-
-
AADD Moderators: Tronica
War on drugs a failure - Foreign Minister Bob Carr
- Thread starter getyourselfhigh200
- Start date
claire22
Bluelighter
anyone read andrew bolt's article about this? such a bloody fuckwit
first we have to change the fucking media, before we will have any possibility of progress in this country.
all mainstream press in this country is propaganda. the commercial shit? owned and paid for by the dubious interests of rupert murdoch, mining giants - or a combination of the two.
these people don't want social evolution, they want nice little placid consumers that get worked up over emotive issues that distract them from the realities of what is going on.
they pander to our fears, hype up our paranoia and our prejudices - the issue of drugs divides society, and this is preferable for big business interests.
why would they want more humane treatment of the "have-nots" when they could just as easily maintain the social dominance of the "haves"? hell, lock the weak ones up in jail. the questioning ones, the ones that experiment - they're bad for the economy; we had better mark them for life. drugs are a dark stain on your record, and our corporate puppeteers don't want the status quo to change in this regard - it's easier for them to have us all clearly marked. of course, well-to-do folks rarely get caught with drugs, at least in comparison to the working classes. not to mention that it gives our police force some nice easy task to keep them occupied, and allows them to look like they're doing a good job.
when australians stop believing the bullshit printed in the newspapers, the phoney nonsense passed off as news on tv and radio - and learn that there are far better sources of information these days - we might have a hope of the bovine masses voting for someone other than hateful conservatives like tony abbott. the way things are shaping up, it looks like we are headed back to the 50s revisionism of the howard years...or perhaps even worse.
this issue highlights the major flaws in our media very clearly - as TangerinO points out, they're not about giving us information, but training us to agree with their opinions. the amount of op-ed posing as news is disgraceful, but it seems most folk don't employ the necessary critical thinking skills to pick up on this.
as for this whole thing being a labor ploy - nonsense. bob carr came out in support of decriminalisation before his hasty ascent into becoming a federal minister, and if anything it seems as though the ALP are doing their best to distance themselves from the whole thing. a shame, really because the other (so-called) alternative offers nothing but fear mongering and tired cliches on this issue.
people shouldn't accept that horse shit, but unfortunately most of us in this country are fearful little sheep who believe what we are told no matter how stupid and destructive it is. the stupider it is, the more the average australian is keen to lap it up.
all mainstream press in this country is propaganda. the commercial shit? owned and paid for by the dubious interests of rupert murdoch, mining giants - or a combination of the two.
these people don't want social evolution, they want nice little placid consumers that get worked up over emotive issues that distract them from the realities of what is going on.
they pander to our fears, hype up our paranoia and our prejudices - the issue of drugs divides society, and this is preferable for big business interests.
why would they want more humane treatment of the "have-nots" when they could just as easily maintain the social dominance of the "haves"? hell, lock the weak ones up in jail. the questioning ones, the ones that experiment - they're bad for the economy; we had better mark them for life. drugs are a dark stain on your record, and our corporate puppeteers don't want the status quo to change in this regard - it's easier for them to have us all clearly marked. of course, well-to-do folks rarely get caught with drugs, at least in comparison to the working classes. not to mention that it gives our police force some nice easy task to keep them occupied, and allows them to look like they're doing a good job.
when australians stop believing the bullshit printed in the newspapers, the phoney nonsense passed off as news on tv and radio - and learn that there are far better sources of information these days - we might have a hope of the bovine masses voting for someone other than hateful conservatives like tony abbott. the way things are shaping up, it looks like we are headed back to the 50s revisionism of the howard years...or perhaps even worse.
this issue highlights the major flaws in our media very clearly - as TangerinO points out, they're not about giving us information, but training us to agree with their opinions. the amount of op-ed posing as news is disgraceful, but it seems most folk don't employ the necessary critical thinking skills to pick up on this.
as for this whole thing being a labor ploy - nonsense. bob carr came out in support of decriminalisation before his hasty ascent into becoming a federal minister, and if anything it seems as though the ALP are doing their best to distance themselves from the whole thing. a shame, really because the other (so-called) alternative offers nothing but fear mongering and tired cliches on this issue.
people shouldn't accept that horse shit, but unfortunately most of us in this country are fearful little sheep who believe what we are told no matter how stupid and destructive it is. the stupider it is, the more the average australian is keen to lap it up.
