How Far Should It Go?

I realise this topic has probably been previously addressed as individual issues, but I'm interested in hearing opinions on how far drug policy change should go. These are the areas I think are most worthy of addressing:


Education; What should it include/exclude? Where should it be taught and to what level. Should restrictive legislation exist for drug related books etc?


Legislation; All or nothing, or something in between?


Quality Control Options; I realise most (if not all) bluelighters support testing, but how far do you think this should go? Should it include lab testing - free even - or perhaps you'd go as far as to say it's the governments responsibility, seeing that so much is already being spent in the *publics' interest* but in reality, making things no safer.


Advertising; Should it be left as is; cigs and alcohol only? Or should it be banned altogether or perhaps allowed for anything & everything?

Health Care; Should rehab be free, should it be compulsory, or should it be available at all?

Try to give sensible reasons for your opinions. A hard core approach isn't what's asked for. Intellectual dissidence and reasoning is

I think that as much as possible about drugs should be taught to children. Wether people are going to accept it or not, there are always going to be people using drugs for recreational purposes. Therefore, I believe that by teaching young people all that is known, pros and cons and what the drugs do to your body both short and long term, would be of greatest benefit to the community. I believe it would make for a much more sensible and responsible community when it comes to the issue of drugs.

I think it should be all. Most bluelighters know and acknowledge how dangerous drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are yet they are really the only 2 drugs that are legal (in most countries). Why should drugs that if taken responsibley, will be safer than the above mentioned drugs be illegal for people in the community to use.

I think that if the government was to control the quality of drugs that were made available, we would see most drugs becoming taxable. But I would be in support of this as then you would know exactly what you would be getting. The money that the government then made from these taxes could then be used for the education and other programs that would promote safer drug use for those who will choose to use drugs. I mean, I do not know many people who would choose to go and buy from the dodgy dealer if there were pharmaceutical grade drugs available.

Advertising would be perhaps the hardest of the areas for me to form an opinion on. I don't think use of any drugs should be promoted, but that leads to a catch 22, you will receive a lot of information from advertising if it is responsible. Use of drugs should not be promoted as glamorous, but perhaps more with the honest facts about the drugs.

There is always going to be people in the community who will abuse or get addicted to drugs, no matter what we do. I think that there should always be help available for someone with a problem and this should be no different. AA is an accepted part of society and that is a group for people who on the most part have an addiction to a dangerous drug. Why should a group for say meth addicts no be acceptable in society.

These are just my opinions and I hope that they are interesting and not to useless or off topic for the thread. I will be interested to see the opinion of others.

Education; What should it include/exclude? Where should it be taught and to what level.

Drug education should commence at grade 6 (age 11) and be continued throughout high school. Obviously the level of information supplied would need to be carefully targeted. Parents should be allowed the option to "opt out" of drug education for their children as is the case with sex ed. The two topics should be combined into a unit entitled "adult health" or similar.

Should restrictive legislation exist for drug related books etc?
No. Parents should take the responsibility to censor their children's exposure to materials they deem inappropriate.

Legislation; All or nothing, or something in between?
Somewhere in between. Tobacco should (and eventually will be, I think) made available only by prescription from a GP as part of a "quitting strategy" including nicotine substitutes (similar to a methadone program).

Alcohol should remain legal with responsible service of alcohol legislation tightened and penalties increased significantly. I would personally also like to see the legal drinking age raised to 21, with the proviso that children of any age can drink in a bar or at home with their parents' supervision. The parents then hold legal responsibility for their behaviour and both child and parent would be disciplined for misconduct.


Quality Control Options; I realise most (if not all) bluelighters support testing, but how far do you think this should go? Should it include lab testing?
Yes, for all substances. The police should also provide detailed summary data of the chemical composition of all seizures.

Advertising; Should it be left as is; cigs and alcohol only? Or should it be banned altogether or perhaps allowed for anything & everything?
Banned altogether except within licensed venues (inside only). Tobacco should also be genericised (i.e. no branding, only a generic "cigarette" package at a fixed milligram dosage available under the counter at pharmacies, as per the prescription concept above).

