Prev
Next

Time we had an exit strategy from the war on drugs

Greg Barns

by Greg Barns

09 Jun 05:45am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Courts, Drugs, Health, Law And Order, Society, Welfare

114 comments

When it comes to illicit drugs and how our society should best deal with its impact, Ken Crispin is one man to whom it is worth listening.

Soldiers stand guard near currency exchange in Tijuana Mexico

Crispin has been practicing law since 1972, but more relevantly, he was the Director of Public Prosecutions in the ACT from 1991 to 1994 and a judge in that jurisdiction until 2007.  So this is why Crispin has made a bit of a splash over the past week by arguing that the US lead ‘War on Drugs’ which was debated and passed by Congress forty years this month, is failing our community.

Crispin, in his recently published book The Quest for Justice, has dared to say what many Australian judges and magistrates think privately to be the case.  That treating illicit drug use as a criminal justice problem has not worked and will never work.

This is because, as Crispin told the ABC’s 7.30 Report on May 27:

Drug usage has exploded during the war on drugs. To quote one British figure ‘the number of heroin users over about 30 years increased from 2000 to 300,000.’ The prevalence of drugs has exploded to the point that the prices have fallen so cocaine, in real terms, now costs about a sixth of what it did at the start of the war on drugs. Heroin costs about a tenth of what it did on the start of the war on drugs.

Crispin’s views were endorsed last week in Seattle when John Coughenour a judge with 29 years experience and who was appointed by the conservative Ronald Reagan, also took aim at the failure of the drugs prohibition strategy. 

According to a report in the Seattle Post Intelligencer on June 2 Coughenour opined that he has seen the “so-called war on drugs” drive a near-constant rise in drug crime sentence lengths in his 29 years on the bench. “We decided through our representatives to get real tough in this so-called war on drugs.  I don’t think we’ve won the war with these harsh sentences,” Coughenour told the court.

Crispin and Coughenour are not the first judges to observe the folly of treating drug usage as a criminal justice, rather than health issue. 

Don Stewart, the first Chair of the National Crime Authority and the man who uncovered Terry Clark’s Mr. Asia drug ring in Australia, said on February 24 2007 that he had “slowly come around to the point where I believe the handling of it in a criminal way is never going to work.  Punitive measures will not work. We can’t go on the way we are.”

Coughenour, Crispin and Stewart’s observations are also borne out by a recent Associated Press investigation in the US which found that since Richard Nixon signed into law in October 1970 a drug prohibition statute a staggering $1 trillion of taxpayers’ money has spent on programs and combating drug related violence. 

Most of this money has been wasted, concludes AP in its May 13 story, and it cites some prominent examples.

The US has spent “$20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it,” says AP. 

And $33 billion spent on ‘Just say No’ marketing campaigns in high schools has seen drug overdoes rise since the 1970s to more than 20,000 a year.  This year, says AP, despite $49 billion being spent on law enforcement efforts, 25 million Americans will use illicit drugs this year, up from 10 million in 1970.

Here in Australia we spend around $5 billion a year on preventing drug importation, manufacture and usage and yet our courts deal with more drug related crime now than at any time over the past forty years. 

Around seventy percent of juvenile offenders report using drugs or alcohol, or both, in the commission of a crime – a staggeringly high figure that one can see played out daily in court rooms right across Australia.

The Australian Crime Commission’s latest data on illicit drugs, for the 2007-08 years, shows that demand for cocaine and amphetamine type stimulants is on the rise, cannabis is steady, and only heroin is flat lining. 

The Herald Sun reported on May 22 that Victoria was in the middle of a cocaine boom.

All of these statistics are testament to a failed policy in this country which has poured billions of dollars into law enforcement and imprisonment over the past forty years, and yet which has failed to quell demand for illicit drugs, or cut into drug importation or domestic manufacturing operations. 

Yet our politicians persist with telling us that drugs can never be decriminalized and treated as a health problem.  Go figure!

Update 8.40am: The Australian Crime Commission’s latest data on illicit drugs, for the 2008-09 years, released on June 8, reveals “more than 13 tonnes of illicit drugs was seized; almost 84,000 illicit drug arrests were made; amphetamine-type stimulant drug arrests more than doubled over the past decade from 8083 in 1999-00 to 16 452 in 2008-09 and a record 449 clandestine laboratories were detected - triple the number at the start of the decade.”

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

114 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Bruce says:

      06:50am | 09/06/10

      What does the ‘War on Drugs’ do? It creates a monopoly for those sellers who can enter the market. Who can enter the market? Those who can bribe police and customs officials, politicians and whomever else is needed to ensure their place in the market is maintained. What happens in a monopoly? Prices are higher, and profits are larger. So the drug runners get rewarded for not only keeping politicians and police in their pockets but also working to eleminate competition. Even the not-entirely-accurate underbelly series of series gets this right.

      Then onto the real problem. Higher prices lead to higher crime. Quite frankly I do not care if someone wants to ruin their life - just don’t impact on mine. However the monopolistic prices those who need their hit must pay leads to a flow on to us all. Higher insurance premiums, higher security costs and these inturn lead to higher policing costs investigating property (and person crimes).

      The monopoly benefits a few large drug players. They are given by the government the market situation where they can extract monopoly profits at the expense of almost the rest of society.

      Letting people be responsible for their actions and not trying to stop someone wanting to do something to their own body would reduce police costs and corruption, insurance premiums, crime while improving police response time, personal and property security and disencourage drug use.

      Many studies have found that decriminalising drug use actually reduces consumption and also allows addicts to receive help that they want, but currently feel they cannot get under the classing of their issue as a criminal not health issue.

      Think the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Monopoly created gansters, corruption, deaths, dodgy liquour yet alcohol consumption remained either stable or actually increased.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      07:21am | 09/06/10

      Bruce,

      I agree totally, but I’d go further. But I’d go further, if drugs were legalised
      the strength and quality could be controlled. This would help to reduce the number of deaths and injuries.
      If legalised, drugs could be taxed and the money used to educate or rehabilitate drugs users and children about the danger of drug use.
      If legalised, the sale could be limited to chemists or some other form of outlet, resulting in a true picture of the amount and type of drugs being used.

    • BTS says:

      08:19am | 09/06/10

      I am fairly sure most drug dealers aren’t paying off politicians, customs and police.

    • Zeta says:

      01:48pm | 09/06/10

      @ BTS - Danny Dirtbag the neighbourhood smack dealer might not be paying off the cops - but he doesn’t get his drugs from his own backyard either. He gets them through a middleman who facilitiates importation between South East Asia and Australia - and it’s the South East Asian drug manufacturers who are paying off Police.

    • BTS says:

      02:33pm | 09/06/10

      Uh huh.

    • Peter says:

      03:47pm | 09/06/10

      I don’t think the price of dope has change for 15 years…

      The laws have to change. The drug war has created even bigger monsters than Al Capone. Legalise these things, tax them and let stop making criminals of people who enjoy having a joint..

      Today’s drug laws just protect the trade of criminals…

    • Peter says:

      03:49pm | 09/06/10

      @ BTS. Eveyone knows organised crime only exists if people in power want them to exist…  To suggest no bribing is going on is a bit naive..

    • BTS says:

      04:42pm | 09/06/10

      Peter,

      I think it’s a bit naive to put words in other people’s mouths.  I didn’t say it never occurred.

      Organised crime only exists because the people in power want them too?  I see the drugs are having an effect.

    • BTS says:

      04:49pm | 09/06/10

      Peter,

      LOL.

      So marijuana has survived inflation and remains at the same steady price.  How is this possible and why isn’t everyone following this great economic model?

      1973 30 oz marijuana $30.00
      1998 30 oz marijuana $400.00

      http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3442/1/3442.pdf

      I do love how all the junkies have come out to play, I predicted it early.

    • Lauryn says:

      04:59pm | 09/06/10

      Bruce and John - spot on.

    • James says:

      05:25pm | 09/06/10

      The war on drugs is over, and completely lost. Total failure. This argument should go no further than the fact we have needle exchange programmes in jails. umm what?? If we cant keep drugs out of max security prisons then how can we possibly keep them out of the country.

      The problem is, the Police need this ‘war’ to keep expanding. and that is the real issue.

    • Shifter says:

      06:05pm | 09/06/10

      Dealers, probably not. Manufacturers and traffickers, maybe.

    • BTS says:

      07:15pm | 09/06/10

      James,

      Why would the Police need the war to keep going?

      Why would they need to go through some filthy hovel looking for drugs?
      Why would they need to place their health at risk from disease?
      Why would they need to perform CPR on some dead junkie?
      Why would they need to spend time doing meaningless paperwork?
      Why would they need to waste their time in courts?

      Please tell us why they would need this ‘war’ to continue, over all the other crimes?

    • Peter says:

      09:40am | 10/06/10

      I said 15 years BTS, your stats are going back 37 years.. What have you been taking?

    • Russell says:

      07:14am | 09/06/10

      But are drugs a “health problem”? If so, it is a problem most consumers bring on themselves. Drugs are a highly prized product and experience amongst all classes and age groups. That’s something that generations of “just say no” campaigns have (perversely) brought about.

