9 June 2010

Mark Parton doesn't get why people like drugs

| johnboy
Join the conversation
216

An intriguing post by 2CC’s Mark Parton on his blog today.

It seems either policing has become massively more effective or you’re all hoovering up more drugs, particularly charlie (cocaine).

Across the country our most dominant illicit drug is cannabis, but there has been, according to these stats from the Australian Crime Commission, an increase in the use of cocaine.

Can you think of anything worse than snorting this powder up your nose ? Makes my skin crawl. I still don’t really understand I do wonder how some otherwise intelligent individuals ever find themselves hooked on these substances. What would possess you to inject a substance with a reputation as bad as heroin into your blood stream ?

Well, either drug users (not necessarily addicts) are really dumb, or maybe reputations are misleading?

Drugs

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Join the conversation

216
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

ex-vectis said :

Many years ago (more than I like to remember! :-)), when living in the UK, I used to go to Amsterdam every few months.

Not for the red-light district (honest!) but for the weed (aka, Cannabis, Marijuana etc). I didnt go to get ‘wasted’ but because I enjoyed trying the different types and the subtle differences in flavour and effect. I’d like to think I became quite a connoisseur; in the same way as someone might say they are a connoisseur of fine wines/spirits.

I’d even take fellow poms with me who had never tried weed but who felt safe that I’d not take them into some drugged nightmare haze they would never wake from. Most of them enjoyed it and some didn’t – like everything! But they were all grateful to me for ‘educating’ them as the only real information they had was the mis-information pumped out by successive Governments and anti-drugs campaigners. One of the campaigns that always made me laugh was the one that said “Smoking dope leads to harder drugs” – well, yes it does because it is illegal and so the person selling it to you will probably be quite willing to sell you the harder stuff as well.

Even the Poll at the top of this thread does nothing to help people make an informed decision. The choices are “Their users must be really dumb” or “Might be more fun and less harmful than some say”!! What sort of choices are they? Where is the choice of “All drugs, including Tobacco and Alcohol, are harmful but taken sensibly and in moderation the risks can be reduced and be fun” (although don’t know about tobacco there, never understood why people smoke tobacco! :-)).

I read in the paper recently the account about the young girl who had become addicted to smoking Cannabis. But then I saw that she had started when she was 14! Why is it that the media screams about that (that itself is an anomally as well. Cannabis is not physically adictive but can be very habit forming and therfore form a psychological dependance – I know of many folk who wake up in the morning and ‘cant function’ until they have had a cone. In the same way as I know people who cant function until they have had a coffee in the morning!!) but there is very rarely any mention of the kids who become physically addicted to alcohol? Where were this girl’s parents? How could it be that the girl had come into contact with Cannabis at the age of 14 (or even younger!)?

The underlying reason for this mess is that it is illegal, a taboo subject and as such there is little informed debate. Well meaning folk, but with little or no knowledge on the subject, jump up and down with the hysterical “Just say no!!! Dont touch it!! One smoke and you’re hooked and will die!!”. With that approach no wonder our kids want to see what the fuss is about, its called human nature. If Cannabis was legal, but reglated along with Alcohol & Tobacco and with punitive taxes, then it is widely agreed that much our drugs problems – along with drug related crime! – would reduce. The downside would be that stoners would be more visible with the increased danger of people being bored to death if accidently getting into conversation with one (just try having a conversation with a stoned person; they dont make the most interesting people to talk to! :-)).

Just like alcohol, if you smoke (or even eat! I’ve had some wicked hash-cakes in Amsterdam!!) to excess every day then it WILL be detrimental to your life and health and eventually be the prime cause of everything that comes crashing down around you. Is’t it sad that due to our laws there is a safety net for those who develop a problem with alcohol (and that safety net can be the persons social circle as well as charity and governmental) but not with drugs?

Ok, i’ll stop there as this is in danger of becoming RA’s longest ditribe of drivel for a long time chuckle.

Can I just point out that it’s not the USE of drugs that is the problem it is the ABUSE. It appears to be that, too often, the people who condemn the recreational use of drugs are those who have never taken them. Comments like “I cannot understand……” are typical of those who condemn without knowledge.

Pommy B yo – I’m trying to work out what your point is in posting this list of different drugs and the criteria it is based upon.

a) the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug; b) the tendency of the drug to induce dependence; c) the effect of drug use on families, communities and society.

I am guessing you are suggesting that Ecstacy as it is way down the list should be legalised as alcohol comes in at No 5. This kind of defeats your own argument on legalising party drugs. If alcohol comes in at 5 and is legal yet causes all this damage then that would be good grounds to maintain the ban on the other illicit substances. Take into account that any bugger with a container and a vegetable/piece of fruit can make alcohol yet it is a little trickier to make the others.

Pommy bastard3:00 pm 19 Jun 10

ex-vectis said :

Spideydog said :

What a load of poppycock ….. there are MASSIVE amounts of help available for these people and they are not penalised, vilified or “referred to the Police” by the places that offer such help.

Fair play; may have been being disingenuous there. Do you have examples, and compared to folk with Alcohol, Tobacco and/or Gambling problems?

How about the other points?

Pommy bastard said :

By ‘Working’, I mean are they doing what they set out to do? IE. To irradicate the menace of drugs within our society and protect the vulnerable.

Clearly the answer to taht would be a resounding NO!!

Pommy bastard said :

However, the second to last point does intrigue me – when is it ever needed to create criminals?

True, 🙂

They by their existence and implementation crimilaise a person for having what may be the subsatance equivalent of a long neck of beer in the privacy of their own home, thereby creating “criminals” for no reason.

I would refer people to this:

Professor David Nutt’s harm index, published in a controversial paper entitled Estimating Drug Harms: a risky business, is based on scores allocated for 20 substances based on physical harms, dependence and social harms.

He identifies three main factors that determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: a) the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug; b) the tendency of the drug to induce dependence; c) the effect of drug use on families, communities and society.

Within each category there are three components, leading to a nine-category matrix of harm, with scores of zero to three for each category. This is the final list based on that classification. In brackets is the classification given under the Misuse of Drugs Act, with Class A attracting the most serious penalties.

1. Heroin (Class A)

2. Cocaine (Class A)

3. Barbiturates (Class B)

4. Street methadone (Class A)

5. Alcohol (Not controlled)

6. Ketamine (Class C)

7. Benzodiazepine (Class B)

8. Amphetamine (Class B)

9. Tobacco (No class)

10. Bupranorphine (Class C)

11. Cannabis (Class B)

12. Solvents (Not controlled)

13. 4-MTA (Class A)

14. LSD (Class A)

15. Methylphenidate (Class B)

16. Anabolic steroids (Class C)

17. GHB (Class C)

18. Ecstasy (Class A)

19. Alkylnitrates (Not controlled)

20. Khat (Not controlled)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6899534.ece

Spideydog said :

What a load of poppycock ….. there are MASSIVE amounts of help available for these people and they are not penalised, vilified or “referred to the Police” by the places that offer such help.

Fair play; may have been being disingenuous there. Do you have examples, and compared to folk with Alcohol, Tobacco and/or Gambling problems?

How about the other points?

Pommy bastard said :

If by “working” you mean they are….

PB, are you a poli!? They do the ‘drum it in by repetition’ thing…. lol

By ‘Working’, I mean are they doing what they set out to do? IE. To irradicate the menace of drugs within our society and protect the vulnerable. (I’m assuming that is what drug legislation aims to do). Of your points above I cannot agree much more. However, the second to last point does intrigue me – when is it ever needed to create criminals?

Something that sickened me a bit a few weeks ago was the TV program ‘Getaway’. They went to Amsterdam and covered all the great things there a tourist can see/do. However, they didn’t mention the Coffee Shops (and the ‘Smart Drugs’ – IE. Mushrooms – shops) there! That was pure and unadulterated censorship as any visitor to the Netherlands will know. Coffee Shops are part of the Amsterdam way of life – just as the brothel windows, museums and architecture are. Surely they should have mentioned the Coffee Shops and Smart Shops; if only to warn potential visitors that if they do decide to smoke/eat some Cannabis then do it with an experienced (and trustworthy!) friend, try very very small amounts as it is very strong stuff, and to stay off the Mushrooms totally (‘tripping’ can potentially be a VERY frightening experience!!). Even the central Amsterdam Tourist Information office does a ‘Mellow Pages’ of the Cannabis Coffee Shops (it even gives them a star rating!!). Just wanted to get that off my chest – Getaway really wound me there… *mutter* *twitch*

ex-vectis said :

can we come to the conclusion that the current ‘drug’ laws simply dont work and just drive the issue underground. Thus making it more difficult for people who do develop problems to get help

What a load of poppycock ….. there are MASSIVE amounts of help available for these people and they are not penalised, vilified or “referred to the Police” by the places that offer such help.

Pommy bastard12:12 pm 19 Jun 10

ex-vectis said :

So, are the current drug laws working? If not why not? If you beleive they ARE working, what makes you think that?

Depends on your definition of “working”.

If by “working” you mean they are protecting us? No.

If by “working” you mean they are eliminating drug use? No.

If by “working” you mean they are reducing the harm done by drug use? No.

If by “working” you mean they are educating the population? No.

If by “working” you mean they are keeping kids from starting to use drugs? No.

If by “working” you mean they are keeping money out of manufacturors and dealers hands? No.

If by “working” you mean they are punishing people for victimless crimes? Yes

If by “working” you mean they are filling jails with non criminals? Yes.

If by “working” you mean they are creating more harm than they stop? Possibly.

If by “working” you mean they are creating criminals with no need? Yes.

If by “working” you mean they are wasiting a great deal of police time? Yes.

Pommy bastard11:32 am 19 Jun 10

More dangerous disinformation from “Canberra Creative Liar” then, lets blow this lot out of the water..

CanberraCreative said :

And no, I’m not dangerous. Sending the message to not use a potentially dangerous substance cannot be a dangerous message to send.

Sending out the message that ecstasy is called “meth” and causes dehydration a very dangerous message to send out.

CanberraCreative said :

Your attempts to lessen the risks and normalise the use of drugs are what is truly dangerous.

Seeing as 50% of the Australian public has used drugs in one form or another it is not me that is trying to normalise it, and only a complete idiot would come up with Your attempts to lessen the risks and normalise the use of drugs are what is truly dangerous.

Yep that old “lessening the risks” sure makes things dangerous!!!

CanberraCreative said :

As for alcohol, show me someone who has died from a single drink of beer, wine or spirits. Regardless of if you do, I will line up one hundred case studies of people who have died from a single dose of heroin, a single pill of ecstasy or a single snort of cocaine.

Two classic strawmen here, well done, in your attempts to lie and be disingenuous you excel yourself.

Strawman 1) No one has ever claimed that one dose of alcohol has a lethal effect, though no doubt examples could be found if it were relevant, which it isn’t.

Strawman 2) Lumping heroin cocaine and ecstasy together, (and of course ignoring all other drugs) is at best laughable funny, at worse the kind of disgusting disinformation we have come to expect from you.

CanberraCreative said :

PB, you’re deluded, you’re dangerous, you’re ill informed. Such a combination is not conducive to a long and fulfilling life.

Laughable, the man who calls ecstasy, “meth”, and claims that it causes dehydration, that relies on sources like Eric Clapton for drug information, who quotes selectively from papers without giving links to them, claims that 85% of Australian youth has not tried drugs, the list of your foolishness is growing ever more lengthy…

I work every day with kids at risk from drugs, I’ve seen first hand the effects that disinformation, and twisted logic, like yours has on them and their ability to make good choices. You should go back to your university, and keep out of real life until you are old enough to understand that the world is not as simple as you are.

After a week off with the flu (!! Not had that since a teen, and I’ll never call a heaver Cold the Flu again! :)) it is quite amusing to see the posts on this thread.

It moreorless follows the format of drug-related discussions worldwide. The problem is that many of the people commenting have never taken an illegal drug (most have never even seen one!) in their lives. So therfore their opinions are generally formed from news reports (invariably negative – When was the last time you saw a headline like “Man takes line of Coke before night out and has fun”?) and comments from biased individuals (politicians use drugs – or anti-drugs – as a good vote winner; using the ‘scare mongering’ tactic which does tend to work well).

The people who comment from a ‘user’ (maybe a perfectly happy and non-problem user – just as the majority of Alcohol users are) perspective immediately put themselves in a dangerous situation as the listener/reader should then report them to the police; otherwise they are failing to report a crime.

From all the opinions (and flames!) stated in this thread, can we come to the conclusion that the current ‘drug’ laws simply dont work and just drive the issue underground. Thus making it more difficult for people who do develop problems to get help, provides a good source of revenue for criminal organisations, criminalises otherwise upstanding users and costs us tax payers a fortune to police!

So, are the current drug laws working? If not why not? If you beleive they ARE working, what makes you think that?

Sorry mods, still playing catchup.

Cleo, post 189 by CanberraCreative seems to suggest that alternatives to the present system does in fact reduce drug deaths.

CanberraCreative:

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If a person needs drugs to have fun, to enjoy life, to escape the pressures of life… they are very small indeed.”

I still don’t understand this attitude. This obsession and vilification of people who use drugs to “escape” is bizarre. If escape is the issue, then you must also have problems with people going to the movies, reading fiction, playing computer games, listening to music, looking at art…. why the big problem with people escaping their lives CanberraCreative?

Post 172 by Cleo:

“Imagine if drugs were legal, don’t you think the death toll would go up with drugs?”

No. I think it may in fact go down. My logic rests on the fact that people are taking drugs under the present system anyway, if legalised and standardised/ regulated then casual recreational users of heroin (yes they do exist) are less likely to die from an overdose because of a stronger than normal batch of heroin being on the streets.

There would be other health/ safety benefits from legalisation/ standardisation/ regulation too.

I’m not advocating a system where smack is available at IGA but again it comes back to it isn’t working at present, lets try something else that may be better overall.

To CanberraCreative and whoever else, we obviously are not going to agree on the idea that drugs can or cannot be used in a safe manner. So that being pointless to discuss, what would your solution be to the current state of affairs, that the present legal system and “just say no” doesn’t work?

You guys have been having lots of fun in the last week.

Page 3, post 126 by CanberraCreative: You missed my point. Oh well.

Page 3, post 131 by Cleo:

“Oh you little bitch lol,truth always hurts, really got to you did I?”

Huh? I think that this is implying that you think that you hurt me with your comments, cute, but no. I think you missed my point too, oh well.

Page 3, post 133 by Cleo:

“phototext I would really like you to find proof that drugs don’t hurt and destroy lives, I dare you to.”

At no point have I said that drugs are not capable of causing harm, so your question is somewhat inane. If you had been paying attention you would have seen that I wrote at post 90.

“There have been more ecstasy related deaths since then but the amount consumed and the subsequent deaths from ingestion of MDMA show it is far less dangerous than those who like to trot out Anna Wood would like us to believe.”

But, as you joined the discussion later you may have missed it. So, at post 112, after you had joined in I wrote the following:

“No one else benefits from the current system, as that is the case isn’t it about time we tried something else, something that might make it safer, healthier and might save lives.”

Just to make sure you don’t miss it “safer, healthier and might save lives”.

To which you replied at post 118 “Diddums about the poor druggies”.

If we are talking about saving lives and minimising the health effects of drug use we need to look at the current legal system and ask if it is working. I don’t believe it is and think that it does more harm than good. One of the more complex social and health issues at the moment cannot be solved by a three word slogan “Just say no”. It didn’t work when Nancy said it twenty years ago and it isn’t working now, but it sure is easier than actually trying something else, hence the reason the government likes it so much.

Some people are going to take drugs. Some people are going to take drugs in excess and damage their health. Some people are going to take drugs in moderation and not damage their health. How the current system helps those who take drugs in excess and damage their health is beyond me.

So, tongue in cheek. Cleo I would really like you to find proof that the current system works at not hurting and destroying lives, I dare you to.

CanberraCreative1:15 am 19 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

No alcohol then?

You are the lowest of the low. You support and disseminate the sort of disinformation that killed the young people you used as a warning against drug use.

I’m getting the impression you are a christian.

Atheist actually.

And no, I’m not dangerous. Sending the message to not use a potentially dangerous substance cannot be a dangerous message to send.
Your attempts to lessen the risks and normalise the use of drugs are what is truly dangerous.

As for alcohol, show me someone who has died from a single drink of beer, wine or spirits. Regardless of if you do, I will line up one hundred case studies of people who have died from a single dose of heroin, a single pill of ecstasy or a single snort of cocaine.

The dangers from alcohol are from the excesses of alcohol. Indeed, medical evidence shoes that many alcohols such as red wine and stout beer have positive health effects in moderation including antioxidant properties.

You won’t die from a beer, you may very well die from a single tablet or a single injection of illicit drug.

PB, you’re deluded, you’re dangerous, you’re ill informed. Such a combination is not conducive to a long and fulfilling life.

Because dying is not the only social problem associated with drug use. Which is why they are illegal. Not only are there health side effects to your fantastic night out there are other issues which not only impact on you.

I’ve met a hell of a lot more people whose lives have been negatively effected by drug use than positively effected.

Those who like getting their high – don’t bother thinking about your actions or whose lifestyle your dollar funds. Who you may effect. and when your mate has a bad experience or gets hooked and is dying in the gutter and your too busy enjoying yourself to care don’t come crying back here because sympathy is something you ain’t going to get.

georgesgenitals9:45 am 18 Jun 10

fgzk said :

I want to say….Do not expect my sympathy when your house is robbed, you get beaten up by three guys in a commodore on ice, your loved one falls apart or your child loses everything. ……But that would just be mean and nasty.

Actually, the idea of your sympathy makes my skin crawl. Just saying its too hard or unreasonable does not cut it with me.

There is a big difference between having your house robbed, getting beaten up by 3 guys in a commodore, having a loved one fall apart or having a child lose everything, and having a drug problem: you didn’t choose to do something that made you feel good knowing those other nasty events could happen. Think about it.

CanberraCreative said :

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If a person needs drugs to have fun, to enjoy life, to escape the pressures of life… they are very small indeed.

BWA HA AHA HA HA AH HA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HAH AH HA HA

Pommy bastard9:31 am 18 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

I have and continue to have fun, thanks for your concern. In fact, like over 85% of Australian youth, I have fun without drugs.

No alcohol then?

“85% of Australian youth”, an other one of your University facts that you have pulled out of your arse.

But the majority are clearly wrong and must not be having fun, because Jim Jones has said it… drugs = fun.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If a person needs drugs to have fun, to enjoy life, to escape the pressures of life… they are very small indeed.

You are a very dangerous person and a liar, no one has claimed that anyone needs to take drugs “to have fun, to enjoy life”, some people do use drugs to escape some honorific life events/pressures. You are such a turd for condemning them.

You are the lowest of the low. You support and disseminate the sort of disinformation that killed the young people you used as a warning against drug use.

I’m getting the impression you are a christian.

Blah blah blah %85 Blah Blah. Blah.

