Hi, On 24/04/12 12:42, Russell Coker replied:

...

Do you think that the War On Drugs is wrong, and that prohibition causes more problems than it solves?

Why is this a requirement? Wikipedia is about neutral articles regarding noteworthy things.

Someone who has no strong opinions on the matter but who wants to have Australian politics well documented would be just as good at it.

Ah, my mistake. I had posed those two questions as a way of finding people who'd be motivated enough to volunteer. Didn't intend to ask them for any sort of pro-bias. That would be more appropriate for each of the organisations' websites. I'd expect the facts, and nothing but the facts, in the Wikipedia work. I've never written a Wikipedia page, and thought some LUV members would have the necessary skills -- both technical and editorial (as aptly put by Russell). Sorry if I've stepped on any toes. Regards, Carl Turney Bottom-line Ownership and Management Services www.boms.com.au Mobile 0427 024 735

Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):

I'm against the war on drugs.

In my view, a significantly more accurate term is 'The War on Some Drugs'. (Please excuse me while I take an ibuprofen and some caffeine. Alcohol to follow.)

Craig Sanders wrote:

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:12:06PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:

...

In my view, a significantly more accurate term is 'The War on Some Drugs'. (Please excuse me while I take an ibuprofen and some caffeine. Alcohol to follow.)

don't forget to eat poppy-seed cake before every piss test. instant fake junkie with optional icing.

and anything with lots of cinnamon or safrole (sars / root beer) and most other aromatic spices ought to be good for getting aminated during digestion and possibly testing false-positive for meth or ecstasy.

First time I've gotten a programming job that required a drug test. I was worried they were going to say `you don't have enough LSD in your system to do Unix programming'. -- Paul Tomblin

Quoting John Wilson (john@blueskin.biz):

NOTE: BEING WILLING TO HELP THESE GROUPS OUT IN NO WAY STATES THAT YOU ARE (OR HAVE BEEN) A RECREATIONAL DRUG USER YOURSELF.

suggesting otherwise is a smoke screen. Spin!!!

My boss has opined that reform of marijuana laws depends primarily on people like me, who are very obviously _not_ recreational drug users and who can argue rationally and credibly for why making drugs usage criminal is a dumb idea. FWIW, my native state of California came quite close to making marijuana completely legal for personal use and commercial production in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010) Subsequent that that, possession of personal-use quantities was decriminalised: On September 30th, 2010, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law CA State Senate Bill 1449, effectively reducing the charge of possession of up to one ounce of cannabis from a misdemeanor to a infraction, similar to a traffic violation, with a $100 fine and no mandatory court appearance or criminal record.[3] The law became effective January 1, 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_California Residents who want to avoid even the possibility of what is functionally equivalent to a parking ticket can get a prescription for 'medical marijuana' made possible by 1996's Prop. 215 / Compassionate Use Act[1], on any of a variety of fairly flimsy pretexts and then buy it at a retail 'clinic' set up for that purpose.[2] The net effect of these changes by the voters, state Senate, and former (Republican!) governor is that the stuff is widely available without fear of prosecution, and social conservatives have started noticing that the sky didn't fall. So, even though Prop. 19 failed by a narrow margin two years ago, it's widely predicted that public opinion has been swinging further in the direction of ending the legal idiocy. Also, various state and local police departments and prosecutors have developed a de-facto policy of not going after users. There have been two bits of fallout from the California experience on a national level: (a) Other states have, disappointingly, tried to avoid the 'California model' in their own reform efforts, seeing my beloved state as an appalling example of decriminalisation gone wrong, whereby not only cancer and glaucoma patients but functionally anyone at all can get marijuana lawfully. (A majority of California residents beg to differ:

From our perspective, societal acceptance of decriminalisation is a good thing even if it comes about through a medical subterfuge.)

(b) Federal law enforcement have sometimes carried out raids of lawful growers and of medical-marijuana clinics in California during the Bush Administration (as the Federal nationwide ban of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 still exists). One of Obama's changes was to have Attorney General Holder announce starting March 2009 that Drug Enforcement Agency raids in California would cease. I told my co-workers that I'd actually try a sample of the stuff if Prop. 19 passed (which it didn't). Not smoked, though, as I rather like my lungs. Anyway, no Alice B. Toklas brownies for me yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_215_%281996%29#Implemen... [2] Some friends who need the stuff for pain-relief or asthma-relief purposes tell me they generally prefer to buy marijuana in a technically-illegal fashion than with a prescription for two reasons: (1) That way, there's no official record of their being a medical-marijuana customer, which might be handy if public opinion swings the other way or other complicating factors develop. (1) Fees for doctor consultation to get the prescription cost about the same as a fine, if not a bit more.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, John Wilson wrote:

I think a possible solution would be full legalisation and strong criminalisation for commercial sale.

It is a strange argument: I don't mind whether you smoke, take pills or whatever, while persecuting the provider. Think about the "market idea" behind legalization: If we make it legal, the prices may drop, the "average user" can afford it without commiting crime, and the profit margin drops (more cometition in an open market), and it isn't criminal, can be controlled, it becomes a "proper business", not a fringe criminal economy, with huge profit margins so it is lucrative to invest in. Your idea would not achieve it. It also takes away the opportunity to control drug quality, important for users. Besides, it becomes easier to produce a large variety of drugs, with any kind of black-list you are just catching up with the available range of drugs. Having kids, I believe it would be better for them to grow up in an environment where drugs are available, policed, quality-controlled and their behaviour and usage depending on education. Much better than experimenting with colourful pills with unknown ingredients and unknown origin. Regards Peter

Russell Coker wrote:

Commercial production of some drugs should be prohibited, we don't want Meth promoted like cigarettes! For the more dangerous drugs I think that the government should manufacture them and sell them to end users, in some cases by direct injection only.

Government *regulated*, sure. I'm not sure I want government *run* meth labs :-) (Hm, having said that, the ABC is government-run and is a better broadcaster than anyone but SBS. I'm struggling to think of anything else hasn't been sold off in the last twenty years...)