Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Police warn about the Georgia Homeboy (dodgy GHB). Six hospitalised in one night

By johnboy 29 September 2012 59

ACT Policing is issuing a warning about potentially lethal drugs being sold in Canberra.

Last night (Friday September, 28) six people were admitted to hospital after ingesting an illicit substance suspected to be GHB (Gamma hydroxybutyrate).

ACT Policing’s Criminal Investigation’s Team has seized substances and is investigating the incidents.

Anyone who may be present when an overdose occurs should contact ACT Ambulance Service on 000.

Anyone with information in relation to the source such drugs should contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000, or via the Crime Stoppers website on www.act.crimestoppers.com.au.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
59 Responses to
Police warn about the Georgia Homeboy (dodgy GHB). Six hospitalised in one night
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Monomyth 11:51 am 08 Oct 12

“oh no… I took illegal, unregulated drugs and something bad happened!” duh.

HenryBG 2:58 pm 02 Oct 12

Mysteryman said :

That’s an ever poorer argument that than “people will always do it so let’s just legalise it”. None of our laws stop all illegal behaviour. We still have people committing tax fraud, insurance scams, murder, kidnapping, drink driving, assault, etc. Should we do away with all those laws because “they don’t work”? Use your brain. As I said, there are good arguments for ending prohibition, but that is NOT one of them.

You’re still focussed on the bad analogies.

Find me a Police Commissioner who says the law against Tax Fraud is a failure.

It isn’t. Tax Fraud is effectively controlled by law enforcement.

The objective of anti-drugs laws, on the other hand, (if there even is one), has not been met. It is a failed law.

Pitchka 2:39 pm 02 Oct 12

c_c said :

johnboy said :

The guys running the syndicates would never set foot in bega flats.

Really? I’ve seen some pretty flash European cars parked their.

And how do you know who they belong too? Who says syndicate members only drive euro cars, and dont prefer the Commonwhore?

Accept my apologies in advance if infact you are a resident there, and were infact purchasing your drungs from Mohammed.

Deref 2:35 pm 02 Oct 12

johnboy said :

Well a large amount of the opposition to ending prohibition comes from the drug cartels.

Just bout all of it, I’d imagine, and certainly just about all the funding to the supporters of prohibition.

Mysteryman 2:31 pm 02 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

Mysteryman said :

Never going to stamp out rape or sexual abuse, either.

That’s a about as bad an analogy as it can get.

The fact you have to compare personal behaviour with acts of criminal violence is probably an admission you have no better argument?

Read my response. It was an illustration of how foolish people like yourself look when using “people will always do it” as the foundation of their argument.

HenryBG said :

Mysteryman said :

Just because something “will always be done” isn’t reason enough to legalise it. There may be good arguments in favour of drug legalisation, but that isn’t one of them.

False.
[b]Prohibition doesn’t stop drug use.
Ergo, prohibition is a waste of time.[/b]

Add to that the facts that,
a. Prohibition creates money-making opportunities for organised crime.
b. Prohibition causes health problems.
c. prohibition swallows up enormous amounts of police resources

and you have to wonder what supporters of prohibition are thinking…

That’s an ever poorer argument that than “people will always do it so let’s just legalise it”. None of our laws stop all illegal behaviour. We still have people committing tax fraud, insurance scams, murder, kidnapping, drink driving, assault, etc. Should we do away with all those laws because “they don’t work”? Use your brain. As I said, there are good arguments for ending prohibition, but that is NOT one of them.

    johnboy 2:35 pm 02 Oct 12

    Someone really needs to give Mysteryman some drugs.

    (Good stuff or the dodgy GHB, I’m good either way)

c_c 2:29 pm 02 Oct 12

johnboy said :

The guys running the syndicates would never set foot in bega flats.

Really? I’ve seen some pretty flash European cars parked their.

c_c 2:15 pm 02 Oct 12

johnboy said :

Well a large amount of the opposition to ending prohibition comes from the drug cartels.