As an aside point of interest, it is the tobacco industry's prediction that Australia will go "black" (no advertising) within 6 years, meaning no colour identifiers on packaging or point of sale (including cigarette machines) and that tobacco will be under the counter in 10 years.

Health Care; Should rehab be free, should it be compulsory, or should it be available at all?
Free and voluntary. Post-rehabilitation support should be more significantly integrated into rehab programs, including things such as job support and mentoring with people outside the drug support community.

I realise my views on tobacco are pretty radical, however it is my belief that this is the direction governments will head and I am supportive of it, particularly as I only smoke cigars which will no doubt be available on the black market. The problem with these sorts of questions is that the scope for personal bias is immense and obviously a lot of what I'd like to see happen isn't in the public interest.

The problem with these sorts of questions is that the scope for personal bias is immense and obviously a lot of what I'd like to see happen isn't in the public interest.

Click to expand...

That's sort of the idea. I was recently asked; "Law wise, what do Australian Bluelighters want to see change?" My initial reply was "Every one of them wants something different"

It was then that it struck me just how out of touch general society is with these issues, still. Many unaware people seem to think groups like this are all hard core users and law reform advocates. Sure, we would all like to see less consequence from drug involvement, but not all Bl'ers believe drugs should be legal and likely have good reasons for thinking so.

A new political agenda is on the horizon. IMO it would be most beneficial to be able to refer forward thinking delegates to a single thread discussing these opinions. We have the board ethic, but this is intended to be more a personal approach, reflective of your experiences and beliefs.
It doesn't have to be technical or be explained in detail. The common thread will be that all writers will have some involvement with drug discussion and use, even if that's confined to posting and reading threads.

Aunty, I assume any personal '"optimum"' would naturally include self preservation, so ultimately anything truly wished for would also be likely to progress or even benefit society.


...mmm...maybe I should go back to drawing pretty pictures 8)

Thanks to those who have bothered

just my opinion....

personally i think drug policy, here in australia, should be akin to the netherlands.

as such..... we as drug users should be able to buy marijuana, "magic mushrooms" and pharma grade mdma from government registered businesses.

i known mdma is not sold legally in the netherlands but i think it should be included. reason; it's non-addictive and MIGHT arrest the use of meth, coke and heroin use.

part of the money earned from these government endorsed enterprises could then be redirected back into education and health care.

drugs like coke and meth....i know they would be readily abused if legalised. so i'm not too sure on the status they should receive.

Anyone interested in this topic would enjoy the book High Society by Ben Elton

Its not subtle... but it's entertaining and definately covers alot of these issues. Worth a read.

If you had asked me these very question when I was a teenager/early 20’s my answers would have been completely different, but being a father myself my views have changed dramatically. I will agree that these are complex questions that depend on a lot of factors and considerations – a clear cut answer considering all these is difficult, but I’ll give it a try.

Education; What should it include/exclude? Where should it be taught and to what level. Should restrictive legislation exist for drug related books etc?

It’s been awhile since I’ve been a teenager and things have change dramatically, but I have been fortunate through my niece and nephew (both late teens) to have kept a grasp of today’s environment. Young people are certainly venturing into the world of drug use at a younger age, mind you so did I, but I think the percentage on incidence has increased dramatically. With its increased occurrence there certainly heralds the need for education rather than a zero tolerance approach. As a parent, it’s a fine line between “education for knowledge and harm minimisation” and “education for the expansion of knowledge base for possible future use.” It’s finding this workable curriculum – it’s a fine line. Exposing young people to the myriad of substances can be seen as a promotion of future use, and as a parent this would also be my concern.

I definitely think there does need to be some sort of education process, but at what stage and to what extent I’m not all together decided on. Maybe a gradual progression from the early years of high school – beginning with the education of the “accepted” and “softer” drugs such as tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. As the year’s progress and the likelihood of young people coming in contact with other substances, then the curriculum can be adapted to include these.

Legislation; All or nothing, or something in between?