      While these “problems” may affect the underclass disproportionately, people from all walks of life, from the very rich to the very poor, from Dianne Brimble to Keith Richards, take drugs willingly and knowingly, because they want to.

      Saying that is “ a health problem” means that it means that choice becomes sanctioned, and paid for, by other other tax payers, by people who have NOT made that choice.

      I was most impressed by Ken Crispin on the 7.30 Report, and I’m not against decriminalization. In fact its the only solution we have left. But the “brave new world” this will bring about where giant multinational corporations will inevitably control a multi-billion dollar “wellbeing” industry, one subsidized by a nanny state, makes me almost as nervous as the present farce.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      07:40am | 09/06/10

      Precisely Russell.

      Watch all the junkies and dealers come out in support of cheaper heroin though!

    • miketron says:

      09:59am | 09/06/10

      Do you mean “brought upon themselves” like the “health problems” of cigarette smoking and obecity?

    • dancan says:

      11:05am | 09/06/10

      @BTS - why would a drug dealer come out in SUPPORT of lower prices? 

      Dealers push prices up, and in trying to max profits cut or mix pure forms of drugs with everything and anything you can imagine to increase the gross amount they can sell, and always with little or no regard to those buying.

      @Russell - I see your point and I’d agree that drug use shouldn’t be labelled a health problem. Though what you’re suggesting, that if you label drug use a health problem it then becomes sanctioned and paid for by the public, well that is already the situation through public health care, policing, insurance, hospitals etc. We’re already paying for the decisions of others.

      The question I see is, if drugs or certain drugs were legalised would the reduction in costs caused by illegal drugs counteract the possible costs from legalising?

      It does make me think, would legalisation really change the current state of drug use?  Those who don’t want to take drugs aren’t about to suddenly pull out a syringe and start shooting up in your local park, hardcore users aren’t about to become more hardcore. I can see a minor rise in casual use through accessibility rather than cost, but I wonder if this would have any real detrimental effect.

    • Roja says:

      11:21am | 09/06/10

      Cheaper Heroin?  I don’t think so.  Cigarettes & alcohol since 1990 have increased roughly 300 to 400% in price.  The government drug & alcohol reports shows that in the same time marijuana has marginally reduced in price, while amphetamines, heroin and cocaine have all significantly reduced. 

      It’s funny that when I was a kid, being fed the ‘say no to drugs line’ I was warned that dealers will get you addicted and then jack up the price. 

      Seems that was only true of the government, not the criminal networks.

    • Ben says:

      12:16pm | 09/06/10

      BTS - im sure dealers will love their product being worth less.

      leagilisation and taxation is the best solution, but will never become reaility due to loss of votes from uneducated idiots.

      think of the lives saved because drugs will no longer be mix with rat poison and glass

      think of the huge profits for governement (currently extasy pills are made for ~$1 and sold to the end user for $25)

      think of the lives saved when drugs are no longer the business of violent criminals and gangs.

      think of the jail space (and money) saved when we stop imnprisoning people for drug related offences (many of whom are non violent offenders)

      think of the polices resources freed up to fight other crimes

      legalisation solves almost all the problems associated with drugs, and would provide more than enough savings and profit to fund the health issues and education campains.

    • BTS says:

      12:50pm | 09/06/10

      dancan,

      There’s a black market in legalised drugs.  Methadone for example is supposedly only available via prescription.  You only get limited dosage.  Dealers have a black market in Methadone that they have obtained illegally.  Lower the price, more profit on resale to people who want more than one hit a day or a higher dosage.  The same would happen with other drugs.

    • BTS says:

      12:54pm | 09/06/10

      So drugs are as cheap as when you were a kid?

    • kickagoal says:

      02:22pm | 09/06/10

      there is no clear solution to this problem it is like cigarettes prohibition whether you penalisee with jail or price doesnt work. if people want to do they will, 300 for a gram of coke 300 for a gram of heroine 400 for an ounce of pot 100 for a gram of speed people want to do they will. what we are doing now is making criminals out of our citizens the education on drugs needs to start when children are young they learn more 5-10 age group but with their parents reinforcing the use of drugs by displaying this behavour themselves stopping it wont happen the children are definitely the key. the australian government like most western societies uses the drug trade as a reason for more control. it isnt a socio economic issue rich people use as much or more drugs then the poor however the poor are more likely to deal to the rich then the other way round using it to attain either drugs or money to the man who said police and customs arent paid get your head out of the sand ive seen this myself so it can and does happen the money available to high end dealers is millions that allows them to pay who ever is necessary that is not to say all police and customs. you wouldnt need or want to pay more then a couple of well positioned people to get the desired outcome every one has a price it is definitely a health issue mental and physical my solution is to decriminalise and treat these drugs the same as alchohol which does exactly the same thing gets people out of there heads whats the difference it is an ugly world and people want to escape it. stop the killing stop the wars. billions spent on bombs instead of peace the australian government spend my money on killing people in wars i cant accept this, so im going to give myself some space and have another cone and slip back into my aparthy the australian government are the real criminals live by the sword die by the sword women and children dying at there hands cant be justified for any reason not now or ever. note everyone governments control you with fear we will put you in gaol the taliban are coming taking over the world lies lies lies why did we go to iraq weapons of mass destruction (none there) yet still people die why did we really go there oil, bring the fraudulent conspiring liars to justice busch howard should been in gaol the politicians lying scumbags they are fucking this world ah thats better another cone a snort and a shot of h and i can forget for a while about the innocents our country condemns to death by being in there countries defying there laws put your guns down and find a way to live together and we can solve any problem until we rid our selves of religeon and the nationalistic approach to our countries we cant rid ourselves of wars peace will allow people to make better choices.we need transparency in government no secrets at all from our peopleor the world tell the truth show,  we can be first to try the truth and open the world to a new way maybe then people wont need drugs to escape the ugliness

    • BTS says:

      02:49pm | 09/06/10

      Ben,

      Maybe the decent community don’t want drugs to be legal.  The only ‘uneducated idiots’ are users and the dealers.

      Think of the more lives lost due increased usage, leading to increases in overdoses.  Think of the lives lost due to the increase in motor vehicle deaths due to more smacked out drivers.  Think of the increase in domestic murders due to greater volatility in the home.  Think of the increase in suicides due to the altered state of existence.  Think of the mental health patient deaths due to increased access to drugs.

      Think of the soaring health costs which must go up because availability is so prevalent.

      As was shown with Prohibition, criminals will find something else to profit from.

      Most drug offenders aren’t jailed.

      More Police resources are used on non drug related crimes than on drug related crimes.  Think of the strain on Police resources catering for junkies wandering openly down the street and getting them to hospital when they have health related issues.

      Think of the needles lying all over the streets because junkies couldn’t be bothered disposing of them properly.  Think of your four year old getting a needle stick injury while innocently walking down the road.  Think of the nightmare treatment that child has to go through to prevent AIDS and Hepatitis.

      If you don’t think that the Health cost will soar above and beyond the current levels of enforcement, you are kidding yourself.

    • Lauryn says:

      05:09pm | 09/06/10

      @ BTS, I would imagine that like we have “alcohol free zones” there would be “drug free zones” so your 4 year old is no more likely to get a contaminated needle in her foot than she is now.
      “Think of the more lives lost due increased usage, leading to increases in overdoses.” - That is an individuals choice to make, whether they are willing to gamble their own life. Nobody has the right to impose their personal morals or beliefs onto another, unless that person is physically harming someone else’s person or property. You don’t like drugs? So don’t do them. Don’t dictate someone elses life.
      “Think of the lives lost due to the increase in motor vehicle deaths due to more smacked out drivers.” Again, I would imagine this would work along the same lines as drink driving.
      “Think of the increase in domestic murders due to greater volatility in the home.” Actually - incidents of violence as a result of drugs is generally no higher (as a percentage) than alcohol. Most of the violence and crime associated with drugs is a direct result of drugs being illegal.
      “Think of the increase in suicides due to the altered state of existence.  Think of the mental health patient deaths due to increased access to drugs.” Again, none of your business. That is the individual’s personal choice to make and weigh up whether the high is worth it.

    • BTS says:

      05:36pm | 09/06/10

      Lauryn,

      Do people pay strict attention to the alcohol free zones?  Do you ever see alcohol where it’s not supposed to be?  More users, more needles, more needles discarded.

      We had an article this past month where the friend didn’t assist and the girl died of an overdose.  You are suggesting that he morally shouldn’t have assisted her, he shouldn’t morally have called an ambulance, because after all he has no moral obligation to step in and stop her from dying, she knew the risks?

      We were discussing the increase in the loss of life through drug driving, not how we would detect them or enforcement against them, the discussion was the increase in the loss of lives.

      If there are more freely available drugs then the rate of domestic violence would increase, more users = more violence.

      When a person (mentally ill) doesn’t have the capacity to take care of themselves, the State steps in to do so, so it’s not just ‘their choice’.

      For a drug user you surely have little regard for the safety and well being of people in the world.  Let them die! (obviously not a freedom loving, care for your fellow human, pothead).

