Mega Thread The Random Thoughts Thread Part 1

[_VXV]

I have a question. If there were testing tents at stereo today and tabs were showing up beyond a safe parameter, would people of not taken them?

 

[Doctor Feel]

Semantics. We drink more and that's factual. Whilst worldwide statistics of alcohol influenced crime and violence are hard to come by, I put my left nut on us having a higher % than many places above us on the list, except maybe UK. Hmmm. Maybe there's something in that? I would put my right nut on more people using more drugs if they were easier to acquire and there were no legal or person repercussions.

Not everyone will become a drug addict, now you're being hyperbolic. I'm saying what I've said from the start, that legalisation will not result in less harm done by drugs. It may not mean more, but it definitely won't mean less. It's much ado over nothing. Legalisation is not the holy grail of ending drug abuse, all it does it clear up some police work to police the other drugs that remain illegal, since no one can agree on which drugs to let go and which that we need stamped out of use (ice).

 

[Kickpuncher]

Alcohol has caused more problems than MDMA or Maijuana ever will. The latter two don't cause aggression. There are worse things that are legal right now that are seen as 'socially acceptable'.

 

[edgie]

I have a question. If there were testing tents at stereo today and tabs were showing up beyond a safe parameter, would people of not taken them?

Good question.

Some would've been warned off. Others would've risked it.

Overall, that kinda thing will do more good work than not having it.

 

[_VXV]

Good question.

Some would've been warned off. Others would've risked it.

Overall, that kinda thing will do more good work than not having it.

I agree with the harm minimisation road. Having already engaged in risky behaviour, there'll always be a core that will believe steps like testing tents make a safer choice. Some will think that "more" is better. Then there is the marketability of a "safe" tab.
Sniffer dogs aren't working, that's for sure.

 

[Dylan8]

Semantics. We drink more and that's factual. Whilst worldwide statistics of alcohol influenced crime and violence are hard to come by, I put my left nut on us having a higher % than many places above us on the list, except maybe UK. Hmmm. Maybe there's something in that? I would put my right nut on more people using more drugs if they were easier to acquire and there were no legal or personal repercussions.

Not everyone will become a drug addict, now you're being hyperbolic. I'm saying what I've said from the start, that legalisation will not result in less harm done by drugs. It may not mean more, but it definitely won't mean less. It's much ado over nothing. Legalisation is not the holy grail of ending drug abuse, all it does it clear up some police work to police the other drugs that remain illegal, since no one can agree on which drugs to let go and which that we need stamped out of use (ice).

The longbow was an effective weapon in warfare so I'm happy to draw it.

There's a problem with alcohol fueled violence, sure. I get that. But because we have slightly higher rates of alcohol fueled violence that somehow translates to more people becoming drug addicts if drugs are decriminalised? You're trying to make a correlation that is incredibly weak and speculative when real life examples don't show similar.

Anyhow, the alcohol fueled violence is often a result of a mix of methamphetamines and alcohol. The whole height of the coward punch issue brought that to light.

I keep reading you say that it would be "easier". Again legality doesn't mean there will magically be more drug users, and it's not like you're going to be buying a 6 pack of pingers at your local milk bar. The assumption that once something is legal people will start doing it and with the regularity that results in addiction and abuse is bizarre. Just insulting to people's intelligence.

What do you mean "much ado over nothing" I listed several awesome benefits that would never happen under prohibition for no negative consequence.

 

[Dylan8]

Sniffer dogs aren't working, that's for sure.

 

[Nemisis]

Alcohol consumption in Australia has declined per capita since the mid 1970s - this is to do with various reasons but the major reason has to do with drink driving laws. In SA the road fatalities peaked at around 370 per year compared to 100 now.
Where am I going with this... got no idea but it may be proof that legal substances like alcohol can be 'controlled' to a certain degree.
As for 'illegal' drugs however, the bikies and drug lords around the world will always have a back up plan to maintain their drug business ... the more 'party' drugs the governments legalise, the more drugs that will be developed.
Keep fighting the bastards I say... heavier penalties on suppliers ... more education/marketing

 

[diegodcg]

Haha this band is ****ing hilarious, thanks to whoever it was who pointed them out yesterday

 

[Powerstufff]

... I reckon however, increased availability means any harm done by bad quality drugs, will be counteracted by more users, therefore more abuse.