GG gives us the position that has brought us to where the drug issue exists today. Hypocrisy and stupidity all rolled into one. Its to hard for little minds.

No sensible solution needed until we have a “reasonable discussion of the evidence”. Views not necessary, lets look at the facts. No discussion of legalisation needed. Its a side track used buy those who do not want to look at the evidence and hold an ideology or view contrary.

People die.

Living is about balancing risks, on the evidence provided. This makes the real evidence important. Not peoples views or ideologies.

I want to say….Do not expect my sympathy when your house is robbed, you get beaten up by three guys in a commodore on ice, your loved one falls apart or your child loses everything. ……But that would just be mean and nasty.

Actually, the idea of your sympathy makes my skin crawl. Just saying its too hard or unreasonable does not cut it with me.

CanberraCreative11:55 pm 17 Jun 10

Jim Jones said :

CanberraCreative said :

Why use these substances at all?

You can’t be serious.

Have you ever had any fun … ever?

I have and continue to have fun, thanks for your concern. In fact, like over 85% of Australian youth, I have fun without drugs.

But the majority are clearly wrong and must not be having fun, because Jim Jones has said it… drugs = fun.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If a person needs drugs to have fun, to enjoy life, to escape the pressures of life… they are very small indeed.

georgesgenitals said :

I don’t think this will ever get sensibly resolved, there are just too many different views. Illegal drugs are apparently fun, but there are potentially huge risks. And some people use to a degree that ends up costing them their life.

I guess it depends on whether the individual is prepared to accept the risks.

If people want to use illegale substances, that’s up to them. Just don’t expect my sympathy if things go horribly wrong.

Agreed.

Jim Jones said :

Seriously, why not try some reading and research instead of sourcing ‘opinions’ through your own unique brand of wilfull ignorance?

Who said that I haven’t seen some of the research. You make presumptuous claims and pretend to be an expert on the matter. Yet when people give real life experience points of view, you start name calling and call them ignorant and uninformed …… why, simply because they don’t agree with your apparent flawless opinion.

Jim Jones said :

Also, I think you’ll find my post stated, very clearly: “Everyone who works in the field of drug policy”.

And ….. this doesn’t change the fact that you made yet another presumptuous claim that everyone in that field agree’s. Where is your evidence to back that claim?

Jim Jones said :

When you find yourself deep in a hole, digging yourself out is a really bad idea.

You need to follow your own advice, making wonderful claims on behalf of “everyone” (that coincidently supports your view) is digging yourself a swimming pool.

With this thread approaching 200 Mark Parton has got to be a contender for the Mully cup.

georgesgenitals8:03 pm 17 Jun 10

I don’t think this will ever get sensibly resolved, there are just too many different views. Illegal drugs are apparently fun, but there are potentially huge risks. And some people use to a degree that ends up costing them their life.

I guess it depends on whether the individual is prepared to accept the risks.

If people want to use illegale substances, that’s up to them. Just don’t expect my sympathy if things go horribly wrong.

CanberraCreative said :

Why use these substances at all?

You can’t be serious.

Have you ever had any fun … ever?

Pommy bastard7:02 pm 17 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

fgzk said :

CC No wonder you have pissed off PB. You are an arrogant bastard CC. Using Meth as a grouping term and slagging its slang term is divisive.

Okay, so the experts are wrong and the ghetto talk is right. Excellent, so we’ll keep inventing slangs for drugs so people will need a Lonely Planet Phrasebook to navigate the sea of illicit substances.

MDMA, ice and so on all belong to the same chemical group. End of story. If you want to argue with the laws of chemistry, be my guest.

Again, you deliberately miss the point that when talking to young people about drugs it’s important to use language they understand.

You do this as you care nothing for young people or the truth.

If you talk to young people about “meth” while actually relating information on ecstasy, they will see you as a know nothing idiot, (just as the rest of us do) and ignore your message (just as the rest of us do.)

You are dangerous Canberra Cretin, you prefer to lie and spread dangerous disinformation rather than concede you were wrong many times on many points.

Care to tell us about your University again?

CanberraCreative said :

Mark Parton’s question still remains a valid one. Why use these substances at all?
Why use substances that even when decriminalised, cost hundred of lives?

Only an absolute moron would treat “substances” as a homogenous group which should not be used at all. A dangerous moron who wishes to promote harm. How many deaths per capita users does cannabis cause? How many ecstasy? How many alcohol?

Do you categorised 2% by volume shandy in the same “alcohol” category as 60% by volume Storr Rum, and extrapolate that to say that all alcohol is dangerous?

CanberraCreative5:27 pm 17 Jun 10

Jim Jones said :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization (Scientific American)
.

Thanks for the link, quite interesting.

“Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.”

I will agree that these statistics do support your contention that decriminalisation does reduce the harm of drug use.
However, even with decriminalisation, the statistics you cite still show these drugs causing substantial harm.

The fall in overdose deaths from 400 to 290 is a reduction of only 27.5%. 290 people still die from overdoses.

The fall in HIV infection from 1400 to 400 is a reduction of 72%. More impressive but that’s still hundreds of new infections.

Mark Parton’s question still remains a valid one. Why use these substances at all?
Why use substances that even when decriminalised, cost hundred of lives?

CanberraCreative said :

fgzk said :

CC No wonder you have pissed off PB. You are an arrogant bastard CC. Using Meth as a grouping term and slagging its slang term is divisive.

Okay, so the experts are wrong and the ghetto talk is right. Excellent, so we’ll keep inventing slangs for drugs so people will need a Lonely Planet Phrasebook to navigate the sea of illicit substances.

MDMA, ice and so on all belong to the same chemical group. End of story. If you want to argue with the laws of chemistry, be my guest.

Jim Jones said :

Death and negative health effects do come down substantially with decriminalisation and the institution of harm-minimisation programs (as opposed to the punitive approach taken with prohibition).

Can you provide some evidence of this? Not saying you’re wrong, would really like to see what the basis for this conclusion is.

I’ve lost track of how many times have I linked to articles on Portugese decriminalisation, but here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization (Scientific American)
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal (also links to a lot of other sites, including policy documentation and stats)

That should do for now.

Others have provided some info on, for example, reduction of cannabis consumption in Holland, etc. (although I suspect this would be linked to international trend seeing a generational decrease in cannabis consumption).

CanberraCreative1:56 pm 17 Jun 10

fgzk said :

CC No wonder you have pissed off PB. You are an arrogant bastard CC. Using Meth as a grouping term and slagging its slang term is divisive.

Okay, so the experts are wrong and the ghetto talk is right. Excellent, so we’ll keep inventing slangs for drugs so people will need a Lonely Planet Phrasebook to navigate the sea of illicit substances.

MDMA, ice and so on all belong to the same chemical group. End of story. If you want to argue with the laws of chemistry, be my guest.

Jim Jones said :

Death and negative health effects do come down substantially with decriminalisation and the institution of harm-minimisation programs (as opposed to the punitive approach taken with prohibition).

Can you provide some evidence of this? Not saying you’re wrong, would really like to see what the basis for this conclusion is.

I’m pretty sure that some of you haven’t gone back and read what you wrote because what you are spouting is absolute crap.

Go to the front line – talk to a user – they’ll tell you what the real go is. – I did last night – they’ve been trying to get off them for the past 20yrs – has no job, no qualifications, does nothing all day, serious health complications is in trouble with the cops and scared shitless from his dealers.

Doctors just trot out ‘drugs are bad mmkay’ Does any person other than me think this is because they have seen a large number of people present with serious complications from drug use, read studies conducted on drugs and their use, and might just have an informed and educated opinion.

Where do you stop with the decriminalisation/legalisation. Is it just Cannabis, Ecstasy, Speed, or do we go with heroin and ice as well. Which causes the problems? What age group. There will always be a black market around for the groups that don’t classify to get it or are too addicted to make up the funds to cover their addiction.

This then moves on the broader community issues such as property crime, violent robberies etc.

No fuss Tooks, I got you. And tend to agree.

Legalisation of soft drugs can reduce the illicit appeal. Soft drugs don’t tend to kill people anyway (although negative health effects are always there).

Regarding hard drugs: Prohibition is dud. Legalisation has its own problems. Decriminalisation seems to be the most effective middle group (the Portugal thing really is worth looking into).

Death and negative health effects do come down substantially with decriminalisation and the institution of harm-minimisation programs (as opposed to the punitive approach taken with prohibition).

PB can I put you out of your multi quote misery.

They are different in effect and use but the same in management (all except “Ice(“meth”)” which I think is unmanageable). All three require………. you to drink water with your drugs. Don’t mix alcohol. Have a banna or two. Look out for your mates. Check in with how they are feeling. The next day have some good food and drinks(non alcoholic). Be kind to your self. Avoid driving. Have a nice day. Recover. Get your shit together and get on with what ever it is you do.

If you drink you piss. The more you drink the more you piss. I am not sure what you guys are going on about. The solution is just being aware that fluids need to be replaced. Same as on a hot day working in the sun. Small amounts all day. Basic survival skill. Drinking and pissing how easy is that.

CC No wonder you have pissed off PB. You are an arrogant bastard CC. Using Meth as a grouping term and slagging its slang term is divisive. I doubt your intelligence too. Not to be confused with education of course.

Arrgh, I stuff my formatting. Sorry.

Jim Jones said :

cleo said :

Back OT, in countries where drugs are decriminalized or legalised (Portugal, Amsterdam, the American states which have ‘medical marijunan’ legislation, etc.) death and health problems have been significantly reduced.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Dutch classify drugs as either soft (cannabis in all forms, magic mushrooms) or hard drugs (heroin, cocaine etc). Soft drugs are legal for personal use, while hard drugs are as illegal as anywhere else. How many people die from marijuana or mushroom use whether legal or not? Not many, I would’ve thought.

I found this to be interesting though:

For example, the statistical data certifies that among young people of medium age 28 in the Netherlands, only 16% ever smoked marijuana. Soft drugs when widely accessible seem to lose much of their appeal.

I don’t know what the answers are when it comes to drug use. Prohibition may not work, but legalisation would come with its own problems. It’s a complex issue which doesn’t come with one magic solution.

Oh, and Mr Parton, people like drugs because they feel really, really good.

Pommy bastard10:02 am 17 Jun 10

This time with correct quoting;

CanberraCreative said :

Pommy bastard said :

So then to review;

Canberra Creative has told us that people on “meth” (as he calls ecstasy…

Read my posts, you are deliberately misquoting my words.

I have repeatedly said that “meth” is short for meth-amphetamine. I have not used it to refer to ecstasy or any drug specifically.

Funny then how your referred to it in the death of Anna Wood; So Google search Anna Wood and see if you can be as dismissive. She wasn’t a drug abuser, she just took a dose of ecstasy at a dance party and died because of i

CanberraCreative said :

I have used it to refer to meth-amphetamines in general, as a category of drug including MDMA (ecstasy), Ice, speed and so on.

All of which are different drugs with different effects.

CanberraCreative said :

I do not care what you or others use as slang on the street. Meth bombs, crystal meth, meth… who cares. It’s just ghetto speak for the uneducated.

Ignoring your snobbery, it is VERY IMPORTANT that when dealing with you people and drugs you use the right terms, use the wrong ones and they will ignore the information you give them.

But as we have all seen here, you care nothing for the truth, nothing for the lives of young people, you are only interested in boasting about yourself and scoring points here, all of which have been refuted.

CanberraCreative said :

You want proof, here’s a quote from an article by the Spencer S. Eccles Health Centre at the University of Utah:

And incase you’re to lazy to read the whole thing, here is the punch line: “Severe dehydration leading to excessive fluid intake and water intoxication.”

Interesting that you have not provided a link to that research so we have no way of finding out if you have adulterated the quote.

CanberraCreative said :

Or you could use a modicum of logic and realise that since MDMA makes you dehydrated, you will want to ingest fluids to rehydrate. The drug keeps acting on you, you keep drinking and drink too much.

MDMA does not dehydrate you. Now tell me do all the drugs you catagorise as “meth” have the same effects you claim for ecstasy?

You are a very dangerous person “Canberra Creative with the truth”; by promoting the idea that MDMA ‘dehgydrates” you are promoting the very same missinformation which led to the death of Anna Wood and others.

Blah blah blah stat’s blah blah.

The issue for me are of exploitation, discrimination and isolation. Drug users are being exploited by criminals, discriminated against by professional bodies and isolated by the community.

These issues might provide some answer for Mr Parton as to why people might turn to and sustain a drug habit.

Why would cocaine use be increasing?……Road side testing legislation. No statistics available….Just a wild guess. Why would you get hooked on cocaine? Its the chemicals and the people. Why would you snort it? Because injecting it every ten minutes is a pain. Drinking/dropping is a waste. Putting it up your ass tastes funny.

Why would you inject heroin when it has such a bad reputation? Its reputation for making you forget the “bad”.

Does intelligence play a part in a drug habit? No.

Pommy bastard9:45 am 17 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

Pommy bastard said :

So then to review;

Canberra Creative has told us that people on “meth” (as he calls ecstasy…

Read my posts, you are deliberately misquoting my words.

I have repeatedly said that “meth” is short for meth-amphetamine. I have not used it to refer to ecstasy or any drug specifically.

Funny then how your referred to it in the death of Anna Wood; So Google search Anna Wood and see if you can be as dismissive. She wasn’t a drug abuser, she just took a dose of ecstasy at a dance party and died because of i

CanberraCreative said :

I have used it to refer to meth-amphetamines in general, as a category of drug including MDMA (ecstasy), Ice, speed and so on.

All of which are different drugs with different effects.

CanberraCreative said :

I do not care what you or others use as slang on the street. Meth bombs, crystal meth, meth… who cares. It’s just ghetto speak for the uneducated.[/.quote]

Ignoring your snobbery, it is VERY IMPORTANT that when dealing with you people and drugs you use the right terms, use the wrong ones and they will ignore the information you give them.

But as we have all seen here, you care nothing for the truth, nothing for the lives of young people, you are only interested in boasting about yourself and scoring points here, all of which have been refuted.

CanberraCreative said :

You want proof, here’s a quote from an article by the Spencer S. Eccles Health Centre at the University of Utah:

And incase you’re to lazy to read the whole thing, here is the punch line: “Severe dehydration leading to excessive fluid intake and water intoxication.”

Interesting that you have not provided a link to that research so we have no way of finding out if you have adulterated the quote.

CanberraCreative said :

Or you could use a modicum of logic and realise that since MDMA makes you dehydrated, you will want to ingest fluids to rehydrate. The drug keeps acting on you, you keep drinking and drink too much.

MDMA does not dehydrate you. Now tell me do all the drugs you catagorise as “meth” have the same effects you claim for ecstasy?

georgesgenitals9:44 am 17 Jun 10

AngryHenry said :

Are we still talking about Mark Parton’s opinions on drug use?

Or has this become a masterclass on how to form an argument?

The people who are doing the drugs probably don’t care about what or how any of us think.

I’d suggest the correct term is actually ‘assterclass’.

cleo said :

Jim Jones # 145

Well of course alcohol and tobacco are listed as causing the most deaths, THERE LEGAL! Duurrr

Imagine if drugs were legal, don’t you think the death toll would go up with drugs?

Already been answered above by numerous people – death toll declines in step with decriminalisation/legalisation.

Also mentioned was how to use they’re/their properly and an explanation of why poor spelling makes people think that you’re less than intelligent. I’m amused that you found yet another way to misspell it.

Are we still talking about Mark Parton’s opinions on drug use?

Or has this become a masterclass on how to form an argument?

The people who are doing the drugs probably don’t care about what or how any of us think.

And finally – I’m not the one who started ‘name-calling’ in this thread. I think you’ll find all the calls of ‘moron’ came from the person who was offered numerous opportunities to support his claim that ‘all opinions are valid’, but couldn’t, instead running with the odd strategy of repeatedly claiming that he was ‘misunderstood’ (all the while refusing to offer any clarification on what was a remarkably simple statement).

When you find yourself deep in a hole, digging yourself out is a really bad idea.

Also, I think you’ll find my post stated, very clearly: “Everyone who works in the field of drug policy”.

Why not talk to some of these people or read their work?

I have.

Spideydog said :

Jim Jones said :

Everyone who works in the field of drug policy will tell you that harm minimisation (including decriminalisation – if not necessarily legalisation) has proven to be the best way to reduce drug related deaths. Look at any recent policy documents and they all take a very similar line.

Anyone who by this time still thinks that prohibition is working or is ever likely to just hasn’t been paying attention.

The only people who’ve looked seriously at the issue and still support prohibition are politicians looking to cynically exploit the ‘tough on drugs’ stance.

So now you talk on behalf of everybody !!!! When did you do a survey to come to that conclusion on behalf of everyone ?

Do you have something in the way of proof that it’s only politicians that support “prohibition”. Or will you resort to name calling because I would dare to not agree with you.

What dictionary are you using in this post? I’d like to respond, but I’m just so afraid I’ll take you ‘out of context’ because you’re using words in *ahem* unique ways.

Seriously, why not try some reading and research instead of sourcing ‘opinions’ through your own unique brand of wilfull ignorance?

Jim Jones # 145

Well of course alcohol and tobacco are listed as causing the most deaths, THERE LEGAL! Duurrr

Imagine if drugs were legal, don’t you think the death toll would go up with drugs?

Jim Jones said :

Everyone who works in the field of drug policy will tell you that harm minimisation (including decriminalisation – if not necessarily legalisation) has proven to be the best way to reduce drug related deaths. Look at any recent policy documents and they all take a very similar line.

Anyone who by this time still thinks that prohibition is working or is ever likely to just hasn’t been paying attention.

The only people who’ve looked seriously at the issue and still support prohibition are politicians looking to cynically exploit the ‘tough on drugs’ stance.

So now you talk on behalf of everybody !!!! When did you do a survey to come to that conclusion on behalf of everyone ?

Do you have something in the way of proof that it’s only politicians that support “prohibition”. Or will you resort to name calling because I would dare to not agree with you.

And just to wind everyone here up – which drug kills more people? Tobacco (legal) or other illegal drugs? Does that mean if we make the other illegal drugs legal then the death rate will match that of tobacco?
(stirring mode off now, and waiting for the bite)

CanberraCreative8:22 pm 16 Jun 10

dvaey said :

I disagree, legalisation DOES mean that the purity or quality will be regulated. It means that businesses will be able to sell quality product which isnt tainted. If you want an example, how many people have died from using amphetamines (ice or eccy) compared to how many people have died from using dexamphetamines prescribed by psychiatrists?

Regulated only if the Government chooses to place those drugs under the control of the TGA.

That raises two issues:

1. Regulation is no guarantee. I think the Pan Pharmaceuticals recall demonstrated that. http://www.smh.com.au/specials/panrecall/index.html

2. For all the different legal products out there, there is a black market. Indeed there is a black market for legal medicines.
I doubt legalisation will prevent people offering and people finding cheaper illegal gear on the street.