      According to your moral theory, I can drive my car as fast as I like on the road,

    • Dan says:

      04:02am | 10/06/10

      BTS; ‘Maybe the decent community don’t want drugs to be legal.  The only ‘uneducated idiots’ are users and the dealers.’

      It must make you feel warm at night thinking that those who want drugs to be legalised are all users and dealers, and those that don’t are the decent people. However, this is the real world and not everthing is as black and white as that. Many intelligent and reasonable people, who are neither users nor dealers, support legalising drugs, and the fact that someone opposes it does not make them any more decent than those who support it.

      Oh, and before you predictably attack me, I am not a user (I’ve never taken any drugs and I never will), and I am not a dealer. Unlike you, I do not pretend to be morally superior and I do not attempt to force my moral views upon others.

    • BTS says:

      09:50am | 10/06/10

      Dan,

      It’s not my moral view, so don’t pre-suppose to know my moral view on the subject.  It’s the law and decent members of society obey the law.

    • Lauryn says:

      10:34am | 10/06/10

      BTS,

      By no means am I asserting that we shouldn’t assist people, or that we shouldn’t make an effort to convince people to not do bad things to themselves. I am saying that we shouldn’t be punishing, by law, people that don’t live up to our moral expectations. Anyone who selfishly allows their friend to die of a drug overdose is not someone that I would like in my circle of friends. However, these sort of situations are more often caused, again, by the illegality of drugs. If there wasn’t the danger of getting arrested, perhaps this friend you mentioned, might have been more willing to call and ambulance.

      Your arguments regarding driving and violence are invalid, as if the possibility for loss of life, or violence was the standard for blanket banning people’s choices alcohol and prescription drugs would also be illegal. How many people cause car accidents because of one too many beers, or driving on prescription painkillers…?

      I like how you have made the assumption that I am a drug user. Also, how you resort to calling names. Actually, I’ve never taken drugs in my life - and have no interest in doing so. Unlike you, I’ve just managed to get off my high-horse and realise this is my personal choice, for myself and I don’t have any right to impose that choice on anybody else. Jumping to the conclusion that I want to let everybody die is a bit premature… I never said that at all. I think assistance should be offered to a drug user, just as readily as it should be offered to a non-user. I simply believe they should have the freedom to make their own choices whether that risk is worth the gamble, Much like a rock-climber that takes the chance of falling off the cliff.

      And no, driving as fast as you like is not the same as smoking pot. How can you possibly equate having the potential to physically hurt others (hit other cars or pedestrians) by speeding, and smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home?

    • Ben says:

      11:13am | 10/06/10

      BTS, you are not thinking about the topic, you are just arguing your view with no consideration that you may be wrong.
      First of all not all drugs can be group together. The logical legalisation argument isn’t ‘lets give away government produced heroin on every street corner!’ like you seem to think, its ‘lets categorize drugs based on their individual properties, and let people make their own choices.’

      Your lack of knowledge is showing through thinking that overdoses would increase, firstly it is impossible on some ‘illicit’ drugs, and do you think that train legal resellers (see chemists) would see them in OD’able quantities?
      Also ill add that many drug related deaths are from cheaply produced chemicals being used as cutting agents to increase profits.

      Health cost will not increase; profits from taxation of legal drugs will be ten times the increased cost to public health.

      Please stop thinking drugs = IV heroin with aids needles everywhere, because currently you are one of the uneducated idiots who knows nothing about the topic of drugs that thinks you have the right to dictate what other people do to their own bodies.

    • Dan says:

      06:42pm | 10/06/10

      Except BTS, we are arguing that it should be legalised. That is the point of this thread.

    • jed says:

      07:41am | 09/06/10

      i dare someone to have some balls and print this in the telegraph or herald sun.

      Reply

    • biff says:

      08:46am | 09/06/10

      What war? Oh, that’s the one where authorities fight with one arm tied behind their back. In a previous episode of this supposed war on drugs we caught a Malay national who was convicted as a drug dealer. When it came to his deportation he appealed because he said it would split his family. He won and was allowed to stay. We never did find out what was wrong with his family members returning to Malaysia with him. War on drugs! Let’s all start wetting ourselves with laughter.

      Reply

    • Just Sayin' says:

      01:47pm | 10/06/10

      And when Australians get caught smuggling drugs in Malaysia, they get the gallows.  No ifs, buts or maybes. They hang.

    • PaulB says:

      09:23am | 09/06/10

      Perhaps when the Americans/NATO eventually get around to continuing the work started by the Taliban years ago in eradicating those poppy fields, instead of guarding them, then we can get around to believing there ever was anything more than a media-war on drugs.  The Russians certainly seem to know what it’s like to be awash with heroin shipped straight from Afghanistan.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      04:39pm | 09/06/10

      I guess that all depends which war is more important to win, Paul.  The war on drugs or the war on terror.

    • phil roxburgh says:

      10:36am | 09/06/10

      This has been a no brainer fsince the 1970’s and gutless politicians and the Bob Carrs (who had a personal axe to grind are all to blame. It started with pot and really should have ended there. The war on drugs grew directly out of the plastics industries who sort to remove hemp from the industrial world.

      Without a doubt there is still lots of $ paid to law enforcement to cast a blind eye. The government can produce opium at a very, very cheap rate in Tasmania ( like 20-30 cents a hit) and that under cuts the taliban/afgahan/thailand connections by a massive amount.

      The best way to pull the rug out from under the crime world is to totally legalize all drugs and then be very heavy on dealing and manufacturing.

      Basically that leaves pot reasonablly accessable and able to be regulated re under age use. In this regard assisting children to get any alcohol or drugs would receive a jail sentence straight up mandatory.

      Obviously health education would be boosted. But those with vested innterest and power are very in favour of maintaining the criminal profit margins.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      10:37am | 09/06/10

      Decriminalise drugs.  Make them available for not much money, but make the addicts sit on hard chairs in unheated green painted corridors filling in futile forms so they can get a hit on prescription from Nurse Ratchet lookalikes.  Make drugs boring, and make users look like losers.

      Reply

    • Roja says:

      11:27am | 09/06/10

      Thats the dutch way - it’s legalised but stigmatised.  It’s a method lampooned as a failure by many, however they have the lowest rate of drug use in Europe.  Their problem is not residents, it’s drug tourists from their less progressive neighbours.

    • pat says:

      03:25pm | 09/06/10

      I agree fully with you.  And to the folks saying that drug use will soar - will you start using them?  is it just the fact that there is a very small chance you might get caught all that is stopping you?  I for one don’t want my tax dollars pissed away on something that has never and will never work.

    • Bret says:

      04:43pm | 09/06/10

      And Kevin thought he needed to tax mines? He could earn BILLIONS extra for the budget by taxing drugs. Since stopping the drugs isn’t working, we might as well be paid for it!

    • Crystal says:

      11:45am | 09/06/10

      And still the worst drug of them all (alcohol) is freely available.

      Anyone who, given knowledge and choice, would choose to spend a friday night with a weed user rather than a drinker, the violence and mental changes that take place under the effect of alcohol are far more damaging and frightening, than anything ive seen from weed users.

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      12:23pm | 09/06/10

      What an odd opinion to have.

    • BTS says:

      02:50pm | 09/06/10

      You haven’t seen enough weed users.

    • Roja says:

      03:54pm | 09/06/10

      BTS You haven’t seen enough hospital waiting rooms on a Saturday night.  Only last weekend I was performing first aid on a drunk guy after his mate insulted someone, then he was king hit from nowhere by a coward that ran as soon as he saw him fall back and hit his head on the road. Ask any emergency room medical worker, police officer, paramedic, social worker or those involved in drug and alcohol services and they all point to alcohol as public enemy #1.  It’s so well known it’s not even a question worthy of debate.  If weed use increased to the prevalance of alcohol, it still couldn’t come close to causing a tenth of the same issues in society. 

      I’m sorry you have had a bad experience relating to weed, but your evidence sounds very anecdotal.  I’m also sorry to tell you this but everything you have written on this subject really highlights your very limited knowledge on the whole subject matter.  Well except the three bears comment above, only about half of what crystal wrote was anywhere near factual.  For the record on corruption in Australia, did you not hear about the indemic corruption in our airports baggage handling areas or the vast majority of our ports?  It doesn’t have to be police to be on the take - customs, AFP and others have all had bad eggs.

    • BTS says:

      04:58pm | 09/06/10

      Roja,

      Pretty confident I have been in more emergency wards than you have had hot breakfasts.

      The topic wasn’t about ‘weed’ it was about all drugs.

      How can you know this coward wasn’t affected by drugs?  You can’t.

      You obviously haven’t seen the chronic marijuana abusers who have fried their brains?  You obviously haven’t seen the violence and crime they are capable of committing.

      Never did I deny alcohol was a problem.  Maybe your mind has been distorted by illegal substances?

      I never said there wasn’t corruption.

      Don’t assume to know a person’s background based on your own limited interpretation of what’s been discussed and your own narrow world view.

      The reason it’s illegal, it because society doesn’t approve of it being made legal.  Whine all you like, hug your bong tightly, but that’s the way it is.

