Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I like the part where it says:

"Of course, the present study would provide a more
impressive vindication of supply control policy,
if it could be shown that the heroin shortage was in
fact attributable in whole or in part to the actions of
drug law enforcement agencies."

Did you read that part? even your "evidence" says it cannot be proved lol , interesting to note that the first reference for the document is the "Australian Crime Commission"- drug dealers taxman in effect

yeah i read all that but i also read the rest of the report which totally contradicted your claim made a few posts above about not making an impact on suplly.......your claim was made with no basis at all

^ my arse it does... quote it then

quoted from BBC News

"Police are fighting a losing battle against drugs crime, with seizures having little impact on reducing supply or demand, research has suggested.

The UK Drug Policy Commission said despite the large sums of money spent tackling the problem, traditional police tactics were not working.

It said the £5.3bn British drugs market was too "fluid" for law enforcement agencies to cut supply."

hows that for basis? you twit

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

well duh........we are both interested in clubbing and therefore, so are many of our friends. I'm not talking about you or me, i'm talking about those that have little or no interest in clubbing or drugs for that matter........they do exist you know, millions of them.

Millions of Australians are not interested in drugs. Oh noes we better not decriminalise because we don't know what it could do. Maybe all those millions of people will suddenly turn into apocalyptic zombie robot drug crazed psychos.... ZOMG run for the hills..... save yourselves the PLUR zombie hordes are coming with the munchies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

People posting in a forum on a dance music website probably have a higher usage rate than the average population and know more people who use/used drugs. The fact that everyone agrees with each other in this thread with how easy it is to score drugs proves very little really.

dude it's not an anecdotal thing. the research highlights that access isn't an issue.

even the government admits it:

Quote:

We live in a drug-taking society. While there is a lot of concern about illegal drugs, the most harm and the greatest risk to young people comes from using legal drugs such as alcohol, cigarettes and medicines. More young people are involved in violence, are hospitalised or die from alcohol-related causes than from the use of illegal drugs.
availability—access to drugs in not necessarily difficult. It’s usually through other young people, friends or older peers

http://www.parentlink.act.gov.au/par...gers_and_drugs

Ah, more evidence to support the failure of prohibition... Who'da thunk it?


lol @ buffed's "evidence".

A website for parents trying to scare them about how all their children take drugs qualifies as evidence?

Perhaps we could give the legalisation thing a go with you know like, strict rules, regulations and education.
Rather than the often used 'open the floodgates' approach that right wing opponents like to spout off about which will, ofcourse, ruin your kids lives and hurt working families.

Lets get the first few weed, speed and ecstacy shops happening for starters - complete with a Hopoate guarding the door. If people start dying like it's WW1 all over again well then we'll put the kibosh on it, but I kinda doubt that will happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

^ my arse it does... quote it then

quoted from BBC News

"Police are fighting a losing battle against drugs crime, with seizures having little impact on reducing supply or demand, research has suggested.

The UK Drug Policy Commission said despite the large sums of money spent tackling the problem, traditional police tactics were not working.

It said the £5.3bn British drugs market was too "fluid" for law enforcement agencies to cut supply."

hows that for basis? you twit

take your claim up with Don Weatherburn not me, he's the author of the report.

And Don Weatherburn's report was focussed on Australia, so i'm not sure how you can refute the findings of a country/state specific report with a report evaluating another country's experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

A website for parents trying to scare them about how all their children take drugs qualifies as evidence?

ACT Govt Publication No 11/0810 July 2011. Government publication.

Oh wait, that's right. The guv'mint they be flyin' planes in t' buildings. Cannae trust them to do anything I guess.

EDIT: C'mon Fewsion, you can troll better than this... Get some evidence for chrissakes or STFU

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

Lets get the first few weed, speed and ecstacy shops happening for starters - complete with a Hopoate guarding the door. If people start dying like it's WW1 all over again well then we'll put the kibosh on it, but I kinda doubt that will happen.

Don't they already have this at Trademark?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

ACT Govt Publication No 11/0810 July 2011. Government publication.

