If Drug Addicts were supplied their drugs of addiction they would them not be criminals and have no need to commit crimes to get drugs.

The cost of supplying those drugs would be far less than the cost of replacing the stolen goods alone not to mention other costs, policing, courts and gaols.

Also you would have a register of drug users and not many would prefer to pay street price for drugs if they could get them for almost nothing in comparison.

If a amnesty was held where addicts could apply without naming their supplier, most if not all would sign up.

They would simply go to a doctor or hospital and sign up as a addict (testing required) and get given a prescription for their drugs of addiction.

After the amnesty expires, to get a prescription you would have to name your supplier.

Once you stop calling drug addicts criminals and start treating them like the victims they are, they will likely not become involved in criminal activity. They could even make committing an offence a reason to remove you from the scheme as well as lock you up.

Also this would reduce the cost of drugs to addicts and take the profit margin out of supplying drugs illegally.

If an addict could get a weeks worth of drugs (current street value $1500) for $12.50. Then the street value would drop to nearly that. The drug barons would discover that a million dollars worth of drugs became worth less than the cost of importing it, making Australia a place not worth selling drugs.

As for getting people off the drugs, there will be so many that just helping those that want to get off them will keep the dogooders busy enough they they will never get to those that don't want to quit.

The money that you are all about to claim this will cost is actually very low (that's why there is so much money in the industry), drugs don't cost much to produce. Also the government made drugs would be much cleaner and cause many less deaths.

The amount of money that would stay in the country instead of going to supply Afghanistan drug lords guns and bullets to shoot at our soldiers is just another consideration. It doesn't make sense to send drug money to people that are at war with us, but we are sending billions and our insurance companies are paying the cost and us paying them.

I say supply our own addicts and treat them with the money we save. This may cost billions, but it will save a hell of a lot more at the same time as reducing crime and making our country a safer place to live.

Take the money out of the industry and it will go away, there is only one way to do that.

some of your ideas are valid, some are not, but the basic premise of taking the money out of drugs, is paramount, and the only viable long term way to address drug issues.

IMO if you make drugs legal ppl will lost interest in the drugs. Some will some will just be the same as they are now and into pharmaceutical drugs.

SOB

I am a smoker
they want to stick gruesome images on cigarette packs..??
Why not pictures of obese children on McDonald's packaging..?
Why not tortured animals on cosmetics products..?
Why not put the photos of the victims of drunken drivers, on beer and wine bottles..? Why not pictures of dishonest, thieving Politicians enjoying our money, on tax returns..?
Although some of you may agree..
I'll Bet none of you copy. I want to see who is brave enough even if you are not a smoker

Unworthy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2012 at 12:00pm:

The cost of supplying those drugs would be far less than the cost of replacing the stolen goods alone not to mention other costs, policing, courts and gaols.

This is exactly why drugs will never be legalised, its a billion dollar industry, not just for bikie gangs but for cops judges and lawyers too, most crime is drug related, take away that crime and their will be a lot of unhappy unemployed cops etc. not to mention the prisons will be empty, do you think many prison guards would want drugs legalized  ;D

I agree with pretty much all of the comments on this thread.

As do many 'normal' people.

Unworthy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2012 at 12:00pm:

If Drug Addicts were supplied their drugs of addiction they would them not be criminals and have no need to commit crimes to get drugs. The cost of supplying those drugs would be far less than the cost of replacing the stolen goods alone not to mention other costs, policing, courts and gaols. Also you would have a register of drug users and not many would prefer to pay street price for drugs if they could get them for almost nothing in comparison.

Yes and we shpu;ld supply them with a a house and round the clock medical carer (in case they overdose) as well as a maid and chef; because people who on the nod are not capable of looking after themselves and we don't want that expence do we?

Yes I think Ill take up heroin, looks like a top deal, free drugs and someone to wipe my arse for me.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 7:00am:

Unworthy wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 12:00pm: If Drug Addicts were supplied their drugs of addiction they would them not be criminals and have no need to commit crimes to get drugs. The cost of supplying those drugs would be far less than the cost of replacing the stolen goods alone not to mention other costs, policing, courts and gaols. Also you would have a register of drug users and not many would prefer to pay street price for drugs if they could get them for almost nothing in comparison. Yes and we shpu;ld supply them with a a house and round the clock medical carer (in case they overdose) as well as a maid and chef; because people who on the nod are not capable of looking after themselves and we don't want that expence do we? Yes I think Ill take up heroin, looks like a top deal, free drugs and someone to wipe my arse for me.

