Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Get RSM on your side at tax time.

Drug drought?

By johnboy - 11 April 2009 59

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”.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
59 Responses to
Drug drought?
Special G 12:01 pm 12 Apr 09

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.

johnboy 11:56 am 12 Apr 09

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.

vg 11:52 am 12 Apr 09

Amusing how the drug users amongst us justify their illegal behaviour

dvaey 11:03 am 12 Apr 09

goose said :

jessieduck said :

Business still seems OK for my neighbour based on the number of transactions she makes a day…

I hope you called crimestoppers.

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.

Pommy bastard 9:12 am 12 Apr 09

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 6:24 am 12 Apr 09

jessieduck said :

Business still seems OK for my neighbour based on the number of transactions she makes a day…

I hope you called crimestoppers.

Deadmandrinking 10:24 pm 11 Apr 09

Deckard 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.

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.

Deadmandrinking 10:19 pm 11 Apr 09

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.)

canberra bureaucrat 9:50 pm 11 Apr 09

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.

johnboy 9:29 pm 11 Apr 09

un-enforced laws are very bad laws Deckard.

And selectively enforced laws are the basis of corruption.

Deckard 8:57 pm 11 Apr 09

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.

Deadmandrinking 8:21 pm 11 Apr 09

Well said Canberra Bureaucrat, well said.

canberra bureaucrat 8:17 pm 11 Apr 09

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.

jessieduck 5:27 pm 11 Apr 09

Business still seems OK for my neighbour based on the number of transactions she makes a day…

Deadmandrinking 4:01 pm 11 Apr 09

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’.

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site