Ben Cousins arrested

[Snake_Baker]

But they didn't talk about his alcohol problem. Was it raised in his defence?

Drug use is always brought up in mitigation, especially when it is already publicly known. That doesn't mean it really was a prime factor. I have known a couple of stalkers that exhibited similar behavior and weren't substance users. Cousins had nothing to lose and everything to gain by running this angle.

 

[yodellinhank]

Drug use is always brought up in mitigation, especially when it is already publicly known. That doesn't mean it really was a prime factor. I have known a couple of stalkers that exhibited similar behavior and weren't substance users. Cousins had nothing to lose and everything to gain by running this angle.

And when he crashed his car head on into a truck whilst high on drugs, was that just hi jinx typical of an Aussie larrikin?

 

[The Dice Man]

Correct me if I am wrong but didnt he fail a drug test, while inside, back is September and that is why his parole was denied?

 

[Snake_Baker]

And when he crashed his car head on into a truck whilst high on drugs, was that just hi jinx typical of an Aussie larrikin?

What role did the meth play in the crash? His blood levels were reported at 35 mgs. This is a fairly mild dosage. Children with ADD are administered doses at this level. A daily adult therapeutic dose is 50 mgs.

Correct me if I am wrong but didnt he fail a drug test, while inside, back is September and that is why his parole was denied?

Which substance? It's more likely that it wasn't meth.

 

[The Dice Man]

Which substance? It's more likely that it wasn't meth.

Listening to the podcast posted earlier in this thread, he was suspected of even dealing inside.

Edit; here we go

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...drug-test-ng-8efafa5f3e215e2df3d727316b093508

 

[TheNest]

What role did the meth play in the crash? His blood levels were reported at 35 mgs. This is a fairly mild dosage. Children with ADD are administered doses at this level. A daily adult therapeutic dose is 50 mgs. Which substance? It's more likely that it wasn't meth.

"A PERTH magistrate has told fallen AFL star Ben Cousins it was “only by the grace of God” that he did not kill or seriously injure somebody when he smashed his car head-on into a truck while driving under the influence of drugs.

Cousins, 39, had high levels of methamphetamine in his system when he drove onto the wrong side of Abernethy Road in High Wycombe in the early hours of November 23 last year and slammed into a truck."

"Police prosecutors told the court blood tests taken in hospital revealed Cousins had 0.75mg of methamphetamine per litre of blood and 0.07 of amphetamine per litre of blood in his system."

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...mbe-crash-ng-d6bff326504ca06bb5ac70d489e35db8

 

[Snake_Baker]

Listening to the podcast posted earlier in this thread, he was suspected of even dealing inside.

Edit; here we go

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...drug-test-ng-8efafa5f3e215e2df3d727316b093508

Highly unlikely it was a stimulant as they are not given out as meds in prison.

This was when he first went in to prison on remand. More likely he grabbed a downer from someone meds to help him cope with the situation. These things are shelled out like chocolates in prison.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Listening to the podcast posted earlier in this thread, he was suspected of even dealing inside.

Edit; here we go

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...drug-test-ng-8efafa5f3e215e2df3d727316b093508

The podcast was good listening. Love how they highlighted everytime Ben got caught doing bad stuff his lawyer would always come out and say he is now drug free and in good spirits. Yeah right!

 

[Snake_Baker]

"A PERTH magistrate has told fallen AFL star Ben Cousins it was “only by the grace of God” that he did not kill or seriously injure somebody when he smashed his car head-on into a truck while driving under the influence of drugs.

Cousins, 39, had high levels of methamphetamine in his system when he drove onto the wrong side of Abernethy Road in High Wycombe in the early hours of November 23 last year and slammed into a truck."

"Police prosecutors told the court blood tests taken in hospital revealed Cousins had 0.75mg of methamphetamine per litre of blood and 0.07 of amphetamine per litre of blood in his system."

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...mbe-crash-ng-d6bff326504ca06bb5ac70d489e35db8

This is a very devious piece of journalism. Methamphetamine and amphetamine do not show up as separate substances in blood work. Methamphetamine converts to amphetamine in vivo.

Amphetamine is related to methamphetamine and other similar drugs. In fact, methamphetamine is what is known as the parent drug with relation to amphetamine. As far as drug tests are concerned therefore, there is no real difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine. When methamphetamine enters the body, it is converted into amphetamine. Drug tests can be quite subtle, and can differentiate between most drugs that are chemically similar – for example, methamphetamine and ecstasy. However, since methamphetamine is actually converted into amphetamine in the body, the final effect, at least as far as a drug test is concerned, is the same. The only possible difference is that amphetamines can be detected in urine for up to 3 days and in blood for up to 12 hours after consumption, while methamphetamine takes much longer to be excreted. Methamphetamine can be detected in the urine for up to 5 days and in blood for up to 3 days. However, there is no record of any drug test using this fact to differentiate between methamphetamine and amphetamine, and it is probably not a reliable indicator of which drug is being used.

http://www.medicalhealthtests.com/a...-test-differentiate-between-methamphetam.html

0.75 mg methamphetamine is equal to 0.7mg of amphetamine.

