Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

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. .

If you could find me one person who has been thrown in jail for a first time offence, i would be stunned. If a person is repeatedly busted (and that's what it usually takes) then they probably will go to jail. But where does personal responsibility start and end? If someone is on their 7th offence, hasn't that person had ample opportunity to seek help? The issue is that the majority are not interested in seeking help. Ben Cousins is the prime example and one that we keep reading about. There is help out there, but these people are simply not interested in availing themselves of it. Sending someone to jail is the final straw, but for many like Ben Cousins, it's the only thing that wakes those idiots up and makes them realise that maybe it is time to make an effort to get off the sauce.

How much more money do we need to spend on education? We are not living in sub saharan africa...........if the average Australian isn't educated enough to know the dangers of drugs, then i'll give up now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

Sending someone to jail is the final straw, but for many like Ben Cousins, it's the only thing that wakes those idiots up and makes them realise that maybe it is time to make an effort to get off the sauce.

That's where you're wrong bro, for the majority of users or abusers busted and sent to the big house it doesn't stop them consuming drugs. All the research in the world shows this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

That's where you're wrong bro, for the majority of users or abusers busted and sent to the big house it doesn't stop them consuming drugs. All the research in the world shows this.

so then why do people like you use harm minimisation as a goal, when clearly, these people are not interested in rehabilitation or their health as you just said above. why redirect the resources you claim are going to waste on the war on drugs to rehabilitating and educating people who are not interested in either? You guys go around in circles arguing nothing

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

If you could find me one person who has been thrown in jail for a first time offence, i would be stunned. If a person is repeatedly busted (and that's what it usually takes) then they probably will go to jail. But where does personal responsibility start and end? If someone is on their 7th offence, hasn't that person had ample opportunity to seek help? The issue is that the majority are not interested in seeking help. Ben Cousins is the prime example and one that we keep reading about. There is help out there, but these people are simply not interested in availing themselves of it. Sending someone to jail is the final straw, but for many like Ben Cousins, it's the only thing that wakes those idiots up and makes them realise that maybe it is time to make an effort to get off the sauce.

How much more money do we need to spend on education? We are not living in sub saharan africa...........if the average Australian isn't educated enough to know the dangers of drugs, then i'll give up now.

Drug debate epic fail.

The vast majority of prison inmates are there because of drug and alcohol related offences.

http://www.correctiveservices.nsw.go...SW-inmates.pdf

You really have no understanding of drug addiction. You could bust someone 100x for possession but it won't stop them from using. The threat of jail is not a deterrent. Theft to support their habit is one of the major offences that lands addicts in jail. Why would an addict need to break and enter to support their habit if they could get what they need at a clinic?

Quote:

Methadone access woes cause despair

A new study by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, which followed 375 male heroin users in NSW prisons, found those who got methadone in prison and stayed on it afterwards were 20 per cent less likely to re-offend.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/methadone-...918-1kfv0.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so then why do people like you use harm minimisation as a goal, when clearly, these people are not interested in rehabilitation or their health as you just said above. why redirect the resources you claim are going to waste on the war on drugs to rehabilitating and educating people who are not interested in either? You guys go around in circles arguing nothing

Who said that ALL drug addicts are not interested in rehab? You just made up some random bogus shit and then decided to base an argument on it as if it were a proven fact.

I just posted a link that says that access to methadone (ie: a rehab program) reduces re-offence by 20% and yet one of the problems is funding. You completely missed the point which is that redirecting funding to rehab has a positive effect, whereas incarceration makes little difference and costs a lot more.

Quote:

In the 2011-12 financial year, $3.4 million is promised to expand access to opioid treatment programs.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/methadone-...#ixzz1tazU4tQE

Wow! $3.4 million!! Compare that to the estimated $1 billion per year that is spent on drug law enforcement.

It's not even in the same ball park

Just give it up arguing with Buffed, he can't admit he's wrong or change his mind on anything, his makeup won't allow it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so then why do people like you use harm minimisation as a goal, when clearly, these people are not interested in rehabilitation or their health as you just said above. why redirect the resources you claim are going to waste on the war on drugs to rehabilitating and educating people who are not interested in either? You guys go around in circles arguing nothing

because its cheaper to do it that way you dumbass

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

I just posted a link that says that access to methadone (ie: a rehab program) reduces re-offence by 20% and yet one of the problems is funding.

wow, a whole 20%......blow me over

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

wow, a whole 20%......blow me over

wow, great idiotic come back.... blow me over

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

wow, a whole 20%......blow me over

substantial enough to warrant your response it seems although the response does leave a bit to be desired I might add-could it be that you have finally run out of incorrect statements and now just rebuff everything with pure uncut idiocy

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

substantial enough to warrant your response it seems although the response does leave a bit to be desired I might add-could it be that you have finally run out of incorrect statements and now just rebuff everything with pure uncut idiocy

dude i rebuffed everything you said, but what is the point of rebuffing something as ridiculous as justifying the decriminalising and legalising of drugs on the back of a reduction in burglary's of 20% for those on methodon programs. Acces to methodone has been available for 30 years...........if it reduces burglaries then great, keep people on methodone, but what does that have to do with legalising drugs?

if you legalise everyone will be too wasted to burglarise

derr

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

dude i rebuffed everything you said, but what is the point of rebuffing something as ridiculous as justifying the decriminalising and legalising of drugs on the back of a reduction in burglary's of 20% for those on methodon programs. Acces to methodone has been available for 30 years...........if it reduces burglaries then great, keep people on methodone, but what does that have to do with legalising drugs?