Yes, that's a truly fantastic expert opinion in support of your argument. Wow!

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

take your claim up with Don Weatherburn not me, he's the author of the report.

And Don Weatherburn's report was focussed on Australia, so i'm not sure how you can refute the findings of a country/state specific report with a report evaluating another country's experience.

No, Dons report was focussed on "The Heroin Shortage in NSW and it's effect on Robbery" -as per it's title which is quite specific and linked to a single occurence only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

take your claim up with Don Weatherburn not me, he's the author of the report.

And Don Weatherburn's report was focussed on Australia, so i'm not sure how you can refute the findings of a country/state specific report with a report evaluating another country's experience.

That heroin report was published in 2004, but since that time you have repeatedly bagged the crap out of Don Weatherburn whenever your egocentric worldview doesn't fit the facts that he presents, but when the Don publishes something which vaguely supports your worldview, then he's the man is he??. By the way, if you read anything more recent from Don Weatherburn, you'll note that he does not support a black and white, prohibition only strategy.

One page ago you're saying that it's too risky to decriminalise because "we don't know what it will do" whilst at the same time you're saying that millions of people aren't even interested in illicit drugs. Can you not even comprehend that this is an argument IN FAVOUR of decriminalisation? The fact that millions of people are not interested in drugs is the very reason why it will make a bees dick of difference to overall drug usage. Oh look, since you're now captain of the Don W. cheerleading squad, I'm sure you'll find this enlightening.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Weatherburn

the fact is that most studies of drug use decriminalisation find it has little effect on the prevalence of illicit drug use, except where the state turns a blind eye to drug supply (as happened a few years ago in the Netherlands).

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/societ...#ixzz1t7fTZCOO

That article is quite good actually and well balanced. Everyone should have a read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

No, Dons report was focussed on "The Heroin Shortage in NSW and it's effect on Robbery" -as per it's title which is quite specific and linked to a single occurence only.

read the smh link I just posted. It might pain some people to accept that buffed has some valid arguments, and of course, the pain would be excruciating for buffed to accept that he isn't right on everything, although we all know that someone who loves themself that much won't give a fuck if they are wrong. He'll just ignore those facts that he disagrees with and keep the broken down reality record playing forever and ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

ACT Govt Publication No 11/0810 July 2011. Government publication.

Oh wait, that's right. The guv'mint they be flyin' planes in t' buildings. Cannae trust them to do anything I guess.

EDIT: C'mon Fewsion, you can troll better than this... Get some evidence for chrissakes or STFU

Sorry, didn't see the edit you'd made. Though, surely if you're advocating change it's your burden of proof to show why such change is warranted and indeed why decriminalisation would succeed in Australia. That's a question that has two parts. You have to effectively show why prohibition has failed in Australia and the only quantifiable argument that I've read is that prohibition costs so much money and that drug taking rates in the population are very high compared with other countries.

So, the question I'm left with is why are drug taking rates so high in Australia and would decriminalisation lead to demand reduction? I keep getting told that Australia's drug users are casual users who can access drugs easily. What difference then will decriminalisation have for them except to keep drug consumption levels at a normal level. If decriminalisation is solely about helping the drug-addicted overcome the stigma associated with drugs and to encourage them to access treatment, then prohibition has this effect also and I don't see the difference between the two policies in terms of their outcomes. Everyone is so willing to say that prohibition has failed because everyone can access drugs and they consume them without fear of recrimination. Maybe so, but who consumes drugs with a thought to what drug policy the government has in place? There are other reasons as to why we take drugs, some people just like to have fun. High drug usage rates in the country suggest nothing other than an affluent populace frustrated with expensive liquor prices, alcohol related violence and the need for a release on the weekend. Why would it tell us about the failure of prohibition? Prohibition is about curtailing supply, not some utopian ideal of removing drugs from society.