    • Michael says:

      07:54pm | 09/06/10

      Although kind of true, a long term weed user may likely be a lot more dangerous than most could fathom. Alcohol will bring out the rough and rowdy. Weed eventually brings out the devil. Believe me.. I know.
      That being said I still think all natural forms of drug should be legal. It’s all about education when it comes to prevention. It might take a couple of generations to properly understand and benefit from but we’ve already wasted 40 years heading in the wrong direction.

    • Terry Wright says:

      08:31pm | 09/06/10

      Oh dear.
      As soon as you read a comment like, “Maybe your mind has been distorted by illegal substances?”, you know it’s an anti-drug warrior who will put up popular myths, hearsay and other personal views as facts.

      And I was 100% right.

      BTS: “The reason it’s illegal, it because society doesn’t approve of it being made legal.  Whine all you like, hug your bong tightly, but that’s the way it is.”

      LMAO!!! And BTS accuses Roja of having a ” narrow world view”.

      Sorry BTS, you are full of it and Roja was spot on:
      Roja: “...your evidence sounds very anecdotal.  I’m also sorry to tell you this but everything you have written on this subject really highlights your very limited knowledge on the whole subject matter.”

    • Roja says:

      02:31pm | 10/06/10

      BTS - huh?  You stated “The topic wasn’t about ‘weed’ it was about all drugs”.  Well I was responding to your comment “You haven’t seen enough weed users” so forgive me for the confusion.  If I am not mistaken this thread was about comparing the impact of alcohol versus marijuana. 

      As for being in more hospital wards than I have had hot breakfasts; (a)  I don’t even eat breakfast and when did it was cereal and (b) if you make as many mistakes in life as you do in a written debate, I’m not surprised you have frequent flyer points at the local emergency room.  Sounded to me like you’re assuming my background after telling me off for assuming your background, however at least I based my opinion on your statements rather than make feeble personal attacks. 

      As for never saying there was corruption - you wrote “I am fairly sure most drug dealers aren’t paying off politicians, customs and police.” and then when it was pointed out it is further up the line than street dealers you merely replied “uh huh”. 

      As for marijuana users frying their brains, is that a medical term?  There is little doubt that for those with pre-existing mental health issues weed is extremely dangerous, but the same goes for alcohol.  My knoweldge on the subject isn’t based solely on “what I’ve seen” - it’s based on the latest medical studies, research and avidence.  I work in an industry that is at the coal face of the problem.  That said what I have seen is a lot more women and children bashed by drunk husbands than I have ever had to deal with ‘problem’ marijuana users.  I feel that ice and heroin are also bigger social problems, largely due to their highly addictive nature, crime required to deal with the cost and the ultimate problems with pyschosis of overdose respectively.

      Some other interesting tid bits of information.  Only 10% of users report ever having a drug problem and the overwhelming majority of users are middle class and above (society like to paint the picture that drugs leads to prostituion, street crime as so on but that simply isn’t the case). 

      As for “society doesn’t approve of it being made legal” - that is a very simple view of a far more complex issue.  Besides I never said that legalisation was a good option, or even that I support it. 

      Anyway, enough of this… apparently I have a bong to hug.

    • ral says:

      06:10pm | 11/06/10

      I totally agree with this. I have worked security at Pubs and Clubs and at Raves. We could have 15 guards at a rave with 2000 people for 12 hours and not have a single violent aggressive incident. We basically just did crowd control.

      You have 2000 people at a pub with alcohol and there will be fights all night. You would need 10 guards just to secure the entrance.

      Been there done that. Prefer to work a 12 hour rave then a 6 hour shift at a pub or nightclub.

    • stephen says:

      12:04pm | 09/06/10

      There is often a comparison between alchohol and drugs, as if they serve the same purpose. The Govts. all over world are defining the social need of the former as unique, and that is because the history of it grew up with popular culture. We drink when we talk, and when we want to be social.
      Drugs are only a private masquerade. Its users take it to live in a fantasy,a non-real world. The subsequent talk is gibberish, and so are all the argument for its legalization.

      Reply

    • Boris says:

      12:54pm | 09/06/10

      bwahahahah you’ve obviously never tried many drugs then? Heroin maybe (I don’t know), but pot, coke, E’s especially make you crave social situations!

      And as for talking gibberish, that’s alcohol all over. These things are the same - people take them cause they make you feel really good!

    • Terry Wright says:

      01:29pm | 09/06/10

      “Drugs are only a private masquerade. Its users take it to live in a fantasy,a non-real world. The subsequent talk is gibberish, and so are all the argument for its legalization.”

      If anything or any drug produces “gibberish”, it is booze by a long shot. Followed closely by the arrogance of self righteous, self obsessed prohibitionists who continue to argue for drug policies that simply do not work. Their arguments are pure “gibberish” rejecting decades of research, history and facts.

      It’s the Miranda Devine/John Howard argument that overlooks their drug of choice(alcohol) as somehow harmless because it’s just normal social behaviour. Yet alcohol is the most violent drug on the planet and causes more problems than all other mind altering drugs combined.

      The assumption is that all drugs have an instant effect or is taken with the sole intention to be wiped out. Anti-drug warriors/alcohol apologists cannot get their head around drug users taking a small dose like drinkers do. Nor can they grasp how some drugs can be relaxing after work, help to be more sociable at parties or ease a period of despair - just like the main reasons to drink. They will also argue that drinkers can drink without having to get high. This is a common myth and of course pure BS! The fact is even one drink affects your mind - mild relaxation, loosening of inhibitions, speaking more freely etc. There is a chemical reaction in the brain from as little as half of a standard drink. Richard Nixon championed this idea by saying, “Most people don’t drink to get drunk but all drug users take drugs to get high” It was the initial basis for the “War on Drugs”. And we all know how well that worked out.

    • Benrama says:

      01:35pm | 09/06/10

      Indeed true Stephen. In fact I’ve never heard anything but the most poignant comments from those who have just sunk their 7th VB. Cleary the gibberish spoken by the average tweeker pales in comparison to the poetry that can be heard at the taxi rank come 3am.

    • Mayday says:

      01:39pm | 09/06/10

      Consuming alcohol and/or drugs do serve the same purpose…...to alter the person’s mind and mood! 
      Alcohol certainly encourages most users to talk, “loose lips may sink ships” was an old and well worn message in the war years and it was aimed at people drinking and blabbing in public.
      The “private masquerade” is not true, all those people going to music festivals and clubs not to mention the recent expose of people being under the influence of drugs at work makes drug taking as much a public event as drinking.  These people have to be sneaky because the substance is illegal but millions of people manage every day to enjoy themselves.
      The so called “war” is basically a public relations exercise and you are the one speaking gibberish Stephen….bet you love a drink, talk yourself silly then get in the car and drive home?  Its generally the boozers who label people with different tastes probably because their health has been badly affected from listening to themselves for too long!

    • Al says:

      02:09pm | 09/06/10

      Let me see, a substance consumed for the purpose of altering ones perception….seems like the same purpose to me! (Lets be honest, not many people drink alcohol solely for the taste, there are some, but not many).
      The arguments for legalization of drugs is the same arguments (and counter arguments) that the US went through during Prohibition.
      Those issues being 1) Increased crime related to the drug/alcohol. 2) Increased health issues due to no quality control. 3) Prision crowding due to ‘petty’ criminal acts (i.e. being drunk).
      Once Prohibition was repealed the historic evidence is that 1) Crime decreased. 2) Health issues reduced due to government quality control. 3) Less police time wasted on these non-crimes. 4) Increased revenue for the government via taxes.

      Oh and one last thing, if I want to be social I make sure i DON’T drink as that is when I am most un-social.

    • Peter says:

      05:07pm | 09/06/10

      You could be right Stephen. Certain drugs certainly do lead to fantasy land….

    • James1 says:

      01:55pm | 10/06/10

      Alcohol is a drug.  Dress it up in self justificatory rhetoric all you like, but at the end of the day if you drink alcohol you are a drug taker.

    • Georginorx says:

      12:52pm | 09/06/10

      I think it’s irresponsible to criminalise something that would save lives if it was regulated and controlled. How many people have been harmed by incorrectly produced ecstasy, or died of an overdose because they didn’t know their cocaine wasn’t cut? Regulation of the quality of drugs would reduce the negative health effects and mortality of drug users.
      We should look at the reasons why people use drugs, and try to find ways to reduce these reasons.
      Lots of people turn to drugs for relief from depression, which is mostly easily treated with SSRIs. If drugs were legalised, there would be an opportunity to discuss alternatives with the drug user and offer them an alternative to mind-altering and addictive substances.
      Others do it for the sake of teenage rebellion, so making it legal would start to remove this image.
      Others do it recreationally or socially, so removing the recreational or social environment would again decrease the appeal of illicit drugs. This one is difficult without producing an opportunity for a black market, but a solution may be something like what iansand and Roja were getting at about stigmatising drug use.
      The consequences of the current scenario are too severe to ignore. For the safety of those who do take drugs, and to relieve the growing pressure on the criminal system, we must consider realistic and practical alternatives.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:54pm | 09/06/10

      For the author of the article - you provided some great stats on numbers of arrests and all that. Now could you compare the numbers of drug related arrests with the number of convictions and amount gaol time actually served for those arrests?