You refute nothing. You say that the examples of Switzerland, Portugal, and the Netherlands are irrelevant. You dismiss the informed opinions of South American governments and their officials about the impracticalities and decimation that prohibition of narcotics has on their societies. You ignore in depth Australian reports into drug use in contemporary life. You refute nothing.

All your arguments are based on what you think will happen if legalisation is implemented on a global scale. And perhaps you would be right. I wouldn't advocate the continuance of legalisation if it is shown that after a 5-10 year trial period that things actually got worse. In fact I would be the first to admit we tried and we failed but you won't even countenance trying. It's weird. It's the "can't win don't try" philosophy of Homer Simpson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

dude i rebuffed everything you said, but what is the point of rebuffing something as ridiculous as justifying the decriminalising and legalising of drugs on the back of a reduction in burglary's of 20% for those on methodon programs. Acces to methodone has been available for 30 years...........if it reduces burglaries then great, keep people on methodone, but what does that have to do with legalising drugs?

The thing that is most ridiculous in this thread is that you believe the war on drugs is working and is therefore a good policy which should continue no matter what the cost. You are living in fairy land and the irony is that you are the one who has obviously been smoking way too much crack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

The thing that is most ridiculous in this thread is that you believe the war on drugs is working and is therefore a good policy which should continue no matter what the cost. You are living in fairy land and the irony is that you are the one who has obviously been smoking way too much crack.

where did i say i believed it was working? And what is the standard by which 'working' is measured? As i said in this thread, i can't recall the police or politicians ever claiming that the prohibition of drugs would ever totally erradicate drug use or supply. There are plenty of reports that state that the drug problem has not gotten worse and that enforcing prohibition has worked as far as making supply more difficult in this country

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

All your arguments are based on what you think will happen if legalisation is implemented on a global scale. And perhaps you would be right. I wouldn't advocate the continuance of legalisation if it is shown that after a 5-10 year trial period that things actually got worse. In fact I would be the first to admit we tried and we failed but you won't even countenance trying. It's weird. It's the "can't win don't try" philosophy of Homer Simpson.

well so are your arguments..........your argument is based on 'let's give it a go'.

For your info, Switzerland has not legalised or decriminalised drugs so your example still only revolves around Portugal. For the record, the Netherlands is about to get tougher on their own liberal drug laws


http://www.euronews.com/2012/05/01/t...eir-drug-laws/

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

where did i say i believed it was working? And what is the standard by which 'working' is measured? As i said in this thread, i can't recall the police or politicians ever claiming that the prohibition of drugs would ever totally erradicate drug use or supply. There are plenty of reports that state that the drug problem has not gotten worse and that enforcing prohibition has worked as far as making supply more difficult in this country

So fucking what if supply is being "limited"? It's costing the country more than a billion dollars per year just to achieve that, and what good does it do anyway? Pretty much nothing except push up the price which makes better profits for the black market and organised crime. The supply isn't being limited anywhere near enough to reduce overall rates of drug consumption and that IS the goal of prohbition. So if its not achieving that, yet its costing billions of dollars, then it's a failure.

You're a fool for even bothering to retort the trivial little point about methadone and for all your "rebuffing" that you've been doing you seem to have forgotten the point of your own argument, actually you don't seem to have ever had one in the first place. Name a single benefit of limiting supply.

The reason we should decriminalise is because it will save the country millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars.

TIP: if you add buffed to your ignore list, the internet is a better place

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

The reason we should decriminalise is because it will save the country millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars.

Can you reference that for me please? I can't find this information easily despite looking, and mischa's posts didn't give me the info I was looking for. Is there a breakdown of how much money is spent on drug law enforcement annually?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

well so are your arguments..........your argument is based on 'let's give it a go'.

For your info, Switzerland has not legalised or decriminalised drugs so your example still only revolves around Portugal. For the record, the Netherlands is about to get tougher on their own liberal drug laws


http://www.euronews.com/2012/05/01/t...eir-drug-laws/

1. Yes, my argument is partially based on "let's give it a go," I don't deny that. It's never been universally tried to see which is the best way of dealing with the issue. I also implied that if it so proves that it leads to more crime - both organised and individual cases - as well as higher drug addiction (I freely admit there is a high possibility of a spike in use [whether that would be due to actual legalisation or the fact that legalisation will make it easier to quantify and qualify use I'm not so sure] so I'm excluding this as a factor for consideration unless it is so sharp an uptake that it obviously shouldn't be ignored) then I have no problem with the evidence leading to cessation of a legalisation drug policy.

2. I was using Switzerland as part of an holistic approach to all drug consumption policies, I didn't mean to suggest that drugs are legalised there. Although for all intents and purposes in relation to heroin addicts it has been but freely concede that the Swiss heroin approach is based solely on trying to make junkies become a functional and relatively healthy part of society. Which leaves Portugal and the evidence that decriminalisation works better than strict prohibition policies.

3. The Dutch have been talking about cracking down on the sale of cannabis to tourist for years. And if you've ever been to Amsterdam you'll know why. Anecdotally I can say I see where they are coming from: for every tourist who wants to just go to a cafe and have a smoke or a muffing and chill out in a stonerly manner, as part of their overall Dutch experience, there are 10 others who go to Amsterdam for the explicit reason of getting smashed and fucking prostitutes. But not just on cannabis, booze as well, get fully wrecked and start fights all round the city centre. My experience was that these types came from mostly anglo-celtic countries, were young, and wanted to binge the fuck out like they did at home. I'm not saying this is the only reason why the Dutch are introducing new drug laws but I bet you it is the main one.

