Drugs evil: PM (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

Drugs evil: PM

Stephanie Peatling in Brisbane
October 17, 2007 - 4:30PM
Advertisement

Prime Minister John Howard has described all drugs as "evil" and "damned" and pleaded with people to stop referring to party or recreational drugs.

On the campaign trail in Brisbane today, Mr Howard said his position of zero tolerance had come to be vindicated.

"At long last, the community in some way has come to its senses", Mr Howard said.

"Don't call them party drugs or recreational drugs.

"They are evil, all of them."

Mr Howard said although he felt sorry for disgraced West Coast Eagles footballer Ben Cousins, the AFL needed to attack the culture that had contributed to his drug problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/drugs-evil-pm/2007/10/17/1192300843863.html

Are all drugs 'evil'?

Should we stop referring to 'party' or 'recreational' drugs?

Is Howard trying too hard to appeal to good ol' values?

 

[mr_brightside]

eww. that's a big, "I love you" to the conservatives.

Ima vota greens 420 lol!

 

[Iron]

Bob Brown gave an excellent address to the National Press CLub today. According to him, his policy was tough on suppliers and compassionate on addicts. He's a doctor, and recommended that everyone steer clear of them if they want a happier, healthier life. I agree. Howard's label of 'Evil' may be a tad strong, but i believe in the spirit of this sentiment because of the misery it all perpetuates.

 

[Serius]

All drugs are evil? Well I would dissagree considering I use salbutamol to continue to breath[commonly referred to as ventalin]


Morphine is also a pretty good pain releiver.

Oh, wait, we are talking about drugs that the government has decided are illegal right? well i have never seen someone on ecstasy act "evil", most act a lot more loving and enjoy the music waaaay too much.

Whats so wrong with experimenting and trying different forms of pleasure anyway? We have done it all throughout history, and i dont see howard calling alcohol evil.

 

[KFunk]

Are all drugs 'evil'?

Should we stop referring to 'party' or 'recreational' drugs?

Is Howard trying too hard to appeal to good ol' values?

The statistics I have seen regarding ecstasy generally suggest that it is a relatively safe drug - certainly comparable to acohol (for example). It strikes me as hypocritical to speak out against ecstasy without also condeming cigarettes and alcohol (of course, why would they given the amount of funding recieved from the alcohol beverage industry?). Of course, some recreational drugs (think crystal meth) are quite harmful. On the whole I'm relatively sympathetic to Bob Brown's position.

 

[volition]

Bob Brown gave an excellent address to the National Press Club today. According to him, his policy was tough on suppliers and compassionate on addicts.

If this is true, then this looks a little inconsistent to me, so maybe someone could explain this to me.

1. How can involvement with drugs be ok for some, but not all?
2. How can drug production be evil, but drug consumption be alright?
3. Isn't this train of thought ignoring the fact that drug production wouldn't happen in the first place if it weren't for drug consumption? So by being soft on drug consumption, isn't this making drug production/smuggling from overseas more likely?

 

[jb_nc]

no shit, chances are if you're shooting heroin into your arm twice a day you're probably not exactly a productive member of socitey

 

[_dhj_]

If this is true, then this looks a little inconsistent to me, so maybe someone could explain this to me.

1. How can involvement with drugs be ok for some, but not all?
2. How can drug production be evil, but drug consumption be alright?
3. Isn't this train of thought ignoring the fact that drug production wouldn't happen in the first place if it weren't for drug consumption? So by being soft on drug consumption, isn't this making drug production/smuggling from overseas more likely?

Some interesting questions raised.

I think the main difference between the supplier and the consumer is that the consumer is only doing harm to herself (primarily speaking). It is true that supply is driven by demand, but such is the nature of addictive drugs that supply also drives demand. But if we put a drug dealer alongside a junkie, most if not all of us will identify the drug dealer as morally culpable - it's really a matter of common sense and commonly entrenched notions of morality.

If we move away from the moral questions, the goal is the minimise addictive drug consumption, thereby decreasing crime, productivity loss and other externalities. That is achievable by treating the addict, by attempting to cure the addiction. 'Getting tough' and 'zero tolerance' approaches against addicts are merely retributive, and satiate the moral outrage of drug consumption. But we need solutions. We have to focus on the practical minimisation of consumption rather than alienate and express moral disgust at those involved with drugs.

 

[volition]

Taking drugs harms only yourself.

If taking drugs only harms yourself, why is it illegal in the first place? Isn't this just like banning Maccas?

By selling drugs you a making them available to many people, causing them pain and misery and profiting as a result. This behavior is far more blameworthy

To continue the analogy, is maccas responsible for people getting fat? Or the people who chose to (over)eat there are responsible?