      Could anyone postulate an answer on that?

      You don’t think that th reason we have such an explosion in drug related crime is because we consistenly and continually keep letting these bastards off with paltry fines, good behavious bonds, suspended sentences, limited gaol time, time off for ‘good behaviour’, early parole etc etc etc ad friggin nauseum….

      Maybe if we started dealing out fair dinkum PUNISHMENTS instead of pussying around we could actual start to make a dent in drug related crime?

      We’ve tried the easy soft option - now lets try weilding the actual stick for a change??

      War on Drugs? When did we do that exactly? We skirted around the edges, we’ve tried not to upset peoples feelings, we’ve tried not to offend anyone or unduly distress people….doesn’t sound much like a ‘War’ to me….

      Reply

    • Lachlan says:

      02:06pm | 09/06/10

      Thanks to ill-informed people like you the US has constantly increased the sentences for all drug related crimes.

      Result. Drug use continues to go up.  As to criminals profits. And the profits of those who build/run/staff prisons. Unsurprisingly the biggest opponents of decriminalization are prison guard unions and prison contractors.

    • Roja says:

      03:03pm | 09/06/10

      Based on the governments National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2007 - if we imprisoned every drug user that had ever taken illicit drugs, half the population over 14 would have done jail time. 

      Further we would need 220 prisons for every one we currently have, not that it would matter as the entire economy would have collapsed.  Of course there would be a severe shortage of lawyers and judges to try these people due to their own impending charges.  It makes your plan economically impossible, which is the reality of the utterly hopeless situation law enforcement officials are faced with. 

      The moronic big stick approach to drugs is exactly why the US, land of the free, has a higher rate of imprisonment of it’s population than China, Russia or North Korea (from memory it’s 1.5% of the adult population).  Of course in the US they use them as the new breed of slave labour.

    • BTS says:

      05:13pm | 09/06/10

      Roja,

      Do your statistics include users who used more than one drug (ie. those who used more than one drug during the year) in the year as statistically different or the same?

    • Roja says:

      12:14pm | 10/06/10

      A valid question BTS - the statistics do account for people taking more than one type of drug.  From 1998 to 2001 the survey changed the question from have ever ‘tried’ an illicit drug to have you ever ‘used’ an illicit drug (stats are available for individual types) - in 1998 46% had ‘tried’ an illicit drugs while in 2007 38.1% of the population had ‘used’ an illicit drug.  Correlating to the increase in ‘used’ since then those that have ‘tried’ is now over half the population over 14. 

      Numbers for specific ages having ‘used’ illicit drugs; 14-19 (23.8%), 20-29 (54%), 30-39 (57.9%) and 40-49 (47.6%), 50-59 (32.5%), 60+ (12.6%).

      I am interested in seeing what the 2010 report looks like.  The numbers have only increased as time has gone on. 

      If you go the australian government website and look up ‘2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey’ you will find the report.

    • BTS says:

      12:55pm | 09/06/10

      Of course, if we legalise it, who will volunteer to have the shooting galleries in their neighbourhood?

      Reply

    • TheBigMicka says:

      02:26pm | 09/06/10

      The ‘shooting galleries’ are already in your neighbourhood.  You just don’t know where they are.

    • BTS says:

      02:54pm | 09/06/10

      I live in a State where we don’t have shooting galleries.  I can also guarantee they aren’t in my neighbourhood.

    • iansand says:

      03:17pm | 09/06/10

      Would that be the State of Denial?

    • sam says:

      04:11pm | 09/06/10

      iansand 1 : BTS 0

    • BTS says:

      04:38pm | 09/06/10

      Well if you bothered to find out that life does exist outside your State, some States in Australia don’t approve of shooting galleries, but I guess it’s better to remain ignorant of the outside world.

    • Lauryn says:

      05:22pm | 09/06/10

      I would have no problem with it. I don’t see why a shooting gallery would be any different to a pub. Alcohol is, after all - just a drug that happens to be legal. There will be the odd occassion where violence will erupt, but that is what happens when people interact with each other. For the most part, I don’t think the people shooting up have any more interest in getting involved in my business, than I in theirs. They just want to enjoy their drug of choice - just like patrons of a pub.

    • Brad says:

      05:22pm | 09/06/10

      iansand 1 : BTS 5

    • iansand says:

      06:15pm | 09/06/10

      BTS - you mean legal shooting galleries, not the back lanes and hidey holes where people in your State congregate to shoot up.  I can assure you that, even if you don’t have legalised injecting rooms, you have shooting galleries.  Nasty places if you stumble on them accidentally.

    • James1 says:

      01:50pm | 10/06/10

      Just so you know BTS, most shooting galleries are not sanctioned by the state.  So you most certainly would already have at least one or two in your neighbourhood - its just that the junkies do not advertise the fact.

    • Rob says:

      01:24pm | 09/06/10

      Any reason why we don’t take the tough stance that Singapore has on drugs and drug use?

      Reply

    • pat says:

      03:28pm | 09/06/10

      probably part of the reason is that it doesn’ t work,  there are plenty of drugs and drug addicts in Singapore, how could you possibly think otherwise??

    • Frank says:

      04:04pm | 09/06/10

      We do in many respects. You may find that your percieved success that Singapore has on the ‘War on Drugs’ is in part driven by cultural differences (Zombie state) and in part due to what would be a much deeper underground use of drugs.

    • BTS says:

      05:19pm | 09/06/10

      I don’t think Rob said that drug use doesn’t exist in Singapore, what he said was ‘why we don’t take the tough stance that Singapore has on drugs and drug use?’

    • Mikey says:

      01:28pm | 09/06/10

      Don’t forget the 120,000 or so people in Australia who derive their income from this fatuous “war”. In a parallel universe they are like the arms trade - fostering and promoting their “war” in order to line their pockets and buy that second house.  The war on drugs is fake, hypocritical, manipulative and a total indictment on all those who claim they are fighting it.

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      01:30pm | 09/06/10

      Whilst I support legalising some drugs, it woulnd’t get rid of the underground supply/trade. Sure, it would slow down, but it will never disappear. It would simply mean users could obtain their product from an illegal source and law enforcement would be none the wiser. Dirty product looks like the same as its opposite.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      01:33pm | 09/06/10

      The thing I find most bizarre about recreational drug users, that is, the young darlings at inner city night clubs mainlining coke like it’s 1987 and their Daddies just nose dived out of an investment bank skyscraper, is that they probably don’t wear fur. They probably have a preference for non-GM foods and they probably hate the idea of sweat shops.

      But before the blow goes up their nose, before it’s been cut with amphetamine, sucrose for color and weight and often traces of crushed glass to perforate the nasal membrane and ensure swifter absorbtion, it was manufactured by a poor Peruvian man on the border of Bolivia, working for roughly one US dollar an hour in the shadow of a guard tower paid for with US aid dollars with an M4 carbine purchased from the same factories that supply the United States Marine Corps. If he tries to run away, the man in the guard tower would simply shoot his family, usually housed close to the plantation for that explicit purpose. Should he try to steal a brick of uncut cocaine, he’d have his left arm cut off, or right arm if he was left handed. Because you only need one arm to process the product.

      Not exactly the glamourous face of drug use.

      The man who owns the plantation would probably be related, by blood, to the labyrinthine network of cartel bosses and politicians in Peru or Bolivia - the lines between which are perpetually unclear. They have 90 per cent of their country’s wealth invested in less than 1 per cent of the population - a wealth almost exclusively earned through the sale of cocaine to the United States and its subsequent export to the United Kingdom, Northern Europe and Australia. 

      It is documented and regulated US Foreign Policy to support the cartels who control politicians who agree with US Foreign Policy and support stated US Foreign Policy aims. The Central Intelligence Agency has been busted on numerous occassions since the Iran-Contra affair assisting drug bosses move coke into the US for distribution in return for their help initiating regime change. In Afghanistan, they continue to allow opium production to flourish. In North Africa they supervise cannabis and amphetamine distribution. And in South America, coke is the offical intelligence community currency for the trade in guns and government sanctioned killings.

      The US Government doesn’t want drugs legalised - not because they’re concerned about our health, but because they’re concerned about losing their foothold in South America and a dozen Hugo Chavez’s popping up because the guys working on the plantations are sick of being pawns of gangsters and their political puppets.

      For that reason, drugs should not be legalised. Decriminalising pot is not going to stop the global drug trade. Decriminalising possession is only going to encourage it. There are no poppy fields in Cabramatta. No one in North Sydney is refining Cocaine. The only place to buy this stuff is from the source and the source is controlled by some of the most evil men in the history of the world, men who if there were any justice, would have been ‘pre-emptively struck’ by Predator drones decades ago.

      Cocaine isn’t as common in Australia, simply because of distance - but instead people use speed for it’s similar effects. Again, it’s produced by local organised criminals with the implied authority of law enforcement.
      You could shut down every meth lab in Sydney within a few days using a single helicopter and thermal imaging technology. Meth labs generate enough ambient heat to light up like Christmas trees from kilometres away.

