-
-
AADD Moderators: andyturbo
News: 15/11/2002 - Life jail for 100kg ecstasy haul
- Thread starter wazza
- Start date
Even with pills, the total amount of active ingrediants (mainly mdxx hopefully) is what gets the person charged (far as I know).
It all depends on how much mdxx is in per pill (40mg to 120mg at MAX) I guess per pill. Probably 40-80mg is more realistic? And remember, not everyone eats pills when they have mdxx
It all depends on how much mdxx is in per pill (40mg to 120mg at MAX) I guess per pill. Probably 40-80mg is more realistic? And remember, not everyone eats pills when they have mdxx
SeveredPsyche
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2001
- Messages
- 329
Biscuit: Not wanting to get into good/bad drugs discussion either, but this caught my attention:
I can see your point.
But i was emphasising the harm to the community as a whole and not individual drug users or even the commercial interests to the community.
Its property related crime, armed robberies, old ladies being bashed for $5 which i was referring to. MDMA has not been implicated in virtually any such crime, whereas methamphetamine and heroin seem to be implicated in the majority of them.
It is true that MDMA could wind up producing a generation of vegetables, but it might not either. We dont know yet; however we do know the correlation between crime and drugs of addiction and in the case of property crime, its an overwhelming correlation.
Drug traffickers are punished not only because they make obscene amounts of money and they are ruthless, but because they are making the money from something illegal. If it only was for those first 2 characteristics then all the CEOs of major companies should be locked up too.
So if it depends on illegality, you must consider valid reasons for its illegality (most of us would agree that the concern for the welfare of individuals should not enter into it) - and hence it comes back to the harm done to the community, not the individual.
Whether MDMA makes the user useless at work or frys there brain is beside the point, it doesnt make them hurt others or steal from them, or at least has not so far in a broad sense.
But i was emphasising the harm to the community as a whole and not individual drug users or even the commercial interests to the community.
Its property related crime, armed robberies, old ladies being bashed for $5 which i was referring to. MDMA has not been implicated in virtually any such crime, whereas methamphetamine and heroin seem to be implicated in the majority of them.
It is true that MDMA could wind up producing a generation of vegetables, but it might not either. We dont know yet; however we do know the correlation between crime and drugs of addiction and in the case of property crime, its an overwhelming correlation.
Drug traffickers are punished not only because they make obscene amounts of money and they are ruthless, but because they are making the money from something illegal. If it only was for those first 2 characteristics then all the CEOs of major companies should be locked up too.
So if it depends on illegality, you must consider valid reasons for its illegality (most of us would agree that the concern for the welfare of individuals should not enter into it) - and hence it comes back to the harm done to the community, not the individual.
Whether MDMA makes the user useless at work or frys there brain is beside the point, it doesnt make them hurt others or steal from them, or at least has not so far in a broad sense.
SeveredPsyche
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2001
- Messages
- 329
I agree with what you're saying regarding harm to the community rather than the individual, but I don't believe we can quantify the damage MDMA has caused yet.
The indirect consequences of a nation of e'd up citizens have not been fully explored. Sure, most people won't prostitute themselves & do over people & houses to get their next pill, but their job & school work will suffer (if only slightly). Fucking up at school can cause problems later in life. With employees, the repurcussions go beyond just the organisation they work for. Sure there are safety checks in all industries, but these could fail. And why should they have to be relied on because of substandard workers?
You say legality should not be based on the welfare of the individual, and I tend to agree, however the welfare of that individual directly and indirectly effects others. No man (or woman) is an island, as much as we'd like to be. Well, okay maybe some are but back to the point...
Say you're working in Maccas and are a little slow at turning the burgers over...maybe someone is trying to pass you (or you them) something hot and your attention isn't what it should be. Maybe you forgot to tighten or replace the O rings on the space shuttle...
It is also possible you go psychotic/depressed/manic/etc and bowl over old ladies not for money, but because it seemed like a good idea or you didn't know what you are doing. This is going out on a limb a bit, but there are more immediate consequences from occasionally using MDMA than occasionally using heroin.
Also, the reasons you point out for heroin being illegal are all results of it being made illegal in the first place.
I don't have any answers but I believe something needs to be sorted here. Separating "good" and "bad" drugs appears to be harming the camps of both pro-soft and pro-all drugs when they could be working together. A lot of their arguments are surprisingly similar.