This is a tough one; I’ve always been against the legalization of any drug – the simple fact that no matter how much harm reduction steps you take, they are still potentially harmful substances. Morally this doesn’t sit right with me, but I’m also torn by the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legalized. Their harmful consequences are much more prevalent among society, but also so is their usage. This does bring to mind – you would assume that if, lets say, marijuana was legalized it would lead to greater exposure and acceptance, therefore increasing its level of use. I’m basing my assumption of its increased use due to the fact that people will generally accept something legal and ignore its potentially harmful effects, i.e. alcohol.

Having said this, to what extent do we allow marijuana to be legal before its potentially harmful effects are no longer accepted – how long before it becomes society's “alcohol”? How long and to what extent before its level of “abuse” do we consider it harmful to society?

[edit] I'd also like to add that I do think that there does need to be room for the de-criminalisation of certain drugs for personal use - in that being caught with a personal amount (whatever that is deemed to be) does not carry criminal prosecution and consequent criminal record. Someone caught with a gram of dope or a couple of pills is hardly a criminal, and shouldn't be treated as such [/edit]


Quality Control Options; I realise most (if not all) bluelighters support testing, but how far do you think this should go? Should it include lab testing - free even - or perhaps you'd go as far as to say it's the governments responsibility, seeing that so much is already being spent in the *publics' interest* but in reality, making things no safer.

Government testing could only be seen as viable for things that are considered to be a legal substance – this is more of a politically motivated issue rather a concern for public safety. As much as it would be beneficial, I can’t see the government sanctioning test for an illegal substance.


Advertising; Should it be left as is; cigs and alcohol only? Or should it be banned altogether or perhaps allowed for anything & everything?

Advertising serves the purpose of “brand” identification and loyalty – there’s no need to advertise the actual substance. It does however project a certain image that young people can identify to or try to mimic, seeking the advertise situation and/or feeling. Responsibly, I don’t think such substances, including other drugs, should be left to the fantasy makers of advertising, because realistic projections are never created.

Health Care; Should rehab be free, should it be compulsory, or should it be available at all?

Drug usage is an individual choice and therefore you accept its consequence, so should the cost of rehab be burdened on the public system? But we could get even more anal and say that there are many activities that we engage in that carry personal risk, and subsequent injury can carry health support. This is becoming less a fact these days as the government tends to be shifting away from public health support and pushing people into private health cover.

I think the government has a duty of care for its citizens, that we rightly pay for through the tax system and supposedly cover us for basic health cover – its seems "basic" is becoming a more narrow definition. Again, a complex issue, why, as a society, support the consequence of someone’s “personal actions”? On the other hand, isn’t it the moralistic thing to do for a society, and if rehab is not available, wouldn’t these people become a burden to society anyway?

I don’t think I’ve really decided clearly on any of the above points, they’re all complex issue that all carry many possible outcomes – but it’s been fun to explore.

phase_dancer said:

Education; What should it include/exclude? Where should it be taught and to what level. Should restrictive legislation exist for drug related books etc?

Click to expand...

Drug Education should be discussed openly and honestly with anyone of any age who seeks information. The subject should be touched upon from the ages of 10 and up, yet in depth information should be given on a voluntary basis to anyone, perhaps by a school psychologist/nurse. Classroom discussions should look at drug use as part of their health/science study, but always end with the teacher encouraging those who want more info to see the psychologist or whoever is in charge of drug issues as they relate to students. Though information provided should be unbiased and fact-based rather than morality-based, under-age drug use should be discouraged. I feel this stance can be easily justified without resorting to a 'drugs are bad mmkay' ethos, which should be avoided at all costs. Secular humanist principles based on reason will be the basis for the approach, much like like sex ed. is taught now.
Arbitrary moralism should be the task of parents, preachers, private/religious schools, and strange men with megaphones on city street corners.

