Read the article linked to by fred99 Mike. You don't have to agree with it, just please read it.

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

My work experience and my son's work experience tells a different story to your one when it comes to violence etc associated with substance abuse

 

Prove it.

 

Wow. How would you like him to do that ?

This thread has now reached a new low. I'm out. 

Fred99:

MikeB4:

My work experience and my son's work experience tells a different story to your one when it comes to violence etc associated with substance abuse

Prove it.

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

My work experience and my son's work experience tells a different story to your one when it comes to violence etc associated with substance abuse

 

Prove it.

 

 

Wow. How would you like him to do that ?

 

 

 

This thread has now reached a new low. I'm out. 

 

 

 

This is exactly the kind of attitude that doesn't help at all. Nya nya I can't hear you. Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. Let's do it this way because we have always done it this way. If it was good enough for gramps it is good enough for me. 

I hope people with open minds will at least look at the real evidence and just consider the possibility that they may be wrong. Or maybe they are not, but at least reach a conclusion based on something more substantial than emotion and prejudice. 

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

My work experience and my son's work experience tells a different story to your one when it comes to violence etc associated with substance abuse

 

Prove it.

 

 

Wow. How would you like him to do that ?

 

 

 

This thread has now reached a new low. I'm out. 

 

 

 

If you can't add anything better than that, perhaps you should have never joined.

Some stats or data would be nice.  If it's not readily available, then perhaps a question should be asked "why not?".

Basing policy on anecdote and "personal opinion" led us into the mess that we're (NZ) in with drug abuse.

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

My work experience and my son's work experience tells a different story to your one when it comes to violence etc associated with substance abuse

Prove it.

Wow. How would you like him to do that ?

 

This thread has now reached a new low. I'm out. 

 

This is exactly the kind of attitude that doesn't help at all. Nya nya I can't hear you. Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. Let's do it this way because we have always done it this way. If it was good enough for gramps it is good enough for me. 

I hope people with open minds will at least look at the real evidence and just consider the possibility that they may be wrong. Or maybe they are not, but at least reach a conclusion based on something more substantial than emotion and prejudice. 

 

MikeB4:

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

My work experience and my son's work experience tells a different story to your one when it comes to violence etc associated with substance abuse

 

 

 

Prove it.

 

How can I bring in here beaten spouses, beaten children, beaten mothers and beaten father's. How can I bring in 50 year olds that died at 20. How can I bring in wrecked homes and wrecked families, murdered spouses and murdered children. While you are at how can I remove those images from my mind embedded by 25 years of seeing it.

I don't doubt there are plenty of individual examples as you describe, but you are seeing the worst cases, not the larger picture. Please read that article. It describes in detail the larger picture in different countries who have dared to try different approaches. Horrific examples can always be found but is not just barely possible that they are the result of current policies?

MikeB4:

Fred99:

 

MikeB4:

My work experience and my son's work experience tells a different story to your one when it comes to violence etc associated with substance abuse

 

 

 

Prove it.

 

How can I bring in here beaten spouses, beaten children, beaten mothers and beaten father's. How can I bring in 50 year olds that died at 20. How can I bring in wrecked homes and wrecked families, murdered spouses and murdered children. While you are at how can I remove those images from my mind embedded by 25 years of seeing it.

I acknowledge that, but if you're (and your son who's a psychologist IIRC) at the "bottom of the cliff" then you're automatically going to get a view which may not be representative.

One of my close friends is also a clinical psychologist dealing with youth, and sees harm from drug abuse every day.  In her case that makes her very opposed to recreational use of drugs, but the situation  is not that simple in context of the "war on drugs" - which is what this thread is about.

Some comments:

They get the drugs anyway - regardless of "war on drugs".

Some "self-medicate" other (mental) health issues.  Untangling cause and effect isn't straight-forward.

Use of those drugs seems to decline - not increase, when decriminalisation is implemented.

The "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff" effect is exacerbated when the behaviour causing harm is illegal.  They're not likely to come forward for help/treatment even if they think they might have a "little problem" associated with drug (ab)use, only when it reaches a crisis point.