Your point though about dexamphetamines prescribed by psychiatrists is interesting.
I have read statistics that show over 3x as many people in the US die from those drugs as illicit amphetamines.
HOWEVER… that figure does not take into account the far wider usage of the legal drug as opposed to the illegal drug.

As I have said, legal drugs are not necessarily safe. Even when used correctly, most have side effects, some of which are serious.
The point is legal medicines are used when their is a justifiable need.
It is for that reason that I support the legalisation of marijuana if prescribed under medical supervision for conditions such as cancer.
There is also some evidence that MDMA may be a viable treatment for HIV, and I would support that too.

But to legalise these drugs for purely recreational use is absurd.

CanberraCreative said :

One has to remember that many of the drugs that are now illegal were once legal, including cocaine and opiates. All you need to do is read the history books to see the problems caused.

I have read the history books, the problems were caused by the african americans and the mexicans. Just ask any white US politician from the late 1800s.

CanberraCreative said :

One need only look at examples of legalisation in The Netherlands, Switzerland, Britain and some states in the US to realise that with legalisation comes a shocking increase in the use of these substances. Legalisation does not mean that the purity or quality of drugs will automatically be regulated. Meaning that more users will be using the same substances. If a bad batch comes through, the potential for harm is many times higher given the wider user base.

I disagree, legalisation DOES mean that the purity or quality will be regulated. It means that businesses will be able to sell quality product which isnt tainted. If you want an example, how many people have died from using amphetamines (ice or eccy) compared to how many people have died from using dexamphetamines prescribed by psychiatrists? My guess is that the street version has taken many more lives, in part due to the lack of regulation on its production and sale. If regulated medicines (ie. tylenol or panadol) are even suspected of being contaminated, its not simply a police media release saying ‘be careful’, its a full recall by the manufacturer.

CanberraCreative4:05 pm 16 Jun 10

Jim Jones said :

Everyone who works in the field of drug policy will tell you that harm minimisation (including decriminalisation – if not necessarily legalisation) has proven to be the best way to reduce drug related deaths. Look at any recent policy documents and they all take a very similar line..

It’s best not to use the term “everyone”. It’s a generalisation and one that is not true to the diverse policy opinions out there.

One has to remember that many of the drugs that are now illegal were once legal, including cocaine and opiates. All you need to do is read the history books to see the problems caused. Legal recreation drugs are not a novel idea.

One need only look at examples of legalisation in The Netherlands, Switzerland, Britain and some states in the US to realise that with legalisation comes a shocking increase in the use of these substances.
Legalisation does not mean that the purity or quality of drugs will automatically be regulated. Meaning that more users will be using the same substances. If a bad batch comes through, the potential for harm is many times higher given the wider user base.

CanberraCreative said :

fgzk said :

“Imagine if drugs were legal, don’t you think the death toll would go up with drugs?”

No the death toll will come down. I think that is a known fact. The legalisation is a side track. It wont happen in our political/religious based system.

It cannot be a “known fact” until there is empirical data to support it. At best, it’s a hypothesis.

And just because a drug is legal doesn’t make it any safer or reduce the deaths:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us/14florida.html

Everyone who works in the field of drug policy will tell you that harm minimisation (including decriminalisation – if not necessarily legalisation) has proven to be the best way to reduce drug related deaths. Look at any recent policy documents and they all take a very similar line.

Anyone who by this time still thinks that prohibition is working or is ever likely to just hasn’t been paying attention.

The only people who’ve looked seriously at the issue and still support prohibition are politicians looking to cynically exploit the ‘tough on drugs’ stance.

CanberraCreative2:59 pm 16 Jun 10

fgzk said :

“Imagine if drugs were legal, don’t you think the death toll would go up with drugs?”

No the death toll will come down. I think that is a known fact. The legalisation is a side track. It wont happen in our political/religious based system.

It cannot be a “known fact” until there is empirical data to support it. At best, it’s a hypothesis.

And just because a drug is legal doesn’t make it any safer or reduce the deaths:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us/14florida.html

CanberraCreative2:43 pm 16 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

So then to review;

Canberra Creative has told us that people on “meth” (as he calls ecstasy…

Read my posts, you are deliberately misquoting my words.

I have repeatedly said that “meth” is short for meth-amphetamine. I have not used it to refer to ecstasy or any drug specifically.
I have used it to refer to meth-amphetamines in general, as a category of drug including MDMA (ecstasy), Ice, speed and so on.

I do not care what you or others use as slang on the street. Meth bombs, crystal meth, meth… who cares. It’s just ghetto speak for the uneducated.

“Ecstasy” (MDMA) = methylene-dioxy derivative methamphetamine

Pommy bastard said :

He then tells us that this water intoxication is the result of “dehydration” caused by the “meth”. Which is totally untrue, and a very dangerous thing to tell young people.

You want proof, here’s a quote from an article by the Spencer S. Eccles Health Centre at the University of Utah:

“The methylene-dioxy derivatives of amphetamine and methamphetamine are “designer drugs” that generically are termed “ecstasy” and include 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), also known as “Adam,” 3,4-methylenedioxy-ethylamphetamine (MDEA), also known as “Eve,” and N-methyl-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine (MBDB), also known as “Methyl-J” or “Eden.” MDMA and similar compounds are “entactogens” that act upon serotonergic pathways in the brain to give users a feeling of euphoria, energy, and a desire to socialize. These immediate effects last approximately 3 to 6 hours. (Christophersen, 2000)

The adverse effects of ecstasy use may include hyperthermia, liver toxicity, and neuropsychiatric effects. Severe dehydration leading to excessive fluid intake and water intoxication. There can be memory deficits, confusion, depression, and sleep problems even weeks after taking this drug.”

And incase you’re to lazy to read the whole thing, here is the punch line: “Severe dehydration leading to excessive fluid intake and water intoxication.”

Or you could use a modicum of logic and realise that since MDMA makes you dehydrated, you will want to ingest fluids to rehydrate. The drug keeps acting on you, you keep drinking and drink too much.

cleo said :

Jim Jones # 145

Well of course alcohol and tobacco are listed as causing the most deaths, THEIR LEGAL! Duurrr

Imagine if drugs were legal, don’t you think the death toll would go up with drugs?

They are = they’re. I’m sorry this seems picky, but it’s not that hard and errors like this drive me insane.
Similarly – you’re = you are

“Their” and “your” are used to refer to ownership (i.e. Their dog is bigger than your dog)

Right or wrong, when you make basic errors in spelling then people are less apt to take you seriously. People who can’t spell properly or write basic English are generally adjudged to be less intelligent than people who do have these skills.

Back OT, in countries where drugs are decriminalized or legalised (Portugal, Amsterdam, the American states which have ‘medical marijunan’ legislation, etc.) death and health problems have been significantly reduced.

Spideydog said :

And yet again your labouring a point that is in the wrong context and framed to suit your warped point of view. If you cannot understand the context it is written in, don’t argue about it. I am pretty sure most people can see the context I was writing in (regardless if they agree or not with that point of view) There is only a couple of people that want to play on words and turn it into something else …. booooring !!!!

How does ‘context’ alter the dictionary definition of a word?

If you’re not going to use words in the way that the rest of the English-speaking world does, why not try another language?… or perhaps not speaking at all might be preferable.

“Imagine if drugs were legal, don’t you think the death toll would go up with drugs?”

No the death toll will come down. I think that is a known fact. The legalisation is a side track. It wont happen in our political/religious based system. More to the point it should not happen because governments and business are not to be trusted. If they are happy to spread half truths/lies about prohibition imagine what will happen when there is money to be made. The best we can hope for is reducing harm on the fringes.

If you want to know about drugs and have some cash I’m always available. It wont kill you. It wont destroy your life. You will still have control of who you are. You might even enjoy yourself. Drugs are a personal experience. Like all things they are what you make it. They wont make you less of an asshole. It will just be easier to tolerate the asshole’s.

The harm comes from people and their ideas. Blaming drugs is a cop out.

Pommy bastard7:48 am 16 Jun 10

So then to review;

Canberra Creative has told us that people on “meth” (as he calls ecstasy but refuses sort show any substantive evidence that anyone else ever does,) regularly die of water intoxication.

He then tells us that this water intoxication is the result of “dehydration” caused by the “meth”. Which is totally untrue, and a very dangerous thing to tell young people.

In numerous occasions he has told us how he is at Uni and has access to “peer reviewed publications”, (though obviously none which back up his points above.)

He criticises my use of the worlds largest ecstasy forum to show what names are given to ecstasy by users, but his giving burned out 70’s rockers like Clapton and Nicks as sources of good advice is kosher, (even though they were not part of the “E” generation.)

Canberra Creative, you are dangerous and devious.

Anna Wood died because of exactly the sort of misinformation you have posted here.

CanberraCreative12:53 am 16 Jun 10

housebound said :

Peer review: a process which only the young, naive or willfully blind would regard as completely objective and not misused to censor alternative views.

I would never suggest that peer-review results in a product that is objective. The opinions expressed in articles seek to promote a particular argument more often than providing an overview. I don’t view peer-review as any sort of mechanism to ensure the conclusion is correct, only that the basis for the argument is valid. It is still up to the reader to read an appropriate breadth of content to make their own informed decision.

dvaey said :

Right after you pay for your subscription to the journal, to even read the articles upon which you wish to comment… and the loop repeats again

Every single copy of Australian published journals and many overseas ones are held by the National Library and are freely available to view.
This is specifically why Commonwealth law requires publishers to submit their work to the NLA, so that anyone regardless of wealth may have access to the wide breadth of information out there.

State and local libraries either have copies freely available too or may request a copy for you from the National Library on inter-library loan at no charge.

So this knowledge is available very easily and freely.

Members of the public can provide information about drug dealers by calling Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000, or Shoalhaven Police on (02) 4421 9699.

All information provided will be treated in confidence.

Callers to Crime Stoppers can remain anonymous if they wish and may be eligible for a reward of up to $1000.

Jim Jones # 145

Well of course alcohol and tobacco are listed as causing the most deaths, THEIR LEGAL! Duurrr

Imagine if drugs were legal, don’t you think the death toll would go up with drugs?

fgzk # 137 That doesn’t always happen when people are hanging out for a fix.

Jim Jones said :

Spideydog said :

Way off tangent ….. Still !!!!

That’s funny, I could have sworn that you stated, very clearly:

Spideydog said :

Every opinion is valid … I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

But apparently not.

And yet again your labouring a point that is in the wrong context and framed to suit your warped point of view. If you cannot understand the context it is written in, don’t argue about it. I am pretty sure most people can see the context I was writing in (regardless if they agree or not with that point of view) There is only a couple of people that want to play on words and turn it into something else …. booooring !!!!

fgzk said :

Spideydog. “There is only one precaution I can think of that would cure it …… not taking them in the first place.”

I think you mean “prevention”. Not taking it in the first place would be a prevention not a cure, as you would not need curing if you never had the disease.

Are we really going to play on words ….. seriously 😉 LOL

Peer review: a process which only the young, naive or willfully blind would regard as completely objective and not misused to censor alternative views.

The only good thing about peer review is that it tends to hold back the rubbish, even if it does block some of the good stuff that sits outside the current paradigm.

CanberraCreative said :

dvaey said :

I always find comments like this amusing. How does a ‘public forum’ make something not peer-reviewed? It is not only peer-reviewed, it is (or can be) reviewed and commented on by everyone, not an exclusive group.

You don’t know what peer-reviewed means do you?
Read this: http://www.research.unimelb.edu.au/integrity/conduct/peer

Okay, my definition doesnt match your provided webpages definition. I consider ‘peer review’ of a study, to mean you publish a draft of the study and accept input from anyone involved or interested.

CanberraCreative said :

For a couple of months, Jon Stanhope was listed as Hindu on Wikipedia… he’s not.

And this was changed by who? My guess is a member of the public who reviewed the page, and found/fixed the mistake, ie. probably not a Hindu person who might have authored the page.

CanberraCreative said :

dvaey said :

So, in other words, youre trying to suggest that public should put faith in policy and articles that we not only have zero input into, or ability to provide review/feedback upon, but we arent even allowed to read?

As for not having input, unless you have formal qualifications and experience in the field of those articles, why should you have any input to article content.

I believe youve whacked the nail straight on the head. Obviously given some of the comments here, a lot of people are posting stories with absolutely no credentials, or ‘experience in the field’. If you want to know the effects of a drug, would you get a better answer from a user or from a doctor in a white coat who trots out ‘drugs are bad, mmmkay’? This whole thread, is about someone making comments about drugs, when even stating himself that he has no idea why.

Im pretty sure that a lot of the people who give submissions to government consultancy, arent necessarily experts in the field either, but then again, thats pretty much why the government has consultation periods, because they understand their decisions/findings may be wrong and welcome the publics input to correct them, if necessary. Doctors and scientists tend to have a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude, and if they say 1 + 1 = 3, if you try and tell them the answer is 2 they wont listen unless you can provide a PhD to prove your credentials.

CanberraCreative said :

As for feedback, everyone is welcome to write to journals and have their feedback recorded and even published.

Right after you pay for your subscription to the journal, to even read the articles upon which you wish to comment… and the loop repeats again

CanberraCreative said :

Those who are bashing journals and even accusing peer-review of being a form of censorship are ignorant and beyond the reach of reason or logic.

I believe that allowing for *only* peer review, is censorship (of the input potentially provided by non-‘peers’). Imagine the uproar if the government decided to change planning laws, without consulting the general public, because they consulted their ‘peers’ within the planning department, and the peers all agreed to make a change.

/riot-act really needs to fix this multi-page comment bug

CanberraCreative5:48 pm 15 Jun 10

dvaey said :

Also, I dont hear people discounting groups such as Beyond Blue or The Smith Family, due to their funding from ‘anonymous donors’.

They’re not anonymous. Charities keep record of donors, are operated by a board, operate with formal auditing procedures, and disclose where they send money too.

Very different and far more transparent than a website hosted in Amsterdam, with a domain name from Russia where anyone can submit money via a payment gateway or Paypal.

CanberraCreative5:41 pm 15 Jun 10

dvaey said :

I always find comments like this amusing. How does a ‘public forum’ make something not peer-reviewed? It is not only peer-reviewed, it is (or can be) reviewed and commented on by everyone, not an exclusive group. Also, try changing the word ‘vetted’ for ‘censored’ and you start making more sense.

You don’t know what peer-reviewed means do you?
Read this: http://www.research.unimelb.edu.au/integrity/conduct/peer

Next you’ll be saying Wikipedia is “peer-reviewed” just because every Tom, Dick and Harry can view it and say it’s okay.
For a couple of months, Jon Stanhope was listed as Hindu on Wikipedia… he’s not.

dvaey said :

So, in other words, youre trying to suggest that public should put faith in policy and articles that we not only have zero input into, or ability to provide review/feedback upon, but we arent even allowed to read?

Not allowed to read? My Uni subscription lets me view those articles online via the links I provided.
You may read them either via your own subscription or for free at your local library.

As for not having input, unless you have formal qualifications and experience in the field of those articles, why should you have any input to article content.
As for feedback, everyone is welcome to write to journals and have their feedback recorded and even published. Most journals have a large feedback section where commentary on articles is published. Most of this feedback offers a contrary opinion, fostering informed academic debate.

Those who are bashing journals and even accusing peer-review of being a form of censorship are ignorant and beyond the reach of reason or logic.
Might be a good time to remember that there is a direct correlation between life expectancy and one’s intelligence.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/9467652/The-Evolution-of-Human-Life-Expectancy-and-Intelligence-in-HunterGatherer-Economies

CanberraCreative said :

CanberraCreative said :

Wrong again I’m afraid, “Bluelight” is the worlds leading ecstasy resource, and has a high degree of useful knowledge on harm minimisation, and also has a dedicated forum for Australia and New Zealand.

Bluelight is your source… you have no appreciation whatsoever for the strict standards of academia.

Bluelight is a public forum.
It is not peer reviewed nor are contributors vetted in any way.
It is funded by anonymous donors.

I always find comments like this amusing. How does a ‘public forum’ make something not peer-reviewed? It is not only peer-reviewed, it is (or can be) reviewed and commented on by everyone, not an exclusive group. Also, try changing the word ‘vetted’ for ‘censored’ and you start making more sense. Id much rather prefer to hear first-hand stories than some article summarized by a doctor whos career will be furthered by writing a more exciting article, talking about deaths from smoking one joint.

Also, I dont hear people discounting groups such as Beyond Blue or The Smith Family, due to their funding from ‘anonymous donors’.

CanberraCreative said :

I have read the full articles thanks to a subscription through my University. Not sure if general public can view.

So, in other words, youre trying to suggest that public should put faith in policy and articles that we not only have zero input into, or ability to provide review/feedback upon, but we arent even allowed to read?

buzz819 said :

There are always going to be a lot more people using legal drugs then illicit, until those figures are available that argument is moot.

The percentage of ‘users’ who die as a result of use aside, I think the point is pretty clear – legal drugs have a far more deleterious effect on both the individual and society than illicit drugs.

The notion that ‘everyone who uses *drugs* will suffer horrifibly’ that seems to have been bandied about here is obviously complete bollocks – some people who use some drugs will suffer from problems such as addiction, overdose, mental impairment, etc. in the same way that users of legal drugs suffer from these problems. Most will not.

The differences between legal and illicit drugs are actually a lot more minor than most people want to believe. The same issues surround both. In both instances, regulation and harm minimisation (rather than prohibition) have always proven to be the best means to address potential problems.

The ‘drugs are bad mmkay’ mantra does nothing to address the problem (and indeed, contributes to the problem).

Compare the crappy record of America’s “just say no” approach and the “war on drugs” to the positive effects of Portugal’s process of decriminalisation: The “war on drugs” caused a spike in drug use, crime, drug related death and put countless generations of poor black youths in jail for minor drug infractions (thereby criminalising generations to come). Portugal’s decriminalisation of drug use has been hailed internationally as a success and has reduced drug-related death and crime, as well as reducing levels of serious drug use in that country.

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

On a more serious note, anyone know how many deaths in Australia each year are directly attributable to illegal drug use?

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare does have a 2006 report available (http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/soduia06/soduia06.pdf), which states that:

– In 2003, it was estimated that 8% of the burden of disease in Australia was attributable to tobacco use
– 3% per cent of the total burden of disease was attributable to alcohol consumption
– 2% to illicit drug use

Death follows the same patterns (again, according to the AIHW: “Tobacco smoking is the single most preventable cause of ill health and death” in Australia). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4832.0.55.001/):

“Alcohol is the second largest cause of drug-related deaths and hospitalisations in Australia (after tobacco)”.

That’s all very well and good, but if you put it in context as to percentage of how many of the users died… Like you know 1% of people that drink alcohol died of alcohol related problems etc.

There are always going to be a lot more people using legal drugs then illicit, until those figures are available that argument is moot.

georgesgenitals2:52 pm 15 Jun 10

Thanks JJ, interesting stuff. Not surprised about the alcohol and tobacco influence.

