Canberrans graduating to harder drugs?

astroapien: Your example of a circumstance where changing one set of laws wil have a knockon effect and force other changes is about as silly as mine. The main issue with your line of reasoning is that it is fallacious on the grounds of being an appeal to consequence, speed limits are in no way connected to drug laws, changing one does not add weight to the argument that the other either should or would be changed.

Secondly your example about speed limits also falls over because those laws are statistically effective in stopping people harming themselves and more importantly others. Which puts it in an entirely different group to illicit drugs, and especially marijuana.

How much face would the government lose? None. The issue at hand is drugs legalisation, not speed limits or anything else. If they did something silly like legalising smoking marijuana but not selling it, that would be different. Precedent does not work the way you think it does.

laws shouldn’t be changed at the whim of a city or nation of people because those people are always going to have shifting views and trends based on any number of external influences…

Actually yes they should and it happens all the time. Why on earth should laws not be changed if the majority of the nation wants it? This is a democracy, laws exist to suit us as a society.

This drug taking ‘minority’ might not be as minor as you think, tax dollars from new revenue would benefit everyone to a point (as opposed to the same money being spent and going to criminals), but i dont think the whole of society would benefit from the changes to the laws. But its fair to say that there will be less people being adversely effected by the laws, which is good enough.

The only people who would be adversely effected as far as i can see are people who are living under the misguided conservative notion that we had it right at one point and since then we’ve been getting steadily worse. Truth is that democracy is an evolving system, designed to change as society does, hopefully one day ending up at a very good place.

tap said :

And if we start changing these laws because it’s easier than throwing police and/or education at people, where do we stop… What law would you abandon next because it’s easier than expecting people to do the right thing (in the justice systems eyes).

Again, I make it clear that I DO understand your point, but it can set a dangerous precedent too…

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that if we legalise drugs then we’ll certainly legalise murder! Boo! Society will fall! (ok possibly that was a fairly unsubtle version of your argument)

Why would changing a law in one area neccesitate unrelated laws in unrelated areas? Anyway the justice system is designed to be changed, thats why there are ways to repeal laws in place. It seems strange that we should have to abide by laws simply because the justice system tells us its right. Like the tail wagging the dog. On the other hand it does seems more sensical that we should have the justice system abide by what we tell it is right.

Yes, you’re right, you did take it to a fairly unsubtle version of my argument. But there are always going to be groups of people that think that what ever laws impede them from doing what they want to do should be changed.

If laws regarding drug use and supplying were amended, what would stop a motor group from arguing that the government changed the laws over there, why can’t we change the laws so that we can drive as fast as we want to (brought this one up because there was a thread on here not too long ago that was talking about road speeds and stuff like that).

And from a government standpoint, how much face would they lose if they had to tell one group that they wouldn’t consider changing laws that would benefit them when they had just changed the laws for another group.

I’m not saying that I disagree with you necessarily. I’m zero tolerance for drugs (I’ve never been drunk or stoned), but I am at least able to see that the country’s approach to marijuana versus alcohol is severely out of wack, and it could be argued that alcohol destroys more lives than weed ever has, but again, it set a dangerous precedent.

I guess the only other point that I would make is that laws don’t have to be liked by everyone. And laws shouldn’t be changed at the whim of a city or nation of people because those people are always going to have shifting views and trends based on any number of external influences… Laws should remain consistent where the people cannot. Update them, yes, but only in such a way that it is consistent with what came before it, unless there is sufficient evidence and studies have been done to prove that it would BENEFIT society as a whole. Amending drug laws would really only benefit a minority and the benefits would be hard to argue.

neccesitate changes to unrelated laws in unrelated areas*

And if we start changing these laws because it’s easier than throwing police and/or education at people, where do we stop… What law would you abandon next because it’s easier than expecting people to do the right thing (in the justice systems eyes).

Again, I make it clear that I DO understand your point, but it can set a dangerous precedent too…

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that if we legalise drugs then we’ll certainly legalise murder! Boo! Society will fall! (ok possibly that was a fairly unsubtle version of your argument)

Why would changing a law in one area neccesitate unrelated laws in unrelated areas? Anyway the justice system is designed to be changed, thats why there are ways to repeal laws in place. It seems strange that we should have to abide by laws simply because the justice system tells us its right. Like the tail wagging the dog. On the other hand it does seems more sensical that we should have the justice system abide by what we tell it is right.

shauno said :

The thing most people get wrong here is calling it a drug problem. The more correct
terminology should be a prohibition problem. The great majority of the problems cause by drugs are the fact they are made illegal and the subsequent black market criminal element that comes into it. A good example is the prohibition of alcohol and the violence that it caused in the US with Al Capone etc.

One thing is for sure no matter how many countless billions are spent on the so called war on drugs its all a waste of time. Some members of society over 1000’s of years have been and always will take drugs for various reasons. And due to prohibition all we have done besides making some people feel all good inside taking the moral high road is finance organise crime and cause massive amounts of other illegal activities such as theft. And the list could go on and on not to mention directly financing terrorism which is funded by the sale of opium and hash. Which has only got a high market value due prohibition.

I understand the point that you’re making…

However, the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, the people that are using/supplying/growing/producing are still breaking the law…

And if we start changing these laws because it’s easier than throwing police and/or education at people, where do we stop… What law would you abandon next because it’s easier than expecting people to do the right thing (in the justice systems eyes).

Again, I make it clear that I DO understand your point, but it can set a dangerous precedent too…

We should also ban fat people. Fat, fat fatties are no better than us bloody smokers
Too true. We should also ban old people, those bastards just aren’t cost effective.

A good example of the shear insanity involved is Corby in Bali being put away for 20 years for the possession of a naturally growing Asiatic herb. And then in the same country a guy gets less the 10 years for murdering a Judge.

Who says dope or MDMA is a harder drug than alcohol?

Drugs are a social/health issue, not a law enforcement issue. Most drug-related crime property crime is by heroin/meth freaks stealing to pay for their next fix. Make it easier for them to get that fix without resorting to crime whilst not encouraging others to take up the habit and you have solved the drug problem! Anyone got a way to do it?

The thing most people get wrong here is calling it a drug problem. The more correct
terminology should be a prohibition problem. The great majority of the problems cause by drugs are the fact they are made illegal and the subsequent black market criminal element that comes into it. A good example is the prohibition of alcohol and the violence that it caused in the US with Al Capone etc.

One thing is for sure no matter how many countless billions are spent on the so called war on drugs its all a waste of time. Some members of society over 1000’s of years have been and always will take drugs for various reasons. And due to prohibition all we have done besides making some people feel all good inside taking the moral high road is finance organise crime and cause massive amounts of other illegal activities such as theft. And the list could go on and on not to mention directly financing terrorism which is funded by the sale of opium and hash. Which has only got a high market value due prohibition.

I think smoking will slowly die out naturally, but trying to force people to quit now would cause an uprising of sorts. Smokers Vs Non-Smokers a battle to the death *star trek suspenseful fight scene music playing*