---

tl;dr - We have never had a critical mass of countries trying decriminalisation and legalisation drug policies all at the same time for us to compare to the prohibition policy that is pretty much standard for %99 of nations on the planet. We can't say if decriminalisation/legalisation is a better solution or not on this basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Can you reference that for me please? I can't find this information easily despite looking, and mischa's posts didn't give me the info I was looking for. Is there a breakdown of how much money is spent on drug law enforcement annually?

http://bit.ly/IoqkIL

1st hit, 1st paragraph....

Quote:

Australian governments spend about $4.7 billion a year on the war on drugs. This figure was arrived at using information from the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation and other sources and is an estimate of how much the Government would save and get in tax revenue if illicit drug sales were regulated and taxed the way tobacco is.

You are either blind, really really bad at internet searching or just plain stupid.

Until you guys (fewsion and buffed) actually bother to read the Australia21 report, you've got no clue about the debate. Oh sure you've got an opinion, I suppose, maybe like a hairdresser has an opinion about whether or not her next door neighbour should have cancer surgery to remove a tumor. Absolutely meaningless. You keep repeating the same tired old arguments over and over that have been refuted and proven wrong over and over.

I posted this link 3 or 4 pages ago.

http://www.australia21.org.au//publi...icy_Report.pdf

do yourself a favour and read it instead of being an ignorant troll your entire lives

Quote:

The harms resulting from prohibition substantially
outweigh the gains from efforts by police to
suppress the criminal drug industry – a fact now
accepted by many politicians, police, researchers
and leaders of civil society across the world.

oh but not you guys because you know better than all those people despite being too lazy to even read a few reports on the subject

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

http://bit.ly/IoqkIL

1st hit, 1st paragraph....



You are either blind, really really bad at internet searching or just plain stupid.

Is there a government paper showing this? This is hardly credible "evidence" of the amount spent on drug enforcement. It is from the "Drug Law Reform Foundation" and "other sources". Would that suffice in a peer-reviewed paper as objective evidence of the cost of prosecuting drug use/supply in Australia? No. That's why I am asking for a reference, and it's a simple request that you've managed to get really up tight about and also get really wrong. Shame on you. Without the name-calling this time would be great.

edit: Duffy describes the figure as an "informed guess", based on research by Tim Moore, which I'm sure you haven't read. In fact, it appears you haven't read past the first paragraph of Duffy's article given that you quoted the part about the entire drug budget, apparently $4.7 billion. This includes elements common to both approaches such as education, harm reduction and health provisions. The figure is, therefore, much smaller than $4.7billion, and possibly a great deal smaller given the gaps in the data (acknowledged by Moore), an amount roughly on par with the amount spent on mental health in the Budget last year.

Again, google. third link.

http://bit.ly/IoqkIL

Goddamit Fewsion, just read the fucking paper. ANY paper. Not the article but the sciency bit that it usually links it to. You have proven again and again that you are an illiterate chump, either unable or unwilling to read the actual paper's.

You have previously asked for evidence to point out prohibition has failed.

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3442/1/3442.pdf

BOOM there you go.

Would you like another?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Mari.pdf

ZONK.

READ them. I expect a 1000 word report on my desk by Monday.


PS. it's a bit rich that YOU are asking for evidence, when you have still provided none when I asked you 2 pages ago. You suck buddy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Is there a government paper showing this? This is hardly credible "evidence" of the amount spent on drug enforcement. It is from the "Drug Law Reform Foundation" and "other sources". Would that suffice in a peer-reviewed paper as objective evidence of the cost of prosecuting drug use/supply in Australia? No. That's why I am asking for a reference, and it's a simple request that you've managed to get really up tight about and also get really wrong. Shame on you. Without the name-calling this time would be great.

edit: Duffy describes the figure as an "informed guess", based on research by Tim Moore, which I'm sure you haven't read. In fact, it appears you haven't read past the first paragraph of Duffy's article given that you quoted the part about the entire drug budget, apparently $4.7 billion. This includes elements common to both approaches such as education, harm reduction and health provisions. The figure is, therefore, much smaller than $4.7billion, and possibly a great deal smaller given the gaps in the data (acknowledged by Moore), an amount roughly on par with the amount spent on mental health in the Budget last year.

"Not credible" according to who? Anyone? oh no just you! I'm sorry but you are not credible fewsion. You haven't shown us anything which indicates that Tim Moore's research is flawed. I'm going to need a reference which shows that the research is not credible. In fact, I'd like a reference that indicates the conclusions in the Australia21 report, and the Global Commision on Drug Policy report are similarly "not credible". Simple request. Now off you go.




ps: oh and don't worry, I see through your passive aggressive troll strategy

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

"Not credible" according to who? Anyone? oh no just you! I'm sorry but you are not credible fewsion. You haven't shown us anything which indicates that Tim Moore's research is flawed. I'm going to need a reference which shows that the research is not credible. In fact, I'd like a reference that indicates the conclusions in the Australia21 report, and the Global Commision on Drug Policy report are similarly "not credible". Simple request. Now off you go.




ps: oh and don't worry, I see through your passive aggressive troll strategy

Tim Moore himself said they were estimates and guestimates so it hardly qualifies as fact. He's just having a stab.

