in here.

To make it brief, if MR A wants to ingest whatever substance he will. Why not accept this and learn to adapt to a society where drug users aren't labelled as criminals and actually approach the subject in intelligent way as to minimise harm to those who do use and to pass on informative information about the risks rather than complete bullshit myths.

Not once have i gone to put a pill in my mouth and thought 'oh no, this is illegal, i better not'.

MY FUCKING BODY, MY CHOICE. When politicians and police get this into their thick heads, then the world will be better off.

/end

 

[Sameria]

The last few weeks I've been making a conscious effort to take a bit more notice of the drug taking habits of my mates, particularly the "yeah fuck it she'll be right" attitude.

It's pretty scary when you realise how a whole generation frequently cause significant damage to their body (particularly through drug combinations) purely because the trust between them and the authorities has been broken due to blatant lying and failed drug policies.

There have been several occassions where I've warned people of the concerns of mixing Piperazines and MDMA as well as MDMA and DXM and every single person has simply ignored my advice because they've been lied to so many times before about illegal drugs.

I'd hate to see how many of my mates will have seratonin syndrome one day.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Hoptis I am not only talking about violence. You have been to countless raves and seen the blow outs or even the sweaty wigged out bloke with a heart rate pushing 200. It is more about being responsible in public no matter what the substance that most people can't handle.

 

[spok]

You only have to look as far as Bluelight itself to see the unashamed hedonism and disregard to their fellow man to highlight how few people would be able to handle an open market.

at first i thought you could basically give people no option but to moderate their intake by making the price of a legal mdma tablet extremely high relative to the current market. in the order of $200-250 for a single tablet with a relatively high dose (that is a fictional price so i'm assuming isn't against forum guidelines)

perhaps that would be enough intensive for most people not only to regulate how much they consume but also how often they do it. not only would it be more profitable and healthier but also mean the end user enjoys it more for tolerance reasons

but that might also just leave a gap for the black market to continue filling at the regular street price today, with all the same problems

The increase on the already strained health system means any economic gains from extra taxes would be lost

the popularity of the market would mean it would be extremely profitable. prohibition or not, people are already over indulging so why would a clean legal market put any additional burden on the health system? it might actually be slightly less given the current adulteration trends

if prohibition isn't stopping anyone why bother? why not use the money from a clean legal industry to educate them and solve the healthcare problem?

legalisation would not only redirect that cash flow from the illegal market which could in turn be directed into education and the public health system, it would open up a new medium for education at the sale front

Australians can't handle their alcohol, how have they proved that even a relatively benign drug like cannabis wouldn't be abuse? Australia's already poor work ethic would hardly benefit from an increase dose of dope culture

prohibition isn't stopping anyone now so i don't think there would be any noticeable change with legalisation other than it's now legal and people aren't going to jail or being dragged through courts anymore. added to which people always want what they can't have, that's a very very common psychological behavior. if you take the stigma away from drugs that culture might actually go in the other direction. i'm sure there'd be the frenzy of popularity in the beginning but that'd die off in due course (eg. krispy kreme doughnuts)

who doesn't take ecstasy or smoke marijuana because it's illegal? that threat might hold some weight in children upto the age of 12 or so but there aren't many people over that age who couldn't get either of the above and possibly more if they really wanted, and very easily

prohibition is only sending the money into the hands of the illegitimate market which is notoriously unsanitary to say the least

Australia's larrikan, "she'll be right" mentality means it does not deserve less restrictive drug laws

while i agree with you that currently people as a whole don't know how to be sensible about it, that's way out of touch with reality.....

how does that benefit the situation? punishing people/society/yourself for ignorance achieves absolutely nothing, it isn't going to educate them or make the drug market go away

prohibition in the economic and healthcare sense is counter productive. crime trends i think are probably a far stronger argument against legalisation

 

[spok]

ps. busty st clare i actually like you're stuff, so don't take my quoting you as an aggressive challenge

think a bit of back and forth will probably see some good stuff come up

 

[alanzs]

As long as there is a demand, there will be drugs. Prohibition has never worked, and never will....

Freedom is the issue really.