This all may be considered too early by some, however I was thoroughly interested in the subject at that age. I was smoking pot at 10 and used needles (heroin) and many prescription drugs at age 13. I did quite a few potentially lethal things at that age, and only because I didn't know enough. Would I have started taking drugs later with such education available? Doubtful. Would I have done potentially lethal drug combos/dosages/methods-of-administration if I knew the real risks involved? No.
Luck alone got me through quite a few stupid and dangerous acts where I was unaware of the risks I took. For others who were not so lucky, lack of education proved lethal.

Legislation; All or nothing, or something in between?

Click to expand...

Consenting adults should be free to consume whatever substances they wish to. This is not an opinion based on my love for drugs, it's a philosophical/political standpoint.
I believe that the state does not have the right to sovereignty over my body, that right is mine and mine alone. I support euthanasia rights for the same reason.
Drugs would be sold at pharmacies, aquired from under/behind the counter on request. Each box/packet would contain an information sheet on the drug supplied, listing contra-indications, explanations of effects at all dosage levels, and any other risks that may be involved with taking the drug.
People should also be able to produce their own drugs for personal consumption, yet selling them would be illegal unless they were subject to both taxes and quality control, much like growing tobacco and selling your own cigarettes is illegal now. The existence of Shulgin wannabe's would however prove valuable, as it would provide further incentive for those selling rec. drugs to keep prices down at levels that greatly reduce drug related crime.
Any company should be free to move into rec. drug manufacture to keep prices competitive (low), and no patents shall be granted to any drugs discovered and sold for recreational use for this same reason. Monopolies and drugs don't mix well, the worst dealers are the ones that know you have nowhere else to go.

Quality Control Options; I realise most (if not all) bluelighters support testing, but how far do you think this should go? Should it include lab testing - free even - or perhaps you'd go as far as to say it's the governments responsibility, seeing that so much is already being spent in the *publics' interest* but in reality, making things no safer.

Click to expand...

All drugs sold legally would be subject to the same quality controls that apply to any other drugs you buy at your pharmacy. People who make their own drugs for personal use would be exempt, providing they do not sell the drugs. I don't see this causing any special problems as almost all consumers would rather mass produced products which would undoubtedly be cheaper and safer than their backyard counterparts. If companies started charging too much, they'd lose business to backyard producers illegally selling their products so it would not be in their interests to do so.

Advertising; Should it be left as is; cigs and alcohol only? Or should it be banned altogether or perhaps allowed for anything & everything?

Click to expand...

Advertising should only be allowed in magazines/venues that are restricted to those 18 years and older.

Health Care; Should rehab be free, should it be compulsory, or should it be available at all?

Click to expand...

Drug treatment is probably the only health/edu./welfare service that I support being paid for by a regressive GST type taxes on rec. drugs rather than progressive income tax. This is because unlike things such as poverty, most illness and homelessness, which are often the result of ones circumstances or sheer bad luck, the negative effects sometimes caused by drug use are purely the result of personal choice, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Studies should be done to work out the financial impact made by each particular drug on the healthcare system, then each drug is taxed to cover only it's own impact. This way, those who choose not to take certain risks don't have to pay for those who do.
Another reason that tax revenues from each drug should only be used to deal with the effects of that drug is to avoid the sort of government revenue rasing going on with parking violations, which could prove problematic with drugs as it could raise the prices up to the levels we currently see with prohibition, causing unnecessary negative impact from drug use, thereby defeating the whole purpose of legalising them in the first place.
...and personally I'd rather my $200 go to a crime organisation than to cover the budget holes before some mealy-mouthed politician's re-election campaign.
If taxes were kept this way, I believe covering the healthcare impact while keeping prices very low would not prove very difficult at all.
Also, I believe these measure would push drug related crime to insignificant levels, which of course takes a huge burden off of law enforcement and prisons, saving the government truckloads of money. This money can be used to cover any unforseen problems not accounted for, give everyone tax breaks, and improve the quality of all government sevices.

Try to give sensible reasons for your opinions. A hard core approach isn't what's asked for. Intellectual dissidence and reasoning is

Click to expand...

How about the cognitive dissonance that comes with being a philosophical anarchist combining free market individualism with welfare state socialism to bring down a crypto-fascist status quo? Sometimes I make me sick

Originally posted by phase_dancer Education; What should it include/exclude? Where should it be taught and to what level. Should restrictive legislation exist for drug related books etc?