It's strongly intuitive to think that. So much so that when all real world evidence points the other way great slabs of society still endorse restriction/the Prohibition approach.
A year or two back I watched a series on Prohibition in the US. Once Prohibition was repealed there was a curious effect of slightly less alcohol consumption. Once illegal supply and distribution had gone liquor licences could only be obtained by distributors who didn't supply to minors, operated inside legislated hours etc. Plus restrictive licencing requirements and even localised prohibition existed in some areas. And yes less death/injury from 'bathtub gin' and its equivalents.

 

[68vette]

 

[Duck Farmer]

Thanks to diegodcg for getting the thread back on track.

 

[Portia]

Do you really think people who want drugs like pot or mdma are having any trouble finding it?

If they are already part of a culture that access drugs like that, no, its probably not hard. If they're not (I'm not), then it is harder than you'd think.

Legalising spreads the drug taking culture, which is why comparisons with alcohol prohibition are irrelevant - everywhere has alcohol culture for thousands of years.

Party drugs spread in popularity just through media focused on them, and that popularity comes when they're not readily available and there are no criminal consequences for them. They will grow more if legalised.

If you're saying to legalise this stuff because you care about people, I reckon you need to do the math of `people who currently die from dodgy supply' and `people that will additionally die as a consequence of free supply'.

Its quite possible to overdose or have a bad reaction even on quality party drugs. If you don't hydrate, you can be ****ed - water is legal, why does this ever happen? Its because its not like people are suddenly going to treat how they take drugs more safely if they're chemist-controlled medications, is it.

We know there is demand for drugs; legalisation improves supply, and if you know basic economics you know whats coming next.

 

[Lagooner]

I'm not a fan of the term "Road Toll", it's too mild. Everyone knows what it is but it doesn't really have any weight.

Why not just call them "Road Deaths" so that people actually take notice?

 

[edgie]

We love our substances and our stimulants in Australia. Beer, drugs, even coffee. We love them so much we have to punch people or fall over to prove it. As a nation, no way are we mature enough to handle legalised party drugs in a responsible manner.

As far as societies go, we're still in the teenage years. We're Tom Cruise in risky business pouring the 90% scotch 10% coke mix from his parent's liquor cabinet when they go away and coughing it up. We can't be trusted.

 

[El_Scorcho]

If they are already part of a culture that access drugs like that, no, its probably not hard. If they're not (I'm not), then it is harder than you'd think.

Legalising spreads the drug taking culture, which is why comparisons with alcohol prohibition are irrelevant - everywhere has alcohol culture for thousands of years.

Party drugs spread in popularity just through media focused on them, and that popularity comes when they're not readily available and there are no criminal consequences for them. They will grow more if legalised.

If you're saying to legalise this stuff because you care about people, I reckon you need to do the math of `people who currently die from dodgy supply' and `people that will additionally die as a consequence of free supply'.

Its quite possible to overdose or have a bad reaction even on quality party drugs. If you don't hydrate, you can be stuffed - water is legal, why does this ever happen? Its because its not like people are suddenly going to treat how they take drugs more safely if they're chemist-controlled medications, is it.

We know there is demand for drugs; legalisation improves supply, and if you know basic economics you know whats coming next.

Which is fine in theory, but as Dylan8 has stated, where these party drugs have been decriminalised, it hasn't led to an increase in consumption or deaths related to the relevant drugs. In fact drug use has declined and drug problems have declined, massively.

It needs to be treated as a health issue, not a criminal issue. You could partially achieve that by simply decriminalising drug use, but i'm an advocate of going a step further and actually regulating the use of drugs that aren't physically addictive and don't cause widespread social issues (like pot and MDMA). That way these people, especially with ecstasy, will be able to be confident that they're taking the substance that is listed on the packaging.

The added bonus is that the genuinely criminal element that profits from selling these drugs is effectively sidelined.