The second part of the problem, to my way of thinking, is the mantra that's repeated about "clogged courts, wasted police resources" and how Australia has a "War on Drugs". The amount spent on drug prosecution is laughable when compared with budgetary spending for anything else whether at state level or otherwise. I would thinkthat drug-related crime is a pretty wide category that could include all range of assaults, thefts or otherwise which would inflate the very small amount spent prosecuting drug-related crime as well which would make it seem like a grander "waste of resources" than it actually is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

No, Dons report was focussed on "The Heroin Shortage in NSW and it's effect on Robbery" -as per it's title which is quite specific and linked to a single occurence only.

Again, the report was based on Australia and specifically, NSW. So why you chose to refute that report with a U.K experience, i'm really not sure, but it's about as relevant as chicken

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

well duh........we are both interested in clubbing and therefore, so are many of our friends. I'm not talking about you or me, i'm talking about those that have little or no interest in clubbing or drugs for that matter........they do exist you know, millions of them.

People take drugs in all kinds of scenes not just dance music. Metal people are stoners, hiphop rnb are stoners and pinger, etc... It's very widespread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

....If decriminalisation is solely about helping the drug-addicted overcome the stigma associated with drugs and to encourage them to access treatment, then prohibition has this effect also and I don't see the difference between the two policies in terms of their outcomes.......

*facepalm*

I got sucked in, didn't I?

/leaves

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

*facepalm*

I got sucked in, didn't I?

/leaves

Sorry? Was that a misrepresentation of what decriminalisation's about? Maybe I should replace the world "solely" with primarily. Is that acceptable then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

If decriminalisation is solely about helping the drug-addicted overcome the stigma associated with drugs and to encourage them to access treatment, then prohibition has this effect also and I don't see the difference between the two policies in terms of their outcomes.

prohibition helps drug addicts overcome the stigma associated with drugs, really? i would have though prohibition reinforces the stigma associated with drugs

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

take your claim up with Don Weatherburn not me, he's the author of the report.

And Don Weatherburn's report was focussed on Australia, so i'm not sure how you can refute the findings of a country/state specific report with a report evaluating another country's experience.

ahhh but you can. you see, in a similar developed country with similar problems you can generlise research from one nation to another. it happens all the time in policy and is often used as evidence. Studies from England, US, Canada (in particular) and the UK are often used because a lot of issues that are faced in their countries, we face as well.

for example, in health, a lot of work is being done in cancer with young people when they actually have very little data on the experiences of young people with cancer. all the work has actually been a huge push in the UK and the US. Canada and Australia are just following suit. we have anecdotal data (from consultations with experts - yes experts! -) but not hard data. However, this is enough to drive a policy change, because the government has already committed $30mil to help young people with cancer - due to expert opinion and data from another country!

so it can and does happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21

ahhh but you can. you see, in a similar developed country with similar problems you can generlise research from one nation to another. it happens all the time in policy and is often used as evidence. Studies from England, US, Canada (in particular) and the UK are often used because a lot of issues that are faced in their countries, we face as well.

for example, in health, a lot of work is being done in cancer with young people when they actually have very little data on the experiences of young people with cancer. all the work has actually been a huge push in the UK and the US. Canada and Australia are just following suit. we have anecdotal data (from consultations with experts - yes experts! -) but not hard data. However, this is enough to drive a policy change, because the government has already committed $30mil to help young people with cancer - due to expert opinion and data from another country!

so it can and does happen.

sigh... mischa, I admire your persistence and agree with pretty much everything you have said, however I learned a while back that arguing with buffed is kinda like the image below...



and yes before anyone points it out, I am well aware the quote that image actually relates to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BumblingBee

prohibition helps drug addicts overcome the stigma associated with drugs, really? i would have though prohibition reinforces the stigma associated with drugs

No, that is incorrect, and although I typed that, I don't believe that's true; I got caught up in a tl post. It is true that prohibition creates that stigma and won't assist the drug-addicted, no argument there. I do believe though, that despite this error, reducing the stigma associated with drug-use hasn't been one of the major arguments put forward in favour of decriminalisation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

*facepalm*

I got sucked in, didn't I?