Click to expand...

I think drug education needs to be significantly reviewed in this country. Facts need to be taught as objectively as possible - effects, potential for addiction, dangerous combinations, impact on human development and harm done to the human body by all manner of pharmaceuticals, hallucinogens, stimulants, depressants, dissociatives, etc. Such education needs to be of a distinctly neutral tone - neither for, nor against... So that people can make up their own minds on the matter. The reason I say this is that it was a distinctly 'anti' drug education during high school that generated my interest in them... All I heard was how terrible they are, how much users suffer, etc... And all it did was stirr my curiosity - why did people take drugs if all they did was raise your blood pressure and make you feel sick, then like killing yourself the next day? While I realise they did it in my best interest - to keep me away from drugs...

a. it had the opposite effect
b. not everyone realises the educators have their best interests at heart, and some may feel betrayed by the educators, which in turn encourages rebellious (often dangerous) behaviour...

I think drug education should take place in high school - starting year 7, and continuing to year 12. I don't think it'd need to be a topic of it's own, perhaps just an amendment to the PDHPE syllabus that took up 1-2 hours a week. My reasoning here is;

a. school is a good environment to teach children in
b. they're likely to get the education they need to make an informed decision before they get access to drugs, or as they do.

Legislation; All or nothing, or something in between?

Click to expand...

SteveElektro perfectly summed up my thoughts here. All drugs to be "legalised" for under the counter sale from pharmacies, sold with relevant combination, driving and allergy warnings on them. Supply & demand can determine the prices, and the ACCC can watch over the industry and prevent price fixing & collusion. Reasoning? Drugs are produced and used regardless of their legality. Because they're illegal and no quality controls exist, people often mistakenly injest substances they don't intend to, as well as injest far more than they intend to. Following this course of action will prevent overdoses caused by unknown potencies and mistaken injestion of substances.

Quality Control Options; I realise most (if not all) bluelighters support testing, but how far do you think this should go? Should it include lab testing - free even - or perhaps you'd go as far as to say it's the governments responsibility, seeing that so much is already being spent in the *publics' interest* but in reality, making things no safer.

Click to expand...

Once again, I'm thinking along the same lines as Steve. All drugs produced to be sold in pharmacies should be subject to the same quality controls, including drugs sold purely for recreational purposes. Businesses should be allowed to test drugs quantitatively and qualitatively for users.

Advertising; Should it be left as is; cigs and alcohol only? Or should it be banned altogether or perhaps allowed for anything & everything?

Click to expand...

Advertising should not be allowed for any substance (alcohol and tobacco included). Advertising exists solely to encourage the consumption of a particular product, which in turn means encouraging drug use. A neutral stance on drug use here means no advertising.

Health Care; Should rehab be free, should it be compulsory, or should it be available at all?

Click to expand...

Rehab (much like health care) should be payed for by taxes (both regressive and progressive). In fact, I think that no differentiation should be made between health care and rehab... Rehab should simply be a part of the governments health care system. In cases where a user is consistently violent, disruptive or violates the law due to their drug use, a court should have the ability to hand down compulsory rehabilitation. People should be able to go voluntarily too.

Yes, I'm an idealist and a socialist... Sue me

woah! And here I was thinking this was going to be another thread about plugging.

I was smoking pot at 10 and used needles (heroin) and many prescription drugs at age 13.

Click to expand...

Fuck thats young Steve and kinda scary considreing my son is only a couple of years from that age.

This thread rocks

...the reel thing is back in town...

OK, let's see.....tackle, bait, bucket......wonder if the fishing will be any better today?

Great thread, keep bumping because even if you don't get many replies I'm sure people are finding it an interesting read.

My opinions are hazy on this topic but I do have some thoughts:

Education; should be as comprehensive as possible. I like Haste's idea of phasing it in over time, and I agree with the timing mentioned by Aunty Establishment - introduced in grade 6 and continued through high school (probably to year 10 I'd say).