I have read the Australia 21 report and i don't agree with it. There is some factual info there, but at the end of the day, their premise for legalising is based on 'let's give it a go and see what happens'. And that's fair enough, because you can never be assured of what the outcome will be in such a an experiment because at the end of the day it's an experiment. I just don't agree with the experiment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

Would you like another?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Mari.pdf

.

"Between January 1976 and December 2000, Australian governments spent in the order of $13 billion prosecuting about one and a half million drug offences with the purpose of reducing drug use. However, drug prohibition did not reduce illicit drug use; instead it created an enormous black market, spiralling prison populations and a plague of heroin overdoses"

That's a quote from the conclusion of the above report.

I can't remember the last time i heard police or governments say 'we are reducing drug use'. What they are endeavouring to do is to intercept illegal supply and use of drugs wherever they can. And that's where a lot of misinformation and skewing of the debate comes in. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that significant interceptions of illicit drugs has prevented a spread of the heroin problem.

Answer me this. Do you expect those groups involved in illegal drug trafficking to take up legal businesses if drugs were declafred illegal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

Tim Moore himself said they were estimates and guestimates so it hardly qualifies as fact. He's just having a stab.

I have read the Australia 21 report and i don't agree with it. There is some factual info there, but at the end of the day, their premise for legalising is based on 'let's give it a go and see what happens'. And that's fair enough, because you can never be assured of what the outcome will be in such a an experiment because at the end of the day it's an experiment. I just don't agree with the experiment.

Fuck dude, you could have saved me about 2 hours of my life writing all the shit I have if you'd just said that at the beginning. Motherfucker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

Again, google. third link.

http://bit.ly/IoqkIL

Goddamit Fewsion, just read the fucking paper. ANY paper. Not the article but the sciency bit that it usually links it to. You have proven again and again that you are an illiterate chump, either unable or unwilling to read the actual paper's.

Don't call me illiterate when you make basic errors like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

You have previously asked for evidence to point out prohibition has failed.

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3442/1/3442.pdf

BOOM there you go.

No, I absolutely have not asked for that; not once.

I've repeatedly made this point:

Quote:

That's what I don't believe you made an adequate case for when you retort with "billions being wasted" - it's simply untrue.

It seems that billions being spent = billions being wasted. There's no acknowledgement of the successes of the criminalisation of drug use and supply on your behalf and I think that's dishonest. Have you read some other things that John Jiggens has written. Are you really putting him on that expert pedestal simply because he has the word "Dr." attached to his name? Here are some of his other reputable pieces of writing.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45354

Anyhoo, did you link to that paper because it supports the theory that "billions are being wasted" with little outcome? Jiggens provides a very superficial analysis that does not even consider why Australians have such high rates of drug usage. He doesn't consider any alternative reasons as to why drug consumption is so high. Using rhetoric as academic as this:

"Prohibition is a cure that makes the disease worse. It aims to stop the use of drugs, but instead, it glamorises drug use. It aims to morally improve the drug user, but instead, it corrupts society."

highlights the depth of his analysis.

So, apart from completely lacking credibility among his peers, his obvious lack of objectivity, and poor depth of analysis, I don't think he could be referred to as an "expert".

Second, the drug policy paper has absolutely nothing to do with how much money has been spent on policing and prosecuting drug crime in Australia, so why did you post it?

I will reiterate my two fundamental questions that I have repeatedly asked in this thread:

1) Will decriminalisation lead to a demand reduction in Australia?
2) How have you evaluated the failure of prohibition in Australia - "waste of police resources", high-levels of drug consumption, or a combination of the two?

Too long a post to go into it, but if there are simple answers for these two questions, with perhaps one sentence explaining why then please post back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

PS. it's a bit rich that YOU are asking for evidence, when you have still provided none when I asked you 2 pages ago. You suck buddy.

Evidence of what? I've asked a question, and I haven't concluded anything! You get super-defensive just like your mate didjeridude whenever I ask for clarification or for some more information. I still have those two questions to be answered and I haven't been petulant or offensive, so take it easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

Answer me this. Do you expect those groups involved in illegal drug trafficking to take up legal businesses if drugs were declafred illegal?

Of course not, but so what? You suggesting that we should decriminalise cause then all the dealers will move into other criminal areas? Oh noes, whatever would we do then... Firstly I'd say sit back and let them fight over what's left of the pie then continue prosecuting crimes as we try to at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I will reiterate my two fundamental questions that I have repeatedly asked in this thread:

1) Will decriminalisation lead to a demand reduction in Australia?
2) How have you evaluated the failure of prohibition in Australia - "waste of police resources", high-levels of drug consumption, or a combination of the two?

1) Probably not, that's about as likely as decriminalisation causing an increase in demand. It's not so much about how many people are using, more about how much effect / cost that has on society

2) I would say the general opinion of people who regard prohibition as a failure stems from the facts that:
i) it hasn't significantly prevented people from using, while also criminalising a bunch of people for behavours that often don't effect other people.
ii) a significant amount of police resources are used in enforcing laws that people don't feel lead to an improvement in safety for the general population, plus the resources used in incarcerating people for drugs offenses, as well as the fact that having a criminal record then makes it more difficult for them to become successful tax-paying members of society after
iii) given the demand for drugs is still there why should that the millions of $ be heading in to the hands of organised crime when it could be, at least in part, to the government


to turn your question around, how do you evaluate the succes of prohibition? in what way has it lead to benefits for society?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

No, I absolutely have not asked for that; not once.

