Drug Policy Reform (1 Viewer)

[John Galt]

Time for another drugs thread.

The War on Drugs is beginning to be widely acknowledged as a failure, and globally changes in the way recreational drugs are approached by governments is changing. This has been occurring for a number of years in Western Europe (eg. Portugal, The Netherlands, Switzerland), but is now also being seen more prominently in the UK (with the re-introduction of the heroin prescription program) and even the US (removing federal intervention in state drug policy- potentially allowing for the legalisation of cannibis in California etc).

This hasn't been the case in Australia. Although some of the first examples of harm minimisation measures such as heroin injecting rooms were seen here, they have been met with strong opposition and further extending these to further decriminalise drugs and increase treatment has not seriously been considered at all. When the consequences of the criminalisation of drugs (prices, health, violence) are so damaging to users and the greater community, real harm minimisation means the transition from the treatment of drug use as a criminal issue to that of a health issue.

Do you agree/disagree? Is it time policy reform in this direction in Australia was more seriously considered?

Some resources:
Lecture by Dr Alex Wodak on the failure of the War on Drugs
BBC article on heroin prescription
Nick Davies- What's wrong with the war against drugs

 

[DavidBenGurion]

i saw some disgusting ice users on the train today. they were loud, brash, and had the full meth face thing going on

disgusting drug, and i'd never support its legalisation. blanket policies never helped anyone.

im ok with pretty much all other drugs though.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Faces of Meth | Meth Photos | Effects of Meth

lol wtf?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Meth is fine as long as it's not injected or smoked.

In fact, that's true for almost all drugs.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

that may be true, but i hazard the guess that 90% of illicit meth users dont take it orally

could be wrong.

not really a point im making here either. hehe.

 

[John Galt]

i saw some disgusting ice users on the train today. they were loud, brash, and had the full meth face thing going on

disgusting drug, and i'd never support its legalisation. blanket policies never helped anyone.

im ok with pretty much all other drugs though.

Meth is unique in a way, as it is a product of the criminal drug market and not a once legal substance that was later criminalised.

Taking amphetamines, already a very potent stimulant, and strongly increasing both its bioavailability and concentration, caters specifically to a market in which ease of transporting and smuggling product is far more beneficial than it would be otherwise. As these properties are coupled with massive health risks, it's quite clear that meth would've never been produced by legal channels.

 

[John Galt]

Meth is fine as long as it's not injected or smoked.

Not true. Method of administration represents only one of its dangers.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Meth is unique in a way, as it is a product of the criminal drug market and not a once legal substance that was later criminalised.

Um...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethamphetamine_(medical)
Methamphetamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taking amphetamines, already a very potent stimulant, and strongly increasing both its bioavailability and concentration, caters specifically to a market in which ease of transporting and smuggling product is far more beneficial than it would be otherwise. As these properties are coupled with massive health risks, it's quite clear that meth would've never been produced by legal channels.[/quote]

cool story bro

 

[loquasagacious]

A bit more background:
What Would Happen if Marijuana Were Decriminalized? A Freakonomics Quorum - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com
The Lure of Legal Drugs - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com
On the Legalization — or Not — of Marijuana - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com
How America Lost the War on Drugs : Rolling Stone
When Taxpayers Welcome Taxes - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[John Galt]

Um...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethamphetamine_(medical)
Methamphetamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taking amphetamines, already a very potent stimulant, and strongly increasing both its bioavailability and concentration, caters specifically to a market in which ease of transporting and smuggling product is far more beneficial than it would be otherwise. As these properties are coupled with massive health risks, it's quite clear that meth would've never been produced by legal channels.

cool story bro[/quote]
Okay, the kind of meth we see distributed criminally today.
I stand corrected.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Not true. Method of administration represents only one of its dangers.

I said Meth is fine, not harmless. As in "when not consumed intravenously or smoked, it presents similar risk to most soft drugs".

 

[John Galt]

I said Meth is fine, not harmless. As in "when not consumed intravenously or smoked, it presents similar risk to most soft drugs".

