The Canberra Times is carrying police claims of major victories in their war on illicit drug production and supply.
- Speaking after releasing results of the haul, Detective Superintendent Nicholas Bingham said police targeting of cannabis crops had a significant effect on production. ”We have seen the crop sizes reduce dramatically from thousands some years ago to in the 10s and low 100s,” he said.
As luck would have it a drug using friend did recently remark that there wasn’t much weed or acid around at the moment. Then she smiled sweetly and said “But I’ve still got lots of pills”.
Ah, pfft. There’ll always be weed as long as there is demand. ‘Droughts’ are useless. I wonder if this has given any dealers with a still-strong supply the idea to raise their prices because of the ‘drought’.
Business still seems OK for my neighbour based on the number of transactions she makes a day…
Economics 101: reduce supply and price goes up. Price goes up, and
a) users have to find extra money (e.g. buy less food, more burglaries, etc)
b) buyers are more willing to purchase alternatives (legal and not so legal). Sales volumes and prices for those then go up.
c) with high prices, there are better margins for dealers and other nefarious characters much worse than the druggies themselves. So we get more dealers attracted to the market.
I suspect drug enforcement and supply reduction will therefore increase the impact on us all (i.e. a larger ‘externality’). I’m sure studies have been done on it, but for them I have not searched.
Prohibition and drug law enforcement activities are a waste of tax payers money. There are better ways to change druggies’ behaviour that would cost us all less in the end.
Well said Canberra Bureaucrat, well said.
Yeah, but if you legalise it the price will drop so any kid could afford it.
You could add a tax and only sell it at a certain places, but there’d still be those who’d undercut the official sellers and sell it illegally on a black market – like what happens in Europe with cigarettes.
I think keeping it illegal and the police turning a semi blind eye to casual users or sellers is the best option for all.
un-enforced laws are very bad laws Deckard.
And selectively enforced laws are the basis of corruption.
true JB and deckard.
Police do currently exercise discretion with many laws, so I’m sure laws could be designed to give the right sort of discretion (I’m no expert of course).
Wikipedia has a stub – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement
Political reality is that (now at least) the people wouldn’t accept ’soft’ solutions to drug use, so a pragmatic approach may be better than hard enforcement. This probably goes on a fair bit in reality anyway.
The problem with ’soft’ solutions is that they can benefit the badder end of the drug business. Same goes with selective enforcement. Less users getting busted means they have more money and less fear of buying.
The only real solution, at least for marijuana is complete legalisation.
(You all knew I was going to say that.)
Deckard said :
Sorry Deckard, missed yours.
I’d have to disagree with you on the black market bit. I’m sure one would exist, but it would be no-where near as large and profitable as the black market for drugs are now. The dealers would have to have more and sell cheaper. The black market in tobacco in Australia now is pretty damn small time.
There’d be quality differences to. Chop-chop tastes like sh-t, so I buy Champion. I assume it would be the same with weed.
jessieduck said :
I hope you called crimestoppers.
The current drug legislation not only is useless and exacerbates the level of crime, but also is a powerful reflection of the cowardice of most politicians.
Drug use, in private, or controlled environments, should be legal. Consequences of drug use to the individual should be paid for out of their own pockets.
This is one reason I have a profound dislike of junkies, they set the standards by which other casual/recreational users are judged.
goose said :
I was about to say ‘you need evidence’, but then it clicked that you said ‘crimestoppers’ and not ‘the police’. ‘the police’ use your report to crimestoppers as ‘evidence’, so they dont need their own. Actually… that makes sense now I stop to think about it.
As for an easy solution to ‘turn a blind eye’ but also keep the laws on the books.. Some places have introduced the idea of a ’secondary offence’, meaning that simple posession is not an offence, unless you are arrested for another crime, and they find you in posession of a prohibited substance, they can then add the secondary charge. This means if you have a joint in your pocket, youre not breaking the law. If you assault someone, you get arrested for both crimes (assault and posession). This would cut back on all instances where posession is the sole crime, and arresting the individual creates more problems than it solves. It also doesnt require police to ‘overlook’ laws, or be ’selective’. It also wont affect the person who smokes a joint in their private home, but it does allow police to deal properly with other drug-related crimes such as robbery or assault.
Amusing how the drug users amongst us justify their illegal behaviour
Have a care who you’re calling a drug user vg.
There are a great many non-drug users who think the current system is insanely stupid (I am one of them).
And those shouting loudest for continued prohibition in some cases have a direct financial stake its continuance.
Come on JB you’re partial to the odd shot – I read it in the tag lines somewhere.
Maybe the current system would work just fine if the Courts took it seriously and prisons actually rehabilitated people for drug preferences.
