Do You Like This Story?

Mia talked to Lisa Pryor on the first episode of Mamamia (season two) about her new book, which could potentially change the drug debate in this country. You can buy the book here.

The following is an unedited extract of ‘The Silence’, a beginning chapter from Lisa Pryor’s new work A Small Book About Drugs.

As my fingers touch down on my keyboard, I am fighting against the urge of the journalist within me. The urge to tap out the words that will beckon you to keep reading— epidemic, crisis, revolution, children. News of an obscure designer drug, set to hit the streets and bring an unprecedented wave of destruction to the young.

But that wouldn’t be the real story, and anyway it would be too much like all those other books about drugs already written. This is a different sort of book— it’s about what is left unsaid in the public conversation about drugs.

A significant minority of the population has tried illicit drugs, a slight majority in certain age groups. Most commonly the drug is marijuana, followed by ecstasy. Ecstasy is particularly popular among those in their twenties, and the majority of users restrict its use to once or twice a year—the big party, the outdoor music festival, the summer season of bugging friends with contacts to round up some pills. But where are these functional and occasional recreational drug users in the public discussion of drugs and the debates about drug policy?

This is one of the questions I have set out to answer, fearing those drug users’ silence says something about the lack of political engagement of my generation, our preference for managing risk individually rather than fighting for change on a political level. As one drug user pointed out to me, it is particularly ironic—given that the demographic which uses ecstasy and cocaine includes many people who are wealthier and more educated than average—that this silence comes from a segment of the community which is usually incredibly vocal in public debate, especially when it comes to protecting their own interests.

Along the way I decided that in some ways it is a healthy kind of apathy. Most recreational drug users just don’t feel that passionately about drugs. It hardly feels worth taking a public stand over something you might indulge in a couple of times a year, particularly when any public admission of drug taking could wreck your career prospects, destroy any chance of ever holding high office or maybe even working with children. That’s a bizarre array of consequences for being fingered for an activity which is statistically normal.

9781742372341 Drugs arent (that) bad. An extract from Lisa Pryors book.

A Small Book About Drugs

And what would be the incentive for overcoming the apathy? Even in this time of prohibition, drugs are perfectly easy to obtain when you want them and it can be cheaper to spend the evening on ecstasy than knocking back beers. As for the dangers, they are real—psychosis, death, jail—but these are consequences most users rarely experience themselves. So the silence suits us. However, every now and then someone we know, some friend of a friend, will get caught and have their future destroyed by a criminal conviction for doing no more than we have done. And we say nothing.

Moving beyond the silence, towards a more nuanced debate and a more sensible drug policy, will not solve every problem related to drugs, but it would bring us a little more safety and certainty. So many of the dangers faced by recreational users are exacerbated by the quality of pills and powders we ingest, which is so variable that it is difficult to determine correct dosage, no matter how much care is applied. At present, because so much government drug information seems to describe the effects of every drug as simply nausea, dizziness and confusion, it is no wonder that too many people turn to unreliable word of mouth to determine how much to take, whether to mix drugs, and what to do if something goes wrong.

The effects of the silence ripple outwards. Policing becomes contradictory and driven by public relations serving the interests of the government and tabloid audiences. As a result, the most visible and publicised crackdowns occur at high-profile music events and dance parties, thus displacing drug taking from the very setting where doctors and paramedics are most likely to be on standby. A generation of otherwise law-abiding citizens gets used to distrusting police and the courts, and even lying to them.

Just as the silence of recreational users has effects which go well beyond them, so will ending the silence.

The greatest beneficiaries of a more rational debate about drugs will be those who are less fortunate—the addicts, whose lives are made more dangerous and bleak by a system which treats drug use as a crime. They are the victims of the organised crime networks who profit from the trade in illicit drugs. The silence must end for the sake of others. If you try your best to buy free-range eggs and fair-trade coffee, does it really make sense to support without question one of the most vicious, unethical trades in the world?

Screen shot 2011 08 05 at 5.26.29 PM Drugs arent (that) bad. An extract from Lisa Pryors book.

Author Lisa Pryor talks to Mia Freedman on Mamamia TV

Those who fear it would be disastrous to allow free and easy access to all drugs are absolutely right. Thankfully, this is not what decriminalisation and even legalisation would mean. Moving towards more rational and effective drug policies should be nuanced and gradual, reflecting the particular nature and extent of the dangers of each drug, the way it is taken and by whom.

This book will not present a prescription for precisely how the laws should change. Its purpose is to open up for discussion the possibilities which can be considered worthy of public debate in the media and parliament. Almost certainly, though, a rational drug policy would involve elements of decriminalisation and legalisation, while at the same time introducing strict policing of regulations to limit supply.

Already the mood is changing. Whenever the drug issue is raised, the letters pages of newspapers fill with readers arguing for decriminalisation. Surprisingly, even the online forums of the tabloids fill with the same. Overseas, as we shall see, scientists, economists and law enforcement officials are daring to question the logic of prohibition.

Portugal has undergone a radical and successful program of drug decriminalisation, demonstrating there is a viable alternative to prohibition. The time is ripe for putting away fear and injecting some truth into the debate.

Join Mia Freedman tonight at 9.15pm on Sky News as she chats to author Lisa Pryor.

What do you think about drugs? Is decriminalisation the right way to deal with drugs in society?

Lisa Pryor is a freelance journalist who cut her teeth working for the Sydney Morning Herald as an investigation reporter, opinions editor and columnist. She’s a mother of one (almost two), a medical student and the author of The Pin Stripe Prison and the just published ‘A Small Book About Drugs’.

View more posts on:

Comments

Comment Guidelines : Imagine you’re at a dinner party. Different opinions are welcome but keep it respectful or the host will show you the door. We have zero tolerance for any abuse of our writers, our editorial team or other commenters. So if you’re rude, mean-spirited, snarky, aggressive, defamatory or bitchy, your comment will be deleted (so will any replies to the original comment – so don’t bother arguing with rude people, instead just hit the ‘alert moderator’ button).
And if you’re offensive, you’ll be blacklisted and all your comments will go directly to spam. Remember what Fonzie was like? Cool. That’s how we’re going to be – cool. Have fun and thanks for adding to the conversation…

Use your profile to comment: Or, comment as a guest:
(Max file size is 150kb & jpeg's only - if you need help resizing go here »)

221 Comments so far

  1. m.n

    okay what people are not realizing about this argument is that, when something is illegal people have drugs, not because of the affects because the simple fact that its illegal and when your doing it the adrenalin rush you are getting about having the chance to get caught is what makes you addicted, for an example when your driving and the speed limit is 50, than you go 55, than 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 than you realize that your 30kms over the speed limit than you slow down abit than you get a feeling that hay i did not get caught than you keep doing it here and there and then one day you end up getting caught…

    moral of the story…
    If somethings illegal, people are going to do it more than when its legal no matter whether its drugs stealing driving etc.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  2. um...?

    Amy Winehouse anyone??

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Em C

      What about Amy Winehouse? Her biggest problem of the last few years was her battle with alcoholism….. She was an addict. Should we ban alcohol again? Worked so well last time, and works so well with the other drugs currently….

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  3. EmC

    Wow, some of the comments in this thread are so narrow minded!! Seems there aren’t many willing to question the “drugs are bad because they are illegal, and illegal because they’re bad” mind-set.

    Marijuana has never killed a single person. You can not overdose. Compare this to alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal because we’re adults and can make our own decisions. Yes, pot can trigger psychosis in some susceptible people, alcohol can too. Alcohol and Nicotine are chemically addictive, marijuana is not. Alcohol permanently damages your brain, marijuana does not. If you don’t believe me, google it. Read some scholarly articles on the subject, educate yourself.

    I cannot say much about ecstasy because I haven’t looked into it. I can however say that I believe the time has come to have a sensible, adult discussion about our laws regarding marijuana. It was criminalised for economic and political reasons, not health reasons. Don’t believe me? Again, read about it for yourself.

    Here’s a link to a very interesting documentary about cannabis and hemp. I suggest you watch it and do some research, I think you’ll be surprised.

    http://www.smh.com.au/tv/show/when-we-grow/when-we-grow-20110805-1ienq.html

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  4. tinkerbelluvsmonkeys

    I used to believe that a little bit of marijuana wouldn’t hurt anyone, but after watching it slowly destroy someone I love, I can no longer take that stance. Gone is the lively soul I once loved and now I’m left with someone, who has some form of depression that rears it’s ugly head every now and then. That is not a life we deserve. So I can firmly say I am very anti-drugs.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • shanemoore

      I am sorry to hear of your situation. I would like to ask a few questions though.

      First: When you refer to cannabis (marijuana) was this person smoking non-hydroponic (naturally grown) cannabis or were they smoking hydroponic cannabis? The reason I ask is that hydroponic cannabis has been selectively bred to increase the THC (active ingredient) level. The problem is that this has resulted in another ingredient (called CBD) to be much lower. It’s been shown that the THC/CBD imbalance of hydroponic cannabis can result in severe anxiety, paranoia and other mental health issues). BTW, the reason I bring this up is that the primary cause for this THC/CBD imbalance is because law enforcement has resulted in a massive shift from growing cannabis outdoor to indoor hydroponic culture. In other words, our current laws have resulted in a plant that has been used for over 5000 years as a medicinal herb with no recorded fatality or overdose, to be modified in such a way that it now causes mental health issues!
      The other question I have is this. Can you say with absolute certainty that it was cannabis causing this situation and not other factors like depression, educational pressures, being powerless, or experiencing discrimination or pressure to be something they were not? How about meaninglessness, relationship breakups, bullying,grief? Did they seek counselling?
      Life is complex, and it’s easy to want to blame something for causing the changes we see when those close to us experience ‘darkness’. But… judging cannabis as the cause denies the many factors involved in their depression, and in the long run, is not overly helpful in helping them engage with life again.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  5. Dinosaur

    So let me get this straight… We decrimalise it so the yuppie north shore/eastern suburbs dwellers can take their Es and Pot in peace – all the while creating the DEMAND for the drugs.
    While the drug mules and others associated with the trade (who often come from backgrounds of disfunction and poverty) – who are just catering to this demand of supply – get locked up.
    Ridiculous.

    As for the parents who take the attitude ‘they’ll take drugs anyway, I’ll just educate them’ – that’s just extremely poor parenting. Don’t come crying to the rest of society when your children end up mentally damaged or dead.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • shanemoore

      No, we change our drug policies because the International Commission on Drug Policy determined that existing drug policies are an ‘abject failure’ that cause more harm than they prevent, contribute to corruption at all levels of government, create an international drug trade that is the third most profitable business after oil and guns, incarcerate non-violent drug offenders and by doing so, create the demand for the ever growing private prison industry. Not to mention that current drug policies are one of the primary causes for instability in Afghanistan and South America. And making what should be a health issue into a criminal issue, much needed funds are channeled into law enforcement and incarceration rather than prevention, treatment and effective family support. That’s reason enough for me.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  6. Bookie

    I’m in my mid-20s and I know (like what Lisa writes) that a significant minority of my friends/acquaintances (around 30%) would be sporadic users of ecstasy/cocaine, mostly at festivals etc. I’ve always refused drugs, the reason being my family has a history of depression and that’s not really a combination I want to play with. I can honestly say that whenever I’ve been offered anything, that is the first thing that pops into my head and illegality is never really a consideration. I’d say that illegality is never really a deterrent for any of the people I know who use it either.

    One thing I’d be interested in is to see if anyone has crunched the numbers – how much police time would be saved if usage was decriminalised? Arresting, detaining, processing & doing the paperwork for each individual user arrested must be time consuming. If all that police time was diverted to concentrating on suppliers, wouldn’t this increase the number of supplier arrests and in turn have a bigger impact on reducing the amount of suppliers and drugs circulating in the community? In turn, reducing usage because availability is down?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  7. Lu

    I have 2 friends who would have classified themselves ‘social users’ during uni days and their early 20′s. They are now suffering some of the side effects of taking drugs, even only socially. They are paranoid, anxious and to put it basically they have screwed some brain cells and are not the people they once were. All because experimenting was deemed to be ok. I dont think it is.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • shanemoore

      Lu, sorry to hear about your friends. However, you nor they had any idea what it was. You said they were social users… social users of what? Ecstasy ? How do you/they know what’s in the pills. At least with alcohol we know that there is ‘x’% alcohol in beer, or x% in tequila. Based on that information, people make informed decisions about what they will use, and the expected side effects of the dose.
      Ecstasy was used for many years in the 1950′s in psychotherapy. Those people don’t report side effects. Amphetamines were given to soldiers in WW2, again without the side effects you mention.
      ‘Drugs’ didn’t damage your friends, what damaged them is that they bought unknown chemicals in unknown doses from unknown sources… and that’s more a failure of drug policy than anything else.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  8. hannahfromsa

    I think the argument that we’re nice, clever middle-class people and we do it, so it should be legalized is weak.
    However decriminalizing certain classes of drug for recreational use could free police time and save the state money. Since drugs are so freely available, I don’t think that it would drive up usage.
    As for state regulation of the recreational drug market? hmmm. That sounds complicated and like it will cost money and manpower. I think that recreational users use in the full knowledge that their drugs come from dodgy sources. It is a choice that individuals make. Saying that you want free-trade Eccy with it’s ingredients displayed, so the state should supply it,seems slightly ridiculous to me.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • shanemoore

      The state regulates all of the alcohol market… it’s complicated, costs money and manpower. And the state makes a LOT of money from taxes. Notice, the state doesn’t supply alcohol, it regulates where and when it can be sold, by whom and to whom. It also puts stringent quality controls on ingredients, manufacturing processes, etc. Manufacturers must prove they have adhered to all the guidelines. I don’t think there’s anything ridiculous about that.
      If anything is dodgy, it’s the fact that we allow the state to regulate a drug (alcohol) we all know causes massive personal and social damage and yet get squeamish when the idea of regulating far less harmful drugs are mentioned. Crazy….

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  9. LK

    “That’s a bizarre array of consequences for being fingered for an activity which is statistically normal.”

    And yet a perfectly normal set of consequences for an activity which is ILLEGAL.

    Regardless of how you choose to view the issue of decriminalisation, the fact is that right now these activities are against the law. And unless you are advocating a system whereby you only follow those laws you happen to agree with then there is nothing wrong with there being consequences for breaking the law.

    Speeding is probably statistically normal as well. Is anyone suggesting that we throw out speed limits on all our roads?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • shanemoore

      Women voting was once illegal. Cannabis and heroin were both legal before 1960. They became illegal because of international treaties. The illegality of drugs was not based on harm, they were based on a range of other issues. All laws change overtime as a result of changes in political pressure, cultural norms and public attitudes.
      The thing with speed limits is they reflect the degree of safety/harm associated with a particular road. Our drug laws are not based on the degree of safety/harm associated with a particular drug. If they did, cannabis would be regulated and alcohol would be banned.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • LK

        I have read your comments above and I appreciate that you seem to have a strong opinion on this issue.

