AFL Players and recreational drugs: Don't ask, don't tell?

[Sweetback]

It's the ignorant foundation of this whole thread.

Cocaine is responsible for over 100,000 deaths in Mexico since 2007. But who cares right, it's just Mexicans?

Are those 100,000 deaths due to people snorting cocaine and killing each other, or due to drug cartels killing each other (and civilians and police) over the illegal business of manufacturing and distributing cocaine? Because there's a difference. How many deaths would there be if Cocaine were legalised?
It'd be interesting to see what happens to the Mexican pot industry when most of the state in the US eventually legalise it.

 

[shoebox]

Are you sure you meant to quote me?

Apology accepted in advance.

My bad, iPhone related interweb use!

 

[The Passenger]

If there is a very strong argument, as you point out, then please enlighten me. I'm all ears.

Well I support a system which would see substances manufactures in controlled environments by registered companies. The process of consumption done through a medical system, and abusive users treated as patients, not as criminals.

You support a system which breeds corruption and criminal activity. I know you don't support these activities, but by supporting the current system you indirectly do support these activities. I understand you would ideally probably like all illicit drug use to cease. That is not a realistic proposition. It is never going to happen in a million lifetimes so it's a complete waste of time. The idea should be harm minimization. The current system promotes harm maximization.

 

[shoebox]

Are those 100,000 deaths due to people snorting cocaine and killing each other, or due to drug cartels killing each other (and civilians and police) over the illegal business of manufacturing and distributing cocaine? Because there's a difference. How many deaths would there be if Cocaine were legalised?
It'd be interesting to see what happens to the Mexican pot industry when most of the state in the US eventually legalise it.

It would be an interesting and high stakes social experiment for the worlds governments to get together and become the producers and suppliers, it would kill the demand but what would the repercussions be? I've often pondered this.

The flip side and often forgotten part of this argument due to cocaines glamour status, is that cocaine is a bad ass and highly addictive narcotic that wreaks havoc with your physical and mental health. Even casual users now who are limited by the expense could be seduced into hardcore abuse if it was freely available to the market. It can tear a persons life apart within a few short years. It would be a reckless government to sell a drug this addictive and destructive to it's citizens.

 

[Sweetback]

It would be an interesting and high stakes social experiment for the worlds governments to get together and become the producers and suppliers, it would kill the demand but what would the repercussions be? I've often pondered this.

The flip side and often forgotten part of this argument due to cocaines glamour status, is that cocaine is a bad ass and highly addictive narcotic that wreaks havoc with your physical and mental health. Even casual users now who are limited by the expense could be seduced into hardcore abuse if it was freely available to the market. It can tear a persons life apart within a few short years. It would be a reckless government to sell a drug this addictive and destructive to it's citizens.

The repercussions would be SFA, as is evidenced in Amsterdam and Portugal, where the problems aren't with the locals, but with the tourists.
I personally don't think legalisation would be a problem, because for most people, who have families and ambitions, when recreational drug use gets in the way of being happy or achieving their dreams, most people have the sense to stop or get help. I would presume that it's only the people who have addictive personalities, or who are using drugs to mask deeper problems, who will struggle, but those people will always struggle, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

 

[shoebox]

Well I support a system which would see substances manufactures in controlled environments by registered companies. The process of consumption done through a medical system, and abusive users treated as patients, not as criminals.

You support a system which breeds corruption and criminal activity. I know you don't support these activities, but by supporting the current system you indirectly do support these activities. I understand you would ideally probably like all illicit drug use to cease. That is not a realistic proposition. It is never going to happen in a million lifetimes so it's a complete waste of time. The idea should be harm minimization. The current system promotes harm maximization.

I completely agree with your stand point on treating use as a medical issue and that is one part of the puzzle to killing demand. It has worked extremely successfully in Portugal and the Australian government needs to change its attitude to dealing with users.

However, you can't only deal with the demand side. You need to kill the supply side to stop the circle of introduction. If it isn't available, how can you get addicted? I don't think the government is going to have a centre where you can drop in and start trying manufactured drugs to see which takes your fancy and then offer a service at the other end to clean up the mess they have they have created. The state will never push a narcotic as dangerous as cocaine into the community.

 

[shoebox]

The repercussions would be SFA, as is evidenced in Amsterdam and Portugal, where the problems aren't with the locals, but with the tourists.
I personally don't think legalisation would be a problem, because for most people, who have families and ambitions, when recreational drug use gets in the way of being happy or achieving their dreams, most people have the sense to stop or get help. I would presume that it's only the people who have addictive personalities, or who are using drugs to mask deeper problems, who will struggle, but those people will always struggle, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Amsterdam and Portugal have decriminalised users so they can treat them under medical supervision - which I support. They have not made selling cocaine legal and the state certainly doesn't sell it to its citizens, as you are suggesting. They are not comparable situations.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I don't particularly see any problem with players enjoying some of their hard earned by snorting it up their noses.

