Crying over Spilt Milk

The main issue is punters simply wanting to hear their pills are either “good” or “bad”, no matter how you frame it. That is the reality. Bottom line. Of course the advocates say they are not making (and will not make) that judgement – they are simply providing data to inform decision. Making wise choices isn’t exactly a strong point for most kids attending festivals, but I digress…

So – if you perceive the test results to be “good”, then what? You suddenly have the seal of approval. You can on sell for double or triple what you paid. The reputation of whoever sold it to you just improved. Not to mention the reassurance it provides for those who might be hesitant about taking an illegal drug.

On the other hand, bad luck if your pills are “bad”; best sell to someone else to recover your money…

I’m not sure if pill testing is part of the answer….mainly because I’m not really sure what the question actually is.

But one thing I am sure of is …. whatever the question is in this issue …. the answers of ‘Drugs are illegal’ , ‘Just say no’ and ‘Lock them up’ are not working.

So maybe it is time to try a different narrative.

Rebecca Vassarotti said :

twiggy6 said :

It astounds me that someone can actively encourage someone to take an illicit and dangerous substance but then turn around and want to dictate to someone how they spend their money in a licensed venue.

Its interesting that you link these issues as they while they are both very different, they are both essentially about informing people and introducing harm minimisation strategies. In the case of pill testing, its about giving information to people who have already purchased and are intending to ingest a substance about the possible harms that might be caused by that action (far from encouraging them to take that substance) and in the case of poker machines, ensuring that there is consumer protection in place for a product that we know can cause harm and has been designed in a way that can be highly addictive.

So surely your position with regards to poker machines should be to help those individuals who at risk of becoming addicted, the problem users, similar to your position of wanting to help individual people who are taking drugs to take them safely. Realising that blanket restrictions don’t help and in fact are often more harmful.

Providing pill testing would be the equivalent harm minimisation as having self exclusion and offering voluntary pre-commitment for poker machines.

The two positions are clearly incompatible and just outline the Greens inconsistency when it comes to issues of personal freedom.

Rebecca Vassarotti said :

My understanding is that a drug would never been deemed as safe and the aim is to provide information to people with specific information about the harms of a particular substance.

If that’s all they are doing then fair enough. There should be fewer liability issues.

Rebecca Vassarotti said :

I am also not quite sure how commenting about actions that the Canberra Liberals have reported themselves as taking is an attempt at besmirching them.

In your OP you say “Speculation is rife as to what has led to the decision not to proceed with the trial” and later that “oppositional party politics has again won the day”. The former states the reason for the decision is not known, the later that the action of the ACT Liberals caused the decision.

bikhet said :

I think that pill testing, as proposed for Split Milk, is, and will continue to be, a good idea right up to the point where someone dies, or is otherwise harmed, by taking a substance from a batch that has been declared “safe.” Then watch everyone duck for cover as the lawyers march onto the scene.

My preferred approach is legalisation, or at least decriminalisation, and treating drug addiction as a health problem.

I also think that your attempt at besmirching of the Liberals is as much politicisation of the issue as the actions you claim the Liberals have taken. You can’t maintain clean hands while throwing mud.

My understanding is that a drug would never been deemed as safe and the aim is to provide information to people with specific information about the harms of a particular substance. I am also not quite sure how commenting about actions that the Canberra Liberals have reported themselves as taking is an attempt at besmirching them.

twiggy6 said :

It astounds me that someone can actively encourage someone to take an illicit and dangerous substance but then turn around and want to dictate to someone how they spend their money in a licensed venue.

Its interesting that you link these issues as they while they are both very different, they are both essentially about informing people and introducing harm minimisation strategies. In the case of pill testing, its about giving information to people who have already purchased and are intending to ingest a substance about the possible harms that might be caused by that action (far from encouraging them to take that substance) and in the case of poker machines, ensuring that there is consumer protection in place for a product that we know can cause harm and has been designed in a way that can be highly addictive.

bikhet said :

My preferred approach is legalisation, or at least decriminalisation, and treating drug addiction as a health problem.

I think that legalisation and regulation has to be considered as a way to minimise negative health outcomes. We’ve seen effective anti smoking and drink driving campaigns in recent decades with reductions in smoking rates and road deaths. Prohibiting something makes it an enticing forbidden fruit for some people, while making it legal and putting up bureaucratic barriers around it could discourage some consumption.

The big problem with proposed pill testing seems to be that it won’t necessarily pick up everything contained in a pill, meaning people could still take harmful substances unknowingly. If there was regulation instead of prohibition, people would know what they were taking and there would be a consistency of product that would hopefully minimise unintended outcomes.

It astounds me that someone can actively encourage someone to take an illicit and dangerous substance but then turn around and want to dictate to someone how they spend their money in a licensed venue.

I think that pill testing, as proposed for Split Milk, is, and will continue to be, a good idea right up to the point where someone dies, or is otherwise harmed, by taking a substance from a batch that has been declared “safe.” Then watch everyone duck for cover as the lawyers march onto the scene.

My preferred approach is legalisation, or at least decriminalisation, and treating drug addiction as a health problem.

I also think that your attempt at besmirching of the Liberals is as much politicisation of the issue as the actions you claim the Liberals have taken. You can’t maintain clean hands while throwing mud.