        I understand that laws change over time due to societal pressures and norms. However I believe that while something is against the law there should be consequences for breaking that law. Regardless of whether you personally agree with that law or not.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • shanemoore

          I understand about consequences for breaking laws. But what of consequences for breaking unjust laws? Many suffragettes were imprisoned, some in extremely cruel conditions.
          In the last National Drug Survey it indicated that almost 39% of the population havd tried cannabis at least once. To me that draws into question the legitimacy of the law itself.
          Do we repeat the mistakes of the past and throw people into jail for breaking laws or do we have some courage as a society and stand up and say the laws do not work and are unjust?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • Lisa Pryor

          Personally one of the reasons that I believe it is important to reconsider the existing laws is precisely because I believe the law is important and it leads to injustice and corruption when there is a big gap between what the law says and what people do.
          Another historical example that might be worth considering is the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Gay protesters who fought to change the laws in the 1970s and 1980s were criminals because they were having gay sex and gay relationships even though it was still illegal. Does this show they were not worthy citizens? Should they have remained celibate until the laws changed? Or do we accept that sometimes society changes before the law has a chance to catch up?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • LK

            Hi Lisa, thank you for your reply.   Firstly, I feel that your phrase worthy citizens draws a value judgment which is not inherent in my comment. 

            With respect I choose to believe that those who fought for women’s rights and gay rights were fighting a different fight than those who fight to decriminalise drugs. The former were fighting to be free from discrimination based on their genetic makeup. The latter seem to fight for the right to alter their consciousness using substances that are not currently legal. I hear what you’re saying however I don’t know that your examples are on a par. 

            I do however believe that an open, civil discourse on the  issue is beneficial to allow people’s points of view to be heard and to promote the opportunity for each side to consider the points made by the other. 

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • shanemoore

              The prohibition of cannabis and other substances has been called the ‘war on (some) people who use (some) drugs. We have waged ‘war’ on these drugs for 40 years with the result being more people using stronger variations of drugs that are more cheaply and easily available then they were 40 years ago. And in the process countless lives are changed because we treat the enemy (users of some drugs) with contempt, discrimination and intolerance. (That comment is not meant for you LK). Young men and women die from overdose because we allow criminals to sell them drugs. We give people criminal records or imprison them for using substances whose illegality is not grounded in the harm they cause. I do support decriminalisation or regulation of drugs, not so much for the right to alter consciousness using drugs that are currently illegal, but because this war we wage on (some) drug users has been shown to be an abject failure. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity…

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  10. Shannon

    I haven’t read all the comments so I apologise if this has been raised elsewhere, but there’s one argument I am having trouble understanding. Maybe it’s just because I’ve got my weekend brain in.

    Many people have said that making drugs legal is the answer, that is, having them moderated etc. and then taxed to Hell to put people off buying them.

    I would think, then, that there would still be a strong market for illegal dealers. “Don’t want to spend $100 on drug X from the Government-approved supplier? Then step this way and spend $50 on the stuff I made in my garage…”

    The same people who were willing to buy it when illegal before would, I think, be tempted to continue to do so in the name of not spending more money. They obviously weren’t so worried about their health before that they stopped taking drugs, so what difference would it make that there was now a slightly healthier (by comparison) drug on the market when it’s much more expensive?

    Could someone clarify this argument for me, I think I’m missing something =S

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • ipomenscarlet

      Shannon, I don’t think you’re missing anything at all. It’s a bloody good question. I’m one of those who believes in legalising and taxing, and I agree that if government gets the excise wrong, the black market will just return.

      My hope is that in the same way that even cash-strapped teens are unlikely to search out black-market tobacco, if drugs were easily available legally, almost everyone would go down that route.

      Right now, the black market makes illegal drugs incredibly expensive because the supply chain is reasonably complicated and the risks of production/distribution are huge.

      Regulated mass manufacture of drugs would bring their inherent cost right down and the taxes would probably put them at a similar price to anything illegal.

      It’s a balancing act. One of the factors in deciding on the ciggie excise is how much will the market bear before there’s an economic imperative for the black market to take over.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Susan As Well

      One of the major reasons for decriminalising drug use in Portugal was the alarming increase in the 1990′s of illegal trafficking through Portugal as the gateway to European markets so that police resources were able to be concentrated on busting the traffickers and seizing drugs with significant success. These drug seizures also cut supply to smaller “street” dealers. Some studies report the relationship as being unclear while others point to the direct relationship between the two events of decriminalisation and better policing of trafficking. Drug traffickers face criminal penalties in Portugal also.

      Police now refer drug users to early intervention programs and see that as a priority for drug users rather than imprisonment. Intervention programs are accessed within 72 hours as opposed to months waiting to be convicted under the old court system. Police report that they have early and wider access to people who are not drug addicts but experimenting and at risk of becoming drug addicts.

      Addicts in Australia who are registered under the Methadone Maintenance program are provided with their medication for free. They have no reason to source out street drugs. Results of the program are that addicts are healthier, seek employment more and are at decreased risk of being involved in drug-related crime.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • shanemoore

      HI Shannon, ask the same questions of how we deal with alcohol. Alcohol is regulated and ‘taxed the hell out of’… but most people do continue to buy. When was the last time someone approached you and offered you some moonshine from out the back? :-)

      And like ipomenscarlet mentioned, it’s a fine balance between taxation Vs how much the market will bear.
      I’m not certain that the argument for regulating drugs is that they will be priced so high that users will avoid buying them. I think the strongest argument for regulation (and decriminalisation) is simply that we know that some drugs are dangerous, we know people will use them regardless, so why do we give complete control of their production, manufacture, distribution and pricing to criminal cartels whose only interest is profit, whilst as a society we pay the costs of health costs, like fatalities from overdose, the costs of law enforcement, drug treatment, imprisonment of (usually non-violent) drug offenders as well as the social harms caused by drug use itself… and because we don’t regulate drug use, we get none of the money the criminal cartels get. Just doesn’t make sense.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Smithy 89

      I used to be a recreational ecstasy user and many of my friends still are so I can give you some insight into this question. All of us are employed full-time or study and place high value on our health, meaning we excercise and eat healthy during the week.
      We are all responsible users, meaning we took the time to find out everything we could about the drug before using. Before purchasing any product and especially before taking it, we check its legitimacy on sites such as pillreports.com.

      We place purity of the product far in front of price. If you can be ensured that someone has good quality MDMA then we would much rather pay more money for it. This is because we know it is safer and the effects are predictable.
      The reason that I stopped using ecstasy was because of the very poor quality that is on the market. What did I return to using for recreation? Alcohol, which costs me more money, has a greater addiction potential, produces far less enjoyment, and quite frankly turns me into a down right idiot.

      I can absolutely guarantee that at least those who take the same attitude to recreational drug use as my peers and I then we would never buy from a black market seller if drugs became regulated.

      Hope this helped a little.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  11. Partner of...

    To Mia – Might I suggest that in the coming week, you give equal column space to someone who has had hands on experience in dealing with the negative effects of the drug trade on those ‘social’ users. Comments like ‘Rosie’ below offer an insight that perhaps many of your readers have not considered. Regards.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  12. Partner of...

    Just a thought… Drink Driving is illegal. Yet people still drink drive. Yet no-one says we should make drink driving legal…

    Drug taking leads to long term hard to the individual, to their family and society in general. Keeping it illegal is one thing that we must do – but then we must educate our kids better, we must work harder to reduce the demand of the drugs at the same time as fight to restrict the supply.

    Drugs do not offer ANYTHING positive to society outside of for medicinal use. Dealers & users are criminals and deserve to be treated as such till they stop using. Addicts should be found guilty but rather then thrown into the jail system, be jailed in a mandatory rehab clinic where they are freed from any addiction.

    Just like how many people have had a few too many drinks and got behind the wheel and arrive safe and sound, it doesn’t make it right and it should be punishable by the law.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Susan As Well

      This argument using an example of drink driving contains no merit nor is it logical in any way. We do not have a problem with people being ADDICTED to drink driving – we have a problem with people being addicted to DRUGS.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        and how would making them legal deal with the problem of addiction?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Susan As Well

          You obviously do not understand the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. Go do your research.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • redballoon

      You don’t know what you are talking about.
      Don’t lump all drugs together, for a start.

      (Susan as well has at least addressed your illogical “drink driving” *argument*)

      How do you know drugs don’t offer anything positive society? LSD for example can certainly have positive effects for some individuals.

      Dealers and users are only criminal because current legislation says it is so. It is very sad that you wish to treat people so harshly.
      (As it happens I feel drugs like ice should be very much illegal and dealers in drugs like that should certainly be restrained from indulging in their activities.)

      As for shoving people into mandatory rehab jail- do you how much that would cost and how effective it would be?

      You come across as being draconian and ill informed. What a scary combination!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Partner of...

        Red balloon – so what if rehab would be expensive? I didnt realize that you were putting a dollar value on fixing the problem. Is your only solution just to decriminalize drugs? So let’s just encourage all the 18 year old kids, studying for the HSC to go and pull a cone and chill out.

        My drink driving point is that so many arguments are ‘well, most people do it, so why do we make a criminal out of them’. If you cannot see that distinction then that is with you.

        Drugs do not offer anything good. People that have to use drugs to artificially get more out of life need to deal with their own reality on why that is – not turn to chemically induced ‘highs’. And yes, that includes alcahol.

        And yes – dealers and users are criminals as society deems them so. If you don’t want to avoid the stigma of being a criminal, then don’t take the drugs.

        Finally, scary is your attitude that mind altering drugs should be available to anyone who on a whim decides to do a line of coke or pop an eccy.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Susan As Well

          The argument for decriminalisation is NOT “that most people do it so why do we make a criminal out of them”.

          I’m presuming that your comments are made sincerely and are well-considered before you make them. However, you need to do some serious reading and enquiry regarding decriminalisation before you entirely mislead others. Knowingly misleading other people IS a criminal offence.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • redballoon

          “scary is your attitude that mind altering drugs should be available to anyone who on a whim decides to do a line of coke or pop an eccy.” Mmmm, not actually my attitude.

          “Drugs do not offer anything good”. In your opinion- just stating your opinion is not actually and argument

          I could continue, but I’m tired and don’t have a hour to pick your post apart the way I’d like to.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • shanemoore

          Hmmm… alcohol is used in Christian rituals to unify the congregation during one of the most scared moments in their ritual….. yet you say “People that have to use drugs to artificially get more out of life need to deal with their own reality on why that is – not turn to chemically induced ‘highs.” Hmmm… does the Pope know about this?

          The benefits of ecstasy in relationships, lsd in opening states of consciousness, cannabis in contemplation, alcohol at parties where people come together to celebrate a wedding, a birth, chewing of cocoa leaves to stimulate work…. drugs offer no good?????? Wow… nothing like massive generalised statements to get a point across.

          Alcohol was illegal in the USA in the 1920′s, 450,000 people became criminals for using it. Does your missive that ” If you don’t want to avoid the stigma of being a criminal, then don’t take the drugs” apply to those people? Does that apply to alcohol? Surely if something was illegal it was for a good reason?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • EmC

      Not true – Cannabis offers those who don’t react well to alcohol another recreational drug that has less adverse effects than alcohol.

      Am I to assume most people commenting on this article would have been for alcohol prohibition? If not, why not? How is Cannabis so different from alcohol?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • 10pm

      Cocaine is still used in a form for eye surgery, Heroin is a derivative of many painkillers given to people in hospital.

      Many ‘home remedies’ that were sold in the US in the 1930′s /40′s/ 50′s contained amphetamine – mother’s little helper.

      Marijuana is given to cancer patients to combat pain and nausea in some areas.

      People in many cases are self medicating – are these people all criminals? What about people who have gained tolerance to prescription medication? Are they ‘users’?

      While I agree that demand reduction and supply control are important, harm minimisation must also play and integral role in the health of drug users, and using should be considered a health problem – dealing a criminal one

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  13. Partner of...

    Firstly, let me clarify this by saying I am a 30 year old male, born in Sydney, attended a private school and would go out in my late teens and early/mid twenties 2-4 nights per week – and most nights end up pretty drunk.

    Despite some peoples misconception that ‘everyone does drugs’, and despite having COUNTLESS opportunities, I never took one ‘e’, smoked one joint, or even considered for one moment doing coke, heroin or ice. The MAIN reason? It was ILLEGAL! And I can say that for my circle of mates on the North Shore, they all hold the same belief. By legalising the drugs, you will get countless kids who will then assume that as the drug is legal – it is not so bad, hence, will go out and try the drug. When society says that something is illegal, it is a judgement on that act. It is societies way of saying that we do not agree with it and that we do not want it part of our culture. It doesn’t mean that people won’t do drugs, but it sets the standard that it is not an accepted part of our culture.

    The second reason was that I had instilled in me by my parents from a young age that drugs are never OK. They do not add anything to your life that you cannot get via a natural high, such as sports, socialising, music, arts and so on. In fact, my parents didn’t approve of getting drunk, but I still did it and I knew that without a shadow of a doubt, if I was EVER in any trouble due to drugs or alcohol, they would do whatever it took to support or help if I ever got into any trouble.

    For all you parents – you can tell your kids that drugs are bad, let them know that they should never ever take them but still make them aware that for whatever reason, they can call on you for help. I think anything else is a cop out and lazy parenting.

    I just hope that for those parents who are telling their kids that drugs in moderation are OK, that you don’t have to identify your child in a morgue after a ‘harmless party drug’ that they took on your tacit advice kills them. Drugs have consequences and to pretend that they are all sugar and spice is naivety in its grandest form. Do as some on here have suggested – spend time in a drug rehab clinic or psych ward and talk to the doctors and nurses that spend their life trying to patch others back up.

    Legalising drugs will ONLY lead to more people using.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Susan As Well

      Partner of… you are very fortunate that public drunkenness was decriminalised in NSW, ACT, SA and NT in the 1980′s and prior to that otherwise you may have ended up with a criminal record.

      You are also fortunate that your parents, in essence, decriminalised drug use in your home by taking away any penalty for it and offering you help if you got into trouble whilst maintaining that drug use was not okay. Think long and hard before you advocate for a criminal penalty for people which you almost faced yourself had you been born but a few years earlier.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Anonymous

      I agree with this completely.

      Normalising drug use and increasing availability by legalising it, will only lead to more health problems for society – even if it does save a few people from criminal convictions for their ‘recreational use’.

      The idea of sacrificing the public health for some individuals ‘rights’ to take what they want, is in my mind, short sighted, foolish and selfish.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • shanemoore

        We sacrifice the public health and allow users to use alcohol…. is that ‘short sighted, foolish and selfish?’ What I think is short sighted, foolish and selfish is to continue to follow laws which make it easier for a child to buy cannabis than alcohol.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • tinkerbelluvsmonkeys

      Well said! I totally agree with you

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • K

      So what you’re saying is, you only drank because it was legal, not because you wanted to get smashed or ‘have a good time’, but you wouldn’t take drugs simply because they were illegal, even though drinking was more likely to see you end up in hospital, with an addiction or being the victim of violence than taking one ecstasy pill was? If drinking was illegal would you have still done it do you think? Just wondering, not trying to be facetious.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • shanemoore

      Umm… you went out every night and got ‘pretty drunk’ using one of the most harmful drugs we know. But is was legal, so it must be safe… right?