      So why is there still speed on our streets? Because the people in charge want it there. If they didn’t, it would be gone. Why is it that drug detection operations concentrate on dance parties where teenagers do ecstacy instead of at inner city night clubs where rich people do coke? Because it’s a War On Some Drugs. The drugs that open people’s minds are banned. The one’s that close them allowed through lack of enforcement.

      Debating legalisation is just another trick to distract us from the real game being played - the complicitiy of Governments and drug dealers to keep us all stupid, numbed, and unable to rise up against them.

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      02:43pm | 09/06/10

      I like paranoid Zeta, you must have done a whole lot of blow over the years!

    • BTS says:

      02:57pm | 09/06/10

      What a wonderful fairytale, what happened to the three bears though?

    • Peter says:

      03:59pm | 09/06/10

      You are almost spot on Zeta and they are calling you paranoid..

      We must legalise though, but it won’t happen. Because legalising would mean taking away some else’s busines.. which could be dangerous for the people doing the legalising…

    • Dan says:

      03:39am | 10/06/10

      We must legalise drugs for precisely the reasons you say. If we do so, it would put ‘some of the most evil men in the history of the world’ out of business. Legalising it won’t encourage possession, but will ensure that it is regulated, taxed and (relatively) safe).

    • Gav says:

      02:20pm | 09/06/10

      TheRealDave - What about Asia are they tough enough on drugs? They have the death penalty in yet most of Australia’s drugs come from Asia.

      The fact is time in jail costs the tax payer money why not legalise and tax it like alcohol to offset some of the health costs associated with use.

      BTS - Sure no one wants shooting gallaries in their neighbourhood but unfortunately a lot of people already have them with no where for users to put their needles.

      Reply

    • Nathan says:

      02:38pm | 09/06/10

      How can you get rid of drugs when overseas dictators need money for weapons which they can only get quickly if they undertake the manufacture and exportation of drugs. The US government or in particular people like ex-president Bush’s family business need to sell weapons to make their millions.  So the western governments turn a blind eye and allow it to happen.  This happened in Vietnam and probably every war before & since.  Drug money is used to fund so many wars it makes you sick thinking about it, as the corruption starts at the top - the government.  This will never change, and any attempts you see on TV to fight the so called drug war, is nothing more than a government smoke screen to divert the attention away from what they have done, and make you think they are actually doing something about it, rather than admit that they are partly to blame.

      Reply

    • Sean says:

      03:38pm | 09/06/10

      The industry
      With an annual average crop yield of around 2.5 tonnes per hectare, Tasmania supplies about half of the world’s medicinal opiate market.

      The Australian industry is based on the processing of dry poppy plant material - poppy straw - principally for the production of codeine and thebaine.

      Opiate alkaloids are extracted from the dry capsules of the mature poppy plant Papaver somniferum and up to 15 cm (six inches) of the upper stem.

      The seeds, which are free of opiates, are not used in the extraction process. After separation from the poppy straw, they are cleaned, graded and bagged for export.

      As well as cultivation and initial processing, much of the extraction of medicinal products is undertaken in Tasmania. Some manufacturing is also undertaken in the neighbouring state of Victoria.

      The Australian industry’s strong commitment to research and development has been enhanced by highly sophisticated agricultural and chemical processing techniques, with evident success.

      Tasmania is considered the world’s most efficient producer of poppies with the highest yield per hectare of any opiate-producing country.

      Who can grow poppies?
      A poppy crop can only be grown in Tasmania by a farmer who has a contract with a manufacturing company and a licence from the Tasmanian Government.  Contracts and licences are issued on an annual basis.

      There are three manufacturing companies in the State licensed to extract the medicinal products from the poppy straw after harvesting.  They are Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Australia and TPI Enterprises Ltd.

      The crop is grown on the better soils of the north west coast, north east coast, the midlands, east coast, Derwent Valley and south-east areas.

      Poppies complement a range of crops in the farm rotation and when grown well, will yield around 2.5 tonnes per hectare.  There are, on average, 1000 growers cultivating about 16,000 hectares of poppies annually in Tasmania.

      For new growers looking to break into the industry, the first point of contact is directly to either of the three processing companies, Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd , GlaxoSmithKline Australia or TPI Enterprises Ltd.
      http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/poppy/links


      Security
      The Australian industry offers a dual security guarantee in the commercial cultivation and manufacture of opiates.

      Tasmania is ideally positioned geographically and demographically to strictly manage and monitor opiate production. A compact state that is separated from the Australian continent, the island’s poppy production is limited to three distinct regions away from the two major population areas of Hobart and Launceston.

      Drug-related offences among Tasmania’s small, regional populations are also relatively low. 

      The Australian Federal Government and the Tasmanian State Government share responsibility for control of the poppy industry, with close co-operation between controlling and law enforcement authorities.

      During the growing and harvesting season, crops are regularly monitored by Poppy Advisory and Control Board field officers and any illegal activity is investigated by Tasmania Police Poppy Task Force Officers.

      The second major advantage is the industry’s method of processing. 

      Growing poppies for poppy straw and using an extraction process which bypasses the opium stage further insures against leakage of opiate raw materials into the illicit market.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      03:54pm | 09/06/10

      I travelled alone throughout most of Europe. Strangely enough, i felt safer in Amsterdam than the rest of the place.. I wonder if liberal drug laws had anything to do with it??

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      05:21pm | 09/06/10

      I felt the same way in Singapore. I wonder if a hardline policy on drug laws had anything to do with it?

    • Peter says:

      09:44am | 10/06/10

      You don’t strike me as somebody who has really travelled BTS..

    • Terry Wright says:

      04:48pm | 09/06/10

      I admire Greg Barns for regularly exposing the government, the media, an ignorant public, arrogant conservatives, the religious right and moral crusaders for being the driving force behind such a failed strategy. Those who are arguing with his article will undoubtedly fit into one of the above categories.

      It’s scary that in 2010, a so called advanced civilisation still attempts to deal with a complex medical/social issue like drug use with harsh penalties and draconian laws. It sounds like something out of the dark ages and wreaks of those who once opposed gay rights, gender rights and racial equality.

      Luckily though, more and more people are becoming aware of the carnage caused by ineffective, dangerous drug policies. It seems, the governments can no longer rely on the media to help support their propaganda or mass exaggerations with the facts now being readily available on the internet.

      What’s most worrying though is that many people refuse to consider the facts and will go to any length to support a “War on Drugs” strategy. Suggestions like implementing Singapore type laws, tougher penalties, zero tolerance etc. just shows how ignorant and brainwashed the public can be. It doesn’t take much to check the facts on the internet and debunk the myth that countries with the death penalty have just as many drug issues as anywhere else.

      Greg Barns has previously targeted the media as the worst culprits of fuelling the “War on Drugs” and he is right. When was the last time you saw the headline in an Australia newspaper, “Ecstasy - Much Safer Than Reported” or “Research: Cannabis Does Not Cause Schizophrenia” or “Trial of Free Heroin for Addicts Has Great Success”? After decades of unnecessary carnage, deaths and misery resulting from a “Tough on Drugs” mentality, why isn’t the media highlighting the successes of harm minimisation? Why are life saving programs like MSIC and needle exchanges still drawing criticism from the self appointed moral police a.k.a. opinion writers? Where’s the critical analysis from the media of the WA government’s new cannabis laws? What about the deaths and disease that will result from banning drug paraphernalia in SA? Any government policy that resulted in needless deaths every year and cost the taxpayer $5 billion annually without having any success would be the biggest story of the decade ... except when the issue is illicit drugs.

      It’s time for all governments to stop bowing to pressure from the religious right, anti-drug nutters and an ignorant public. Drug use is not a moral issue nor a legal problem that needs punishment. It is a complex social/medical issue that needs to be dealt with by doctors, drug experts, welfare specialists and scientists. The constant propaganda used to demonise drug users has brainwashed many generations, giving rise to myths and misinformation being accepted as facts. And the biggest myth is that drugs have to banned for the good of society. It’s this simple - most of the drug problems in society are the result of drug prohibition. Before prohibition there was basically no drug dealers, no drug crime, no drug related violence and only a fraction of today’s drug addicts. Addicts were simply prescribed their drug of dependence by a doctor until they finished their addiction cycle. They lived normal lives, had families and went to work. That all changed when the advice of doctors and experts was replaced with that of non-experts like politicians, religious zealots and moral crusaders.

      Reply

    • TimD says:

      06:07pm | 09/06/10

      I concur with your thoughts on the media, Terry. Quite simply, the reason those types of headlines don’t make print is because they’re not sensational enough.
      The media, like Ceasar’s of ancient Rome, know what the mob wants. Murder, bloodshed, disaster and mayhem, or a story that’ll make them say ooh, ahhh. Anything in between doesn’t really make them money.
      Sadly, that is what is fundamentally behind this topic. Greed.
      But then again, isn’t it greed that is behind the majority of social issues.

    • BTS says:

      07:05pm | 09/06/10

      Hear, Hear Terry!