You know what, you are absolutely right. You just keep saying that you don't think there is any proof of prohibition failing. I recall you saying this bon mot a few pages ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

And again, like I've said in this thread before, I don't think that you've made an adequate case that "prohibition doesn't work", when in fact, there are several examples in Australia of how it's been effective.

You aren't actually asking for anyone to provide evidence. You are just denying it because you don't want it, and you can't provide examples of successful prohibition because you can't find any. It all makes sense now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

It seems that billions being spent = billions being wasted. There's no acknowledgement of the successes of the criminalisation of drug use and supply on your behalf and I think that's dishonest.

Okay, so let's look at this statement. "That paper has no acknowledgment of the successes of prohibition." In fact I am fairly certain that you have used this argument to rebuff previous evidence.

Are you sensing a pattern here? Previous papers have not mentioned any successes nor referred to any studies which examines these reasons. Neither you nor your wingman buffed have not provided any evidence that prohibition is a successful idea. It's because there is probably no evidence that exists which supports prohibition (but why would you care? you aren't asking for that evidence, remember?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Have you read some other things that John Jiggens has written. Are you really putting him on that expert pedestal simply because he has the word "Dr." attached to his name? Here are some of his other reputable pieces of writing.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45354

??? I'm not sure what you are inferring from this article. That he posts on a left website? whooptyfuckingdo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Anyhoo, did you link to that paper because it supports the theory that "billions are being wasted" with little outcome? Jiggens provides a very superficial analysis that does not even consider why Australians have such high rates of drug usage. He doesn't consider any alternative reasons as to why drug consumption is so high.

Yes. I posted it because it supports the claim that billions are being wasted on the War on Drugs. You have repeatedly made the argument in the thread that none of these papers explore any other reasons for increased drug use, but honestly why would you bother? The evidence on trial here is supposed to see if there is any direct link between prohibition and a decrease in drug use. It is clear that it does not. All of the papers say this. The other reasons are elementary. It could be some kind of virus infecting Adelaide, driving all its residents to punch bong after bong. It could be cultural. The fact is, prohibition promises to stamp out drug use and it does not. Simple. That is what the evidence shows, and that is all it needs to show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

"Prohibition is a cure that makes the disease worse. It aims to stop the use of drugs, but instead, it glamorises drug use. It aims to morally improve the drug user, but instead, it corrupts society."

highlights the depth of his analysis.

Fuck his analysis. Look at the numbers. Make your own analysis. That's what I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Second, the drug policy paper has absolutely nothing to do with how much money has been spent on policing and prosecuting drug crime in Australia, so why did you post it?

This is where I bail out. There is VERY CLEARLY numbers and figures for the amount spent on policing and prosecuting, which essentially means you haven't read the paper at all. You just provided an ad hominem attack against the author, picked out one (admittedly loaded) sentence and then dismissed the evidence without actually seeing what the paper contained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I will reiterate my two fundamental questions that I have repeatedly asked in this thread:

1) Will decriminalisation lead to a demand reduction in Australia?
2) How have you evaluated the failure of prohibition in Australia - "waste of police resources", high-levels of drug consumption, or a combination of the two?

Too long a post to go into it, but if there are simple answers for these two questions, with perhaps one sentence explaining why then please post back.

1) Who knows? Evidence in Portugal shows that there may be an initial spike and then a reduction after that spike. So yes, evidence shows that a decriminalisation of drugs may result in reduced demand.
2) Combination of the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Evidence of what? I've asked a question, and I haven't concluded anything! You get super-defensive just like your mate didjeridude whenever I ask for clarification or for some more information. I still have those two questions to be answered and I haven't been petulant or offensive, so take it easy.

Your circular, passive-aggressive troll-style is getting tiresome. Consider yourself on the "buffed and abziie pile"

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberabit

Of course not, but so what? You suggesting that we should decriminalise cause then all the dealers will move into other criminal areas? Oh noes, whatever would we do then... Firstly I'd say sit back and let them fight over what's left of the pie then continue prosecuting crimes as we try to at the moment.

I'm tired of hearing that one of the justifications for legalising drugs is that prohibition encourages crime, blackmarket, corruption etc as if to say that all of those criminal elements involved in drug trafficking will magically turn to legitimate business ventures if it is legalised. It's just another of the red herrings thrown out there

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberabit

1) Probably not, that's about as likely as decriminalisation causing an increase in demand. It's not so much about how many people are using, more about how much effect / cost that has on society

2) I would say the general opinion of people who regard prohibition as a failure stems from the facts that:
i) it hasn't significantly prevented people from using, while also criminalising a bunch of people for behavours that often don't effect other people.
ii) a significant amount of police resources are used in enforcing laws that people don't feel lead to an improvement in safety for the general population, plus the resources used in incarcerating people for drugs offenses, as well as the fact that having a criminal record then makes it more difficult for them to become successful tax-paying members of society after
iii) given the demand for drugs is still there why should that the millions of $ be heading in to the hands of organised crime when it could be, at least in part, to the government


to turn your question around, how do you evaluate the succes of prohibition? in what way has it lead to benefits for society?

so in other words, 2 out of 3 reasons for prohibition being a 'failure' essentially relate to lifestyle choice. That's what i've been saying here for the entire thread, but i'm howled down. You can dress it up anyway you like, but most on here simply see it as a lifestyle thing.........they don't really give a fuck about the amount of money spent on prohibition or the health implications of overdosing.........it's more about 'it's my life and i'll take drugs if i want to, therefore i want it legalised'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so in other words, 2 out of 3 reasons for prohibition being a 'failure' essentially relate to lifestyle choice. That's what i've been saying here for the entire thread, but i'm howled down. You can dress it up anyway you like, but most on here simply see it as a lifestyle thing.........they don't really give a fuck about the amount of money spent on prohibition or the health implications of overdosing.........it's more about 'it's my life and i'll take drugs if i want to, therefore i want it legalised'.