      Below is your sentences where I’ve used alcohol’ where you used ‘drugs’ (more or less). “I just hope that for those parents who are telling their kids that alcohol in moderation are OK, that you don’t have to identify your child in a morgue after a (night) drinking that they took on your tacit advice kills them. Alcohol (has) consequences and to pretend that (it is) all sugar and spice is naivety in its grandest form.
      Or are you suggesting that alcohol is not a drug?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • 10pm

      By your own admission, you were a high risk drinker.

      ‘High-risk and risky drinkers were more likely than low-risk drinkers or abstainers to experience high or very high levels of psychological distress.

      And alcohol? Alcohol is classified as a drug, legal or not, you are a drug user – but don’t worry, we wont judge you for it

      ‘One in 17 (5.7%) admitted to verbally abusing someone while under the influence of alcohol.
      One-quarter (25.4%) of Australians aged 14 years or older had been verbally abused and 4.5% had been physically abused by someone under the influence of alcohol.’ *

      The fact it is LEGAL has nothing to do with the harm it can cause

      *Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2008

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  14. ipomenscarlet

    I’m too lazy on a Sunday morning to investigate if there are peer reviewed studies on mental health in places like Portugal and the Netherlands.

    Is there a higher incidence of depression, schizophrenia, and other disorders?

    The reason I ask, is because so much research into drug taking habits in those places and elsewhere relies on self reporting – and that sort of research is notoriously unreliable.

    Looking to see if there is a correlation between incidence of mental health issues might show a different picture.

    That said, criminalisation is a disaster for habitual users and a boon for organised crime that also trades in human trafficking and war. Drug money is integral to their survival and anything that squeezes such groups can only be a good thing.

    At the same time, there’s a danger that in trying to bolster arguments for decriminalisation, we downplay the very, very serious risks of even a “soft” drug, like marijuana.

    Marijuana and ecstasy are not harmless party drugs. Some people take them occasionally without consequences, but lots of people have some sort of residual mental health issue as a consequence. This can be the temporary dip after a hard night, or a long term debilitation.

    Some people are “functional” users, meaning they can get on with every day life and still be addicts to drugs like heroin.

    But “Functional?” Let’s not elevate that to a great lifestyle choice. All it really means is that users teeter on the brink of losing everything – it just hasn’t happened yet.

    None of this means that criminalisation works or is a good idea.

    I’m just sick of listening to habitual pot heads say that marijuana use is completely harmless, they’ve been smoking it for x-number of years, and their lives are better for it.

    It’s not that they don’t have a right to feel that way, it’s that they are evangelical about it. Young kids don’t get any sort of decent drug education and this sort of stuff can be convincing.

    If it were up to me, I’d legalise the lot, tax the crap out of it, and pour all the revenue into genuinely effective educational and advertising programmes, as well as rehabilitation.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • shanemoore

      I somewhat agree. The problem is all of this conversation is focused on ‘the drug’. It completely ignores the interaction of three factors:
      One: The drug itself. What is the purity? Strength? Any other contaminates? What is a normal dose? What interactions are there? As long as we have current drug policies, none of those questions can be answered.
      Two: The person taking it and why. Is it for a night out or to bury their grief? Is it because they have made an informed choice to use a particular substance based on accurate information or is it because they’re friends told them its ok, so why not? (Bear in mind that their parents and media told them it will kill them, but yet their friend has been taking it for ages and he’s ok.) Who is going to be the more ‘credible’ source?
      Three: The environment they’re in. Are they able to call for help if something goes wrong? Likelihood of getting arrested, etc
      Problem is we focus solely on this thing called a drug’ and fail to take into account the other factors involved.
      BTW, ‘functional’ refers that a drug is used because it serves a function, ie it has a purpose. I have a coffee (a stimulant drug) in the morning and it’s functional drug use. I’m not elevating it to great lifestyle choice, though I wouldn’t discourage pothers from taking it up. But if I’m drinking 12 or more cups a day, because i think it helps me focus and get through my workload or to stay awake, it is no longer functional… the interaction between me, my drug and the environment I’m using it in, is resulting in misuse. Should we ban coffee because of how I interact with it?
      We need to start looking at ‘drugs’ in the same way…. one person’s functional drug use is another one’s dependency. And that isn’t the drugs’ fault. (BTW, coffee used to be illegal in England in the 1690′s… go figure.)

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  15. Flutterby

    I had a chuckle at Lisa’s excerpt above. Of all the people I have known to use “recreationally” no one has ever used anything “once or twice a year……at festivals”.

    Ecstasy is not the cuddly, friendly drug that people think it is. If it was the term “Eccy Monday” would not be in our lexicon. For those not used to working with people that go out every weekend, this is the term used for the aftermath when you simply cannot get out of bed on Monday. It’s like a depression which has the fortunate coincidence of eventually recurring, whether you take the drug or not.

    I hope they’re making plans to extend Rosie’s psych ward in the future because it will need to be bigger.

    I also remember the guy I worked with who had a psychotic episode after taking marijuana for years. He put it down to pesticides used on the crop, rather than his regular years of use. Then there was the other guy my boyfriend flatted with who cut his hand wide open at the restaurant he worked with after still being stoned from his morning cone. He was a 3 cone a day boy.

    I don’t know if decriminalising or legalising would improve the situation. I think there’s more to the debate.

    Making cigarettes as expensive as poison seems to have reduced the usage and decreased the number of smokers that I know of. Maybe creating an industry in softer drugs and putting high prices through taxation on them would do the same? As for alcohol, I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of that usage because it’s been in our societies for centuries and for most people (apart from a few souls with an unfortunate combination of genes) usage is not chronic.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • anon right now

      flutterby, I know many people, including myself, who only would take drugs a few times a year, yes, at festivals. I would say more than once or twice yes, but no more than or 6 times at most.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Flutterby

        Well, now I kinda do know someone so I stand corrected.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • TiffW

      My mum works in an adult psych unit in a major melbourne hospital, they call it come down tuesday.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Lisa Pryor

      Okay got to stop commenting because once I start I might not be able to stop … Just wanted to let you know that that figure of once or twice a year was not anecdotal, it was from the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. I go into it in more detail later in the book. The most common pattern of ecstasy use in Australia is once or twice a year. The next most common pattern of use is once every few months.
      I think it is important that figures like this are more widely known, particularly for those who might be using ecstasy every weekend and assume it is a pretty “normal” thing to be doing. The thing is it isn’t normal even among ecstasy users and makes your friends much more likely to end up with damage from the drug. Just as with alcohol, with illicit drugs the risks vary depending on many factors including how much, and how often, you use them.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • 10pm

      ‘Eccy Monday’ is a real thing, because the drug causes your brain to release more and more serotonin, which is why you feel good, but your brain can only produce so much at a time.
      Your brain is depleted, and needs to build up stores again.

      Research suggests that most people that have psychotic episodes/ develop schizophrenia and smoke pot are predisposed to the condition.

      If you look at the effort that has been put into demand reduction of tobacco, it has statistically been very effective, but there is always going to be people who will take a drug regardless of knowledge of effect or legal status.

      Although by the rest of the worlds standards, most Australians are chronic alcohol abusers

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  16. Maggie

    Far more harm is caused by legal drugs than illegal ones – the majority of violence is alcohol related. Seems unfair to lock some people up just because their drug of choice is different to the mainstream.
    And the unsaid fact in this story is that criminalisation of drug users mainly affects those in lower socioeconomic groups, the wealthy can do what they like in the privacy of their homes, it’s young people and indigenous people who bear the brunt of our illogical drug policies.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Partner of...

      Maggie – your comment is non-sensical. Far more harm is caused by legal drugs because they are legal, hence, far more people drink/smoke, and the small percentage of those who abuse those substances create harm.

      By legalising and creating an easy access path to hard drugs (or any drug) you will simply have more people using, and more harm caused. Surely that concept isn’t too difficult to grasp! Saying that ‘illegal’ drugs cause less harm based on the numbers of instances makes zero sense as FAR less people use drugs on a weekly/daily basis as do people drink/smoke.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Lisa #5

        Agreed, common sense.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  17. Green Thumb

    Listening to Lisa on another radio program, she made it clear she didn’t support legalisation (“perhaps for pot and ecstasy there’s a case,” she said) – just decriminalisation for users.

    The trouble with that model is that it makes the market for drugs bigger (safer, more relaxed, socially acceptable) but all the money it then generates still goes to criminals.

    Who will get bigger, richer, and more powerful, able to stand above the law and even the state.

    Proponents of decriminalisation DO need to confront the problem of SUPPLY. But normally they (and Lisa) just put their head in the sand, and assume the problem won’t exist provided they can “party” and not be hassled by the cops.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  18. Anonymous

    just need to make a distinction between illegal drugs (coke, pot, heroin, etc) and alcohol (wine, beer, spirits, etc). alcohol is not solely recreational ie. just drunk to alter mood. it was originally the safest thing to drink (in times past when people didn’t understand water-borne illness), and it’s also drunk for its taste, its complementarity with food, and just to quench thirst. i realise alcohol isn’t blameless (my own father died of alcoholism), but just need to make that distinction. cigarettes on the other hand: i’d be happy to see them made illegal.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • 10pm

      Cocaine is still used in a form for eye surgery, Heroin is a derivative of many painkillers given to people in hospital.

      Many ‘home remedies’ that were sold in the US in the 1930′s /40′s/ 50′s contained amphetamine – mother’s little helper. They were also given to WWII soldiers to combat fatigue.

      Marijuana is given to cancer patients to combat pain and nausea in some areas.

      There are less remedial uses for alcohol than pretty much any other drug (except possibly tobacco)

      Originally there was water to drink and to quench thirst – it actually came before alcohol and people didn’t always die from it – not saying there are places where water is not safe. Also the properties of alcohol actually dehydrate you and are ineffective in quenching thirst – it’s psychosomatic.

      Please do not underestimate the inherent danger of alcohol

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  19. Anon

    My brother in law is now a schitzophrenic in and out of mental hospitals because of drugs. He can’t work and is on welfare. He’s tried to kill himself several times. He will never live a normal life again. Ever. Because of one stupid decision one night.
    I have a handful of other friends who are on antidepressants, also with no hope of ever getting off them, because of drug use.
    So no, I don’t think drugs should be decriminalised. In fact, the penalties for both taking and selling drugs should be far more severe.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Oliver

      So you would prefer it if all your “friends” were in prison? Because that’s what your “solution” would result in. Do you honestly believe that would be a good place to treat their mental illnesses?
      As for blaming Schizophrenia on drug use, there does seem to be a correlation, however to date there is no scientific evidence or biological mechanism to show that drugs (namely marijuana) do cause Schizophrenia. How do you know, for certain, your brother in law was not an undiagnosed schizophrenic who sought relief in the drugs?
      Its easy think of anecdotes and just say “because of drug use”, but the scientific/medical evidence just doesn’t support them.
      People who do drugs are not criminals any more then your a criminal for having a glass of wine. But I don’t think jail is going to “heal” anybody. Not to mention the fact it costs more to incarcerate a person then it does to employ a school teacher.
      Imagine if the trillions of dollars wasted in the ineffective 40 year “war on drugs” where directed proper medical (early intervention, monitor of use, mental health checks) help to the mentally ill and addicted instead of wasting it on law enforcement (that only serves to increase the value of the drugs, increasing crime groups profits) and locking them up at huge expense.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anon

        Actually, Oliver, his doctors have all blamed the drugs for his mental illness, not to mention he was a perfectly functional member of society until one night when he took dugs and wasn’t anymore and ended up in a psych ward. So if you don’t mind, I’ll take his doctors’ opinions over your uninformed one.
        As for people who take drugs being no more criminals than those who drink wine, that is the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard. Wine is not illegal, drugs are. Therefore, taking drugs does, in fact, make you a criminal.
        As for prison, yes, all dealers, big or small should end up in prison, without question. Drug users should have mandatory rehab and counselling, then do many, many hours of community service in a mental hospital, halfway house, injecting room, or hospital emergency ward, so they can see first hand what the consequences are of their actions.
        And just for good measure, I think studying brain chemistry (like I did at university for several years) and learning about what drugs do to the neurotransmitters in the brain should also be mandatory as a school course, or for first-time offenders. If you had any idea what drugs do to the brain’s vital chemicals and chemical receptors, I don’t think you’d be so naive to compare drugs use to a glass of wine.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Partner of...

          Anon – spot on!

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • Guest

          This post is utterly ill-informed. The neurochemistry bit in particular. Please look elsewhere for facts about this issue. Your brother had a predisposition, plain and simple. The drugs probably made it worse, but they didn’t ’cause’ it, despite what you want to believe.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Anonymous

            Actually I don’t think there is solid evidence to prove it either way.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
          • Anon

            What part of the neurochemisty is ‘ill-formed’?

            ‘Drugs can exert their effects in a wide variety of ways, such as facilitating or inhibiting the synthesis of a neurotransmitter , increasing or decreasing the release of a neurotransmitter, or altering what happens to the transmitter after it attaches to its receptors’ (Kalat, Biological Psychology).

            ‘Cocaine…produces these stimulating effects by increasing the activity at dopamine synapses. They have additional effects by increasing activity at norepinephrine and certain other synapses. Drugs that activate dopamine synapses tend to be addictive.’ (Kalat, Biological Psychology).

            ‘Amphetamine…increases the release of dopamine…it blocks the reuptake of released dopamine by the presynaptic cell, thus the released dopamine remains in the postsynaptic cleft longer than usual…as time passes dopamine stimulation drops because the dopamine in the cleft , unable to reenter the presynaptic neuron (as it is blocked)..is unable to be recycled for future use. When drugs prevent this recycling , the presynaptic neuron needs additional time to rebuild its supplies.’ (Kalat, Biological Psychology).

            ‘Repeated exposure to cocaine results in persisting brain changes.’

            ‘Just as we turn down the volume on a radio that is too loud, the brain adjusts to the overwhelming surges in dopamine (and other neurotransmitters) by producing less dopamine or by reducing the number of receptors that can receive signals. As a result, dopamine’s impact on the reward circuit of a drug abuser’s brain can become abnormally low, and the ability to experience any pleasure is reduced. This is why the abuser eventually feels flat, lifeless, and depressed, and is unable to enjoy things that previously brought them pleasure. Now, they need to take drugs just to try and bring their dopamine function back up to normal. And, they must take larger amounts of the drug than they first did to create the dopamine high’ http://www.nida.nih.gov/scienceofaddiction/brain.html

            But please, don’t take my word for it, go here: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1846

            Or here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990427045818.htm

            Or even here: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/en/Neuroscience_E.pdf

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Anon

              “If you had any idea what drugs do to the brain’s vital chemicals and chemical receptors, I don’t think you’d be so naive to compare drugs use to a glass of wine.”
              This is the part that is ill-informed. Your quotes are correct, but selective and thus misleading. What you’re missing is context – science’s other important requirement after facts. In fact, all you’ve quoted is the well-known mechanisms of drug action. Falling in love causes similar neurochemical changes too, so I’m not sure what your quoted articles are meant to represent.