I realise this disscusion is about decriminalisation, but i sounds lke alot of people think leagalisation would be a good thing.
If marijuana was legalised it would make us happy for a while but then we'd want everything else legalised.
the government know this, they know Australains couldnt have access to pharmaceutical grade mdma coke and the rest and fuction the way they want us to.
I think theyre probably right.
Too many idiots to ruin it for the rest.
If marijuana was legalised it would make us happy for a while but then we'd want everything else legalised.
the government know this, they know Australains couldnt have access to pharmaceutical grade mdma coke and the rest and fuction the way they want us to.
I think theyre probably right.
Too many idiots to ruin it for the rest.
^ I think most of us have different ideas regarding what needs changing in regard to drug laws.
Some of us may be contented to see certain drugs decriminalised, others may have more liberal ideas of full legalisation.
Now, I agree that there is an element of Utopianism in a lot of these theories - but rather than focus on what divides us, I think we can quite clearly state that one objective unites a lot of us (though admittedly not all) - and that is that we need law reform. A re-think, a debate - ANYTHING.
but in the current Australian political climate, it is pretty obvious we're unlikely to even get a mature debate.
Some of us may be contented to see certain drugs decriminalised, others may have more liberal ideas of full legalisation.
Now, I agree that there is an element of Utopianism in a lot of these theories - but rather than focus on what divides us, I think we can quite clearly state that one objective unites a lot of us (though admittedly not all) - and that is that we need law reform. A re-think, a debate - ANYTHING.
but in the current Australian political climate, it is pretty obvious we're unlikely to even get a mature debate.
Well...it's a complicated issue - but it seems obvious that prohibition
a) doesn't prevent widespread drug use
b) doesn't prevent drug related harm (greatly increases it through stigmatisation and ignorance of safe practices and unregulated drug quality/purity etc)
c) benefits and finances organised crime
Therefore, the social structures that have been created out of drug prohibition need to be broken down. Taking drugs that have been manufactured in a black market, clandestine fashion increases the risk to the user.
Regulation and bringing the trade out from the underground may help this.
Even if we were to adopt a legal framework that punishes dealers but not users, we are actually legitimising a trade that benefits "criminals". It would apparently strengthen the economic power of black marketeers, smugglers and drug syndicates.
To me - and I only speak for myself here - this reform shouldn't be done in half measures. Enough of this state paternalism. People take drugs regardless of the law - so let's face the facts and explore the options for full legalisation. It should not be a moral issue or a game of dividing society; we're all in this together, and we need to evolve the way we think. Drug prohibition is a failed experiment from the mid 20th century. Enough! Let's move on.
a) doesn't prevent widespread drug use
b) doesn't prevent drug related harm (greatly increases it through stigmatisation and ignorance of safe practices and unregulated drug quality/purity etc)
c) benefits and finances organised crime
Therefore, the social structures that have been created out of drug prohibition need to be broken down. Taking drugs that have been manufactured in a black market, clandestine fashion increases the risk to the user.
Regulation and bringing the trade out from the underground may help this.
Even if we were to adopt a legal framework that punishes dealers but not users, we are actually legitimising a trade that benefits "criminals". It would apparently strengthen the economic power of black marketeers, smugglers and drug syndicates.
To me - and I only speak for myself here - this reform shouldn't be done in half measures. Enough of this state paternalism. People take drugs regardless of the law - so let's face the facts and explore the options for full legalisation. It should not be a moral issue or a game of dividing society; we're all in this together, and we need to evolve the way we think. Drug prohibition is a failed experiment from the mid 20th century. Enough! Let's move on.
Last edited:
"Therefore, the social structures that have been created out of drug prohibition need to be broken down. Taking drugs that have been manufactured in a black market, clandestine fashion increases the risk to the user."
Whats the alternative to this?
Are you talking about pharmaceutical labs making mdma and saying well you were gonna use it anyway here have this pure uncut shit.
Can you see how that cant work without legalisation?
Your right in saying its complicated, thats the way the government looks at it, far too complicated. They cant just drastically change our laws and hope everything is cool.
Whats the alternative to this?
Are you talking about pharmaceutical labs making mdma and saying well you were gonna use it anyway here have this pure uncut shit.
Can you see how that cant work without legalisation?
Your right in saying its complicated, thats the way the government looks at it, far too complicated. They cant just drastically change our laws and hope everything is cool.