your ignorance continues .
this is a serious topic with sensible comments.
your absense would be appreciated

It is the illegality of some drugs that causes the vast majority of the problems.

drugs ain't beneficial.
But giving someone a record for growing pot is much worse than the effects of smoking said pot

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 7:53am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 13th, 2013 at 7:00am: Unworthy wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 12:00pm: If Drug Addicts were supplied their drugs of addiction they would them not be criminals and have no need to commit crimes to get drugs. The cost of supplying those drugs would be far less than the cost of replacing the stolen goods alone not to mention other costs, policing, courts and gaols. Also you would have a register of drug users and not many would prefer to pay street price for drugs if they could get them for almost nothing in comparison. Yes and we shpu;ld supply them with a a house and round the clock medical carer (in case they overdose) as well as a maid and chef; because people who on the nod are not capable of looking after themselves and we don't want that expence do we? Yes I think Ill take up heroin, looks like a top deal, free drugs and someone to wipe my arse for me. your ignorance continues . this is a serious topic with sensible comments. your absense would be appreciated

So all comments must be pre-approved by you personally, or you will demand that they're forced into non participation on this 'public' board; is that what you are saying?

Good to know fascism is still alive and well in some parts of the world

Mine was a serious comment, albeit laden with sarcasm, but I wasn't joking; I just was't agreeing with you. So I can see why you are so angry with my comment.

I think there would be some legal problems in the future.

If the government was dishing out drugs that caused health problems.

Perhaps we give drugs to all the lawyers first.

I have an open mind on the idea, you can imprison people in a prison or in a dependency.

There is probably no easy right answer.

Legalise drugs, it will still only cause one tenth of the problems alcohol causes and we accept that.

IB its a double edged argument you just put forward.

I hate alcohol and Australia's addiction to it, yet to admit how bad one drug is, sort of makes it strange to advocate using more of them.

I have a feeling that if the government legalised some drugs it would probably have to draw the line somewhere.
What if a recreational drug had side effects like Thalidomide, I cant see any government allowing that.
So there would still be prohibition, just the line on prohibition would have shifted.
I cant see the crims that make billions from drugs not creating new drugs that will be outside the law because of side effects, thus creating the same problem we have now.

So why would anybody try an illegal drug when there are hundreds of legal ones?

Stuffed if I know, but they will.

There are no easy answers thats for sure.  :'(

miketrees wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 10:20pm:

IB its a double edged argument you just put forward. I hate alcohol and Australia's addiction to it, yet to admit how bad one drug is, sort of makes it strange to advocate using more of them. I have a feeling that if the government legalised some drugs it would probably have to draw the line somewhere. What if a recreational drug had side effects like Thalidomide, I cant see any government allowing that. So there would still be prohibition, just the line on prohibition would have shifted. I cant see the crims that make billions from drugs not creating new drugs that will be outside the law because of side effects, thus creating the same problem we have now. So why would anybody try an illegal drug when there are hundreds of legal ones? Stuffed if I know, but they will.

Laws change.

To legally supply a substance to addicted people to help society is a good idea, imho.

It's marginal call that people won't see it as 'legalising' all drugs.
Thing is, what the law does now is failing and costing many people a lot while profiting criminals and the legal system.

The prohibition failed.


bigol - stick your sarcasm where it hurts most.
Go get hooked on smack, let us know how cool it is.

Hey Two Wheeler

I think we will always have prohibition in some form.

At what age can people indulge in drugs, if its 18 we would still have a prohibition
Also I am sure some one will be pushing some drugs that are so "out there" and dangerous they would have to be banned.

I still say prohibition worked for me BTW

Homo Sapiens, the animal, has a pleasure-circuit hard-wired into its cranium. It's a carry-over from its more primitive ancestors. To deny that this circuit exists, is to deny the realities of history and today's world.

What has changed in the last few millennia is the trading of knowledge regarding stimulants and substances that excite this circuit. This occurred right alongside the developing trade and exploitation of spices, precious metals and gems, fabrics, etc.

The demand for such substances can never really be eradicated - human nature will always find a way. Prohibition simply will not work. Witness tobacco and alcohol.

Taking the money out of the drug trade is the only way to curb it.

Decriminalize the personal use and production of marijuana and the bottom will drop out of the drug market, with the exception of the synthetic drugs - which should remain illegal in all its forms.

Addicts should be treated, they're a dying breed anyway.