              Many drugs are (or may be) damaging to neurons (I think this was your original point) but how relevant this is depends on usage levels. Moderate use of drugs like amphetamines and MDMA (the two most suspected, and researched) seems to cause no long-term damage to neurons at all. In fact, alcohol causes more physical neuronal physical damage than all of them! Heroin causes no neuronal damage at all.

              The more relevant issue is the re-wiring through re-inforcement of pleasure circuits, not physical damage to neurons. This is the mechanism of addiction, and its awful consequences. Cannabis is different: it appears to cause no physical changes in neurons, but can trigger a latent psychosis (which is scary, because some people have a latent psychosis that will never be realised if they stay away from drugs)

              I’m not making a point about drug legalisation, but I am making a point about half-informed knowledge of neurochemistry – you can’t quote it out of context as a bolster to the arguments for/against drug legalisation.

              ps. The one study purporting to demonstrate severe damage to serotonergic neurones after MDMA exposure was revealed as fraud, and its author (sponsored by the American DEA) discredited. He made a full retraction, and the jury is still out. 1999 and even 2004 research is totally out of date in this fast moving field.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
        • shanemoore

          Anon… as you claim university level neurochemistry knowledge, then you raise the level of proof required for your statement ‘he took drugs and became a schizophrenic’. What drugs did he take? What dose? What specific neuropsych condition is he diagnosed with? What tests were performed to rule out other causes such as an intrinsic drug effect, or toxicity from an overdose?
          As you use your tertiary level experience of neurotransmitters as the basis for being a credible source on anything drug related. Please enlighten us all. Mandatory treatment has a success rate of 5-10% after 6 months. Voluntary treatment has a relapse rate of 85% or more over 12 months. With mandatory treatment, How long should that be? 1 year? 2 year? Is the community expected to support them for this period of time? Will treatment be secular or will it be a faith based, the latter being a problem as far as the public purse paying for it? Should they have contact loved ones or be segregated? During this time, what school of treatment should we coerce them to adhere to? Shall we adopt the Thai monk style of forced vomiting for 6 months? Or perhaps we adopt the Russian approach and chain them to their beds? Do we follow the Therapeutic Communities model, and if so, we will need your expert guidance on how to resolve the paradox of mandating treatment whose underlying principles is developing choice in clients.
          One other problem I’m having, which I’m sure your tertiary training in neuroscience has thought through… once they are released and return to the environment where the factors that led to their drug use remain untreated, you then will force them to do lots of community service (a month, year, decade? and again who is paying them to do this as they certainly won’t be able to be working). So when they go out and watch people injecting so that they will learn why they shouldn’t do it, will there be people around to support them in managing triggers to drug use? BTW, how should Australia explain our focus on mandatory treatment to the UN and WHO, both of who have condemned mandatory treatment for being cruel, ineffective and denying basic human rights.
          My final question: did your tertiary level course omit the fact that alcohol is a drug? Surely you can’t be that naive that you din’t know that a glass of wine IS drug use?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • Rosie

      I’m a psych doctor. Anyone even contemplating the drug legalization debate should spend a minute on our ward. Ice and speed are the main problems but I also have four current inpatients in their early twenties who only use marijuana socially – these guys have severe psychosis and their brains will never be the same again.
      Weed is not safe or “natural”, it is cheating young people by stealing their lives. But you don’t know about it because they end up spending their lives in my psych ward.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • shanemoore

        Rosie, I think the debate is about decriminalization. Anyway, the four young men you mention are particularly interesting. As a ‘psych doctor’ (is that a psychiatrist or a medical doctor working on a psych unit?) I assume you are aware of the research in various peer reviewed journals that conclude that it is the imbalance between the THC/CBD ratio of hydroponic cannabis which is the causal factor in the onset of mental health issues. Are you aware of that Rosie? Surely as a ‘psych doctor’ you keep yourself abreast of current literature in the field?
        You say ‘weed’ is not natural. That statement leaves me somewhat aghast that a ‘psych doctor’ is unaware that cannabis sativa is a plant that has been recognized as a medicinal herb for thousands of years. How you can claim it is not natural is beyond me.
        Perhaps what you are erroneously referring to is hydroponic cannabis which has typical THC content of 15 to 19 per cent and a CBD content of zero, and which has come to dominate the street market. Ironically, this market share is due to prohibition as it has forced the growing of cannabis form an outdoor setting where it has been for millenia, to the indoor hydroponic setting of the last 10 years or so. (Which coincidentally is when concerns about the link between cannabis and mental health began.)
        Finally, I strongly encourage you to write a paper on these four social smokers, all young men who have developed a psychosis so severe that they require life long admission to ‘your’ psych ward. Perhaps then these unfortunate men can have their condition discussed in a peer reviewed journal, and insights gained from their plight, rather than just being anecdotes in the comments section of a book review.
        BTW, it is indeed very rare for young men with psychoses to require life long care in any psych unit. Most young people with a history of acute onset of psychosis tend to respond favorably to intensive treatment, rehabilitation, and integration interventions through supported living and other means. That fact you and ‘your ward’ have declared them ‘untreatable’ and requiring life long accommodation in the limited and expensive beds in pysch wards seems at odds with current therapeutic outcomes for early onset psychosis. It would be very interesting to discuss in your paper the factors which have led ‘your unit’ to arrive at such an unusual long term prognosis for these young men. I look forward to reading it in a peer reviewed journal.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Susan As Well

          None of the psychiatrists or doctors in mental health units I’ve known and worked with talk of their patients this way. Agree with you shanemoore for questioning the credibility and/or professionalism of this “psych doctor”.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • 10pm

          @shanemoore you are awesome :)

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • Susan As Well

      How severe should the penalties be to deter drug-taking? The death penalty has proven not to be sufficient enough deterrent, for example, Singapore and Bali. There is nothing more severe than the death penalty so what would you suggest?

      There are no penalties which will stop people using drugs and ending up in psych wards as the current situation proves. It is definitely time for intelligent and informed debate on how to better manage this problem.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        Just because no penalty is strong enough to stop people doesn’t mean there should be no penalty?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Susan As Well

          It means that penalties do not affect drug use so they are a not achieving the reason for their existence. They are even worse than pointless in that the exacerbate the problem further.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Anonymous

            Im sorry but I have to disagree. Yes some people do disregard the penalties however I think there are probably a lot of people out there who never enter in to drug use because of the penalties. So essentially, they do act as a deterrant.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Susan As Well

              That would be your personal opinion rather than verifiable and documented evidence to the contrary?

              Your personal opinion that penalties act to deter drug users takes away your responsibility to society to find a real solution that does work. Much better to sweep the problem under the carpet and leave it up to the police to make it all go away. Police deal with it ergo there is no problem. Only the police cannot deal with it, can they? Ask a policeman/woman how they feel about the current laws on drug use and trafficking and how effective they are.

              Addiction by its nature is a compulsion. You may as well put fairy floss in front of an addict as put a law in front of them to deter them from drug use.

              The Global Commission on Drug Policy in Geneva met in February 2011. Members of the commission include the former presidents of Brazil (Cardoso), Colombia (Gaviria), Mexico (Zedillo) and Switzerland (Dreifuss); former US secretary of state George Shultz; former EU foreign secretary Javier Solana; executive director of the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria, Professor Michel Kazatchkine, and Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines. Nine of the commission members attended the meeting.

              The commission accepts prohibition has failed comprehensively.

              Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/agony-over-ecstasy-is-helping-no-one-20110131-1ab3p.html#ixzz1UJ14BvEs

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
          • Partner Of...

            Susan as well – People still drink drive on a REGULAR basis. Does that mean we don’t outlaw drink driving? Seriously… Yes, education is vital, but penalties do stop people from using.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Susan As Well

              If that were the case we would have no users.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • 10pm

              The fact that people continue to drink and drive regardless of increasing fines, demerits and threat of jail is your shining example of how the penalties is ineffective towards some users.
              This example actually proves @susan as well ‘s point perfectly

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
    • Anon2

      It’s highly unlikely ‘one stupid decision’ alone caused your brother to become schizophrenic. Far more likely he had a predisposition, and (inevitable in these people) drug use precipitated the illness. This is what your Dr’s would be telling you, but I can understand why you choose to hear what you want.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • EmC

      Mental illness is incredibly sad, and we need to do more to educate people about the dangers of taking mind altering substances of any kind if you are young (and brain still developing) or more susceptible (family history etc). However, I also know of someone close to me who experience alcohol-induced psychosis, does this mean we should go back to the days of prohibition?

      We’re adults, surely we can be trusted to make adult decisions about non-addictive, soft drugs.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  20. Cami

    Drug’s aren’t that bad? Really? I think they are, and anyone who has seen someone destruct because of drugs will agree.

    I don’t think we need to change the laws. People caught for personal use are dealt with extremely leniently. Why decriminalise when most people are already just getting off with a caution? We already have de fact decriminalisation for personal use. Having criminal sanctions available to police in the appropriate situation is useful, and the possibility of criminal sanctions, even though remote, is handy for deterrence for some.

    Maybe I’m in the minority but I found being education about the negative side effects of drugs really worked for me. In particular two things, that girl (Anna something?) dying from one ecstasy tablet and that people with a family history of mental illness should not take drugs as it may trigger something.

    I think just keep trying to improve education, keep the laws as they are, invest in stopping supply and rehabilitation for addicts.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • mayberry

      Anna Wood. We got that campaign as well in school, as it happened when i was about 10 (i think….). Can I just play the devil’s advocate here, and make the point that it wasn’t actually the eccie that killed her? MDMA is not neurotoxic, if you take a pure ecstasy tablet it won’t kill you. What you DO when you take it is another matter – Anna Wood died of hyponaetremia, that is, water intoxication. She was told by mates that you need to drink a lot of water when on them (which is somewhat true if you’re out dancing, as eccies suppress your natural thirst reflex, and you can easily dehydrate). However, she didn’t know HOW MUCH water to drink, and essentially flooded her brain.

      Arguably, if Anna and her mates had been better educated about what to expect when taking eccies, rather than just being told “no, no no” then it might have been avoided. And if her friends had known what the symptoms of hyponatraemia were, and hadn’t been too scared to take her to the hospital, they might not have waited FIVE HOURS after onset of symptoms to call an ambo and her parents.

      it’s kind of comparable to abstinence only sex education – if you just keep telling kids “say no say no” without any accounting for the fact that they WILL be exposed to these things (both sex and drugs) in their teens and early twenties, then the risks are arguable greater. we all know how useless abstinence-only sex education is – it leads to increased STD levels and unwanted pregnancies in young people.

      Even if we don’t decrim/legalise drugs, we should at least educate kids what they’re like, what the symptoms of common adverse and negative reactions are, and how to deal with this (ie ring a freakin ambulance, they paramedics don’t care what you’ve done, they just want to save the person’s life) so that, when they are exposed to drugs (and they will be) then they can make educated, rational decisions about what they would like to do with their bodies, same as sex education allows them to make.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  21. Anon 4 this

    I have experienced both the bad & good that comes with illicit drug use.my father was an addict (cocaine at first then heroin).i have to say apart from the heroin use his drinking was the worst if it all (thats where my worst memories come from). He ended up in heroin because he started off as an alcoholic and also I believe as an individual he had an addictive personality (and always needed instant gratification).although I witnessed this I have tried most illicit drugs except heroin & ice.the reasons – alcohol doesn’t agree with me (physically & emotionally) and I had more fun and more in control ironically on drugs when I partied.5 years later I realized I wasn’t having fun anymore, grew out of it and now don’t touch anything!in summary I believe alcohol is a far bigger evil in society, a lot of if comes down to the individual and whether they have an addictive personality and predisposed to mental illness and the types of people you socialize with. I am so grateful that I felt I could talk about this with my mum and dad whilst going through this stage of growing up

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  22. Green Thumb

    I read this extract, which makes me want to read more of Lisa’s book, I’m intrigued by some questions. Many people, like Lisa, do support decriminalisation for users, and I think I’m one of them. But hardly anyone EVER addresses the question of supply.

    Does Lisa in her book (I will probably buy it and read, btw!)

    Who will be doing the selling? Unless all drugs become just products to be sold (and marketed?) by Big Pharma or other legit businesses, who will we be buying from?

    The gangs and criminal cartels? Even your best friend has to get their party supplies from somewhere. Travel up that chain and you end up in a Mexican gutter.

    If we choose to be relaxed about some drugs but not others (how do we choose?), won’t this still mean criminal gangs just become bigger and more powerful?

    Do we bite the bullet – total legalisation – and let the resulting capitalistic frenzy find its own level?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Oliver

      If drugs were legalised it would deprive criminal cartels of their huge profits (their entire incentive to operate). It would also allow coca and poppy farmers to be paid a fair amount by legitimate businesses for their crops instead of being forced to sell to criminal gangs and having to avoid herbicide spraying trying to destroy their crops (which predate the western drug laws by thousands of years).
      For instance Tasmania is the worlds biggest producer of opiates (legally for pharmaceuticals) but you don’t see cartels and gangs killing people over the profits/supply chains.
      A good model would be the tobacco industry, despite total legalisation its use is in decline, whereas illicit drugs are on the rise.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Green Thumb

        I’m ready to agree with you Oliver, total legalisation (regulate it, tax it for sure, but let it rip) is the only option we have left.

        The social situation we have now is impossible, it’s an expensive train wreck.

        I’m not so sure I’m going to like the sort of society we end up with though. Maybe I read to many Phillip K Dick novels during my mis-spent youth (getting “out-of-it” by reading!) Capitalism, being what it is, will eventually hand control of our minds and well-being to very big corporations.

        Apple and FaceBook we don’t seem to mind. But Big Pharma – with an eye to a controlled and dependent market?? For life?

        Trust them? Sure!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • shanemoore

          Purely a personal opinion… the medicals properties inherent in cannabis could put Big Pharma out of business overnight. But cannabis is illegal cos it’s bad… rite? :-)

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Oliver

            To quote the great Bill Hicks:
            “Come on everybody, lets be hypocritical bastards! It’s OK to drink your drug.. We meant those ‘other’ drugs, those ‘un-taxed’ drugs. Those are the ones that are bad for you, right?!”
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHU1X1PED4

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
  23. Amandarose

    I have mixed feelings about drugs. I see a general- a pill will fix anything attitude in almost all people – depression, weight gain, poor diet. Etc. We are a pill popping nation.
    Street drugs are no different. Want to have a good time pop a pill. Depressed , drink some grog, roll a joint etc. No different.
    I don’t like the attitude but I don’t see it as government business if an individual wants to get high.
    I see drug addicts at work daily and it worries me. other times I wonder if the artificial crutch is better none at all. Maybe a bit of drug use can help you heal? I personally find a glass of wine after a bad day relaxing. amphetamines used to be used in depression.

