Tassie Devil

Isn't Luke Russell from Burnie? Melbourne is a long way from home.

They need that extra padding to protect them from 'kiddie fiddlers'

Gee this site has become a lot like 'Ology in a very short time . On topic - if a player can't cop a serve from a coach he should go back to Auskick.

As part of research I have been doing over the last few years I have had the privilege to interview several people who are widely recognised in Australia (and the rest of the world) as some of the leading thinkers in harmful substance use. These 'experts' have been working for many years, in some cases decades, in this field and admitted there is no easy answer to the harms caused by 'ice'. They had never seen such a harmful drug in their experience and were concerned with the unpredictable behaviour frequently displayed by problematic users. They were hopeful that trials of substitute pharmacotherapies might prove effective - but such trials take years. It's all too hard!

Sorry gidon, I had given up on this post but feel compelled to respond to your post to correct some misunderstandings. The 'Scandanavian Model' you talk about is questionable. On the one hand we have Sweden which takes a punitive approach to illicit drug use and employs a model of compulsory treatment. This has resulted in many illicit drug users moving to other countries - an export industry if you like. Denmark, on the other hand, is looking to set up regulated cafes where cannabis can be purchased - a bit like what happens in the Netherlands (although that is under threat ATM). I'm interested to see how OUR Princess Mary and her relatives feel about this. As for methadone - we also have other pharmacotherapies in Australia such as naltrexone which is a combination opiate agonist/antagonist formula designed to reduce some of the undesirable features of methadone treatment. It has shown to be effective for some users, but not all. Australian drug treatment experts are still pushing for a heroin maintenance trial (which has proven very successful in Switzerland and Germany) but continues to face political opposition from the conservatives. Unfortunately in this country, and others, the politics of evidence outweighs evidence based policy and users and their families continue to suffer. Less than 24 hours to go! GO DEES!

And if currently illicit substances were subjected to a more regulated regime than the present prohibition fosters would you suddenly start using them? I think that knock at the door might be the CIA - I'm out of here.

More like rational debate hijacked! Go Dees.

There is an important difference between legalisation and regulation. There is also a difference between crusades and evidence-based approaches.

Don't forget that it protects the markets of these sanctioned drug cartels - something that should be anathema to true free market liberals.

Here you go Ms Sloonie - just a few of pieces on the effectiveness of more rational approaches. Many more can be found. Less so evidence to support the current approach taken by most countries. http://www.cato.org/...l-drug-policies http://blog.soros.or...lization-works/ http://www.guardian....al-drugs-debate http://www.druglawre...icy-in-portugal Then again these opinions could all be a CIA plot.

And all the evidence shows that is a really effective way of addressing harmful substance use.....

RF - you have outed yourself as an abstainer, and good on you for making that choice. My question is: If the govt suddenly announced they would revoke legislation that made currently illicit drugs legal would you go out and try some? I know I wouldn't, nor would most people I choose to associate with. To think otherwise shows a lack of faith in our fellow citizens - even though neoliberals could argue that it is their right to choose. All the evidence shows that prohibition has failed and is one of the most harmful social experiments of modern times. We need to try a more rational approach, one that places more emphasis on prevention and evidence-based treatments and less on the failed approach of interdiction. Is that so radical?

Perhaps if we took the crime out of drugs there would be less victims of crime.

Get 'em hooked on drugs and give 'em a gun - sounds like a robust Foreign Policy.

Is that where they found the "large quantity of cash"? Others who carry large quantities of cash are often called entrepreneurs.

Is taking illicit drugs any more dangerous than surf life saving? Would appreciate someone crunching the data. I'm too unmotivated. Edit - Good to see Jeff Kennett calling for him to be jailed. That will certainly fix things.

Perhaps "Booze Bus Benny" should try using Modafinil. http://www.gizmag.com/go/3574/ It's legal so must be okay. I'm off to see my government sanctioned drug distributor (GP/pharmacist) to see if I can get some on the PBS.