You may not see any problem with it, but the police certainly do. I seem to remember Stokes got so much s**t hung on him from the BF trolls for buying a gram of coke for a friend visiting him and getting caught. A case that was eventually dropped by the police. It wasn't OK then, and it still isn't OK IMO.

 

[The Passenger]

You need to kill the supply side to stop the circle of introduction. If it isn't available, how can you get addicted?

It's idealistic, but not even close to realistic. You can't stop either supply or demand. You can put dents in them, as the heroin drought of the early 2000's shows when the taliban went all hard ass on opium farmers.

I don't think the government is going to have a centre where you can drop in and start trying manufactured drugs to see which takes your fancy and then offer a service at the other end to clean up the mess they have they have created. The state will never push a narcotic as dangerous as cocaine into the community.

They won't do it, but it's not for the reasons they give the masses.

They will tell us it's to protect individuals.

But it's really because the current system is very profitable for corrupt individuals who help to shape and enforce our laws, and anything other than a hard line on drugs is not a vote winner in a widely conservative society such as Australia or our masters across the pacific.

There is a brilliant book called the Politics of Heroin. I highly recommend it to anyone who supports the current system of prohibition. It's long and not an easy read - I've only read about 30% of it, and have read it in exerts rather than going from start to finish. But it's a brilliant read, and very well researched.

 

[Sweetback]

Amsterdam and Portugal have decriminalised users so they can treat them under medical supervision - which I support. They have not made selling cocaine legal and the state certainly doesn't sell it to its citizens, as you are suggesting. They are not comparable situations.

Sorry, I meant decriminalizing drugs in general and not cocaine in particular.

 

[joop]

It's absolutely ridiculous that drugs are illegal. Spare your 'they ruin lives' argument, alcohol & cigarettes destroy way more lives then illegal drugs.
If the players want to do it in their spare time and can still run out and perform then good on them. If I was on their pay cheque I'd being doing nose-wheelies all the time.

 

[Magma]

it'd certainly make the games more interesting if everyone was on speed

 

[I am Jack]

Like any work place, being caught under the influence at work should result in consequences.

But this random testing at home of the players is a disgrace. Absolute violation.

Couldn't the players just have their girlfriends tell 'drug testers' that the player isn't home?
Also, the players could just not answer the door, surely it isn't a crime to not be home.

 

[Chief]

It's the ignorant foundation of this whole thread.

Cocaine is responsible for over 100,000 deaths in Mexico since 2007. But who cares right, it's just Mexicans?

Obviously that's exactly how I feel.

 

[gutsroy]

I am sure there are bigger ignoramii around. And I don't use cocaine, I just don't judge people who do.

You will find that the drugs themselves are not the issue, it is the illegality which has driven the manufacture and trade underground and driven the price up.

Do you wear clothes from China, India or Bangladesh? How is your conscience going wearing garments made in unregulated factories with women and children labouring in poor conditions?

You would also do well to use better language when debating an issue.

Not sure if I have correctly interpreted your arugmentation, but:
The illegality of drugs creating upstream negative upstream externalities (diversion of resources that could be used to promote economic growth - also resulting in lower government tax revenue, corruption, illicit financial flows) is reasonable. But legalization would bring with it negative downstream externalities of its own (increases in usage rates potentially leading to increased incidence of addiction, increased cost to the healthcare system, shift of syndicated criminal activity to other areas of the economy etc.), which should at least be factored in.

Would also argue that the sweatshops have a more beneficial effect than you give them credit for; investment in sweatshops increases industrialization and marginal productivity of the labour, and leads to increased wages over time, and the concentration of industry and workforce often leads to career betterment possibilities (e.g. from a Nike factory to General Motors). It is very important for activism to prevent child labour and uphold minimum labour standards, no question, but clothing factories aren't evil by definition.

TLDR: Comparing the illicit drug trade to the clothing industry is a bit specious for mine. I'll jump back down off the soapbox now.

 

[Ron The Bear]

To anyone favouring the Portugal model... do you see the Karmichael Hunts of this world (and bigger celebrities) signing up as government-registered users to get their hit, or will there still be a criminal market?

 

[Concussion]

Pot can cause mental illnesses such as schizophrenia in people.

*

 

[Kummerspeck]

To anyone favouring the Portugal model... do you see the Karmichael Hunts of this world (and bigger celebrities) signing up as government-registered users to get their hit, or will there still be a criminal market?