    What I hate is people knowingly go buy them and think it is ok to make bad Under Belly types rich. I don’t want no part in financing the likes of Carl Williams life or the horrors in South America associated with cocaine sales.

    I hate that young self absorbed party people don’t think about who may have died to get cocaine to them.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  24. drjoekosterich

    Jimmy Carter told congress in 1977 “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself”. Our current approach fails this basic test.
    As a parent I am do not want my kids experimenting with drugs but draconian “lock ‘em up” laws are worse than a little experimentation.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Chrissy g

      That is such an interesting quote! I would maybe argue however that it’s not just about the individual it’s the wider consequence of lax laws that would allow drug use to become ok thus increasing addicts, that would be my fear. It’s a slippery slope.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  25. Laws for Clouds

    I don’t know that decriminalisation is the answer. In Portugal, the case cited by Lisa, drugs were widely available because Spain never made them criminal. Drug deaths briefly decreased, HIV rates are well down, rehab uptake is higher, but lifetime use and deaths eventually went back to the same levels or higher. This is partly because people are more honest, it’s hard to get accurate stats.

    If it was made government regulated the nature of addiction means that you would want more, so dealers would still have a market (obviously not everyone would become addicted).

    Finally, cannabis was decriminalised is SA and it has the highest number of hydroponics shops per capita in the world. More dealers, more criminal activity, and an international market for their top quality produce – that’s why Shapelle Corby was going to Indonesia with the cannabis.

    Great work for starting the debate Lisa, I look forward to hearing more.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  26. I’ve never taken drugs…not because I have something against them…I’ve just never wanted to alter my state of consciousness in any way…probably because my normal state of consciousness is fairly eccentric at the best of times.

    Even though I don’t do drugs, I do support the legalization of drugs…including manufacture and distribution…I don’t see the point of just decriminalising possession…it’s like trying to be half-pregnant…if you are going to decriminalise possession, then go the whole way…

    Why? Because I don’t see the point in allowing organised crime to continue to benefit from the profits of drugs that are no longer illegal to posses. Instead, legalise the whole drug economy…that way:

    – drugs will be cleaner and safer and manufactured to set standards…this would hopefully reduce the risk of overdoses, and reduce the side-effects of taking illegal drugs that have been cut with all sorts of shit that’s bad for you

    - we can tax the sale of drugs and use that money to help the minority of drug users who become dependant…detox programs, counselling etc…

    - we starve organised crime of a big slice of income…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Faybian

      Once again, we agree…… Gaaarh, what’s happening?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • We really need to start consulting in private before posting and make sure we take opposing views…this consensus we’re having at the moment is creepy!

        :)

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Sparky

      JJ, like you I’m not big on the idea of altering my conciousness chemically (unless shiraz and beer count – which I suppose they do).

      Further to the points you make in support of your argument, I wonder if regulation and legalisation would result in younger people not being drawn in to the scene so much. Take away some of the danger and the illicit thrill, and there’s not much to recommend the activity. It’s not like we’re living in the brown nylon, white bread world of 50 years ago – these days we can ‘ blow our minds’ simply by going online, or other modern activities.

      Sometimes I scare myself how old I sound…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  27. Emma in Melbourne-land

    I should start off by saying that I’ve never taken drugs, nor have any of my friends. The area I live in drugs have never been a problem.

    My view of drugs has always been disinterested, I’ve never thought about taking any. I’m a bit on the fence but I can kind of see the merits of decriminalisation. Having it out in the open could mean better control of the issue.

    I think a long the lines of if you make it legal its suddenly not such a ‘cool, i’m such a rebel’ thing to do.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Ecidnac

      Not so sure about your last sentence. A huge amount of people smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol as it’s seen as ‘cool’. And they’re legal.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  28. Natalie

    This book has the potential to be very helpful to parents like me.

    All the people out there who are dead set against drugs either because they believe the risks outweigh the positives and/or who have witnessed the destruction drugs can cause are in a good position when it comes to advising their children.

    However, there are many people – like me – who have used drugs and the main outcome was basically having a really great time. And when the negatives of drug use became larger than the positives, I didn’t take them.

    So, I am wondering what I am going to tell my children as they get older. Ideally, I don’t want them to risk their health in anyway so would prefer they didn’t do drugs but I also don’t want to be the unrealistic voice of reason.
    I liked the point Lisa raised about offering advice that was true and I also liked the idea of encouraging kids not to try anything illicit until they were a bit older.

    Let’s be honest, this country is far too conservative to do anything like they have done in Portugal but healthy debate may just help those of us who didn’t end up in the gutter but are trying to help our kids look after themselves as they are faced with all that life has to offer.

    Lisa, I’m definitely buying A Small Book About Drugs.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Anon for the 'rents :)

      I’m seventeen, and my parents have always been honest about their histories with drugs – my dad tried them once, my mum smoked a bit of weed recreationally over about 5 years. Dad didn’t like them that much ’cause he had a bad trip, mum never had any issues and only stopped because she thought she thought she was getting a bit old for it xD

      Neither of my parents ever encouraged me to try weed, but they acknowledged that at some stage in my life I was likely to try it, and they wanted me to feel that I could be open about it, and come to them if I needed to. They did the same thing with alcohol, and it worked so well that I called them last week from an 18th I was at, and they came and picked up me and my friend who was in a really bad way (her parents wouldn’t answer). I hate to think of those kids out there who feel so removed from their parents that they would be afraid to call them if something went wrong. I think honesty, without glorification, is definately the way to go :)

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Yoyo

      It’s an interesting dilemma.

      However how would you feel though if you told your children your positive history with drugs, or went with the ‘harm minimisation’ school of thought and then you child overdosed, became addicted, hurt others while influenced or even died? I think the answer lies in that question.

      Because even just trying drugs once is rolling the dice.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anon for the 'rents :)

        I’m of the opinion that telling your kids that you’ve done drugs before doesn’t make them want to do it any more. If anything, the mystery is taken out of it, because your parents have done it, so it’s not cool or rebellious. Sadly, a lot of my friends have done drugs to make a point to their parents, who they know will have an incredible reaction. I had one friend who was very, very ill because they accidently overdosed, and would not call their parents because they felt that the behaviour wouldn’t be condoned, and they’d be punished worse than by how sick they were. I think it’s more important to show your kids that you understand, and will always be there for them.

        Most kids have seen their parents drink, but I don’t think that’s the reason they drink, I think it’s got everything to do with their peers. It’s never a parents fault that their kids take drugs – it’s the choice of the individual.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • mayberry

        the whole point of the harm minimisation method is that your kid will be more educated about the effects, symptoms and limits of drugs – if they KNOW that they’re going to feel a certain way, they won’t panic, and if they KNOW that certain things are negative, and indicate the onset of overdose etc isn’t it better for them to feel they can ring you for help without fear of being taken to the police, or getting into trouble?

        or, even, if they know what certain drugs are like cos you’ve told them, then they may choose to avoid those drugs when their peers take them, empowering them to make educated, rational decisions.

        and it takes away some of the attraction of taking drugs in the first place, because they know you’d be cool with them doing it, so they’re not going to go out and rebel and try to shock and upset you by being as “bad” as possible, and potentially taking worse substances than they otherwise would in an attempt to upset and shock you.

        you can apply the same logic to alcohol and cigarettes – one drink may lead to you having a car accident, one cigarette may lead to you having cancer 20 years later – the government even says so in their anti smoking ads “every cigarette is doing you damage”

        and you could just as easily apply that logic to everything else in your child’s life – what if your kid went out and had unprotected sex cos you’d never educated them about STDs, and they died of AIDS? what if your kid walked home late at night cos you never taught them self defence or street safety, and they got mugged and bashed?

        i’d rather have young people be educated, informed, and able to make rational decisions based on facts, especially in situations which may involve altered states of conciousness

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Yoyo

          I think you make some really valid points and I agree with a lot of them.

          However you have to admit there are way more variables and higher risks associated with drug use.

          i.e. Harm minimisation in relation to sex is understanding the reality that most teens and young adults will have sex with people who they don’t know the sexual history of, and they are duly encouraged to practice safe sex. Other than the tiny percentage of condom failure, the person responsible has their fate in their own hands and smart decisions can protect them completely. This is harm minimisation working well.

          However with drugs there is no way a person can know the origins of the drug, how it will effect them in the short and long term, if it will exacerbate their mental health issues or addictive personally, or how their body will cope at all. They are placing their fate in the hands of drug manufacturers, their friends (who could very well be completely out of it) and their own body reacting the unknown chemicals within the drug. They have no control.

          It’s really worry to see so many Gen-Xers who have had great experiences with drugs abandon the ‘Just say No’ ideal. They’re playing roulette with their kid’s lives.

          I agree parents should give their kids every bit of information they can to help their kids if they DO do drugs but if they really want to protect them, the only 100% failsafe is saying ‘don’t do drugs’.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • mayberry

            and whilst that may work with some kids, fraid to say that people are going to go out and take drugs anyway (and perhaps are more likely to do so if they’re told “drugs are bad ‘kay” their whole lives without any education about them but i don’t have stats to back that up, it’s more speculation!)

            hence the push for decrim/legalisation – if you have an established system for selling and distributing drugs, then you can implement industry standards (which i know is a weird term to use in relation to drugs! hee) and ensure a cleaner, safer product with established dose levels. you can also ensure that people will know how much to take for certain effects without overdosing, as the product will be more consistent from one experience to the next.

            the majority of psychoactive substances found in “recreational” drugs are actually not that neurotoxic (ie kill brain cells) and certainly far LESS neurotoxic than alcohol – MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstacy, isn’t neurotoxic, cannabis, in marijuana, isn’t neurotoxic, LSD isn’t neurotoxic. people die when they take them either because they do silly things whilst high (which, really, isn’t that different to doing silly things whilst drunk) or because they’re cut with shit that’s either poisonous to ingest (eg ajax powder, washing powder) or IS actually neurotoxic (eg PMA in eccies – much stronger and more potent cousin of MDMA, and 4-MTA, again, a much stronger relo of amphetamines)

            opiates are kind of another kettle of fish – they depress the respiratory centre in the brainstem, which is the main cause of death in overdose. but again, “standardisation”of drugs may prevent rather a lot of OD because people will actually KNOW what/how much they’re taking, rather than having to guess

            plus, people can have bad reactions to perfectly legal drugs – my mum’s allergic to chlorine, and penicillin – i react REALLY badly to antibiotics and get chronic gastro as soon as i take any – the oral contraceptive pill causes mood swings, similar to “recreational” drugs. one of my friends was given a really strong anti-nausea drug at hospital, by a doctor, sent home, and had an allergic reaction that nearly killed her.

            as nice as it would be to say to people “just don’t do it” and they won’t, in all likelihood, kids will come across drugs at some stage in their lives, usually during the teens/early twenties when peer pressure is at its peak – isn’t it better for them to be able to say, “oh yeah, mum told me about that – she didn’t like it much, i’ll give it a miss” or “nah, dad told me to wait till i’m old enough that it won’t fuck my brain development” than to go “sure, i have no idea what this is or how much to take, but i’ll give it a go anyway”?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
      • Konstantinos

        Drinking alcohol contains just as much risk as smoking weed or doing ecstasy. Smoking cigarettes does comparable damage to the body as snorting cocaine does. The only ‘rolling of the dice’ as you put it when it comes to most drugs is the fact that they may contain contaminants or other substances than you expect, which can be resolved by monitoring their manufacture.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Anon

          That’s not true. Different chemicals target different neurotransmitters so damage through ice use is different to nicotine. In fact, far more damaging.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Konstantinos

            I didn’t say Ice. I said marijuana and ecstacy are comparable in risk/damage to alcohol, and cocaine is comparable in risk/damage to cigarettes. I also said most drugs, not all. Ice and heroin do carry health risks in and of themselves, regardless of how they’re manufactured, that’s very true. But apart from that, the risks associated with drugs are not significantly greater than alcohol and cigarettes.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
          • shanemoore

            References for that outrageous claim please Anon. They all target dopamaine receptors…. word of the day…. ‘dose related’.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
        • Partner of...

          So Kostantinos – by your logic, since we have one drug that is out there causing all this harm ‘alcohol’, we might as well let all the other cats out of the bag and flood the market with fun new dangerous drugs.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Konstantinos

            Those drugs are out doing damage now…. and draconian anti-drug laws don’t do anything to help the people affected by drug use. So the argument that the ‘War on Drugs’ helps minimise the spread and damage of drugs is a defunct argument. Since most illegal drugs are no more damaging than legal drugs, the argument that they are illegal because they are too dangerous is also defunct. Thus, my logic is that MORE harm is done by making them illegal, and that much more can be done to mitigate damage, help addicts and NOT help underground criminal organisations by legalisation.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
          • shanemoore

            Partner of…. the market already is flooded with these ‘fun, new drugs’…. and they’re still illegal. (That’s because prohibition doesn’t work!) All peer reviewed journals on drug policy conclude that criminalising drug use does not decrease use. It has been shown that when users are not stigmatized or demonised for their use they are more likely to seek help. It is also conclusive that despite 40 years of prohibition, there are more people using, the drugs are stronger, more accessible and cheaper than they were 40 years ago. Tell me again how prohibition is suddenly going to start working?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
    • SusieQ

      If you don’t want your kids to do drugs, maybe don’t describe the outcome as ‘a really good time’. All the stats show that kids learn more from what you do rather than what you say – monkey see monkey do.
      I have known several people to try marijuana just the once and have lasting, permanent effects – two resulting in suicide.
      In my opinion there needs to be more education on the damaging effects as well as harsher penalties, not legalizing everything so people won’t think it’s cool. There will always be a market but if it is illegal there is at least one more deterrent out there.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Konstantinos

        That’s ridiculous. I’ve known hundreds of people who have done marijuana and none of them have resulted in suicide or permanent mental damage. The people you knew either had latent psychological conditions that would have surfaced sooner or later that were exacerbated by drug use (and fair enough that is a risk, but as people have pointed out alcohol can do the same thing), or the fact that they committed suicide is entirely coincidental. There are a million and one reasons why people might get depressed and commit suicide, to say ‘oh it must be because they did the drugs that one time’ is beyond stupidity. There does indeed need to be more research and education, and if it is HONEST education then it will reveal the research that is already going on that demonstrates the fact that most drugs are not even remotely as dangerous or damaging as the dominant discourse in society and education at the current time.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Anonymous

      It sounds like you just got lucky

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • dramaqueen

      Natalie, may I recommend an excellent book for parents which can also be read by your kids at about age 15 and will set them on the path toward being well informed and safe?