Obviously i'm not advocating things like ice or heroin be decriminalised, but putting them in the same category as pot and ecstasy is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The idea that if we legalised drugs like marijuana and ecstasy, suddenly hordes of people who previously had zero interest in the drug are going to start taking them and become dependent on them etc is silly. Who are these people? Why would the legality of the drug make a difference to them?

Do you really think there are a significant number of people who went to Stereosonic yesterday who were absolutely gagging for a couple of pills but stayed away because it's illegal?

#carn

 

[Nemisis]

Which is fine in theory, but as Dylan8 has stated, where these party drugs have been decriminalised, it hasn't led to an increase in consumption or deaths related to the relevant drugs. In fact drug use has declined and drug problems have declined, massively.

It needs to be treated as a health issue, not a criminal issue. You could partially achieve that by simply decriminalising drug use, but i'm an advocate of going a step further and actually regulating the use of drugs that aren't physically addictive and don't cause widespread social issues (like pot and MDMA). That way these people, especially with ecstasy, will be able to be confident that they're taking the substance that is listed on the packaging.

The added bonus is that the genuinely criminal element that profits from selling these drugs is effectively sidelined.

Obviously i'm not advocating things like ice or heroin be decriminalised, but putting them in the same category as pot and ecstasy is absolutely ridiculous.

Unfortunately the criminal element wont be sidelined - organised crime will adapt - 'new' substances will emerge.
As for 'pot', it is already treated as a semi-legal drug.

 

[Portia]

The idea that if we legalised drugs like marijuana and ecstasy, suddenly hordes of people who previously had zero interest in the drug are going to start taking them and become dependent on them etc is silly. Who are these people?

Me for one.

Why would the legality of the drug make a difference to them?

Because you don't want trouble with the cops on your record/CV, maybe you think you have a future. Illegality comes with a lot of societal pressures, and while societal pressure sucks a lot of the time sometimes it's keeping you from doing crazy shit.

Do you really think there are a significant number of people who went to Stereosonic yesterday who were absolutely gagging for a couple of pills but stayed away because it's illegal?

Probably a few, but you're already picking an example of a group that is already real close to drug culture, which was explicitly an area I was talking about prohibition not making much difference.

 

[edgie]

I have acquired marijuana in the past second hand, not first hand, the legality does scare me off. I don't need that shit.

 

[Magus]

We love our substances and our stimulants in Australia. Beer, drugs, even coffee. We love them so much we have to punch people or fall over to prove it.

Australia is not unique in this scenario.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Unfortunately the criminal element wont be sidelined - organised crime will adapt - 'new' substances will emerge.
As for 'pot', it is already treated as a semi-legal drug.

Organised crime adapting is no reason not to take action. Bikies will adapt to circumvent the recent changes to legislation to marginalise them, that doesn't mean it's pointless legislation. Fighting organised crime is all about cutting off their business wherever it pops up.

Don't get me wrong here, i'm not coming from the drug user side of the argument. I have not and will not take illicit drugs in my life. However in my line of work I do deal with a lot of people who are drug affected and who have had their lives destroyed by drugs. Treating users of relatively harmless party drugs as criminals is not the answer.

Me for one.
Because you don't want trouble with the cops on your record/CV, maybe you think you have a future. Illegality comes with a lot of societal pressures, and while societal pressure sucks a lot of the time sometimes it's keeping you from doing crazy shit.

Probably a few, but you're already picking an example of a group that is already real close to drug culture, which was explicitly an area I was talking about prohibition not making much difference.

I think you're absolutely kidding yourself. It's akin to all the people who were going to come out of the woodwork to follow the Southern Power if we'd ever been forcibly rebranded. I don't believe at all that these people exist in a significant number.

But really, it's not a particularly relevant argument, because basically everywhere else in the world where this has been tried, drug use and drug related issues have decreased.

 

[edgie]

Australia is not unique in this scenario.

Not unique, but how come, from all available first hand reports, many other places in the top echelon of consumption, can handle it better than us?

 

[Eddie Dingle]

I never inhaled.

Honest.

 

[Contested Marx]

True Detective season 2 is really disappointing.

Watch Fargo instead. Season 1 or 2