The criminal justice system is here to protect us from OTHERS not OURSELVES!

 

[tyrael]

.... a legal mdma tablet extremely high relative to the current market. in the order of $200-250 for a single tablet with a relatively high dose ....

This would still encourage an illegal market. The pricing would have to be such that an average, adult wage would be able to afford.

 

[Busty St Clare]

As long as there is a demand, there will be drugs. Prohibition has never worked, and never will....

Freedom is the issue really.

The criminal justice system is here to protect us from OTHERS not OURSELVES!

I find that the current laws do protect me from others. For the most part the police don't go looking for trouble. There are plenty of instances where police choose to turn a blind eye to blatant and obvious drug use because generally these users do not cause trouble. I like that the power to detain trouble makers in public exists. If you are stoned and behaving yourself in the public eye then for the most part you are fine. Unless you have a lab pumping fumes into the neighbourhood you are also free to do what you like at home.

 

[team gong]

Interesting thoughts here. I agree with most of what is being said. I have recently completed 2 degrees and have a job in the only industry which tolerates/turns a blind eye to drug use (finance) providing it doesn't interfere with your work.

As chugs said, its money which is needed, and a couple people with balls to stand up and say 'look at us, we did/do it, and it hasn't done us any problems if used safely'. i think that funding studies is a way in which ppl that want to remain nameless can also help out. the more we know about drugs and their effects, the more govs may be willing to change eventually.

i guess the other thing is that those who have the money and power positions and do use drugs, dont really give a fuck as they never get busted anyway, the cops seem to convienently keep away from certain places....

lol GFC much? :D

 

[sj227]

lol GFC much? :D

haha too many wall st kids off their chops

Seriously though, to those who think that drugs being illagal dont make money for the gov, your wrong. I'll have to go digging for it, but the black market drugs pump X billion dollars into the US economy per year, so same goes for the Aus economy.

Thnik about it, someone imports pills (assume big operation), therefore need ot use:
a finance institution to exchange into the sellers currency
have to use a shipping co to bring it in
have to pay couriers etc to deliver it
have to pay for equipment etc to manufacture or store it (security)

then all those who take the money illegally along the supply chain have to purchase their normal items (food, sclothing) etc and have to spend their surplus cash unless they want it eroded by inflation, hence they buy plasmas, sound systems etc, which pumps the money back into the economy.

If you were to legalise it (which i am in favour of) you would need to do a full on cost benefit analysis.

IE what does the economy 'make' from drugs being illegal (pure $ terms only)
vs how much is/would be sold and at what price would it need to be to make it > than the first calculation

 

[hyroller]

Maybe the question isn't so much about whether the so-called 'war' is being won, but just how far the Police State mentality is going to be extended upon the citizens of our country in the following decades....

It's troubling, really, to imagine how things will probably end up becoming.. if the last two decades are anything to go by

 

[spok]

hyroller, i honestly wouldn't worry about that......i would even go so far as to say that it is culturally impossible (meaning the probability of it occurring is probably beyond 99.99% )

the government might make choices in our stead but it's based on public perception....the people let them go about their business providing they aren't perceived as overstepping their appointed position which is to make good decisions for the people and not for themselves, usually if there's enough public interest they will send it to referendum

not only would australians not let them start interfering with our ability to communicate (beyond what they perceive as not relevant that is ie. porn, terrorism and drugs via the net filter) but neither would the international community....such a move would come with strong political condemnation and consequences from other developed nations

just have a think about it.....how would they convince the police agencies to start oppressing the population? the police aren't all deranged power hungry lunatics, that's as false a perception as all illegal drug users are junkies. a lot of them are idealists doing what they believe to be the right thing, they have families living in this society of ours as well. added to which stupid people (relatively speaking) are far and few between in a developed country like australia. it'd be very difficult for the government to "pull the wool over our eyes" so to speak

even countries like china where rudd is probably getting these net filter ideas from will go in the other direction towards a totally free and transparent society soon, because it is in their interest, and they will figure that out. if you want an intelligent and capable developed nation you need democracy, and to let the population pool their brain power, make mistakes and learn together, which you can't do by micromanaging and oppressing them - even russia with a long history of authoritarian rule now knows this very well. people aren't getting dumber, they are getting smarter. sometimes things will get a bit worse before they get better but usually they get better eventually

