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

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

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

bahahaha, Gold reply Divine Moment!.

If I didn't know you better, I'd say you made a troll post ;>

I think this is like the first time I have seen you troll someone :)

but yes, the troll was def well deserved ;D
 
I'm all for decriminalisation but don't believe in legalisation of all drugs by the community. If you allow access to all medications are you willing to allow access to dangerous medications like chemo drugs? Current restrictions exist to protect not punish society.

My original point it is naive to think decriminalisation is a golden panacea for all of societies problems. To argue that drug use in Australia will fall is foolish. I don't know one person among my circle of friends who would stop taking drugs because it is suddenly decriminalised. Looking around Bluelight who would suddenly give up drugs or lower their current drug use?
 
It is younger people in which the rates of use will decrease, a huge part of drinking, smoking and taking drugs when you are young is doing it because you aren't allowed and rebelling against society. Lots of people start just because they aren't allowed too, those people won't be starting if they are allowed too.

Current restrictions were put in years ago to protect society when less was known about the issue, they thought it would protect people back then. They are still institutionalized because people will not admit that they do not work and that there are better alternatives. People are too afraid to admit they are wrong.

It's not like we are arguing for legislation that allows people to go in and just buy a lifetime supply of their DOC, it would be a regulated market. No one is going to buy dangerous medications like chemo drugs without the advice of a doctor because they won't get high, which they will know through education.
 
Jakeperson said:
It is younger people in which the rates of use will decrease, a huge part of drinking, smoking and taking drugs when you are young is doing it because you aren't allowed and rebelling against society. Lots of people start just because they aren't allowed too, those people won't be starting if they are allowed too.

.
Click to expand...

I've always believed that decriminilasation would increase drug use to all ages, I think with young people the "risk factor" would be outweighed by the majority of not having a criminal risk. This is why I think to reduce drug use in teenagers would require legalisation, not decriminalisation.
 
Busty St Clare said:
I'm all for decriminalisation but don't believe in legalisation of all drugs by the community. If you allow access to all medications are you willing to allow access to dangerous medications like chemo drugs? Current restrictions exist to protect not punish society.
Click to expand...
again, you're totally missing the point. a strawman argument if ever i saw one - a logical fallacy.
one of the great benefits of 'legalising' drugs is properly regulating them.
chemo drugs aren't used recreationally, and would not be supplied to consumers. prescribed drugs would still be prescribed - but people would not be put in jail for growing a plant that occurs naturally upon the earth.
 
^ Yes but then where to draw the line gets a whole lot trickier. Do pharmaceutical company's go back to prescribing amphetamines? If so, then could you still get them for recreational purposes without a prescription?

I think it could get all worked through, but it would take alot of time and work to get a good system in place
 
there are so many models that could be worked out - the problem as i see it is all of this half-measure decriminalisation.
if there is demand for something (ie amphetamine) there are people who will supply it. no matter how impure or badly synthed it is.
drugs are the bread-and-butter of organised crime in this country, and many others.
gangsters in australia used to run illegal gambling houses - but now that we have legal casinos, this is no longer an issue. most of these people moved on to drugs - and you only have to look at the murders, corruption and brutality in the australian underworld to see that this business ain't pretty.
and that's just australia - the people of mexico, columbia or bolivia (to name just a few) have seen so much drug-crime related bloodshed that what happens in australia looks like kids' stuff by comparison.

the social costs of drugs are greatly increased by illegality and the profitability of the black market. be it adulterated/contaminated drugs (levamisole in cocaine and anthrax in heroin spring to mind) or the crime that people resort to to fund their habits, prohibition has created so many of our myths and fears regarding drugs.
the history of amphetamine is a pretty interesting one - for decades, pharmaceutical companies tried to find medical conditions to prescribe it for. only in the 1950s and 60s (when drug hysteria reached new heights) did drugs like benzedrine stop being available over the counter or on prescription for 'fatigue' or 'depression'.
i'm sure the drug companies would jump at the chance to provide the market with all manner of substances that are currently scheduled.
i certainly don't have all the answers on this one, but i think human societies are capable of moving on from where we are at now.
i mean - kids are taking untested, unscheduled, unknown drugs that mimic things that humans have consumed for centuries. things that have no serious data available regarding their toxicity or long term effects. i'm not suggesting that everybody in society get wasted and 'drop out' - but something needs to change. we have generations of people who have become human guinea pigs because some archaic (and racist) law means they are criminals for smoking cannabis.

medical research on the incredible potential of drugs like LSD or MDMA in treating addiction or PTSD has been held back for decades because of the small-mindedness that has been spread by drug prohibition scare-mongering. like a lot of people, i don't buy into the fear campaign.
i know plenty of functional drug users that contribute a great deal to society. i also know people who don't take drugs who are completely dysfunctional.
 