There's already talk of raising the legal drinking age to 21, which I agree with, so the same rules could apply to pot smoking.

Consider the social implications of decriminalizing marijuana while raising the penalties for synthetic drugs.

And to forestall the howls of objection, first consider the costs of alcohol and tobacco when compared to marijuana.

My two bobs worth.

I  totally agree with you LE .. I wonder when the penny will drop?

UNWORTHY   :)  a rather WORTHY  1ST post IMO. ... and I commend you for putting the case so succinctly.  I have long argued the same .  :)

LE..? you say this is hard-wired .. and I would agree... ..also though ..it isn't just about 'pleasure' per se.

I mean that indeed the brain does reflect the entirety of the relationship between humans and the earth..
Did you know? 
the human brain has many 'receptors' which interface with our environment,  and it possesses a 'cannabinoid' ... (err spelling?)
receptor... YEP...  our brain actually has a connection for this ... so 
??

LEGALISE IT...
it IS the only way that we,  as a society,  can move forward in dealing with this whole fiasco..
which IS all about lots of money to crims, and stuff our young and vulnerable citizens.  :( >:(
..makes me sad and angry this sh8t is STILL happening. >:(
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vpin9VhNck

legalising dope is one thing but supplying addicts is another entirely...although I'm against them both. 

Leglisign weed because the gov will tax it, and impose stricter penalties for growers (It then becomes tax evasion)
Supplying addicts because bugger em - I ain't paying for them to get high. 

now now Wes .. you need to think more clearly about this issue/// ;) ;D ;D ;D

just 'cos you never had the 'chance'  ::).. is no reason to begrudge necessary help to fellow humans.

It is SO OBVIOUS that the current status quo is an utter failure to citizens.. that I wonder just what it will take for some positive action.

THE WELL-BEING OF CITIZENS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ENOUGH INCENTIVE TO REVISE PUBLIC POLICY.!!

PERHAPS

ER  PERHAPS 

perhaps...removing the PROFIT  .. IS  ..the only answer.!??

:D ::) ::) :o :o

wtf?? who would've thunk it eh?

na
... wrote on Jul 19^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vpin9VhNck legalising dope is one thing but supplying addicts is another entirely...although I'm against them both.  Leglisign weed because the gov will tax it, and impose stricter penalties for growers (It then becomes tax evasion) Supplying addicts because bugger em - I ain't paying for them to get high.

You're not listening, are you?

No-one is talking about legalising marijuana, just de-criminalizing it's use and production. Just like home-brewers get to do with home brew kits.

2-3 plants per ADULT members of a household - no resale. Personal use only!

Who wants to see the tobacco companies involved? Not me! They can stick their packets, filters, papers and associated chemistry straight up their affiliated jacksies. They'v already proved that they have no conscience.

Tobacco is harder to process than marijuana - fact. Marijuana is easier to grow than tobacco - fact.

Water has now become an asset. Am I now to be penalised because I have the facilities, knowledge and capacity to filter, store and utilise what is a free service - rainfall?

Who would dis-empower me?

Weeds, like rainfall, are available to all those who would utilise such blessings to their ultimate utility.  8-)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

No-one is talking about legalising marijuana, just de-criminalizing it's use and production. Just like home-brewers get to do with home brew kits. 2-3 plants per ADULT members of a household - no resale. Personal use only!

Well that's fine, but I just don't trust teh gov not to exploit it for their own gain. 

The model I'm thinking of is that of tobacco - a supposedly 'legal' plant - so long as you don't get any big ideas about managing your own habit by growing your own.  Teh gov doesn't take kindly to being deprived of it's cut.

... wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: No-one is talking about legalising marijuana, just de-criminalizing it's use and production. Just like home-brewers get to do with home brew kits. 2-3 plants per ADULT members of a household - no resale. Personal use only! Well that's fine, but I just don't trust teh gov not to exploit it for their own gain.  The model I'm thinking of is that of tobacco - a supposedly 'legal' plant - so long as you don't get any big ideas about managing your own habit by growing your own.  Teh gov doesn't take kindly to being deprived of it's cut.

Ahhh! Here's where a little research can go a long way. Tobacco is a lot harder to grow, harvest, store and cure for market than the old wacky tobacky. Not to mention that the Gov. has its fingers in the pie as far as royalties, taxes and all the rest.

Garden-variety hooter is not hard to grow. Real good hooter is a little more difficult, but that usually hinges on seed availability - not the requirements of the plant to grow.