You're howled down because you simply ignore or discredit any factual evidence whenever you don't agree with it, you use flawed logic, imagined beliefs as if they were facts, nonsensical reasoning to form your arguments, and you repeat crap over and over again that is just plain wrong.

Like this one for example. You've got this ridiculous idea that it's just lazy stoners sitting in their lounge room that want the freedom to smoke bongs who are in favour of decriminalization/legalization, but you ignore the fact that all over the world there are former presidents of nations, high commissioners to the UN, police chiefs, human rights activists, business leaders, doctors, lawyers, judges politicians, criminology and sociology researchers and many many more who are all calling for a change in strategy because everyone recognizes the simple truth.... despite billions of dollars having been spent on law enforcement, both drug supply and drug use are higher. You seem to try to circumvent the conclusion that this represents failure however by inventing a false belief that the goal of the war on drugs is supposedly only about limiting supply, and hence because the police still make raids and seizures, then the money being spent is worth it. But this is wrong buffed. The end goal of prohibition is not simply to limit supply. What would the point of that be? The stated goal of drug law enforcement is to reduce drug usage via limiting supply and prosecuting users, but we know conclusively, undeniably, that this goal has failed. What advocates of decriminalization are saying is lets just try step 1 first, stop prosecuting users. That costs a lot of money on its own, we know it doesn't work, so it would free up some money and police resources that could go into beefing up detection on one side and rehab programs on the other.

Fair enough if you don't believe in pursuing an alternative strategy, but you've presented no solution to the problem either. So what solution do you suggest?

you can't solve all of society's ills, there are problems that we need to live with as a society. People will take drugs, people will smoke, people will drink. People will die of overdose, people will get arested. The majority of society is not repared to legalise drugs for their own moral or social reasons It doesn't matter what supposed evidence is put forward.

I want to walk around with my penis hanging out........i'm not hurting other people by doing that, but the law says i can't do it. That's a restriction on how i want to live my life, but that's life, i learn to live with it. I want to drive at 140km/h in my car which can easily handle that sort of speed with excellent handling, again it's not harming anone else, but the law says i cant do it, so again i need to learn to lve with that. Recently in NSW, the state government passed legislation which effectively outlaws tanning salons, again, another restriction on peoples ability to live their life, but it's just another fact of life to deal with.

To me, there is no greater harm minimisation than saying 'there is a grave chance you will harm yourself if you take heroin, therefore, we will prohibit the use of heroin since you there is no responsible way of doing it'. Is it really harm minimisaton to say 'we respect your freedom of choice to take heroin and society will be there to clean up after you overdose'

On the one hand, you espouse a liberal way of life........on the other, you want society to act as a nanny for those that choose to harm themselves by taking illicit drugs, against the tide of information that says they are harmful.

If you want proof that prohibiton and tough policing works then have a look at new york city over the last two decades. It went from being the most dangerous city in the 80's, to the safest large city in the U.S today

This post sounds a little bit like you do see the value in harm minimisation though, and you make a good point which hasn't been discussed much, and that is that the majority of people don't want decriminalisation/legalisation because of their own moral reasons... this is what I mean by a subjective reasoning. People believe drugs are bad for no other reason than they are illegal or that the bible says so. And the reality is that the war on drugs in Australia is basically a copy of the US strategy which is pushed by the very powerful conservative religious political landscape. Ultimately the purpose of prohibition is harm minimisation also (via reducing drug use via limiting supply). I believe that harm minimisation is a logical course of action, because as you say, we just can't stop people taking drugs.

My philosophy however, is not to approach the debate from my own subjective moral reasoning or religious beliefs, but simply from an evidence based view. When you try to use evidence based reasoning in this debate, it fails, because the evidence simply doesn't support the quasi religious conservative view. When you use subjective moral reasoning, you suddenly make a whole lot more sense. Honestly, you might think this is strange coming from me, but I care less about stoners and addicts who want to fuck up their own lives, and more about the economics. There is no doubt that decriminalisation will lead to significant savings with law enforcement, and I'd just rather see that money being spent on something more productive. Yes, I do espouse a liberal way of life, but what I want is for drug users themselves to contribute to the cost of harm minimisation. Supply it to them and tax them, they should be the ones paying for their fucked up lifestyle choices, not you or me. So IMO better the govt gets some of the revenue than drug dealers and drug lords. If you can't stop people taking drugs, then prohibition fails as a harm minimisation strategy, there is plenty of proof of this already, but there IS some evidence that decriminalisation does lead to enhanced harm minimisation. And at the end of the day, human progress in many areas relies on the principle of experimentation and "having a go". If we never give it a go, then we'll never be able to collect the necessary information which will tell us conclusively whether it is beneficial or not (specific to Australia).

edit: regarding NYC, that is an argument in favour of decriminalisation. If the police save money on the costs of mounting these gigantic drug operations at music festivals for example, then maybe they could afford to recruit more police officers whose job it is to arrest people for motor vehicle theft and violence and whatever. This is something I would support 100%. Stop wasting time and money on busting ravers who pose no threat to society whatsoever and get the fuck on with busting people for committing crime. NYC increased the number of police officers on the streets and they increased the arrest rate for low level crime such as graffiti. This is one of the things thought to have contributed to the reduced crime rate. What they DIDN'T do however, was reduce the rates of drug related hospital admissions or deaths. Therefore, all their "tough on crime" didn't do anything to improve harm minimsation. Take a look at the data for cocaine. Rudi introduced his tough on crime policy in 2003, but from 2004 through to 2006, emergency dept admissions due to cocaine use almost doubled.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...2009drugod.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