Sorry – should have prefaced that by saying ‘I can’t find the exact number of deaths, but …’

georgesgenitals said :

On a more serious note, anyone know how many deaths in Australia each year are directly attributable to illegal drug use?

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare does have a 2006 report available (http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/soduia06/soduia06.pdf), which states that:

– In 2003, it was estimated that 8% of the burden of disease in Australia was attributable to tobacco use
– 3% per cent of the total burden of disease was attributable to alcohol consumption
– 2% to illicit drug use

Death follows the same patterns (again, according to the AIHW: “Tobacco smoking is the single most preventable cause of ill health and death” in Australia). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4832.0.55.001/):

“Alcohol is the second largest cause of drug-related deaths and hospitalisations in Australia (after tobacco)”.

georgesgenitals1:03 pm 15 Jun 10

Jim Jones said :

cleo said :

phototext

I would really like you to find proof that drugs don’t hurt and destroy lives, I dare you to.

Cars can hurt and destroy lives, so we should ban them. Also, some people have peanut allergies, so we should ban peanuts too. Also, I have a friend who got skin cancer, so we should ban the sun.

You’ve seen a bird that is black, this doesn’t mean that all birds are blackbirds.

Yeah, I know a dude who crashed his car on the way to the hospital to get his skin cancer removed, because he was choking on a peanut.

On a more serious note, anyone know how many deaths in Australia each year are directly attributable to illegal drug use?

cleo said :

phototext

I would really like you to find proof that drugs don’t hurt and destroy lives, I dare you to.

Cars can hurt and destroy lives, so we should ban them. Also, some people have peanut allergies, so we should ban peanuts too. Also, I have a friend who got skin cancer, so we should ban the sun.

You’ve seen a bird that is black, this doesn’t mean that all birds are blackbirds.

Spideydog said :

Way off tangent ….. Still !!!!

That’s funny, I could have sworn that you stated, very clearly:

Spideydog said :

Every opinion is valid … I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

But apparently not.

Spideydog. “There is only one precaution I can think of that would cure it …… not taking them in the first place.”

I think you mean “prevention”. Not taking it in the first place would be a prevention not a cure, as you would not need curing if you never had the disease.

Pommy bastard11:52 am 15 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

CanberraCreative said :

Wrong again I’m afraid, “Bluelight” is the worlds leading ecstasy resource, and has a high degree of useful knowledge on harm minimisation, and also has a dedicated forum for Australia and New Zealand.

Bluelight is your source… you have no appreciation whatsoever for the strict standards of academia.

Bluelight is a public forum.
It is not peer reviewed nor are contributors vetted in any way.
It is run anonymously with servers hosted in the Netherlands and a domain name registered in Russia.
It is funded by anonymous donors.

IT IS NOT A SOURCE!
If you cited this as a source at University, you would face serious consequences.

Citing user led sources is acceptable when discussing non academic subjects such as street slang.

You then go on to cite several studies which show that drug use is a form of escapism, a point which no one here has been disputing.

Gosh, well done!!

increased odds ratio [95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.8] for cardiomyopathy, adjusting for age, body mass index, and renal failure. Methamphetamine use was associated with cardiomyopathy in young patients.

I have read the full articles thanks to a subscription through my University. Not sure if general public can view.

The point is these are real sources to support my points.

Gosh, another point which I had not has disputed, you really are a champ at answering questions you’ve not been asked, lets see how you got on with the questions I did ask;

1) Evidence of the point YOU raised that ecstasy is known as “meth”, by anyone other than yourself? No answer, no points.

2) Evidence of your point “Dehydration from the use of meth(amphetamines) is a common side effect and over compensation leading to water intoxication is the result often,”? No answer, no points.

3)Evidence that any one has said that; ” The deaths of Anna Wood and Howard Arkley can be blamed on everything else but the drugs”? No answer , no points.

Thoroughly Smashed11:24 am 15 Jun 10

fgzk said :

Even a lot longer if drug users get over the evil tag and look after themselves.

I can think of a good way to achieve this.

fgzk said :

Cleo your friend would have lived longer if he had access to clean injecting equipment and followed some simple principles. A lot longer if he had access to well made drugs. Even a lot longer if drug users get over the evil tag and look after themselves.

Plan ahead and get a couple of fit paks. Never share needles. Use a needle once. Keep a fit pak spare. Use the swabs. Keep everything clean. Dispose of everything in the supplied safe disposal containers.

Even with all those precautions there are all the other health ill effects that are caused simply by the drugs themselves. There is only one precaution I can think of that would cure it …… not taking them in the first place.

Cleo your friend would have lived longer if he had access to clean injecting equipment and followed some simple principles. A lot longer if he had access to well made drugs. Even a lot longer if drug users get over the evil tag and look after themselves.

Plan ahead and get a couple of fit paks. Never share needles. Use a needle once. Keep a fit pak spare. Use the swabs. Keep everything clean. Dispose of everything in the supplied safe disposal containers.

I’ve read through a bit of this thread, not much just enough to be confused about attitudes and theories as to why drugs should be legal or illegal, then all of sudden people not thinking opinions are valid… I think they might be on drugs.

He’s food for thought – let’s say the government has some underground bunker where they have secretly found out that drugs aren’t really that bad. These are the same people who sit back and see all the drug lords grow an empire and ruin there respective seats of government with drug wars.

They also see how much these people make, why wouldn’t they just go hey, that money would look better in the bottom line, let’s legalize?

If drug’s weren’t so bad, they would be legal, if drug’s were harmless they would not be illegal. People saying weed is not harmless? I’ve been stabbed by a guy that had gone loopy because he was off his head on weed.

I’ve tried to control people because they have gone off their nut on ice and were systematically smashing up the place and the people in it.

I’ve seen the people sitting on the streets of Garema Place trying to score their next hit, always on the nod.

It’s not harmless – it never will be. Gun’s are banned because people can use them to kill people, drink driving is bad because it can kill people, speeding is banned because it can kill people, drugs are bad because they change people’s state of mind and it will kill them…

georgesgenitals9:26 am 15 Jun 10

cleo said :

phototext

I would really like you to find proof that drugs don’t hurt and destroy lives, I dare you to.

Stand by for definition debate on what ‘drugs’ means.

Jim Jones said :

Spideydog said :

read the posts your replying too and actually understand them before replying.

You made responses that didn’t even address what I was saying, because apparently you couldn’t understand it.

You addressed nothing of what I was actually saying

What in all hell *are* you talking about then?

You’ve stated – quite clearly, that

Spideydog said :

Every opinion is valid. I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

It’s been quite painstakingly pointed out that no, not every opinion is valid. The dictionary definitions of valid have been provided and there isn’t one definition that seems to agree with your statement that

Spideydog said :

At no point did I say that every opinion is CORRECT, you moron

I mean, what is this ‘valid’ thing you keep referring to – what in all hell does it mean?

Let’s have a look at the dictionary yet again:

–adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic . (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

Nope – absolutely none of these apply whatsoever. I must not be reading the”we’re all perfect little snowflakes and no-one is ever wrong'” dictionary that you seem to have a copy of.

If what you are saying is ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion’, why are constantly invoking ‘validity’? It’s a priori true (and numbingly obvious) that ‘everyone has an opinion’, just as it is that not all opinions are valid.

The implication that all opinions should be considered equally (regardless of validity) is obviously quite stupid – when your car is broken, do you take it to the butcher to ask his ‘opinion’? When you’re sick, do you visit a grocer store to ask the checkout chick her ‘opinion’?

Looks like a particularly poor rhetorical ruse whereby an opinion is given weight (despite the fact it has no epistemological foundation or claim to validity) because we’re all special little flowers.

Way off tangent ….. Still !!!! It has been explained to you, even in simpleton terms and you still don’t get it. You are talking oranges, when I have been talking apples and you are still trying to argue a point that is not related to what I have said. Have a look at the context of the points I have made, that is the key. They are totally different to what you are trying to imply. Give it up, you are arguing with yourself.

cleo said :

phototext

I would really like you to find proof that drugs don’t hurt and destroy lives, I dare you to.

I would also like to see this proof.

phototext I would really like you to find proof that drugs don’t hurt and destroy lives, I dare you to.

phototext

He did work, right up to the last three months, he was a hard worker!

Drugs. Know All the Facts
http://www.drugs.health.gov.au

phototext

Oh you little bitch lol,truth always hurts, really got to you did I? He did have a choice, he just loved the effect of the drug the first time and was hooked, as I have stated in the previous post. You wouldn’t get job as a proof reader, yes he was a lovely person BEFORE he took drugs, and yes he was a druggie,it destroyed his mind and he died from liver cancer, due to Hep C, not a nice way to die, as the doctor told him, it’s the worse form of cancer as it is more painful than other forms. Yes he could have gotten treatment, but he ignored it, he said he could not believe what he had done to himself.

phototext: You really have no idea do you, you’ve swallowed the anti drug propaganda hook line and sinker.

No never swallowed hook line and sinker, I have seen it all for myself. It’s not hard to say NO, I too was a teenager, and was offered drugs. As Mark Parton said (why would anyone take drugs), or even try this poison.

I’m not saying that everyone who takes drugs gets hooked, I know some do recreational drugs, and some do work full-time, no one knows that they are drug users.

CanberraCreative7:39 pm 14 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

Wrong again I’m afraid, “Bluelight” is the worlds leading ecstasy resource, and has a high degree of useful knowledge on harm minimisation, and also has a dedicated forum for Australia and New Zealand.

Bluelight is your source… you have no appreciation whatsoever for the strict standards of academia.

Bluelight is a public forum.
It is not peer reviewed nor are contributors vetted in any way.
It is run anonymously with servers hosted in the Netherlands and a domain name registered in Russia.
It is funded by anonymous donors.

IT IS NOT A SOURCE!
If you cited this as a source at University, you would face serious consequences.

Here are real sources:

Article from British Medical Journal:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/332/7545/825?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=mdma&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

Shows a correlation between childhood behavioural problems, depression and use of MDMA. Point to escapism.

Also from the BMJ:

“Karen Leslie, a paediatrician at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children’s adolescent medicine division, says that substance abuse “is really a sign that there’s a lot of other things going on for a young person,” such as family dysfunction and mental health problems. “A third to a half of young people we see for substance abuse problems also have a concurrent anxiety, depression or mental health disorder,” she added.”

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/340/jun08_2/c3035?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cocaine&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

Again shows that drug use isn’t really a lifestyle choice, but a product of other problems. Again, supports my point about escapism.

And another from the BMJ:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/340/apr01_1/c1571?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cocaine&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

This one is detailed in it’s exploration of the effects of cocaine use.

Let’s move onto some other sources about the direct health risks.

From the American Journal of Medicine:

http://www.mdconsult.com/das/citation/body/205605377-4/jorg=journal&source=MI&sp=16850931&sid=1012810574/N/16850931/1.html?issn=0002-9343#abs

Key point from this article is “Methamphetamine users had a 3.7-fold increased odds ratio [95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.8] for cardiomyopathy, adjusting for age, body mass index, and renal failure. Methamphetamine use was associated with cardiomyopathy in young patients.

I have read the full articles thanks to a subscription through my University. Not sure if general public can view.

The point is these are real sources to support my points.

Pommy bastard6:22 pm 14 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

I was not using meth as slang for a particular drug.
I was using “meth” to refer to methamphetamines in general, of which one is ecstasy. It is a commonly used contraction of the word.

No its not, you are utterly wrong as ever.

I’d like to see any evidence you have of that, (of which, of course, you will produce none.)

As my quote shows a “meth bomb” is something sold as ecstasy, which turns out to be a different drug, known as “meth”.

CanberraCreative said :

Dehydration from the use of meth(amphetamines) is a common side effect and over compensation leading to water intoxication is the result often.

Wrong again I’m afraid, use of ecstasy, does not lead to “dehydration”. You know absolutely nothing of what you speak. It does however lead to hyperthermia, which is why people have to be very careful about their water balance.

CanberraCreative said :

The fact that your contributions to this debate have descended to arguing over street slangs only demonstrates your lack of substantive evidence to support your overall position.I also have to laugh that your citing sources from public forums in Russia now when there is so much more authoritative, peer reviewed evidence out there.

Wrong again I’m afraid, “Bluelight” is the worlds leading ecstasy resource, and has a high degree of useful knowledge on harm minimisation, and also has a dedicated forum for Australia and New Zealand.

Now lets contrast that with the “authoritative sources” you have “quoted”, which would be … none…

Oh sorry no, you did tell people to turn to burned out 70’s rockers Eric Claptout and Stevie Knickers for information.

Laughable.

If you want to bring some peer reviewed links to the debate, I’d love to see them. The ones which refer to ecstasy as “meth” would be a good start.

I work with young people at risk, and the sort of uninformed garbage that you put out is exactly the sort of disinformation which places kids at greater risk, why do you do it?

“Oh wake up!
I was not using meth as slang for a particular drug.
I was using “meth” to refer to methamphetamines in general, of which one is ecstasy. It is a commonly used contraction of the word.”

LOL.

Keep digging CC, you’ll find gold sooner or later.

CanberraCreative said :

Drugs are bad, mmmmkay.

CanberraCreative5:08 pm 14 Jun 10

phototext said :

Barack Obama – DRUGGIE!

In Barrack Obama’s own words:

“”It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy, teenage boys are frequently confused.”

“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind.”

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems.3272493.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359.html

Obama isn’t doing joints in the White House. His recollections confirm the theme of escapism for drug use and of illogical thought surrounding the decision to use drugs. Obama to admits to almost trying heroin but at that point rethought the elements he was mixing with.

Since you bring up Leonard Nimoy, perhaps you should read the autobiography by his son Adam Nimoy where he tells of the horrible effects of marijuana use on his life.

CanberraCreative2:53 pm 14 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

It was you was it not, when talking about two deaths “from ecstasy use”. Now anyone who works with young people, as I do, will tell you that “meth”, all though part of the correct chemical name for E, is NEVER used as street slang for ecstasy.

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=314840

So the point that it is YOU demonstrating profound ignorance remains proven and unchallenged.

You’d best stick to taking your advice from the likes of Eric Claptout and Stevie Nicks…

Oh wake up!
I was not using meth as slang for a particular drug.
I was using “meth” to refer to methamphetamines in general, of which one is ecstasy. It is a commonly used contraction of the word.
Dehydration from the use of meth(amphetamines) is a common side effect and over compensation leading to water intoxication is the result often.

The fact that your contributions to this debate have descended to arguing over street slangs only demonstrates your lack of substantive evidence to support your overall position.
I also have to laugh that your citing sources from public forums in Russia now when there is so much more authoritative, peer reviewed evidence out there.

CanberraCreative2:50 pm 14 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

It was you was it not, when talking about two deaths “from ecstasy use”. Now anyone who works with young people, as I do, will tell you that “meth”, all though part of the correct chemical name for E, is NEVER used as street slang for ecstasy.

Oh wake up!
I was not using meth as slang for a particular drug.
I was using “meth” to refer to methamphetamines in general, of which one is ecstasy. It is a commonly used contraction of the word.
Dehydration from the use of meth(amphetamines) is a common side effect and over compensation leading to water intoxication is the result often.

ooh, I almost forgot, Cleo’s mate, the one who was a lovely person – DRUGGIE!

You need be be careful with using labels to vilify people Cleo, you never know who it may tar.

So while I was cleaning up all the drug paraphernalia from last night, needles, Orchy bottle bongs and Shatner’s Bassoon (translation: cleaning out the kitty litter and putting the recycling into the appropriate bin) I started thinking about Cleo’s post.

“Diddums about the poor druggies who have to put up with the system, it would work if people wouldn’t take them in the first place!”

Nothing like a good label to vilify, “druggies”. Fabulous, that’s letting them have it.

As it works so well, it is about time we let those famous people, who have gotten away scot free from being told off, well and truly have their just deserts. Time to name names.

Say it loud and say it proud everyone, give those druggie scum what for.

John Lennon – DRUGGIE!

Sigmund Freud – DRUGGIE!

Lewis Carroll – DRUGGIE!

Sir Elton John – DRUGGIE!

Leonard Nimoy – DRUGGIE!

Prince Harry – DRUGGIE!

Buzz Aldrin – DRUGGIE!

Dick Cheney – DRUGGIE!

Bill Clinton – DRUGGIE!

Barack Obama – DRUGGIE!

No wonder the world is going to hell in a hand basket, we have a filthy DRUGGIE scumbag in the White House. Poor Nancy, all that hard work has come to nothing.

Pommy bastard said :

You’d best stick to taking your advice from the likes of Eric Claptout and Stevie Nicks…

Hunter S Thompson had more talent in his pinky finger than that lot combined.

“You would rather “live life”. Let me translate, you would rather coast through life in a drug induced haze to fill the voids in your life.

Hilarious.

You really have no idea do you, you’ve swallowed the anti drug propaganda hook line and sinker.

Sensible recreational occasional users of drugs do not exist, if someone takes drugs they exist in a drug induced haze 24/7.

The possibility that someone may take drugs for something other than to escape or to fill a void does not exist.

Taking drugs as part of a well balanced life does not happen. You take drugs and you are completely incapable of doing anything else, apart from taking more drugs.

People who take drugs, do not work, do not pay taxes, do not contribute in any way to society, they exist in a 24/7 drug haze, they are scum and leaches upon good hard working people. They are filth, thieves, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

As I have previously stated it has been a long time since I enjoyed such pleasures, and in fact I spent the day enjoying the sun, I went for a ride, took a walk, snapped some photographs and somehow had a pleasurable day without any drugs filling the void. Weird, who would have thought it possible.

“I want to thank you… you just fatally shot your entire argument by demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of drugs”

No, Pb is right on the money. MDMA is never referred to as “meth”, drug dealers know not to confuse branding. Sheesh, you’re just embarrassing yourself with such inane comments like the following: “Notice “meth” is in both those names as both MDMA (ecstasy) and ice are… meth-amphetamines (or meth for short).” Being pedantic does your argument no good at all.

Cleo:

“You have not read what I have said, some people have addictive personalities, and he had no previous experience about heroin, when it was at least twenty years ago when he started,”

I did read what you said, cheers. I too have an addictive personality, so I do know what that means.

“he had no previous experience about heroin”

I don’t see how this is an excuse. When I was young, over twenty years ago, information about heroin was well known, unless he had been living under a rock or not paying any attention at all, he made an informed choice as to what to shoot/ snort/ smoke and what those consequences may be.

“sounds like the drugs have affected your mind”

That would be it. Those damn drugs, destroying all my brain cells. How manage to function at all is a miracle.

“the only way to rid ourselves of drugs, is to dob a drug dealer in, and corrupt officials!”

Now your just being funny.

“Diddums about the poor druggies who have to put up with the system, it would work if people wouldn’t take them in the first place!”

Yeah, right on sister. Just say no!

Time to do some house work, put some washing on (translation: put some washing on)and finish last nights dishes.