Legalisation; philosophically I agree with Steve i.e. nobody should be able to tell me what I can do to myself. However, I do not believe governments should sell product nor should it be legal for individuals to sell product. And use should be restricted to adults only.

Advertising; no.

Health Care; free

will be back with a crack at this within the next couple of days

Re: How Far Should It Go; Education?

a [IMG]http://i.bluelight.ru/pi/32.gif[/IMG] dude said:

Education; What should it include/exclude? Where should it be taught and to what level. Should restrictive legislation exist for drug related books etc?

Click to expand...

I've felt a bit odd in adding my own thoughts to this thread, as I felt I'd be repeating much of what I've said elsewhere on this forum. But as promised... and I'll try to add something previously unmentioned


I've said it many times that I feel no books should be banned outright, other than those of:

• Actual murder with intent to; glamorize, encourage or promote.
  
• Illustrations of torture without involved consent.
  
• Child porn/ exploitation, on any level.
  
• Also required are important, but difficult to define areas which compromise freedom of choice, and human & animal rights.

Of course like anyone I have ideas on most of these issues, but it would detract from the topic to go further into those.

Within such a view, all books depicting, even encouraging drug use, would be allowed. Restrictions based upon whether a publication was deemed to be encouraging are just too open to interpretation, making such restrictions impossible to apply fairly. Ratings on movies should not be displayed on the movie title or program, but should be instantly accessible to anyone who requires such information. Indeed, a greater amount of info from classification or censorship evaluation should be accessible, including pic in pic clips pertaining to the body classification or objection. All censorship should remain forever open to public and independent review.

In the areas of drug related education, I think that Drugs, Toxins and Poisons should be compulsory learning at school, with basic chemistry introduced at a much younger age as a science component. I had a pretty good understanding of atomic structure at 10, but I only learned about it from books. We didn't get it at school until grade 8.

But what’s so difficult about Chemistry? Kids learn about batteries and power cells, they can draw the fields of a bar magnet, and kids are able to conceptualize planetary systems, so what's so different about atoms?

If Chemistry and Human Biology were taught from the start - as are Math and English - within a generation, the "smartness" of the world would probably be 3 orders of magnitude on what it currently is. That's what I think anyway......

As I've said before, I think poisons’ awareness should be expanded to include drugs - all drugs- with those of abuse potential being focused upon at an early age, around age 9-10 or even earlier. This should be standard schooling and reinforced at home just the same way poisons are. All drugs are toxic after-all.

State sponsored "straight up" education programs should be offered to interested parents and young adults. These should center around not only how to deal with addiction and stop use, but should focus on providing as complete as possible an understanding of drug actions.

Although it probably won't go down that well, I believe such a program should ultimately lead to classes or clinics which provide a legal setting for parents and those over 18 who wish to try the drug in a controlled and safe environment. The positive impact this would have on child/parent relationships is above considerable.

I also believe that all drug counselors and rehab workers should also be required to experience the drugs with which they are working with i.e. drugs associated with their patients/casualties. Communication -empathy- is then there from the start. It should come at no surprise to anyone that former/current users often make the best care workers.



As I have outlined many times, the (my) idea in education and rehab is to completely strip away all mystery and untruths, while educating people according to the individual’s level of understanding and/or desire to learn more. Nothing really new in that.

From before the discovery of electricity, mystery has kept the common man from being aware of the intricacies and mechanics of science. Dispelling myths means broadly educating. Are drugs really that different to any major development in technology, and the way the early-late twentieth century first received it? It’s really only different in that truths and realities continue to be obscured by clouds of devilish association. This does nothing more than it ever has; foster suspicion and develop curiosity.

Society has grown up in other areas, why aren't we deemed educated enough to understand the full picture? We're no longer so quick to shun new invention. Yet our confidence in those elected to guide becomes further removed by a "stockman's whip" rhetoric instead of explanation and public debate.

There will always be moral and ethical issues with any new turn in social policy, particularly when the history is so littered with both direct and innocent casualties. Each and every concern needs to be well addressed. Perhaps baby steps will be required, but it seems ridiculous that universities and institutions in Australia teach one thing, yet politicians are practicing another. In this day and age of accountability, it gives no sense of good management.

