NEWS: Drug prohibition doesn't work - so what do we do next?

[footscrazy]

I do see your point of view Sameria, I just think the amount of people who don't touch illegal drugs simply because they are illegal or stigmatised is perhaps being underestimated. And as for the argument that everyone can get anything they want now, I'm not sure if that holds. For someone who is in the drug scene it seems easy enough, but think about the average Aussie who is not in that scene. I think they would find it extremely difficult to find drugs - think of people who have never been around drugs - they don't know what they look like, what the slang terms for them are, how much they need to take or how much a certain amount costs. Even being in the drug scene, it took a few months for me to find certain drugs reliably. And this is from someone who knows mostly drug users, knows the scene well etc. For an Aussie who knows noone who uses drugs, doesn't know where to find them off strangers etc, it'd be damn near impossible. Not to mention they probably only have a pretty vague idea of what each drug does, which lowers the attraction of going out and getting something. You can't really want something you don't know about.
For these people, I think accessibility is a bigger factor than is perhaps realised. If they started hearing the truth about drugs, about their benefits as well as their risks and they were easily accessible, I think there would be an increase in their use.

 

[drug_mentor]

I do think drug use would increase a fair bit, not as much as some people on here seem to think though. I don't think addiction would rise that much however, a huge number of people have already tried illicit drugs, most of them don't go on to become addicted. I think that a few people would be interested who previously weren't but the majority of people who would be interested in drugs would try them anyway.

Also I think that alcoholism would reduce with the slight increase in addiction, a lot of people who get addicted to drugs do so for reasons beyond just liking the effects of the drug. They are often self medicating. Most people with addictive tendencies probably have developed addiction problems in one form or another and are more likely to have tried drugs in the first place imo.

I am not saying it wouldn't increase at all, but I think that if more people tried drugs and they were legal, the % of people who tried drugs and went on to become addicted would be smaller than it is now. Obviously I could be proven wrong, but I just feel as though addiction is rarely the only issue in an addicts life and availability of drugs is not going to be the major determining factor in how many addicts there are.

 

[bit_pattern]

What is your idea of legalization? As iv stated earlyer iv no problems with addict's recieving what ever drugs they require to help them better their lives but my idea of legailization is having it avaliable to your average joe some how or another.

Is that what you mean because your above post seems to point to otherwise and falls rather closely in line with my opinion on drugs.

Also a question from early for everyone, how do you feel about pharmasutical drugs being on the market that have failed/never had a clinical trial?

My idea of legalisation (I prefer the term regulation) is that we take the drug market away from criminals and get some sembalance of control over it, which would lead to better social and health outcomes across the board.

I think that every drug, alcohol and tobacco included, be judged on it's merit and brought under government regulation in some form, so safer drugs like marijuana and ecstasy be regulated in a similar way that alcohol and tobacco are now, while more serious drugs with a higher addiction/damage profile be regulated in the same way other addictive and dangerous drugs are. With things like heroin it should be medicalised, and addicts should be provided their fix so that they can maintain a normal everyday existence, in the same way methadone maintenance is administered.

As for your last comment about pharmies, of course not, but I hardly see what you are getting at here. I think any legalised drug would have to pass the same strict guidelines and clinical trials as any other pharmie on the market.

And, Chemi, the quote of mine was referring in particular to heroin, and the experience of Switzerland for one shows that, no, medicalising heroin addiction actually results in reduced recreational use as users are stigmatised by having a medical problem - as one Swiss study said, young people are less likely to see addicts as anti-authoritarian rebels and more likely to view them as 'losers'.

Most of my ideas on this topic have been summed up quite convincingly by the Transform Drug Policy group in their Blueprint for Regulation. How many of you anti-regulation types have read the report? It is available for download here:

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint download.htm

For a PDF 'quickview' of the Executive Summary

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&gl=au&sig=AHIEtbT0s1AYGckic0xLxe_r2oE6dvOUNw

I'd suggest having a look at it then coming back and telling us if you see any inherent problems with their proposals, because as far as I can see it they are taking a purely common sense approach to a problem that just won't go away, no matter how many trillions of dollars get thrown at law enforcement.

