Former Brazilian President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, has argued that the war on drugs has failed and cannabis should be decriminalised. He argued that the hardline approach has brought “disastrous” consequences for Latin America. Having just returned from Rio, we can only agree.
One of us was staying with an eminent professor of philosophy. We were returning to her house with her 11-year-old daughter, only to have our way blocked by police with machine guns. They were hunting a drug lord in the local favela – this road was the only escape route and they were preparing for possible altercation.
Cardoso highlights the practical failure of a zero-tolerance approach. A zero-tolerance approach to a crime like taking drugs must always fail, in the same way as a zero-tolerance approach to alcohol, prostitution or drugs in sport will always fail. Paradoxically, the worst thing you could do to the drug lords in Rio is not to wage a war on them, but to decriminalise cocaine and marijuana. They would be out of business in one day. Supplies could be monitored, controlled and regulated, the harm to users and third parties significantly reduced.
The case for legalising drugs has been made often, most recently by Australia’s foreign minister, Bob Carr, who this week co-signed a report declaring “the war on drugs has failed”. The argument is nearly always put forward in terms of the burdens that the drug war has imposed on us in terms of crime and public health. And it is true that these things give us good reason to abandon Richard Nixon’s war on drugs. But we so rarely hear a moral argument in favour of liberalising drug laws. This is a mistake.
Although experts have told us time and time again that things would be better without the drug war, politicians have ignored the expert advice because voters do not want drugs laws to be loosened. And voters feel this way not because they think they know better than the experts, but because they have moral objections to drug use. There is a hidden moral debate driving the war on drugs that we never seem to bring out in the open.
The original drug prohibitions had a moral rationale rather than a practical one. It began with the American prohibition of opium, which was primarily motivated by a moral objection to white people smoking in Chinese-run opium dens. This began a prohibition movement in the United States. In 1913, marijuana — which was used almost exclusively by Mexican and Indian immigrants — was prohibited for the first time by the state of California.
Today, when new drugs are added to the long list of illegal substances, it is because they are judged to be “addictive”, not because they are harmful. The United States’ Controlled Substances Act calls for a drug to be prohibited if it has “a high potential for abuse” and if it “may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence”.
The drug does not have to be harmful in any other sense. According to US government statistics, paracetamol (acetaminophen) is involved in nearly five times as many emergency room visits as MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often referred to as “ecstasy”), and it remains available in supermarkets around the world.
So the main reason that drugs like alcohol and caffeine are legal, but cocaine and MDMA are not, is that the latter are judged to be “addictive”. (Suspend for a moment the true belief that alcohol and caffeine are addictive.)
Addiction does harm the addict, to be sure. But self-harm cannot provide grounds for prohibiting a substance. As philosopher John Stuart Mill famously put it, the sole legitimate reason for interfering with a person’s liberty is when he risks harming others.
And while it is sometimes argued that the “drug problem” makes us all worse off, most of these harms flow directly from the zero-tolerance approach — drug prohibitions harm others when they are robbed, beaten or killed by those who run the black market of drugs.
It is sometimes argued by liberal-minded people that addictions warrant state interference because they render the addict incompetent, powerless to make an autonomous decision to take drugs. The addict becomes like a child in need of parental protection — or in this case the protection of the state. In this way “addiction” becomes a moral concept, not a form of harm. It is a condition that robs us of our moral status.
We have argued in a number of articles that such a view of addiction is false. People who take drugs are not suffering from a disease and they do not necessarily have some pathological failing of will power. They may be imprudent or irrational in taking drugs, but then again, we all are, nearly every day, in various ways when we eat unhealthily, engage in risky sports, smoke, drink or gamble.
Addicts may place to greater value on pleasure, or on excitement, or escape from reality, but their addictions are not different in kind to desires for other pleasurable activities. People become “addicted” to gambling, videogames, internet use, exercise, sex, carrots, sugar and water. These substances or activities do not “hijack” the brain — they provide pleasure utilising the same brain pathways as drugs. Every pleasurable activity is “addictive”.
The public discourse on drugs includes liberty, health, and crime, but it so rarely includes the value of pleasure. We do not have to be hedonists to believe that pleasure is one of the important goods in a person’s life. A liberal society should be neutral with regard to which pleasures people may pursue; it should not force people to conform to a particular conception of “good” and “bad” pleasures.