Being a libertarian though, I think the govt has no business enforcing its views on drug use via the use of force.

'Getting tough' and 'zero tolerance' approaches against addicts are merely retributive, and satiate the moral outrage of drug consumption.

I agree, the standard socially 'right wing' response to drug use is flawed. It only comes about because stupid people think it is a solution, and like to hear the words "we're getting tough on drugs".

 

[jimmayyy]

All drugs are evil? Well I would dissagree considering I use salbutamol to continue to breath[commonly referred to as ventalin]


Morphine is also a pretty good pain releiver.

Oh, wait, we are talking about drugs that the government has decided are illegal right? well i have never seen someone on ecstasy act "evil", most act a lot more loving and enjoy the music waaaay too much.

Whats so wrong with experimenting and trying different forms of pleasure anyway? We have done it all throughout history, and i dont see howard calling alcohol evil.

bit simplistic of you man. sure, pills are great on the night, and i agree that any drug in moderation is probably acceptable, but the long term effects of any drug (legal or illegal) are what is evil. the illegal drug trade kills thousands of people a year, and legal drugs (valium, alcohol, tobacco etc) cause just as much heartache and death in the wider community.

i think his quote has been taken out of context. clearly he is referring to E, coke, ice etc etc, all of which, in the bigger picture, i would agree are horrible stains on society in the long term.

i agree with the sentiments of Irons post.

 

[jimmayyy]

If taking drugs only harms yourself, why is it illegal in the first place? Isn't this just like banning Maccas?

To continue the analogy, is maccas responsible for people getting fat? Or the people who chose to (over)eat there are responsible?

Being a libertarian though, I think the govt has no business enforcing its views on drug use via the use of force.

I agree, the standard socially 'right wing' response to drug use is flawed. It only comes about because stupid people think it is a solution, and like to hear the words "we're getting tough on drugs".

1. the risks of maccas ar efar less than the risks of drugs. its like comparing netball to rugby league. sure, you might get scratched or sprain your ankle, but netball is a non-contact sport, hence the risks are less (even though you might still get fat/sick from maccas). illegal drugs is a full on contact sport if you want to throw out analogies, and to follow up my analogy, check the injury disparity between netball and rugby league.

2. works on the assumption all people, esp drug addicts are as mature, responsible, intelligent, in control etc etc as you or more. fact is, most drug addicts are already fucked up before they get on drugs eg come from poor socio economic position, broken homes, been abused, low education etc. people like that dont really have a "choice" like you or me when it comes to being responsible for drugs. its a cycle they get caught in. hence, they are in need of more protection by the govt than "normal" people. drug dealers and supplies pray on people and end up indirectly killing them. sure, they dont put the need in the arm, but they give them the drugs that fill the need. seeings as you like analogies, they are pretty much giving them the bullets, just not loading the gun or pulling the trigger.

3. the govt doesnt use "force" to control personal drug use. when was the last time a personal use went to jail? most possession charges for personal use are fines or warnings or suspended sentences and shit. the people who actually get prosecuted and go to jail are the ones who make/sell/possess the drugs.

4. why should your stance on drugs come from where you are on the political spectrum? left and right should both be equally opposed to something that is eroding our society and killing hundreds of young people.

 

[RTTTYTR]

1. the risks of maccas ar efar less than the risks of drugs. its like comparing netball to rugby league. sure, you might get scratched or sprain your ankle, but netball is a non-contact sport, hence the risks are less (even though you might still get fat/sick from maccas). illegal drugs is a full on contact sport if you want to throw out analogies, and to follow up my analogy, check the injury disparity between netball and rugby league.

So shouldn't users be treated the same as those who take personal responsibility to engage in dangerous activities? The user should be held accountable for their actions.

poor socio economic position, broken homes, been abused, low education etc. people like that dont really have a "choice" like you or me when it comes to being responsible for drugs.

Yet not all those who have similar cultures and backgrounds start using drugs. So how do you account for the "inability" of drug users to take personal responsibility?

And as for broken homes, the number of divorces in this country are increasing, thus a larger proportion of society come from broken homes, and the subsequent change in economic circumstances.

Further, the notion of abuse is wide ranging and it could be argued that everyone is a victim of abuse.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define:+abuse&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

its a cycle they get caught in. hence, they are in need of more protection by the govt than "normal" people. drug dealers and supplies pray on people and end up indirectly killing them. sure, they dont put the need in the arm, but they give them the drugs that fill the need. seeings as you like analogies, they are pretty much giving them the bullets, just not loading the gun or pulling the trigger.

