-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
do you think law and law enforcement on drugs in australia is lenient... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter yy
- Start date
FuckLiberals
Member
All drug laws are stupid.
Legalise.
No, they're not lenient.
Legalise.
No, they're not lenient.
BronwynKate
Member
Yes, certainly compared to many of our Asian neighbours. And I think we're more lenient compared to America and less so than many European and African countries. I don't really know about Africa or South America, so could we discount them from the discussion? Or those who do know something, do pass it on!
We are the top importers of ectasy and amphetaines (spelling?) - party drugs.
Obviously the consequences are not getting through to people, especially younger and more professional people. Whatever they are. They are more willing to pay the price than they would if the laws were stricter.
One problem with the drug laws being stricter is if they deprive people of help they need, like through the Therapuetic Goods Authority. Think of the drugs/medicines which help us with our physical, mental and emotional downturns. What about medical marijuana?
There is a Lebanese Australian man called Tony Mekut (spelling) who is a big drug baron. They are currently chasing him up as he is connected to the Melbourne underworld and he ran a pizza place where I live in the late 1980s.
We are the top importers of ectasy and amphetaines (spelling?) - party drugs.
Obviously the consequences are not getting through to people, especially younger and more professional people. Whatever they are. They are more willing to pay the price than they would if the laws were stricter.
One problem with the drug laws being stricter is if they deprive people of help they need, like through the Therapuetic Goods Authority. Think of the drugs/medicines which help us with our physical, mental and emotional downturns. What about medical marijuana?
There is a Lebanese Australian man called Tony Mekut (spelling) who is a big drug baron. They are currently chasing him up as he is connected to the Melbourne underworld and he ran a pizza place where I live in the late 1980s.
gerhard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 850
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
too strict
need to decriminalise small quantities of all drugs.
get rid of sniffer dogs, unless they have an actual reason to believe a dealer will be going through a specific station, no random sniffer dogs simply for the sake of it. you should need a police warrant.
need to decriminalise small quantities of all drugs.
get rid of sniffer dogs, unless they have an actual reason to believe a dealer will be going through a specific station, no random sniffer dogs simply for the sake of it. you should need a police warrant.
It's a catch 22 situation. Legalisation intensifies the implications the drugs have upon individuals in society, whilst criminalisation or regulation creates room for any form of black market. The vast majority of criminal problems that exist at present are intrinsically drug related. Drug Lords and dealers go around their business with minimal interference from police because of the extensive power that they wield. The refinement and purity argument has been pulled out numerous times, but the fact remains that the effects of the drugs are existant regardless of regulation in regards to manufacture...
Laws and penalties in relation to drugs need to be tougher and more actively enforced. The problems they create for society are incredible. This issue has been discussed many times over. Comparatively Australia's drug laws are lenient, but necessary to at least control the flow of drugs on our streets to a certain extent..
Laws and penalties in relation to drugs need to be tougher and more actively enforced. The problems they create for society are incredible. This issue has been discussed many times over. Comparatively Australia's drug laws are lenient, but necessary to at least control the flow of drugs on our streets to a certain extent..
transcendent
Active Member
i don't think it's too lenient and i also don't think it is too harsh
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Yes-
It is lenient in comparison to "the rest of the world";
To the individuals who answered "no".... you either didn't read the question or may not know the laws of other countries. (Both of these factors which you may not have taken into account would fairly explain the misconception).
However, it is still pretty harsh in comparison to the beliefs of the general population. Most minors don't see serious issues in "ocassional" drug use. Legalising "soft" drugs; wouldn't necessarily be a dangerous thing.
"Soft" drugs such as marijuana and ecstacy.
If these "soft drugs" were legal; the government could do heavy taxing on the sale of them. (Which will provide alot of revenue to the government in the first few years. However, the price and the education on the adverse effects of Marijuana will likely eventually prevent prolonged use).
Marijuana is proven to have little long term effects. The only effect which has even slighly been "linked" to the use of Marijuana is "psychosis" which includes paranoia etc;
Even so, marijuana is usually only the trigger for the "pschosis" those which aquire it from the use of MJ may have developed it over time regardless.