Pommy bastard10:12 am 14 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

I want to thank you… you just fatally shot your entire argument by demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of drugs.

Confusing MDMA with crystal meth am I? No, not at all.
MDMA stands for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
Ice (crystal meth) is slang for N-methylamphetamine and dextromethamphetamine.

Notice “meth” is in both those names as both MDMA (ecstasy) and ice are… meth-amphetamines (or meth for short).

Now then, lets step back here, who was it that said:

I read the report. She would not have died from it if she hadn’t taken the MDMA in the first place. Water intoxication is a common cause of death for meth users.

It was you was it not, when talking about two deaths “from ecstasy use”. Now anyone who works with young people, as I do, will tell you that “meth”, all though part of the correct chemical name for E, is NEVER used as street slang for ecstasy.

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=314840

So the point that it is YOU demonstrating profound ignorance remains proven and unchallenged.

You’d best stick to taking your advice from the likes of Eric Claptout and Stevie Nicks…

phototext

You have not read what I have said, some people have addictive personalities, and he had no previous experience about heroin, when it was at least twenty years ago when he started, he was not stupid, sounds like the drugs have affected your mind, the only way to rid ourselves of drugs, is to dob a drug dealer in, and corrupt officials!
Diddums about the poor druggies who have to put up with the system, it would work if people wouldn’t take them in the first place!

CanberraCreative4:47 pm 13 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

Meth users? You don’t even know what drugs you are talking about now, you’re confusing MDMA with crystal meth (ICE), there are no recoded deaths from water intoxication with meth (although its use is high risk). So again, we see that your views have no substance.

I want to thank you… you just fatally shot your entire argument by demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of drugs.

Confusing MDMA with crystal meth am I? No, not at all.
MDMA stands for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
Ice (crystal meth) is slang for N-methylamphetamine and dextromethamphetamine.

Notice “meth” is in both those names as both MDMA (ecstasy) and ice are… meth-amphetamines (or meth for short).

You have demonstrated beyond all doubt that that the basis for your opinion on drugs is ignorance rather than sound knowledge.

phototext said :

Cleo: “You are only justifying yourselves for taking drugs.”

What’s to justify. I see no moral or ethical issues with people taking drugs. I do however have ethical and moral issues with the current system that doesn’t work and causes more harm than good.

CanberraCreative: You can base you knowledge on Google searches or from experience. As I have actually taken drugs (and against your fictional statistics lived to tell the story))I think what I say may have some merit.

Personally I’d rather live life than read about in the Lancet, and that counts for more than our current drug discussion. Time to go and enjoy the sun and the smells of autumn.

You would rather “live life”. Let me translate, you would rather coast through life in a drug induced haze to fill the voids in your life.

Fictional statistics? Hey, I didn’t think Beyond Blue, the Lancet, The Journal of Medicine and so on wrote fiction. I’ll trust peer reviewed sources and the experiences of those groups who help drug users any day.

CanberraCreative4:41 pm 13 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

Meth users? You don’t even know what drugs you are talking about now, you’re confusing MDMA with crystal meth (ICE), there are no recoded deaths from water intoxication with meth (although its use is high risk). So again, we see that your views have no substance.
[/quote>

I want to thank you… you just fatally shot your entire argument by demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of drugs.

Confusing MDMA with crystal meth am I? No, not at all.
MDMA stands for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
Ice (crystal meth) is slang for N-methylamphetamine and dextromethamphetamine.

Notice “meth” is in both those names as both MDMA (ecstasy) and ice are methamphetamines (or meth for short).

You have demonstrated beyond all doubt that that the basis for your opinion on drugs is ignorance rather than sound knowledge.

phototext said :

Cleo: “You are only justifying yourselves for taking drugs.”

What’s to justify. I see no moral or ethical issues with people taking drugs. I do however have ethical and moral issues with the current system that doesn’t work and causes more harm than good.

CanberraCreative: You can base you knowledge on Google searches or from experience. As I have actually taken drugs (and against your fictional statistics lived to tell the story))I think what I say may have some merit.

Personally I’d rather live life than read about in the Lancet, and that counts for more than our current drug discussion. Time to go and enjoy the sun and the smells of autumn. 😉

You would rather “live life”. Let me translate, you would rather coast through life in a drug induced haze to fill the voids in your life.

Fictional statistics? Hey, I didn’t think Beyond Blue, the Lancet, The Journal of Medicine and so on wrote fiction. I’ll trust peer reviewed sources and the experiences of those groups who help drug users any day.

CanberraCreative said :

Pommy bastard said :

You really are quite absurd aren’t you? Lets look at what was actually posted; “it was later determined that she had died from the effects of water intoxication secondary to use of MDMA (ecstasy)” and “Subsequently, it was discovered that the actual cause of her death was water intoxication.”.
.

I read the report. She would not have died from it if she hadn’t taken the MDMA in the first place. Water intoxication is a common cause of death for meth users.

Guess what, cigarette smokers don’t have “cigarette smoking” as the cause of death on their file, they have “heart attack” or something even though their smoking was the substantive cause.

Car accident victims don’t have “4WD crossing to wrong side of road” as cause of death, it’s “blunt force trauma”.

Absolutely no logic whatsoever to what you say.

CC you clearly need to do a little more research on illicit substances. Not asking you to like it but at least understand what you’re talking about.

Education is the key, people will always take drugs for whatever reasons and kids will experiment. If you think your teenagers aren’t or wont you’re only fooling yourself. Best you at least teach them how to do it safely. I don’t condone kids taking drugs at all, but if they have the knowledge at least they are likely to make ‘better’ decisions.

Take a look around the office on Tuesday, highly likely nearly half your colleagues were on some form of chemical over the weekend.

Some people drink, some smoke, some take drugs, (prescription or not) and some do all of the above. Bet you’d love charlie if you tried it. Just do your research first, Ive heard icing sugar really bites up your nose. Sure not everyone does drugs, i do think you’ll be surprised at the very few people who don’t.

On that note I think I’ll pour a wine, have a cigarette and contemplate a trip to Bolivia.

*end rant*

Spideydog said :

read the posts your replying too and actually understand them before replying.

You made responses that didn’t even address what I was saying, because apparently you couldn’t understand it.

You addressed nothing of what I was actually saying

What in all hell *are* you talking about then?

You’ve stated – quite clearly, that

Spideydog said :

Every opinion is valid. I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

It’s been quite painstakingly pointed out that no, not every opinion is valid. The dictionary definitions of valid have been provided and there isn’t one definition that seems to agree with your statement that

Spideydog said :

At no point did I say that every opinion is CORRECT, you moron

I mean, what is this ‘valid’ thing you keep referring to – what in all hell does it mean?

Let’s have a look at the dictionary yet again:

–adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic . (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

Nope – absolutely none of these apply whatsoever. I must not be reading the”we’re all perfect little snowflakes and no-one is ever wrong'” dictionary that you seem to have a copy of.

If what you are saying is ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion’, why are constantly invoking ‘validity’? It’s a priori true (and numbingly obvious) that ‘everyone has an opinion’, just as it is that not all opinions are valid.

The implication that all opinions should be considered equally (regardless of validity) is obviously quite stupid – when your car is broken, do you take it to the butcher to ask his ‘opinion’? When you’re sick, do you visit a grocer store to ask the checkout chick her ‘opinion’?

Looks like a particularly poor rhetorical ruse whereby an opinion is given weight (despite the fact it has no epistemological foundation or claim to validity) because we’re all special little flowers.

Cleo: “You are only justifying yourselves for taking drugs.”

What’s to justify. I see no moral or ethical issues with people taking drugs. I do however have ethical and moral issues with the current system that doesn’t work and causes more harm than good.

“he was at a party and he’d had a few beers”

I’m sorry about your mate, but if he was old enough to be drinking beers he is old enough to be fully informed about heroin and its addictive nature. He made a decision to shoot heroin and to then continue taking more and more drugs. His choice. Because he and others like him are too stupid to approach drugs sensibly, the other 99.9999% of sensible drug users must put up with a system that doesn’t work.

People have taken drugs in the past, will take drugs in the future. Just say no doesn’t work, the current system doesn’t work. The system needs to change to reflect reality and to make the taking of drugs safer. As far as I’m concerned anyone who insists on just say no as a solution has as much blood on their hands as the drug dealers. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

Billions of dollars are wasted each year on enforcing the current inane drug laws, who benefits from this, the Taliban, Burma Junta etc etc. No one else benefits from the current system, as that is the case isn’t it about time we tried something else, something that might make it safer, healthier and might save lives.

CanberraCreative: You can base you knowledge on Google searches or from experience. As I have actually taken drugs (and against your fictional statistics lived to tell the story))I think what I say may have some merit.

Personally I’d rather live life than read about in the Lancet, and that counts for more than our current drug discussion. Time to go and enjoy the sun and the smells of autumn. 😉

Pommy bastard7:57 am 13 Jun 10

Lets try again to make you see sense.

CanberraCreative said :

Pommy bastard said :

You really are quite absurd aren’t you? Lets look at what was actually posted; “it was later determined that she had died from the effects of water intoxication secondary to use of MDMA (ecstasy)” and “Subsequently, it was discovered that the actual cause of her death was water intoxication.”.
.

I read the report. She would not have died from it if she hadn’t taken the MDMA in the first place. Water intoxication is a common cause of death for meth users.

Absolutely no logic whatsoever to what you say.

Meth users? You don’t even know what drugs you are talking about now, you’re confusing MDMA with crystal meth (ICE), there are no recoded deaths from water intoxication with meth (although its use is high risk). So again, we see that your views have no substance.

My point was this CC. You stated;

CanberraCreative said :

3. Drug use is no different and is indeed as justifiable as driving a car or using a computer. Statistics showing that over half of all suicides are drug related can be ignored. The deaths of Anna Wood and Howard Arkley can be blamed on everything else but the drugs.

I replied with what had ACTUALLY been posted; “it was later determined that she had died from the effects of water intoxication secondary to use of MDMA (ecstasy)” and “Subsequently, it was discovered that the actual cause of her death was water intoxication.”.

Can you point out where any one has said that; The deaths of Anna Wood and Howard Arkley can be blamed on everything else but the drugs?

Of course you cannot, as, at best you are twisting what people have actually said to pervert their statements to your own end, at worse you are plain lying about what people have said.

I’ll ask you again, politely, please quote the actual words of people here if you are challenging them.

And I’ll predict again, politely, you will not be able to do this, and it will highlight the lack of substance to your views.

CanberraCreative12:55 am 13 Jun 10

Thumper said :

if you take drugs you will die.

or is that arsenic? I always get those two mixed up…

Yes, arsenic is toxic.
Arsenic trioxide though is actually an FDA approved drug marketed under the band name Trisenox RX.
Ironically, arsenic is a known human carcinogen yet Trisenox is actually used in the treatment of some cancers including leukaemia.
It should be noted that the manufacture acknowledges the carcinogenic risks and its use must outweigh the risks. Intensive monitoring is also required.

Search Results The Face of Meth, Part 1 – True Story
2 min 45 sec – 26 Feb 2008 – Uploaded by JesusFreakTN76
David Parnell shot himself while under the influence of meth. He literally split his face in two. He miraculously survived and is …
youtube.com – Related videos

I can’t believe some of the people on here, defending drugs, who are you kidding? You are only justifying yourselves for taking drugs. Some people have an addictive personality, and cannot stop, I know of a person who said that he would never take drugs, he was at a party and he’d had a few beers and a so called (mate) offered him heroin, it only took one go and he was hooked, he said it made him feel great, I can tell you it didn’t last for long, he went onto other drugs, ice, speed, he died last year due to drugs, and no it wasn’t an overdose. It not only affects the person taking drugs but the whole families, seeing what it is doing to the person, the personality changes, he was a lovely person before the drugs. I really hate drugs and have seen what it has do to many people.

http://www.justhealthtips.com/effect-of-drug-addicti...

CanberraCreative12:34 am 13 Jun 10

Katie said :

Canberra Creative said:

I think this quote sums it up perfectly:

“Against logic there is no armour like ignorance.”

– Laurence J. Peter
US educator & writer (1919 – 1988)

That’s sound advice mate – perhaps try applying it to your own opinions in this instance.

Phototext – bloody good stuff!

I do, hence I base my opinions on independent research. Articles from journals such as The Lancet and reports from NGOs and support organisations such as BeyondBlue. Hence I am using logic and research and am far from ignorant.

Given your only contribution to this debate is a personal attack without basis, it only serves to reveal your own ignorance.
I would though expect nothing less from someone whose contribution to a thread about ACTION Buses was:
“ACTION sucks, it has always sucked and I imagine it will continue to suck – sad but true.”
Wow, that adds so much to our society. Such an informed and constructive view.

Jim Jones said :

Spideydog said :

Anyways, I am not going to waste any more time on someone that can’t even understand what they are replying too. Agree to disagree, me thinks, or do you wish me to explain this one too ??

Typical response from someone whose every argument has been shot down in flames.

A nice big bout of hissy fit namecalling and then ‘I’m not going to waste my time’.

Not a ‘valid’ response at all (really, guy, look that word up in the dictionary).

All right I’ll bite ….. Have a look at your name calling, read the posts your replying too and actually understand them before replying. If I do recall correctly, it was you that had a hissy fit first about a post you didn’t agree with.

Shot down in flames …. hardly. You made responses that didn’t even address what I was saying, because apparently you couldn’t understand it. You shot yourself down in flames, because you were arguing with yourself !!! You addressed nothing of what I was actually saying. If that is shooting someone down in flames, then I suggest it is you, that needs to be acquainted with a dictionary.

Canberra Creative said:

I think this quote sums it up perfectly:

“Against logic there is no armour like ignorance.”

– Laurence J. Peter
US educator & writer (1919 – 1988)

That’s sound advice mate – perhaps try applying it to your own opinions in this instance.

Phototext – bloody good stuff!

if you take drugs you will die.

or is that arsenic? I always get those two mixed up…

CanberraCreative7:18 pm 12 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

You really are quite absurd aren’t you? Lets look at what was actually posted; “it was later determined that she had died from the effects of water intoxication secondary to use of MDMA (ecstasy)” and “Subsequently, it was discovered that the actual cause of her death was water intoxication.”.
.

I read the report. She would not have died from it if she hadn’t taken the MDMA in the first place. Water intoxication is a common cause of death for meth users.

Guess what, cigarette smokers don’t have “cigarette smoking” as the cause of death on their file, they have “heart attack” or something even though their smoking was the substantive cause.

Car accident victims don’t have “4WD crossing to wrong side of road” as cause of death, it’s “blunt force trauma”.

Absolutely no logic whatsoever to what you say.

georgesgenitals6:33 pm 12 Jun 10

Jim Jones said :

A nice big bout of hissy fit namecalling…

To be fair, personal attacks are something you do quite a lot, JJ. Whinging about others doing it is a bit rich.

georgesgenitals6:31 pm 12 Jun 10

I reckon this is like a lot of other things – there are people who can do something (such as use illegal drugs) in moderation, and no harm comes from it. There are others who just can’t handle it, and it damages or destroys their life. Drugs are illegal because of those who can’t handle it, and because of health issues it causes for some.

“snorting white powder purchased in a carpark in Dickson “

Pity the poor folks from 2902, what a drive just to get some icing sugar.

The world is shades of grey CreativeCanberra. Seeing everything in black/ white, good/ evil is a sure bet to ulcers and being called cranky pants behind your back.

To quote toriness, who said it so well:

“informed moderation is key, people!”

Spideydog said :

Anyways, I am not going to waste any more time on someone that can’t even understand what they are replying too. Agree to disagree, me thinks, or do you wish me to explain this one too ??

Typical response from someone whose every argument has been shot down in flames.

A nice big bout of hissy fit namecalling and then ‘I’m not going to waste my time’.

Not a ‘valid’ response at all (really, guy, look that word up in the dictionary).

Pommy bastard4:50 pm 12 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

It would seem that those for drug use have three things in common:

1. If the facts do not support or even disagree with you, just dismiss them. Oxford dictionary? f*** that!

No one has done that.

CanberraCreative said :

2. Having fun is paramount… and snorting white powder purchased in a carpark in Dickson is just as good and safe as having dinner with friends of family.

No one has said that, so you are making stuff up again, which just highlights the insubstantiality of your case. What is your fascination with Dickson carpark?

CanberraCreative said :

3. Drug use is no different and is indeed as justifiable as driving a car or using a computer.

Twisting what people have said to try to make some point really does indicate how insubstantial your veiws are. Try quoteing people if you are going to use their words against them. Of course you wont do this as you will then have to deal with what they actually wrote.

CanberraCreative said :

Statistics showing that over half of all suicides are drug related can be ignored. The deaths of Anna Wood and Howard Arkley can be blamed on everything else but the drugs.

You really are quite absurd aren’t you? Lets look at what was actually posted; “it was later determined that she had died from the effects of water intoxication secondary to use of MDMA (ecstasy)” and “Subsequently, it was discovered that the actual cause of her death was water intoxication.”.

So a would you like to contradict the coroners findings in some actual meaningful way, or is the truth so hard to deal with that you prefer to lie?

CanberraCreative said :

I think this quote sums it up perfectly:

“Against logic there is no armour like ignorance.”

Well you certainly demonstrate the proof of that saying.

Jim Jones said :

People “diss” opinions here, not because they “don’t like them”, but because they’re uninformed, ignorant and lacking in a foundation of knowledge.

According to you.

You show a very closed mind and look at the world through a pin prick. Everyone should confirm to your thinking otherwise they are just are just petty, uninformed views. Apparently someone with years of real experience, that is used to form an opinion, is “uninformed, ignorant and lacking in a foundation of knowledge” So the only real views that mean anything according to you, are those from text books and real world statistics……

Jim Jones said :

‘Accepting every opinion’ is the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard.

Once again you have some form of mental block, of not being able to understand basic english….. You have turned something said, into something completely different, including how the term valid had been used. On both occasions, they were not in the context you are are referring. LET ME PUT THIS IS SIMPLE TERMS – ACCEPTING AN OPINION IS NOT SAYING THAT YOU AGREE WITH IT. Is that too hard for you to understand.

READ the posts, then make an informed, non-ignorant reply.

Anyways, I am not going to waste any more time on someone that can’t even understand what they are replying too. Agree to disagree, me thinks, or do you wish me to explain this one too ??

All things in moderation CC.

including believing everything you’re told.

CanberraCreative3:19 pm 12 Jun 10

It would seem that those for drug use have three things in common:

1. If the facts do not support or even disagree with you, just dismiss them. Oxford dictionary? f*** that!

2. Having fun is paramount… and snorting white powder purchased in a carpark in Dickson is just as good and safe as having dinner with friends of family.

3. Drug use is no different and is indeed as justifiable as driving a car or using a computer. Statistics showing that over half of all suicides are drug related can be ignored. The deaths of Anna Wood and Howard Arkley can be blamed on everything else but the drugs.

