• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Who should be allowed to use drugs?

I am reopening this thread, I had to remove a bunch of inappropriate posts so some of the flow is disrupted on the last couple pages.

I would ask that people keep things civil in this thread from here on out, thanks!
 
Of course they should be treated the same. I see it no different than any insurance. If you want to drive a hotted up widow maker you have to pay for the privilege. If you are a smoker your life insurance premiums are higher. Perhaps you can be rewarded for being active more so than being punished for being fat but the end result is the same. Your vices should come with a cost, the public shouldn't have to pay for your hedonism.

We are a highly taxed society but the flip side is we have lots of nice shiny things like hospital, art galleries and subsidised public transport. If people who shouldn't really be using drugs start to syphon funds away from these things then something nice has to be affected.
 
Oh no! The thread's open again?!

I thought Footsy closed it for the reason that it was mostly a case of people with different opinions which was kind of going round and round.

There are some interesting ideas expressed in here, but opinions are just that: ideas. There's no one truth and it seems that sometimes people mistake their opinions for facts, and feel they need to defend them as if they are actually changing the course of the Earth's operation, as opposed to expressing a subjective thought on a matter.

The very topic of this thread is so loaded (haha, pun not intended that time) that I feel like it should have gone to another part of the forum. Social thread? THe Lounge, maybe?

Asking "Who should be allowed to....?" can only elicit answers with divide people into categories and that in turn means that to answer one must display some prejudice against a group/groups of others. Australia needs to be a united country, and anything that encourages division and discrimination is kind of dubious. I don't think this topic is really about drugs or harm reduction so much as it's an invitation for people to voice their prejudices towards a certain race, socio-economic group, or some other thing.

Personally, I don't think we need this thread. I don't know... of course I suppose I could just not read the thread... <scratches head at revelation>
 
Last edited:
of course I suppose I could just not read the thread... <scratches head at revelation>
Click to expand...

I think that's why we have the current government.. Oh no wait, they read everything that one particular media mogul's paper shoved down their throat.

Let's close this thread on a simple note - those who want to use drugs, those who want to eat, those who want to drink, those who want to smoke should be allowed to. If someone wants to make them pay tax (hey, this sounds familiar, we have some of, if not the highest taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in the world), then why not let them unless there is an obvious reason why they shouldn't be allowed. Such as hypotheticals such as a heroin addict who overdoses all the time and wastes the resources of doctors and nurses (UNLESS THEY GAVE OUT NALOXONE FREE OF CHARGE AT ALL NEEDLE EXCHANGES, ELIMINATING ANY NEED FOR TJAT) an alcoholic who continually beats his wife under the influence, a licensed practitioner who continually fails his patients, drives them to suicide, forces unnecessary medications on them, an ice user who is caught multiple times being violent, a marijuana user who only smokes, sleeps in his mothers basement and does nothing with his life, a hedge fund manager who continually gets so high on coke that he loses millions of dollars on a frequent basis.

Everyone should be allowed to use drugs, like everyone, after an easy to get license can drive a car. If you fuck up, you are punished harshly and it's hard to get your license back. Why not have the same model for drug users? At the moment we just lock up all drug users because hey, they may do something apart from using drugs in the future. It's better we spend millions of dollars a year just in case they do do something bad, right?

People talk about welfare being a burden on society, as most intelligent people know, it's an aging population that's costing the money. Locking up drug users costs more money, so a government trying to save money would look at alternatives to the drug war. There is an alternative that will both save money and create money for the state, while making people safer. But since we have a conservative government, that's not on the cards because their voters are the way they are.

There are solutions to these problems but no politician has the balls or brains to push for them. That and the fact that if we were any further up U.S.A.'s ass we'd change Waltzing Matilda to some amalgamation of God Save the USA.
 
Everyone should be allowed to use drugs, like everyone, after an easy to get license can drive a car. If you fuck up, you are punished harshly and it's hard to get your license back. Why not have the same model for drug users?
Click to expand...