There are also a great many people who think it is the law, and they should abide by that. Because my opinion differs from yours is no reason to ask me to exercise caution
vg said :
It’s forbidden to question the law.
VG, when you inaccurately call me an illicit drug user you are defaming me.
Very fortunately for you I’m not such a hypocrite as to take your house for it.
But have a care.
I can abide by the laws while calling for their legal modification.
vg said :
You mean like alcoholics and caffeine addicts?
Oh, you dont mean those drugs, you mean other drugs.
Whether you justify it or not, it makes sense that if property crime is so closely related to drug crime, and if you somehow reduced/averted the amount of drug crime, that property crime would reduce too? By increasing the risk and money involved, it just leads to more unsolved break-ins and unsolved drug dealing.
I was also lead to believe that drugs are a major source of income for organised crime and even terrorism. If there wasnt so much profit to be made from these activities, these groups wouldnt have the income they need to continue their activities at such pace.
johnboy said :
Geez, please point out where I said YOU were a drug user. Talking in general terms about people indiscriminate isn’t justification for any form of defamation but go your hardest.
It seems unjustified general shots at my profession are A OK but not for other people
dvaey said :
It’s like fixing a leaky pipe …. fix one hole, another will spring up in it’s place. Remove their income source here, they will find another to take it’s place. They will not simply go off into the night and say “oh well time for a career change”
I don’t care what is said, but the silver bullet is not “legalisation of drugs” It might solve or reduce a problem over here, but create a far bigger problem over there. The solution is far more complex than just legalise it.
And for DMD. I won’t be entering a roundabout argument, so I will just start and finish with “You are wrong”
The black market in tobacco in Australia now is pretty damn small time
Ok. If you say so.
Not as media friendly is it, a container of tobacco seized compared to a container of pseudoephidrine.
Trust me when I say I can assure you that illegal tobacco is still huge in Australia, quite a problem, and accounts for 100’s of millions of dollars in lost tax excise every year.
Several government and private sector agencies are targeting this problem. Just because you do not hear about it, it does not mean that it doesn’t happen.
Correct Danman, absolutely correct
Spideydog said :
But isnt that what the media and police keep telling us? That by breaking up drug rings, theyre ’stopping the flow of drugs into the country’?
Im also sure that if you took away this source of money, they’d find another source. But surely its societies role to protect the vulnerable in society from the predators? Unless its protecting drug users from drug dealers out to make a buck.
I don’t care what is said, but the silver bullet is not “legalisation of drugs” It might solve or reduce a problem over here, but create a far bigger problem over there. The solution is far more complex than just legalise it.
Maybe you misread what I said. I said dont legalise it, because that wont solve the problem. I said make it a lower priority or a secondary offence. Dont make simple drug use or posession an offence, unless its in conjunction with something else, such as assault or after a motor vehicle accident.
Im not saying dont bother investigating the commercial-quantity drug dealers or drug pushers, but treat a heroin or cocaine addict the same way youd treat an anti-depressant addict or a coffee addict, or an alcoholic. We dont go testing people to see if theyve consumed alcohol or tobacco and put them into rehab if they test positive to trace amounts, yet according to figures (written right on the front of my pack of smokes), tobacco is a leading cause of death, why arent smokers forced into rehab and given monthly tobacco-tests, yet a person who harms no-one other than themselves is treated differently.
Danman said :
I thought he was talking about “chop chop” not dodgy shipments of normal tobacco products designed to avoid excise.
dvaey said :
Sorry my above post (#26) in in relation to dvaey’s comment #24.
Spam Box, its all one and the same, and all illegal..
Its rare that containers full of B+H gold illegal imports are actually genuine B+H gold.
There is a huge market in every Chinatown in Australia for cheap (read $2.50) western cigarettes, its pretty easy to tell that they were both a) purchased at rockbottom price, which also means that b) they are counterfeit (same same, but different is what they all say)…..
I never knew counterfeit cigarettes existed until I went to India in 2005.
In any case, chop chop or smuggled cartons of smokes, If they attempt circumnavigating customs, then its all still illegal and a huge tax dodge in commercial quantities….Which happens a lot more often than media cares to mention.
Anyway…enough from me..Shoo Danman, shoo.
Cafeine and nicotene are drugs is the most ridiculous arguement I have ever heard.
Tell me the last time your house was rolled by a coffee junkie? Or maybe someone hanging out for a Marlboro?
Having said that, drug policy is failing in this country. Whether this is due to enforcement, apathy, zealotism or political will is something for smarter people than me.
You’re even wrong about me being wrong, Spideydog!