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...

guilty of not reading the original post, sorry :)
 
spacejunk said:
i know plenty of functional drug users that contribute a great deal to society. i also know people who don't take drugs who are completely dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

that is not a strong argument though. the point they are trying to make is drugs make functional people dysfunctional, which has nothing to do with already dysfunctional people (whose conditions iroincally are often improved by legal and illicit drugs).

edit: sorry double post, feel free to merge :)
 
^ what I was getting at is that the causality between "drug law liberalisation" and "loss of productivity" is tenuous at best.
If we had less secrecy and stigma, people may well practice safer and less reckless drug use patterns.
 
Didn't know where to put this, all the sniffer dog threads have been closed, i did a search, anyway, here might do?

Sniffer dogs and ID scanners for Kings Cross

NSW Police will be able to deploy drug sniffer dogs on Kings Cross streets and across the entire metropolitan rail network without a warrant as part of the state government's response to the fatal assault on teenager Thomas Kelly in Kings Cross.

The Premier, Barry O'Farrell, announced a range of new measures today, including a three-year ban on new liquor licences in the area and the introduction of ID scanners for more than 150 licensed venues in Kings Cross, Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay.

An extra 50 police will be deployed on Friday and Saturday nights to Kings Cross, Mr O'Farrell said.

The Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian, announced extra night time bus services from Kings Cross to the city to link up with existing Night Ride services.

An extra six services an hour will operate to Central Station, while buses will operate between Kings Cross and Town Hall four times an hour.

A sobering-up centre for the Kings Cross precinct will also be trialled.

But the government has stopped short of winding back late trading hours for Kings Cross venues or imposing "lock-outs", despite calls from alcohol researchers, police and emergency services workers.

However, Mr O'Farrell said lock-outs remained "on the table" if the measures did not drive down alcohol-related violence in Kings Cross. "We will monitor the progress of this package and if there isn't improvement, those options will again be considered," he said.

Mr O'Farrell said the new measures were designed to "try and ensure that people are able to come to Kings Cross and safely have a good night out in what should be a vibrant entertainment part of a global city".

The Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, welcomed the increased ability of police to deploy drug sniffer dogs across Kings Cross and the rail network.

He said that officers now needed to swear an affidavit before a magistrate to deploy sniffer dogs and this needed to be co-ordinated with any warrants that were required. The changes were a "red-tape removal strategy", Mr Scipione said.

"What will it mean for people on the trains? I think if you were to talk to most passengers on the trains, they're quite happy to share a carriage with somebody who is not drug affected or carrying drugs or in the process of going to pick up drugs," he said.

"What that will mean is with enforcement by our drug dog unit you'll see that people will be detected and sooner or later they'll get the message - don't get on the network or you'll get caught."

Mr Scipione said there would be no base increase in police presence at Kings Cross.

"These extra police are dealing with whatever might arise as a result of activities of people in this area at certain times and on certain nights," he said.

Mr O'Farrell said the introduction of ID scanning for venues would prevent people who are ejected from one venue from entering another one down the road.

"The point here is that what can currently happen is that someone can be ejected from one venue for being objectionable, for being anti-social, and simply roll down the street into another venue," Mr O'Farrell said.

"Under this system that would be stopped ... so that someone could be banned from a premise for the night [or] for a longer period".

He said protection of personal information would be "critical" to the government and the NSW Privacy Commissioner would be "central" to putting the system together.

The Kings Cross Liquor Accord Association offered its "broad support" for the announcements.

"These measures are in line with those the accord has been calling for to improve Kings Cross street security,” its chief executive, Doug Grand, said.

“These measures have been deemed tough but necessary, and Kings Cross restaurants and bars will work with government to implement them in a way that is fair and sensible.”

But Mr Grand said more discussion was required on the proposed alcohol restrictions for Kings Cross venues.

The government has proposed measures including a ban on shots and glass after midnight on Friday and Saturdays and is expected to announce its decision as early as tomorrow.

"A recent business survey showed these measures would cost local Kings Cross restaurants and bars more than $1 million a month," Mr Grand said.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sniffer-dogs-and-id-scanners-for-kings-cross-20120918-26415.html
 
So they're trying to prevent alcohol-induced violence by making it harder for people to take other drugs, forcing them to drink booze instead?

The liquor industry must be laughing up their sleeves at this. What a fucking joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top