Definitely. We should not be wasting resources on trying to stop drugs.

Legalise, tax, regulate, and focus resources on treating addiction.

Indeed. In European counties, they provide adequate testing facilities for drugs. The reality we must face is that people are going to take drugs. Why criminalise it and drive them underground and into unsafe environments when it will only negatively impact society?

Has Peta Credlin got the biggest head in Australia?

I say yes. It is massive.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/bedwetter-enters-australian-political-lexicon-as-barb-of-choice-amid-election-turmoil-20160704-gpyjva.html

Credlin is an absolute star. Her insights are fantastic and she is as capable as anyone in cabinet.

Still has a big scone though.

I think the worry is if you legalise drugs and give them the same tax treatment as cigarettes and alcohol then its possible their consumption will proliferate as much as cigarettes and alcohol. Who knows in 20 years time pollies rather than campaigning by sinking a few bevvies at the pub with the local riff raff they might do lines of coke instead.

I think it's important to remind people hard drugs are a major source of crime, death and misery in the world, and giving up the fight won't make those problems disappear. Even casual drug use is associated with psychosis, murder, overdose etc.

My 5yo son was watching some of the election footage with me over the weekend, and he commented on the big head of a few candidates in electorates ... was quite funny. He'd give a little giggle and say "they've got a big head". He didn't say anything about Peta though.

Big scone = big brain

In the big bonce stakes Bill appears to have a fair attempt at the title but that could be an optical illusion because of that neverending forehead of his.

Thank you Mr 1842.

But fighting to keep them illegal achieves nothing. Drugs waste police and tax payer resources. They're damaging often (not exclusively) because they're made illegally from questionable sources.

Obviously you're not going to be able to drive through a Dan Murphy's drive through and pick up some winnie-blues, a few tallies and a gram of coke.

Agree. Having users go underground does impact on their safety, but legalization would lead to its own problems.
Some problems dont have solutions. I mean we could go down the route of Death penalty for smugglers and dealers. Its not really an ideal solution but it is a solution none the less.

Some of these right wingers in the liberal party are so spectacularly out of touch.

Firstly they chose a complete lunatic to be leader, who was so bad and unelectable after his first budget that he got removed before his 2 year anniversary in power.

They then chose a moderate leader, forced him not to change any of their policies, then sent him off to a double dissolution.

Now instead of blaming their loss of majority on their crazy medicare policies, they are blaming Malcolm Turnbull and demanding the return of Abbott.

What fucking planet are these people on?

People have to make their own choices though. Who am I to complain about someone who wants to blaze their life away on the end of a bong?

Are we only a nanny state when it comes to alcohol laws and data retention?

The best argument I've heard regarding the way to transfer drug use across to an health concern was to classify drugs according to their risks, impact (social) and addictive nature (misuse).

http://www.drugequality.org/files/Development_of_a_Rational%20Scale_2007.pdf

Interesting that alcohol ranks considerably higher than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy yet the later two are currently "A" class drugs compared to no class for alcohol (see page 4 of the report).

This is another great report from the Wales Police Commission in response to a UK review of their drug policy. Makes a similar case that the current strategies don't work and that the current classifications are not based on health issues.

http://www.drugequality.org/files/Drugs_Policy_Paper_2007.pdf

I'm not sure that "keeping them illegal achieves nothing". I think that making them as difficult to access as possible and criminalising possession would create a disincentive to to hard drugs. Some countries have had some mixed results liberalising some aspects of their drug laws so i would not be opposed to adopting some of those measures here but I think a legalise and tax approach would send a very bad message. If you look at countries like Portugal for example they have decriminalised small possession of drugs but there are still consequences and an anti drug culture.

If this was true then why is usage consistent?

I think you will find that the death and misery associated with illegal drugs is caused primarily by the fact that they are illegal.

I've always found a good historical comparison to be the Prohibition era in the USA. Much of the crime problems it created are exactly the same as the problems associated with illegal drugs today.

All the evidence from countries that have de-criminalised drugs (Portugal is the key example) have not seen any increase in usage. At most, there is a slight increase in the amount of people who try drugs, but regular usage is unchanged, or even slightly decreases.

Legalisation does not mean treating all drugs like alcohol. You would treat different drugs in different ways, based on harm. For example, heroin would likely only be available on prescription etc, whereas marijuana would be treated in a similar manner to alcohol.

You would also singlehandedly do the biggest single action to damage criminal gangs. Drugs are their primary source of income. This would evaporate.

You would bring a huge amount of the black economy into the light (and taxation system). This would help significantly with budget repair, with no cost to the govt. You could then re-focus govt resources away from pointless law enforcement (and potential for corruption) and towards education, treatment and regulation.

This will happen. Its already happened in a number of US states with marijuana.

You won't eliminate all issues, and you will inevitably create some new problems. But the net effect will be that society will be far better off.

In WA we apparently have an ice/meth epidemic http://feature.thewest.com.au/methcity/

While they're at it, not that I'm a bong smoker, I find it ridiculous you can be busted for drug driving even if it's days after your last billy.

Surely there's no impairment 4 days later?

There must be a better way.

They'd have to determine acceptable levels to operate a vehicle (similar to alcohol tolerances when driving). However, considering cannabis / marijuana is at best decriminalised in some states you won't get any allowances until it is legal.

Not sure about medicinal marijuana uses ... have the USA (which have legalised it for this use in some states) established any tolerance laws regarding it's use when driving?

I brought it up because some old biddy (a gran actually) where I live got busted and it was days after the fact.

Honestly if you wanted to chillout on a Friday night and choof up, demolish a pack of tim-tams and watch an Adam Sandler movie you'd be fucked off to get busted for driving in to work on the Monday.

Seems unfair.

Thats not what happened.
Many said Shorten was unelectable, even Abbott, but Abbott actually won an election and Shorten came close.
The decision to remove Abbott was not due to the failure of the first budget, it was due to their position in the polls and that fact that Turnbull was so popular, they equated popularity with votes and thought he would guarantee an election win, especially given the perceived weakness of Shorten. The folly of this logic was exposed as soon as Turnbull took over, they ran a new poll and despite high sky rocketing popularity the 2PP for the libs was only 53% and it was only ever going to go down from there. Turnbull's popularity came mostly from the left, but because he is a liberal they were never going to vote him unless he dragged the coalition and its conservative base to the left which was never going to happen.

The first budget was the best budget the liberals delivered, sensible and modest, but due to the hysteria of the left media and the impotence of the right media and government to argue the case it fell apart. It's a lot easier to scare people with claims the government is going to close Medicare than it is to rationally and logically explain why cuts are necessary.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just stupid.

Are you referring to the unelectable leader that won a Federal election in a landslide? And also delivered two budgets?

And what "crazy Medicare policies" are you referring to?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Fucking lollll!!!!

I'm not sure about that. Word is deaths due to drug use in Portugal are at the same higher levels now prior to when they liberalised their drug laws. I don't know enough about the Portugal situation but I suspect there is considerable public expense shifted from law enforcement to treatment and public health. Like I said I think there's some room for reform but I don't think its as simple as legalisation and taxation. We can incorporate elements of deterrence and treatment into our policy.

I agree with what you say, but please don't say it doesn't happen with the Labor party as well:lol:

Crowdfunding set up to buy Pauline hansons old fish and chip shop and turn it into a halal kebab shop

:? :d :d :d :d

People need to find more important things to do with their time. :lol:

This weird gotcha activism is getting pretty ridiculous.

Especially considering that her old fish and chip shop was bought by Asians and reactionaries had already made hay out of that.