If the decriminalisation of marijuana was allowed, there'd be no more concentrated plantation growing - the money would drop out of it. If existing laws, similar to alcohol consumption, were adopted, criminal participation in it's production would drop to a negligible degree. Therefore freeing police resources for the pursuit of the trafficking of harder drugs.

Does this compute?

Yes LE 
of course it computes..! 

and it has been evident to everybody else... >:(  except for pollies afraid of losing power, the brainwashed, and the vested interests.
some rich cnts are just getting richer ,, at the expense of the cohesion of our entire society.

I dunno why you're trying to start an argument.  i agree with you mate.

... wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 9:35pm:

I dunno why you're trying to start an argument.  i agree with you mate.

No argument intended.

I take your point about the Gov't wanting it's cut - the penalties for chop-chop are outrageous!

If its just a weed, the least you could do is keep it under control.

yeah!!

oh .. anyhow 

from  my POV   it is better the govt.. ie  the people (  ::) ) 
get the taxes than the crims get the cream, and the rest of the profit as well.

Why would you rather crims get rich ?? 
Never could understand THAT ...   >:(

oh  well of course there IS the obvious answer...   >:(

miketrees wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

I think there would be some legal problems in the future. If the government was dishing out drugs that caused health problems. Perhaps we give drugs to all the lawyers first. I have an open mind on the idea, you can imprison people in a prison or in a dependency. There is probably no easy right answer.

Some ppl just arent into drugs. Give them heroin and they wont take it. Hard to believe i know but they exist as do non-drinkers and non-gamblers. If the govt was to supply known addicts and have some kind of criteria on it then it could work. However thats not what this thread was about. If drugs were decriminalised then there wouldn't be so much "crime". Someone would have some god stats for their election campaign.

On another note the govt is dishing out drugs that cause health problems. They are also regulating how much drugs a patient can have. This should be regulated by doctors not pollies.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 4:36am:

miketrees wrote on Jul 13th, 2013 at 12:24pm: I think there would be some legal problems in the future. If the government was dishing out drugs that caused health problems. Perhaps we give drugs to all the lawyers first. I have an open mind on the idea, you can imprison people in a prison or in a dependency. There is probably no easy right answer. Some ppl just arent into drugs. Give them heroin and they wont take it. Hard to believe i know but they exist as do non-drinkers and non-gamblers. If the govt was to supply known addicts and have some kind of criteria on it then it could work. However thats not what this thread was about. If drugs were decriminalised then there wouldn't be so much "crime". Someone would have some god stats for their election campaign. On another note the govt is dishing out drugs that cause health problems. They are also regulating how much drugs a patient can have. This should be regulated by doctors not pollies. SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

yes, some drugs being supplied by the medical profession are damaging.
Overall the medical sector is beneficial.

An idea of supplying addict with drugs is not new.
It is not to hand out smack to anyone who asks.
Just to those who are already in trouble.
It cuts off the regular customers from criminals.
It may benefit the addicts, it shoud benefit society.

Emma wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 11:00pm:

rom  my POV   it is better the govt.. ie  the people (  Roll Eyes ) get the taxes than the crims get the cream, and the rest of the profit as well. Why would you rather crims get rich ?? Never could understand THAT ...   Angry

I wouldn't.  I'd rather that if someone wants to grow some weed for themselves, the government doesn't hold it's greedy little paws out for a payment, under threat of imprisonment.  None of their business if people have a herb or vege garden, and it's still none of their business if said herb garden should contain 'superior herbs.  The only 'crims' in this equation is teh gov.

I don't see why it can't be both legal to grow your own (without being taxed) and the government supply their own grown and bagged product. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I know that I simply couldn't be f-cked growing my own and would much rather pay for a deal from somewhere like a bottle shop.

I have no problem with paying for gear from the government.

When they attempted in the late 1990s (in Sydney) to hold trials of supplying the fun drugs - meth and heroin - to addicts, they couldn't make up the numbers.

Supervised dosing isn't ever going to work - you need that freedom of takeaways.

yeah  it shouldn't be either ,  or..
I'm just saying...  better  we benefit as a society,  than criminals making even more billions..

I think..  people should be able to grow their own....  it  should be a personal choice, not a legal nightmare.

And  I have no objections to 'addicts'  .. registered.. as is common practice.. to be provided with their poison... rather than rob others for the cash. I mean it IS happening  ... just our pollies are truly ignorant about the life many of their constituents lead.
Everyone jumps to judgement and condemnation..

This Topic was moved here from Drug Policy by freediver.