YEAH!! You just expressed my exact thoughts on the matter. Exactly the same. Judge the person's actions when necessary, not the person's choice of drug consumption.

If there are no actions causing attention or harm, then why create problems?
 
catching fish said:
So what about obese people?
Click to expand...

One Thousand Words said:
Of course they should be treated the same. I see it no different than any insurance. If you want to drive a hotted up widow maker you have to pay for the privilege. If you are a smoker your life insurance premiums are higher. Perhaps you can be rewarded for being active more so than being punished for being fat but the end result is the same. Your vices should come with a cost, the public shouldn't have to pay for your hedonism.

We are a highly taxed society but the flip side is we have lots of nice shiny things like hospital, art galleries and subsidised public transport. If people who shouldn't really be using drugs start to syphon funds away from these things then something nice has to be affected.
Click to expand...

I meant are you attracted to them?
 
You are not really talking about legalisation just the extent of regulation.

Posters refer to tobacco being legal but if you grow tobacco in your backyard (grows well in a greenhouse) for your own use you can get up to 2 years in prison.
 
One Thousand Words said:
Of course they should be treated the same. I see it no different than any insurance. If you want to drive a hotted up widow maker you have to pay for the privilege. If you are a smoker your life insurance premiums are higher. Perhaps you can be rewarded for being active more so than being punished for being fat but the end result is the same. Your vices should come with a cost, the public shouldn't have to pay for your hedonism.

We are a highly taxed society but the flip side is we have lots of nice shiny things like hospital, art galleries and subsidised public transport. If people who shouldn't really be using drugs start to syphon funds away from these things then something nice has to be affected.
Click to expand...

Should the public pay for your crimes by housing you in jail? Should they pay for wars one leader has chosen to declare? For the Drug War? Government spying? For corporate welfare? For normal welfare? Where do we draw the line on what the public should not pay for?

You seem to be forgetting the $$ benefits legalization would provide. The drugs sold would be taxed to death, massive savings from LE, savings from keeping people in jail and other judicial matters, the savings from less strain on the emergency services due to proper dosages and education on drug effects, the mass creation of more jobs and the benefits that provides to society, and the list goes on and on. This should be more than enough to offset any problems that may arise...if it isn't, we would still be able to cope, like we attempt to today without all of this extra funding.

Yeah, we are a highly taxed society with a high standard of living. I pay taxes, but am severely against lots of the policies of the Liberal Government that are self-destructive. I do not want the government using my money to tow boats back to another country. I do not want my money being used to buy guns to shoot people in the Middle East...etc. What can I do about that? Basically, nothing. Since the civilian population has absolutely NO say in what the government does with their tax money (ignore the trips and hotels MPs' also grant themselves), who is the government to force people to pay extra taxes ON TOP of what they already pay to offset costs to the public due to destructive decisions that individual has undertaken? The public purse is already being emptied on ventures that return no profit, why would they need to profit or balance out the budget with troubled members of the public? Or is this an attempt to deter people from this sort of behavior? We have seen how well attempts at deterring people from using drugs has worked so far...for more info look up "prohibition".

If we follow your suggestion, it would open up a can of worms that would lower society into a money-hungry, liberal capitalist's dream (I am sure you are one), that would further divide the lines between the rich and poor (hey I have more money, I can engage in more self-destruction than you or I can afford to be obese, you can't so you better exercise). No one would be safe as all empathy and the human side of things would have been removed. We would not be living in a free society anymore. It would all revolve around the money...hence the dominoes begin to fall. Obesity, people with mental disorders, poor families who have too many children, someone who didn't wear a seatbelt and died (his mistake, family pay up) and the inhumane list goes on and on. The possibilities are endless.
 