      Teenagers, Alcohol and Drugs, by Paul Dillon

      http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781741756807

      As a health and drug educator, I recommend this book to parents who come to my sessions

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  29. Melissa J

    Hmmmmmm. The nurse in me says no.
    It’s an idea worth thinking about, but it scares me that people think any drug is ‘safe’ if you use it right. How any drug affects you depends on so many different factors each dose, and how safe you are after taking that drug also depends on things like who you’re with, where you are, different circumstances.
    I also can’t help but think this would directly increase rates of mental illness.
    It’s an interesting idea. In the hands of our government but you can’t help but despair that they’d fuck it up somehow.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  30. mayberry

    i had to go back to my pharmacology notes for this one, just to check i remembered it right! :)

    so, you have two types of addiction – physical and psychological – physical where it has a long-term effect on the receptor and/or neurotransmitter levels in your brain through various mechanisms, and psychological, where you crave the drug, but not as result of physical processes.

    NICOTINE is the MOST addictive substance currently known – both psychologically and physically

    then opiates such as heroin, morphine etc

    then cocaine

    then alcohol (which, if you’re addicted, actually is more dangerous than other drugs because sudden withdrawal can kill you)

    then cannabis (which has a mild physical addiction, but is mostly psychological)

    then LSD (which is probably not very addictive because it confers tolerance very quickly, so you lose effects after repeat doses)

    if we were to be logical about the drugs debate, you’d actually criminalise alcohol and nicotine, and legalise marijuana and LSD, as they have less negative medical effects than nicotine and alcohol.

    also, socially, they’re kinda nicer – it’d be physically impossible to get angry and fight people whilst stoned, but drunk people do it all the time – the three drugs that are legally available to us are amongst the most angry-making – nicotine and caffeine hype you up, whilst alcohol can make you aggressive.

    and okay, yes, drugs do increase the likelihood of psychosis and mental health issues in those who are predisposed to such things. but alcohol (which is a drug) also has the same ability. if you have a history of mental health issues, probably best to steer clear of ALL drugs, including nicotine, alcohol and caffeine

    as you can probably tell from above, i’m for decriminalisation at least, and possibly legalisation. alcohol used to be illegal too! it’s just that it’s socially acceptable now because the government found a way of regulating, taxing and distributing it that they like. i dare say that if pot had been the drug of choice in the early colonies, then we’d have legal marijuana now and illegal alcohol :P

    and even disregarding all of the above, there are societal reasons to decriminalise – look at the US, where they have a really hard line stance against drugs, to the extent that if you’re caught with one joint you go to gaol, end up with a prison record, find it impossible to get employment on release, and so have to get deeper into criminal culture to survive because you’ve been made into a crim for having a bit of pot on you! AND this “no tolerance” stance is rarely applied to the well-off classes who have money and ability to access drugs, but selectively applied to poor ethnic minorities, particularly young black men.

    really interesting point in there too about the supply-lines, and how decrim/legalistion would improve the lot of people in the countries where drugs are grown – no gun toting cartels, less poverty, “cleaner”product, and a genuine new economy for poor, developing nations!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • lofo101

      Good summary Mayberry. Just a note for people confused about what ‘legalizing’ means. At least for heroin, it means supplying the drug safely to registered addicts. Claiming there will be some ‘free-for-all’ is moral-majority crap: no-one anywhere advocates that. For the others, I’m in agreement in keeping them illegal, with possibly the exception of marijuana. Nicotine/Alcohol cause enough problems without making another drug freely available.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • mayberry

        thanks :)

        although, as a developmental neuroscientist, i would have to add the caveat that even though i support decrim/legalisation of “recreational” drugs, ALL psychoactive substances should be abstained from (including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine) until you’re at least 21, as that’s the earliest age at which your brain is fully matured :P nerd, nerd, nerd

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Tripitaka

      I agree with a lot of your points… but…

      As a former smoker, I can’t believe that nicotine is worse to be addicted to than heroin, or harder to give up (so is it therefore, more or less addictive? not sure how you define that) Don’t get me wrong, it *sucked* to quit smoking, but it wasn’t *that* bad. Nothing like Trainspotting. Heroin addicts are often on a lifetime of morphine (or related drug?) after they quit.

      Also, you left out ice. I don’t know much about ice, I’ve never tried it. But I think it can be highly addictive (much more so than nicotine), and have a large risk of doing permanent psychological damage. If there is one drug to avoid, it’s this one, followed closely by heroin.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • mayberry

        not so much “worse” to be addicted to, but MORE addictive, as in it causes greater physical changes in the brain, and greater psychological cravings than opiates. i agree that the short-term consequences of heroin use are far scarier than those of nicotine – not so sure about the long-term!

        it’s possible that it’s not obviously bad because it is legal, and somewhat socially acceptable, to smoke. though if you look at the way addicts take the two separate drugs, there is kind of a difference – opiate addicts have a hit, once a week? once a month? nicotine addicts have a hit 20, 30, 40 times a day? mind you, cigarettes are very cleverly designed to give you a short, sharp hit that dissipates quickly cos it gets breathed out, so then you have to consume/buy more. really quite clever!

        ice is amphetamines yeah? amphetamines don’t cause physical addiction – quite the opposite, they actually create a physical tolerance, so people need to take higher doses each time to get similar effects. BUT they are EXCEEDINGLY psychologically addictive, and the psychological impact of amphetamines (and esp ice) is, again, quite scary! amphetamines would probably sit between opiates and cocaine in that list of addictiveness. i do agree with you that ice is scary fuckin shit – but, it’d be inconsistent for me to state that i support decrim/legalisation but “not that drug cos it’s yucky and creepy”

        nicotine is one of the few “recreational” drugs that improves your cognitive performance, so it’s not seen in the same sort of light as drugs that make you out of it like opiates and amphetamines. and, because we found a way of regulating and creating an industry around it, then it’s legal, and its addicts don’t have the same “junkie” image that addicts of opiates and ice have.

        there’s also a large risk of permanent psychological damage from excessive alcohol consumption, or even from playing contact sports where there’s frequent head collisions, but people still do that, although not the majority. and i feel (but this is me, not facts, so don’t take it as valued if you don’t agree :) ) that even if drugs were decrim/legalised, people are generally sensible enough that they’re not going to go out and take the hardest, most horrible things they can, because they’re horrible. for me, it’s more about being consistent – we’re okay to have alcohol and nicotine be legal (and look at the amount of damage those things do!) but we’re not okay to have other stuff be legal because there’s a chance they may damage you as well?

        yes, there will always be the stupid ruining it for the many by going out and being dicks whilst off their heads, but they can do that now with alcohol. decrim/legalisation won’t decrease the number of people who are idiots :P but as Lisa Pryor states in her extract, it will prevent those who casually have a bit of a puff or pill now and then from being classed as criminals, and it will take away a BIG profit area for crime gangs (look at what happened with the mob in prohibition era america once alcohol was legalised – a massive source of revenue dried up, and their activities were quite curtailed!) whilst possible improving the economies of countries where this stuff is produced.

        statistically, you’re more likely to die in a car accident than from “recreational” drugs. but no-one’s out there running campaigns about “say no to cars!” or “cars kill!just don’t do it!” because we’ve got things like road rules, seatbelts, safe driving programs and so on to minimise the massive risks involved in driving around. if people are taking drugs (and they are, despite the fact that they’re illegal or dangerous or whatever) isn’t it better to have a system in place similar to that of our roads system, where the potential for harm is minimised by ensuring “clean” drugs, regulated supply chains, recommended dosages, and making it much easier for emergency doctors to treat ODs when they happen because they don’t have to contend with not knowing what the hell someone has taken?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  31. Anonymous

    “However, every now and then someone we know, some friend of a friend, will get caught and have their future destroyed by a criminal conviction for doing no more than we have done. And we say nothing.”

    Imagine the above extract is about drink driving. Would Lisa’s friends still feel the same?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • redballoon

      It’s not about drink driving though -or driving whilst on un-prescribed drugs for that matter.
      Driving drunk poses a significant risk to other people.

      Having a personal stash of cannabis or LSD is not posing a danger to anyone else.

      I can’t fathom how you could compare possessing/using drugs with drink driving.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        Well – comparing drink driving with possessing/using drugs is like this – does the user simply stay at home with their ‘personal stash’ and take it all in private without harming anyone (supposedly)
        Or do they go outside, get in their car and drive around whilst off their head? There is still very little drug-driving testing going on. I know people who smoke pot and drive without giving a rats about the consequences because they know the drug testing technology is not available in every police vehicle all over the country. It’s idiotic of them to do it, but they do because they know there is very little chance of getting caught. So therefore, the comparison.

        Twenty years ago people felt sorry for anyone getting ‘caught’ drink driving – these days generational change has ensured drink drivers are reviled. Drug users are still driving and therefore someone’s ‘personal stash’ can and will hurt other people just as much as a drunk driver.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Zoe

      That doesn’t make sense- using and possessing drugs at risk to no one but yourself is in no way comparable to driving drunk. I’ve taken drugs, I don’t drink and drive.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  32. Brittany

    Alcohol and tobacco are the most dangerous drugs in Australia. These drugs kill more people and cost the economy more money then all illicit drugs combined. How can it be a good idea to legalise anymore drugs, when the two legal ones are causing so much harm?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • agreed

      I agree completely – drugs and alcohol are not harmless.

      A huge proportion of assault and damage cases are due to someone being under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, there is increasing evidence of the psychological damage of marijuana, and making drugs legal or decriminalising will have zero effect on their ‘addictiveness’ – they will be just as addictive.

      Drugs, alcohol and nicotine – none of these are harmless. We live in a society where we try to minimise the national harm of any activities, and therefore I think it is both childish and selfish to want to change laws to make it more convenient for some people to enjoy their ‘harmless’ recreation, at the expense of increasing usage and the problems which would come with that.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  33. Anon

    I grew up being totally against drugs, then for some reason in my 20s decided to take ‘recreational’ drugs – mostly cocaine. I fit the profile that you mention – university educated, middle class, good job etc, but I was dumb enough to let myself be influenced by the wrong type of friends. Being someone who is prone to mental illness (mum, sister with depression), I went from being extroverted, and carefree, to suffering from quite severe anxiety. I had a few scary episodes that my doctor said were probably psychotic, as well as having horrible nightmares all the time, and now, years later, I find it hard to even have more than a few wines with dinner without becoming overly emotional and depressed.
    Whilst the argument for legalising these drugs sounds good in theory, I think that the only thing that will deter young people from experimenting with them, is to ensure that they remain illegal, with harsh penalties for carrying them. I think the thought of being caught by the police and arrested would have scared me more than being warned about any other consequence, such as death, mental illness etc. And lets stop referring to them as ‘recreational’ – how about ‘illegal’.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Abby

      I come from a family for whom drug use and mental health problems go hand in hand, so I am in agreement with you. The difficulty with the mental health aspect is that often issues develop over years of use, they are not necessarily a consequence that occurs at the point when you take the drug and so many people out there don’t consider this as a potential outcome until it is too late.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        i live with somebody who is still suffering the crippling after effects of many years of marijuana addiction. his parents (who were hippies) got him started because “it’s not that bad for you”. i know he’s probably in a minority, but it’s real.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Yoyo

          My ex had the same problem.

          I find it really frustrating that so many people – especially in debates like these – who have only had good experiences with drugs talk about ‘harm minimisation’ and decriminalisation. They really don’t know how dangerous drugs are and are doing more harm than good.

          Yes, alcohol and tobacco have their own associated problems, but adding a whole range of drugs to to the ‘legal’ list would ruin countless lives and put a huge strain on our health system.

          The people who upset me the most are the ones who have had good experiences with drugs themselves and don’t strongly warn their children against drugs. Like the parents in the comment above, they didn’t suffer any negative affects so they told their son pot was ok. Advice like ‘start with half a pill’, ‘have an emergency number’ etc while sensible is just encouraging the thought that drugs must be safe if you follow the rules.

          Drugs affect everyone differently. Not everyone is lucky to have a good time and come out unscathed.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • sigh

            I’ve seen up close … and very personally … and currently still … the very catastrophic and unrelenting damage of drug addiction upon families, extended families, communities and society … and I still support harm minimisation and decriminalisation …

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
  34. GK

    A mother of nearly two and a medical student…..respect!

    No comment on the drugs. Never interested me, probably never will.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  35. Yoyo

    “If you try your best to buy free-range eggs and fair-trade coffee, does it really make sense to support without question one of the most vicious, unethical trades in the world?”

    For me the difference lies in the fact that the victims eggs/coffee are forced into their suffering and have no voice.

    Every person who uses drugs always has that first choice to not use drugs. They are not forced into it.

    I support more assistance for those battling addiction and those that find themselves becoming junkies. However, I have little regard for healthy people who use drugs recreationally.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Faybian

      Junkies all start off using drugs recreationally……

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • decriminalisation supporter

      I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the reference to free range eggs and coffee was to how the drug trade exists now illegally where whole countries are corrupted by drug lords and poor peasants forced to grow the stuff rather than the impact on druggies. Like other problems this goes away if it’s legal. Morphine for instance is grown in Tassie legally for the pharmeceutical trade. Haven’t noticed too many Columbian style cartels or murders for market share there recently.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • LauraS

        This is how I read it too – she is referring to the people who suffer from its production and trade, not those who suffer by using it. It’s an excellent point, one I’ll bet many hadn’t thought about.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • Yoyo

        You’re right, I misread it to mean otherwise.

        But still do you think legalising it would reduce these effects? Look at the effects of legal things like palm oil, diamonds etc They are legal but still hurt people throughout production and trade.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  36. Mermaid on the move

    I’ve just come home after a fab night & even fabber movie, but something about this post encouraged me to reply.

    Let me be the (seemingly) only one to say, without one iota of uncertainty, that drugs should NOT be decriminalised. No, people who take drugs do not only harm themselves, as one poster mentioned earlier (glad you managed to live life unscathed in your bubble up to now, but please look around you and realise this is the real world). Most often it is the parents, the wife, the partner, the children of an addict (or ‘recreational’ user) who suffer under the mood swings (and worse) that are the ultimate legacy of drugs.

    Also, please spare me the pretty weak point of saying most well-educated people (with supposedly brilliant minds no less!…maybe for the time being, but wait til drugs pay its long-term dividends) take drugs… Money doesn’t buy you brains. Real brains. Just as money is no guarantee of good taste, the supposed learned ‘knowledge’ of the well-educated (who have the potential to earn well, and subsequently have more disposable income to afford drugs like cocaine) does clearly not guarantee wisdom.

    My cousin nearly destroyed his parents as regular user of marijuana. Nearly killed himself and two other people in a car accident while high.

    Friends of my parents have two sons who casually experimented with drugs while at university…both ended up as junkies…apart from the emotional damage drugs wreaked on their family, these two guys had to undergo rehabilitation that crippled their parents financially.