But more importantly, if every pleasurable behaviour can be addictive, then there can be no reason to believe that the pleasures of drug use are less important than the pleasures of good food and wine, of rock-climbing and football, or of browsing the internet. Each of these things is pleasurable, and hence each is addictive, and each can be harmful if done to excess. But we all have a right to pursue the pleasures we find valuable, even though each of these pleasures puts us at risk of addictions or addiction-like problems: alcoholism, pathological internet use, sex addiction, binge eating disorders, and so on.
The right to pursue pleasure gives us reason to legalise drugs, while addiction and self-harm fail to give us good reason to prohibit them. That is the essence of a strong moral argument against the war on drugs.
There remains one possible ground for interfering in liberty and retaining the ban on drugs. That ground is the public interest. If society were to be severely impaired by liberalisation of drug laws, that might be an extreme case that warrants a ban on drugs.
But our (admittedly limited) experience suggests the opposite — the Netherlands appears to have reduced its drug problem, without increasing its overall rate of drug use, by enacting relatively liberal drug laws for “soft” drugs like marijuana. And as Cardoso argues, a complete ban seems to be strongly against the public interest, keeping drug lords in business and the user and others in a position of severe vulnerability.
In the future, perhaps we will give up our squeamishness about drugs which provide pleasure. We could use modern pharmacological science to select or even design drugs which give us the pleasure or experiences we seek, but cheaply and without serious acute or chronic health risks. For the present, the drug which we can most freely obtain is one of the most addictive, one which contributes to violent behaviour, one which produces terrible chronic health effects and the worst withdrawal syndrome of all drugs. Alcohol.
The time has come to take a rational approach to drugs.
Rod Lamberts
Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University
Yes, yes, and yes again. For mine, the only negative thing about articles like this is that they are still necessary... Good on you, gentlemen!
EGA Policy
logged in via Twitter
Prohibition also fails because it bans our moral development. By seeking to ban choices we may regret, prohibition stops us learning from experience, and prevents our growing up. Even if we think drugs are bad, obedience is an immature virtue at best, and often very much worse.
Mark Honeyman
Wage Slave
Outstanding article. Absolutely spot on.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Very well done. I am always gratified to see when authors like these have done their homework.
For those who may be new to the subject, one of their references is to Licit and Illicit Drugs, by the editors of Consumer Reports magazine. The book can be found at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm If you are only going to read one book on the subject, this is the one to read. It is the best overall review of the drug problem ever written.
Another excellent item is the…
Read moreMalcolm Kyle
logged in via Facebook
An appeal to all Prohibitionists:
Most of us know that individuals who use illegal drugs are going to get high - no matter what, so why do you not prefer they acquire them in stores that check IDs and pay taxes? Even if we could afford to put Narcs on every single corner, at least half of them would soon become dealers themselves. Gifting the market in narcotics to ruthless criminals, foreign terrorists and corrupt law enforcement officials is seriously compromising our future.
Why do you…
Read moreGary Myers
logged in via LinkedIn
Because regulation has worked so well with alcohol and tobacco and prostitution. We don't hear of underage smoking or drinking or unlicensed brothels with sex slaves or drink driving. We don't have multi-billion dollar tobacco companies throwing dodgy research around, and pushing their harmful product into developing-world countries.
If you look at the recent history of alcohol and tobacco, restrictions are being increased as people are otherwise just too stupid to act responsibly.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Regulation works distinctly better than prohibition. We proved that in the US with alcohol prohibition.
Prohibition was passed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Alcohol." Within five years there were record numbers of kids in hospitals and courts for alcohol problems. The average age at which people started drinking dropped dramatically. Teen girls began to frequent illegal bars for the first time. Schools had to cancel dances because so many kids showed up drunk. Kids became involved…
Read moreStephen Lehocz
Interested public.
Excellent article. Yes we have lost the drug war by banning them.
The problem at this time seems to be not so much the drugs themselves, but the people pushing them. Legalize drugs and and as you said the drug pushers would be out of business.
Then we can educate, handle and penalize the end user, rather than turning them into criminals
I suspect the drug problem would be a lot easier to handle if the people who actively push drugs were put out of business.
Either way we need some reform in his area, as it is obvious total prohibition has not worked.