Notice the differential of 1/15th (7%) between the 2 compounds? Look at the correlating molar weights: Methamphetamine MW C10H15N = 149 g and Amphetamine MW C9H13N = 135 g = a 10% differential.

I assume the blood levels are rounded out to the nearest 0.05mg.

5 litres of blood x 0.07mg/L = 35 mg.

 

[TheNest]

This is a very devious piece of journalism. Methamphetamine and amphetamine do not show up as separate substances in blood work. Methamphetamine converts to amphetamine in vivo.

Amphetamine is related to methamphetamine and other similar drugs. In fact, methamphetamine is what is known as the parent drug with relation to amphetamine. As far as drug tests are concerned therefore, there is no real difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine. When methamphetamine enters the body, it is converted into amphetamine. Drug tests can be quite subtle, and can differentiate between most drugs that are chemically similar – for example, methamphetamine and ecstasy. However, since methamphetamine is actually converted into amphetamine in the body, the final effect, at least as far as a drug test is concerned, is the same. The only possible difference is that amphetamines can be detected in urine for up to 3 days and in blood for up to 12 hours after consumption, while methamphetamine takes much longer to be excreted. Methamphetamine can be detected in the urine for up to 5 days and in blood for up to 3 days. However, there is no record of any drug test using this fact to differentiate between methamphetamine and amphetamine, and it is probably not a reliable indicator of which drug is being used.

http://www.medicalhealthtests.com/a...-test-differentiate-between-methamphetam.html

0.75 mg methamphetamine is equal to 0.7mg of amphetamine.

Notice the differential of 1/15th (7%) between the 2 compounds? Look at the correlating molar weights: MW C10H15N = 149 g MW C9H13N = 135 g = a 10% differential. I assume the blood levels are rounded out to the nearest 0.05mg.

5 litres of blood x 0.07mg/L = 35 mg.

I'm certainly no expert, though I will say:
a) That article is 7 years old so is it possible it is not representative of current testing procedures?
b) I am aware of a recent court case where the statement of facts against the defendant made it quite clear that methamphetamine and amphetamine were recorded as separate readings as a result of blood tests carried out.
c) I would presume meth after a certain period of time would only show up as amphetamine, however if the test occurred before this 'conversion' has had time to take place, then I believe both can give positive readings simultaneously.

Don't roadside saliva drug tests have the ability to provide an immediate indication of methamphetamine being present?

If someone took meth 5 minutes ago, and amphetamines 1 day ago, why would drug tests not be able to detect both?

Not that it really matters - in this instance at least, there was no argument from his lawyer that he wasn't on meth at the time of the accident and there were no other reported mitigating factors.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm certainly no expert, though I will say:
a) That article is 7 years old so is it possible it is not representative of current testing procedures?
b) I am aware of a recent court case where the statement of facts against the defendant made it quite clear that methamphetamine and amphetamine were recorded as separate readings as a result of blood tests carried out.
c) I would presume meth after a certain period of time would only show up as amphetamine, however if the test occurred before this 'conversion' has had time to take place, then I believe both can give positive readings simultaneously.

Don't roadside saliva drug tests have the ability to provide an immediate indication of methamphetamine being present?

If someone took meth 5 minutes ago, and amphetamines 1 day ago, why would drug tests not be able to detect both?

Not that it really matters - in this instance at least, there was no argument from his lawyer that he wasn't on meth at the time of the accident and there were no other reported mitigating factors.

You seem to have a vested interest in upholding propaganda in the face of scientific data to the contrary, so I figure any further extrapolations will be a waste of both of our time.

 

[TheNest]

You seem to have a vested interest in upholding propaganda in the face of scientific data to the contrary, so I figure any further extrapolations will be a waste of both of our time.

I was asking legitimate questions which you’ve not answered. I don’t know the answers to those questions, hence asking them of someone who appeared to know something of the topic. I’m not sure why you’ve jumped on the back foot.

I do have first hand experience of witnessing two simultaneous yet discernible drug test outcomes, which is contrary to what you shared. If you have something more recent than 2010 that contradicts that, then fine, but I can assure you prosecutors can and do have the ability to test for both drugs seperately and use those tests as evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake_Baker]

I was asking legitimate questions which you’ve not answered. I don’t know the answers to those questions, hence asking them of someone who appeared to know something of the topic. I’m not sure why you’ve jumped on the back foot.

I do have first hand experience of witnessing two simultaneous yet discernible drug test outcomes, which is contrary to what you shared. If you have something more recent than 2010 that contradicts that, then fine, but I can assure you prosecutors can and do have the ability to test for both drugs seperately and use those tests as evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't jumped on any foot.