But you’re right, no use trying to convert the fanatic 
VG, I must admit that at a certain time(s) at a certain place(s), I, with the intent of damaging this pure society, ripping it’s laws from their foundation to embrace anarchy, corrupting it’s youth and killing little bunny-rabbits (or ferrets), donned my black cape and ran two fingers down my long elastic mustache, before I smoked some marijuana. You may have noticed the storm clouds gathering around my mountaintop tower as I cackled madly – then sat down with a packet of chips and watched the X-files. It was at that moment that I concluded, evilly, that Assistant Director Skinner was, like, the most serious dude in existence, hey?
You’d honestly think there’s worse, far worse lawbreakers than pot-smokers.
Danman, I think chop-chop and smokes that avoid customs are a little different. I’d also think the business would be small-time compared to the business of producing and distributing banned recreational drugs. Every major, violent criminal organization have their power-base firmly rooted in drugs.
As a cigarette smoker, I must say that I have only had chop-chop a few times and that I haven’t knowingly bought smokes that have avoided customs. Why? Because it’s alot easier running to woolies and buying some than it is ringing someone and waiting around, or heading to a specific part of town (that we don’t really have in this city – but they do in Melbourne, where I was living for a bit) to buy a packet of smokes. Buying smokes legally may be a tad bit more expensive than buying illegal ones, but it’s a lot more convenient.
Plus, chop chop and smuggled smokes need to be cheap to sell. Illegal drugs right now don’t.
Thumper said :
When was the last time you were attacked by a drunk?
Can you walk up to someone in the street and say, hey mate, got a spare gram of smack on you?
Do they serve Amphetamines in coffee shops?
I can’t see any intrinsic difference between illegal and legal drug use.
There are people who use alcohol as an adjunct to a high-functioning life.
There are others who slip into total dysfunction through the abuse of alcohol.
Ditto pretty much any drug you care to name. It’s the behaviours that should be targeted, not the substance abuse.
Anyone guilty of violence while on drugs – whether alcohol or ice – should be put in the slammer, and no “mentally unfit” excuses.
I’d like to see the decriminalisation and careful control of most drugs that are currently illegal. And the “streetwise edginess” taken right out.
The difficult issue is that of amphetamines, which no user seems to be able to accommodate into a good life. Witness the violence perpetrated by high-profile, celebrity speed users against their partners.
It’s definitely wise for recreational drug users not to post about using drugs online, so I’d be surprised to see anything other than a denial from anyone on this forum. I don’t think any of us would like to force a confession under the current law enforcement regime.
You only really hear about the speed-users who f-k up though, I-filed.
You are right, somewhat, though. It is the behaviours under the influence. I don’t quite agree with how you want to deal with it.
DMD Danman, I think chop-chop and smokes that avoid customs are a little different. I’d also think the business would be small-time compared to the business of producing and distributing banned recreational drugs. Every major, violent criminal organization have their power-base firmly rooted in drugs.
Thats fine, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that – There is truth in what you say, however, to isolate chop chop and counterfeit cigarettes from serious oganised crime would be naive on my part as they go hand in hand, regardless of media or common populous opinion.
I have nothing more with my unofficial hat on to say on the subject.
Using illicit substances is an offence (unless they have changed it) but was never prosecuted due to the harm minimisation hoo haa. Hence why I am not up to date on whether the offence has been scrapped.
The number of people pinging off their heads on disco bikkies of a weekend is becoming more and more. Take a look next time you are out – they are the ones who never stop moving and carry a bottle of water around with them. Add to that they sweat a lot and have eyes like dinner plates.
Most of the fights I have seen lately have had a combination of alcohol and pills. Kind of makes them feel invincible.
As for the end user being a victim of the dealers. What a load of bollocks.
An observation – keep in mind that illegal tobacco and illicit drugs, while both drugs in many ways, are illegal for very different reasons. The former is tax evasion, the latter is because of impacts to the public. In other words in the latter case, the actions of an illicit drug user are deemed to significantly impact other innocent people who have not part in the equation. This is what an economist calls an externality, and is the primary motivation of much public policy. I would hope that this often (?) explains the different approaches to drug enforcement. It should. The other factor is of course politics. Politicians will support what makes sense to most voters, and I suspect rational drug policy may not be in that realm.
Special G said :
In some cases dealers are directly responsible for getting people hooked. Think of the prostitution industry, for example.
And, how do you know these people haven’t just been drinking? Do you drug-test them?
Most people I see on ‘disco-bikkies’ are usually in their own little world. They don’t have much to say to people other than that they love them or some other weird random crap.
I’ve known and know people who get agro off the booze itself. I blame afternoon drinking. If you start at 3, 4 or 5 in the morning, you’re going to be tired and grumpy at 3 4 or 5 the next afternoon.
Canberra bureaucrat, I suspect you are not a Canberra bureaucrat as you are making sense.
Crap I stuffed up #37. It should read, if you start at 3, 4 or 5 in the afternoon, you’re going to be tired and grumpy at 3 4 or 5 the next morning.