/leaves

I've posted a fairly long exposition of my opinion though which you haven't addressed aside from my error which I've acknowledged above.

too many arts students in this thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derelict

People take drugs in all kinds of scenes not just dance music. Metal people are stoners, hiphop rnb are stoners and pinger, etc... It's very widespread.

i know that you fool, i was talking about you and me, not a metalhead

^ he is a metalhead you knob

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21

ahhh but you can. you see, in a similar developed country with similar problems you can generlise research from one nation to another. it happens all the time in policy and is often used as evidence. Studies from England, US, Canada (in particular) and the UK are often used because a lot of issues that are faced in their countries, we face as well.

for example, in health, a lot of work is being done in cancer with young people when they actually have very little data on the experiences of young people with cancer. all the work has actually been a huge push in the UK and the US. Canada and Australia are just following suit. we have anecdotal data (from consultations with experts - yes experts! -) but not hard data. However, this is enough to drive a policy change, because the government has already committed $30mil to help young people with cancer - due to expert opinion and data from another country!

so it can and does happen.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...ug_Control.pdf

Another perspective which deals more in fact than ideology.

"For those who doubt the effectiveness of drug control, consider
this. In 1906, 25 million people were using opium in
the world (1.5% of the world population) compared with
16.5 opiate users today (0.25% of the world population). In
1906/07, the world produced around 41,000 tons of opium
– five times the global level of illicit opium production in
2008. While opium used to be produced in a huge belt,
stretching from China to Indochina, Burma, India, Persia,
Turkey and the Balkan countries, the illegal production of
opium is now concentrated in Afghanistan (92%).

Same for coca. Its leaves used to be cultivated not only in
the Andean region but also in several Asian countries including
Java (Indonesia), Formosa (Taiwan) and Ceylon (Sri
Lanka). Today coca leaf production is concentrated in three
Andean countries: Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.
International drug control can take some of the credit"

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...ug_Control.pdf

Another perspective which deals more in fact than ideology.

"For those who doubt the effectiveness of drug control, consider
this. In 1906, 25 million people were using opium in
the world (1.5% of the world population) compared with
16.5 opiate users today (0.25% of the world population). In
1906/07, the world produced around 41,000 tons of opium
– five times the global level of illicit opium production in
2008. While opium used to be produced in a huge belt,
stretching from China to Indochina, Burma, India, Persia,
Turkey and the Balkan countries, the illegal production of
opium is now concentrated in Afghanistan (92%).

Same for coca. Its leaves used to be cultivated not only in
the Andean region but also in several Asian countries including
Java (Indonesia), Formosa (Taiwan) and Ceylon (Sri
Lanka). Today coca leaf production is concentrated in three
Andean countries: Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.
International drug control can take some of the credit"

I should take my own advice and not bother arguing with you buffed however....

I thought that it should be noted that the UNODC is the only international health organisation that does not support a harm minimisation approach to drugs. It is also alleged that the US continually threatened Antonio Maria Costa (who wrote what you have quoted buffed) that they would withdraw funds from the UNODC if it presented a harm minimisation approach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy

I should take my own advice and not bother arguing with you buffed however....

I thought that it should be noted that the UNODC is the only international health organisation that does not support a harm minimisation approach to drugs. It is also alleged that the US continually threatened Antonio Maria Costa (who wrote what you have quoted buffed) that they would withdraw funds from the UNODC if it presented a harm minimisation approach.

so you're saying that the facts quoted in the report are lies?

no disrespect, but i hardly think that bloggers and ACT parents organisations are more credible than the United Nations, bias notwithstanding

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so you're saying that the facts quoted in the report are lies?

no disrespect, but i hardly think that bloggers and ACT parents organisations are more credible than the United Nations, bias notwithstanding

I'm not saying that the facts quoted are not correct but they hardly paint the whole picture now do they.

No mention of the fact that the illegal poppy trade helps fund organisations like the Taliban.

No mention of the fact that the cartels in Sth America that now run the coca trade inflict incredible amounts of death and misery on the locals within those regions.

It's known that UNODC do not (or at least they didn't at the time of that quote) support harm minimisation so of course there is going to be a bias.

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy

I'm not saying that the facts quoted are not correct but they hardly paint the whole picture now do they.

