The ice epidemic we had to have.

You restrict the import of heroin, people make their own meth/ice.
You restrict the manufacturing of ice, people start sniffing paint.
You restrict the sale of paint, people start stealing pharmaceuticals.
You restrict legal drugs, people start sniffing glue.
You restrict the sale of glue, people start sniffing petrol.
You restrict the sale of sniff-able petrol, people start taking cactus/mushrooms.
You restrict the growth of illicit plants, and people start injecting spider venom.

And good luck restricting insects.

Why would someone want to inject venom? Because their source of other drugs was restricted. Why do they want to take drugs in the first place? Welcome to the real question.

The term zero-tolerance is being used incorrectly. No one can seriously condone simply accepting drug abuse, the damage is too obvious for that. But it’s used in place of the far more accurate ‘zero-help, maximum-laws, maximum-trauma, maximum-votes’.

You don’t get an epidemic if your illicit drug solution is working. Heroin deaths are down, ice use is up. The supply is linked to the demand, you remove one supply and another will, and has, replaced it.

The drug problem will continue to degrade unless logic is applied to drug laws.

If a political party refuses to endorse solutions that aren’t popular, but have been proven effective, then educate the public – do not cowardly assume the popular/inaccurate position. We will be forced to continue to tolerate drug abuse, while they claim a zero-tolerance approach. Legalising all illicit drugs would fail just as current policies have, the only difference being lessened incarceration costs. Both positions are irrational.

I have zero tolerance for any party that refuses to accept effective drug laws, this is a heinous scourge on our society, and inaction is reprehensible.