This is one of the things thought to have contributed to the reduced crime rate. What they DIDN'T do however, was reduce the rates of drug related hospital admissions or deaths. Therefore, all their "tough on crime" didn't do anything to improve harm minimsation. Take a look at the data for cocaine. Rudi introduced his tough on crime policy in 2003, but from 2004 through to 2006, emergency dept admissions due to cocaine use almost doubled.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...2009drugod.pdf

this was never the stated aim of the broken windows policing policy though. The aim was to reduce crime and make new york a safer city, which it did spectacularly. That's what police are there for, to make the city safer, not to act as a nanny for drug users. You guys keep saying the war on drugs failed, but the NYPD showed that with a hardline attitude towards drug related crime, crime can be reduced. The main focus of the crackdown was drug related crime and they cleaned the city up and drove the drug dealers out. so it has been shown to work at that level, but it would never be applied here in NSW because we don't have the balls to go down the zero tolerance path. It didn't stop people taking cocaine, but it did drastically reduce the social ills that the drug trade and use contributed to and for those people who don't take drugs, it made the city a much better place in the last two decades. No one can deny that.

^ yeah, they probably did what the cops did in "The Wire" with the free zones- just move the problem somewhere out of sight and get some good crime statistics elsewhere. a great political strategy is all it is.

Buffed you previously scoffed at examples of data from other countries claiming "irrelevance" due to the simple fact the examples were from outside of Australia. To use NYC as an example is quite misguided, the conditions there at grass roots level allowed for a massive improvement, the city was in the midst of a "crack epidemic"-Now the entire USA is in the midst of a "meth epidemic". I cant say that a huge amount has been gained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

You know what, you are absolutely right. You just keep saying that you don't think there is any proof of prohibition failing. I recall you saying this bon mot a few pages ago.

You aren't actually asking for anyone to provide evidence. You are just denying it because you don't want it, and you can't provide examples of successful prohibition because you can't find any. It all makes sense now.

Okay, so let's look at this statement. "That paper has no acknowledgment of the successes of prohibition." In fact I am fairly certain that you have used this argument to rebuff previous evidence.

Are you sensing a pattern here? Previous papers have not mentioned any successes nor referred to any studies which examines these reasons. Neither you nor your wingman buffed have not provided any evidence that prohibition is a successful idea. It's because there is probably no evidence that exists which supports prohibition (but why would you care? you aren't asking for that evidence, remember?)

There's evidence to suggest that prohibition is working and there is evidence to suggest that it is not working. I was curious to know how you evaluated its success or failure as a policy. If it was about demand reduction or curbing supply then, yes, I do believe that it's not as cost-effective as could be. However, I also believe you're incorrect to say that "it is clear that there is not [evidence directly linking prohibition to a decrease in drug use]", when that's plain and simply wrong. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that prohibition has an impact on reducing the demand for drugs, especially given that the majority of the drug-taking population in this country are casual users, non-addicts and law-abiding citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

??? I'm not sure what you are inferring from this article. That he posts on a left website? whooptyfuckingdo

Yes. I posted it because it supports the claim that billions are being wasted on the War on Drugs. You have repeatedly made the argument in the thread that none of these papers explore any other reasons for increased drug use, but honestly why would you bother? The evidence on trial here is supposed to see if there is any direct link between prohibition and a decrease in drug use. It is clear that it does not. All of the papers say this. The other reasons are elementary. It could be some kind of virus infecting Adelaide, driving all its residents to punch bong after bong. It could be cultural. The fact is, prohibition promises to stamp out drug use and it does not. Simple. That is what the evidence shows, and that is all it needs to show.

Fuck his analysis. Look at the numbers. Make your own analysis. That's what I did.

Well I think it's relevant to question the credentials of the so-called "experts" if that's the standard of their research and their objective reasoning. I also cannot believe you'd ask "why would you bother" in response to my question about rates of drug use in this country. Who's to say this country wouldn't have even higher rates of drug usage if not for prohibition? Does it seem too far-fetched? I don't think so. We've got terribly high rates of binge-drinking and even higher if you look at specific demographics and locations. Wouldn't it be expected that prohibition has a role to play in keeping the rates of drug usage where they are?

In any event, I've only had to question why you've referenced this paper because you've not argued anything in your initial post about it at all. Posting a link is only so helpful, I didn't immediately see the relevance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

This is where I bail out. There is VERY CLEARLY numbers and figures for the amount spent on policing and prosecuting, which essentially means you haven't read the paper at all. You just provided an ad hominem attack against the author, picked out one (admittedly loaded) sentence and then dismissed the evidence without actually seeing what the paper contained.

You linked to two papers right? The first, by Jiggens, which I responded to. The second, a drug policy paper, mentioned nothing about law enforcement? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

Your circular, passive-aggressive troll-style is getting tiresome. Consider yourself on the "buffed and abziie pile"

I don't really care what pile you put me on Weiner, if you're getting up tight about shit it has nothing to do with me. I've restrained myself, do the same yourself and leave the rest out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that prohibition has an impact on reducing the demand for drugs, especially given that the majority of the drug-taking population in this country are casual users, non-addicts and law-abiding citizens.

