How close to the city do you have to be to be considered Inner city? I grew up in Northcote, which is pretty close and knocked around at the Croxton Park, not known for its "gentleness" and spent a lot of my early days in pubs in Fitzroy and Carlton.

That inner city enough for you?

Oh! you don't have to be brainwashed in to thinking drugs are ok you do that by your acceptance and use of them.

There was a certain culture years ago that generally accepted drugs and another that had no use for them and no inclination to use them.

Unfortunately even if it was so, that no longer seems to be the case.

Unfortunately even if it was so, that no longer seems to be the case.

I've got 4 boys, all grown up now and not one of them has ever taken drugs, couple of beers now and then but no drugs and no tatts, their choice. I couldn't be more proud of them.

I've got 4 boys, all grown up now and not one of them has ever taken drugs, couple of beers now and then but no drugs and no tatts, their choice. I couldn't be more proud of them.

You're a lucky man 'Robbie'.

The notion that if we regulated drugs we would see a contemporaneous rise in drug use always fascinates me.

For me such a view shows very little faith in human nature.

I believe most people don't want to be high all the time - many might like to have the choice to consume whatever quality controlled substance suited the moment, but would otherwise carry on living, working and (hopefully) learning as they went about their lives seeking some form of contentment and balance.

Continuing to support a policy response that has failed to deliver benefits (prohibition) is a failure to apply logic to policy development, implementation and evaluation processes. From an economic rationalist perspective it makes no sense to continue to invest in such folly. Or does it?

RJ - why we continue to slavishly follow the orthodoxy of abstinence in an age of hyper-consumption is a good question.

Work by Nils Christie and Sam Friedman about drugs being a "suitable enemy" for those in power partly explains it for me - but what I can't figure out is how people haven't wised up to this. Perhaps we really are stupid and need strong moral leadership from government and religion after all!

As for US influence on global drug policy, that would take too long to go into here. One thing I do know as fact is, when the ACT Government proposed a clinical trial of heroin maintenance for people who had failed on available treatment programs, US interests actively lobbied the Tasmanian Government and let them know that such a program would place the State's lucrative poppy industry at risk. Sadly a 17 yo Tasmanian male died from consuming an extract from this crop a week or so ago. As a parent of a child about the same age it made me wonder if a regulated dose may not have proven fatal.

Unfortunately drugs can bring out the worst in people - both the users and the abstainers - moral and political factors have so far outweighed a rational approach to the issue. Many people use a variety of drugs without problems - but every weekend in any city large amounts of money pass into the hands of criminals. This makes no sense to me. People that do experience problems from using substances need to be treated as having a health problem, not a morally framed criminal one.

The war on drugs is over - drugs won.

Thanks again for your post 'Tassie Devil', I knew there was some influence placed on the ACT proposal but wasn't sure what or how. Interesting that they involved the Tasmanians.

Regulation or total free for all? Can you pop in to the local milk bar and get you milk, bread and two days supply of H?

Will it be acceptable for 18 year old kids at school to have a "shoot up room"? Will employers be forced to have beds and sick bays for overdosed employees? Does the employer have to provide paid rehab leave? How many new addicts will we get because its ok, it must be because its legal. Governments are trying to stop smoking because of the cost to the community and you want to introduce another killer in to the system. How long before there is a massive class action against the government by newly the addicted because of claims the government said it was ok?

I could go on but I won't, you get the picture, just remember there are two sides to the drug debate and you only tell one.

Thanks again for your post 'Tassie Devil', I knew there was some influence placed on the ACT proposal but wasn't sure what or how. Interesting that they involved the Tasmanians.

Yes it's the evil yanks, they want to secretly control the worlds supply of drugs but don't fear, 007 will foil them.

A form of regulation as we see with alcohol and tobacco makes sense

What do you think the chances would be of either of those two things being legalised if they were invented today? It's only that they are that culturally ingrained that they aren't banned outright, and I reckon that tobacco has less than 20 years to go before it's on the outer.

I really don't see how loosening controls on other things is going to make the world a better place.

Regulation or total free for all? Can you pop in to the local milk bar and get you milk, bread and two days supply of H?

Will it be acceptable for 18 year old kids at school to have a "shoot up room"? Will employers be forced to have beds and sick bays for overdosed employees? Does the employer have to provide paid rehab leave? How many new addicts will we get because its ok, it must be because its legal. Governments are trying to stop smoking because of the cost to the community and you want to introduce another killer in to the system. How long before there is a massive class action against the government by newly the addicted because of claims the government said it was ok?

I could go on but I won't, you get the picture, just remember there are two sides to the drug debate and you only tell one.

These are all good questions 'Robbie' and need to be debated, but not from a position of fear. I would say that there are more than 2 sides to the drug debate.

Yes it's the evil yanks, they want to secretly control the worlds supply of drugs but don't fear, 007 will foil them.

They do have a big part to play in all of this "Robbie' and you shouldn't write it off with throw away statement. To have a proper debate all angles need to be considered.