William Bruce
Artist
1. Licence users (Must first have 2 Doctors certificates showing they have been warned/advised of the consequences).
2. Let people get it from their Doctors. This will kill the pushers business.
3. Compulsorily educate all 12-14 year old children with a Video presentation/s about the facts about addiction and negative mental & physical consequences.
NB Drugs might cause harm to "an individual" but no harm at all to society. It's people that "can't pay for illicit drugs" that causes ALL the problems...& massive CORRUPTION....and fills prisons and so on...
Anyone who is against LICENSING DRUG USERS has a vested financial interest or has no idea.
(Above post from previous drug article).
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Would you do the same for alcohol users? Why not? Alcohol causes far more problems than all the illegal drugs combined. If you wouldn't do it for alcohol, then it doesn't make any sense to do it for lesser drugs.
Do you go to the doctor to get a license to drink beer? If such a license existed -- and you tried -- the doctor would tell you that he doesn't want to have anything to do with approving your recreational drug use. It doesn't do anything to improve your health and, if you happen to drop…
Read moreWilliam Bruce
Artist
Another beauty of the Licence is kids under 18 can't get it (As with alcohol)...& kids under 18 is far too small a market for there to be a black market.
Re "Would you do the same for alcohol users?"....no because it is already legal to those over 18.
RE Education has to cover more than three years to be effective.....rubbish Kids don't need long to be warned of very dangerous things...they don't wish to die or be harmed.
Your comments re getting a Dr to advise people of the harms or legally indemnify them if they do is incorrect in my view.
"Reports" written by "Meal ticket Experts" are obviously part of the problem or it would have been legal yrs ago ....I have been closely associated with all sorts of drug abusers for 40 yrs now......
THERE IS NO SENSIBLE REASON NOT TO LICENCE IT as users are GETTING IT NOW ANYWAY?.....It will stop overdoses, the violent crime and corruption of our system.
William Bruce
Artist
Correction...
Your comments re getting a Dr to advise people of the harms is incorrect in my view. The law can written to legally indemnify them if they do.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Right. You just line up all the doctors to support this idea and you will be on your way. Go get your first dozen doctors and let me know how that goes.
They don't want the job at all -- for all the same reasons they don't want to do it for booze. It isn't medicine, for one thing.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
"Another beauty of the Licence is kids under 18 can't get it (As with alcohol)...& kids under 18 is far too small a market for there to be a black market."
So make the same rules as alcohol.
"Re "Would you do the same for alcohol users?"....no because it is already legal to those over 18."
So make the same rules as alcohol.
"RE Education has to cover more than three years to be effective.....rubbish Kids don't need long to be warned of very dangerous things...they don't wish to die or…
Read moreWilliam Bruce
Artist
It is a disease, let people get a script from a Doctor.
IT IS THIS SIMPLE.
Well, if Drs advising of the harms prior to licence worries people they could simply "do a test on the harms" from the Drivers Licensing authorities, and then get their licence.
You can't assume their will not be Drs who will help.
Even if the AMA pulls the plug on this idea, with a licence people could get it from a Chemist or elsewhere.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
You seem to have missed the point. Don't try to persuade me. Persuade some doctors. You aren't going to get anywhere unless the doctors are on board.
I have no problem with them getting a prescription from a doctor if they are already an addict. That works. Licensing doesn't.
I have already explained a number of reasons why doctors don't want to be involved in issuing licenses for recreational drug use. If you don't believe me, or want more reasons, go ask some doctors yourself. It isn't my political support you need, it is theirs. Go talk to a few dozen and get back to us with results.
Nick Cooper
workplace safety practitioner (ret'd)
"Even if the AMA pulls the plug on this idea, with a licence people could get it from a Chemist or elsewhere."
When a doctor writes you a license to consume a scheduled drug and you buy it from a chemist/pharmacist/druggist, it's called a prescription.
I can see the role in medical supervision of heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. But a license to consume cannabis seems disparate with the sole requirement of producing proof-of-age (and money) to acquire alcohol, which harms a lot more young…
Read moreNick Cooper
workplace safety practitioner (ret'd)
"It is a disease, let people get a script from a Doctor.
IT IS THIS SIMPLE."
Long before Narcotics Anonymous declared cannabis use a disease, AA had declared alcoholism a disease, and it remains a disease that costs society far more, and does society far more harm, than all currently-illegal drugs combined.
"It is this simple."
