Who should be allowed to use drugs?

[footscrazy]

I've unapproved some posts - please keep on topic.

 

[opi8]

I'm not underage, nor do I think children using mind altering substances, especially alcohol is a good idea. That's not what I was saying.

I find certain people talking down to others just because of their age, especially on an internet forum, is not only unfair, but highly arrogant.

 

[wazza]

Meeting Bluelighters changed my thoughts on who could use drugs. Back when I first used chems age 14 and onwards, the only people who could source drugs for the main were the cool crowd, the 'arty introverts' and rich families besides the 'street scum' associated with drug use/abuse. . Meeting bluelighters who were close to school (leaving) age, a fair few were people I'd call 'just normal' and back in my day, wouldn't have been able to source anything, back in the 80s I mean.

A combination of Internet and society have made it so people from all walks of life can first discover / use drugs. It may have been just my experience but I did move from 'bad ass' western suburbs Melbourne to Geelong at age 13 so I did see 2 different areas / parts of society. The main reason I got onto sourcing stuff was moving to a place that was a dead area and had lots of caravan parks that had heaps of summer campers where I discovered weed soon as I moved down and moving onto the powders / chems not too far after. Plus it helped I was earning up to 1k a week working one day a week with my folks. I had a LOT of disposable cash which most went onto metal records and drugs week in week out.

Asking this question would have definitely received different answers imho in Australia early 90s til post Internet explosion y2k

 

[Oxycondone]

I find certain people talking down to others just because of their age, especially on an internet forum, is not only unfair, but highly arrogant.

I'm not sure who this is aimed at but I must say I agree. Although I personally don't know anybody's age on bluelight (apart from a couple of friends) and I think a lot of people are in the same boat, meaning they only talk down to people based on what they write not their age.

Anyway back on topic...... When we talk about who should use drugs how do people propose the law should deal with different drugs? Should it just be totally legalised and supplied for all, or decriminalised for individual possesion and use or some drugs get certain treatment and other drugs are treated differently? If different drugs are to be treated differently, what model should be used to determine the different categories? Something like thie following diagram maybe, or are there additional factors which will need to be considered? :

 

[Busty St Clare]

From that chart it suggests that sniffing paint is safer than alcohol and benzo's are more harmful than tobacco.

 

[justsayknow]

^I'm not sure how harm is measured in that diagram. Is short term harm measured differently to long term harm or is it based on the number of people who are harmed? I mean I think people can go through some fairly dangerous (potentially fatal) withdrawl effects from benzos but maybe not as many as will die from smoking related illnesses in the long term. I also think that damage from short term solvent use may be reversible but sustained abuse is going to do plenty of harm...

What are the parameters?

 

[Mr Blonde]

Yeah I've always had a problem with a couple of the placements on that chart, such as the one Busty just pointed out. I also disagree with heroin being way off in the corner by itself... like it's been sent on time-out for being too hardcore or something.

 

[opi8]

You need to remember that stats can prove anything.

I may be wrong, but I think the source of that graph was prof. Nutt (who was fired by the UK government after releasing his findings) and the reason he created it was primarily to show the fact that cannabis has a low dependance and a low physical harm compared to alcohol and tobacco, therefore it is hypocritical to have the two latter drugs legal and taxed, while pot is less harmful in every way and still illegal.

 

[Divine Moments]

I may be wrong, but I think the source of that graph was prof. Nutt (who was fired by the UK government after releasing his findings) and the reason he created it was primarily to show the fact that cannabis has a low dependance and a low physical harm compared to alcohol and tobacco, therefore it is hypocritical to have the two latter drugs legal and taxed, while pot is less harmful in every way and still illegal.

I believe it was from this article by Nutt

 

[opi8]

Thanks for searching for what I was too lazy to search for, but even if he didn't state something, doesn't mean that was his desired effect. It's quite probable that I was looking into it too much, but like I said earlier stats can prove anything.

 

[Oxycondone]

Thanks for posting that link DM, I didn't have time before when I wrote my last post. Remember people that is just one of many charts and I just put that up as an example.

So in relation to my previous questions I posed, what does everyone think? What is everyone's realistic ideal models for drug regulations? (refer to above questions for further discussion).

 

[spacejunk]

finding an adequate model for legalising drugs that minimises harm without continuing with the failures that prohibition has heaped upon us is very difficult. i mean, i can think of several possible ways to legalise the supply of drugs, but the issues that surround them are too complicated - and too hypothetical.
we have a legacy of several generations of prohibition, meaning our social understandings have been immersed in the mentality of drug use being criminal and bad. the idea that drugs are against the law - that they are "wrong" or "evil" is so ingrained that it is hard to imagine that changing - in the eyes of the common man - very quickly. it will take years, or else it will cause a backlash.
just one example of what i mean here is - if we were to legalise drug use/possession/supply tomorrow, or even in a year - what would the legal system do with all of the people with criminal convictions (or in jail for) that crime?
free the prisoners? clear the records? pardon past wrongs, or maintain that people broke existing laws at the time?

