Out-of-date drug laws are hurting people

[MindExpansion]

Bapho mate, no offence but that link is likely to be full of shit... did you look at who it was written by:

From Karen P. Tandy, DEA

A DEA agent, as in a first line defender of the American "war on drugs"...you know, the ones who take zero tolerance approaches to drugs based largely on ideology?

You try and find something to back up her claims, and I might change my mind, but the day I accept any drug policy information from a DEA source, will be the day someone manages to sell me a pack of magical beans.

Peace

[baphomet]

"Bapho mate, no offence but that link is likely to be full of shit... did you look at who it was written by:"

No offense taken man and yea, I did see who wrote it, what's the problem? 'Fraid she may be lying to further some kind of agenda? Maybe, but who the hell is Elizabeth Krantz anyway? And why would a not so well known journo's word be more valid than hers? And why was legalisation in Switzerland terminated after the 5 year trial? Something that Elizabeth Krantz failed to mention. If it was such a raging success then why not continue it? Surely that was the purpose of the trial? If someone can prove that DEA bitch wrong then go for it, not that I'd be all that surprised but I would be very interested to see the proof that she was lying, until then we just have to agree that there is much confusion and misinformation on the matter (and people wonder why I don't like quoting studies and shit like that off the net ).

"you know, the ones who take zero tolerance approaches to drugs based largely on ideology?"

As far as I'm concerned they are no where near as naive and ideologically driven as the people here who are on the extreme other end of the scale. This whole issue has gotten real messy over many threads and people are starting to accuse me of having an agenda against the legalisation of drugs like heroin for example, which is bullshit, I challenge anyone to find one example in which I have said this, I am not arguing for a blanket ban on all drugs, in fact I have said several times that I lean towards legalisation of heroin. There are many things that need to be discussed in regards to this and I would have loved to discuss it with level headed people such as yourself but I just don't have time cause we got caught up in trivial bullshit and people started calling me a cop and by now I am mentally exhausted and completely overwhelmed. Look how many peoples comments I have to respond to, it's like me against the world here.

Edited September 21, 2008 by baphomet

[planthelper]

There are many things that need to be discussed in regards to this and I would have loved to discuss it with level headed people such as yourself but I just don't have time cause we got caught up in trivial bullshit and people started calling me a cop and by now I am mentally exhausted and completely overwhelmed. Look how many peoples comments I have to respond to, it's like me against the world here.

baphomet, i admire how you speak your truth, and how you did stayed focused on the subject even when abusive elements surfaced, three cheers for bapho

i think to know from another thread that you don't sleep a lot, and i can see you are online even when most others are sleeping, i am concerned for your wellbeing, if this exhausts you too much (i would never be able to do what you did)than i will lock the thread for 24 h or so, so you can take a break and rest, and so that others can chill out a bit!

[folias]

Well I wouldn't say I'm all that biased really, I will almost certainly use it heavily in future but I know through personal experience that it does severely effect peoples memory & concentration and can bring on pretty serious paranoia in some people, and possibly other mental illness. These studies are only echoing something I already knew and I think it's safe to say that there are a lot of people here that know that too.

I don't like what cannabis does to a lot of people either... but clearly criminalising its use is really not helping humans to build a *healthy* relationship to this plant. (and other plants)

Julian.

[Teotzlcoatl]

The negative effects of cannabis are FAR out-weighed by the negative effects of alcohol, that's my only point.

Anybody arguing that cannabis should be illegal should have already made it clear that they wish alcohol was illegal too or (to me) their argument is completely invaild... and just plain hypocritical.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Teotz'

[notguilty]

I would like to ask what would be the most socially acceptable drug if every drug was deemed "legal"?

Would alcohol, tobacco, sugar, coffee etc be so socially acceptable and prevalent without a dominating society and culture?

If society was not dominated by money hungry tax collecting politicians cannabis would be the most widely acceptable drug purely because it is the most benign drug on the spectrum of harm.

What makes a drug socially acceptable?

Even paracetemol has caused deaths.