Yes, I can say almost assuredly that a lot of the lobbyist materials sent to MPs have Bega Flats as the return address and a link to braddondopedealer.org

HenryBG 2:08 pm 02 Oct 12

Mysteryman said :

Never going to stamp out rape or sexual abuse, either.

That’s a about as bad an analogy as it can get.

The fact you have to compare personal behaviour with acts of criminal violence is probably an admission you have no better argument?

Mysteryman said :

Just because something “will always be done” isn’t reason enough to legalise it. There may be good arguments in favour of drug legalisation, but that isn’t one of them.

False.
Prohibition doesn’t stop drug use.
Ergo, prohibition is a waste of time.

Add to that the facts that,
a. Prohibition creates money-making opportunities for organised crime.
b. Prohibition causes health problems.
c. prohibition swallows up enormous amounts of police resources

and you have to wonder what supporters of prohibition are thinking…

    johnboy 2:12 pm 02 Oct 12

    Well a large amount of the opposition to ending prohibition comes from the drug cartels.

Mysteryman 1:58 pm 02 Oct 12

chewy14 said :

Mysteryman said :

DrKoresh said :

Martlark said :

Lets hope the manufacturer announces a recall soon. Looks like they dropped the ball on quality control. I demand the CEO make a public apology!

That’s why I don’t understand the war on drugs. You’re never gonna stamp out drug use, so why not legalise and heavily regulate illicit narcotics? Then you would have quality control and so on and so forth, save everyone a whole bunch of trouble.

Never going to stamp out rape or sexual abuse, either.

Just because something “will always be done” isn’t reason enough to legalise it. There may be good arguments in favour of drug legalisation, but that isn’t one of them.

Rape and sexual abuse involve actively harming other people and depriving them of their liberty. Drugs only harm the individual user.

If people want to put recreational drugs in their own bodies then they should be able to. As long as they aren’t harming other people, then go for it.

My point was that using “it’s always been done” is a stupid argument, and it is. You can use that same logic for a great many things but it doesn’t justify any of them. There needs to be a better reason if one wants to be taken seriously.

“Drugs only harm the individual user” is a better reason. But while it may be the case for some users, for many others it’s simply not true at all. Tell the children of drug addicts that they aren’t being harmed by their parents’ use. Or the guy next door who was robbed so that a user might get some money to score again. The idea that a user’s actions only affect the user is an overly simplistic one and not based in reality. Legalising illicit drugs might bring the cost down, and it will might mean a better “quality” of product through regulation, but believing that it will see the end of anti-social/illegal/desperate/dangerous behaviour is naive. Do you think having greater access and lower prices for things like ice, heroin, or meth will mean people use it more responsibly and become less addicted? Do you think that people will suddenly decide to self-regulate their ingestion of drugs because the government suddenly says “these things are now legal”? I certainly don’t. The quality of a product might be better, but in large quantities many recreational drugs are dangerous regardless of their quality. I can guarantee people will still OD, not because they had some dodgy drugs, but because they took a lot more than they used to thinking that government regulation made it safer. I suspect people will still break the law to get money for drugs, too, even if they’re legal and cheap, because when you’re addicted no amount is ever enough.

You only have to look at the way alcohol is abused by people to see that legalising other drugs (some far more potent and dangerous) is not the magical solution that some people think it is.

chewy14 11:59 am 02 Oct 12

Mysteryman said :

DrKoresh said :

Martlark said :

Lets hope the manufacturer announces a recall soon. Looks like they dropped the ball on quality control. I demand the CEO make a public apology!

That’s why I don’t understand the war on drugs. You’re never gonna stamp out drug use, so why not legalise and heavily regulate illicit narcotics? Then you would have quality control and so on and so forth, save everyone a whole bunch of trouble.

Never going to stamp out rape or sexual abuse, either.

Just because something “will always be done” isn’t reason enough to legalise it. There may be good arguments in favour of drug legalisation, but that isn’t one of them.