The newspaper article is misleading.

Period.

 

[TheNest]

I haven't jumped on any foot.

The newspaper article is misleading.

Period.

On the basis they’ve cited two different readings for meth and amphetamine? Because you claim you can’t test positive for both?

Is there a chance your 7 year old article is no longer correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake_Baker]

On the basis they’ve cited two different readings for meth and amphetamine? Because you claim you can’t test positive for both?

Is there a chance your 7 year old article is no longer correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are citing spot testing and not in vivo blood testing. I have a degree in this s**t, don't question me unless you have a scientific rebuttal.

Are you the journo that wrote that crap?

 

[WCErevival]

Why do people come up with death rumours?

 

[TheNest]

You are citing spot testing and not in vivo blood testing. I have a degree in this s**t, don't question me unless you have a scientific rebuttal.

Are you the journo that wrote that crap?

No, I’m not a journo.

For someone with a degree in this s**t, you weren’t very helpful answering some basic questions.

The article would have cited a statement of facts read out in court. So I’m not sure where the issue is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake_Baker]

No, I’m not a journo.

For someone with a degree in this s**t, you weren’t very helpful answering some basic questions.

The article would have cited a statement of facts read out in court. So I’m not sure where the issue is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why bother? You simply don't understand the concepts. I could present the third law of thermodynamics and you would deem it rubbish due to a spelling mistake. Don't waste my time any longer.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Why bother? You simply don't understand the concepts. I could present the third law of thermodynamics and you would deem it rubbish due to a spelling mistake. Don't waste my time any longer.

Your on a big Footy, not a scientific forum.
Get of your high horse. You don't have ownership over a topic just because you have a back ground in the topic.
What you take for granted others are willing to learn.
This place a bit below you to share some wisdom??

 

[TheNest]

Why bother? You simply don't understand the concepts. I could present the third law of thermodynamics and you would deem it rubbish due to a spelling mistake. Don't waste my time any longer.

Speaking of understanding concepts, do you understand the concept of choosing what you spend time reading online, and that you’re directly in control of what does and doesn’t waste your time?

Feel free to not reply, I’ll understand if you don’t have the time nor the will to mix with Bigfooty forum plebs.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake_Baker]

This place a bit below you to share some wisdom??

I shared my "wisdom". It was dismissed because of the date on the paper with reasoning that was so misinformed as to invite ridicule.

I have no time for arrogance based on ignorance. Feel free to take up the discussion yourself, or feel free to question my science based proposal with a science based rebuttal.

 

[GreyCrow]

I shared my "wisdom". It was dismissed because of the date on the paper with reasoning that was so misinformed as to invite ridicule.

I have no time for arrogance based on ignorance. Feel free to take up the discussion yourself, or feel free to question my science based proposal with a science based rebuttal.

No it wasnt.

a) That article is 7 years old so is it possible it is not representative of current testing procedures?

The post questioned if there had been any changes because the article was 7 years old. In no way did the poster ridicule your suggestions. Drug testing and drugs themselves , as you would know being a graduate and all , are becoming sophisticated.

You then decided to jump down his throat. I have sat back and laughed because it looked as if you went on the defensive early. And yeah I'm up for it

 

[DearHunter]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2...g-escape-with-gunman-in-car?ocid=Social-9News

I feel this is the trigger for the Cousins rumours

 

[Doashuey]

He might also go through life getting ripped off his **** and having a ball.

The only time I ever see him unhappy is when either the media or the law are taking a piece out of his arse.


Until it kills him- which it will. Im sure his family have enjoyed the ride too.

So you see him on a regular basis do you? Im sure he is less than happy when being arrested or getting a microphone shoved in his face but I bet you he goes through some really dark moments on the gear. Couch surfing, hanging for a fix and not being able to see his kids must be wonderful for him.

You sound like you may have a substance issue yourself and trying to justify it. I could be wrong but that's how it comes across.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Until it kills him- which it will.

The very very strong likelihood is that it won't.

So you see him on a regular basis do you? Im sure he is less than happy when being arrested or getting a microphone shoved in his face but I bet you he goes through some really dark moments on the gear.

You questioned my reasoning by using the same criteria that I utilised to actually support my criteria.

Couch surfing, hanging for a fix and not being able to see his kids must be wonderful for him.

I doubt Ben would "hang for a fix".

Such terminology leads me to believe that you have been watching far too many B grade movies and use these as the prime source of illicit drug education.

You sound like you may have a substance issue yourself and trying to justify it. I could be wrong but that's how it comes across.

Do you ever question that you may be so heavily invested in tabloid hysteria that your understanding is grossly skewed?

Personally, I am across most facets of this topic and would consider myself far more knowledgeable and truthful than some tabloid media editor whose prime goal is to keep viewers in heightened emotional states in order to raise their susceptibility to purchasing the advertised crap in the commercial breaks.