    Would the decriminalisation of drugs have prevented these mere two examples of drugs causing only one thing; social decay & family (and coincidentally, individual) destruction?

    Are you indifferent to the fact that we are (spiritually speaking) all one? …and so what one person does (and choose to do to himself) DOES affect the greater whole…if not immediately, then eventually?

    I find it an eternal mystery and unimaginable frustration that Australians in general find it so hard to connect the dots! In a country that has EVERYTHING, it still amazes me that (some….most?) people throw it away on drugs (and alcohol abuse for that matter, but that’s another can of beer for another day).

    Although a beautiful intellectual idea, drug decriminalisation won’t change a thing, because at the core of the drug problem (which, may I add, is freaking MASSIVE in Australia), lies an unhinged society in dire need of self-respect, individual wisdom and personal accountability.

    Decriminalisation is at best a patch on a gangrene-infected body part that is so out of touch with the rest of the whole it forms part of, that it is now rotting and dying.

    …As you may have guessed, I’ve never used drugs, even if I fit the young, well-educated, high-earning professional box. Plainly speaking, I find drugs dumb. I find people who use drugs dumb (regardless of both degrees and money earned).

    Isn’t it ironic that the (supposed) INTELLECTUALS are advocating drug decriminalisation? Connect the dots guys – they’re right under your nose.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Yoyo

      Like like like this comment!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Nat

      I’m with you Mermaid, drugs should not and probably will not ever be decriminalised in Australia. This not just about minimising self harm, this is about preventing harm to all parties involved. Some of the posts below are actually VERY concerning…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Cat

      Mermaid is so spot on!!!!!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Eddie

        I agree with Mermaid, I just wonder where the COMMON SENSE has gone these days…it is really sad to think that drugs to be legalised is another discussion that is out there…I have a 3 mth old, 3 year and 5 year old scares me that these ideas are even being considered. There are enough worries and pressures out there for children as it is!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • sigh

          I have three children also. They are no longer small, and I do recall feeling much the same way when they were. They are now pre-teens and teens. With their development, I travelled closely by with my own development, and now have a much more sophisticated understanding of the complexity of the drugs and drug policies and the interacting health and justice (criminal and social) complications associated with the culture. I have never taken drugs, or smoked a cigarette, and can count my alcoholic intoxications on one hand, and I sometimes worry that my children will be riskier than I … which is why decriminalisation makes so much sense …. if there are complications I want to know that my children will be able to come forward and ask for help, that help and resources will be available, that health and social supports will be inclusive and able to access my child …. I want to know that this culture won’t swallow my children whole.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Anonymous

            As in ask for medical help if they overdose? Or rehabilitation? That is available now.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • sigh

              Research has made the point that teens won’t even call an ambulance if a friend is unconscious or advise health professionals what they’ve taken for fear of recrimination. Decriminalisation is not the same as the legalisation of drug dealing. Decriminalisation is about preventing users from facing criminal charges for personal usage. Plus which … rehab and drug services are under-resourced, exist on the margins of social services and are subjected to tight funding regulations pending political agenda of the time. Not to mention the failure of rehab to work time and time again because as a society we refuse to address the CAUSE of drug use. Social inequality, exclusion, marginalisation and stigma. Cheers. But I’d like my kids to feel brave enough to tell an ambo what their friend has taken … it might be your kid he helps. :)

              p.s. I’m anti drugs … I’m a “just say no” parent … I’m a “just say no” parent day after day after day … and then some days in between … cheers.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
    • Susan As Well

      Your post is compelling in its arguments but quite false in determining that the outcome of decriminalisation is increased drug use and increased adverse effects on the whole of society.

      What you are really saying is that you fear the POSSIBLE outcomes of decriminalisation and what the evidence is saying is that your fear is not being bourne out in reality.

      Criminalising drug use has NOT deterred people from using drugs and HAS resulted in significant adverse social effects for users, their families and the whole of society.

      Decriminalisation has led to the outcome which you are hoping to achieve by criminalising drug use and which has not occurred.

      This link may enlighten your current knowledge if you’re interested:

      http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

      There is a wealth of academic literature also available on the subject.

      I am not a recreational drug user. I am a well-educated and, hopefully, wise healthcare professional. I think you have connected the wrong dots, even if they are right under your nose :)

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Netherlands

        As so many pro-decriminalisation people like to talk about the Dutch drugs policy – it should be noted that in the Netherlands, the liberalisation of their drug laws has come with an almost doubling of cannabis use, and almost tripling of heroin use.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Susan As Well

          The Netherlands has a policy of non-enforcement not decriminalisation.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • lofo101

          The ‘tripling’ or heroin use in Holland is a dodgy statistic created by the Americans. Most other sources report reduced levels of usage, and in percentage terms they are far far lower than that of the US (despite its ‘tough on drugs’ policy). Don’t go to the DEA looking for rational information, it’s run by ideological zealots – but even these guys realise the game’s up given the disaster of drugs in the US.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • louisaashton

          That isn’t neccesarily true – how could you actually measure illegal drug use other than by surveying people or measuring crim charges etc? Unless they are actually selling drugs in retail shops and can measure how much they are selling, but to my knowledge they aren’t.
          Since they do not enforce criminal laws, they can’t measure drug use by criminal charges, so they must be doing it by surveys, and people are most likely going to be more honest about their habbits in a survey AFTER they know they aren’t going to be criminally charged. Or I suppose they could measure it by the amount of people seeking help for addiction or somethign but that would also most likely increase when people knew that they were safe from prosecution

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • shanemoore

          All indicators for cannabis use in the Netherlands (life time prevalence, last month prevalence, etc) are on average for the rest of Europe and significantly lower than the US and the UK (where prohibition of cannabis is enforced)

          If anyone is interested in facts rather than anti-cannabis propaganda, have a look here. http://drogriporter.hu/en/getthefacts

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • lofo101

      Another fact-free moralistic rant. Here’s a question for you: would your trainwreck friend’s kids have been worse off under a legalised drug system? The answer is no. What would have happened though is that a) they wouldn’t have funded criminals and b) they might have become part of a system that would have intervened on their drug use well before it got out of control. I agree it’s sad that people feel the need to use these substances, and it would be nice if they all just went away but history has shown that is totally unrealistic given human nature. A punitive system has given us nothing but increasing drug use rates and staggering wastage of money and resources. It’s time to try something else that will be cheaper, and probably more effective – the facts of places like Switzerland prove it can work. By the way, your friend’s kids probably ended up trying harder drugs BECAUSE of their illegality. Clandestine relationships with ugly dealers have a way of doing that. On top of everything else, drug users and their families need to stop blaming drugs and ‘the system’: it’s people who choose to use them, not the other way round.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • shanemoore

      Namaste mermaid, we are all ONE… the inclusive way in which you use terms such as ‘dumb’ and ‘junkies’ indeed shows the depth of your spirituality.

      I realize that the ‘young, well educated, high earning professional box’ gives you the right to say what you think about anyone who uses drugs, even though you have no lived experience of it yourself. You who has never let a drug, such as alcohol, coffee, chocolate, cold tablets, painkiller of any kind sully your connection to the ALL.

      And being ONE, what one does affects the all…. “an unhinged society in dire need of self-respect, individual wisdom and personal accountability.”
      So we give them self-respect by calling them junkies and dumb…
      We promote individual wisdom by telling them they will do what we tell them too, to believe that what they do is wrong and deny them their right to explore their own consciousness.
      We encourage personal accountability by denying their right to self-autonomy.
      I’m not sure how that’s going to work in getting us all back to Oneness again mermaid. How on one hand you lay the blame for our social problems at the feet of lack of self-respect, individual wisdom and personal accountability yet on the other advocate policies that limit those very same things is beyond me. But I’m sure in your fab little bubble it all makes sense

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  37. sigh

    The discussion does need to begin … So sad to think this generation of young people will remain silent simply because it “suits them”. Key point at end of article about the less fortunate drug users, and how a public call for decriminalisation really means making a stand for those least able to voice their needs.

    decriminalisation has much merit … I guess it isn’t so much a concern for me what decriminalisation may mean to the casual user, whose life may invariably continue on unhindered … it’s about the lives it could potentially improve, indeed save, by removing the stigma and social exclusion for the long term sufferers of addiction. Addiction hits hardest the most vulnerable and already socially ostracised people in our society … research shows us that people struggling with addiction bear such shame and isolation that they often do not seek help until it is too late, for fear of incriminating themselves, their suppliers, their friends and for fear of the judgement that comes from opening their lives up to state (hospital, police, welfare, child protection) and agency (charity, counselling, rehab) surveillance. Criminalisation is a judgement. The judgement keeps people from seeking help for themselves and their families, and the judgement brings complications that can compromise the few informal supports they may have in their lives … supports many of us take for granted … those of family and friends who approve of us, support us and can relate to us. When your friends are also drug users, on account of those people being the ones who can relate and support you, once you seek help and “out” yourself as “criminal” … your network flees to avoid being caught up in your circle of surveillance. I’m all about eliminating stigma amongst the most marginalised … we should be doing more … this young, energetic, educated and rights claiming generation should be doing more …

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • shanemoore

      ‘sigh’ THANK YOU! From one generation to another… you have restored my faith in human decency and compassion. Namaste.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • sigh

        cheers … just trying to be the love … (I suspect I’m sucking at it … sigh) :)

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  38. Belinda.

    I feel, perhaps somewhat cynically, that there may be a financial reason ‘recreational’ (as opposed to ‘prescription’) drugs have not been decriminalised/legalised in this and other countries – many governments are disinclined to take control of the industry. Firstly, this is often seen as a ‘socially progressive’ issue, and socially progressive doesn’t always win votes (especially with an aging population…. despite the fact they lived through the 1960′s). Secondly, its a lot of bloody effort. In order for the government to receive income via tax from manufacturers & distributors (cooks & dealers) they’d have to legitimise the trade somehow. This means creating quality control standards, occupation health & safety procedures, potentially a Drug Workers Association….. Turning a black market into a bright white market takes not only an pretty seismic paradigm shift, but also a LOT of time and money.
    And so, I feel like perhaps these drugs aren’t legal just because the government hasn’t yet figured out how to make money (tax) from them. Considering that 98% of drug related deaths in Australia were alcohol or tobacco related (two very very tax rich industries), its not difficult to understand my cynicism.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Oliver

      Legalisation would not cost anything, in fact it would SAVE a “LOT of time and money”: A 2008 study by Harvard economist J. Miron estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy ($44.1 billion from law enforcement savings & at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue).

      The reason legalisation is unlikely to ever happen, is because no Politician has the guts to raise it as a policy out of fear of a voter backlash.

      For all those of you saying you’ve never taken drugs; I assume that excludes your precious alcohol?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSxJs0WQhGk

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Costs

        For all those ‘saved’ dollars on crime – imagine how much money will have to be poured into counselling and mental health services, hospitals, etc.

        Not to mention the consistent fact that – legal drugs will still be ADDICTIVE. If you are ADDICTED to drugs, you still need to find the money to pay for them no matter where you buy them from.

        Do you think junkies are going to stop being junkies, or stop stealing to fund their habit, just because they could buy from a pharmacy instead of their dealer?

        Seriously?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • lofo101

          @Costs. This is the sort of ill-informed comment that’s holding us back. Of course drugs whether legal or not stay addictive. The point of controlled legalisation is to provide less-dangerous pure drug, and make it so cheap addicts don’t need to steal or even provide them free (a dose of heroin would cost perhaps 50 cents to make). The money poured into health/hospitals etc is far cheaper than keeping them illegal and dealing with the criminal side (which strips billions from economies, and so far, seems to be completely wasted). So there’s two arguments stripped away. There are other reasons for not legalizing drugs, but your ones aren’t them.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Melissa J

            I struggle with the idea that addicts can get heroine for 50cents. Heroine has a catastrophic effect on the body and on the users life, I just can’t wrap my head around how we could sell it to people legally.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • shanemoore

              The only side effect from pure grade heroin given at the right does is constipation… what causes the catastrophes are the harms associated with the laws.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
        • Susan As Well

          Seriously? Will provision of drugs from a pharmacy prevent junkies from stealing to fund their habit?

          Yes. Resoundingly, Yes. We already do this in all states of Australia except the NT. It’s called the Methadone Maintenance program where the government regulates provision of a prohibited drug to addicts. Results of the program show better health, employment and social outcomes for addicts as well as decreased crime.

          http://www.aic.gov.au/~/media/conferences/hcpp/mcarthur.pdf

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • shanemoore

          I do wish people would get their facts right before posting nonsense. :-)

          Cost… answer me this: “Do you think alcoholics are going to stop being alcoholics, or stop stealing to fund their habit, just because they could buy from a bottle shop instead of a dealer?” (Does the question sound familiar?)
          Problematic users of any drugs make up a small percentage of those who use. And again, cannabis, amphetamine, ecstasy are not physically addictive (ie they are do not have withdrawals). Alcohol and nicotine are.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • lofo101

      You can add to your cynicism the well-meaning, but entrenched legal system. Legalized, controlled drugs would mean a hell of a lot of unemployed customs officers, cops, judges and lawyers. Adding legalized drugs to the health system would not be hard or particularly expensive: these funds are already being spent on too-late treatment, and the savings form taking the legal system out of the equation would be huge. But as I said, you’re taking away alot of livelihoods so it won’t be easy, particularly when the debate is so ill-informed and it’s political death to talk of legalizing. You’ll have a hard time convincing the bogan Herald-Sun contingent to do it, regardless of the facts.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        Your first comment was thought provoking, this one is ridiculous…really customs and cops out of jobs? Pretty sure they do more than just deal with drugs. And your Herald-Sun comment is egotistical.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Anonymous2

          The majority of police, court time, jail space and customs work is involved in detection or prosecution of drugs, or drug-related crime. It’s been that way for decades. So..what are you going to do with them all – it’s literally thousands upon thousands of people.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Anonymous

            They’ll be out wrangling the people who are taking legal drugs.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
  39. Legalise It!

    I’m all for the decriminalisation of drugs – I think that when it’s made legal, you can then enforce strict quality controls, and also you encourage those people who might have issues with drugs to come forward and seek assistence, because you’re reducing some of the stigma attatched to the issue.

    I’m not sure that the illegality of drugs makes them inherantly distasteful – many underage people will drink despite, and even because it’s not allowed. By accepting and monitoring the substances available, I feel you’d be more able to decrease the problematic side affects.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Rick Morton

      I’m all about harm minimisation. The best way to do that is to accept and control. I’m with you.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  40. not today..