I think this quote sums it up perfectly:

“Against logic there is no armour like ignorance.”

– Laurence J. Peter
US educator & writer (1919 – 1988)

Spideydog said :

I accept EVERY opinion on here, that’s what makes them valid.

Apparently RiotAct has turned into the Oprah show.

People “diss” opinions here, not because they “don’t like them”, but because they’re uninformed, ignorant and lacking in a foundation of knowledge.

Instead of having a sissy-fit about how we should all respect each other’s moronic, uninformed opinions. why don’t you head down to the local library and look up ‘valid’ in a dictionary (I’m operating on the safe assumption that there are no books in your house).

‘Accepting every opinion’ is the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard – you’ll quite happily fill your head with useless rubbish because you’re too much of a delicate little snowflake to reject untruth, and you’re touting this as if it is a *good* thing.

CanberraCreative said :

Spideydog said :

At no point did I say that every opinion is CORRECT, you moron.

Your exact words were: “Every opinion is valid…”

And what does “valid” mean?

Oxford Dictionary:

adjective 1 (of a reason, argument, etc.) well based or logical.
The American Heritage Dictionary:

Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
Random House Dictionary:

1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason. 2. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
Meriam-Webster dictionary of law:

having a legitimate basis

Therefore, while every one is certainly entitled to an opinion, not every opinion can logically be a valid one.

How about looking from a different angle instead of straight down the line. There are a lot more meaning’s of “valid” than just a couple of the examples you have provided.

Aside from that, I might also suggest that even with your finely selected “definitions” that NOWHERE does it say that “Valid” = absolute truth and CORRECT as you quoted me ……

Everyone can and is allowed to have an opinion. Whether that opinion is true or correct is another thing, I have never argued against that. I just don’t like it when an opinion is dissed purely because the other party doesn’t like it, because it doesn’t line up their line of thinking. I accept EVERY opinion on here, that’s what makes them valid. I don’t agree with every opinion here though.

Pommy bastard11:56 am 12 Jun 10

Anna Woods; “Anna Victoria Wood (27 May 1980 – 24 October 1995) was a schoolgirl from Sydney, Australia who died after taking an ecstasy tablet at a dance party. Her death was initially considered to be the result of a contaminated tablet; it was later determined that she had died from the effects of water intoxication secondary to use of MDMA (ecstasy). Her death was covered widely in the media and produced a moral panic on drug-use among adolescents. Much of this panic was about the fear that illicit drug-use was increasing and neglected the circumstances surrounding Anna Wood’s death.

Leah Betts ( a pommy case)

Leah Sarah Betts (1 November 1977[1] – 16 November 1995) was a schoolgirl from Latchingdon in Essex, England. She is notable for the extensive media coverage and moral panic that followed her death several days after her 18th birthday. On 11 November, she took an ecstasy tablet, and, four hours later, collapsed into a coma, from which she did not recover. Subsequently, it was discovered that the actual cause of her death was water intoxication.

Putting aside the obvious inference that these cases highlight the need to ban the dangerous substance H2O, isn’t the plain and simple lesson to be learned here that the idiotic pontificators who do the tired; “drugs are b-a-a-a-d, m’kay..” routine excarebate the risk to kids?

Substance use has been around since the dawn of man. No prohibition has ever been effective in ending it, even in countries with the death penalty for use, people still use.

Isn’t education based on fact, not lies and half truths, the way forward?

Oh, and the idiotic idea that someone may decide against using a substance as some hoary old 70’s rockers, who filled themselves to the gills on all the best drugs, and partied like there was no tomorrow for many years, now are saying; “Hey kids, don’t do it, it’s not coool maaaan..” is the most laughable idea evern posted here.

Hells_Bells7410:42 am 12 Jun 10

phototext – Hear hear on the good memories.

+1 big one.

Sigh.

“I addressed your point perfectly.”

Again, you failed to address my other points.

“It’s easy though for you to cast aside these famous drug users as rich, spoilt abusers of narcotics who could not possibly show redemption for their mistakes.”

Exactly where did I say that they where rich and spoilt abusers of narcotics? Perhaps you are referring to another post by someone else. Please pay attention.

Bringing up Anna Wood probably isn’t the best example to prove your point. If anything, her death highlights the extremely small chances of death from ingesting MDMA. Her death happened over 15 years ago and I think it would be safe enough to assume that in that time the amount MDMA ingested in Australia would run into the millions. There have been more ecstasy related deaths since then but the amount consumed and the subsequent deaths from ingestion of MDMA show it is far less dangerous than those who like to trot out Anna Wood would like us to believe.

To quote from Dr Botterill’s report “Death following ingestion of MDMA is uncommon”

Probably the most tragic aspect to Anna’s death is that she could so easily have been saved. Fear stopped her friends from acting appropriately to save her life, thankfully the Coroner, John Abernathy, made the following recommendation:

“That the Health Department of N.S.W. publishes a pamphlet aimed at those who
use MDMA (ecstasy), which clearly indicates the possible consequences of
MDMA ingestion, and the action to be taken by any person who becomes ill or
who may be with a person who becomes ill following ingestion of MDMA.”

People are going to take it, being informed is the key.

“Yes, people die in car and air accidents. These are essential methods of transport. Their use outweighs their risks.”

Really, every trip in a car or aircraft is essential? Lets take that a bit further, so we should only do things that are essential, there goes music, art, fiction, sightseeing, computers, tv, radio, the internet….. RiotACT. Sorry dear, no romantic dinner out tonight, we will stay home and consume protein bar # 4 with some steamed brussels sprouts, followed by an evening of doing nothing at all fun, perhaps fold our freshly washed hessian sacks . What a bundle of fun you must be at parties.

We will have agree to disagree on the “use outweighs their risks” with regards to drugs. I think that the use – enjoyment and education from drugs outweighs the risks. Its being a long time since I enjoyed such pleasures but well worth it, a lot of very good memories.

Pommy bastard8:32 am 12 Jun 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Great – who taught Pommy Fwit to use the bold tag? “Ooh, everybody look at me! My letters are thicker than yours, I’m ever so important!”

I can give you lessons if you’d like WMC, it’s not hard to do.

It’s a thread about drugs, hot on the heels of threads about speeding and random drug tests for drivers.

Yes, so making things up which imaginary unspecified people may say in some circumstance is helpful to this debate, how exactly?

If you can’t see the relevance, stick to taking hackneyed landscape shots. I understand there’s a real shortage of people who think they’re Ansell Adams over on Flickr.

Gosh, after me admitting on posting it that my sunset shot was “very cliched”, you come up with the blinding insight that it was “hackneyed”! Well done you, full marks for plagiarism observation.

What do you for an encore?

CanberraCreative1:51 am 12 Jun 10

Spideydog said :

At no point did I say that every opinion is CORRECT, you moron.

Your exact words were: “Every opinion is valid…”

And what does “valid” mean?

Oxford Dictionary: adjective 1 (of a reason, argument, etc.) well based or logical.
The American Heritage Dictionary: Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
Random House Dictionary: 1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason. 2. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
Meriam-Webster dictionary of law: having a legitimate basis

Therefore, while every one is certainly entitled to an opinion, not every opinion can logically be a valid one.

also water, sun, and people. bad bad bad.

informed moderation is key, people!

anything in excess is bad, m’kay?! including drugs, alcohol, food, sanctimoniousness and ignorance and boring-life-lack-of-experience.

Jim Jones said :

Spideydog said :

Every opinion is valid, … The beauty of free speech. I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

That really is worth quoting, just so I can continue to be astounded that someone actually thinks like this.

So everything is true, so long as you choose to believe it? That’s the most egregious misunderstanding of the notion of ‘free speech’ that I’ve ever heard.

Why bother posting on a forum when, by your own definition, every half-baked, uninformed stray thought is necessarily true? Hell you could even magically wish unicorns and fairies into existence just by having an ‘opinion’ that they’re real.

You clearly have absolutely no idea of what I was saying …. At no point did I say that every opinion is CORRECT, you moron. I was saying that everyone is entitled to an opinion. You are that closed minded that obviously an opinion is only allowed to be had if it’s backed up with proof. Wake up m8.

Your entire post was a tirade that was way off tangent and said nothing remotely close to the point I was making. An utter waste of all our time really.

Woody Mann-Caruso8:46 pm 11 Jun 10

Award for the Best Post; “Out of context stuff I imagine that imaginary people may say in an unrelated circumstance” goes to WMC.

Great – who taught Pommy Fwit to use the bold tag? “Ooh, everybody look at me! My letters are thicker than yours, I’m ever so important!”

It’s a thread about drugs, hot on the heels of threads about speeding and random drug tests for drivers. If you can’t see the relevance, stick to taking hackneyed landscape shots. I understand there’s a real shortage of people who think they’re Ansell Adams over on Flickr.

CanberraCreative7:28 pm 11 Jun 10

phototext said :

I wasn’t justifying, I was offering an alternative reason that people may take drugs to your narrow minded statement that people only take drugs to escape.

Interesting to look at the List of people who died in road accidents, perhaps we should ban cars too, airplanes anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_in_road_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_by_aircraft_misadventure

Good old Stevie, she took drug use to a new high of excess. Excess being the key word. Perhaps without the use of cocaine as a means to cope with the work etc etc she may have not made it all. She is still around though, still alive, surprising really, I thought drugs killed.

Kurt was always going end up on the wrong side of a shotgun

I addressed your point perfectly. You said that creativity was an alternative reason to escapism. Nicks, Cobian and Clapton all admitted escapism was one reason for their drug use. Cobain was troubled, but he shot himself while affected by two drugs. Had he not taken the illegal one, it would not have reacted with the legal drug to put him in such a frame of mind.
It’s easy though for you to cast aside these famous drug users as rich, spoilt abusers of narcotics who could not possibly show redemption for their mistakes.
So Google search Anna Wood and see if you can be as dismissive. She wasn’t a drug abuser, she just took a dose of ecstasy at a dance party and died because of it.

Yes, people die in car and air accidents. These are essential methods of transport. Their use outweighs their risks.
This is the same with prescriptions medicines and vaccines. All of them have side effects and possible dangerous reactions. Their use then is only when their benefit outweighs the risks and when their use is justified by a genuine need.

CanberraCreative7:25 pm 11 Jun 10

phototext said :

I wasn’t justifying, I was offering an alternative reason that people may take drugs to your narrow minded statement that people only take drugs to escape.
Interesting to look at the List of people who died in road accidents, perhaps we should ban cars too, airplanes anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_in_road_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_by_aircraft_misadventure

Good old Stevie, she took drug use to a new high of excess. Excess being the key word. Perhaps without the use of cocaine as a means to cope with the work etc etc she may have not made it all. She is still around though, still alive, surprising really, I thought drugs killed.

Kurt was always going end up on the wrong side of a shotgun, have you actually listened to any of Nirvana’s lyrics?

I addressed your point perfectly. You said that creativity was an alternative reason to escapism. Nicks, Cobian and Clapton all admitted escapism was one reason for their drug use. Cobain was troubled, but he shot himself while affected by two drugs. Had he not taken the illegal one, it would not have reacted with the legal drug to put him in such a frame of mind.
It’s easy though for you to cast aside these famous drug users as rich, spoilt abusers of narcotics who could no possible show redemption for their mistakes.
So Google search Anna Wood and see if you can be as dismissive. She wasn’t a drug abuser, she just took dose of ecstasy at a dance party and died.

Yes, people die in car and air accidents. These are essential methods of transport. Their use outweighs their risks.
This is the same with prescriptions medicines and vaccines. All of them have side effects and possible dangerous reactions. Their use then is only when their benefit outweighs the risks and when their use is justified by a genuine need.

Pommy bastard6:17 pm 11 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac fame used cocaine regularly. She now speaks out against drug use because now she’s had her fun she can be all sanctimonious about it to others…

Acclaimed musician Eric Clapton had his fun and took it all too far. So hmmm… drugs are bad kids ‘kay!

Kurt Cobain is a more tragic example of the dead junkie, course. He started out using weed in his teens before moving on to LSD and then heroin, so don’t use drugs kids, cos that’s what’ll happen to you!

Take a look at all the creative people on this list who have died drug related deaths:
John Beluschi, Tommy Bolin, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Brett Whiteley. All smack addicts, so don’t take that toke of weed kids, or you’ll end up famous but dead!!.

I wasn’t justifying, I was offering an alternative reason that people may take drugs to your narrow minded statement that people only take drugs to escape. I see you failed to address my other points.

As to the list of people – drug related deaths. Big woop. People die everyday. It’s a pretty small list too, when you think about all the drugs consumed in the world each day by musicians and artists, I’m surprised we have any music or art at all, shouldn’t they all be popping off from the evil drugs they consume.

Interesting to look at the List of people who died in road accidents, perhaps we should ban cars too, airplanes anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_in_road_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_by_aircraft_misadventure

Good old Stevie, she took drug use to a new high of excess. Excess being the key word. Perhaps without the use of cocaine as a means to cope with the work etc etc she may have not made it all. She is still around though, still alive, surprising really, I thought drugs killed.

Kurt was always going end up on the wrong side of a shotgun, have you actually listened to any of Nirvana’s lyrics?

Some very talented and creative people have died because of drugs, but, so what, its probably a far bet to assume that drugs did help in their creative output, would a long life led in dull greyness be better than one of creativity, even if part of that creative process leads to ones death.

The idea that people may die from the use of drugs doesn’t cut it as far as I’m concerned because there are so many other ways people may die and we accept them as part of the risk of living life. Educate, let people choose and live their life as they see fit, if no one else is harmed what is the problem. The whole cotton wool nanny state thing is idiotic.

I would write a list of famous creative people who have taken drugs and not died from them but it would just be too damn big. The world would also be a lot culturally poorer if some of those artists, musicians and writers hadn’t said yes.

CanberraCreative5:01 pm 11 Jun 10

phototext said :

“people don’t use drugs to use drugs… they use them to escape.”

Sorry, but that is so narrow minded. Art, music and literature have a long history of drugs being part of the creative process.

Justifying drug use as part of the creative process is a weak argument. Not because it isn’t true, but because so many creatives who have gone down that path have expressed regret over doing so. Other didn’t get the chance to regret it.

Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac fame used cocaine regularly. She now speaks out against drug use because although it helped her work and cope with tough schedules, it caused so many health and emotional problems for her. It almost robbed her of her ability to sing because of the damage it did to her nose and throat. She herself admitted that using it was in part to escape the pressures she was under.

Acclaimed musician Eric Clapton also regrets the terrible health and financial effects of his use of cocaine and heroin: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15412830

Kurt Cobain is a more tragic example of course. He started out using weed in his teens before moving on to LSD and then heroin. He also admitted using it as an escape, in his case, from the pain of a chronic stomach condition among other things. He took is on life in the end while high on vellum and heroin.

Take a look at all the creative people on this list who have died drug related deaths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drug-related_deaths
John Beluschi, Tommy Bolin, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Brett Whiteley and many many more.

“people don’t use drugs to use drugs… they use them to escape.”

Sorry, but that is so narrow minded. Art, music and literature have a long history of drugs being part of the creative process.

If people need drugs to escape, so what, what right do you have with your “perfect” life to judge their activity. If they do no harm to anyone else, where is the problem. Perhaps they have a fucked up life, with fucked up memories to oppress and drugs are the only escape from a dull and meaningless existence. Life isn’t all sunshine and lollipops for some people.

And why is it that some people have such problems with other people having fun on drugs. Get over it you uptight fascists. If you are not being harmed, if no one is being hurt by it, what difference does it make. Oh no, someone is having fun, demonize them and lock them up.

The law may say it is illegal, which obviously isn’t working, but ethically and morally the law is an ass. A waste of police resources, customs resources and makes it more dangerous for users. The only people winning in the just say no drug war are people like the Taliban, the Burma Junta and Mexican drug lords.

Legalise it, standardise it, tax it, and educate.

If some people end up with a ruined life because of drugs, they where going to end up like that anyway, it isn’t like it is hard to access drugs. Legalising solves a raft of problems associated with drugs, it can’t be any worse than the present system, but will never happen as both major parties are too scared of the Religious Right.

Pommy bastard1:38 pm 11 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

Gosh, If I had to find joy in life and a way to expand my life in snorting white powder bought in the back streets of Dickson, I would have to be a very small person indeed given the world offers so many other opportunities. If someone needs drugs to find joy in their life, gosh they must live a very poor life indeed.

Lovely weasel words there, very creative,.

If you can find me who said anyone HAD to do this to FIND JOY in their life I’d be interested. I love the “small person” put down too.

Obviously if someone finds pleasure in such substances that auutomatically bars them from experiencing the many other opprotunities the world offers. Oh no, it doesn’t does it? So why do you present it as an either / or?

This idea that someone “needs drugs to find joy in their life” only exists in your head. And again, I note your need to put down these people in your imagination as “gosh they must live a very poor life indeed”.

Ever heard the term “projection”? Your dengirating of others, and tarring with an indiscriminate broad brush are a classic example of it.

Hells_Bells741:33 pm 11 Jun 10

I just wanted to say after thinking about it, I may’ve exagerated a bit with my comment. I’m sure there were still a couple of parties, such as work ones or big 21st’s etc, or strangely enough nights out at Mooseheads/King O’s/PJ’s I didn’t see drugs, saw a more drinking edge. Still a drug though.

Thanks for the tips BimboGeek. Cocaine’s a funny one and the few people that I know like it regulary, you could never tell. Always professional types or business owners.

Are they pretty?

I think the only answer is to grow your own coca plant, and leave out the rat poison.

Kids stay off the coke, it’s cut with levamisole and the Australian Doctor newspaper is running articles about people starting to show up with not just a sniffle but with the inside of their sinuses, cheeks and EARS getting rotted out!

I only mention it because it’s science. Unlike the rat poison thing.

CanberraCreative12:23 pm 11 Jun 10

justin heywood said :

But how do you define a ‘learned’ opinion?

My original post defined it. One reached through logical consideration and application of the relevant evidence. Doesn’t mean the conclusion has to be correct, but it has foundations at least.

The bulk of pro-drug opinions on this page have obviously been formed by ignoring the evidence and reaching illogical conclusions.

Pommy bastard said :

CanberraCreative said :

Beserk Keyboard Warrior said :

We’re only on this rock for a very short time, so why not try a few mind-altering things for a bit of fun?

And your time on this rock may be shorter for it.

And your time on this rock may be enhanced, expanded, and filled with joy and insight for it.

But with the naysayers there is only one side to the coin…

Gosh, If I had to find joy in life and a way to expand my life in snorting white powder bought in the back streets of Dickson, I would have to be a very small person indeed given the world offers so many other opportunities. If someone needs drugs to find joy in their life, gosh they must live a very poor life indeed. And that goes back to my original point… people don’t use drugs to use drugs… they use them to escape.

I see both sides of the coin, both for and against drugs. I choose the side that has a stronger basis and evidence. Heck, I choose the side here that has any evidence at all. Both arguments/opinions are welcome in a free society. That they are welcome does not equate though with being a valid opinion.