What do you think the chances would be of either of those two things being legalised if they were invented today? It's only that they are that culturally ingrained that they aren't banned outright, and I reckon that tobacco has less than 20 years to go before it's on the outer.

I really don't see how loosening controls on other things is going to make the world a better place.

You raise some interesting questions about tobacco and alcohol, have you ever heard Bob Newhart's sketch on Sir Walter Raleigh bringing tobacco to England from the new world, very funny, also very cutting about the habit.

...but what is the answer or do you think we are on top of things as they stand now. We have it right.

You raise some interesting questions about tobacco and alcohol, have you ever heard Bob Newhart's sketch on Sir Walter Raleigh bringing tobacco to England from the new world, very funny, also very cutting about the habit.

...but what is the answer or do you think we are on top of things as they stand now. We have it right.

Hadn't seen that sketch so thanks for the heads up. Funny stuff, especially the snuff explanation.

I don't think we have it close to right as it stands now. I think it's a mess. Problem is that I don't think that there is much in the way of answers that will make things any better, and most of them will make things worse.

I'm not a woswer either. If you can name it then I'll bet you I've tried it, and probably tried it way past the point where it is fun for anyone. It's been a decade since I've done anything like that, but jeez I saw some good people get messed up by it all. That's not going to change much no matter what laws are around. The laws just decide what an acceptable trade off of criminal activity versus people getting messed up is. Tighten laws and the criminal side goes up. Loosen laws and the messed up side goes up. On top of that society has to decide how much it is willing to pay to fix the broken people or the mess they make versus how much liberty a person should have to make stupid decisions.

So in a nutshell I'm glad I don't have to frame the laws because the issue is a hell of a lot more complex than a simple yes or no.

So in a nutshell I'm glad I don't have to frame the laws because the issue is a hell of a lot more complex than a simple yes or no.

You're so right there.

This has been another absorbing thread which makes this site compulsive viewing.

I dont know the answer either

Have used drugs during those loose living days

Have witnessed tragedy of drug use

HAve worked in Health industry where the evidence of swelling impacts (including cost) is obbvious

have heard same arguments and seen same impacts with alchohol and cigarettes and Gambling

Legalising surely means greater ability to control.

The dangers and damage must be more clearly and broadly understood although the risk taking element will still not be persuaded until they are addicted when it is too late.

Support must be provided at that point by a compassionate society

Legalising can allow cost apportioned to compensate harms (like gambling Tax) and assist research to diminish harms

Use legally or illegally must be treated relative to the harm.

Sports people may be doing themselves less harm on some drugs than on others with recovery etc and may have less impact on their workplace.

The amount of money they receive could be seen to represent compensation for the greater role they are perceived to have and therefore control (demand for testing etc) may be diferent than other workplace requirements.

As I said I dont know the answers but am certainly interested in the views others have expressed. Greater discussion will improve our knowledge and assist in resolving the many sides to the issue.

"... Governments are trying to stop smoking because of the cost to the community ..." - RF

How close to the city do you have to be to be considered Inner city? I grew up in Northcote, which is pretty close and knocked around at the Croxton Park, not known for its "gentleness" and spent a lot of my early days in pubs in Fitzroy and Carlton.

That inner city enough for you?

Oh! you don't have to be brainwashed in to thinking drugs are ok you do that by your acceptance and use of them.

There was a certain culture years ago that generally accepted drugs and another that had no use for them and no inclination to use them.

There is nothing to "accept" RF. I'm glad you and your family are drug free .I dont control the drug trade or regulate it.

I've got 4 boys, all grown up now and not one of them has ever taken drugs, couple of beers now and then but no drugs and no tatts, their choice.

I've never told my old man I inhaled the odd scoob either.

Regulation or total free for all? Can you pop in to the local milk bar and get you milk, bread and two days supply of H?

You can hardly do that for ciggies now - let alone grog. Alarmist comments like this don't add credibility to your argument, they merely serve to underline the fact that your mind is closed to thinking about alternatives.

Will it be acceptable for 18 year old kids at school to have a "shoot up room"? Will employers be forced to have beds and sick bays for overdosed employees? Does the employer have to provide paid rehab leave? How many new addicts will we get because its ok, it must be because its legal. Governments are trying to stop smoking because of the cost to the community and you want to introduce another killer in to the system. How long before there is a massive class action against the government by newly the addicted because of claims the government said it was ok?

I could go on but I won't, you get the picture, just remember there are two sides to the drug debate and you only tell one.

I have always acknowledged the potential harms associated with substance use of any kind - but each individual is impacted differently. That's the science of pharmacology not the moral perspective. Far from only seeing one side of the debate.

The trouble with supporters of the status quo is they can only see things in terms of an apocalyptic, misanthropic future - again emphasising their lack of faith in humanity and thinking everybody would go out and get sh!tfaced if we tried an alternative approach.

Show me indisputable evidence of where the war on drugs has proven successful and upheld human rights at the same time.

Milton Friedman and George Soros are hardly considered radical bleeding hearts but both agree that the war on drugs is futile.

