Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,170
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
Depends how they implement it.
Anonymous mail in to an analytical service which is then posted on line.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Depends how they implement it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-02/pill-testing-off-the-table-in-wa-despite-drug-deaths/10771770
"Diluting the anti-illicit drug message through the creation of pill testing facilities at public music concerts may influence a young person, who normally would not try an illegal drug, to think it is OK to do so," Liberal health spokesman Sean L'Estrange said last month.
Interesting point.
If I am a drug dealer at a music festival, would I be inclined to advertise my product as being pill tested and therefore safe?
What about if one friend says to another... it's OK I had that pill tested (even though I didn't)?
How does pill testing deal with such issues? Doesn't it suggest that pill testing may not be the answer it is claimed to be?
If we call it the war of safety and it fails can we then make blanket statements about drugs and drug use?
Just like how seat belts and speed limits are the deciding factor for why I decide to operate and drive a car, right?
Pill testing isn't going to convince the average person who has never taken drugs to finally take drugs. The perceived dangers of drugs isn't a deterrence for people taking drugs for the first time, so why would the safety of drugs be the deciding factor for first-time drug consumption?
So you're saying legalised drugs are dangerous and we shouldn't legalise anything else?
OK, cos that's the way it comes across, by how you've used the stats.Sorry, but I can't help you. I have already dumbed it down about as much as I can.
By that logic...if the perceived safety of a drug isn't a deciding factor ie the safety of a drug doesn't determine if someone will use the drug...then how does pill testing help? Doesn't that suggest that people won't use pill testing? Or worse, that they will ignore the results?
And if allowing people to "make their own decision" causes increased risk of harm to other people, are you OK with this?
She was advocating legalising everything.Of course. Do you value freedom? Would you ban alcohol just because some drunk drivers? Doesnt matter how much the govt puts ya in cotton wool you can literally still die at any moment due to someone elses actions. Side note, no one is saying all drugs should be legal and sold for rec purposes. Anti drug brigade likes hyperbole doesnt it, all or nothing. Solution is in finding the balance. And the current balance (status quo) of booze and cigs is killing us all. Good Mdma isnt. Good weed isnt.
The flip side is we should continue on this nanny govt path and ban people from making their own decisions. Because risks.
Of course. Do you value freedom? Would you ban alcohol just because some drunk drivers? Doesnt matter how much the govt puts ya in cotton wool you can literally still die at any moment due to someone elses actions. Side note, no one is saying all drugs should be legal and sold for rec purposes. Anti drug brigade likes hyperbole doesnt it, all or nothing. Solution is in finding the balance. And the current balance (status quo) of booze and cigs is killing us all. Good Mdma isnt. Good weed isnt.
The flip side is we should continue on this nanny govt path and ban people from making their own decisions. Because risks.
It's not THE deciding factor. It's a factor first-time users may consider, but it's not the weightiest one. People tend to make decisions based on perceived gains (the experience) rather than perceived losses (adverse effects). This especially rings true for first-time users oblivious to the after-effects or side-effects.
Once again, and I'm sure it's been mentioned many times, pill testing doesn't say your drugs are "OK" i.e. there's no classification of just "safe" or "unsafe". It will tell you whether or not it's what you expected it to be, and if it's deadly it will be flagged.
Pill testing helps those who have already made the conscious decision to take drugs. Is there a way to intervene before then? Well Glady's "just say no" campaign doesn't seem to possess the charm needed... so what else is there? Intervention happens at that pill testing tent, to inform punters.
Unfortunately there's no way to make sure everyone gets their drugs tested, and lots of people won't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be provided.
Some people struggle with logic and consistency within their views.I never said it shouldn't be provided.
Seems to me that the people advocating for pill testing are being a little disingenuous with their arguments. That's nothing new in the drugs debate.
The problem is that it makes it easy for people like Gladys to say no.
"Pill testing will allow those inclined to find out if the substance they intend taking is going to harm them."
"But it's not foolproof, has no guarantees, but it will save lives".
Those 2 arguments are the exact same as "cracking down on drugs will save lives, there's no guarantee, but it will save lives".
"Pill testing will allow those inclined to find out if the substance they intend taking is going to harm them."
"But it's not foolproof, has no guarantees, but it will save lives".
Black market heroin killed 361 Australians in 2016.
Prescription opiates killed 550 Australians in 2016.
Just the small difference of one argument (war on drugs) wanting endless policing resources to criminalise people for using some substances (but not others) while the other argument tries to manage the problem in the first place by investing in health measures (pill testing / de-decriminalisation). Thus why the latter is called harm-minimisation, which obviously goes against the natural selection argument Conservatives love to cling to.Those 2 arguments are the exact same as "cracking down on drugs will save lives, there's no guarantee, but it will save lives".
Mind-altering substances have been used on this planet by animals since forever... unless of course you believe in the Conservative timeline of the Earth being 6,000 years old and deny evolution altogether?Thanks for pointing out that people's reliance on mind altering drugs is the problem in this country, not their legality or if they're tested.
Just the small difference of one argument (war on drugs) wanting endless policing resources to criminalise people for using some substances (but not others) while the other argument tries to manage the problem in the first place by investing in health measures (pill testing / de-decriminalisation). Thus why the latter is called harm-minimisation, which obviously goes against the natural selection argument Conservatives love to cling to.
Nice pick-up on the technicality in my language... I was (obviously) referring to the possession + sale as well.The teeny weeny problem with your argument is that there are no criminal penalties for drug use.
Possession + sale are where the crimes are at.
Incidentally, possession being a crime doesn't stop a whole heap of people using drugs.
Nice pick-up on the technicality in my language... I was (obviously) referring to the possession + sale as well.
Incidentally, no s**t. So are you admitting that the war on drugs is waste of public resources?
So are you admitting that the war on drugs is waste of public resources?
Mind-altering substances have been used on this planet by animals since forever... unless of course you believe in the Conservative timeline of the Earth being 6,000 years old and deny evolution altogether?