Juvenile
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Messages
- 647
Quite a spirited debate on this taking place at whingepool:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1894196
(You'll need an account to see ITN sub forum though I think)
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1894196
(You'll need an account to see ITN sub forum though I think)
that's more or less exactly what i'm saying, yes.
people are going to use drugs anyway. they do - we do. it is one of the biggest industries on the planet, rivalling the oil industry.
billions and billions of dollars flow into shady hands, buying weapons, financing violence and corruption and murder the world over. the super-inflated value of drugs is caused by their illegality - lots of the drugs that sell in the west for many thousands of dollars per kilo are actually very cheap and easy to produce.
this whole political clusterfuck (take a look at central america for instance) has gone on for decades, and is fuelled by a very natural, human desire to alter our consciousness - but the suppression of certain drugs by the worlds' governments (led of course by the united states). now, even faced with life sentences for possession and all the kinda barbaric shit that people the world over have faced in drug eradication efforts, people break the law and take the risk because so many of us just want to get high.
now, i'm trying not to digress here (!) but we could wipe out the enormous power and wealth of drug lords and organised crime gangs across the planet if particular markets stopped prohibiting certain (or all substances).
shitty black market drugs - anthrax infected heroin and levimasole cut cocaine would be utterly worthless the instant they became legitimate products.
now, i'm going to emphasise again - this is very complicated, more than a little utopian and certainly idealistic, and i have to simplify my point a great deal to explain it to you in less than several thousand words - but people already do take these drugs. it is not unleashing a great danger on the world, like opening pandora's box. the world is already flooded with drugs.
millions of people worldwide use illicit drugs.
politicians like to present themselves as our moral guardians, and present this as a moral issue, but the free-for-all as it stands is much more anarchic and bloody than any state-sponsored drug legalisation program.
a large part of the appeal of drugs generally - from consumption to the romanticisation of gangster drug dealing - is the danger, the risk. for a long time, drug use has been a way of thumbing your nose at authority.
the act of using or being involved with drugs has become a rebellious act, at least in the developed western world.
if you picked your drugs up from a pharmacy or some clinical setting, were properly educated in the use of each substance (effects, duration, dosage, safety precautions etc etc) a large part of the social appeal for risk taking young people may well disappear.
how many addicts say that scoring is part of the addiction?
the countries that have adopted liberal drug policies (portugal and the netherlands) seem to report that drug use does not increase with the liberalisation. if anything, the use of certain drugs stabilises, or even decreases.
likewise, prohibition is responsible for many of the dangers of drug use - from wide variations in purity, dodgy synths, adulterated or misrepresented product, bad hygeine, excessive cost of a fix forcing people into property crimes to feed their habit.
opiates aren't that dangerous when taken in known quantities with a responsible attitude, but the stereotype of the malnourished, disease-ridden junkie dropping from an OD in a public toilet actually says more about the indignities of prohibition than it does diacetylmorphine itself. lots of drugs can be used responsibly when people are allowed the dignity to do so.
so to me - the answer to many of these issues - the negative effects of drugs in the economy, politically, socially and on individuals is impossible to separate from the arbitrary banning of any drug that people enjoy recreationally.
we can stagnate in corruption, continue the silly cat-and-mouse game of law enforcement, keep funding organised crime (tax free!) and putting dirty, mysterious drugs into our bodies - or we can look this problem outside of the propaganda we've all been raised with and try and find some solutions.
i don't pretend to have any easy answers, or any simple responses to how any bureaucracy would implement such a legislative and social shift, but the amount of resources governments the world over put into trying to stamp out drug traffic and drug use could easily feed millions of people.
if governments were to tax these substances, imagine what sort of impact this would have on the world economy.
now, i am the first person to cast doubt on speculation of impending drug law reform in western countries. the power has long been in the hands of those trying to fight this so-called war on drugs - and these people are very, very unlikely to let it go without a major fight.
it goes without saying that the (ever failing) attempts at suppressing drugs employs a lot of people. industries exist around law enforcement, border control, drug testing and any number of other prohibition-supporting institutions.
the 'drug culture' in western societies is still a fairly new thing - the crackdown of the nixon administration on drugs was a response to the massive shock to the system that occurred with the mainstream awareness of drugs such as LSD and cannabis (and a whole lot of other things that followed). it was too subversive, too much, too fast - and we are still witnessing the backlash.