      It’s time the junkies were put in charge!

    • Trav says:

      04:49pm | 09/06/10

      so why do our pollies (Turnbull, Gillard, Swan & Rees all happy admit to smoking a bit of weed “it the past” but will not submit to be drug tested? there is no war on drug, the pollies could easily stop the trade, but where would they get their supply?

      Reply

    • Frank says:

      05:04pm | 09/06/10

      Clearly we’ve had not only the wrong stance but the wrong view on recreational drug use for a long time. It’s true - no single method will work and people will be diametrically opposed in their views.

      But as a collective, society tends to adhere to views that are black and white and debate them at that level without recognising that there is a soup of grey in between - that most people exist in.

      We’ve used drugs for different reasons at different times for as long as known history has been recorded. Society hasn’t crumbled yet but I suspect we’re certainly doing far more damage now than we ever have both directly and indirectly by treading the current path.

      What’s amazing is that as it clearly isn’t working we still continue to beat our head against the wall. Throw more money at it, lock up more people, bomb more nations - we’re not innovating, improving, adapting, trying new things, thinking outside the box or changing complete direction.

      I can’t think of any other problem that we’ve taken such a stupid stance for so long - nose to the grindstone but not really getting anywhere - a stance that has been founded upon stupid, backward thinking.

      So hopefully at some point - some one smart will think “Mmmm this isn’t working” and someone in power will be able to go “Well let’s change tack”... The scary bit is what the hell happens to all those people on the black market drug gravy train once it ends?

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      05:57pm | 09/06/10

      If legalizing of drugs is the way to go and we think that we will send the criminals broke then that would be good, and would happen to a degree, but the criminals will just go into another area of business. There is always going to be criminals and they are everywhere not just in drugs.

      There will always be corrupt police and officials, there always has been and always will be. We know that don’t we?. In a rather bizarre way the police and criminals are interlinked very closely. If we didn’t have crime we wouldn’t need police. So in a way the criminals keep the police, lawyers and courthouse Magistrates and judges in a job. This sure supports a lot of people and as long as the criminals pay their taxes i don’t think that the Government would care less.

      Legalizing all drugs and have them available only by prescription may be a way and also a way of controlling of substances and if people want to come off their habits then there should be a way for them, and that would have to be paid for out of taxes collected.

      Many people who become addicted to drugs may have mental health problems related to feelings of negativity towards society. It may be from bad family problems or an addictive personality.Heroin and Alcohol are both narcotic substances but we don’t make alcohol illegal. Many are pouring it into there bodies every moment. But they would not see it as a narcotic substance. Alcohol can put the drinker into a narcotic state and death can follow. As far as speed goes, i read some time ago in the news that in the middle east wars fighter pilots are given speed to keep them alert so they can fly non-stop missions. What’s that about?.

      Indian Hemp is a plant that has been used for many thousands of years as a poor mans tobacco, has been smoked in chillum by sadus in india and the middle east, and is highly written about in chinese and indian herbalism. It is illegal in india for the citizens but the holy men smoke hashish and bhang. In the middle east also in certain places. But it really shouldn’t be used by young people whose brains and other systems have not finished developing, but for older infirm people with arthritus and physical discomfort it may be of help in coping with some problems that can arise with age. They could make a herbal tea with honey and use by decoction instead of inhaling smoke.The hemp plant has been one of the most studied of plants but like anything it can create problems in some people. What I have written here is not to promote or support the use of illegal drugs but like others who wrote before on here i think that legalization would be of some help, to make more taxes for government to run other things we all need. Prohibition doesn’t seem to have worked properly so another approach may be needed. It’s just a stroke of a pen that’s needed.

      We all have free will and nothing can usually be done until after the fact, unfortunately. We can not be controlled by authorities at all unless they put everyone who uses some form of drug or herb for their own personal use in jail. They would have to jail some of themselves also, to apply the law properly. Is amazing that many of us think that just because someone is a high official that they are squeaky clean but they occasionally catch a few of them, and the level playing field is brought into play. To end is to write for any young people who may read this, STAY AWAY FROM DRUGS, they can wreck your whole life, so not a good place to go. NATURAL HIGH IS BEST.

      Reply

    • Chase says:

      09:40pm | 09/06/10

      Natural High like home grown Marijuana.

    • Frank says:

      10:50pm | 09/06/10

      I’m not convinced that NATURAL HIGH IS BEST.

      Actually young people don’t stay away from drugs. Know what they do and enjoy the bounty that they bring - but if you think you’ve got an addictive personality or suffer from any level of mental illness avoid them like the plague or accept that your walking into dangerous territory - but the drugs won’t get you, perfectly legal alcohol will.. or gambling…

      Or even better - wait till you’re older when you are better prepared for dealing with any issues they may open up.

      Some people like to take drugs and enjoy their effects. A vast majority generally tend to be contributing members of society too (some of them highly contributing BTW).

      Part of the problem is that all drugs have been lumped together and labelled bad and evil - and I am afraid they aren’t.

      I suspect if you ask most MDMA users - the glow wears off eventually, personal usage declines and they get on with their lives - occasionally dipping back into if they have the opportunity. Most MDMA users will probably say they have had amazing, fulfilling and rewarding experiences with the drugs.

      A minority of MDMA users will have had significant issues with the drug too - but you can parallel that with Alcohol - most people can handle recreational drinking, some go too far (often while young and experimenting) but learn the error of their ways and those pre-disposed can end up alcoholics.

      Same with Heroin… (you’ll argue it’s highly addictive and dangerous… yes.. but by it’s nature it’s non-toxic and the criminal trade makes it dangerous)

      Worse is Methamphetamine - but again - some people can recreationally use it - enjoy it’s high - move on. Most people who use Speed don’t become addicted - as far as I have ever met.

      But then a drug like LSD very different - not addictive - extremely rewarding - not toxic and waaaaaay over blown in ‘1960’s I’m an orange, quick lets jump off building’ myth. People actually really enjoy it.

      Marijuana - well the jury is out - thousands of years of smoking can’t be wrong - but again - like all drugs there is a minority that can abuse it and suffer the consequences - maybe these people don’t like to drink and smoke instead - if they did they would end up alcoholics.

      And so on. But the pattern I see is that people can use drugs and function normally in life and some people can’t - the people who can’t have inherent problems anyway - so all it does is stigmatise them and create a bad environment for applying proper medical help.

      The fact that it’s illegal simply puts the control in criminals hands and majority of the risk in the users. Flip that around and you may have a very different environment for people. Legalise, regulate - be honest about what drugs are really harmful (Research Chemicals, Methamphetamine, Heroin - is it?) and what drugs aren’t.

      Most people I know enjoy the odd spot of drinking, to the point of being drunk. Its the ritual and it’s the way man has always been. I personally don’t want my only choice in a drug to be alcohol because it’s horrible, hard to regulate in my system and makes me feel terrible the next day. Other drugs don’t do the same - yet I’m not afforded the choice in what my personal use of a substance is.

    • Terry Wright says:

      08:52am | 10/06/10

      @Frank (10:50pm | 09/06/10)

      Thanks for putting some much needed realism into the drugs debate. Your description of each drug is spot on!

    • Anti Drugs but Pro Legalisation says:

      07:01pm | 09/06/10

      Legalizing drugs will solve many issues, violent crimes, gangs, drug related deaths, over crowded jails, tax payer funded operations - customs, police, anti drug campaigns which all have failed anyhow. package them with warning labels, tax them like smokes & alcohol & use the funds to provide rehabilitation, police to make streets and nights spots safer. Drug users that impend on others safety or quiet enjoyment to be penalized. I don’t smoke, I don’t take drugs & I only drink every now & than. clearly some people will use drugs if its legal or not so why are we letting criminal gangs get bigger and wealthier on selling drugs. Its about time to try something new. Cant believe the idiots (government) has let it get this bad & go on for so long.

      Reply

    • Don says:

      06:59am | 10/06/10

      If it is such a sweet deal, then why are countries that have relaxed usage laws turned into paradises? Don’t paint this as a black and white issue, legalising completely is not some magic bullet.

      Reply

    • Robin says:

      08:44am | 10/06/10

      Another problem I see is the labeling and stigmatising that goes on.  Many people condone recrational weed use - though it is still an illegal drug.  And most turn a blind eye to the odd E being popped.  Yet these same people, who may even admit to have had a bit of a smoke etc will screech in horror about someone shooting up coke or heroin.  Well, every 3 months or so I don’t mind using an illegal substance and I choose to mainline.  But I am not a junkie on the street, I am a highly paid professional.  And to those who want to judge me, I don’t give a stuff.  I also don’t drink, hate the stuff and the effect.  Now, why shouldn’t I be able to get my drug legally when so many other drugs (alcohol tobacco etc) are freely available.  And why is my way of using so abhorrent as opposed to sucking smoke from a bong deep into your lungs until you start to choke?  Legalise them, reduce criminals power, put money in the governments coffers.  I am over 21, what gives someone the right to tell me what to do with my body?