as it stands the mentality towards drugs is still largely the 1960's mentality the brought prohibition about in the first place, the same mentality that brought about the prohibition of alcohol in the early 20th century, that they will turn the populace in to drunken bums/smacked out junkies, which is infact ridiculous and irrational by modern standards (perhaps not in the early 20th century however). this "drug war" was never a realistic threat, and it isn't any more today, it's only relics from that time who are fighting this imaginary war in their head. all this justification for legalisation, it doesn't need to be justified because the "threat" never existed in the first place

the prohibition of alcohol was brought about in times of economic hardship basically because the wealthy wanted to keep "their" worforce in good condition during a difficult economic time, which at the time was probably a good move, but who can blame the population for wanting relief from the blatant exploitation of the wealthy?

and it's basically the same situation today with illegal drugs, the government want to protect the population from themselves. but why might the population want to harm themselves in the first place? as previously stated, the reasons for drug prohibition are as irrational today as they were then. you could legalese absolutely everything and there would be almost no consequence, everyone isn't going to go and and jam a heroin loaded syringe into their arm

crime, binge eating, illegal drug abuse, alcohol abuse, suicide, gambling, tobacco smoking, prescription medication abuse....they are all symptoms of a flawed economic system heavily biased towards the wealthy

you can scrap the pointless prohibition laws which might save the few hundred million dollars a year that it's currently hemorrhaging but all the same problems will still exist. you have to address the root cause of all these symptoms which would prompt the population to make bad impulsive choices

and that is 'standard of living' - a proportional distribution of economic prosperity (not equal, i'm not touting the old "communist" approach, more of a blend of both communism and capitalism). money is the best thing that ever happened to the human species, mutual benefit through trade has allowed us and will continue to allow us to develop, but greed is not reciprocal, it all ends up in one place, the greedy pocket, which means it is not self sustaining, and the economic crisis is the first sign that a system of that nature is destined to fail

as long as we all hold out and hope that one day we can be one of the greedy people throwing meager wages at others working for us keeping our pockets loaded nothing is going to change. at the moment it looks like things will change because they have to (ala economic crisis) but only as much as the wealthy see fit, they like being a super rich minority while the rest of the population leads an obscure existence, they don't want to stop getting richer. people need to figure this out and start making noise about it

 

[mrephedrine69]

The war on drugs never reduces the demand or the supply. It merely reduces the QUALITY of the supply, or what substance IS supplied when 'x' is requested..

Put pressure on the importers/cooks/etc and all that happens is that they take alternative measures. (piperazines or severely cut coke/wizz anyone?)

This puts more peoples lives in danger than anything as people never know what substance they are actually buying.

 

[Sustanon]

The war on drugs never reduces the demand or the supply. It merely reduces the QUALITY of the supply, or what substance IS supplied when 'x' is requested..

Put pressure on the importers/cooks/etc and all that happens is that they take alternative measures. (piperazines or severely cut coke/wizz anyone?)

This puts more peoples lives in danger than anything as people never know what substance they are actually buying.

Thats why they would need to legalize illegal drugs Wed have quality control, no one overdosing, and the government would make alot of tax on it In the end wed all be happy

I like to dream alot.

 

[halogenic]

u cant wage war on an inanimate object. but for arguments sake, no they arnt winning. the more they try the more the lives of users are put to risk.

[hey halogenic sykik here: You can edit you posts by clicking on the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this window. I'll edit the out to put for you this time. In future just edit your posts over double posting. Ps welcome to BL.]

 

[Lovegrud]

As an overall view I don't believe that the govt is winning it's war on drugs but it has won a few battles, take ecstasy for example they are definately causing some major blows which is effecting quality and peoples overall view of buying pills but in saying that most users are now seeking alternatives, I have noticed an increased use of L.S.D and stims because of this.

They will never stop people from taking drugs or finding ways to get high it's virtually imposible.

 

[Jakeperson]

However the major blows they have caused to ecstasy, are going to impact them worse.