In that case would you argue that a 'nanny state' is needed?
Drug dealers are merely supplying an existing need. If you eliminate the demand the drug industry wil cease to exist. Additionally, few to no drug dealers would go up to a complete stranger and offer them drugs due to the possibility the 'potential customer' is a cop.

 

[volition]

the risks of maccas ar efar less than the risks of drugs. its like comparing netball to rugby league.

The point was that ultimately, each individual person is the one to decide what risk they're willing to take. Should sky diving be outlawed? How about driving? (driving is more dangerous than not)

works on the assumption all people, esp drug addicts are as mature, responsible, intelligent, in control etc etc as you or more.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and if people aren't responsible for their own choices, then there is no longer any incentive to actually look after yourself. I think part of the reason people take up drugs these days is because they feel they'll be insulated against the consequences of their own actions.

It's tough I know, there isn't really a solution to this problem, but I think people need to just take personal responsibility for things, otherwise we're just going to spiral futher down and down as more idiots screw themselves over and push the burden on other people to help them. I doubt the govt even does a good job of helping them anyway.

the govt doesnt use "force" to control personal drug use. when was the last time a personal use went to jail? most possession charges for personal use are fines or warnings or suspended sentences and shit. the people who actually get prosecuted and go to jail are the ones who make/sell/possess the drugs.

I'm referring to govt laying fines and regulations down on people too. What happens if you don't pay your fines? Eventually, you'll get locked up, and it'll happen even faster if you try to resist. (keep in mind you would be justified in resisting if some crazy dude just came up to you asking for money so he can buy chocolate milk for his neighbour) I consider the govt no different, it should not be able to do anything that an individual person cannot, since its only made up of individual people who are subject to the same rules we are.

why should your stance on drugs come from where you are on the political spectrum? left and right should both be equally opposed to something that is eroding our society and killing hundreds of young people.

My stance on this is partially dictated by my overall stance of anarcho-capitalism, that govt force is immoral. So sure I think people should willingly help out as they feel they can spare the money/time, but I don't think the govt has any place forcing this interaction.

 

[flappinghippo]

I would say ice is evil, from what I've read and seen. That stuff is seriously a menace to society.

However, I'd say most other drugs aren't. They only become problems and cause so much destruction because the laws supposedly meant to cure them just end up perpetuating it and spreading to other areas –
• they make criminals out of ordinary people (ie, the average drug-user)
• vulnerable people are exploited and abused (drug couriers)
• corrupt police (vast amounts of money are a temptation some can't refuse)
• increase crime (desperate addicts do desperate things to fund an artificially high addiction)
• worsens health (eg. pregnant drug addicts may not seek medical advice for fear of being arrested)
• lives are lost (in turf wars between rival criminal organisations)
• are a source of funds for criminal organisations

Getting stoned doesn't cause people to harm anyone. I don't think the government's job should be to wag their finger at you for doing something to yourself. Their job should simply be to inform you of what you're getting yourself into and offer the choice of services to the needy for rehabilitation.

Legalise and regulate the flow of drugs, tax them, and I think much of the reasons behind their 'evil' tag would be gone.

 

[katie_tully]

If this is true, then this looks a little inconsistent to me, so maybe someone could explain this to me.

1. How can involvement with drugs be ok for some, but not all?
2. How can drug production be evil, but drug consumption be alright?
3. Isn't this train of thought ignoring the fact that drug production wouldn't happen in the first place if it weren't for drug consumption? So by being soft on drug consumption, isn't this making drug production/smuggling from overseas more likely?

I feel so dirty for even going near this website, but this is Bob Browns stance on the drug issue. God I feel even dirtier for saying this, despite how much I lack compassion for drug users and how stupid I think they are, but he has some valid points. Intrinsically I disagree with 'harm minimisation', but I also understand its concept.
But anyway;

