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.

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

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




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 

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



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.

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

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.

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.

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



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.