Ironic that I gave up alcohol because it was going to kill me and then I nearly get killed by a drink driver (.320)

Now they want me to take a cocktail of pharms, all of which cause negative side affects

Damned if you do and Damned if you don't.

Edited September 22, 2008 by entheofarm

[MindExpansion]

Hey Baph, i appreciate that your facing a lot of criticism, some of it not quite directed in any practical manner. Anyway I'm trying as hard as I can to just have a proper discussion rather than ripping on you.

Maybe, but who the hell is Elizabeth Krantz anyway? And why would a not so well known journo's word be more valid than hers?

Maybe it wouldn't be, BUT to my mind a DEA agent in America's infamous war on drugs will certainly have a greatly vested interest in the issue, and one which is most definitely going to be biased in an anti-drug way, where as I would be less certain in saying that a journalist has a vested interest in drugs legalisation (I mean of course it is possible, what I am trying to say is that while I am 99% certain that the DEA agent's view will be really biased, i am far less certain that a journalist has any vested interest, while again not ruling out the possibility).

And why was legalisation in Switzerland terminated after the 5 year trial?

I already discussed this in fair detail in my last post. So:

a) it wasn't legislation, it was legalised sale and use in a park! There was no prescription involved (while this was introduced later in Switzerland but with eventual abstinence as the goal), thus there was still no quality control, or reduction in crime as people still had to pay dealer prices for their addiction. OD's and crime probably also increased because dealers and users came from all over Europe so it increased the number of users in one area without removing any of the things I have named as negative features of the current criminilised system (in this and other threads). Thus it comes to me as absolutely no surprise that they had to scrap it after terrible results.

At any rate I could pick the holes through that idea all day, but I want to get back to the point of this thread, being that the current laws on drugs are doing more damage than the drugs themselves. The Swiss example is in no way related to what I have suggested about a legislated system, nor can it be used to show why the ideas Krantz (I will use her, but if you read my views on the issue in the "Legalising Sally D thread" you will see the few differences between mine and her ideas) held were flawed, it was a different situation, that was intrinsically destined for failure due to the nature of the idea in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned they are no where near as naive and ideologically driven as the people here who are on the extreme other end of the scale.

I have to say I disagree. It is purely idealogical. All you need to do is look at some of the stats relating to alcohol and tobacco to see that the only reason they are still legal while other drugs are not is because they were accepted by this society long long ago, and are now too widely accepted and deep seeded to be removed (while we are getting there with tobacco). Please do not take it that I am running with the 'alcohol and smokes are legal so everything should be' because that is in no way a logical argument. While I do think the current situation is immensely hypocritical, my reasons for wanting legislation relate more to the fact that it would solve a lot of the problems currently coming from the laws we have atm. (To see what problems I consider to be related to the law rather than the drug check out the "Legalising sally d" thread, and Krantz' article.) While I am not naive enough to believe that drugs are harmless, or that pot is just a high with no consequence, I understand that people are using them anyway, the fact that they are illegal is, in my mind, unlikely to play a significant role in the level of use, and it does bring up all other sorts of problems which would be solved by legalisation and proper regulation.

Peace

[Re-Grifter]

baphomet, i admire how you speak your truth, and how you did stayed focused on the subject even when abusive elements surfaced, three cheers for bapho

i think to know from another thread that you don't sleep a lot, and i can see you are online even when most others are sleeping, i am concerned for your wellbeing, if this exhausts you too much (i would never be able to do what you did)than i will lock the thread for 24 h or so, so you can take a break and rest, and so that others can chill out a bit!

It's true love.

[baphomet]

And you call me a troll

[MindExpansion]

Can we please try and keep this thread for necessary conversation, not kiddy shit like that re-grift, sort've not necessary and its that sorta comment that has been interfering with otherwise stimulating conversation.

Peace

[Re-Grifter]

And you call me a troll

Oh, my word....you ARE, but others seem to be romantically inclined toward you, they seem to over-look all of the baiting and shit stirring coming from your direction.

No doubt planttoucher will ban me now, you may now proceed with sermonising from your 18 foot pulpit in relative peace...

