News: Night of drugs, love and friendship that ended with a mate dead

[notneo]

That much alcohol with any drug is bad news let along GHB etc.

 

[satricion]

Buck_reed: Point taken. My point was however that GHB is not the unknown chemical that deformed_neuron made it out to be in the post that I was responding to. We know enough about this drug to legislate on it.

Secondly, if a drug was made available by the government then it would be cheaper than the black market can provide it.

Why do you think drugs are so expensive? That pill you just ate was made by an illegal crime group who have to hide their activities from the government of whatever country they operate in (or pay them off). Then it was stuffed up someone's arse as they rode on a plane (probably more than once), then it was passed on to business associates and so on down the chain. There's a pretty good chance that someone got shot for the pill you just ate so that you could enjoy the PLUR.

Something produced and purchased legitimately doesn't have the risks (and hence costs) associated with it that something that was smuggled up someone's arse (or inside packets of sheet pasta) have. If it's produced legally then it will be less expensive.

G is a hard drug to legislate around. But I don't think you should need a prescription to buy it, and I never argued on that assumption. If I'm an informed, mature adult and I want to use GHB[1] then why the hell shouldn't I be able to?

My suggestions have always been in the vien of harm reduction. People are going to use G even if it's illegal and it's illegality makes it less safe. So what do you do? You legalise it and get rid of all dosage/purity concerns. You put warnings on the bottle that show how strong something is ie "This product contains 4.12% pure GHB".

You put signs in pubs which say "It takes this much G to impair your ability to drive, this much G to impair your ability to sing kareoke and this much G to impair your ability to stand up."

Maybe next to it you have a sign that says 'IF YOU MIX G AND BOOZE YOU'RE A BLOODY IDIOT'.

Sure bad shit will still happen. There's no such thing as "safe" drug use as we all know, but as it says at the bottom of your screen "we recognize that illicit substances will be used regardless of their illegality". Legalisation reduces some of the risks associated with G and the others can be combated with education.

[1] Or any other drug for that matter.

 

[notneo]

I don't think you can keep blamming the government in situations like this. It is up to the people taking the illegal drugs to do research by themselves, it's not like there isn't any informatino out there ... !

When taking illegal drugs people should realise that there aren't any Australian standards ticks or heart foundation ticks on the packaging, if people want to risk their lives without researching the drugs they are taking then it is simply a wasted life and another strike against ever legalising or decriminalising illegal drugs.

 

[satricion]

Urg, individualism!

Don't blame the individual, blame the government policy that puts them in a dangerous position whenever they do something that they should have every right to do!

 

[Doomgurl]

the reason drugs are illegal is pure and freakin' simple.

the tax man doesn't get his cut.

and until the tax man gets his cut, drugs will remain illegal. pure and simple.

 

[buck_reed]

I do give credit for your attempts to place some form of quality control on the process. I personally think this is the wrong drug to try it on, though.

The costs of a substance are relaint upon a whole range of factors. You argue that the high cost of illicit substances is related to the inherant dangers of operating illicitly. This is true. However, common pharmaceuticals also have a range of different, yet equally high overheads - just compare the cost of your homebrand paracetamol to panadol. I think that to argue one form would be cheaper than the other is just economic speculation.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this question. People will always try and find a solution to providing a desired product to the community at a reduced rate for personal gain - eg Video or CD Piracy. This in most caseswill jeparodise quality.

We can only keep discussing options in forums like these and hope we find good ones.

Cheers,

Buck

 

[satricion]

I do give credit for your attempts to place some form of quality control on the process. I personally think this is the wrong drug to try it on, though.

The costs of a substance are relaint upon a whole range of factors. You argue that the high cost of illicit substances is related to the inherant dangers of operating illicitly. This is true. However, common pharmaceuticals also have a range of different, yet equally high overheads - just compare the cost of your homebrand paracetamol to panadol. I think that to argue one form would be cheaper than the other is just economic speculation.

Pfft, did you hear the interview JJJ did with an English guy who used to be high up the chain in the drug world?

He basically said that pills here are so expensive because of the amount of effort required to get them in, plain and simple. Pills in the UK are cheaper, and in the Netherlands they're cheaper still, and big crime enterprises are still making shitloads of money off them.

Think about how cheap generic diazepam is...and generic oxycodone. I pay a shitload for oxycodone and the source makes a killing because I can't get it legally.

As to your home brand Vs brand name argument...I don't really see how this is relevant...if I want I can go and buy a $30 bottle of vodka, or an $80 of fine scotch...I would take either of these over a bottle of moonshine peddled by a dealer.

 

[Deformed_Neuron]

Hmmmm... I think that the reason why Alcoholic conneiseurs are willing to pay $80.00 of fine scotch is for the fact that the scotch is a smooth, or gauranteed great quality "sip" and has the reputation for being distilled/produced in a particulay way, not because of the potency factor (alc%/vol.). These scotch drinkers usually do not pay the $80.00 for their scotch in order to get drunk alone... I think they're paying this amount of cash because of the flavour.

GHB is not consumed for it's flavour, or because there are people that like to consider themselves conniseurs of the particular chemical... I'm thinking most of the people that use the chemical, are merely using it for recreational value.

If you're spending $80.00 to get drunk off of scotch (or absolutely blind) as opposed to paying almost next to nothing for this Moonshine (that most teenagers or young people would prefer... just to get drunk.) then, you are wasting alot of money there.

 

[syntech]

I hate to say it, but given current trends in medical liability, no doctor is going to write you a script for a substance which inadvertantly kills you if you triple the dose. And even if the did go down this road, we have 10-12 years of clinical trials before they release it.

NOW, add the cost of research, packaging, insurance - increase the price by a factor of 10. Would you buy GHB at $30 a dose when you can pick it up illicitly at $5.

Back to square one - try again.

Cheers,

Buck

thats the point i was trying to make.

the whole question of possibly making G legal to reduce risk is absurd. its not gonna happen. there might me methodone clinics to combat herion addiction, but heroin is not legal...and neither is methodone unless you've got a good reason to have it.