Last edited:
One Thousand Words said:
Of course they should be treated the same. I see it no different than any insurance. If you want to drive a hotted up widow maker you have to pay for the privilege. If you are a smoker your life insurance premiums are higher. Perhaps you can be rewarded for being active more so than being punished for being fat but the end result is the same. Your vices should come with a cost, the public shouldn't have to pay for your hedonism.

We are a highly taxed society but the flip side is we have lots of nice shiny things like hospital, art galleries and subsidised public transport. If people who shouldn't really be using drugs start to syphon funds away from these things then something nice has to be affected.
Click to expand...

So how do you propose such a tiered system be priced and regulated? How do you tell the hedonistic from the staid and steady puritans? Should we all have cameras installed in our fridges? Microchips to monitor purchases? Random drug tests to see who has and who hasn't been dipping into Granny's cocaine stash?

And what arbitrary point to you draw a line under what's considered hedonistic and what isn't? I mean, have you looked at the latest DoH guidelines on alcohol consumption lately?

http://www.alcohol.gov.au/internet/alcohol/publishing.nsf/Content/guide-adult

And, even if you *could* peer into people's lives to see who is and who isn't, do you think someone drinking more than two *standard* drinks (that's fewer than two regular stubbies of beer) a day, or four standards in a single sitting more than once a week is an unreasonable burden on the system? Because the DoH does.

Like the whole licencing parenthood meme, ideas like this often sound good until you actually start thinking about them in any practical sense. It would never happen because it is unenforceable unless we want to live under 24/7 surveillance by an unthinkably large and invasive government department that would likely be more expensive to administer than any savings to the health system.

I don't know about you but I'd rather just pay my taxes and make sure everybody has access to healthcare regardless of any poor life choices they might have made.
 
Last edited:
gimpan said:
In my opinion there is no way MDMA should be legalised, no responsible government would entertain a ridiculous idea like that, just staff a safe place (hospital, needle exchange) to test for other ingredients.
Yeah I think marijuana could be safely leagalised with similar laws to that of alcohol and tobacco.
I dont think the majority of the population would be responsible enough.
Click to expand...

100% agree, talking about legallizing certain drugs and putting mdma and marijuana in a similar category is ridiculous. That shit needs to beforgotten about real quick.
 
^ What is so terrible about MDMA, or other drugs that aren't marijuana?

One of my pet peeves is people who say they a for real drug reform, but what they really mean is they want marijuana drug law reform exclusively.
 
bit_pattern said:
That's not actually true - we have the 5th lowest tax-to-GDP ratio in the OECD

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-T...ket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Part-1
Click to expand...

Apologies, change that quote to "yeah, we are a taxed society" lol. I did not research it like you bitpattern, but the amount I am taxed, including the GST I am expected to include in my pricing if my business earns above a certain amount, subjectively, really makes me feel that I am very highly taxed...go figure.

opi8 said:
^ What is so terrible about MDMA, or other drugs that aren't marijuana?

One of my pet peeves is people who say they a for real drug reform, but what they really mean is they want marijuana drug law reform exclusively.
Click to expand...

Opi8, you have just stated exactly my train of thought when it comes to this issue. It is not true drug reform if it is only about Marijuana...and people that oppose other drugs except Marijuana, I see as selfish because they are failing to see the dangers of prohibition and rather just want to be able to use their DOC within legal boundaries. How else are we to rid the black market? Reduce harm, as well as encourage people to get treatment? How are we meant to control what is in pills and stop people from ODing from unknown amounts of said substance in a pill (since MDMA is so bad and all)?

Would you rather legalize MDMA and have it regulated properly and point out the dangers to people, as well as have the opportunity to treat them, or is it better the way it is now (read; statement above ^^)?
 
Marijuana is truly a victimless drug. The odd fiend might lose their shit mentally but not a single person has died from overdosing on weed. Even pure MDMA can not make this claim. Of all the drugs I would be happy for an open free for all it would be cannabis. The pain caused by the legal system far out weighs the health effects, even for those who take it too far and become stereotypical sofa ornaments. It makes me laugh when people say "Oh you must have had bunk pills" when they hear of someone dying from MDMA, but reality is it can kill even in normal doses for a small number of people. You only have to experience the comedown to appreciate it has a far more powerful effect on the brain.