No mention of the fact that the illegal poppy trade helps fund organisations like the Taliban.

No mention of the fact that the cartels in Sth America that now run the coca trade inflict incredible amounts of death and misery on the locals within those regions.

.

what does any of that have to do with what we are talking about here? And even if it did have anything to do with it, are all of those criminal outfits going to start baking cookies for a living if drugs are legalised? Let's get serious here

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...ug_Control.pdf

Another perspective which deals more in fact than ideology.

"For those who doubt the effectiveness of drug control, consider
this. In 1906, 25 million people were using opium in
the world (1.5% of the world population) compared with
16.5 opiate users today (0.25% of the world population). In
1906/07, the world produced around 41,000 tons of opium
– five times the global level of illicit opium production in
2008. While opium used to be produced in a huge belt,
stretching from China to Indochina, Burma, India, Persia,
Turkey and the Balkan countries, the illegal production of
opium is now concentrated in Afghanistan (92%).

Same for coca. Its leaves used to be cultivated not only in
the Andean region but also in several Asian countries including
Java (Indonesia), Formosa (Taiwan) and Ceylon (Sri
Lanka). Today coca leaf production is concentrated in three
Andean countries: Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.
International drug control can take some of the credit"

Pfft, so we're comparing figures taken in 1906 now? How were they collected, by hot air baloon around the world in 80 days?

SNAP!

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

what does any of that have to do with what we are talking about here? And even if it did have anything to do with it, are all of those criminal outfits going to start baking cookies for a living if drugs are legalised? Let's get serious here

i don't even...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

Pfft, so we're comparing figures taken in 1906 now? How were they collected, by hot air baloon around the world in 80 days?

SNAP!

make it a 10 year sample i don't care. same shit

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...ug_Control.pdf

Another perspective which deals more in fact than ideology.

"For those who doubt the effectiveness of drug control, consider
this. In 1906, 25 million people were using opium in
the world (1.5% of the world population) compared with
16.5 opiate users today (0.25% of the world population). In
1906/07, the world produced around 41,000 tons of opium
– five times the global level of illicit opium production in
2008. While opium used to be produced in a huge belt,
stretching from China to Indochina, Burma, India, Persia,
Turkey and the Balkan countries, the illegal production of
opium is now concentrated in Afghanistan (92%).

Same for coca. Its leaves used to be cultivated not only in
the Andean region but also in several Asian countries including
Java (Indonesia), Formosa (Taiwan) and Ceylon (Sri
Lanka). Today coca leaf production is concentrated in three
Andean countries: Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.
International drug control can take some of the credit"

I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that more people used opium when it was legal. I suspect the consumption of alcohol fell during prohibition as well. The problem is that the % never dropped to zero. If it's not zero or negligible, do the costs of making it illegal outweigh the benefits? Sure, there's fewer people getting high but crimializing a drug empowers criminal organizations. How's that worked out for us so far?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so you're saying that the facts quoted in the report are lies?

no disrespect, but i hardly think that bloggers and ACT parents organisations are more credible than the United Nations, bias notwithstanding

lol objective information gathering skillz fail.

You do realize buffed that it is the UNODC who is responsible for the global war on drugs don't you? Quoting a report from them is like posting a link to the Labor Party website which says they are doing an awesome job at running the country.

The whole point of this thread is that the Global Commission on Drug Policy (of which Kofi Annan was the Commissioner Richard Branson is a member) released a document last year that disputed the position of the UNODC and calls for a move towards harm reduction policies. The Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy has also stated that confrontation has failed, so maybe the facts are not lies (?) but the statement "International drug control can take some of the credit" is most certainly a matter of debate and that is also the point, yes they can take "some" credit, but how much and at what cost (which is the part you really just cannot seem to grasp)?

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/about/

http://www.drogasedemocracia.org/English/

So no, it isn't just bloggers and ACT parents organisation that disagree with the current UNODC position, which btw is only one office of the UN. Other offices within the UN itself are also calling for an end to war on drugs.

who said i was being objective? No debate or argument is objective........people simply put forward their own views based on whatever ideology drives them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

who said i was being objective? No debate or argument is objective........people simply put forward their own views based on whatever ideology drives them.