i don't think a perfect system is possible to hypothesise without extensive study and collaboration between various bureaucratic/medical/psychological/social disciplines. one of us could get the right idea - hell, between us we could work out a very workable system, but there is just so much to be taken into account.
it may vary from place to place...and it no doubt will have to evolve and adapt over time.
at present, society (particularly australian society) is totally unprepared for end of prohibition. it seems like many people are toying with the idea of publicly advocating a change in drug law - an opinion shared by more mainstream commentators in recent times than any other period. i would like to think that this is the first step towards the community adapting to accept a more rational drug policy, but i won't be holding my breath.
so...i'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, push for it, prepare for it and theorise about the best ways to implement it - but i find it hard to visualise any of these hypotheses coming to fruition for at least the next 20 years. even the most flawless proposed model is likely to be riddled with potential problems.
australia's international position means that we will not be the forerunners for this change. we may get on the bandwagon eventually, but our relationship with the USA means that unless the americans want us to dramatically liberalise our drug laws, we won't be making the big step first.

to those that are worried about the consequences of drug law reform - it is a long, long way off. we have plenty of time to adapt, to educate, to evolve.

to those that are anxiously awaiting drug law reform - it's going to be a long, tough battle. get in there!

rational, considered government policy is exceedingly rare nowadays anyway - even on issues that are nowhere near as politically contentious as that of drugs. we are fed spin, buzz words and repetitive sound bytes. every phrase, every argument is considered for how various electorates and interest groups and demographics will react to it. the media plays a huge part in this - beyond being complicit in it, it is probably more accurate to say that the mainstream press caused this.

we living in an age of such political cynicism that it is really hard to imagine a concerted, sincere effort of governments to do anything that doesn't involve maintaining their power or financial interests.
i think it is important for anyone pushing this agenda to be very aware of this. we need to be doing the manipulation here.
fuck the party line, the prison-industrial complex - we need to make this a do-or-die issue for our leaders.
reform our drug laws or you will be politically irrelevant.

when politicians have "tough on drugs" rhetoric for nearly a hundred years as a badge of honour and integrity, don't expect them to be the first to come to the party in turning that bullshit on its head.
they are our representatives, and whether or not they join all of the other professions calling for an end to prohibition is up to us, the people. this change will be lead by people who know we need change, not by people who trade their power off popularity.
the first change that needs to be made - by the people - is to make drug law reform the popular choice rather than the political hot potato it has been for too long.

edit - i apologise if this is a bit off topic...i guess the whole thing seems a little like fantasy in a country that has been actively de-liberalising drug laws in the past couple of years. my home state banned the sale of bongs, recently, as well as repealing the previous government's efforts to decriminalise cannabis.
what i'm really trying to say is; let's not get too carried away in hypotheticals when the real political/historical/social hurdles we face in this campaign are so enormous. it all feels a bit unrealistic - but i'm not saying we shouldn't be hypothesising anyway - just that eddie mcguire and richard branson coming out in support of something doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. but i don't mean for this 'reality check' to be a drag....so i'm sorry if it came off this way.

 

[Help?!?!]

Anyone except young children(once it would fail to be detrimental to a developing brain would be the last number I care to not see use chemicals) . Anything less is freedom theft and more than childish. I know humanity has an obsession with keeping everyone of the stupid fucks on this planet but were going to have to grow up and learn that those jackass's that would inject bleach into their veins for a high are most likely just destined to die. Its a persons responsibility to educate themselves further than original schooling and if thats not their priority it shouldn't have to be the burden of others to "control" chemicals just so they won't hurt themselves. Children need safety locks not to get into things but adults do not and thats the way it should be IMO. The whole drug war is comical, oh shit legalize heroin and someone will do it? Yeah yeah, makes sense, just as much sense as if cyanide or arsenic were legalized full out and people started eating it just to make sure it would kill them like the medical bodies said. We just need to start undoing the terrible hurt/strain that the drug war propaganda has caused on humanity as a whole by properly educating our children from a young age that drug use is not okay in most terms but it is possible to use properly and safely/etc/etc. Its an infection that has furthered itself from just chemicals to more. It makes ignorant fucks feel empowered and smart...to me thats a terrifyingly dangerous weapon. It'll take a long time but eventually we'll whip that arrogance from all the adult children and the like.........(maybe not whip....we should probably show the ignorant more kindness than they showed us no matter how good it would feel....lest we just return to the monsters they were). To me its really this simple, nothing more, nothing less. It may be a bit rude or mean but the thing is I am willing to carry others upon my back as a burden....I just refuse to do so because of the current reasoning's.

 

[chugs]

The current regime of control for alcohol fails completely when it comes to preventing children from consuming alcohol. I'm not arguing that we should expressly allow children to consumer alcohol however we do need a far better solution. The solution though has to be driven from a evidence based approach. Why does the current age system fail? What is the root cause? You can't argue for legalisation of cannabis and install the same regime of control for it and expect a different outcome.