Just to clarify – the ‘you’ in my previous post was impersonal and not directed at justin heywood (I agree with the bulk of your previous post – particularly “each side backing their argument with logic, research and numerous citations”), but I realise the way I phrased it is a tad ambiguous.

justin heywood said :

In totalitarian states, there is only one opinion that matters -that of the State. In a healthy society, people should be able to express their opinions without fear of abuse or worse. Isn’t that what this site is all about?

RiotAct is hardly a Totalitarian State. There’s no excuse for this pansy-arsed “we’re all wonderful little daffodils and all opinions are equally valid” crap.

The definition of a ‘learned’ opinion is pretty obvious in most cases – a lawyer has an educational and professional background in law and will be more ‘learned’ on the subject, similarly with experts in most fields. In other cases where a professional/educational background isn’t evident, evidence, research, reason and logic are always preferable over personal (or second-hand) anecdote.

Debate and discussion is all fine and well, but opinions that aren’t supported by evidence, reason or logic are next to useless – they add nothing and, indeed, muddy the water by introducing spurious data.

Make your point, fine. But if there’s no evidence or other reason to support your ‘opinion’, why should anyone bother listening to you?

This isn’t Oprah.

I like to think of it more as a benevolent dictatorship.

justin heywood10:32 am 11 Jun 10

Remaining OT;

CanberraCreative said :

A valid opinion is one reached through logical consideration, with regard to the applicable evidence available. THe conclusion may be wrong but the opinion is a learned one.

But how do you define a ‘learned’ opinion? THAT is when subjectivity arrives in any argument. In science, their are numerous controversies, each side backing their argument with logic, research and numerous citations. One (or both) sides is by necessity wrong, despite their logic and supporting evidence. Healthy debate, consideration of other’s opinion and further research often resolves the issue.

In totalitarian states, there is only one opinion that matters -that of the State. In a healthy society, people should be able to express their opinions without fear of abuse or worse. Isn’t that what this site is all about?

Pommy bastard10:24 am 11 Jun 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

(And I wonder what Rioters would make of this case? No doubt the speeders and the crackheads will blame the alcohol, and then they’ll give each other a big hug. Because they’re good drivers. They don’t drink and drive. Just speed, or drive stoned, or both. Sorry, ‘speed safely’ and ‘drive while stoned safely’.)

Award for the Best Post; “Out of context stuff I imagine that imaginary people may say in an unrelated circumstance” goes to WMC.

Woody Mann-Caruso9:53 am 11 Jun 10

(And I wonder what Rioters would make of this case? No doubt the speeders and the crackheads will blame the alcohol, and then they’ll give each other a big hug. Because they’re good drivers. They don’t drink and drive. Just speed, or drive stoned, or both. Sorry, ‘speed safely’ and ‘drive while stoned safely’.)

Woody Mann-Caruso9:30 am 11 Jun 10

Dead Greeks sorted this all out for you long ago.

“Every opinion is valid. I call it ‘absolute relativism’.”
“What about an opinion that all other opinions are invalid?”
*crickets*

Spideydog said :

Every opinion is valid, … The beauty of free speech. I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

That really is worth quoting, just so I can continue to be astounded that someone actually thinks like this.

So everything is true, so long as you choose to believe it? That’s the most egregious misunderstanding of the notion of ‘free speech’ that I’ve ever heard.

Why bother posting on a forum when, by your own definition, every half-baked, uninformed stray thought is necessarily true? Hell you could even magically wish unicorns and fairies into existence just by having an ‘opinion’ that they’re real.

Pommy bastard8:37 am 11 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

Beserk Keyboard Warrior said :

We’re only on this rock for a very short time, so why not try a few mind-altering things for a bit of fun?

And your time on this rock may be shorter for it.

And your time on this rock may be enhanced, expanded, and filled with joy and insight for it.

But with the naysayers there is only one side to the coin…

CanberraCreative2:57 am 11 Jun 10

Spideydog said :

Jim Jones said :

The sooner Western society gets over this ‘all opinions are valid’ craze the better. There are some opinions that are misinformed, unbalanced and driven by kneejerk emotive reaction rather than evidence, reason and logic – they’re not valid in the slightest just because they happen to be ‘an opinion’.

Thats a classic statement from a person that just doesn’t like it when other people have an opinion different to them.

Every opinion is valid, you can CHOOSE to believe it is “misinformed, unbalanced and driven by kneejerk emotive reaction” The beauty of free speech. I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

Your stated opinion is valid, I just CHOOSE to believe it is misinformed and unbalanced without any reason and logic 🙂

No, not every opinion is “valid”. Every opinion deserves to be listened to and considered, but is not necessarily valid.
By your logic of every opinion being valid, we should say that Hitler’s opinion that Jews were responsible for Germany’s defeat in WWI was valid. I dare you to say that’s a valid opinion! I bet you can’t.
And just imagine where the law would be if judges said every opinion was valid. No, their job is to rule which opinion on the law is correct.

A valid opinion is one reached through logical consideration, with regard to the applicable evidence available. THe conclusion may be wrong but the opinion is a learned one.

Spideydog said :

Every opinion is valid, you can CHOOSE to believe it is “misinformed, unbalanced and driven by kneejerk emotive reaction” The beauty of free speech. I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

Every opinion is valid, in that it is someone’s opinion. That doesn’t make their opinion a valid statement in an of itself. Most often on the internets people opinions are wrong.

At least, that’s what Jesus told me.

Jim Jones said :

The sooner Western society gets over this ‘all opinions are valid’ craze the better. There are some opinions that are misinformed, unbalanced and driven by kneejerk emotive reaction rather than evidence, reason and logic – they’re not valid in the slightest just because they happen to be ‘an opinion’.

Thats a classic statement from a person that just doesn’t like it when other people have an opinion different to them.

Every opinion is valid, you can CHOOSE to believe it is “misinformed, unbalanced and driven by kneejerk emotive reaction” The beauty of free speech. I don’t see why I would need scientific and statistical evidence to make an opinion valid.

Your stated opinion is valid, I just CHOOSE to believe it is misinformed and unbalanced without any reason and logic 🙂

The sooner Western society gets over this ‘all opinions are valid’ craze the better. There are some opinions that are misinformed, unbalanced and driven by kneejerk emotive reaction rather than evidence, reason and logic – they’re not valid in the slightest just because they happen to be ‘an opinion’.

Sorry folks, I just had to laugh… An excellent example of the misinformation and water-muddying, biased, nonsense that perpetuates this ridicuous situation is to the right of this thread!!

I’m looking at an Advert that states “Get the facts straight, Click for your FREE marijuana booklet” – the website is DRUGFREEWORLD.ORG!!!! Hahaha, we may get all serious about this, but some things you just have to smile at. ‘Reefer madness’ continues…

smpc said :

Spideydog said :

Mr_Shab said :

The nasties you get in drugs are probably more down to the highly dubious production methods of your average backyard lab. Even then though, what you’re more likely to get is some bogus gear than something nasty.

Tell that to the people and families of the ones who have died because of dodgy ingredients !!!!

A handful of stories, however sad they might be, are not necessarily representative of the whole. Your point is called an appeal to emotion; it doesn’t actually refute Mr_Shab’s point.

I don’t give flying fig if it is “appeal to emotion” it’s still a valid opinion, Nor do I care that it apparently doesn’t refute the Mr_Shab’s point. Sorry if I use “emotive” front line REAL experience in giving my opinion. The best opinions are those of real life experience, not what you have read in the media ……. Just for your information, it’s not just “a handful of stories” its many years experience dealing with these issues FIRST HAND from all different angles and points of view. Given that, I am confident that my experience is a significant snapshot and able to form a valid view.

I did try and get back on track CC (re your original question)! lol…

And this subject always tends to bring out an entire spectrum of opinions. Some informed, some just repeating what they have read somewhere. I think the main problem is the actual word itself; ‘drugs’. It just invokes an emotional reaction. It is such an all-encompassing word that is is very difficult to have a sensible and grown up discussion about a topic that affects society the world over.

Not helped by the few trolls who have a couple of cones and a fat one and then giggle while typing blithering nonsense. And i do say that from personal experience….. 🙂

As I mentioned, in reply to a throw away statement about being ‘sooooooo naive’, I have had friends and close family who’s lives have been wrecked due to ‘drugs’ (that includes alcohol by the way). But also friends who’s lives have been wrecked due to nothing to do with drugs! However, I also have friends and aquaintences who have smoked pot, taken LSD, snorted speed, had the odd line of coke and popped ecstacy sometimes; and they are in their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s. One guy I know (father of a mate) has happily chuffed weed since his mid twenties and he is 68!!

As with everything in life, it comes down to the individuals. Alcohol has probably wrecked more lives than most other things (substance & non-substance); but I haven’t heard one person saying that alcohol should be made illegal. Maybe because we tried doing that before and have learnt the lesson that making it illegal doesn’t work and in fact creates more crime as the demand remains which is then met by criminals. When will we learn that alcohol is just a ‘drug’ like the ones that are illegal (it can kill in small amounts, you can overdose on it, you can become addicted to it and it causes huge social ills – just go into Civic on a Friday/Saturday night to see the evidence!) and that there should be a common ‘drugs’ system that works. Because I think almost all of us (coving most opinions) will agree that what we have at the moment simply is not working.

My view is that is doesn’t matter how illegal you make ‘drugs’ there will be ALWAYS be a demand (for whatever reason). And as such, the more illegal you make them the greater the profits for those who will use the money for bad things – it really isn’t rocket science and the evidence is in what happened with prohibition. However, while decision makers are swayed by anonymous throw-away one liners like ‘And your time on this rock may be shorter for it.’ we will just continue to live in a society with its head in sand pretending that all is well because ‘it is against the law’.

CanberraCreative4:35 pm 10 Jun 10

Beserk Keyboard Warrior said :

We’re only on this rock for a very short time, so why not try a few mind-altering things for a bit of fun?

And your time on this rock may be shorter for it.

Beserk Keyboard Warrior4:10 pm 10 Jun 10

We’re only on this rock for a very short time, so why not try a few mind-altering things for a bit of fun?

Very amused by the caltex employee name dropping. Ted and Sanjay must be feeling like celebrities right now!

After a bong who cares what the assholes say.

Well the guy on the day shift’s name is Ted.

So maybe I stand corrected and perhaps it is I who has the ignorant attitude in my assumption of someones ignorance related to ethnic stereotyping, in which case I should take a long hard look at myself and plead for forgiveness.

My head hurts.

I’m sorry.

AngryHenry said :

Yet ignorant attitudes towards service station employees is acceptible? The guy that works at Kambah caltex as far as I know is named Ted.

Not to nitpick, but there is a guy who works some nights, named Sanjay. Maybe its not ‘ignorant attitude’, but maybe he knows the employees name?

Mmmmmm Drugs are Bad MmmmOK!

Skidd Marx said :

Ignorant attitudes towards drugs such as the one displayed by Mr.Parton can actually perpetuate drug use.

Example: Johnny is constantly told by his elders things like “cannabis is dangerous, one ecstacy tablet can kill you etc etc”

Pretty soon, adolescent life experience makes Johnny realise that such warnings are massively exaggerated, and therefore future advice is taken with great scepticism. Johnny is now more curious about drugs than ever, and suspects that they are all rather harmless. Before too long Johnny is donning the white hoodie and threatening poor Sanjay down at the Kambah Caltex with a rambo knife in an attempt to fund his thirst for intravenously-delivered meth.

Yet ignorant attitudes towards service station employees is acceptible? The guy that works at Kambah caltex as far as I know is named Ted.

Otherwise point taken.

Ignorant attitudes towards drugs such as the one displayed by Mr.Parton can actually perpetuate drug use.

Example: Johnny is constantly told by his elders things like “cannabis is dangerous, one ecstacy tablet can kill you etc etc”

Pretty soon, adolescent life experience makes Johnny realise that such warnings are massively exaggerated, and therefore future advice is taken with great scepticism. Johnny is now more curious about drugs than ever, and suspects that they are all rather harmless. Before too long Johnny is donning the white hoodie and threatening poor Sanjay down at the Kambah Caltex with a rambo knife in an attempt to fund his thirst for intravenously-delivered meth.

Pommy bastard said :

I’ve heard that they are also cutting… Cannabis with thyme…

It would add a certain something to a stew.

Thoroughly Smashed11:51 am 10 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

CanberraCreative said :

[
I would suggest you’re being very selective in what evidence you’re choosing to be cognisant of. Need I remind you that many amphetamines are cut with other chemicals which will cause immediate harm even in a single dose.. rat poison for example.

Perhaps if we follow your logic, then the safe sex message is also just propaganda, designed to benefit the manufacturers of prophylactics.

Right on brother! Very “creative”!! I’ve heard that they are also cutting ICE with asbestos, Heroin with more heroin, Cannabis with thyme, Ecstasy with bubonic plague, and cocaine with dandruff from the devil.

And I have exactly the same amount of proof of this as you do!!

And it’s the same as running naked down Redfern High Street bollock naked with $100 bills dropping out of your rear, screaming “rape me”. It’s your own fault if you get an illness after it.

Reminds me of a TISM song.

Choose bad smack, put Omo in your coke,
Cold power in your hoota, Drive in your dope;
Choose bad smack, don’t choose life:
Leaves you high, and your clothes whiter than white.

Grrrr said :

AngryHenry said :

Don’t knock it until you try it!

Or if you want to play it safe read some Hunter S Thompson or listen to some Bill Hicks.

So, does this “you have to have personally experienced it” philosophy extend to chroming, petrol sniffing, etc? Sounds like you’re trying to prove the first poll option correct.

Perhaps not the brightest idea to hold up a man who committed suicide, and someone who died at 32 of cancer as teachers of the ways of the world, no?

Not holding them up as teachers in the ways of the world at all. Just as people who have given pretty good accounts of taking drugs first hand.

I actually was inferring that if you didn’t want to personally experience it and wanted an insight into drug use, these guys have given pretty vivid and descriptive accounts.

So come down off your high horse my friend (no pun intended).

Mark is a black belt at driving talkback as we can all see from the reaction in this thread.

Pommy bastard11:04 am 10 Jun 10

CanberraCreative said :

[
I would suggest you’re being very selective in what evidence you’re choosing to be cognisant of. Need I remind you that many amphetamines are cut with other chemicals which will cause immediate harm even in a single dose.. rat poison for example.

Perhaps if we follow your logic, then the safe sex message is also just propaganda, designed to benefit the manufacturers of prophylactics.

Right on brother! Very “creative”!! I’ve heard that they are also cutting ICE with asbestos, Heroin with more heroin, Cannabis with thyme, Ecstasy with bubonic plague, and cocaine with dandruff from the devil.

And I have exactly the same amount of proof of this as you do!!

And it’s the same as running naked down Redfern High Street bollock naked with $100 bills dropping out of your rear, screaming “rape me”. It’s your own fault if you get an illness after it.

Holden Caulfield10:48 am 10 Jun 10

ahappychappy said :

Educate instead of demonize and you might get a bit of a better result.

Copy, then paste into any road user discussion.

Like a lot of things in life the obvious common sense approach is the one left alone.

Similarly, there will always be a percentage of society that will be risk takers, no matter what they have learned.

ahappychappy9:59 am 10 Jun 10

Spideydog said :

Mr_Shab said :

The nasties you get in drugs are probably more down to the highly dubious production methods of your average backyard lab. Even then though, what you’re more likely to get is some bogus gear than something nasty.

Tell that to the people and families of the ones who have died because of dodgy ingredients !!!!

No – I won’t tell anyone that their loved one died due to dodgy ingredients. But I will tell them that their loved one died due to taking too much.

Half the kids who end up in the ED from pills are there because they dumped 10 pills in 2 minutes and have no knowledge of what they’re doing. Educate instead of demonize and you might get a bit of a better result.

I’m a user of drugs, I’ll happily smoke a bit of pot after work each day, and have taken a couple of E’s in my 8 years as an adult. I’m aware of the risks, part of the reason I havent tried cocaine, heroin, speed etc. I classify myself as a ‘social’ user, rather than an addict. The reason I use drugs isnt to escape reality, but rather to enhance it. Weed is a depressant (similarly to alcohol) and can work extremely well to eliviate stress, and honestly I dont see the difference between me having a couple of billies before dinner and someone having a few wines/beers/scotches (I know people who will have about 10 drinks before bed each night).
I think glennmatthew is right on the ball with this. Legalisation could prove to be of benefit in the long run. Tobacco (ONE of the leading causes of death and illness in Australia) is legal and if it were ever to be banned, the govt would lose a LOT of money in taxes. So why can’t the government produce these drugs themselves? This would mean a lot of things in terms of drug abuse. For starters, they could control the strength and purity of the drugs, meaning no more nasty chemicals, which are often the cause of death with illicit drugs. They could also tax the hell out of it, just like tobacco and alcohol, giving them more money to invest in health care (mental and physical) etc. Then there is also the plus side that, if these drugs – and I’m primarily talking weed, E’s, cocaine and amphetamines – were cheaper and available at your local pharmacy, crime relating to drugs would decrease since producers wouldnt be able to compete with large government companies.
There is of course the argument that having easy access to cheap drugs will cause an increase in drug abuse. To that, I can only say that I honestly don’t see there being that large a difference. Yes, people can get them easier, but then, its not like its difficult to get your hands on them in Canberra at the moment (I know 6 people I can call to get me weed, and a few of them have contacts for the harder stuff). The Netherlands native population actually has quite a low rate of drug use, showing that legalisation and widespread abuse aren’t correlated.

glennmatthew1:20 am 10 Jun 10

I believe we should have legalised recreational drugs, yet controlled by the government and dispensed by local pharmacists. I’m male in my early 20s, and I don’t take drugs, drink nor smoke. There are a few reasons why I believe we should support controlled drug/medicine intake:

1) Recreational drugs can affect prescription medication, and this mix should be managed by a professional. My housemate, for instance, complains her anti-depressants no longer work; coincidentally she started smoking pot daily, since she has lapsed back into depression.

2) Having open, honest clarity within the community means we can manage risk. This would allow the community to make measured, adult decisions about “having fun” against responsibilities such as operating machinery, the privilege of driving a car, etc.

3) It could allow legislation to draw a clear line in the sand, so we can accurately control drug-related traffic offenses.

4) We can effectively tax users who are creating extra demand on the health system, for using drugs that are statistically found to have negative and measurable health implications, such as cigarettes do now.

Or my favourite option would be to ban drugs, alcohol and cigarettes altogether.

Jim Jones said :

Anybody who doesn’t understand why people would do cocaine has obviously never tried cocaine.

Quoted for truth.

Mark seems a bit dumb, maybe its because cocaine is addictive and they get a “high” from taking it?

Spideydog said :

Mr_Shab said :

The nasties you get in drugs are probably more down to the highly dubious production methods of your average backyard lab. Even then though, what you’re more likely to get is some bogus gear than something nasty.