 

[Busty St Clare]

As for your last comment about pharmies, of course not, but I hardly see what you are getting at here. I think any legalised drug would have to pass the same strict guidelines and clinical trials as any other pharmie on the market.

Would a drug that casues hallucination's, rapid heart beats to 150-180 and cause users to suffer from depression for 2-3 days after use even pass clinical trials?

I don't have a problem with heroin dispensing for maintanence of addicts. Done under supervision I would think it is better than methadone. The only thing stopping it is international opposition from places like the US who has a platform against poppy cultivation in their war on terror.

This is not legalisation in the same way it is still illegal to have something like valium without a prescription.

 

[static_mind]

My idea of legalisation (I prefer the term regulation) is that we take the drug market away from criminals and get some sembalance of control over it, which would lead to better social and health outcomes across the board.

Id say legalization and regulation are not interchangeable words. Id say things like alcohol is an example of legalization. Heroin in the UK is an example of regulation ie its used medically for extream pain but with out that script its an illegal substance.

I think that every drug, alcohol and tobacco included, be judged on it's merit and brought under government regulation in some form, so safer drugs like marijuana and ecstasy be regulated in a similar way that alcohol and tobacco are now, while more serious drugs with a higher addiction/damage profile be regulated in the same way other addictive and dangerous drugs are. With things like heroin it should be medicalised, and addicts should be provided their fix so that they can maintain a normal everyday existence, in the same way methadone maintenance is administered.

I think il copy and paste something I said earlyer

"I support legalisation of some drugs after trial. I support decriminalization of all drugs for personal amount and free Heroin/Methadone or whatever an addict needs to help get their life back on track."

I think thats close enough a reply of my opinion in regards to what you said.

As for your last comment about pharmies, of course not, but I hardly see what you are getting at here. I think any legalised drug would have to pass the same strict guidelines and clinical trials as any other pharmie on the market.

That last question was open for anyone but since you answered il give you a reply at what im getting at. For the legalization of all drugs would also include drugs that havn't passed clinical trials. I have grave doubts that many street drugs would pass a clinical trial as their side effects are too high. However if these will still be aviliable to the public because "people are going to use them anyway" then it would be rather hypocritical to deny someone who is attempting to use a drug medically despite a failure to pass a trial. As you mentioned about Methamphetamine and Heroin being given to addicts this point probably doesn't apply to you but rather the "legalize all drugs crowd".

If all drugs could be aquired by anyone then even the drugs that don't pass a trial will be too and soon enough people will be treating themselves, probably with the help of an "internet doctor" to a whole range of substances that could be ineffective, addictive or toxic.

I mean clinical trials as in testing for safety, efficiency, side effects etc and not strict production methoeds such as dose and purity.

Iv read the overview of that document you have provided.

 

[team gong]

^Yes, with legalising, you can then open up research into the long term effects and how to go about treating these. Maybe they'll be allowed to develop drugs that give benefits with no side effects.

People's PhD's could be on creating recreational drugs that are safe etc etc. Legalising opens up a whole new ball game.

They can't exactly do a lot of research into it now as there's no reason to.

Things like serotonin syndrome could be _possibly_ avoided completely. Plus you need to use a fair bit of drugs afaik to get to that type of toxicity, hopefully the educated masses won't be using that much.

 

[jackandjill]

static_mind, I have agreed with pretty much everything you've said in this thread and I can see what you're getting at with the clinical trials.

For a drug with medical use to be legal it goes through strict testing and clinical trials before it is deemed safe for consumption and therefore legal. If the government makes all street drug legal aren't they - in a way - saying that they are all safe for consumption?

I know having pure substances available is making drug taking safer... but I still wouldn't call all drugs safe. As it's been said most drugs wouldn't pass clinical trials anyway and we still know very little about the long term effects of most drugs because of the lack of research and trials.

What about the legalities in this? Will the drug companies get sued because someone fries their brain on MDMA abuse?

 

[bit_pattern]

static_mind, I have agreed with pretty much everything you've said in this thread and I can see what you're getting at with the clinical trials.