    In my 20′s I was a regular party girl & enjoyed an assortment of party drugs, not due to peer group pressure, not due to self esteem issues but just because it was fun. I had a ball & when it was time to grow up I walked away, nothing bad happened, nothing bad happened to anyone I knew.
    I know its not always the way, & I certainly wouldnt want my children doing the crazy things I did but there were many many people then & now who just like to go a little wild every now & then. I agree that some of the drug laws do need discussion

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • bridget

      hmmmmm wouldn’t want your kids doing the crazy things you did?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Anonymous

      it’s good nothing bad happened to you or anyone you know

      But yours is a comment that frightens me. It’s the kind of comment that makes young people think trying drugs will be OK. That they won’t become junkies, that no-one will die. That wanting to ‘go wild every now and then’ permits the use of illicit drugs.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        Any decision based on word of mouth and opinion rather than facts and weighing up the risks is a bad decision. Kids need to hear facts and statistics and opinions from people who haven’t been so lucky as well as those who have, then make an informed choice

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • shanemoore

          You mean from people who get their drug information from newspapers and radio shockjocks? Why shouldn’t ‘not today’ talk to kids…. her story is just as true as those who encountered problems.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
  41. SuzieQ

    I would like to see drugs legalised. There are inherent dangers in almost every drug we take, legal or not. In countries where there has been decriminalisation of drugs the outcomes have been good for all of society. Kudos to the author for bringing the conversation into the public for debate. I work in an area where I deal with a lot of drug users. There is no doubt that many people take them BECAUSE they are illegal – it makes them think they are just so cool-particularly younger users. There are some interesting statistics in Holland – use of hard drugs fell when marijuana was legalised. Here in Australia, we don’t need to reinvent the rules, just look at what has worked elsewhere in Western society.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  42. simmy

    oh, hard one… as a mum, i dread the day that my boys will go out and take them… dread dread dread… but i know that there is a big possibility that they will try, like i did when i was younger… i also drank spirits, rode in cars without a seatbelt without really knowing if the driver was over the limit or not, rode motorbikes without a helmet, hitchiked… the list goes on… i am a parent now and to think that i did all those things scares me … my point is, everything is dangerous, so i guess they better be regulated so we get a better chance at “surviving” the danger..? i really want to read the book, is it available as an e-book? good iniciative to start the debate, i clearly need to make my mind up about the issue…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  43. halfie

    I’m kind of split in two on this one. While i think some drugs like weed should potentially be legalised, i’m not quite sure other drugs. If drugs like cocaine and ecstasy were legalised, would they become the norm and be taken as openly at parties as alcohol is drunk?
    speaking for myself, i have never taken drugs. I’m epileptic and if i did, the consequences would be disastrous

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Rick Morton

      Lisa writes about the case of Portugal in the book. It’s fascinating. Portugal legalised everything. Everything! But at the same time they only allowed people to carry enough for 10 days of personal use. Those who were showing signs of addicitons were ushered into programs. But the terrible drug stats all changed for the better after this happened.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Faybian

        Personally, I think the way to decriminalize drugs would probably be best done gradually. For example, marijuana first, control the outlets, crop growing and laws around acceptable use of. Then lead on to another, over time.
        I also think making drugs like heroin a strictly monitored drug too, as well as having treatment programs set up for those that need them. Possibly pie in the sky, but there you have it. I don’t think that we’ll ever get rid of recreational drugs.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • protecting my identity

      I wonder if there would be a law against doing drugs in public. Would smoking a joint be OK to do or would it be illegal like most of Australia as it is smoking?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  44. anon

    Very interesting read. I support decriminalisation – I have take illicit drugs and most of my friends have as well but none of them have ever supported any sort of illicit trade or criminal activity. I have had one friend become addicted but everyone else and there are alot have been fine and become fine upstanding citizens to grow up out of the highs of the twenties and into their thirties and supporting families and holding down high profile jobs without the haze of drugs. I think most people would have dabbled in the illicit but not had anywhere near the effects government media or high school teachings would have you believe.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  45. decriminalisation supporter

    I support decriminalisation of all drugs for no other reason than that it’s nobody’s business than their own what harm people do to themselves. I suspect the result would be an increase in drug use but don’t really see this as a problem as long as:
    - we have accurate public education so that people know what the risks are; and
    - committing crimes under the influence of drugs is no excuse – in fact as we’ll have a lot more prison space as we stop locking people up for drug offences might as well use it for idiots who can’t control themselves while under the influence.

    Sure some people will damage themselves but that is their business just as it is if they smoke or jump out of aeroplanes. But some people will be healthier – anyone taking heroin that isn’t 95% dishwashing powder will be better off and the rest of us benefit from not having junkies burgle our houses to score drug money. An enormous part of drug harm comes from them being illegal and very little from the drugs themselves.

    A bit radical? Perhaps but it needs to be remembered that heroin, cocaine and marijuana were all freely available in the early years of last century – read Sherlock Holmes who was always shooting up cocaine, Watson disapproved but then he also did of excessive tobacco use – and while there were hopeless addicts just as there are alkies now, there wasn’t drug crime as such.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • what?

      I never understand the idea of ‘if drugs become legal we won’t have junkies breaking into our house and stealing to support their habit’

      Making heroin legal won’t stop it being addictive, and if you are addicted to heroin you are still going to need to get money to buy it…

      Also, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character.

      And finally, why on earth would you think there were ‘no drug crimes as such’?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        And don’t forget about the potentially damaging effects drugs can have, even if they’re ‘safe’. Just like alcohol and cigarettes. Who will support users when they end up in hospital care…

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • decriminalisation supporter

          In fact heroin is probably safer used purely than nicotine as long as overdose is avoided. If you are serious about making decisions for adults about what is best for them you’d probably start by banning smoking and alcohol. But I have this odd view that adults should be the best judge of their best interests. If all you are worried about is the cost of treatment simply add that cost into the product cost which is what we do with tobacco.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • decriminislation supporter

        Thanks for letting me know about Sherlock Holmes – do be open to the possibility though that how a fictional character lived was an accurate representation of how drugs worked in that particular society. Interestingly enough the drug use was no big deal, just like tobacco use.

        And why won’t there be crimes committed by druggies trying to feed their habit or drug gangs wanting to control the trade? Firstly, if there is no illegal trade then there is nothing for gangs to fight over. And why won’t there be crimes by druggies – when was the last time you were mugged by nicotine adicts or alcoholics? Doens’t happen despite how addictive these substances are because they are available legally and at fairly low cost. It’s also worth noting that their illegality means that those you use them are by definition criminals – if you are going to be a crim in one area it’s easier to make the leap to criminality in others.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • lofo101

        @what: No, you don’t understand it. By legalizing heroin, users would get to buy it cheaply, removing the need to burgle to get it. That (and the improved health of the addicts) is the whole point.
        “Legalizing” doesn’t mean a free-for-all either: it would just be to registered addicts. To moral-majority types: it’s actually far less of a burden to the taxpayer too as health care costs are reduced, as is crime.

        The system works extremely well in Switzerland, and will come to pass to most rich western nations soon.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • Oliver

        ‘if drugs become legal we won’t have junkies breaking into our house and stealing to support their habit’ = CORRECT
        Drugs are only expensive because they are illegal.
        You don’t see alcoholics breaking into peoples homes because their drug of choice can be manufactured, transported and sold at a reasonable price because it is not hyper-inflated by the risks of participating in an illegal activity.
        It seems counter intuitive, but money spent on drug enforcement only serves to try to restrict supply which increases the drugs price and the profits of organised crime, which in turn drives more production and lures more people into organised crime. This then requires even more spending on law enforcement and becomes a viscous cycle of wasted money, ever growing cartels, executions (either over gang turf or by law enforcement), untreated/incarcerated addicts and destroyed lives.
        http://goo.gl/98Rcq

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  46. brookeskorupan

    It depends on what type of drug would be legalised. Marijuana used for medicinal purposes is probably the most logical thing (if any drug was to be legalised),because if it was prescribed by a doctor, it will be in its pure form, as opposed to buying it from a drug-dealer and smoking something that could possibly be laced with another illegal drug. However, as for methamphetamine, heroin (that are highly addictive and have massive side-effects on the individual), ecstasy and other party drugs – I do not see any reason as to why they should be legalised as they have no medical benefits whatsoever. This will destroy the individuals life and most likely their families in the process. I grew up in a place where many people were using these types of drugs and I witnessed a working-class man resort to dealing, mingling with prostitutes and once having a home to having nothing, as well as witnessing the drastic and dangerous change of the person (and people). Yes, every person is different, but I can guarantee you there is no need for those types of drugs, and to legalise these types of drugs would be allowing a new generation of people to become addicted (which will open the gateway for new, more addictive and more dangerous drugs) and to then witness them destroying their lives without any legal consequnces for their actions – because these drugs were legalised!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • AnonFor This

      Methamphetamine, was used for dieting. It’s close relative dexamphetamine is used for ADHD and narcolepsy.
      Heroin used to be called diamorphine when it was legally used as pain relief. I’m sure oncology patients would find that helpful, although it’s metabolized into morphine anyway.
      Cocaine is used as a local anesthetic to this day, particularly in ENT (ear nose and throat) surgery.
      Dunno about eccies or LSD.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        I do believe that researchers are finding benefits for the use of MDMA (ecstasy) in cases of Parkinson’s Disease

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • brookeskorupan

          If it’s medically prescribed to treat an illness or disease etc than I stand corrected. Thank you for sharing this.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • shanemoore

        LSD is showing great promise treating PTSD and depression

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • brookeskorupan

          I’ve only witnessed firsthand what (illegal) drugs can do to people. If it is medically prescribed and to treat an illness or disease (and perhaps monitored to ensure the person stops taking it when no longer needed to prevent addiction) then I guess my view on legalised drugs has changed. Thanks for sharing! :)

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
  47. Elspeth

    I watched my father – a well-educated businessman – descend in a downward spiral that started from recreational use of cocaine and ended with his death from a heroin overdose. So no, I don’t support recreational use of cocaine. It caused hell for my family.

    That said, I don’t think that drug taking should be a criminal act. Drug dealing – yes. But drug taking is a health issue, much the same as cigarette smoking, which also causes huge misery for the families of people who have died horrible deaths from it.

    My dad wasn’t a criminal. It was his own choice to take cocaine – and partly it was the thrill of doing sonething dangerous and a way to cope with his disappointment in life. But cocaine was not harmless for him.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Rick Morton

      Cocaine is definitely an interesting drug, given how often it’s the educated/higher class that use it. Or at least traditionally so. I’m sorry about your dad.

      I agree with you totally about decriminalising drug use.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Susan As Well

      Decriminalisation has worked well in overseas countries for addicts, occasional users and the whole of society . It is definitely a health problem not a criminal activity. It would be great to see the crime currently associated with illicit drug dealing disappear.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  48. Anonymous

    “If you try your best to buy free-range eggs and fair-trade coffee, does it really make sense to support without question one of the most vicious, unethical trades in the world?”

    I agree, I don’t understand why people who take drugs don’t think about where their drugs come from.

    Not only is taking an unprescribed, unregulated drug dangerous for yourself (and potentially others if it has a nasty effect), but it is directly supporting pain and suffering of all those people involved or affected by the creation, transport and sale of those drugs.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • An Idle Dad

      I’m glad you support the decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        Is this comment in reply to mine really, or was the posting position accidental?

        (or was it sarcasm)

        I don’t support legalisation, maybe decriminalisation, but I need a lot more information.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • aloha

      I completely agree with you…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • 10pm

      Drug use is not a rational decision, people aren’t checking if their pot is organic or their heroin is from a sustainable crop.

      They are most likely self medicating, and just thinking of getting rid of their own pain, be it psychological or physical

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  49. Anonmumoftwo

    I think that a debate on a culture that has been pushed “underground” is a valid point. I am from Glasgow and recently have moved with my husband and two boys to Australia.
    I appreciate that the UK may be different from Australia in terms of drug use but found that, clubbers in particular, become addicted to the emotional high of drugs such as ecstasy, rather than the physical addiction of drugs such as heroin, for example.
    I would never preach one way or the other but would urge caution when any kind of
    generalisation is made regarding how often
    people use drugs. I hate the term
    “recreational” because it implies a kind of fun,
    harmless activity. There’s a really excellent
    website called TalktoFrank.com which gives non-judgemental, non-biased information on substances, their effects etc.
    My experience of clubbing friends was that most of them started off with occasional use of ecstasy and progressed to every weekend use plus cocaine or speed then needed Valium or Temazepam to come down and prepare to function in their jobs. The term “wash out Wednesday” is pretty much accurate….it took me ages to work out why an ex boyfriend was exhausted for three days at the start of every week. A lot of clubbers who became reliant on cannabis for their down did develop psychosis and one paranoid schizophrenia. I know there is a large section of the clubbing community and using community in general, who don’t and will never experience this and I know that the author isn’t for a minute suggesting there are no dangers.
    But, honestly, I don’t know how I’d feel if my two sons were going out and taking ecstasy and/or cannabis every weekend. And I appreciate totally the point of people who argue that alcohol is just as dangerous. It is a dilemma and kudos to the author for sticking her head above the parapet and starting the call for debate. I, too, can’t wait to read her book.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • lofo101

      Good message anonmumoftwo. Sounds like a pretty realistic summation of the kind of lives lots of young people leave these days.
      The fact is, your sons probably will go out and take ecstasy one weekend – it’s near inevitable. How you handle it is hard: I think if your kid is well-balanced, they’ll deal with it and you can discuss it, telling them always to be careful. Parents run into problems when their kids are already on the way to becoming trainwrecks. In this case, as the saying goes, the drugs find them, not the other way round. There’s nothing much the system can do about a wilful trainwreck…it’s sad to see these people basically write themselves off. The ones I’ve seen have always had dysfunctional parents to begin with, and you could almost see it coming. When drug users become really bad, you just have to get out of the way or you’ll go under with them. Still, I believe it’s fate that this happens, not ‘bad choices’ or ‘bad friends’ – if anything, blame the family environment, but a trainwreck is going to be a trainwreck no matter what you do.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  50. kit

    Yep, I think drugs should be legalised. I am a rarity amongst my friends; I take ecstasy maybe 2-4 times a year, where as most people i socialise with will take “ecstasy” nearly every weekend. I say “ecstasy” because what is being sold on the streets these days is not MDMA (which is a relatively safe drug to use). These chemicals which are illegal and legal (herbal party pills*) are more dangerous in my opinion. You really never know what you are going to get and yes, that is dangerous. If such drugs were legalised, people would be more educated about using them safely, and know what to expect etc. If anything did go wrong, medical professionals would have a clearer understanding of what they are dealing with and treat the problem more effectively.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Cabbagefairy

      So true, if it was legal you would actually know what was going into your pill rather than having to guess. A friend of mine used to use a website (can’t remember the name) that has photos of different pills and tells you what’s in the/ strength etc.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Harriet Kemp

        It’s called Pill Reports!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...

So, we have $1000 to give away... oh, would you be interested? Well step right this way.

To go in the draw to win, just LIKE us on Facebook, enter your email address and tell us in 25 words or less why you love reading Mamamia.

Close this popup



Full Terms & Conditions