Of course not buffed, it's only the conservatives who do that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

^ he is a metalhead you knob

No I'm not.

I won't deny that I have used drugs many times in the past and had a lot of fun, and I can't say that I won't touch then again in the future. With that said atm I'm quite content sticking with alcohol. I also contribute to society - I have a career job, I live by myself and I'm a law abiding citizen besides this one issue.

^ watevs, you go to the gigs and listen to the music.. as for the rest who cares.... your own personal habits bear zero relevance on this thread but congrats for having a job well done champ

So at Creamfields in Sydney on the weekend 75 people or about 6 in every 1,000 who attended were charged with drug offences. Surry Hills Local Area Commander, Superintendent Anthony Crandell, said "The volume of detections is of concern". What, concern, that you are wasting police resources and our money?

Give me a break. What a waste of my taxes!

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/creamfield...#ixzz1tVNhcYau

Please.

That sounds like more of a shock-jock line than I've heard so far in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

So at Creamfields in Sydney on the weekend 75 people or about 6 in every 1,000 who attended were charged with drug offences. Surry Hills Local Area Commander, Superintendent Anthony Crandell, said "The volume of detections is of concern". What, concern, that you are wasting police resources and our money?

Give me a break. What a waste of my taxes!

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/creamfield...#ixzz1tVNhcYau

This to me is a pretty measured and responsible thing for the police to say;

"The consumption of prohibited drugs creates significant risks including addiction; deficiencies of judgement; changes in behaviour that can create greater vulnerability or propensity for criminal acts; together with serious consequences for health," Superintendent Crandell said in a statement today.

"We will continue to use drug detection dogs at future events to minimise risks associated with drug use and misuse."

I thought you people were all about harm minimisation?............isn't that what the above is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

This to me is a pretty measured and responsible thing for the police to say;

"The consumption of prohibited drugs creates significant risks including addiction; deficiencies of judgement; changes in behaviour that can create greater vulnerability or propensity for criminal acts; together with serious consequences for health," Superintendent Crandell said in a statement today.

"We will continue to use drug detection dogs at future events to minimise risks associated with drug use and misuse."

I thought you people were all about harm minimisation?............isn't that what the above is?

Yeah well as far as I'm concerned he could be talking about alcohol. That operation would have cost tens of thousands. I'd prefer to see those resources used where people are shooting each other, or investigating the many unsolved crimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Yeah well as far as I'm concerned he could be talking about alcohol. That operation would have cost tens of thousands. I'd prefer to see those resources used where people are shooting each other, or investigating the many unsolved crimes.

dude your starting to sound like a shock jock. Do we really need serving officers standing on street corners waiting for guns to go off? Detectives solve crimes, not third year constables

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

who said i was being objective? No debate or argument is objective........people simply put forward their own views based on whatever ideology drives them.

Objectivity in science or journalism usually has something to do with creating or basing conclusions on factual evidence. The goal of the UNODC is prohibition, whereas the goal of the Global Commission on Drugs Policy is harm minimisation.

The UNODC seems to think, and I guess you do too, that prohibition has worked and is working, but this is clearly about the most ludicrous conclusion that anyone could possibly arrive at given the facts, which are that rates of illicit drug use are higher now than they have ever been in the entire history of prohibition. Thus for the UNODC to simply keep repeating the lie prohibition is working demonstrates a complete lack of objectivity.

The Global Commission on Drugs Policy has looked at the facts, ie: which is that prohibition doesn't stop people from using drugs, and they've come to the (amazingly insightful) conclusion that prohibition doesn't stop people from taking illicit drugs. They have presented an argument which is consistent with the facts.

You're all about business aren't you buffed? Would you keep repeating a business strategy, that costs lots of money, over and over and over if it never works?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

This to me is a pretty measured and responsible thing for the police to say;

"The consumption of prohibited drugs creates significant risks including addiction; deficiencies of judgement; changes in behaviour that can create greater vulnerability or propensity for criminal acts; together with serious consequences for health," Superintendent Crandell said in a statement today.