Spideydog said :
“In some cases dealers are directly responsible for getting people hooked”
In most cases it ain’t
Here comes the ‘its someone else’s fault’ argument.
“Most people I see on ‘disco-bikkies’ are usually in their own little world. They don’t have much to say to people other than that they love them or some other weird random crap.”
I’d invite you to walk a mile in a policeman’s shoes on a Saturday night in the city
I carry a bottle of water everywhere I go too, for my own hydration purposes, and have been told I am either full of beans or walk around like I have blinkers on..
No need to guess that I am not an illicit drug user (Slight employment conflict of interest) but accordingly have now been stereotyped as one.
Hay I have tattoos as well, and wear leather jackets… Guess what…
vg said :
No thanks. I might begin to suspect that everyone who looks like they’re on pills is a criminal, including Danman, which seems to be the general consensus here.
Question: How many people would you say get picked up for crimes committed under the influence of illicit substances on your average saturday night? Serious question, I want to know…
Then I’d like to compare to an estimate of how many people are out in civic on the same night, and, although it would be impossible to accurately estimate, how many of them are on illicit drugs.
The objective would be to estimate how many people use illicit substances and do so without ever being arrested for a violent crime. I’d be willing to put my money on that being quite a high number. I estimate this from the sheer amount of people I know who have used drugs more than a few times and do not have criminal records.
If this is the case, it would be punishing a majority for the actions of a minority.
goose said :
The Police are well acquainted with my neighbour.
Actually DMD you wouldn’t have the ticker to do it
Deckard said :
Mate, pot is not expensive. It’s a lot cheaper than booze.
Danman said :
Hmm, protecting freedom and protesting taxes. My new heroes.
vg, I dislike civic on a Saturday night, because of the effects of alcohol. I havent been there for many years, but I presume it hasnt changed, in that people go from club to club throughout the night drinking more as the night goes on. I also presume that while some problems do occur in the clubs, most fights ive seen have occured outside on the walkway or the road.
I dont envy the job of anyone who has to do security for people who have consumed alcohol, but it is considered a legal drug, therefore society should deal with those who partake in too much. Tell me though, would you rather do security around someone whos drunk too much, or someone whos smoked too much weed?
Hi all – New here (not really, only just registered, been here for months)
Figured I’d put my two cents in.
Not all people wandering the streets of the city on a Saturday with a bottle of water have taken “ecstacy”(I’ll call it “ecstacy” as it’s hardly one substance anymore and impossible to actually tell what is in most of the little bastards), however I do agree that it has become a more common practise with the price of it so cheap. Myself, I’m not a user, however know people that are, and can save themselves quite a fortune when substituting drugs for alcohol… Not to mention they’re usually a lot less likely to start trouble as they’re too busy loving everyone to care about Jimmy who’s drank too many bundy and cokes and just wants to have a blew.
Perhaps a look at alcohol prices to cerb the “ecstacy epidemic” is needed? (as TodayTonight called it HAHAHA) As by using an economists logic, a change in price of a good effects the demand for its substitues. Mr KRudd’s “Alcopop” tax probably turned many teenagers to “ecstacy” instead of alcohol as it was alot cheaper and affordable (not to mention the majority of those teenagers just want to get a high/low and don’t care how).
As for drug charges, I’ve not heard of many people charged with minor posession when it hasn’t been linked to another charge. Probably how it should be, instead of charging every 19 year old in the city on Saturday with posession, charge the dirty dealers in the carparks that it seems everyone except the police know are there. And from what I can assume, fighting on “ecstacy” probably wouldn’t be too easy, as one part of you would want to hit the bloke, the other kiss him.
Can’t we all just get along? I hope so. Sorry for the amazingly rantish first post, ended up being about 80 cents.
There might be lots of people who take recreational drugs, but surely this gathers momentum over time. I’m told by guys younger then me who go out regularly that taking pills is pretty normal for most peoples’ Saturday night out late. It sure wasn’t when I was late teens and early twenties. Pot has always been around, but all this other crap was a lot less obvious and accessible.
I’m not particularly comfortable with my kid growing up in a world where lots of people think drug use is ok. How are you supposed to draw the line about what’s ok and what’s not. It’s not like these pills are subject to quality control.
I don’t for a second claim that alcohol is without problems. Maybe we need to get our clubs and bars to enforce the idea of not serving grog to someone who’s obviously hammered…
The objective would be to estimate how many people use illicit substances and do so without ever being arrested for a violent crime.
I’m not really sure what this would achieve. If you send the message that drugs are ok, and more people start to try them, then logically there will be more violent crime, if the proportion of those who do offend remains constant.
I’ll admit that I’ve always been against illegal drugs (who a range of reasons). Saying that lots of people do it and they’re ok is not going to change my mind.