At least you have some fire in your belly....i'll give you that

[baphomet]

Hey.. I shit stir a little, I won't debate that, get over it and leave us alone to debate things rationally if you don't have anything sensible to add though please.

Planthelper has obviously noticed that many of my posts are at crazy hours of the morning and that I am sleep deprived, there's no need to pay out on him, he dedicates his time to moderate this forum and helps people to grow plants, probably more than anyone else IMO. I doubt anyone's going to ban you man but don't bag him, it makes you look like an asshole!

Ok so you have a reason to be a little pissed off with me but I am trying to sort that out now and salvage this thread.

Entheofarm

I apologised to you for one of my posts before because I must have been looking at grifters climate and location and mistakenly thought you were from Melbourne, so one of my posts about the law is wrong and I realise that Queensland law is much different, I would like to appologize to you again for that and move on, I would also sincerely like to wish you all the best with your case.

I did think that you were being a bit of a demagogue/drama queen though and to be honest I still do. I don't like people posting things twice like that and I don't see any need for it.

There are still things in your posts which do not make sense and it seems that you have avoided answering them up to now so I don't want to waste any more time with it and it just seems trivial now anyway but I just want to say that I do think it is strange that you would write to your Prime Minister every day about not being able to get legal aid and claim that you have pursued every avenue of assistance, then claim that you don't need legal aid and only wanted them to photocopy some stuff for you anyway.

I just looked back and my posts did seem overly aggressive and I don't blame you for getting angry but once again I'm sorry and I hope that we can just move on.

Edited September 22, 2008 by baphomet

[notguilty]

Some more reading for y'all, I only just found it so wont comment until I have read it all.

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Publications.htm

After the War on Drugs: Tools for the debate

Built my bridge and got over it bapho

Obviously I am limited to what I can say regarding current case, I will supply details as I can and hopefully it will make more sense soon.

Edited September 22, 2008 by entheofarm

[Re-Grifter]

Hey.. I shit stir a little, I won't debate that, get over it and leave us alone to debate things rationally if you don't have anything sensible to add though please.

entheofarm!!....you betrayed me..... ......

If i felt so inclined i would have a lot more to "add" than i let on, but that's a moot point.

Ok, for the sake of other users, and for the simple fact i just really don't care about any of this terribly much, i will leave this forum and let you people discuss things without any further interjections from my good self. But ffs baphomet at least try to be a bit more diplomatic and look carefully at others opinions and arguments before shooting at them, we all have an idea of what is "right" and yours is no more valid than anyone elses.

Later, ya'll!

[notguilty]

aww, grifter I wouldn't betray anyone

I felt like ranting and raving some more but like you said thats a moot point.

someone answer the F@#KING question! please

Would alcohol, tobacco, sugar, coffee etc be so socially acceptable and prevalent without a dominating society and culture?

[MindExpansion]

I think things like sugar, coffee etc would always be welcome in our society because to people's mind's they can't do much damage. Caffiene is addictive, but hey, coffee doesn't really do all that much damage. Sugar can do damage if you abuse it, but at the same time you need some to survive. Alcohol and tobacco have just been accepted for so long that they are engrained in western culture.

So it all relates to what has been accepted for how long IMO... I mean thats a gross simplification, but at least to some extent it is certainly the case.

Peace

[notguilty]

Oh no, its another dear Kevin letter

An open letter to the Prime Minister from Brian McConnell President Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform

The Hon Kevin Rudd MP

Prime Minister

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

An open letter seeking evidence-based drug policies

Dear Prime Minister,

A number of days ago you said that you were preparing to make an announcement on illicit drugs. You have also said that you are determined to tackle homelessness, mental health, education, child protection, and other social problems and that you would bring evidence to bear in policies of your government.

Evidence shows that drugs are a potent factor in a high percentage of all these social problems. No substantial headway in removing the social problems that you have so clearly identified will ever be made unless drug policy is seriously examined. Priority must be given to improving functionality of people with drug problems. But should not necessarily be making them drug free nor attempting to rid Australia of all drugs.

It is these latter issues that has formed the core of thinking about and the implementation of Australia’s drug policy.