(caps omitted out of courtesy)
Lets take our diseases in chronological order of discovery, so as soon as doctors are writing prescriptions for beer *and that system is working*, they can set about writing prescriptions for cannabis and MDMA.
William Bruce
Artist
I said, in effect ...Even if Doctors do not wish to prescribe, "with a licence people could get it from a Chemist or elsewhere."
Firstly this is a fact and, secondly, it is far preferable to the drug wars, deaths & corruption that currently exist, & will continue to exist, without licensing.
Nick Cooper
workplace safety practitioner (ret'd)
Should currently illegal drugs become listed on Australia's prescription drug schedules, doctors would be willing to prescribe them, but not otherwise.
Some doctors specialise in counselling for abusers of alcohol and other drugs. They are happy to advise their patients on substance abuse harms and strategies for reducing or eliminating it, but that degree of specialisation can't be thrust by law onto every GP, whether qualified or committed or both or neither.
A permit fee for growing cannabis…
Read moreMonica Barratt
Research Fellow, National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University
Thank you for writing this article. I agree and I think it is the right time to bring pleasure out into the open and have a discussion about the place of pleasure in our lives.
James Walker
logged in via Facebook
[shrugs] Banning war has also been a complete fiasco - let's legalise it, and let countries solve their disputes "the good old fashioned way".
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
I know it is a lot to ask, but try reading some of the references posted. It will improve the quality of your responses.
William Bruce
Artist
Re "...try reading some of the references posted. It will improve the quality of your responses."
I am sick of people playing the man & not the ball. In fact it reflects on the abuser & the quality of their argument.
It's up to you to succinctly put your proposal or, say what you think is best based on your reading and insights, or abstain.
PS Thousands of studies & "expert reports" can and do argue anything...especially if their is some money in it.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
My proposal has already been stated here: People should educate themselves so they know what they are really talking about.
The laws were based on absolute lunacy and abject ignorance. People don't really understand the answers until they understand the lunacy. Therefore, I propose people read the major research so they understand that marijuana doesn't really turn you into a bat. (As told by the US Official Expert on marijuana.)
I have found that people who read the research generally agree…
Read morePaul Richards
strategic foresight
William - Just saying;
consider the "report abuse" button.
Ask the question if it does not need clicking ..........
I have clicked, and it has relieved the forum of a serial pest.
Message got through and the abusive "man playing" pseudonym has not surfaced again.
William Bruce
Artist
Re "consider the "report abuse" button."
THANKYOU Paul Richards. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
I guess I always try to communicate & find some "better mutual thinking" and common ground.
If we always let all people speak then "better" ideas will surface. I have faith in peoples goodwill.
A good thing about the Conversation is that if people write nonsense, due to it being in writing, it is so evident.
Sadly at times when one wonders if one is dealing with ignorance or shills for "vested interests".
Paul Richards
strategic foresight
"........ THANKYOU Paul Richards. I appreciate your thoughtfulness ...... William
" ......... I am sick of people playing the man & not the ball" William
Hmmmm .......... interesting.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Excellent article ... rare to find considered informed opinions on this issue. Let's hope this debate continues and spreads.
This will be an issue that requires change from outside the political process I suspect. The moralising prohibitionists have too much sway over our political "leaders" ... followers really... needs much more open public discussion and criticism.
I remain very unconvinced about some of the proposals being suggested such as licensing users, imposing "prohibitive" taxes…
Read moreClifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Prohibitive taxes was the way the whole thing got started. They tried to pass outright prohibition laws in the early 1900s but everyone agreed that the US Federal Government had no power in the US Constitution to prohibit things. (That idea has since changed somewhat.)
So the wrote the first national prohibition law as a "tax act." The reasoning was that the US Govt. couldn't prohibit things, but it could tax anything it wanted to, in any amount. So they put a tax on the drugs that was so high…
Read moreWilliam Bruce
Artist
RE "I remain very unconvinced about some of the proposals being suggested such as licensing users"
Only a simple Licensing system will stop it being "freely available" to non-users (including minors). And also, stop pushers (who are very often users) pushing it onto kids to feed their habit. They will not need to do this, with all the terrible things that come with this, to survive.
It will kill the "illegal trade" because there is no point in getting young people onto drugs if after they are users they can get a Licence (& perhaps get a script from their Doctors).
If it is Licensed pushers will have no further business & it will help stop more people being "targeted" into drug use.
