Dont swallow Death, it will kill you.

DJ – I’ll give you another example, perfectly aligned with this story: MDMA. MDMA was used by psychotherapists as a therapeutic drug until 1984 when Regan outlawed it under the War on Drugs. Taken infrequently (ie. allowing 6 weeks between doses so the brain can rebuild its serotonin reserves), and in the right dosages, MDMA is not a dangerous drug. The problem arises because of the illegality, once again. If people could buy pure MDMA from the government for half the street price, there would be no illegal trade in ‘ecstasy’, and the proceeds could be pumped back into the health system rather than funding organised crime.

People will be people, and some people will do drugs whether other people want them to or not – so, why not accept human nature and make the whole thing safer?

To theorise, by what percentage would the crime rate in Canberra go down if somebody distributed a lethal pill to a bunch of idiots who will blindly take an unmarked pill and do not know the full consequences of taking that pill ?

Not much, really, it’s mainly kiddies out on the town. Most of them probably don’t commit crimes.

I have to agree with lemaChet, if you’re gonna take pills, test them.
There is also a great resource for information in pills on the web at http://www.pillreports.com and they currently have an article about the PMA based pills currently circulating in Canberra Here .

You’ll probably find most of the people that die from taking this stuff just buy it on the night from the shady looking guy in the corner and pop the pill without a second thought for what’s in it.
If you’re going to take pills, plan ahead and be safe about it.

The pharmaceutical company will no doubt add a huge mark up to the price,,/i>

Not possible. Opiates are a commodity and can be bought by government-regulated bodies in bulk very cheaply. If one company wants to jack up the price, there are plenty of other cheap suppliers.

the federal government will apply a tax rate equal or higher than what is paid on cigarettes and alcohol, so your 30c fix of tasmanian poppy becomes $60 – $100.

Why would the government choose to do that when it is diametrically opposed to the aims of such a policy? It’s a straw man argument.

But will the commercially produced drug be made available at production cost plus reasonable markup or will it be at an exorbitant price?

The pharmaceutical company will no doubt add a huge mark up to the price, the federal government will apply a tax rate equal or higher than what is paid on cigarettes and alcohol, so your 30c fix of tasmanian poppy becomes $60 – $100.

By legalising and controlling the flow of narcotic/amphetamines etc do we also need to legalise smackheads breaking into houses and cars to pay for their habits?

The actual cost to produce one junkie’s daily fix is a few cents. For what it is worth Tasmania produces a sizeable chunk of the world’s opiate supply using broadacre agriculture.

The staggering cost of heroin on the streets is solely due to its illegality. It’s a risk premium for those who break the law to supply it. Selling government-regulated pharmaceutical quality drugs at a price uninflated by the black market would remove the incentive to steal.

Control will lead to pricing well out of the reach of those who would choose to use them (unless you’re lawyer with a coke habit). Will it lead to more people stealing prescription pads, breaking into chemists and dealing “prescribed smack” on the side (think “methodone”)? I certainly think so.

Yep, the current system of illegality has certainly driven up the price. Hasn’t that worked really worked well in stopping people using drugs?

If a junkie can register with a government clinic and get a daily fix for a few cents, why would he or she bother with stealing script pads etc?

Do we legalise Ice and make it available on the PBS? Do we want to see hyped up coke addicts wandering the streets with disloved septums from their commonwealth supported snorting habit?

No need to put anything on the PBS. Given the miniscule cost to produce the drugs, an addict’s daily fix would be well below the co-payment threashold.

Of course, there aren’t any hyped up drug addicts walking the streets now since the current system works so well.

Do you seriosuly think that everyone who uses drugs gets into car theft etc… i don’t think so… I think that it is symptomatic of a deeper social problem (don’t get me wrong i understand that drug use and crime go hand in hand but i think you would find that occurs mostly at a lower socio-economic level).. alcohol is no different to drugs in its impact.. yet you see a lot of functioning alcholoics (or maybe what the government would deem alcoholic given there attitudes towards binge drinking).

Regardless of which it should be a choice people have the right to make and take responsibility for.

I really hate passive stupidity.

Those who wish to self-administer poison are welcome to do so.

Quick demise would save further strain on the health system.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,
starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
looking for an angry fix.
(Thanks A.G.)

By legalising and controlling the flow of narcotic/amphetamines etc do we also need to legalise smackheads breaking into houses and cars to pay for their habits?

Control will lead to pricing well out of the reach of those who would choose to use them (unless you’re lawyer with a coke habit). Will it lead to more people stealing prescription pads, breaking into chemists and dealing “prescribed smack” on the side (think “methodone”)? I certainly think so.

Do we legalise Ice and make it available on the PBS? Do we want to see hyped up coke addicts wandering the streets with disloved septums from their commonwealth supported snorting habit?

Those who tend to think that legalising and controlling the flow will alleviate the problem live in their own little utopian dream land with the smack happy pixies.

If you are stupid enough to take this stuff, then I don’t really have much sympathy for you.

Smokey2 this type of crime is another incident of the prohibition on drugs – if they could get them for free from their GP as part of a treatment program they wouldn’t steal to fund their habit.

The “what about the damage done to the community” argument is an interesting one.

The gist of it seems to be “the community shouldn’t have to bear the burden of providing medical services to those who fail to take reasonable care of their own wellbeing”.

At first blush it’s persuasive.