Heroin's problem isn't so much it's physical danger more the shackles of addiction that this drug inflicts. Drug of dependency describes opiates very well. Once you cross a line you become a slave to it's clutches, ironic considering people who call for it's legalisation argue that all they want is personal freedom. If any drug steals your freedom and independence it is opiates. Functional addicts are no better than slaves, and what government in their right mind would want to be the puppet master in charge of the strings for a generation of junkies?
 
this fuks it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country#

n also it is a psychoactive substance that can bring on life long Schizo disordrers in some folk who r predisposed


World-cannabis-laws.png
 
NSW is illegal but often unenforced? lol… Yeah right.

New research has found little link between marijuana use and schizophrenia, contrary to previous studies that suggested pot-smoking adolescents were at greater risk of developing the mental illness.

A recent study conducted at Harvard Medical School compared families with a history of schizophrenia and those without such a history, and it’s the first family study to examine non-psychotic cannabis users and non-cannabis users as independent sample groups.

While marijuana use seemed to have an effect on the age of onset for schizophrenia, researchers found that family risk was the crucial underlying factor.


“The results of the current study suggest that having an increased familial morbid risk for schizophrenia may be the underlying basis for schizophrenia in cannabis users and not cannabis use by itself,” the researchers found.
Click to expand...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...-between-teen-pot-use-and-schizophrenia-risk/
 
brimz said:
n also it is a psychoactive substance that can bring on life long Schizo disordrers in some folk who r predisposed

QUOTE]

I have seen so many people lose their shit from using Marijuana, it is not funny. I, myself have also lost my shit on it, and can vouch that it does indeed cause psychosis in susceptible individuals.

One Thousand Words said:
. The pain caused by the legal system far out weighs the health effects, even for those who take it too far and become stereotypical sofa ornaments.

If any drug steals your freedom and independence it is opiates. Functional addicts are no better than slaves, and what government in their right mind would want to be the puppet master in charge of the strings for a generation of junkies?
Click to expand...

LOL, at the sofa ornaments. Had a good laugh on that one. I also agree with some of your arguments that indeed opiates do possess the power to steal your independence and freedom. But when you go to compare them to slaves that no government would want to create, you are running on the wrong foot. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE DRUGS...again...IT IS NOT ABOUT THE DRUGS, it is about the crime, violence, corruption and terrorism the black market supports. What government in their right mind would want to pass off the strings to organized criminal gangs?

The puppets (addicts) will always be here (look up prohibition), who do you want to hold the strings, the government or violent criminals?
Click to expand...
 
Unless their house is being broken into, Mr and Mrs Joe Blow couldn't give two shits about the violent criminals. Its why its called the Underground. Bad people doing over other bad people has been going on for decades. Time to time you get a mum holding a picture of her 30yr old missing son but you know he simply ran with the wrong crowd, owed money and is now buried in a shallow grave in the distant rainforest. The only reason there is a crack down on bikes in QLd is because their arrogance thought they could conduct their business in public places with bashings and shootings. If they had kept it on the down low it would be business as usual. Criminal groups will exist with or without drugs because something else will always be better than actually working a job for money. Bad guys are usually lazy guys and they aren't going to go straight as soon as one revenue flow is eliminated. Ditto for terrorists, they would run guns or illegal bookmakers with the same level of violence and profit.

What really upsets the mum and dad voters is seeing kids overdosing, crashing their car under the influence, getting into meth fuel fights out the front of nightclubs, becoming paranoid and pulling a knife on them in a kitchen or losing their job by constantly fucking up while high. All of this will happen regardless if their drugs are legal or not, just as it does with alcohol today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top