Therefore; Yes it is to lenient.
Legalising Marijuana & Ecstacy (which would be heavily taxed) would be profitable for the government and would also prevent deaths related to the substance. "since street drug dealers usually mix the substance" also called 'lacing'.
This in turn will raise the costs of the drug; making it harder to acess on a regular basis and taking away the "thrill" of using the substance.
-Sam
It is lenient in comparison to "the rest of the world";
To the individuals who answered "no".... you either didn't read the question or may not know the laws of other countries. (Both of these factors which you may not have taken into account would fairly explain the misconception).
However, it is still pretty harsh in comparison to the beliefs of the general population. Most minors don't see serious issues in "ocassional" drug use. Legalising "soft" drugs; wouldn't necessarily be a dangerous thing.
"Soft" drugs such as marijuana and ecstacy.
If these "soft drugs" were legal; the government could do heavy taxing on the sale of them. (Which will provide alot of revenue to the government in the first few years. However, the price and the education on the adverse effects of Marijuana will likely eventually prevent prolonged use).
Marijuana is proven to have little long term effects. The only effect which has even slighly been "linked" to the use of Marijuana is "psychosis" which includes paranoia etc;
Even so, marijuana is usually only the trigger for the "pschosis" those which aquire it from the use of MJ may have developed it over time regardless.
Therefore; Yes it is to lenient.
Legalising Marijuana & Ecstacy (which would be heavily taxed) would be profitable for the government and would also prevent deaths related to the substance. "since street drug dealers usually mix the substance" also called 'lacing'.
This in turn will raise the costs of the drug; making it harder to acess on a regular basis and taking away the "thrill" of using the substance.
-Sam
Last edited:
HotShot
-_-
smoking has many economic benefits...dilroy said:
Frogurt
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 19
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
I don't think we go far enough at times.
i'm all for an increase in measures in a multi-lensed approach towards the problem.
1) We need to recognise that simply instigating a propaganda campaign is not actually enough we should look at other measures to breaking that culture.
2) We need to take a more global approach towards the suppliers, too often we seem to go after the small fish and attempt to work the way up. why not cut the head off? sure someone will rise in their place but if you make the cost of rising so horrific, so terrifying that people will pause for thought then you have already made a difference.
i'm all for an increase in measures in a multi-lensed approach towards the problem.
1) We need to recognise that simply instigating a propaganda campaign is not actually enough we should look at other measures to breaking that culture.
2) We need to take a more global approach towards the suppliers, too often we seem to go after the small fish and attempt to work the way up. why not cut the head off? sure someone will rise in their place but if you make the cost of rising so horrific, so terrifying that people will pause for thought then you have already made a difference.
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Hmmm multi-faceted approach is more grammatically correct and reminds me less of old people and glasses....
Rebuttal:
1) Other measures such as??
2) I think it is actually impossible to make the cost so high as to be prohibitive, smarter, more ambitous fish will always rise that is why the drug industry evolves so rapidly as it is. It is a lucrative business (and indeed the higher the potential cost the more lucrative).
Deterance such as you suggest has not worked for the past 30 (?) years what makes you think it will now?
Even applying your magnitudinal argument that it will work if we up the ante is a weak point as it would be difficult to be more interventionist/take-down/aggressive/etc in combatting the drug trade than the US has been in Columbia but despite all their 'victories' over fish big and small they are still loosing the war. Cocaine has not disappeared in the US, infact I daresay volumes and value have actually increased.
Rebuttal:
1) Other measures such as??
2) I think it is actually impossible to make the cost so high as to be prohibitive, smarter, more ambitous fish will always rise that is why the drug industry evolves so rapidly as it is. It is a lucrative business (and indeed the higher the potential cost the more lucrative).
Deterance such as you suggest has not worked for the past 30 (?) years what makes you think it will now?
Even applying your magnitudinal argument that it will work if we up the ante is a weak point as it would be difficult to be more interventionist/take-down/aggressive/etc in combatting the drug trade than the US has been in Columbia but despite all their 'victories' over fish big and small they are still loosing the war. Cocaine has not disappeared in the US, infact I daresay volumes and value have actually increased.