Tell that to the people and families of the ones who have died because of dodgy ingredients !!!!

A handful of stories, however sad they might be, are not necessarily representative of the whole. Your point is called an appeal to emotion; it doesn’t actually refute Mr_Shab’s point.

I haven’t personally taken illegal drugs since a couple of joints in my teens, but some of the attitudes towards drugs exhibited here would be funny if they weren’t the types of views determining governments’ policies. I had thought that a lot of this thinking had gone out of fashion until I heard the ‘if only I hadn’t stated smoking marijuana…’ ads on the radio. Reefer madness indeed!

Drugs of addiction are highly problematic, but let’s not forget that a lot of adverse consequences flow from criminalisation itself. As things stand, alcohol and tobacco kill far more people than heroin or cocaine. Saying, ‘well that’s because not many people take heroin or cocaine because it’s illegal!’ isn’t actually evaluating the facts. It’s just buying the prohibitionist line without thinking about it.

By any objective measure, the ‘war on drugs’ has failed, and it’s not just cokeheads saying so. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/judge-calls-for-drugs-to-be-legalised/story-fn3dxity-1225872259076.

ConanofCooma said “The facts are available, it’s just that the people in power choose to ignore them. The majority of illicit drugs are no where near as dangerous as either ciggarettes or alcohol, and yet the users are demonised”

That’s a load of generalist, boring, self justification of a soon-to-be addict/already an addict. The first few years of using drugs never hurt, and it is always very easy to expoliate how over-the-top the ads are, facts, lookatme I do drugs and I’m cool etc. These users, < 5 years, aren't the statistics. It's after 5 years or so that the effect starts to show and careers and lives start to crash. That's when the brain wears out. Heavy alchohol takes a bit longer and this tends to wear out the liver and brain. Smoking tends to stuff up the rest of the body after even longer. As with all drugs, depends on your usage and your body chemical tolerance. In my own boring little world, I have more dead friends from drugs (grass-suicide, grass-driving, herion – overdose) than cigarettes and alchohol combined (1 festive old aunt who drank and smoked like mad – lived to 60's, but died with quarter lung).
Personally I don't really think people who take illicit drugs are dumb, they are just incredibly boring and personality-free and feel they can disguise it through chemicals. Unfortunately it only works on themselves.

Seeing the “Might be more fun and less harmful than some say” vote out in front now makes me understand why we get idiots posting on this site.

“Surely the ultimate question must be why do people want to alter their consciousness with drugs and alcohol.”

Because it’s fun.

Spidey; just for info, I lost a friend at 21 to drink-driving (he was not the driver).

Another friend is in an institution with paranoid schizophrenia after taking LSD and basically never came down.

My young sister developed chronic depression, and still gets relapses now, which a psychologist said was probably due to her Ecstacy habit.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I have another friend who lost his job, family and health through his gambling addiction.

And finally, in my list, another friend who is a drugs counsellor in WA (who also, incidently, has MS).

So, maybe not that naive….

Mr_Shab said :

The nasties you get in drugs are probably more down to the highly dubious production methods of your average backyard lab. Even then though, what you’re more likely to get is some bogus gear than something nasty.

Tell that to the people and families of the ones who have died because of dodgy ingredients !!!!

CanberraCreative7:40 pm 09 Jun 10

Mr_Shab said :

+1 Juice Terry.

I can’t say there’s a whole lot of evidence out there for pills or ice cut with rat poison. If you wanted to put rat poison in yr speed, you’d have to grind up the stuff first. Why not just put glucodin or icing sugar in and save yourself the trouble?

The nasties you get in drugs are probably more down to the highly dubious production methods of your average backyard lab. Even then though, what you’re more likely to get is some bogus gear than something nasty.

The problems seem to occur when your dealer promises you drug A, but what you’re getting is some drug B (with a smigin of drug C). You’ve gobbed half a dozen tabs of drug A before and had a blast. You do the same with drug B and 30 minutes later they’re frying eggs on your forehead in the ED.

Hydrogen cyanide is the chemical. Found in cigarettes (which are legal) and mistakenly added to some batches of meth a while back which did kill people who took a large enough dose. Drug dealers aren’t smart, they may not realise the danger of the chemicals they add. Their motivation is profit, very little of the drugs on the market are high purity.

Animal tranquillisers, paint thinners and drain cleaners and a host of other chemicals are used to manufacture these drugs. Ammonia and chlorine are popular ones. There’s a reason hazchem crews attend drug raids so often.
Only trace amounts may make it into the final tiny tablet or sachet of powder.

+1 Juice Terry.

I can’t say there’s a whole lot of evidence out there for pills or ice cut with rat poison. If you wanted to put rat poison in yr speed, you’d have to grind up the stuff first. Why not just put glucodin or icing sugar in and save yourself the trouble?

The nasties you get in drugs are probably more down to the highly dubious production methods of your average backyard lab. Even then though, what you’re more likely to get is some bogus gear than something nasty.

The problems seem to occur when your dealer promises you drug A, but what you’re getting is some drug B (with a smigin of drug C). You’ve gobbed half a dozen tabs of drug A before and had a blast. You do the same with drug B and 30 minutes later they’re frying eggs on your forehead in the ED.

Fair play CC, and apologies if I hyjacked the thread a bit – I MUST get a life 🙂

Good question though; “why do people want to alter their consciousness with drugs and alcohol?”….
Escapeism – to temporarily block out the stresses in their lives?
Fun – it can be quite good fun being blitzed?
Supress inhibitions – a bit of dutch courage?
Sleep – to try and help get to sleep?
Medication – some MS suffers say cannabis helps?
Rebelion – kids taking things they shouldn’t as an act of rebelion against society/parents?
Experimentation – just seeing what its like?
Religion – Rastafarians use Cannabis spritually, Christians use wine spritially (although admittedly they dont get hammered on it – or not that I know!!) and native Americans use the peyote cactus in religious ceremonies to induce spritual experiences….

You would probably find almost any reason. But the most common are probably escapism and fun.

Sooooo naive people. Sigh, try working the frontline of society and seeing the affect of drugs on the community first hand, and say that drugs aren’t as bad as they are made out …… Health, financial issues, family issues, mental health (BIG issue this one).

The only people that seem to care are the effected families and the front line community/emergency workers that have to deal with the drug fall out, the same issues some of you lot don’t have to or choose to ignore.

Why do people keep giving that clown airtime?

CanberraCreative6:31 pm 09 Jun 10

ex-vectis said :

define ‘harm’. If Opiates are so harmful why is it that someone can be addicted to Heroin and yet hold down a job? How can doctors prescribe opiate-based based drugs for pain relief?

They may hold down a job, but consider all the industrial and workplace accidents that were the result of people under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
As for doctors prescribing opiates, that’s a tough argument. Doctors prescribe lithium which even used properly causes severe side effects. It’s a matter of balancing the gains vs the risks.

But this is all very off track from my original question. Let’s put aside the legal and medical arguments which have been raging for so long. Surely the ultimate question must be why do people want to alter their consciousness with drugs and alcohol.

KidKenosha said :

I would suggest you’re being very selective in what evidence you’re choosing to be cognisant of. Need I remind you that many amphetamines are cut with other chemicals which will cause immediate harm even in a single dose.. rat poison for example.

Rat poison? I think you may be quoting a well worn urban myth there fella. Dealers may not be the most upstanding members of the community but I would suggest that they aren’t going to be attempting to murder their customers with rat poison by cutting their product with it. Sudafed or glucose maybe, but rat poison? I think not.

sepi said :

Addiction is a huge downside to drugs, and is not helped by legalisation. (Not that I am anti-legalisation, but drugs are not all fun and games at parties.)

Sepi, any addiction is a huge downside! I’ve a mate who lost his job, family and health through gambling addiction. Last I heard he is on the streets of London. If drugs were legal, then it would be easier for someone who does find themselves addicted to seek help. If addicted to cocaine or opiates (or, for some, even weed!) then getting over that addiction is going to be damned hard; but a whole lot easier than it is at the moment.

Probably not politically correct, but…

“Remember, only dopes smoke dope!”

“KEED SPILLS!, um no.. PILL SKEEDS!, no um… SKILL PEEDS!… um..”

“Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope”

(Apologies to Gilbert Shelton & Dave Sheridan)

Sorry folk, I tried to quote two posts there and failed miserably!! Not even on anything 🙂

AngryHenry said :

Don’t knock it until you try it!

Or if you want to play it safe read some Hunter S Thompson or listen to some Bill Hicks.

So, does this “you have to have personally experienced it” philosophy extend to chroming, petrol sniffing, etc? Sounds like you’re trying to prove the first poll option correct.

Perhaps not the brightest idea to hold up a man who committed suicide, and someone who died at 32 of cancer as teachers of the ways of the world, no?

CanberraCreative said :

KidKenosha said :

Need I remind you that many amphetamines are cut with other chemicals which will cause immediate harm even in a single dose.. rat poison for example.

Is that an issue about the drug itself? Or an issue that is caused by amphetamines being illegal and therefore the only way to obtain amphetamines is on the black-market where there are no checks & controls?

I have to agree with ConanOfCooma, AngryHenry, Jim Jones. But I also have agree with Woody, but with one proviso; define ‘harm’. If Opiates are so harmful why is it that someone can be addicted to Heroin and yet hold down a job? How can doctors prescribe opiate-based based drugs for pain relief?

Addiction is a huge downside to drugs, and is not helped by legalisation. (Not that I am anti-legalisation, but drugs are not all fun and games at parties.)

Holden Caulfield said :

I think we need drug cameras on the roads. That’s the only way to cut down the drug toll.

Isn’t that what ‘speed cameras’ are?

GenYdegeneratE3:56 pm 09 Jun 10

There is only one way to ‘get it’, Mark. Someone kindly get out the blade and cut this man a line!

Anybody who doesn’t understand why people would do cocaine has obviously never tried cocaine.

Don’t knock it until you try it!

Or if you want to play it safe read some Hunter S Thompson or listen to some Bill Hicks.

ConanOfCooma3:22 pm 09 Jun 10

The facts are available, it’s just that the people in power choose to ignore them. The majority of illicit drugs are no where near as dangerous as either ciggarettes or alcohol, and yet the users are demonised.

I find it much more socially acceptable to see a couple of guys tripping balls looking for treasure in a park than it to encounter any kind of drunk. But then you get the speed freaks scratching at their faces out the back of Civic, begging for smokes and silver coins.

I reckon legalise it all, but strictly controlled, such as the Netherlands. But without the stupid tourists from the US.

CanberraCreative3:20 pm 09 Jun 10

KidKenosha said :

I think you’d be surprised. Most drug users (hard and soft) I know are fully aware of the risks of dependence and overuse. (Most, but definitely not all.) They still take them because they enjoy them, and they manage to hold down respectable jobs and be generally well-rounded people.

The point is that we’ve grown up being bombarded by anti-drug propaganda, to the point that we find it deeply suspicious. We’re told that illegal drugs are illegal because they’re harmful; however, I’ve yet to see any conclusive evidence suggesting that occasional use of cocaine or amphetamines is any worse for the body than occasional drinking and smoking. We look back to the 60s and 70s and laugh at the over-the-top “reefer madness” propaganda, but it makes us think: who gains from criminalising these things, and what incentive do they really have to tell the truth?

I would suggest you’re being very selective in what evidence you’re choosing to be cognisant of. Need I remind you that many amphetamines are cut with other chemicals which will cause immediate harm even in a single dose.. rat poison for example.

Perhaps if we follow your logic, then the safe sex message is also just propaganda, designed to benefit the manufacturers of prophylactics.
After all, if you only do it occasionally, the chances are you won’t catch anything… right?

Holden Caulfield2:38 pm 09 Jun 10

I think we need drug cameras on the roads. That’s the only way to cut down the drug toll.

Hells_Bells74 said :

To my observations, half the adult (or pretending to be) population under 50 seem to like drugs of some sort.

Since it’s not really discussed, it’s hard to really know who is taking drugs, you just have your peer group to go from. Problem is that you’re hanging out with the drug taking crowd. Statistics say only a few percent of us are taking drugs.

I’d suggest broadening your social group a bit. Chances are high that no matter how hard you think the party is going, there’s someone totally straight-edge in the room and plenty of people who take drugs occasionally but aren’t on anything at the time.

Not that you shouldn’t take drugs, go ahead if that’s what you want, but I think it’s good to have an accurate perspective.

KidKenosha said :

We look back to the 60s and 70s and laugh at the over-the-top “reefer madness” propaganda…

Some of it is pretty damn funny, others scary.

Hells_Bells741:59 pm 09 Jun 10

The War on Drugs keeps the drugs focused on.. Which is great for sales!

Pommy bastard1:53 pm 09 Jun 10

Well, either drug users (not necessarily addicts) are really dumb, or maybe reputations are misleading?

Or maybe Mark Patton is playing dumb, as in; drugs = cocaine & heroin folks, highly lethal, incredibly addictive, “one taste and you’re dead junkie in the gutter” claptrap, to get his audience onside.

This is interesting; http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41949000/gif/_41949092_drugs_graph_416.gif

Many years ago (more than I like to remember! :-)), when living in the UK, I used to go to Amsterdam every few months.

Not for the red-light district (honest!) but for the weed (aka, Cannabis, Marijuana etc). I didnt go to get ‘wasted’ but because I enjoyed trying the different types and the subtle differences in flavour and effect. I’d like to think I became quite a connoisseur; in the same way as someone might say they are a connoisseur of fine wines/spirits.

I’d even take fellow poms with me who had never tried weed but who felt safe that I’d not take them into some drugged nightmare haze they would never wake from. Most of them enjoyed it and some didn’t – like everything! But they were all grateful to me for ‘educating’ them as the only real information they had was the mis-information pumped out by successive Governments and anti-drugs campaigners. One of the campaigns that always made me laugh was the one that said “Smoking dope leads to harder drugs” – well, yes it does because it is illegal and so the person selling it to you will probably be quite willing to sell you the harder stuff as well.

Even the Poll at the top of this thread does nothing to help people make an informed decision. The choices are “Their users must be really dumb” or “Might be more fun and less harmful than some say”!! What sort of choices are they? Where is the choice of “All drugs, including Tobacco and Alcohol, are harmful but taken sensibly and in moderation the risks can be reduced and be fun” (although don’t know about tobacco there, never understood why people smoke tobacco! :-)).

I read in the paper recently the account about the young girl who had become addicted to smoking Cannabis. But then I saw that she had started when she was 14! Why is it that the media screams about that (that itself is an anomally as well. Cannabis is not physically adictive but can be very habit forming and therfore form a psychological dependance – I know of many folk who wake up in the morning and ‘cant function’ until they have had a cone. In the same way as I know people who cant function until they have had a coffee in the morning!!) but there is very rarely any mention of the kids who become physically addicted to alcohol? Where were this girl’s parents? How could it be that the girl had come into contact with Cannabis at the age of 14 (or even younger!)?

The underlying reason for this mess is that it is illegal, a taboo subject and as such there is little informed debate. Well meaning folk, but with little or no knowledge on the subject, jump up and down with the hysterical “Just say no!!! Dont touch it!! One smoke and you’re hooked and will die!!”. With that approach no wonder our kids want to see what the fuss is about, its called human nature. If Cannabis was legal, but reglated along with Alcohol & Tobacco and with punitive taxes, then it is widely agreed that much our drugs problems – along with drug related crime! – would reduce. The downside would be that stoners would be more visible with the increased danger of people being bored to death if accidently getting into conversation with one (just try having a conversation with a stoned person; they dont make the most interesting people to talk to! :-)).

Just like alcohol, if you smoke (or even eat! I’ve had some wicked hash-cakes in Amsterdam!!) to excess every day then it WILL be detrimental to your life and health and eventually be the prime cause of everything that comes crashing down around you. Is’t it sad that due to our laws there is a safety net for those who develop a problem with alcohol (and that safety net can be the persons social circle as well as charity and governmental) but not with drugs?

Ok, i’ll stop there as this is in danger of becoming RA’s longest ditribe of drivel for a long time chuckle.

Well if snorting cocaine is the problem, Mark, you can always avail yourself of a snowcone. I would also point out that heroin, of itself, is not harmful – indeed it is used in UK hospitals as standard analgesia. It is the things associated with the criminalisation of heroin that is harmful: impurity, dirty needles, cost, social stigma etc.

CanberraCreative wrote:

> There a lot of things I don’t understand, my generation’s approach to drugs is one of them.
> That there is a risk to using them seems a foreign concept. That people use and abuse it is
> accepted in such a matter of fact way, spoken of as one would normally speak of coffee or
> beer. Most of those who use are not addicts, rather, they seek an escape.

I think you’d be surprised. Most drug users (hard and soft) I know are fully aware of the risks of dependence and overuse. (Most, but definitely not all.) They still take them because they enjoy them, and they manage to hold down respectable jobs and be generally well-rounded people.

The point is that we’ve grown up being bombarded by anti-drug propaganda, to the point that we find it deeply suspicious. We’re told that illegal drugs are illegal because they’re harmful; however, I’ve yet to see any conclusive evidence suggesting that occasional use of cocaine or amphetamines is any worse for the body than occasional drinking and smoking. We look back to the 60s and 70s and laugh at the over-the-top “reefer madness” propaganda, but it makes us think: who gains from criminalising these things, and what incentive do they really have to tell the truth?

Hells_Bells741:22 pm 09 Jun 10

It’s been a long, long time since I’ve been to a night out or party without drugs being done somewhere. Unless, the hosts are say 50 or older or anything to do with kids.

To my observations, half the adult (or pretending to be) population under 50 seem to like drugs of some sort.

If you factored legal ones in, you would come close to saturation surely.

It really will shock Canberra to have drug driving tests thrown at them. It’s a huge thing, but like with drinking, designated drivers won’t be able to pop that midnight ‘e’ to keep going, or take speed to get to work the next day/night.

Or worse still, if you are addicted, you will come to crossroads now. We will soon see how much people like drugs alright (through the courts that is), Mr Parton.

Drugs may well be exactly as harmful as they say, but by all accounts they are lots of fun too. While there might be a small percentage of people out there who only consume alcoholic beverages because they like the taste, the majority do it because they like the effect it has on their mental state (subtle as that may be for a “responsible drinker).

So if you have one light beer shandy, or a line of coke, it’s for the same reason.

“Responsibility” CC

CanberraCreative12:44 pm 09 Jun 10

There a lot of things I don’t understand, my generation’s approach to drugs is one of them. That there is a risk to using them seems a foreign concept. That people use and abuse it is accepted in such a matter of fact way, spoken of as one would normally speak of coffee or beer. Most of those who use are not addicts, rather, they seek an escape.

While we’re asking about drugs, let’s ask why people (and in particular younger people) are abusing alcohol so much. Let’s ask why any free night has become an excuse not just to drink and have a good time, but to “get wasted” as so many girls put it. It’s the same reason, they seek an escape. An escape from what is the question?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.