Street meth? It's extremely potent, neurotoxic and addictive. I have to disagree.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

what, are you a fucking expert or something now?

Okay, the kind of meth we see distributed criminally today.

tell me the difference? it's not that substantial, as in, single enantiomer v. racemic mixture

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Street meth? It's extremely potent, neurotoxic and addictive. I have to disagree.

Did I specify 'street meth'? No. Street meth is usually not even meth.

Meth is no more potent than dexamphetamine (i.e. strong, but not 'extreme'). It's neurotoxic in larger doses (due to dopamine free radicals), but not so much for small to medium doses re-dosed. It's as addictive as ecstasy or amphetamine when taken orally (i.e. mildly). For the record, ecstasy is also neurotoxic in larger doses (again, dopamine radicals, but neurotoxic to serotonin vesicles, not dopamine ones).

I mean for christ's sake, meth is a prescription drug for narcolepsy, ADHD, and atypical obesity. And in small doses it actually lowers neurotoxicity for various things.

I'm also not going to get into this argument with you again. Dig up one of the numerous threads you've created on this topic in the past and re-read it.

So nobody is mistaken: I dislike 'street' anything (except marijuana, which is hard to fake), and am strongly against injecting or smoking anything, including meth.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

This is an important issue, glad someone brought it up. At first, I thought 'decriminalisation' meant 'legalisation' and 'legitimisation', but now I know better. Much more focus needs to be on seeing drug users as people with problems, and providing adequate rehabilitation rather than pointing the finger, punishing them and 'naming and shaming'.

 

[Freedom_]

Outlawing some thing because it may harm the user leads straight down the logical garden path to a totalitarian cage, where people are prohibited from eating candy and are forced to eat yogurt “for their own good.”

It is curious that while liberals generally favor legalizing marijuana and sometimes of heroin, they seem to yearn to outlaw cigarettes, on the ground that cigarette smoking often causes cancer. Liberals have already managed to get the government to outlaw cigarette advertising on just about every medium—and thereby to level a grave blow against the very freedom of speech liberals are supposed to cherish.

Every man has the right to choose. Propagandize against drugs as much as you want, but leave the individual free to run his own life. Otherwise, we may as well outlaw all sorts of possible carcinogenic agents—including tight shoes, improperly fitting false teeth, excessive exposure to the sun, as well as excessive intake of ice cream, eggs, and butter which might lead to heart disease. And, if such prohibitions prove unenforceable, again the logic is to place people in cages so that they will receive the proper amount of sun, the correct diet, properly fitting shoes, and so on.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Agreed. In fact, using the logic which outlaws drugs, smoking should definitely be banned.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Outlawing some thing because it may harm the user leads straight down the logical garden path to a totalitarian cage, where people are prohibited from eating candy and are forced to eat yogurt “for their own good.”

Sure, if you're a deluded Libertarian who can only see things in terms of false dichotomies.

Agreed. In fact, using the logic which outlaws drugs, smoking should definitely be banned.

That much is certainly true.

 

[John Galt]

Every man has the right to choose. Propagandize against drugs as much as you want, but leave the individual free to run his own life. Otherwise, we may as well outlaw all sorts of possible carcinogenic agents—including tight shoes, improperly fitting false teeth, excessive exposure to the sun, as well as excessive intake of ice cream, eggs, and butter which might lead to heart disease. And, if such prohibitions prove unenforceable, again the logic is to place people in cages so that they will receive the proper amount of sun, the correct diet, properly fitting shoes, and so on.

The debate over public healthcare is also relevant here. Once the state is designated as the provider of health services, it is inevitable that it will attempt to regulate goods that are potential health risks in order to keep costs down. This is exactly what we're seeing in Australia now, taxes and regulation on cigarettes and alcohol are frequently justified on the basis that smokers and alcoholics represent a huge cost to the public health system.

This is one of the main reasons why nationalising healthcare in the first place is such a huge mistake.

 

[lolwth]

. "When the consequences of the criminalisation of drugs (prices, health, violence) "

i was just wondering why this is the case
why does criminalisation affect users health etc