I wish we could find a way to move beyond the 'I'm right you're wrong' approach to this discussion. I don't know that I am right. Everything I have experienced and read persuades me that I am, but that is not what is important. What matters is whether there is a better way of dealing with the situation. I genuinely believe that current policy is wrong, and I believe there is a gradual international movement in the direction of accepting and acknowledging that. According to current official figures as I understand them, meth use in this country is higher than ever. The current policy of punishment and repression clearly isn't working. Maybe there is something better.

Rikkitic:

I wish we could find a way to move beyond the 'I'm right you're wrong' approach to this discussion. I don't know that I am right. Everything I have experienced and read persuades me that I am, but that is not what is important. What matters is whether there is a better way of dealing with the situation. I genuinely believe that current policy is wrong, and I believe there is a gradual international movement in the direction of accepting and acknowledging that. According to current official figures as I understand them, meth use in this country is higher than ever. The current policy of punishment and repression clearly isn't working. Maybe there is something better.

 

I believe that we need a two fold approach.

 First we need to immediately decriminalize 'soft' drugs.  And by 'decriminalize',  I mean the removal of court appearances and criminal convictions.  They will remain illegal to use and the use of them will be punished by fines. 

 Then, we need to set up an inquiry looking into a heavily regulated legal framework for drugs.  This would involve all political parties, heath experts, social workers, etc.,  it will be well funded,  takes several years of discussion,  and be public.

debo:

 

 First we need to immediately decriminalize 'soft' drugs.  And by 'decriminalize',  I mean the removal of court appearances and criminal convictions.  They will remain illegal to use and the use of them will be punished by fines. 

 

So basically, drug use would be fine as long as a person (or their parents) was wealthy enough to afford to cut a cheque every time they were fined, and still a problem for those would couldn't afford to pay the fine and would eventually be in court for that?

 

Then, we need to set up an inquiry looking into a heavily regulated legal framework for drugs.  This would involve all political parties, heath experts, social workers, etc.,  it will be well funded,  takes several years of discussion,  and be public.

 

Trouble is, I doubt you would get agreement. Certainly not unanimity. There are too many entrenched positions on both sides of the debate, and people who will never move. This thread gives pretty good evidence of that!

It's a bit depressing that the argument seems stuck on "drugs are bad" and "no they aren't" shouting match. Most people know that. And for the record, although I do like the odd Sav Blanc and craft beer, I'm opposed to taking them. Yes, depending on the drug, they will mess some people up and not others, and yes in a proportion of cases they are bad for the health of the user.

None of that is really relevant.

The key question is whether the harm is greater if they are legal or illegal. You have to weigh up the likely impact on consumption from changing their status, whether legalisation would make it easier for people with problems to seek help, whether legal and cheap supply (maybe on prescription?) would mean users didn't have to burgel or prostitute themselves to pay for drugs, and the harm caused by keeping them illegal (policy costs, criminal convictions and inability to subsequently work, cost of prisons etc. Then come to an "on balance" view - it isn't black and white.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty confident that the current approach isn't working. The gangs are enriched, people seem to have no difficulty getting drugs, lives are being destroyed, and the police/courts/prisons are being clogged.

JimmyH:

 

 

 

So basically, drug use would be fine as long as a person (or their parents) was wealthy enough to afford to cut a cheque every time they were fined, and still a problem for those would couldn't afford to pay the fine and would eventually be in court for that?

 

No,  soft drug use would be treated the same as speeding.  Do you think speeding is fine?

 

Trouble is, I doubt you would get agreement. Certainly not unanimity. 

 

you don't need to.  A genuine discussion that will resolve enough issues to pass law under MMP.  Also,  any vote should be individual and not follow party lines.  

 

The key question is whether the harm is greater if they are legal or illegal.

 

You also need to weigh up if criminalizing drugs causes more harm than just making them illegal.  Imagine if speeding was criminalized.  Many people would lose their job on a criminal conviction,  fail job interviews, would lose insurance cover,  be band from visiting many countries  etc.  All for going 5km/hr over the speed limit.   This is how we are currently treating 1000's of people each year for drug use. 

debo:

 

No,  soft drug use would be treated the same as speeding. 

 

So it would be used as a revenue stream by the Govt then?

frankv:

 

So it would be used as a revenue stream by the Govt then?

 

So? perhaps you would prefer a tax increase instead.