However, when you think about it, it’s pretty flawed. If we applied this principal judiciously, we would ban junk food and refuse medicare funded treatment to those who overindulge in it and those who don’t exercise regularly (obesity being the greatest threat to Australia’s health at present). Add to this list alcohol and smoking.

An alternative is to introduce a tax on stupidity (AD I think this was a Bill Hicks idea). My preference would be to simply to make an allowance for human frailty, as in we all do stupid things from time to time that’s just human nature.

Anything that gets druggies off the streets andf into the morgue is not such a bad thing.

In the last week several work locations have been broken into. Is the price of drugs to expensive or is some really nice stuff getting onto the market?

I’m attracted to the body shutting itself down over a period of 10 days component to this story.

Morons who try their utmost to reverse their position in the gene pool are a source of constant amazement to me, as is the old saying never underestimate the ingenuity of a complete retard when designing a foolproof system.

To theorise, by what percentage would the crime rate in Canberra go down if somebody distributed a lethal pill to a bunch of idiots who will blindly take an unmarked pill and do not know the full consequences of taking that pill ?

legalise. control. less problems.

What about the damage done to the community? I know I have asked another question and not really answered you. Imagine you or a loved one is sick and in need of urgent medical care and emergency services are too busy at (insert crap club of your choice) trying to revive somebody who chose to take a pill or take aother non-prescribed sustance? Can anybody claim ignorance anymore?

and how exactly is this different to alcohol?

Anyone who is anti-recreational drugs should really go grab a bill hicks dvd and get some common sense knocked into them. kay? Kay!! (note: being pro-recreational drugs does not mean that you have to use them).

DJ said :

Ari – “Unfortunately the anti-drug lobby has cried wolf over too many things and undermined the message for when something truly dangerous hits the streets.” An example? – please don’t say cannabis cause I think you’d be wrong.

Opiates are a good example. There are virtually no adverse effects for an addict who has been stabilised on medical-grade opiates. All of the problems stem from the illegality.

It’s just unfortunate that much of the western world let the US bully it into banning opiates … opening the door to the entrenched criminality we see today.

Test your pills before you eat them.
If they don’t turn the right colour with your test kit(available from places in fyshwick IIRC) don’t eat them.

It’s about the only way you can tell the difference. PS – there was PMA doin the rounds about 3 years ago.

The whole “just say no” line to drugs doesn’t work. Education, awareness and undertanding are much more important. Because, quite simply, the whole “drugs are bad, don’t take drugs” line doesn’t work. teenagers are going to do it any way, mid-twenties are going to do it anyway. It’s much better that, if they do choose to do not, as a community and as society, we provide them with information on how to make the correct choices, how to know if something is going wrong, and how to deal with it.

DMD – I suspect from reading previous postings that you could be serious.

What about the damage done to the community? I know I have asked another question and not really answered you. Imagine you or a loved one is sick and in need of urgent medical care and emergency services are too busy at (insert crap club of your choice) trying to revive somebody who chose to take a pill or take aother non-prescribed sustance? Can anybody claim ignorance anymore?

My answer is: The community doesn’t accept it and in my opinion that shouldn’t change.

Ari – “Unfortunately the anti-drug lobby has cried wolf over too many things and undermined the message for when something truly dangerous hits the streets.” An example? – please don’t say cannabis cause I think you’d be wrong.

Completely agree Boomacat.

Why is what someone is doing to their own body illegal?

The inevitable danger involved in swallowing pills of unknown origin and random quality is one of the worst aspects of the prohibition approach to drugs such as ecstacy.

Not to mention the fact that violent organised criminals are gifted are fabulous income stream in the process (eg the Taliban, the Medellin cartel, people who traffic in human beings).

Surely a system of control and regulation is better?

It stands to reason that if one buys unmarked pills fom an unmarked bloke in an unmarked car, one may not be entitled to a great deal of confidence about what they contain. Those who remember Pan Pharmaceuticals would know that, even in a supposedly professional drug company, mistakes happen. Things get mixed up. Bits of substance A wind up in pill B because the machine wasn’t properly cleaned. Some pills contain all the active ingredient and some contain only bulking and colouring agents.

Does anyone think that the people who mix this stuff up in their garages out of whatever ingredients they can lay their hands on can do any better? So, while some illicit drugs may be nicer than others (and PMA is really not nice at all), one has no real way of knowing what one is getting in the first place. Then one mixes it with whatever other pills are around and half a dozen shots of spirits. The surprise is not that some people wind up comatose, dead or permanently affected – it is that many do not.

boomacat said :

I would hope they aren’t following the typical “ooh well you should just not take any naughty drugs at all because they’re all dangerous”. This really helps no one.

Unfortunately the anti-drug lobby has cried wolf over too many things and undermined the message for when something truly dangerous hits the streets.

It is my understanding that this stuff is usually sold as ecstacy, and the punter doesn’t realise they’re taking PMA (until the staff at the emergency department tell them so).

If it is known that PMA is circulating in Canberra (being sold as ecstacy), does the marketing paraphernalia referred to describe the pills in question, so that consumers are armed with a bit of information with which to protect themselves?

I would hope they aren’t following the typical “ooh well you should just not take any naughty drugs at all because they’re all dangerous”. This really helps no one.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t take drugs and don’t even drink alcohol (have a terrible chocolate habit mind you).

My experience has cynically led me to believe that naming something “Death” is more likely to get more people taking it. Perhaps this is some kind of Darwinism in action.