there are encouraging signs though, that the culture around drug use is maturing and growing into something far more knowledgable and responsible. again though - a complicated phenomenon. the punishment of drug users has a number of political implications - the united states supposedly incarcerates more of its citizens now than any other country in the history of humanity, and there is certainly a whole other story there.
but when you take all of this into consideration - and acknowledge that governments and law enforcement bodies across the globe have been losing this battle for a really long time, it seems time to assess the damage, count the casualties and ask ourselves 'where do we go from here?'
another 80+ years of "just say no"?
basically - yes - this is far too complicated for the government of a country like australia to implement.
that is never going to happen - not without the USA or the majority of the world going down that path first. but if we as a species are capable of evolving in a short period of time, it is with ideas.
the idea that we can grow out of the infantile "drugs are bad", "pleasure = sin therefore you must be punished" paternal christian mentality appeals to a lot of people.
the hypocrisy and insanity of the war on drugs seems to be increasingly part of people's awareness.
when something doesn't work, it would be nice to think the people and the nations of the world can find a way to make it change.
the tide is turning, ever so slowly - which is not to say it will be easy, but how broken does something need to be before we fix it?
i don't think i've answered your question in this enormous essay rant, but i am trying to illustrate why so many of us feel passionately about drug law reform.
there are no easy answers, but that's life.
Seth_Heinmann
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 70
I agree with your sentiments 100%, Spacejunk. once society understands the way in which our current social structures get in the way of good, sound drug policy, then they would begin to back drug law reform by way of legalisation.
I was originally going to make a post SpaceJunk concerning your first post. I am studying a Bachelor of Media, you've pretty much got it all down pat man. In my humble opinion, You couldn't be more correct, and more legible with what you're saying.
I've always held your posts in high regard and this is exactly why.
I've always held your posts in high regard and this is exactly why.
^ thanks! i really respect your contributions on here as well, sonny jim. i'm glad that you guys aren't bothered by the length of some of my above posts.
it certainly seems as though a lot of our 'leaders' hold back from saying unpopular things in their time as elected representatives. i think this is caused by toeing the party line as much as it is by a media that feeds on scandal, fear and simplification.
wa's former premier geoff gallop has likewise spoken out against prohibition recently, but he at least had the courage to have a "drugs summit" when he came to power, which advised (among other things) to decriminalise cannabis - which, to his credit, he did. those laws have since been repealed by the liberal party, with their usual 'tough on drugs' hype.
seems to me that the corporate media are doing all they can to get the liberal party into power across australia (states and federal) and it is pretty obvious their social agenda is not progressive by any definition.
now, don't get me wrong, i've never voted for the ALP - but compared to the alternative, they seem to be at least open to discussing alternatives to the criminalisation of drugs such as cannabis. it's a damn shame that the academic opinions of these people as private citizens may be welcoming to radical drug law reform, but they are forced to compromise by the party political system.
it certainly seems as though a lot of our 'leaders' hold back from saying unpopular things in their time as elected representatives. i think this is caused by toeing the party line as much as it is by a media that feeds on scandal, fear and simplification.
wa's former premier geoff gallop has likewise spoken out against prohibition recently, but he at least had the courage to have a "drugs summit" when he came to power, which advised (among other things) to decriminalise cannabis - which, to his credit, he did. those laws have since been repealed by the liberal party, with their usual 'tough on drugs' hype.
seems to me that the corporate media are doing all they can to get the liberal party into power across australia (states and federal) and it is pretty obvious their social agenda is not progressive by any definition.
now, don't get me wrong, i've never voted for the ALP - but compared to the alternative, they seem to be at least open to discussing alternatives to the criminalisation of drugs such as cannabis. it's a damn shame that the academic opinions of these people as private citizens may be welcoming to radical drug law reform, but they are forced to compromise by the party political system.
Urban Raptor
Greenlighter
I honestly hope this provokes some sort of action but I won't get my hopes up, this will definitely be in my prayers
hell, I'll be jumping for joy if we at least get medical marijuana :D
hell, I'll be jumping for joy if we at least get medical marijuana :D
yagecero
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 312
Related reading:
Available here:http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-arrest-more-users-than-dealers-20120412-1wwp0.html
Available here:http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-arrest-more-users-than-dealers-20120412-1wwp0.html