The Australian Greens believe that:
a harm minimisation approach is the best way to reduce the negative effects of drug use and drug regulation.
harm minimisation policies and programs are those directed towards reducing the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use, to the individual user and the community.
the use of illegal and legal drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), and some regulatory approaches, can have a wide range of adverse health, social and economic effects.
the regulation of personal use of currently illegal drugs is best addressed primarily within a health and social framework, with legal support.
imprisonment for personal use of illicit drugs, when not associated with other crimes, is not an appropriate solution to drug dependence.
a funding mix should be adopted to enable supply reduction, demand reduction and harm reduction.
information and education programs should be available to enable informed debate about the effects of all drugs, including prescription, non-prescription, legal and illegal drugs.
policy and programs should be adopted that are evidence-based and subject to continuous evaluation.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities must control, to the greatest extent possible, the development and management of harm minimisation policies and programs in their communities.
Goals
The Australian Greens want:
a reduction in deaths, disease, crime and corruption resulting from drug use.
reduced consumption of illegal and legal drugs where this leads to a decrease in problems associated with harmful drug use.
the cost to government and the community of regulating drug use to be reduced with improved health and social outcomes.
improved efficacy of all management, treatment and other regulatory and judicial responses to drug use in the community, to maximise harm reduction, supply reduction and demand reduction.
Measures
The Australian Greens will:
establish an Australian Drugs Policy Institute to undertake research trials and evaluation of policy and treatment programs.
provide free information on substance use, especially for young people.
ban all advertising and all sponsorship of tobacco products.
establish an independent body to regulate alcohol advertising.
ban donations from the tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries to political parties.
reform alcohol taxation so that the tax rate is based on alcohol content rather than beverage type, and allocate the income to fund alcohol and drug education and treatment.
reduce the effects of passive smoking, by introducing a ban on smoking in defined public spaces.
continue restrictions on the sale of alcohol and tobacco products to people under the age of 18.
prohibit advertising promotions for alcohol that encourage excessive drinking.
introduce the regulated use of cannabis for specified medical purposes, such as intractable pain.
support the comprehensive roll out of Opal non-sniffable fuel throughout regions of Australia where petrol sniffing and trafficking is a problem, with associated diversionary and rehabilitation programs.
support serious penalties for driving while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs that impair cognitive or psychomotor skills.
introduce a system of sanctions for personal use of illicit drugs, when not associated with other crimes, that include measures such as education, counselling and treatment commensurate with specific cases and circumstances.
support criminal penalties for drug dealers.
increase availability of diversion to rehabilitation and treatment programs as a sentencing alternative for people convicted of crimes committed to support a personal addiction to drugs.
promote relationships between relevant agencies and local communities to address problems associated with illegal drug use.
make drug substitution treatments available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and compensate pharmacists for costs of dispensing treatment.
extend the range of counselling and treatment programs covered by Medicare.
increase the availability of harm reduction programs, including needle and syringe exchanges and medically supervised injecting rooms, and implement a rigorous scientific trial of prescribed heroin to registered users, in line with the proposed 1996 ACT Government heroin trial.

http://greens.org.au/election/policy.php?policy=23

 

[katie_tully]

Personally I don't think there is any excuse anymore for taking drugs. We all know the effects, anybody who claims otherwise is a dickhead and should be shot. Always it's going to come down to education and I'm all for shock tactics.

We should be showing kids what is left of an 18 year old after they've wrapped themselves around a tree at 100km. Not much. Enough to fit on a spatula as they scrap them up.

We were shown a video of meth users picking off their skin in year 12. I was physically ill and if I'd ever thought of doing ice or something before that, I sure as hell didn't after.

Blood helps.

 

[Serius]

The ill effects for drugs like pot, ecstasy and acid arent all that bad considering the good effects and all. Actually i have no idea why marijuana is illegal, some of the reasons like addiction [its less addictive than chocolate] and health effects are totally bunk. None of my lecturers saw any valid reason why it should be illegal either, considering alcohol and tobacco are legal.

LSD and ecstasy would also benefit from legalization. Most heath scares are because ecstasy is unregulated so those who manufacture it can sometimes stuff up and make bad batches. Strength isn't standardized either. The lethal dose for LSD is massive though so i dont ever see that being a problem.

I think basically the government has a problem withs drugs being consumed for recreation and they only reason they tolerate tobacco and alcohol is because many people use it and they cant use scare tactics to push through legislation like they did with weed because everyone knows all about alcohol.

 

[katie_tully]

Tobacco doesn't enhance schizophrenic disorders like THC does.

I don't see why health employees like doctors and nurses should put up with the influx of dangerous ice addicts beating them up in emergency waiting rooms because you think the stance against drugs is a conspiracy theory.

Blah blah. Either youre a twit or youre a troll. I cbf anymore.

 

[katie_tully]

Cyanide inside panadol capsules is pretty hardcore. Like, I fucking hate you and I want your life insurance payout hardcore.

 

[volition]

Well to me, any govt legislation saying "you can't take this drug" is taking away your right to self-ownership, which is really really bad. The second we start imposing stuff on each other, we're taking away self-ownership, which is wrong imo.

Although, given the current situation, people are insured against shitty choices such as screwing themselves over via drugs ('free' health care so they can just push the cost onto other people). There's no solution to this drug problem in the current system.