For a drug with medical use to be legal it goes through strict testing and clinical trials before it is deemed safe for consumption and therefore legal. If the government makes all street drug legal aren't they - in a way - saying that they are all safe for consumption?

I know having pure substances available is making drug taking safer... but I still wouldn't call all drugs safe. As it's been said most drugs wouldn't pass clinical trials anyway and we still know very little about the long term effects of most drugs because of the lack of research and trials.

What about the legalities in this? Will the drug companies get sued because someone fries their brain on MDMA abuse?

Why couldn't recreational drugs go through similar clinical trials? As for legalities, do distillers get sued every time somebody drinks themselves into any of the wide range of diseases associated with alcohol abuse?

 

[bit_pattern]

Would a drug that casues hallucination's, rapid heart beats to 150-180 and cause users to suffer from depression for 2-3 days after use even pass clinical trials?

I don't have a problem with heroin dispensing for maintanence of addicts. Done under supervision I would think it is better than methadone. The only thing stopping it is international opposition from places like the US who has a platform against poppy cultivation in their war on terror.

This is not legalisation in the same way it is still illegal to have something like valium without a prescription.

Ending prohibition, as per the OP, doesn't equate to open slather 'legalisation', that's why I refer to regulating the market, maybe decriminalisation is better term, but I think the whole legalisation terminology would be better dropped for the purpose of this thread. But it is a simple acknowledgment that anti drug laws simply don't work and that we should focus on more common sense approach to recreational drugs, rather than maintaining the status quo just for the hell of it.

 

[Jordan`]

I think the key focal point in taking a step away from drug prohibition would be decriminalisation. Cut the spending on incarcerating individuals for possession of these substances and we would at least have a foot in the door.

 

[trippa]

look prohibition does work .... they have had some decisive victories and only 17,000 killed in the process ... (sarcastic tone should be noted)

Mexico boosts drug police numbers

Reuters

Last updated 09:02 14/01/2010


Mexico is sending 2,000 police to boost security in violence-ridden Ciudad Juarez after human right groups strongly criticized an army-led clampdown against drug gangs in the border city.

More than 2,500 people were killed in Juarez last year, according to media reports, making it one of Mexico's most violent cities. Attacks have surged in response to President Felipe Calderon's war on drugs.

Public Security Minister Genaro Garcia Luna said in an interview with Televisa network on Wednesday the reinforcements would arrive over next few days. "It adds new capacities to the (fight) against crime," he said.

A spokesperson for the interior ministry said the plan was to replace the 10,000 troops now patrolling the industrial city across the US-border from El Paso, Texas.

Calderon deployed thousands of soldiers after taking office in late 2006. His strategy scored major recent victories with the capture of a key Tijuana drug gang leader on Tuesday and the killing of the head of Beltran Leyva cartel in western Mexico.

But the army clampdown has ignited brutal turf wars between rival gangs, killing 17,000 people over three years.

The army has replaced many policemen suspected of working for drug groups, but human rights watchdogs have documented serious abuses by soldiers and say the military should not be charged with civilian duties.

One activist who blamed the army for her son's abduction and demanded that troops leave the city, was killed in Juarez this month, sparking protests.

The army has acknowledged it has been unable to stop the warring cartels fighting for control of smuggling routes into the United States.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/3229345/Mexico-boosts-drug-police-numbers

Geez ... I wonder who is funding that crackdown??8)

 

[Doctor Robert]

but which ones should be prescription? and what would be a reason for going to the doctor and asking for a script for MDMA? and what limits will be imposed? 1 pill per month?

schedule 1 drugs are schedule 1 because they have no medical use... so getting doctors to prescribe drugs that have no medical use seems a bit stupid.

and as chemi said if drugs were legal there would be an increase in use because suddenly people think all the drugs are safe and they will be easily accessible - where before their lack of connections may have been holding them back.

I'm using MDMA as an example because it would be the drug that would see the biggest uptake and although it is relatively safe in terms of recreational drug use... it can still be quite dangerous!
there will suddenly be inexperienced drug users going out and taking MDMA and overheating, dehydrating, drinking too much water. Hospitals would be inundated with first time users who don't know how to take the drugs safely and think they're dying.