      Reply

    • Laurie says:

      09:43am | 10/06/10

      The “War on Drugs” is not about ‘saving people from themselves’, it is about maintaining a particular status quo that enables governmental and corporate control of substances and ‘law and order’.  Amongst the biggers corporate backers of the WoD are the big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies.  Also, don’t underestimate the massive power of the Global Military Complex to countenance any threat to its ever expanding position as the key to Global Human Security (Mexico, Afghanistan et al.).  Without threats why do you need massive outlays on weapons and prisons. 

      In Switzerland, they now (with informed public consent) have Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) -  http://www.worldradio.ch/wrs/news/video/switzerland-embraces-heroin-assisted-treatment.shtml?12825. 

      When the WoD finally ends and people realise that the biggest reason drugs have proliferated in the recent decades is because of the WoD itself!  Its not cool to be a sick-substance addicted person.  If the problem was treated as a health issue (properly with education and treatment etc) then the costs to the community would undoubtedly be substantially less in both suffering and the economic burden. By telling the truth (facts based on science), the attraction to first-timers would be reduced greatly.  I believe that the community opinion is far ahead of the politicians in recognising that the time for reason and compassion is now.  This is a real core issue that has been put in the too hard basket for far too long.  Care not incarceration.

      Reply

    • Tricia says:

      09:53am | 10/06/10

      We treat Alcoholism as a health problem. Just because it is legal does not make it any less dangerous to the person addicted. So we have programs like AA to assist. But it’s not just a physical health problem - that’s the result of the abuse. Why do people rely on drugs and alcohol? What problems in their life are they escaping? If we addressed the actual core issues, the mental and emotional factors that contribute to someone’s dependency on a substance, instead of throwing people in jail, then we will actually start to see real results.

      Reply

    • Patrick says:

      12:54pm | 10/06/10

      Yep all we need to do to stop the junkies being junkies is invent a 12 step plan for them to find God. Totally.

    • Josh says:

      10:37am | 10/06/10

      Legalisation (or decriminalisation) has shown no overall increase in drug use in various states and countries across the globe. That as an argument in its own right should be a major factor in any decisions made here.

      Through legislation drugs can be properly trialled and made safer. Surely new and harmless drugs can be produced in the mid- to long-term through proper research (Australia could even become a world leader?). As an unintended side affect this could reduce the use of alcohol and cigarettes also? Maybe xanax and the like too?

      Reply

    • third eye says:

      10:43am | 10/06/10

      I think we all need to listen to some Bill Hicks, before this is debated.

      Reply

    • Laurie says:

      07:10pm | 10/06/10

      ‘Last Train to Hicksville’ will do nicely eh?.

    • Steve says:

      11:10am | 10/06/10

      It’s a Prohibition!  I’ve heard the argument by politicians that we “don’t prohibit murder or rape”.  People know the difference between right and wrong!  We all know murder is wrong, even murderers and psychos know it.  But ask someone about drug use and it becomes a grey area.  It isn’t easy to see.  The only people who don’t have a hard time deciding are anti-drug people.  Who also say any drug use is a bad thing, in which case they’ll stereotype the drug user as someone who lives in a caravan or on the street, can’t keep a job and steals from everyone they know.  I have people at my work who seriously think that ALL drug users are like that, which is why they say it should stay illegal.

      Sorry but it’s not the case, it’s totally false.  Many drug users have a full time jobs.  Pay their bills and enjoy life like the rest of us.

      You can’t change human nature.  This is part the reason why you’ll never win this war on drugs.

      The war on drug is morally wrong.  When cops find it in your car, the law says you’re automatically to blame, even if it’s not yours (guilty until proven innocent) ... then look at the law for when they raid.  If they find drugs in the family room of your house, well it belongs to everyone who lives in the house (guilty until proven innocent) which goes against western legal values.  How did this happen?

      These laws send people to jail for growing a plant in their backyard when they only did it as a hobby and/or to keep their drug use cheap.  Leaving the working money to pay bills for the kids.  So only the kids suffer, yet then so does the guys employer and even bank cause he can’t pay the loans etc…  How does this help anybody?!?  Kids suffer, Employers Suffer, Banks & their Share holders suffer.  So one guy can go to jail only to do it all again when they get back out, because they think.. “well I got away with it for 10 years, it was the neighbour who called the cops, so I’ll be right to do it again”...  The value of the law has no effect.  But if you gave him the death penality then it’ll be the Cops and Judges that suffer, along with the rest.

      The laws help no body.  No body at all.

      But it also clouds judgement.  For example, scientific results are peer reviewed correctly before going into the newspaper or policy.  But NOT drugs!  The laws currently around MDMA are based of a study which has since been proven totally wrong, it wasn’t even MDMA, they tested with, and they tested a drug you can’t even get on the streets!  Those pictures you see like on Oprah about how MDMA eating people brains are based off this false study.  Yet it’s OK to tell people false info because it keeps it illegal.  So now everyone thinks MDMA rots your brain which no such study has proven.  EVER!  What they have proven is ALL side effects of MDMA won’t occur if you have enough Vitamin C in your system.  So eat an orange before having a pill, there is no problem.  It’s proven to be far safer than Alcohol could ever be.  But those stories are never promoted, only false studies and propaganda….

      But also many studies on THC amount in cannabis, is false too.  Most of the really bad ones were paid for by the DEA or a drug testing company which make more profits if they can show governments how bad a drug is.  Which makes no sense when you look at other issues, we always condemn a study on Smoking done by a Cigarette company, but not a Drug study paid for by the company that makes the Road Side Drug testing kits (which they’ve done and it was promoted in Aussie news).  Why do we not allow one but allow the other?

      Too many people think their drug use is fine.  So many that you could never change their minds.  You don’t have that with other types of crime.

      So stop making violent criminals rich and let the non-violent drug criminals be free to live their life the way they see fit.  Stop the Lies, stop families be broken up, so people defaulting on loans, stop false imprisonment, stop cops placing drugs on their enemies to convict them, stop the propaganda, stop the social destruction these laws are creating.  Stop the war on Personal Freedom, Opinion & Drugs!

      Reply

    • Bruce says:

      03:24pm | 10/06/10

      BTS you seem very passionate about this debate but seem to miss seeing the effects of economics and agency theory upon this market.

      May I suggest this video of Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman outlining his views on the matter; removing all personal judgements and looking at the issue in a cold, rational way.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

      Reply

    • terence says:

      04:02pm | 10/06/10

      there is only one drug that comes in hundreds of flavors, that’s right, it’s the one in the bottle shop. $500 for a bottle of fermented grape juice (grange) sounds really smart doesn’t it.
      each to their own and everyone else should mind their own business. There are no shortage of laws to deal with misbehaviour of all kinds.

      Reply

    • Emma B says:

      12:37am | 12/06/10

      Its easier then it seems, legalise the damn things
      here’s my proposed order of events…
      1. legalise the drug for prescription use,
      2. prescribe monitord standardised doses (not ehough to OD but enough to sustain their addiction)
      3. addicts take the prescription to Drug consumption centres to be taken/injected safely under supervision and with nurses to help in revival situations, and users are provided with clean needles
      5. legalised drugs = less cost for users = less crime in order to get drugs
      (of the 27000 people in aust jails on any given day, approx 70% of hose were drug related)
      also, 55% of heroine users have HIV or hep, so with clean needles comes less disease
      6. with lowered cost, and people being able to get drugs via prescription, that cancels out not only the drug ords/gangs, but the desire for people to enter that ‘profession’ as there would simply be no money in it.

      The Australian government pours over half a billion dollars into more police during drug peak times…. surely this can be better spent on stopping the problem at the source rather then after people contract HIV, or someone gets their house robbed or a family looses a loved one over drugs…
      putting on more police and pushing for harsher sentencing is only adressing the aftermath of the problem.

      ...well thats my 19yr old simplified version

      Reply

    • barry says:

      10:21am | 13/08/11

      I am long time user of opiates, I am long time sufferer of depression my father and uncle have both comitted suicide from severe depression. Opiates have been a miracle for me allowing me work and live with little or no depression. I have been trying legal anti-depressants for years with no success. I began using prescription opiates and because of our (war on drugs) doctors are now very afraid to prescribe. I then turned to heroin which to most is some crazy awful drug, most do not even know that heroin is acetylated morphine, called diacetylmorphine and it is used in many countries as a legal for prescription only pain killer. I have now spent 7 years of my life in state prisons, 3 seperate tours. I now cannot get a job (back ground checks) I now cannot vote, cannot have a gun, and the list of life ruining causes of our insane drug laws goes on. Had I been able to go to a state store as does a person buying alcohol, and buy the drug that makes my life so much better, I would now be going to work each day leading a normal life. I worked in a large chain grocery store as a heroin addict for 9 years and actually got employee of the year as a functioning heroin addict.! No one knew of my addiction, I got to a dose that worked for me and my habit never increased, contrary to all the naysayers. I look at portugal and how they finally decriminalized all drugs and its now been over 10 years and it has worked, check it out all you prohobitionists ! I now sit at home on ssi dreaming of the days I had a good job and could afford my hobby of building muscle cars and taking my cars to car shows. How much is this war on drugs costing our society from people like me ?

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed