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

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

Illicit drugs: How we can stop killing and criminalising young Australians

^ you're right.
I guess we've gotten on to the complexities of liberalising drug laws - the social changes that must follow.
If society is going to accept that drugs are a fairly normal thing that responsible adults use outside of work-time, then the perceptions of the community are going to have to follow.
Rather than punishment, I think we need to advocate personal responsibility.
Sure, stoned people shouldn't operate heavy machinery or perform heart surgery - but do we deny these people a drink or a ciggie out of work-time now?
It won't be an easy transition for people to make, but it's clear through all of these reports, articles and informed opinions that what we are doing at the moment isn't working.
 
Last edited:
Even if you don't support any kind of legalisation, consider this:

An ageing hippie, relaxing at a summer festival, passes a joint to a mate. A schmick advertising executive celebrates a promotion with Moet and a line of cocaine. A dirty child in a dark alley injects heroin, her addiction, her escape - ultimately possibly her downfall.

Do any of these people deserve to go to prison? Would locking them up in any way help them or help society?

The answer is no. Criminalising drug users doesn't work. It's not just futile and counter-productive, it's bloody expensive.

Drugs, like alcohol, can have serious health effects on some individuals or in some cases. They're a health issue, not a moral or political one. In plenty of cases using drugs may not even be an issue at all.
Click to expand...

This is a silly argument that is often put forward. No one simply caught with a 'joint', 'line of cocaine' or heroin filled syringe would come within a million miles of going to prison, unless they had an extensive criminal history prior to that.

This one of the reasons that the 'Legalise Drugs' movement fails to gain traction.
 
Divine Moments said:
Doctors aren't usually subject to routine/random drug tests, no.

Our discussion is entirely relevant. The article is about the decriminalisation of some drugs and we are discussing the fallout from that, surrounding testing in the workplace and how this would change if the laws changed.
Click to expand...

Cool.

Well I guess this article is relevant then.. ?

Victorian boat users, jet ski drivers and ship captains to face random breath tests

BOAT users, jet ski drivers and ship captains will face random drug tests under new Victorian laws to be introduced by the Baillieu Government today.

A tough new marine safety regime will see the testing now conducted by police on Victorian roads extended to the state's waterways.

Recreational and commercial boat operators using the state's rivers, lakes, bays and ocean will be swab-tested by police for illicit drugs such as ecstasy, ice, speed and cannabis.

Drunk ferry, ship, party and tour boat skippers will also be targeted, with new legislation reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit for commercial operators from 0.05 to 0.00, in line with train, truck, bus and taxi drivers.

Fines of up to $3520, or up to three months' jail, will apply for boat users convicted of a first drug and alcohol offence.

Subsequent drug and alcohol offences will attract fines of up to $25,344 or up to 18 months' jail.


Ports Minister Denis Napthine last night told the Herald Sun reform was needed to "toughen up" the state's marine safety laws.

"The police won't hesitate to test people who are being inappropriate, showing hoonish behaviour or acting in a dangerous manner on our waterways," he said.

"Serial or repeat offenders will have the book thrown at them and we'll take them off the water."

The new marine drug and alcohol laws will apply to passenger vessels, trading vessels and commercial fishing craft.

"What we're saying fundamentally is let's be serious about safety on the water," he said.

The crackdown on drunk and drug-affected boat users comes after a trawler skipper was charged when his 27m commercial fishing vessel hit rocks and sank with 30,000 litres of diesel on board off Point Nepean in March.

He returned a blood-alcohol reading in excess of 0.05 after being rescued.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...dom-breath-tests/story-e6frf7kx-1226472143309
 
wilrobinson007 said:
This is a silly argument that is often put forward. No one simply caught with a 'joint', 'line of cocaine' or heroin filled syringe would come within a million miles of going to prison, unless they had an extensive criminal history prior to that.

This one of the reasons that the 'Legalise Drugs' movement fails to gain traction.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the priors need to be "extensive" as such. And often aren't the priors also for drug charges.

I agree that the argument is very one sided. But as a raver, I fear for my future every time I go to a festival. I normally take 3-5 ecstasy pills (They're weaker then they were in the past so the total MDMA content would be about the same of one and a half pills a decade ago). Whilst I have no doubt I wouldn't go to jail if caught. I read at Future last year (which I attended) everyone with 3 or less were ordered a drug education course and no record would be taken.

But I took 5 pills in that day, I would now have a criminal record, and my life would be substantially altered. I'm doing a course in engineering at the moment and hope to be doing work in the mines over the summer. Both of these would be far more difficult for me to achieve with this record. I'm sure the argument could be put forward, is it worth the risk? Well when MDMA is considerred less violent and currently stands as less harmful to the body itself than alcohol provided it's not used too often (I imagine this would be weekly/fortnightly which I am no where near). For some people it's not worth the risk, but when the science says it's safer than alcohol... should I really have a criminal risk at all?
 
Last edited:
^ good post, student. When the criminal penalties cause more harm to your life than drug use, something needs to be changed, to my way of thinking at least.
 
"but when the science says it's safer than alcohol..."
One of the problems with that theory is that when you buy an Ecstasy pill you are getting something that in all probability produced by a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang or another criminal working for them in a backyard laboratory, often in less than ideal conditions. These people generally don't have chemistry degrees and are primarily concerned with producing something that will generate the greatest profit without sparing too much thought as to the health ramifications of the product. Its hard to consider something made in those conditions safe.
 
Dude xtc is made in toilets...fact my boy fact...havnt you seen the posters?

Imagine being able to get MDMA from the chemist...or a drive through. Imagine that :)
 
"but when the science says it's safer than alcohol..."
Click to expand...
If you are referring to MDMA then yes, it is safer than alcohol, Prof David Nutt (Who is a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in the research of drugs that affect the brain and conditions such as addiction, anxiety and sleep.) agrees with that, but yes the problem with 'ecstasy' today is you don't know what you are getting in the pill, more so than ever really, where as back in the 90's it was alot safer bet to get mdma in an ecstasy pill bought.

As stated above the pills could be made anywhere, by anyone with any content in them, anyone who has pressed pills before knows how easy it is to press alot of pills with any type of powder.
 
wilrobinson007 said:
"but when the science says it's safer than alcohol..."
One of the problems with that theory is that when you buy an Ecstasy pill you are getting something that in all probability produced by a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang or another criminal working for them in a backyard laboratory, often in less than ideal conditions. These people generally don't have chemistry degrees and are primarily concerned with producing something that will generate the greatest profit without sparing too much thought as to the health ramifications of the product. Its hard to consider something made in those conditions safe.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I always have my pills tested with ez-test. True this isn't E-data so I am not guaranteed of all the chemicals but once again I don't see how that should make me at risk of being a criminal.
You could argue that having the criminal element will deter people from trying. This may hold true for some people but how many we really have no way knowing. It's a far too complex issue to pidgeon hole it in one way or another. What I do know is this, science and evidence should be at the fore front of our drug policy. We shouldn't have such harsh laws for people trying to enjoy life the way that they do. Their is pro's and con's of Prohabition, decriminilisation and legalisation. But most experts in the field will say that prohibition is a failure.

Having ecstasy supplied legally, for me would make my life safer, happier and most likely also healthier. I don't mean to come across as too one sided. As I've taken ecstasy for nearly 5 years now, and it's only been really the last 12 months that I've felt it should be legal. The more research I read, the more re-enforeced my beliefs become. If it's taken me so long to feel this way, I see no reason that the majority of the general public should feel the same. But hopefully, with enough push's and evidence for decrim/legalisation of cannabis and ecstasy perhaps it's could happen.
 
wilrobinson007 said:
"but when the science says it's safer than alcohol..."
One of the problems with that theory is that when you buy an Ecstasy pill you are getting something that in all probability produced by a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang or another criminal working for them in a backyard laboratory, often in less than ideal conditions. These people generally don't have chemistry degrees and are primarily concerned with producing something that will generate the greatest profit without sparing too much thought as to the health ramifications of the product. Its hard to consider something made in those conditions safe.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing for or against prohibition here?
 
^ seems pretty obvious to me

my only problem with legalising drugs is how do you discrimiante which ones to legalise?
like i would find it unfair if they legalised weed or eccys (which i don't care less for) but not opiates
but then again i understand that opiates are far more addictive and many people don't want their son/husband/grandmother shooting up dope erryday

i dunno its a tough situation, but at least there is a lot of discussion im happy HR is the main focus
 
whats obvious? hell im way confused!

why is alcohol legal but other safer drugs are illegal? as far as im aware there are more deaths and accidents every year due to alcohol as opposed to any other drug.

i dunno i think my perspective is shot
 
No, you're right, but because of the stupid laws that make 'other' drugs illegal they get made in shitty environments with shitty ingredients, which often makes them alot unsafer. You know this as well as I do tho.
 
And you don't need to shoot dope to have a good time on opiates.
If they weren't so expensive people might use safer routes of administration.
There is a lot of misinformation in the debate IMO.
Judging drugs by the way we know them under prohibition doesn't show the whole picture.
When the USA banned alcohol in the 1920s people made illegal stills that exploded and bathtub moonshine that made people go blind.
Sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
Negative positive test delays

TRUCK driver Danny Hanning wants fellow drivers to beware when they are roadside drug tested.

Earlier this year he tested positive to marijuana and amphetamines three times on the road side, by Horsham police in Victoria, but had not taken any drugs.

Mr Hanning then requested a blood test, not standard procedure for the police, usually saliva is sent to a laboratory for confirmation after three positive road side results.

Luckily he did, that blood test proved he had no drugs in his system, but it took seven weeks to come back with a result.

"It was a big inconvenience and stressful time," Mr Hanning said.

The system needed to be changed, he said, as he could have lost his job if his boss was not so understanding.

Mr Hanning was grounded the mandatory 12 hours after the positive roadside test and then had the result hanging over his head until the blood test came back clear.

He said it was unfair and the tests should be 100% accurate or the results should come back within 24 hours.

"I was at the hospital at 11pm that night getting blood taken to clear my name. You're guilty until proven innocent. It's unfair, we (truck drivers) get hassled enough as it is.

"I recommend everyone to request a blood test." Meanwhile Victoria Police say false positive readings are extremely rare.

"Victoria Police is very confident in the accuracy of roadside dug tests.

"The current system performance is 93.3% accurate," a spokesman said.

"Where a positive reading is shown, a further saliva test is undertaken.

"All saliva samples taken in roadside tests are sent off for further testing by police.

"A sample of the saliva test may also be provided to the person with a positive reading for independent tests if requested.

"False positive readings are extremely rare and Victoria Police has robust processes in place to ensure accuracy and transparency.

"Roadside drug tests are done to ensure the safety of all drivers and passengers on the roads.

"A roadside drug test involves drivers providing a saliva sample by placing a small absorbent pad on their tongue for a few seconds.

"This sample is analysed at the roadside in a device that detects the presence of the drugs. Drivers who return a positive result are then asked to undertake a further test which involves two further saliva samples, if this is positive, the sample is sent to a laboratory.

"It is the laboratory results which are the basis for charging the driver."

http://www.bigrigs.com.au/story/2012/09/13/negative-positive-test-delays-driver/
 
redsweater said:
^ seems pretty obvious to me
Click to expand...

wilrobinson007 first post called an argument for legalisation silly, and has posted the post I quoted in response to thestudent who has offered opinions on why prohibition is bad. As such, this post could be intepreted as a (misguided) attempt to argue against legalisation. I agree that the post of his I quoted offers a strong reason for legalisation, but context is important, and in this case makes me suspect wilrobinson is arguing against legalisation, but he could equally just be pointing out flaws in the argument whilst still supporting it, hence why I asked for clarification.
 
footscrazy said:
wilrobinson007 first post called an argument for legalisation silly, and has posted the post I quoted in response to thestudent who has offered opinions on why prohibition is bad. As such, this post could be intepreted as a (misguided) attempt to argue against legalisation. I agree that the post of his I quoted offers a strong reason for legalisation, but context is important, and in this case makes me suspect wilrobinson is arguing against legalisation, but he could equally just be pointing out flaws in the argument whilst still supporting it, hence why I asked for clarification.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it
 
I don't personally see cannabis reform being that big a cash cow. Plenty of people would simply grow it themselves and tell police they source this spliff from a dispensary.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I think initially you'll have a lot of people growing thinking just that, but eventually the majority will realize that it's mostly hard, dirty boring work and will just go back to buying it at the store, except for the few hobbyists or whatever who just get a kick out of smoking something they created themselves or playing with strains or whatever.

That said, I am a little doubtful about whether it'll be the cashcow some people represent it as, but I can't imagine it would hurt in that regard. It's a little silly when I see people saying that legalizing cannabis is the answer to any economics woes though.
 
For every ounce that is taxed and collected by the government you also have to factor the loss of productivity, the downturn in alcohol sales, people being late for work because they couldn't find their keys etc. If you think the Hotelier Association took a hit when they banned indoor smoking imagine the loses when people stay home and smoke weed. They won't repeal the smoking laws just so they can open coffee shops, dispensaries will be for selling weed and perhaps tim tams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top