"We will continue to use drug detection dogs at future events to minimise risks associated with drug use and misuse."

I thought you people were all about harm minimisation?............isn't that what the above is?

Srsly, you've taken drugs before, did they make a significant deficiency to your judgement or cause a serious consequence to your mental health?

oh wait.....


ummm.....


PROHIBIT THE USE OF DRUGS

DRUGS ARE BAD

PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF SOCIETY... EVERYONE STOP TAKING DRUGS NOW

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

dude your starting to sound like a shock jock. Do we really need serving officers standing on street corners waiting for guns to go off? Detectives solve crimes, not third year constables

You really have limited analytical skills don't you?

That's exactly what I'm saying, fuck the dogs off and employ more detectives. If you seriously think this is anything more than a political show so that Nile's ilk think the government is being tough on drugs you're more naive than I thought.

You may have forgotten this, but the reason we have drug sniffer dogs is because we were left with a bunch of unusable bomb sniffer dogs and their dog-loving handlers after the olympics, and the dog empire successfully pitched to retrain as as a drug squad to save their cushy jobs fucking around with dogs. It's funny how you always bag the public service, but you never include the greatest money wasting empire building bumblng bureacracy in this state - the police.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Objectivity in science or journalism usually has something to do with creating or basing conclusions on factual evidence. The goal of the UNODC is prohibition, whereas the goal of the Global Commission on Drugs Policy is harm minimisation.

?

you clearly didn't read the report then. There are a number of goals........prohibition is one of the ways of achieveing those goals. If you deny the facts in the report, that's your choice, people will always have their own view.

I don't know why proponents like you keep thinking that harm minimisation and prohibition are mutually exclusive. Isn't trying to prevent the supply and trafficking of drugs effectively about harm minimisation? Is harm minimisation about having people take drugs under permit and then patting them on the head saying 'good boy now go and get some sleep'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

you clearly didn't read the report then. There are a number of goals........prohibition is one of the ways of achieveing those goals. If you deny the facts in the report, that's your choice, people will always have their own view.

What facts did I deny? I said that prohibition is the goal of the UNODC and you just confirmed this. I read a number of articles which reported on the UNODC strategy and they all tended to say the same thing.... the UNODC is not listening to many govt and NGOs around the world, yet they just pat themselves on the back for a job well done

Quote:

I don't know why proponents like you keep thinking that harm minimisation and prohibition are mutually exclusive. Isn't trying to prevent the supply and trafficking of drugs effectively about harm minimisation? Is harm minimisation about having people take drugs under permit and then patting them on the head saying 'good boy now go and get some sleep'?

I never said that prohibition and harm minimisation are mutually exclusive. You seem to think that anyone who advocates harm minimisation must be against prohibition under all circumstances and just wants a free for all drug fest. Wrong. I thought the article you posted by Don W. was quite balanced. What I would like to see are policies based on that sort of information.

You also seem to lump highly addictive hard drugs such as heroin and meth in the same boat as soft recreational drugs such as MDMA and marijuana. Stopping people smoking a joint at a dance party is not harm minimisation. Throwing meth heads in jail and giving them little or no access to rehabilitation services is not harm minimisation. Conducting education campaigns about the long term detrimental consequences of marijuana (in particular) is harm minimisation. Providing a safe injecting room and access to medical help for heroin and meth addicts is harm minimisation. Those sorts of programs are being under funded though because way too much money goes to busting recreational soft drug users that pose no threat to the health and safety of the broader community, not to mention the fact that the govt gets no tax revenue from consumption.

I want to see policies which do something to address the problem of organised crime. Nobody can deny that drugs are big business. So IMO it just makes good business to move towards a system that somehow takes profits away from the black market and puts them, in addition to the savings from the cost of policing and prosecuting, back into the mainstream economy. You don't need to stop policing the supply side, just the consumption side, demand won't change. Maybe it could take 20yrs to get the system right, but that's better than sticking to a very expensive failed approach.