The myth that all illegal drugs are bad and will kill you is as much a myth that all legal or OTC drugs are OK and not that bad for you. If all drugs were legalised and accurate information was made common knowledge, the public would be able to make proper evaluations of the risks.

 

[Doctor Robert]

You wouldn't touch Heroin however if it was OTC a few years ago I would have gotten into that quick smart.

Datura is a shit drug that no one wants if its legal or not. People can get easy access to deleriants as is but people don't want them. People do want heroin, you might not but there are a lot of people out there that do.

Case in point Alcohol, Tabbaco, Caffene. None of the drugs are really up there in Euphoria compared to other common drugs. But they are so widely abused. People will want their next energy drink, a nice dose of Methamphetamine and maybe cocaine. What a way to start the day...for a while at least.

How do you explain the massive abuse of these drugs yet think people won't find their stronger more addictive counterparts a problem? Do you really think if all drugs were legal that alcohol tabbacco and caffene will still be king?

I doubt that.


(PS almost every government around the world agrees with me and everyone who watch's ACA or today tonight ha ha I have alot of friends (joke intended))

I support legalisation of some drugs after trial. I support decriminalization of all drugs for personal amount and free Heroin/Methadone or whatever an addict needs to help get their life back on track.

When you get into drug addiction territory its not really a drug issue. Drug dependency is always a symptom of a bigger problem. Sure a drug addiction makes matters worse but it can easily replaced with another addiction (work, sex, shopping, food etc..) or some other activity that distracts or numbs one from emotional pain.

 

[trippa]

Cannabis 'ok' for medicinal use - Law Commission


By JOHN HARTEVELT - The Press


Last updated 16:30 11/02/2010

Cannabis would be allowed for medicinal use and low-level pot-smokers sent to rehab instead of prison under proposals revealed this afternoon by the Law Commission.

The Law Commission Issues Paper on Controlling and Regulating Drugs also calls for a "major overhaul" of the law governing new drugs like BZP party pills.

Law Commission President Sir Geoffrey Palmer today said there was "scope for a range of different approaches" to drug laws in New Zealand.

"There may be a case for taking more flexible approaches to offences involving possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use," Sir Geoffrey said.

The report says there is "no reason why cannabis should not be able to be used for medicinal purposes in limited circumstances".

Under a proposed scheme, people suffering from chronic or debilitating illnesses would be able to use cannabis under medical supervision, particularly where conventional treatment options had proven ineffective.

Cannabis cultivators would be licensed to provide medicinal marijuana in the same way as other legitimate dealers in controlled drugs, the report said.

Justice Minister Simon Power today said he would be interested in submissions on the report but he would not allow medicinal use of cannabis.

"There is not a single solitary chance that as long as I'm the Minister of Justice that we'll be relaxing drug laws in New Zealand," Mr Power said.

Mr Power's comments were at odds with the report, which suggested there should be less emphasis on conviction and punishment for low level drug users and more on treatment.

"Simply punishing a drug user, without taking steps to address their drug use, is a wasted opportunity," the report said.

It suggested three options where personal use of marijuana was detected. The options were: a three strikes caution regime; on the spot infringement notices; or legislation allowing police to choose from a range of options for punishment.

The regulation of new drugs - like party pills - was recommended for change. The Commission said there should be a new regime where any new psychoactive substance would not be available without prior approval.

The report said that the proposals were likely to raise concern they would lead to an increase in drug use.

"However, most studies in this area have concluded that changes in use levels are independent of the regulatory approach in place - that is, the regulatory approach itself neither increases or decreases drug use," the report said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3317457/Cannabis-ok-for-medicinal-use-Law-Commission

 

[Jakeperson]

Good to see. There is no reason for not having medical marijuana. And I couldn't see any other better business than legally selling weed.

 

[trippa]

Good to see. There is no reason for not having medical marijuana. And I couldn't see any other better business than legally selling weed.

I would love to be one of the official growers for something like this ...
it would be amazingly rewarding knowing you were helping people in need as well as growing one of the more interesting plant species both in growth habit and strain idiosyncrasy ...