…Just my opinion of course

Education: To be honest, I agree with the current education. I love the lies and bs they teach them... it keeps them off drugs, and that's good. If they started telling the truth, more and more people would use, which is a bad thing.

Legislation: I think all personal possesion should be decriminalized, and penalties for dealing/smuggling reduced, but I still want them there.

Quality Control Options: I believe testing should be free. Needle exchange ect. should always been an option.

Advertising: Can I hear a HELL NO!

Health Care: Rehab shouldn't be free, but it should be largely subsidised so that everyone can afford. As for homeless/poor people that can't afford ANYTHING, it should be free. There should also be job placement programs, to help the recovering addicts get back on track. Doctors should provide treatment for drug use, without any of the bs that happens today.

I don't want drugs legalised, to be honest... the world would be fucked up.

---
Education; What should it include/exclude? Where should it be taught and to what level. Should restrictive legislation exist for drug related books etc?
---
It's hard to say. Hiding things certainly triggers curiosity, however I cant say that telling a 10 year old what good things drugs can do sits comfortably with me. Some where around yr 9 is probably the point I'd feel comfortable with, as thats when I was first going to have LSD. I had actually obtainted yet didn't end up doing it untill recently (That was not from fear of dangers, I just decided I wasn't ready to experience it. I'm sure I'm the majority here).
---
Legislation; All or nothing, or something in between?
---
I agree with SteveElektro here.
I would impose severe penaltys for non approved people selling drugs. You should be able to offer home brew dugs to friends and collegues but only if the recipient was well informed of the dangers involved.
I would extend not allowing patents to any drugs. Health is so important we shoud not let one company own it.
---
Quality Control Options; I realise most (if not all) bluelighters support testing, but how far do you think this should go? Should it include lab testing - free even - or perhaps you'd go as far as to say it's the governments responsibility, seeing that so much is already being spent in the *publics' interest* but in reality, making things no safer.
---
SteveElektro has covered my sentiments on this as well
---
Advertising; Should it be left as is; cigs and alcohol only? Or should it be banned altogether or perhaps allowed for anything & everything?
---
Advertising Alcohol is ok, each brand is a different product experience, where as with other drugs all of a certain dose does the same thing . If drug packaging was properly labled with accurate strengths there is nothing to advertise short of abuse of the drug.
---
Health Care; Should rehab be free, should it be compulsory, or should it be available at all?
---
I'm all for a completly public health system paid for by income taxes, rehab should be included in this. Drugs abuse may well be our own fault but we all need a hand getting up from a fall some times, why should drug abuse be different. If you realise you need help it usually when your in a real mess, and can't do much to help your self.

luckily enough, steveelektro said everything i'd want to, i think. i know that's a bit of cop-out, but i really agreed with pretty much everything he said - though i understand the points that haste made about legalisation (with the abuse of alcohol, and how that might be mirrored by other legalised drugs), i (philosophically and morally, as with steve) can't get past the fact that i don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone what they can or can't do to themselves.

thus, education is obviously one of the most important things that needs to be increased, should any currently illegal drugs be legalised or decriminalised. personally, i believe that there are some (hopefully not a large portion, but it's really quite impossible to hypothesise) people are going to abuse drugs (or whatever it is in question) regardless of the amount they are educated - some people just like the thrill of self-harm, and others are often just too stupid to really consider the risks they're taking, no matter how much they've been told.

regardless, i think education must be offered to every single human being - the decision, of course, is still up to them, but there's no point just presuming that 'drugs are bad', 'drug users aren't important' and all that conservative bullshit that's normally spouted. with a major reform to public education in regards to all drug use (and this includes alcohol - i don't think its negative effects were covered nearly enough in my schooling), i think we will find that yes, abuse will still occur, but at a far lower level than most people would presume. this is my opinion, obviously, but i think the facts don't necessarily disprove it.

phase_dancer, this (as usual!) is an excellent thread