Even if it's only the vulnerable and less-than-rich-and-famous signing up and not being treated as criminals, surely that's a good thing and would be a reduction in the criminal market.

 

[corio bay]

I don't see why prohibition supporters automatically believe that by making illegal drugs legal, it means there will be an absolute free for all.
Nowhere has anyone in the thread said something along those lines apart from the people trying to make some sort of emotional "why won't someone think of the children" type statements.

We already have a framework for legal drugs, why not incorporate the illegal drugs into the legal framework. Cannabis should be treated like alcohol, whereas meth and heroin should be treated like their already legal counterparts in oxycodone and dexamphetamines/ritalin etc.

I also don't see how you can continue to support a 'war on drugs' that has achieved no measurable outcome that it set out to achieve over 30 years ago. Trillions upon trillions have been spent to lock people up in the name of stopping drugs and there is no sign that its ever going to stop.
We can continue to ignore histories lessons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States - or we can look for a new way to treat the issue. For me, that means education and health.

AFL Players should be given the same privacies that everyday folk enjoy. When they are home or out and about enjoying there own time, they can choose to relax however they want.

 

[shoebox]

I don't see why prohibition supporters automatically believe that by making illegal drugs legal, it means there will be an absolute free for all.
Nowhere has anyone in the thread said something along those lines apart from the people trying to make some sort of emotional "why won't someone think of the children" type statements.

We already have a framework for legal drugs, why not incorporate the illegal drugs into the legal framework. Cannabis should be treated like alcohol, whereas meth and heroin should be treated like their already legal counterparts in oxycodone and dexamphetamines/ritalin etc.

I also don't see how you can continue to support a 'war on drugs' that has achieved no measurable outcome that it set out to achieve over 30 years ago. Trillions upon trillions have been spent to lock people up in the name of stopping drugs and there is no sign that its ever going to stop.
We can continue to ignore histories lessons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States - or we can look for a new way to treat the issue. For me, that means education and health.

AFL Players should be given the same privacies that everyday folk enjoy. When they are home or out and about enjoying there own time, they can choose to relax however they want.

I am not a supporter of prohibition and believe our current tough line stance isn't working. You just have to look at the ever increasing carnage drugs are inflicting on our society to see the overwhelming evidence of failure.

I merely pointed out the ignorance of the OP and his standpoint that drug users only hurt themselves when we all know this to be a load of absolute bollocks. The whole premise of this thread is founded in ignorance and stupidity.

 

[whitelinefeva]

The drugs aren't what causes people to go mad, its the nights of sleep they skip that causes the real mental damage. As long as you get a good nights sleep in between sessions you'll be fine. Once drugs are eventually legalised hopefully they bring in some form of sleep police to send everyone off to nuhni's.

And the only performance that is improved by cocaine or amphetamines is housework performance. The washing, ironing and cleaning will get done much quicker after a bump. Football performance will not improve.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Even if it's only the vulnerable and less-than-rich-and-famous signing up and not being treated as criminals, surely that's a good thing and would be a reduction in the criminal market.

Good for extending the lifespans of addicts, perhaps. How much tax are you willing to pay to fund it?

 

[Chief]

TLDR: Comparing the illicit drug trade to the clothing industry is a bit specious for mine. I'll jump back down off the soapbox now.

The argument was that the industry causes misery overseas.

Sweatshop clothing is in the same boat. Local economies benefit from cocaine manufacture, too. Pablo Escobar was a hero in his home town.

Sweatshops have more issues than benefits. Luring people from the country into overcrowded cities for one.

But by your logic, if cocaine manufacture was acceptable conditions for workers would go up? Investment would increase as companies took advantage of the marginally more trained workforce, raising the wages for all through competition, building etc etc.

No chance big companies bribe local government to negate this sort of improvement purely for profit. No chance they realise costs are going up and move on to the next place.

And manufacturing overseas doesn't always work anyway. A number of electronics manufacturers have moved factories back to the US as the quality control in China is abysmal, with corruption rampant. Parts suppliers can swap in inferior parts with relative impunity. I have a friend whose business was wiped out because of this, and he has no recourse.

So, no, sweatshops and the like are not the economic paradise the exploiters make them out to be.

The best way we can help countries blighted by drug wars is to stop waging a war on drugs and deal with the issues of abuse properly.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Good for extending the lifespans of addicts, perhaps. How much tax are you willing to pay to fund it?

More than I'm willing to pay to have them incarcerated. I'd rather a system that offers help to people with addiction, rather than treating them like criminals, at greater expense.

 

[Jack Bradley]

Drugs in a problem facing society - sports players got on it even more because they cant drink piss because it gets them too fat.