[ 21 November 2002: Message edited by: SeveredPsyche ]
The indirect consequences of a nation of e'd up citizens have not been fully explored. Sure, most people won't prostitute themselves & do over people & houses to get their next pill, but their job & school work will suffer (if only slightly). Fucking up at school can cause problems later in life. With employees, the repurcussions go beyond just the organisation they work for. Sure there are safety checks in all industries, but these could fail. And why should they have to be relied on because of substandard workers?
You say legality should not be based on the welfare of the individual, and I tend to agree, however the welfare of that individual directly and indirectly effects others. No man (or woman) is an island, as much as we'd like to be. Well, okay maybe some are but back to the point...
Say you're working in Maccas and are a little slow at turning the burgers over...maybe someone is trying to pass you (or you them) something hot and your attention isn't what it should be. Maybe you forgot to tighten or replace the O rings on the space shuttle...
It is also possible you go psychotic/depressed/manic/etc and bowl over old ladies not for money, but because it seemed like a good idea or you didn't know what you are doing. This is going out on a limb a bit, but there are more immediate consequences from occasionally using MDMA than occasionally using heroin.
Also, the reasons you point out for heroin being illegal are all results of it being made illegal in the first place.
I don't have any answers but I believe something needs to be sorted here. Separating "good" and "bad" drugs appears to be harming the camps of both pro-soft and pro-all drugs when they could be working together. A lot of their arguments are surprisingly similar.
[ 21 November 2002: Message edited by: SeveredPsyche ]
I never said whether i agreed with heroin's illegality.
All i meant is that, IMO, traffickers in heroin or speed should do more time than traffickers of equal quantities of MDMA.
I agree with all your points about what MDMA may or can do to people but there is countless other drugs, including legal ones, which account for similar problems.
I also think that these bad effects of MDMA still effect the individual or those in the individual's immediate vicinity. The effects of the others tend to touch a far greater number of people, and in undoubtedly more severe ways.
Anyway i think i have caused this to go off track enough; there is no easy answer, but a judge must always determine the seriousness of each crime when he or she brings down a sentence. This often results in the ranking of various crimes; rape is a classic example.
Aggravated sexual penetration for a couple of minutes with a single punch delivered to the victim will receive a shorted sentence than one committed over a long period of time with extreme violence or humiliation.
On the statute books its the same offence, but they do not attract the same sentence.
So my point is this, i see no reason why this cannot be extrapolated to drug trafficking, not only in terms of the amount, but the type of drug. If u think that is too hard/uncertain, try watching a judge struggle when they have to rank the seriousness of sexual crimes or homicides, whilst faced with the victim or their families.
Is it just me or is the harm potential to the COMMUNITY of 100,000 hits of heroin/speed greater or less than 100,000 MDMA pills.
No one says the MDMA is not causing ANY harm, but when u look at the relative degree, which is what sentencing is all about, it seems obvious to me.
Or am i missing something?
All i meant is that, IMO, traffickers in heroin or speed should do more time than traffickers of equal quantities of MDMA.
I agree with all your points about what MDMA may or can do to people but there is countless other drugs, including legal ones, which account for similar problems.
I also think that these bad effects of MDMA still effect the individual or those in the individual's immediate vicinity. The effects of the others tend to touch a far greater number of people, and in undoubtedly more severe ways.
Anyway i think i have caused this to go off track enough; there is no easy answer, but a judge must always determine the seriousness of each crime when he or she brings down a sentence. This often results in the ranking of various crimes; rape is a classic example.
Aggravated sexual penetration for a couple of minutes with a single punch delivered to the victim will receive a shorted sentence than one committed over a long period of time with extreme violence or humiliation.
On the statute books its the same offence, but they do not attract the same sentence.
So my point is this, i see no reason why this cannot be extrapolated to drug trafficking, not only in terms of the amount, but the type of drug. If u think that is too hard/uncertain, try watching a judge struggle when they have to rank the seriousness of sexual crimes or homicides, whilst faced with the victim or their families.
Is it just me or is the harm potential to the COMMUNITY of 100,000 hits of heroin/speed greater or less than 100,000 MDMA pills.
No one says the MDMA is not causing ANY harm, but when u look at the relative degree, which is what sentencing is all about, it seems obvious to me.
Or am i missing something?