I would argue the solution would need to include a system of positive reinforcement so as to encourage the desired behaviour rather then the current approach of negative reinforcement i.e. penalties for the sale of alcohol to minors.

I think the pharmacy guild/chemists are the perfect agent for legalisation. Firstly empower the chemist to prescribe narcotics and psychedelics for for recreational use. They, like a doctor would, need to know the patients medical history and their current health as to determine if the prescription was suitable. For example giving speed to a person who has a history of heart attacks would be criminally culpable. A system of positive reinforcement that encourages the chemist to limit the number of prescriptions (or at least say the quantity prescribed), linking that to a monetary reward would ensure that that the profit derived from the sale of the drug would not override the controls put in place to prevent abuse.

Why a chemist as opposed to a doctor. I would dare say a chemist is far more knowledable about drug interactions. Secondly with the cat out of the bag there would no longer be any further chemist shopping and patients would start to build a relationship with their preferred chemist. That chemist wowuld be able to understand the patients current drug use and health situation and use that information to determine if it was suitable to prescribe LSD to the user. The chemist represents a badly under used resource in our medical system. Far too much work is lumped on GP (like school teachers) and with the AMA's monolopy on supply of doctors I don't see the GP system being capable of certify that a person is, health wise, able to use a recreational drug.

Lastly I would, under any legalisation regime, say that absolute pillar of it would be that no private enterprise is allowed to market, produce or distribute recreational drugs. The production system would have to be at a minimum government run and owned. Perhaps some of the raw materials could be produced (like how in TAS they produce opiates) however this would need to be done under extremely strict control. The very idea that a commercial business setup on the basis to create ever increasing profits would be considered responsible enough not to abuse its power to produce and sell heroin is just absurd.

 

[Mr Blonde]

^ That's an interesting post chugs, I like the idea of that kind of system.

 

[justsayknow]

The monetary reimbursement for responible dispensary sounds like a great idea as I would say the main factor that would possibly corrupt pharmacists would be the fact that they are trying to run a business.

It also sounds expensive...

 

[Busty St Clare]

Until such time as pharmacists start doing home deliveries or meet me after 12am in a club I'll stick to my loyal drug dealer.

 

[muvolution]

That is like in my example. Several states have such strict regulations on Medical Marijuana that everyone just sticks with the friendly neighborhood chronic dealer.

 

[chugs]

The monetary reimbursement for responible dispensary sounds like a great idea as I would say the main factor that would possibly corrupt pharmacists would be the fact that they are trying to run a business.

It also sounds expensive...

Well considering the billions you'd save from legalisation compared to the cost for the chemists (which would be in the hundreds of millions):

1. currently billions are spent in law enforcement and, worse still, correctional facilities. With legalisation the huge reduction in cost to LE would in the first year alone be massive. Imagine the legal profession/system.

2. the black market in drugs is hitting, from the last ACC report, about $10b. This however is at a heavily inflated retail rate. Legalislation would see a massive fall in the cost of drugs dispensed from the chemist. For example a gram of codeine currently costs about $15-20 (thereabouts for a box of panadiene). I won't say the cost of a gram of heroin but if legal produced it would be no more expensive then codeine. Its roughly a difference of 95% between black market and in theory legal heroin costs. Thus if the black market is at $10b you'll see the legal market at approx $500m to $1b a year. It would probably fall in time due to the evidence that in country with decriminalised drug regime long term trends show significant reductions in drug use among the population.

3. We'd see a significant drop in alcohol use as people move to safer recreational drugs. Considering that alcohol is single handily responsible for tens of thousands of hospital admissions and chronic diseases which in turn directly costs the health system billions it could be easily argued that the health system would stand to see significant reductions in cost, in the first year alone. I would dare say the brewers and the likes of Woolworths and Coles would see massive loses in revenue. I believe its those parties who are biggest opponents to a legalisation regime (drug dealers don't have lobbyists). I would also imagine there would be a massive shift away from pubs.

In summary with billions of cost coming of federal and state budgets providing a well funded positive reinforcement system to chemists to stop em from gaming the system/customers and preventing a new black market could easily be achieved.

That said the only real costs would be a significant increase in education and mental health funding. This would be used to drive harm minimisation strategies and improve health outcomes for those vulnerable to legalisation regime (and yes some people will unfortunately lose it badly).

Personally I think the problem with the legalisation movement is that it needs a grass roots campaign (and i'm not talking about GetUp). I'm talking about a group of people, middle class, who are prepared to protest for their rights. The gays and lesbians did it even in the face of the truncheon yet the drug users in this country are cowards.

No wonder society doesn't want to accept us. We don't even have the balls to get up and fight for our rights.

On a side note it would be of massive change to the justice system considering that if we legalised we would also have to free the thousands of people locked up on drugs charges.

 

[Mr Blonde]

^ Great post, would read again!

I agree that drug users do need to start making waves... though it will undoubtedly be hard at first, especially given how we are treated by certain sections of society.