Rape and sexual abuse involve actively harming other people and depriving them of their liberty. Drugs only harm the individual user.

If people want to put recreational drugs in their own bodies then they should be able to. As long as they aren’t harming other people, then go for it.

Mysteryman 10:14 am 02 Oct 12

DrKoresh said :

Martlark said :

Lets hope the manufacturer announces a recall soon. Looks like they dropped the ball on quality control. I demand the CEO make a public apology!

That’s why I don’t understand the war on drugs. You’re never gonna stamp out drug use, so why not legalise and heavily regulate illicit narcotics? Then you would have quality control and so on and so forth, save everyone a whole bunch of trouble.

Never going to stamp out rape or sexual abuse, either.

Just because something “will always be done” isn’t reason enough to legalise it. There may be good arguments in favour of drug legalisation, but that isn’t one of them.

PBO 9:40 am 02 Oct 12

TheDancingDjinn said :

bundah said :

There have been major studies that followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. So it seems that the more cannabis one uses the more likely one will develop symptoms.

Of course there are those who have smoked for decades who insist that they have not suffered any detrimental side effects.

I know plenty of people who went tin foiled after small amounts of pot – gotta be honest though, all of them were a bit tweeky to begin with.

In most cases there is an undiagnosed pre-existing mental condition which makes some ppl more susceptable to tweaking out, but it does not cause and never will cause schizophrenia.

Darkfalz 4:32 am 02 Oct 12

Good place for a heads up on this, since I suspect a majority of posters are on drugs of some sort.

toriness 8:30 pm 01 Oct 12

anyone know anything more about the local-specific story/content of the OP? were all the ODs at one club? which one?

HenryBG 5:07 pm 01 Oct 12

kakosi said :

Actually it is and there are many studies and many people affected No loose research, hard evidence. http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

1/ You’re indulging in the classic confusion of correlation with causation so beloved of those who have nothing better to back up their bad argument.

2/ In what way does prohibition reduce the risk?

The fact is that the mindless cretinism of prohibition exacerbates health risks by preventing the authorities from exercising any kind of control over quality and dosage, (as with all other illicit drugs).

Everybody with a brain, from Police Commissioner down, knows for a fact that prohibition doesn’t work. Additionally, it creates health problems, creates crime problems, and criminalises people for no good reason.

Dumb flogs with no capacity for rational, analytical thought, continue to come up with all sorts of stupid arguments in favour of the complete and utter failure that is prohibition.

Jethro 1:06 pm 01 Oct 12

kakosi said :

bundah said :

There have been major studies that followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. So it seems that the more cannabis one uses the more likely one will develop symptoms.

Of course there are those who have smoked for decades who insist that they have not suffered any detrimental side effects.

Knock yourself out – it’s a well-known issue. Of course it’s different when you see what it does to someone you care about. And it’s forever: http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

The potential to cause or bring forward schizophrenia in those predisposed to it is almost without exception caused by cannabis smoking by teenagers, not adults.

The current model does nothing to prevent teenagers smoking; in fact it makes it easier for them to smoke. Teenagers report that it is easier to access cannabis than alcohol, due to the strict regulations in place that govern the sale of alcohol.

Legalise it, tax it, strictly regulate it, including massive fines and loss of license for those who supply to people under the age limit. Use the tax dollars to fund education programmes and advertising, similar to the anti-tobacco ads that have led to a significant reduction in people who smoke tobacco. Also use the tax dollars to fund the medical treatment of people who need it.

Prohibition does nothing to stop demand or supply. It doesn’t stop people feeling negative effects from it; if it did you wouldn’t be here telling your story. However, prohibition does makes it easier for those most at risk of its potentially harmful side effects to access it, and it ensures that the money from it goes into the pockets of crime gangs, and not into the health system through taxation.

Just because something has the potential to cause harm is not reason to ban it, particularly when banning it doesn’t actually solve any problems but creates a whole new set of issues on top of the potential for harm that exists.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site