The outcome of that policy has been somewhat different from that which was expected. We now have a very large profitable black market that has more and better resources than law enforcement; we now have more potent concentrated drugs that are easier to smuggle, some of which need to be injected or inhaled for effect – practices that are not without their extreme dangers. The black market appears to be unstoppable and when squeezed responds like a balloon, bulging with a new more potent drug or the emergence of a new, more cunning Mr Big.

There have been costs - financial costs of in excess of $7 billion a year for governments and business. Despite the best evidence saying that $1 spent on drug treatment is up to seven times more effective in reducing supply of drugs, Australian governments spend three times more on law enforcement.

And yet we do not evaluate the effectiveness of our law enforcement approach. The national Crime Authority, shortly before it was abolished, stated that law enforcement only captured about 13% of the heroin that came into the country. Thus failing to capture 87% of the imported heroin in that year. Experts have indicated that a capture rate of better than 60% is needed to have any impact on the drug market – a figure that is unlikely to be achieved under current practices.

Laws have been tightened and harsher penalties introduced and yet we have the worst epidemic of the drug "ice" coupled with the resurgence of heroin. The outcome of those laws has not affected the market but has widened the net, potentially capturing more users, not dealers, and expanding the population of our jails of which about 80% are there for drug related reasons.

But there are social costs also of our present approach to dealing with illicit drugs. There is an incalculable cost to families. We also know that treatment services are needed yet they are under-resourced. The potential clients of those services have been marginalised and ostracized by society such that many are reluctant to use those services. They are treated punitively by many services that should be there to help and often without thought of the consequences – in the case of my own son, at the time a recent university graduate, who had overdosed and awoke in hospital to the police at the end of his bed eager to make a bust. My son panicked, took a hurried holiday and overdosed and died away from the treatment and family support that he desperately needed. It was an opportunity and a life unnecessarily lost. Many families have similar tragic stories.

Prime Minister, let me be clear, I am not saying that drugs are without danger. They all have dangers, including alcohol as you have noted. It is simply that our attempts to stop their use have not been as effective as it could be and that our approach has introduced many more dangers, sometimes more dangerous than the drugs themselves. Addictive substances whether they be illicit drugs, alcohol or tobacco are not ordinary commodities and should not be treated as such. Nor am I saying all those who use drugs are saints. Many are foolish or reckless young people. But they do not deserve to die because of our indifference to the need to provide the right services. Nor do they deserve to have their life chances destroyed because they have attracted a criminal record for their foolishness.

I know that finding the right balance of solutions will not be easy. We have yet to find that balance. Illicit drug policies need to be based on evidence and importantly all such policies need to be objectively evaluated from a broad perspective at regular intervals. The results of that evaluation would inform the next iteration of drug policy.

Before making your policy announcement on illicit drugs I ask, no plead, that you subject it to at least the following tests:

Does it provide the best return on investment, in social as well as economic terms, and does it cause the least possible harm to individuals as well as society?

Has the past primary focus on the elimination of supply been the most effective means of reducing harms or is there a better and more balanced alternative?

Does this policy response best address problems associated with those who are dependent on illicit drugs and those users who are not?

Are these measures likely to be most effective in reducing availability?

Does it adopt different strategies to deal with particular drugs having regard to their different harms?

Prime Minister I am at your disposal should you wish to discuss these matters further.

Yours sincerely

Brian McConnell

President

http://www.ffdlr.org.au

Edited September 23, 2008 by entheofarm

[planthelper]

entheofarm, i'm deeply moved by your letter, and wish you that your efforts will make a difference, a virtual hug to you, stay strong, all the best!

[notguilty]

Thank you planthelper,

Don't mix my lame email up with Brians open letter though, I would like to know what Kevins response was/is to Brians letter?

The point I hope people can pick up is that without the small actions of individuals a larger voice won't be heard.

One by one we can whisper, together we can roar.

Out-of-date drug laws are hurting people

Prohibition is killing them

[FancyPants]

Not to mention when people equate illegal with dangerous they also equate legal with safe. Paracetamol is widely abused because a lot of people don't realise that 4grams is the maximum daily dose. It's highly toxic to the liver.

Keeping the truth about drugs from people is neither safe or conducive to a trusted government.

[Teljkon]

asdads

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[baphomet]

"Baphomet what drugs should be legal? You seem to believe that the state has the power to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodys."

Absolutely, I think the state has a duty to protect it's citizens from stupid uninformed decisions that may harm their health and no, education is not enough. I only wish they had done a better job in my case. I learned my lesson the hard way and that is.. do not fuck around with chemicals that even remotely resemble anything that's endogenously produced by your own brain! I don't really care what anyone else says, I know ecstasy is harmful cause I fucked my own brain with it, meth is absolutely devastating and should be kept away from anyone who is stupid enough to use it IMO and our government have a duty to protect their citizens from crazy meth heads!

I am suspicious of DMT too. Don't get me wrong.. I can't wait to try ayahuasca and I hope it is the healing brew that many people claim it to be but I have learned a hard lesson in life and I can't help but be suspicious of DMT. I have insomnia (look at the time of this post, still haven't slept) but I'm even suspicious of melatonin, there are studies to suggest that it is not addictive and does not alter your endogenous levels but then there are others that say that it does so if exogenous DMT turned out to be without consequence I would be amazed but I have an open mind.

I have tried iboga and from what I can conclude so far I think that the healing effects are overstated, I'm hoping it is not the same with aya but at least iboga is not endogenously produced, I really hope I am not going to learn the same old lesson all over again.

I don't claim to have all the answers as to what drugs should be legal and which ones shouldn't but what I can say for certain is that a few people have intentionally tried to deceive you into believing that I am "zero tolerance" when it comes to drugs, that's bullshit and I never said such a thing. I simply opposed them when they tried to spread misinformation about certain drugs, that's all.

I have said all along that I would like to see heroin legalised if it was done in a way that could work but I'm more skeptical about that now than I once was and I'm not sure how it would actually work. ME I completely see your logic and I used to preach it for many years but now I'm wondering how logical it actually is? I still lean towards legalisation but I'm just not sure how it could be done properly, perhaps you could explain this to me? How would the heroin be administered? How much and how often? Do you really think that there would be no more black market for it?

Like I said all along I think cannabis should probably be decriminalised but I don't want my kids getting a hold of it either, at least not while they are young.

The point I tried to make about aya is almost identical to the one made by interdimensional monkey man in another thread, and that is that I can't stand to see kids treating it like a big joke on Utube. This plant is sacred to some people and I can't stand to see it profaned in such a way, therefore I can see a good side to our current laws, not saying that the benefits of prohibition outweigh the bad but I would be happy to grow my own if only it would grow in Melbourne

I don't want it becoming the latest fad either, Jude Law and other hollywood celebrities have gotten into it now and just wait till brad & angelina do, you saw what happened with scientology and 'kabala', I'd hate to see that happen with ayahuasca but it is a very real possibility.

And once again the argument that all drugs should be made fully legal and freely available is extremely naive! It's not just about what people put into their bodies it's about what they might want to put in yours, scopolamine makes a mockery of anyone who says that all drugs should be legal.

[nabraxas]

I think cannabis should probably be decriminalised but I don't want my kids getting a hold of it either, at least not while they are young

exactly how does cannabis being criminalised stop your kids getting hold of it should the desire take them?

[baphomet]

What I mean is that it should probably be decriminalised but I don't want it sold in milk bars.

[nabraxas]

What I mean is that it should probably be decriminalised but I don't want it sold in milk bars.

like the way it is at the moment?

05Jun08

A 29-YEAR-OLD man has been charged with trafficking cannabis from a Belmont milk bar to nearby secondary school students as young as 15.

David Nguyen is also alleged to have sold cigarettes individually, for $1 each, so his young clients had something to mix with the cannabis and offered bargain deals of $20 a gram or three grams for $50. During a bail application hearing in Geelong Magistrates' Court yesterday, Sen-Constable Patrick McElligott said Mr Nguyen told police he had been having a trial run to see if selling the drug was viable.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/articl...14728_news.html