Junkies will go through a process to get a simple Licence because they will be legal & they can probably get it far cheaper.
This will kill the pushers business because it relies on regular users.
It can be done concurrently through all State Drivers Licence authorities.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
If that plan really produced any benefit at all, then you would get the most benefit if you applied it first to alcohol. In the US, a modern child is at least five times as likely to wind up dying from alcohol problems than from any illegal drug. If you don't address the alcohol problems, then you are just pretending you have a solution.
You already said you wouldn't apply it to alcohol because the age limits for alcohol already covered all that. So why wouldn't the same rules as for alcohol cover it? If the rules work for alcohol, why wouldn't they work for the other drugs?
William Bruce
Artist
I think the above is nonsense.
Alcohol and drug "addictions", & the problems they cause, are as different as night & day.
Talking past USA failures is irrelevant....I am talking policies that I think will work.
What exactly are you proposing?
Re "These punitive tax ideas are just more of the same vindictive kinds of policies seen in prohibition."
This was not part of my proposal.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I agree with Clifford here William ... we would not consider licensing drinkers ... we won't even consider licensing poker machine punters. Both politically impossible and not really necessary.
License suppliers. Just like we do with grog.
Drugs would be no more "freely available" than alcohol under such a system.
We must clear our heads from this moral business about "saving the kiddies". We should teach the kiddies to save themselves. Age limits, restricted sale and a bit of tax to cover costs.
More light less heat folks ... let's play nice.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
You can find the relative addictive qualities of various drugs, including alcohol, as rated by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax5.htm Alcohol ranks right up there with the best of them.
If you don't know about or understand any of the past failures then how do you know your plan will work?
I propose: 1) Read the major research already linked
2) Same basic rules as alcohol for marijuana
3) A friend of mine (who has read the research) proposes generic sales to adults only at licensed pharmacies, no advertising or promotion, and fixed pricing with all the proceeds going to health care, for drugs like cocaine or heroin.
I have never met anyone who actually read the research who had any serious argument against that.
William Bruce
Artist
Re "License suppliers. Just like we do with grog".
Trouble here is more kids will end up users....as now happens with alcohol.
Good idea but, it will be too easy for kids and adults to get it if it is freely available...and an adult can easy buy drugs for kids and it will not be illegal for kids to use it.
Possibly, requiring a Doctors script (as is the case with many far lesser drugs) would also inhibit proliferation.
William Bruce
Artist
A very close friend of mine was a very serious heroine user for many years....and was stealing and you name it,....
He ultimately went to Narcotics Anonymous about 25yrs ago and pulled himself out of it.
For 25 yrs now he has been the most highly regarded and admired professional in his field. He is also the leading person in his profession nationwide.
He told me "It is a disease".
He still goes to N.A. very frequently and continues to thrive and support his two magnificent wife & young Australian kids!
He told me "It is a disease".
I repeat,..He told me "It is a disease".
Let the Doctors etc deal with it, not the lawyers & the Cops.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
No doctor's script is required for recreational drugs. Doctors do not want the job of elementary education, nor do they want to get involved in approving recreational drug use in anyway. Just won't happen.
As mentioned earlier, go talk to any doctor and have them tell you why.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
That kind of crime was unkown in the US before 1915 and unknown in Australia before 1952. It came about only because laws were passed.
We agree on that part about "let the doctors deal with it." That is, let them handle the medical issues and treatment. Don't use them as a licensing authority. Go talk to a doctor and he will tell you the same thing.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Yep... more kids will end up using drugs - that could be true... but selling drugs to kids under 18 should be illegal - just like grog. We should be showing kids the facts about drug use - but in the end if they want to get high they will. They do now. And it makes them criminals. It puts them in contact with criminals. They can't talk about it to mum and dad or their teachers. It costs them a lot of money.
Would you be suggesting that people wanting a beer should be licensed? Not if you want to escape with your skin in this country. I don't dsrink at all incidentally. I hate pubs and the effects of it. But I concede that I am not in a position to restrict it, prohibit it or gaol its users. I wouldn't want to. It wouldn't solve the problem.
I really cannot see any virtue or benefit in restricting, criminalising and hunting a substance and its users. The only benefits accrue to crims and crooked cops.
Nick Cooper
workplace safety practitioner (ret'd)
"Licensing commercial producers of drugs makes sense from a quality control point of view, but the rest seems far more like a soft sort of prohibition ... a cold war on drugs."