What's so scary about trying an alternative to an approach widely acknowledged as a failure?

I've never told my old man I inhaled the odd scoob either.

and we all know that beer is not a drug

Yes it's the evil yanks, they want to secretly control the worlds supply of drugs but don't fear, 007 will foil them.

The US make no secret about their desire to control the world's drug supply - they even made Elvis a "special agent at large"

I've never told my old man I inhaled the odd scoob either.

I did. told both parents, but only occasionally did I partake.

I don't have a very addictive type personality.

I don't want to be enslaved or addicted to anything.

The only reason drugs should be legalized & regulated is this...You get rid of the Backyard cooks very quickly.

The ingredients are standardized...Dosages can be measured..

The problem will never be wiped, but to keep it illegal is to just take it down the dark alley unchecked.

and we all know that beer is not a drug

I think 'Scoob' is main land talk for joint! I never par took in this Mara ja wacky myself (which use can be legalized for some). Time to get ur head of the books and see the cold hard face of drug use. It's ugly

I think 'Scoob' is main land talk for joint! I never par took in this Mara ja wacky myself (which use can be legalized for some). Time to get ur head of the books and see the cold hard face of drug use. It's ugly

Having worked at "the coalface" for many years I have seen the "cold hard face" of drug use - both licit and illicit - and I can still construct a sentence I'm also well aware of what a 'scoob' is - my reference was to a claim by a poster that their children had never used drugs - but had a 'couple of beers now and then but no drugs'.

In my time in the sector I have seen many people use illicit drugs and live productive and (otherwise) law abiding lives. I have also seen young people's futures ruined by drugs - the blame is not always a result of the psychotropic effect of the drugs but the proscription of them.

The point you make about medicinal cannabis is pertinent - the country that professes to be tougher than any other on drugs (apart from Singapore and Sweden perhaps) also has the most prescriptions for cannabis written by medical practitioners. Go figure!

The only reason drugs should be legalized & regulated is this...You get rid of the Backyard cooks very quickly.

I can grow and process cannabis and opium in my backyard. They are, after all, weeds in the wild. The Tasmanian 'terroir' is perfect for their cultivation.

The ingredients are standardized...Dosages can be measured.

... but I don't have the science to produce 'measured doses' - that requires willing guinea pigs of which there is no shortage. Hardly a scientific approach but effective for some.

The problem will never be wiped, but to keep it illegal is to just take it down the dark alley unchecked.

Perhaps that's what the authorities want! I can't think of any other reason to explain the madness of continuing a failed response.

You may be right with the last point. I cannot understand why the drug trade is "left alone" busting one drug cartel does nothing except increase the price on the street from what i have observed.

You can hardly do that for ciggies now - let alone grog. Alarmist comments like this don't add credibility to your argument, they merely serve to underline the fact that your mind is closed to thinking about alternatives.

I have always acknowledged the potential harms associated with substance use of any kind - but each individual is impacted differently. That's the science of pharmacology not the moral perspective. Far from only seeing one side of the debate.

The trouble with supporters of the status quo is they can only see things in terms of an apocalyptic, misanthropic future - again emphasising their lack of faith in humanity and thinking everybody would go out and get sh!tfaced if we tried an alternative approach.

Show me indisputable evidence of where the war on drugs has proven successful and upheld human rights at the same time.

Milton Friedman and George Soros are hardly considered radical bleeding hearts but both agree that the war on drugs is futile.

What's so scary about trying an alternative to an approach widely acknowledged as a failure?

In case you hadn't noticed the use of drugs is spreading at an alarming rate and most of those that use do in fact get sh!tfaced, take schoolies week and football trips away for instance. And the biggest problem from what I see is the easy access and acceptance by society in general. Kids are getting on to drugs at younger and younger ages and because the media and society are happy to label them as party and recreational drugs, they can see no wrong in it.

I'm appalled at the way people nowadays just treat drugs, it's as if you are the odd one out if you don't use. I don't drink anymore and haven't for 24 years but I still regret the wasted time in my life when I did.

I've got no faith in human nature because we don't have any pride in ourselves anymore and if drug use was legal it would unleash the biggest single problem ever to face this country.

I couldn't give a rats about some so called intellectuals that think they know what's good for or some rich [censored] like Soros who could afford to spend $2m a day on drugs, why should I value is opinion?

Drugs should be legalized and fully regulated so that sales and users can be monitored.

It is the only way the problem can be managed.

I agree. If you can't beat it, control it.

By the way, emotional and mental stimulates have been in existence since the beginning of time. Shamans, spiritualists, scientists, adventures, warriors and nearly all mankind have experienced life under the influence of mind altering substances. Whether it is alcohol or LSD, it is wrong to judge another human beings choice of pleasure, until it is harming them.

Balance and moderation can even be good for you. There is a time and a place for everything.

Ffs, Obama was a pot head at uni. Who cares?

People should remain free from judgement, only until there actions impede on the freedoms of others.

Drugs are as natural as pulling your [censored]. Not harmful in moderation.