There is absolutely no evidence that prohibition reduces demand. None. It will never reduce demand while that part of human nature that seeks "enlightenment" or "experience" or "transendence" however you define them, remains. And it will always remain unless, somehow, we evolve to not seek it or have it genetically modified out of us.

The best that prohibition can do is to cyclically modify entry of supply. But there will always be people who will adapt to that and search for new ways to get to a modified mental state. Do you deny that? Honestly, do you think that the state of humanity, and of being human, will in the next, however many hundreds of years, evolve so that we can of our own volition, create a higher state of consciousness?

If you think that, I will hazard a guess and say, that biology will prove you wrong.

Media Player

Faith No More - Evidence (High Quality) - YouTube

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

^ yeah, they probably did what the cops did in "The Wire" with the free zones- just move the problem somewhere out of sight and get some good crime statistics elsewhere. a great political strategy is all it is.

Buffed you previously scoffed at examples of data from other countries claiming "irrelevance" due to the simple fact the examples were from outside of Australia. To use NYC as an example is quite misguided, the conditions there at grass roots level allowed for a massive improvement, the city was in the midst of a "crack epidemic"-Now the entire USA is in the midst of a "meth epidemic". I cant say that a huge amount has been gained.

But it was a massive improvement that far exceeded the improvement in any other U.S city. Why hasn't the improvement in L.A been as significant or Miami for that matter, both of which also had massive drug related crime problems? There is no question that the methods or policing employed during the last two decades has drastically improved the situation in NYC.

and re: moving the problem elsewhere..........you don't have any evidence of that and secondly, i am not questioning whether the problem has or hasn't moved elsewhere, but rather that prohibition and policing can have a massive impact on drug related crime in a particular location, which runs counter to your closely held view that prohibition achieves nothing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

The best that prohibition can do is to cyclically modify entry of supply. But there will always be people who will adapt to that and search for new ways to get to a modified mental state. Do you deny that? Honestly, do you think that the state of humanity, and of being human, will in the next, however many hundreds of years, evolve so that we can of our own volition, create a higher state of consciousness?

If you think that, I will hazard a guess and say, that biology will prove you wrong.

If it can restrict supply, then it will have an impact on demand, even if it's cyclical. The report from Don Weatherburn shows the connection between supply side heroin restrictions forcing up the price of heroin which resulted in a decline in heroin related crime and overdose in early 2000's in Sydney

Wait what improvement in NYC?

They have increasing drug arrests every year with marijuana arrests being the most common form of arrest in the city. In 2010 there was a 69% increase over 2005 levels in drug arrests. This is the city you are using as an example of prohibition.

Not that they actually have prohibition there. In NYC marijuana possession of less than 25 grams has been decriminalised. Only burning marijuana or displaying the marijuana in "public view" draws a criminal conviction.

The only way those cops are able to get the arrests they need is to instruct people to empty out their pockets without arresting them. Then when they empty their pockets they charge them with having marijuana in "public view." The only reason any of them have any convictions to their name is because they followed the instructions of the police.

Which kinda puts paid your whole bullshit line about 'Don't do anything wrong and the cops won't fuck up your life." These people aren't breaking the law, and then are instructed to break it by a police officer who then arrests them for following their instructions.

You'd have to be a real fuckwit to hold NYC up as an example of good police work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

There is no question that the methods or policing employed during the last two decades has drastically improved the situation in NYC.
and re: moving the problem elsewhere..........you don't have any evidence of that and secondlywhich runs counter to your closely held view that prohibition achieves nothing

Buffed it is widely acknowledged that the decrease in crime figures are only due partly to the police work, the way you put it the police work alone affected crime stats downwardly-this is incorrect. There are also reports of the pressure on police supervisors to manipulatethe reporting data. These issues cannot be ignored by a rational thinking person. I do not claim that "prohibition achieves nothing" however I do believe that as a strategy alone it represents quite poor value to the tax payer when results are measured against cost.

The recent drop in drug arrests in NYC are entirely because pro-marijuana protestors started a campaign explaining to people their legal rights and explaining that they shouldn't take drugs out of their pockets even if instructed to by police.

This meant the police could no longer use this tactic to pad their figures out and justify their budgets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

You'd have to be a real fuckwit to hold NYC up as an example of good police work.

i think you'll find that the $20m people who live there (subtracting the drug users) would disagree with you. So too the millions of tourists who visit each year.

^^^^

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

..........you don't have any evidence of that

hypocrite much?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Buffed it is widely acknowledged that the decrease in crime figures are only due partly to the police work, the way you put it the police work alone affected crime stats downwardly-this is incorrect. There are also reports of the pressure on police supervisors to manipulatethe reporting data. These issues cannot be ignored by a rational thinking person. I do not claim that "prohibition achieves nothing" however I do believe that as a strategy alone it represents quite poor value to the tax payer when results are measured against cost.

i've read plenty of reports by those trying to find 'other' reasons for the sharp decline, including a report which analysed the NYPD figures against other independent sources of crime statistics and found that even with data manipulation, the figures still stood for themselves. Sure there was a downward trend in all cities and across the U.S in crime, but NYC was a sharp decline which turned to a steady decline for the better part of 20 years. I think those that take umbrage to the NYC example are generally civil libertarians who don't like heavy handed police presence, which is fair enough, but the fact remains, it is an example of effective policing which significantly achieved what it set out to do and one of those things being a significant reduction in drug related crime.