There are two alternatives to 'legal and regulated' - our current 'illegal and unregulated' option, or the 'legal but unregulated' option.
Illegal and unregulated patently doesn't work.
Legalising without regulating is one of the main reason given for keeping drugs illegal, and without regulation, drugs would be untaxed, cut with all the evils used under prohibition, and every bit as much an unprotected market for crime bosses as it is under prohibition.
Phillip Baker
PhD Student / Research Associate
Thanks for an excellent article. While I understand and agree with the moral argument that you make regarding pleasure, I am not sure how this moral argument will stand up to wider public and political scrutiny (some Conversation readers aside). Could you imagine how this would play out in political debate and in the media? A few talented conservative politicians / disk jockeys / journalists would rip holes in it.
The morality of decriminalisation may have more success if framed as targeting…
Read moreNick Cooper
workplace safety practitioner (ret'd)
Good point, Phillip.
Politicians and their spin-doctors could not be trusted to use 'sending a message' to drug lords, I fear.
Look at the atrocious treatment of asylum-seekers advocated by government and opposition alike on the grounds that indefinitely detaining traumatised water-borne refugees *after they have paid their money* somehow deters those who ferry them.
NOTE 'indefinite' means it's indistinguishable from indefinite until you get a rock-solid release date.
Why would these same politicians not lock up even more drug users on the grounds that it would 'send a message to drug dealers'? There's no politically expedient imbecility they would not latch on to if it smells like it might once have held a vote.
Bruce Moon
Bystander!
Regarding the distinction between the morality of drug use and the application of prohibition of same (with all that that entails), this article is influential.
However, the article fails to acknowledge the underlying reason why politicians continue to support the prohibition of drug use.
If drug use was to be decriminalised, politicians would need to find something else to prohibit.
Fact is prohibition is not about the target. Rather, prohibition is firstly about the exercise of law and…
Read moreClifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
I appreciate your pessimism. When I started activism more than twenty years ago it was legitimate to question the sanity of anyone who thought there would ever be change.
But polls in the US are now showing a majority in favor of legalization of marijuana. There are efforts to get marijuana legalized in a number of US states, and they are credible efforts that look like they could pass. The general opinion is that marijuana will be legalized sometime soon, in at least some states.
In fact…
Read moreRobin Bell
Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle
The proposed de-criminalisation of some illicit drugs would have obvious advantages for drug users. Its clear that being treated for adiction is better than going to jail or having a police record.
I note that no supporters of the proposal have explored the likely outcome of legalisation in light of the known costs and harms associated with those addictive substances already legalised and heavily regulated.
The harms and costs of alcohol use in the community are huge and monsterous. Illicit…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
You make some good points Robin. In an ideal world no one would use drugs would they? They'd just go jogging and get high on life. Erk.
Sadly this is not that world. People will continue to use drugs. As they always have. The question is: how do we minimise the harm to individuals, to families and to society?
I am not a drug advocate. But I am strongly opposed to this world-wide war. And to that extent what is happening in Brazil, Mexico, Afghanistan, Thailand ... everywhere where this…
Read moreClifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
"The proposed de-criminalisation of some illicit drugs would have obvious advantages for drug users. Its clear that being treated for adiction is better than going to jail or having a police record."
Which, in turn, makes it easier for them to get jobs and rehabilitate themselves so they don't re-offend. The Rand Corporation has found that treatment is at least seven times more cost-effective in reducing drug-related problems than enforcement.
"I note that no supporters of the proposal have…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
"Prohibition is not control. Prohibition is the complete lack of control. "
Couldn't put it better myself.
William Bruce
Artist
For those who think their ought be the same restrictions as for alcohol I say, then surly they must agree that getting a $10 Licence & getting their drugs from the Chemist is a major step forward.
Some in this conversation seem to be "mudding the waters" with "research" and not making their own clear proposal.
Seems to me the biggest issue is, why would politicians & others support the status quo OR, why persist in trying to put it in the same category as alcohol?
There is no sense in trying to LINK the legality of Drugs and alcohol.
Also, no sense in making assumptions about what legalising drugs will do vis a vie alcohol.
People are getting it anyway so whats the point of it being illegal?
We need to stop pushers, the crime & corruption that exists now.
We need to educate YOUNG children of the possible harms now.
The problems exist because the political will has not been there for change...it gets worse & doesn't work...is this ignorance or corruption?
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
"For those who think their ought be the same restrictions as for alcohol I say, then surly they must agree that getting a $10 Licence & getting their drugs from the Chemist is a major step forward."
Better than throwing them in jail? Yes.
Doctors going to go for it? No.
Be workable in the long run? No.
Necessary, or even useful, to control problems? No.
Expensive to maintain, troublesome for everyone involved, general pain in the butt? Yes.
"Some in this conversation seem to be "mudding…
Read moreWilliam Bruce
Artist
Re "My proposal has been posted. You can find it with some numbers in front of the various points."
Where is this please, Links?
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Ummmmmmm, this same page?
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Some questions about your license.
What are the doctors going to teach in these licensing classes that wasn't already taught in basic education? If you want people to be aware that drugs are dangerous then why not just make that part of the standard school work?
Does the doctor have to actually talk during this thing, or can he just tell them to listen to the nurse or watch a film?
Is there a test required? That is, if you are an addict but too stupid to pass the test, do you still get the license? If there is no test, so nobody actually is required to learn anything, then what is the point of the education?
How often does this have to be renewed? Do they have to prove every five years or so that they still know what drugs are?
If the licenses are not renewed, but are permanent, then what is the point of issuing a license at all? Just give them to everybody who had basic education.
And so forth.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Another question:
If someone is caught with drugs and they don't have a license, what then?
Do they go to jail? If they do, what would be the point of that? That would just be prohibition all over again. You would just be making sure that it is primarily enforced against people who can't afford the two doctor visits.
William Bruce
Artist
Can you re post it...Sorry, I don't see any point numbered proposal.
William Bruce
Artist
Re "...making sure that it is primarily enforced against people who can't afford the two doctor visits."
It is free to see the Doctor nowadays. You can't tell me you don't know this can you?
Yet another example of you promoting "ridiculous possible problems" with regard to sensible legalisation....and continuing the status quo.
Over and out Clifford.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
Posted at this level so we don't run off the page.
1) Anyone who wants to pass a law needs to prove they have read the major research.
2) Same rules as alcohol for marijuana.
3) Cocaine, heroin -- Sales to adults only, plain-brown wrapper, licensed pharmacies, no advertising, display, or promotion allowed (you have to specifically ask for it), fixed prices with the proceeds going to an emergency number on the package that they can call if they have a problem.
Clifford Schaffer
logged in via Facebook
If you didn't pick up on it, earlier, I am in the US, thanks.
In the US, that would be a significant problem -- see the news on our current national debate about public health care. Glad it isn't a problem for you Aussies.
But that is hardly the only problem with the licensing proposal. If you want to pick one as an excuse not to address the others -- so noted. We will just assume you don't have an answer for legitimate questions.
Nick Cooper
workplace safety practitioner (ret'd)
"The harms and costs of alcohol use in the community are huge and monsterous. Illicit drugs are already in the community and are also associated with violence, MVAs, sexual assaults, domestic violence and a host of other destructive anti-social acts. There is no evidence that legalisation reduces these risks. The research cited in support of better community outcomes appears to avoid these measures."
Each harm listed has a very strong correlation with alcohol consumption.
I have rarely if ever…
Read moreDanny Hoardern
Analyst Programmer
I don't think it is a good idea to legalise all drugs in on go. Perhaps eventually yes, but baby steps are important to stand any chance of change.
First we start with the least harmful drug cannabis and centre public debate topics around but not limited to:
Read more- Only a drug dealer or a corrupt cop would logically conclude that it is better to keep the annual $2-6 billion[1] market in the black market rather than government taxes.
- The percentage of individuals who develop problems directly attributable…
Danny Hoardern
Analyst Programmer
Fantastic video on morality and the war on drugs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFbnPjbdEzI&feature=player_embedded
Ethan Nadelmann executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance speaks at a program titled "Occupy the Heart" with author and legal scholar Michelle Alexander and Neil Franklin of LEAP on 8/2/2012 in Chicago.
The Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference is a Chicago group that represents hundreds of black clergy members and lay leaders. http://www.sdpconference.info
Alex Lamb
Newsroom Assistant
There's a big difference between being 'addicted' to something because it's pleasurable, and suffering very difficult and/or painful withdrawal symptoms