filenet
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 888
a opinion is always correct otherwise it wouldn't be an opinion
if she didn't decide to buy drugs she would still be alive
NEWS: News.com.au - 2/2/09 'Girl dies of Big Day Out drug overdose'
- Thread starter expothead
- Start date
a opinion is always correct otherwise it wouldn't be an opinion
if she didn't decide to buy drugs she would still be alive
Can I ask at least what scene? Authorities or concerned/connected punters/health experts kinda stuff?
Last edited:
You have some valid points but try to keep in mind this girl was 17. yes, blaming won't reverse this, we need to focus on stopping this kind of tragedy. If that is not yours, or others NO. 1 concern, then GO AWAY
NSW Greens MP Sylvia Hale said she had been warning governments for years that a tragedy like Ms Thoms' death might occur if sniffer dogs continued to be used at festivals.
She pointed to a 2006 NSW Ombudsman report that concluded the dogs were ineffective.
"That report concluded that not only were they ineffective, but they are likely to result in harm when young people panic and swallow drugs and this appears to have happened in Western Australia," she told AAP.
Big Day Out concerts were not venues "where you catch the Mr Bigs of drug dealing", Ms Hale said.
"Predominantly you get people carrying small quantities for personal use," she said.
"It's always young people being targeted. You think cocaine is just confined to young people? I don't think so."
If a 2006 Ombudsman report concluded the dogs are ineffective, why are they still used?????
She pointed to a 2006 NSW Ombudsman report that concluded the dogs were ineffective.
"That report concluded that not only were they ineffective, but they are likely to result in harm when young people panic and swallow drugs and this appears to have happened in Western Australia," she told AAP.
Big Day Out concerts were not venues "where you catch the Mr Bigs of drug dealing", Ms Hale said.
"Predominantly you get people carrying small quantities for personal use," she said.
"It's always young people being targeted. You think cocaine is just confined to young people? I don't think so."
If a 2006 Ombudsman report concluded the dogs are ineffective, why are they still used?????
kingpin007
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,888
they maybe be ineffective in some aspects but to the general public they believe the police actually are do something and for the police bosses & big bosses up the ladder get a pat on the back for good work but Im sure there will be a boss up the chain who will not be happy but it takes more than one to speak up to make a change.
Why should we have to go to court for 1 or 2 pills ??? i believe a caution and at worst $200 fine would be fair ... it would also make the court system speed up as at the moment its a JOKE.
Police need to be more easy going on users and go extremely hard on the dealers.
Only way they might stop using sniffer dogs at events will be when more people die ....
Why should we have to go to court for 1 or 2 pills ??? i believe a caution and at worst $200 fine would be fair ... it would also make the court system speed up as at the moment its a JOKE.
Police need to be more easy going on users and go extremely hard on the dealers.
Only way they might stop using sniffer dogs at events will be when more people die ....
kingpin007
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,888
This is a transcript from AM. The program is broadcast around Australia at 08:00 on ABC Local Radio.
Questions over police sniffer dogs after drug overdose
AM - Tuesday, 3 February , 2009 08:18:00
Reporter: Michael Turtle
TONY EASTLEY: The death of a young woman from an apparent drug overdose at a Perth music festival at the weekend has again highlighted the use of drug sniffer dogs.
It's believed the 17-year-old swallowed three ecstasy pills at the Big Day Out concert when she feared she would be caught by police who were searching for illegal drugs.
Here's youth affairs reporter Michael Turtle.
MICHAEL TURTLE: As the Big Day Out festival has travelled the country for the past few weeks, tens of thousands of fans have turned out in sweltering heat for Australia's biggest music event.
(Sound of music)
But also out in large numbers at all the cities have been the police, and in most jurisdictions they've been using sniffer dogs to try to catch people carrying drugs, patrolling the venues, the entrances and nearby transport hubs.
(Sound of revellers and police)
That's just what was happening at Perth's Big Day Out on Sunday when a 17-year-old girl arrived.
Her friends say she'd already taken one ecstasy pill by this stage, but when she saw the dogs she was scared she'd be caught and took three more at once.
Later that day she was taken to hospital and that night she died.
New South Wales Greens MP Sylvia Hale has been campaigning against high-profile sniffer dog operations for years, warning that a death like this could occur.
SYLVIA HALE: It just makes one incredibly sad. Something happens where you've said this is likely to happen and here it's happened. You know, what do you say to the parents? Or what do you say to the police force or to the state governments who have so consistently ignored the warnings.
MICHAEL TURTLE: A report by the New South Wales Ombudsman in 2006 found the state's drug dog policy was ineffective for detecting dealers, often led to searches of people who had no drugs on them or caught young people with very small amounts of cannabis.
SYLVIA HALE: It's a misuse of police resources. I would far prefer to see the money spent on educating young people as to the dangers of drug-taking rather than prompting them into activities that you know are going to be dangerous and pose a real risk to their health.
MICHAEL TURTLE: But in Western Australia, the police are making no apologies for the sniffer dog operation at the Big Day Out, saying it was part of a harm-minimisation attitude.
The Premier, Colin Barnett, has also defended police actions.
COLIN BARNETT: I don't apologise for that. As tragic as this case is, it is sadly one further example of the devastating effects of drug usage and to young people in Western Australian I simply say, look what's happening around. Look at the tragedy, the loss of life, people with mental health problems, inability to complete school, to study, to succeed in life and in their career.
TONY EASTLEY: Western Australia's Premier Colin Barnett ending that report by Michael Turtle.
You can also listen to the story in REAL AUDIO and WINDOWS MEDIA and MP3 formats-->
rtsp://media1.abc.net.au/reallibrary/audio/am/200902/20090203-am-07-sniffer-dogs.rm
or
mms://media4.abc.net.au/winlibrary/audio/am/200902/20090203-am-07-sniffer-dogs.wma
or
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/200902/20090203-am-07-sniffer-dogs.mp3
And heres the abc am radio page-->
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2480612.htm
Questions over police sniffer dogs after drug overdose
AM - Tuesday, 3 February , 2009 08:18:00
Reporter: Michael Turtle
TONY EASTLEY: The death of a young woman from an apparent drug overdose at a Perth music festival at the weekend has again highlighted the use of drug sniffer dogs.
It's believed the 17-year-old swallowed three ecstasy pills at the Big Day Out concert when she feared she would be caught by police who were searching for illegal drugs.
Here's youth affairs reporter Michael Turtle.
MICHAEL TURTLE: As the Big Day Out festival has travelled the country for the past few weeks, tens of thousands of fans have turned out in sweltering heat for Australia's biggest music event.
(Sound of music)
But also out in large numbers at all the cities have been the police, and in most jurisdictions they've been using sniffer dogs to try to catch people carrying drugs, patrolling the venues, the entrances and nearby transport hubs.
(Sound of revellers and police)
That's just what was happening at Perth's Big Day Out on Sunday when a 17-year-old girl arrived.
Her friends say she'd already taken one ecstasy pill by this stage, but when she saw the dogs she was scared she'd be caught and took three more at once.
Later that day she was taken to hospital and that night she died.
New South Wales Greens MP Sylvia Hale has been campaigning against high-profile sniffer dog operations for years, warning that a death like this could occur.
SYLVIA HALE: It just makes one incredibly sad. Something happens where you've said this is likely to happen and here it's happened. You know, what do you say to the parents? Or what do you say to the police force or to the state governments who have so consistently ignored the warnings.
MICHAEL TURTLE: A report by the New South Wales Ombudsman in 2006 found the state's drug dog policy was ineffective for detecting dealers, often led to searches of people who had no drugs on them or caught young people with very small amounts of cannabis.
SYLVIA HALE: It's a misuse of police resources. I would far prefer to see the money spent on educating young people as to the dangers of drug-taking rather than prompting them into activities that you know are going to be dangerous and pose a real risk to their health.
MICHAEL TURTLE: But in Western Australia, the police are making no apologies for the sniffer dog operation at the Big Day Out, saying it was part of a harm-minimisation attitude.
The Premier, Colin Barnett, has also defended police actions.
COLIN BARNETT: I don't apologise for that. As tragic as this case is, it is sadly one further example of the devastating effects of drug usage and to young people in Western Australian I simply say, look what's happening around. Look at the tragedy, the loss of life, people with mental health problems, inability to complete school, to study, to succeed in life and in their career.
TONY EASTLEY: Western Australia's Premier Colin Barnett ending that report by Michael Turtle.
You can also listen to the story in REAL AUDIO and WINDOWS MEDIA and MP3 formats-->
rtsp://media1.abc.net.au/reallibrary/audio/am/200902/20090203-am-07-sniffer-dogs.rm
or
mms://media4.abc.net.au/winlibrary/audio/am/200902/20090203-am-07-sniffer-dogs.wma
or
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/200902/20090203-am-07-sniffer-dogs.mp3
And heres the abc am radio page-->
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2480612.htm
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
There's something a few people aren't getting here;
Is the risk of getting ill/ dying perceived as being more dangerous to ones well-being than getting caught, charged, fined and convicted for drugs? For many people, the latter is the far more scary option. Convicted drug users are marked for life in many cases - even those who receive a non-conviction are often still hindered by it later in life. If you're young, looking at a bright future, career etc, you might feel there is no choice when faced with sniffer dogs. Some people, particularly when in such a panic, undoubtedly weigh up the chances of dying on a few Es - as being remote, against a virtual certainty they'll be busted if they walk past the dogs.
The bottom line is; without the dogs’ presence, she wouldn't have necked the all the pills at once. Many others would have undoubtedly done the same, thankfully without this tragic outcome. When the use of sniffer dogs at events was first being considered by police, as Silvia Hale remarked, many people predicted this would happen, but the powers that be at that time brushed it off as more anti- prohibitionist scare tactics. Now that it's resulted in a death, one we know of anyway – those in power shift the blame to the drug itself; pathetic - if only drugs could talk, aye![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
It's also completely naive to think police detection dogs at events can only serve to reduce the harms caused by drugs. Not only is the issue of necking all at the gate very relevant, but also, since the introduction of this and similar measures, the number of interventions we see involving "over the counter" products or novel compounds assumed to be safe from detection etc has increased dramatically. And if it's not quasi legal psychostimulants, it's excessive use of alcohol. I won't even bother mentioning any of the many examples we have on the flow-on effects that terrorizing patrons in this manner has had. Many, after witnessing the dogs, become withdrawn from all authority - including medics, and are frequently too afraid to admit what they took for fear of getting in trouble. Others become so afraid they won't even seek help when they need it.
Soon, all major events in Queensland will only have mid-light beers available on site. Restrictions will also be placed on the number sold, which will also change throughout the event, and bars will close early.
What sort of predictions can we make here? Well, for a start, I'd wager anything we'll see more people drinking heavily before they enter the venue. We'll also no doubt see punters having non-drinking friends buy their drinks for them, thus getting around the 4 drink max, or whatever it's set at for various times of the day. I also believe we'll see renewed popularity of drugs with longer half lives. We already see increases in reported LSD use at one day events. Don't get me wrong, reducing excessive alcohol intoxication is great for most, not least HR teams and medics, but we have to consider what the overall effect will be.
As I've said, Police do have a role at events, and a part of that role is to reduce the harms caused by drugs, and one way of doing that is by reducing amounts of illicit drugs entering an event. However, methods and intended scope of such operations are everything. The fact is, the number of drug dealers at these events is tiny compared to the number of people taking drugs. So, whether it’s the stated intention or not, police invariably detain more users. Clued up drug dealers would have other ways of getting their product onsite anyway.
As for the girl’s friends; how long do you think it takes to swallow a couple of pills? Her friends may have even told her not to do it, but when under pressure from those upfront of the line, who wants to make too much noise about a friend and pills?
It’s also very possible she was not aware of the dangers. It could even be that she, or friends from her crew had taken 3 of these tablets before, without consequence. There are just too many unknowns here to even begin to pass judgement.
Glad we agree on that!
Not legal with no boundaries, but certainly regulated as per pharmaceuticals. With what's coming, that's inevitable IMO as there'll simply be no way for authorities to keep up with newly emerging compounds. Analogue legislation with pharmacologically similar clauses may help prosecute once seizures are made, but it’s a matter of identifying these compounds quickly, and it will be an impossible job under the present system. Paralleling this tend, drug taking will become more dangerous, less predictable and increasingly difficult to treat in cases of overdose. Ultimately, a system such as that in place in NZ will have to be developed, but by which regulation and availability are more aptly defined. But a Tsunami is coming, mark my words.
That's possibly the most sensible thing you've said in this thread. As I've said before and plan to elaborate on further in the future, Harm minimisation (or the harm reduction component) isn't working as well as it used to because of this ridiculous notion among policy makers that telling users how to do it more safely- even with a deterrent slant - is sending the wrong message.
From the perspective of someone who has seen it work effectively, it's been like going back to the dark ages. Fair enough, if this conservative change in the info provided to users had been demonstrated to have resulted in less drug use I would have stepped back and admitted HR, as it previously stood, was fundamentally flawed. But most of the reduction in use today, of the common drugs; meth, MDMA etc, is primarily due to local supply reduction, particularly in regards to methamphetamine. If that was the end of it, great, but it's not. The drugs are changing, the crime bosses are changing, and user tastes are expanding. All of which leaves LE further behind the eight-ball, and HR and medical groups less able to prevent catastrophic outcomes.
I say establish drug education at a very young age. Don't send home scare pamphlets to parents - it makes a great portion of society retreat and become less likely to discuss the issue with their kids. I’ve spoken on this before and will again, but if demand reduction is really the aim, I see it as absolutely essential to address this once and for all, and in a practical and holistic fashion.
And yes, it was the system that failed her, but the dogs were the part that ‘bit her’.
I've been active in HR outreach since early 1999. In those first few years we were able to reach many people in all sorts of environments - even clubs, where, from working in event production, doors were opened for us. We were initially provided good resources - no pussy worded pamphlets, just straight up life saving advice. When these became outdated, and nothing replaced them, we designed our own, often crappy looking A4s, with stuff on hyponatremia, and other sensible info. These too were well received and often sparked further inquiry. Then, as state government initiatives bent to meet the "tougher on drug users" federal policy, the focus on the information we were given changed, and what was previously considered good advice was then viewed as sending the wrong message..
We continued to give truthful, scientifically backed info as asked for. To do otherwise would have seen us shunned by punters as other groups were. But we had to work hard to find new ways by which to stay effective and remain accepted by our target groups while still adhering to operational protocols.
Ultimately, the best harm reduction equates to harm prevention (abstention).
I know I'm mostly preaching to the converted here, but realistically, minimising harms with those who will use regardless, is far more achievable and has been well demonstrated. Within that framework, there is far more room to successfully disseminate deterrent based advice. It works because, without the “Just Say No” blurb it attracts more interest, simple as that.
Going back to when we first started doing HR outreach; we found awareness among the punters on the potential dangers of MDMA (and other drugs) grew steadily for the first years. In those early days, people came to us hungry for info on their drug/s of choice, and certainly less afraid of admitting use. What I'm trying to stress here, is that when HR was politically popular, real progress was made at both preventing and reducing harms.
My wife's motto used to be "think of us as a safety net. We catch em' before they fall..."
These days it's more mopping up - preventing tragedy after the behavior, rather than preventing behaviour which can lead to tragedy. To me and others on the coal face, this seems ridiculous. We had a system that worked. It wasn't the complete answer to demand reduction, more something that could be built upon. But unlike the present system, information was successfully disseminated to a far wider demographic, information which was found to be very effective at reducing the level of personal use - an achievable objective of any realistic demand reduction mandate.
Success was evident not only by those casualties that later joined the group - and therefore were straight whenever they attended with the group - but also from the numbers that would come into the tent at future events and announce they were straight or intended to limit their drug use at the event. The secret was to discover you could still enjoy an event without being having to be smashed. While we still see it occasionally these days, it's far from what it used to be.
So, interventions involving "take home knowledge" were once a much bigger part of our work. Today, for most surviving drug advice groups, it's required that there be far less focus on reduction and more on prevention, with the term "prevention" meaning to stop use altogether rather than prevent undesirable outcomes after the fact. Aside from its ineffectiveness, to us, that sort of policy doesn't foster the idea of promoting personal management skills; which once formed a big part of any message we gave. That gives people tools by which they can develop a better self image, and as we all know, self image is an important tool for changing bad habits and breaking addiction cycles.
Without doubt, unless we return to accepting that drug use has and will always occur, we are set for more deaths and higher use figures - the drugs will also change, presenting more complex problems for anyone concerned with saving lives, or enforcing the law.
To be successful in demand reduction, we must abandon this ridiculous ideology of eliminating drug use altogether, and focus once again on disseminating practical, effective information. If we don't, we'll continue to see more bad judgement on the part of innocent users, and sadly, more fatal outcomes.
I think it should be evident from comments on the AM report
Is the risk of getting ill/ dying perceived as being more dangerous to ones well-being than getting caught, charged, fined and convicted for drugs? For many people, the latter is the far more scary option. Convicted drug users are marked for life in many cases - even those who receive a non-conviction are often still hindered by it later in life. If you're young, looking at a bright future, career etc, you might feel there is no choice when faced with sniffer dogs. Some people, particularly when in such a panic, undoubtedly weigh up the chances of dying on a few Es - as being remote, against a virtual certainty they'll be busted if they walk past the dogs.
The bottom line is; without the dogs’ presence, she wouldn't have necked the all the pills at once. Many others would have undoubtedly done the same, thankfully without this tragic outcome. When the use of sniffer dogs at events was first being considered by police, as Silvia Hale remarked, many people predicted this would happen, but the powers that be at that time brushed it off as more anti- prohibitionist scare tactics. Now that it's resulted in a death, one we know of anyway – those in power shift the blame to the drug itself; pathetic - if only drugs could talk, aye
It's also completely naive to think police detection dogs at events can only serve to reduce the harms caused by drugs. Not only is the issue of necking all at the gate very relevant, but also, since the introduction of this and similar measures, the number of interventions we see involving "over the counter" products or novel compounds assumed to be safe from detection etc has increased dramatically. And if it's not quasi legal psychostimulants, it's excessive use of alcohol. I won't even bother mentioning any of the many examples we have on the flow-on effects that terrorizing patrons in this manner has had. Many, after witnessing the dogs, become withdrawn from all authority - including medics, and are frequently too afraid to admit what they took for fear of getting in trouble. Others become so afraid they won't even seek help when they need it.
Soon, all major events in Queensland will only have mid-light beers available on site. Restrictions will also be placed on the number sold, which will also change throughout the event, and bars will close early.
What sort of predictions can we make here? Well, for a start, I'd wager anything we'll see more people drinking heavily before they enter the venue. We'll also no doubt see punters having non-drinking friends buy their drinks for them, thus getting around the 4 drink max, or whatever it's set at for various times of the day. I also believe we'll see renewed popularity of drugs with longer half lives. We already see increases in reported LSD use at one day events. Don't get me wrong, reducing excessive alcohol intoxication is great for most, not least HR teams and medics, but we have to consider what the overall effect will be.
As I've said, Police do have a role at events, and a part of that role is to reduce the harms caused by drugs, and one way of doing that is by reducing amounts of illicit drugs entering an event. However, methods and intended scope of such operations are everything. The fact is, the number of drug dealers at these events is tiny compared to the number of people taking drugs. So, whether it’s the stated intention or not, police invariably detain more users. Clued up drug dealers would have other ways of getting their product onsite anyway.
As for the girl’s friends; how long do you think it takes to swallow a couple of pills? Her friends may have even told her not to do it, but when under pressure from those upfront of the line, who wants to make too much noise about a friend and pills?
It’s also very possible she was not aware of the dangers. It could even be that she, or friends from her crew had taken 3 of these tablets before, without consequence. There are just too many unknowns here to even begin to pass judgement.
Glad we agree on that!
Not legal with no boundaries, but certainly regulated as per pharmaceuticals. With what's coming, that's inevitable IMO as there'll simply be no way for authorities to keep up with newly emerging compounds. Analogue legislation with pharmacologically similar clauses may help prosecute once seizures are made, but it’s a matter of identifying these compounds quickly, and it will be an impossible job under the present system. Paralleling this tend, drug taking will become more dangerous, less predictable and increasingly difficult to treat in cases of overdose. Ultimately, a system such as that in place in NZ will have to be developed, but by which regulation and availability are more aptly defined. But a Tsunami is coming, mark my words.
That's possibly the most sensible thing you've said in this thread. As I've said before and plan to elaborate on further in the future, Harm minimisation (or the harm reduction component) isn't working as well as it used to because of this ridiculous notion among policy makers that telling users how to do it more safely- even with a deterrent slant - is sending the wrong message.
From the perspective of someone who has seen it work effectively, it's been like going back to the dark ages. Fair enough, if this conservative change in the info provided to users had been demonstrated to have resulted in less drug use I would have stepped back and admitted HR, as it previously stood, was fundamentally flawed. But most of the reduction in use today, of the common drugs; meth, MDMA etc, is primarily due to local supply reduction, particularly in regards to methamphetamine. If that was the end of it, great, but it's not. The drugs are changing, the crime bosses are changing, and user tastes are expanding. All of which leaves LE further behind the eight-ball, and HR and medical groups less able to prevent catastrophic outcomes.
I say establish drug education at a very young age. Don't send home scare pamphlets to parents - it makes a great portion of society retreat and become less likely to discuss the issue with their kids. I’ve spoken on this before and will again, but if demand reduction is really the aim, I see it as absolutely essential to address this once and for all, and in a practical and holistic fashion.
And yes, it was the system that failed her, but the dogs were the part that ‘bit her’.
I've been active in HR outreach since early 1999. In those first few years we were able to reach many people in all sorts of environments - even clubs, where, from working in event production, doors were opened for us. We were initially provided good resources - no pussy worded pamphlets, just straight up life saving advice. When these became outdated, and nothing replaced them, we designed our own, often crappy looking A4s, with stuff on hyponatremia, and other sensible info. These too were well received and often sparked further inquiry. Then, as state government initiatives bent to meet the "tougher on drug users" federal policy, the focus on the information we were given changed, and what was previously considered good advice was then viewed as sending the wrong message..
We continued to give truthful, scientifically backed info as asked for. To do otherwise would have seen us shunned by punters as other groups were. But we had to work hard to find new ways by which to stay effective and remain accepted by our target groups while still adhering to operational protocols.
Ultimately, the best harm reduction equates to harm prevention (abstention).
I know I'm mostly preaching to the converted here, but realistically, minimising harms with those who will use regardless, is far more achievable and has been well demonstrated. Within that framework, there is far more room to successfully disseminate deterrent based advice. It works because, without the “Just Say No” blurb it attracts more interest, simple as that.
Going back to when we first started doing HR outreach; we found awareness among the punters on the potential dangers of MDMA (and other drugs) grew steadily for the first years. In those early days, people came to us hungry for info on their drug/s of choice, and certainly less afraid of admitting use. What I'm trying to stress here, is that when HR was politically popular, real progress was made at both preventing and reducing harms.
My wife's motto used to be "think of us as a safety net. We catch em' before they fall..."
These days it's more mopping up - preventing tragedy after the behavior, rather than preventing behaviour which can lead to tragedy. To me and others on the coal face, this seems ridiculous. We had a system that worked. It wasn't the complete answer to demand reduction, more something that could be built upon. But unlike the present system, information was successfully disseminated to a far wider demographic, information which was found to be very effective at reducing the level of personal use - an achievable objective of any realistic demand reduction mandate.
Success was evident not only by those casualties that later joined the group - and therefore were straight whenever they attended with the group - but also from the numbers that would come into the tent at future events and announce they were straight or intended to limit their drug use at the event. The secret was to discover you could still enjoy an event without being having to be smashed. While we still see it occasionally these days, it's far from what it used to be.
So, interventions involving "take home knowledge" were once a much bigger part of our work. Today, for most surviving drug advice groups, it's required that there be far less focus on reduction and more on prevention, with the term "prevention" meaning to stop use altogether rather than prevent undesirable outcomes after the fact. Aside from its ineffectiveness, to us, that sort of policy doesn't foster the idea of promoting personal management skills; which once formed a big part of any message we gave. That gives people tools by which they can develop a better self image, and as we all know, self image is an important tool for changing bad habits and breaking addiction cycles.
Without doubt, unless we return to accepting that drug use has and will always occur, we are set for more deaths and higher use figures - the drugs will also change, presenting more complex problems for anyone concerned with saving lives, or enforcing the law.
To be successful in demand reduction, we must abandon this ridiculous ideology of eliminating drug use altogether, and focus once again on disseminating practical, effective information. If we don't, we'll continue to see more bad judgement on the part of innocent users, and sadly, more fatal outcomes.
I think it should be evident from comments on the AM report
WatMyConditionIsIn
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 236
to those who say that there is no answer that will solve problems like this i say
LEGALIZE IT, REGULATE IT, and STOP WASTING TAX DOLLARS on pathetic busts of a couple pills each. If MDMA was legal she would have known the exact dose and known for sure that MDMA was in the pills. ALso if it was legal she would have nothing to fear when confronted by the pigs. Therefore if MDMA were legal this poor girl would not have died. such a tragic waste that was most obviously caused by the police and the politicians who back them up. Makes me sick reading stuff here that people say she was entirely responsible for this death. its like saying the girl who is in the dark alley at night deserves to get raped because people like you (you know who you are) say "what was she doing in the dark alley at night?" Almost every drug OD in the world could be prevented by complete legalization of ALL recreational drugs. That is the best way to create the most harm reduction. Legalize and Educate...
LEGALIZE IT, REGULATE IT, and STOP WASTING TAX DOLLARS on pathetic busts of a couple pills each. If MDMA was legal she would have known the exact dose and known for sure that MDMA was in the pills. ALso if it was legal she would have nothing to fear when confronted by the pigs. Therefore if MDMA were legal this poor girl would not have died. such a tragic waste that was most obviously caused by the police and the politicians who back them up. Makes me sick reading stuff here that people say she was entirely responsible for this death. its like saying the girl who is in the dark alley at night deserves to get raped because people like you (you know who you are) say "what was she doing in the dark alley at night?" Almost every drug OD in the world could be prevented by complete legalization of ALL recreational drugs. That is the best way to create the most harm reduction. Legalize and Educate...
filenet
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 888
a very simplistic view there - if it was that simple then why hasn't it been done before?
Why are the likes of Amsterdam pulling back and tightening their control/policing of drugs & drug use? Its because the associated down stream problems/risks have the potential to out weigh the benefits - as with Amsterdam's current situation!
Another great example is the outcome of the King Cross Safe Injecting Centre. Since its introduction 5 years ago there has been no reduction in heroin OD death rates in the local area. Why? because there are so many other direct/indirect factors that come into play!
Really? how does a drug being made legal prevent an OD? Didn't Heath Ledger just die from an OD of legal drugs?
phase_dancer - great read, great points! I agree on the whole and will find the time to appropriately respond on some specific points!
Why are the likes of Amsterdam pulling back and tightening their control/policing of drugs & drug use? Its because the associated down stream problems/risks have the potential to out weigh the benefits - as with Amsterdam's current situation!
Another great example is the outcome of the King Cross Safe Injecting Centre. Since its introduction 5 years ago there has been no reduction in heroin OD death rates in the local area. Why? because there are so many other direct/indirect factors that come into play!
Really? how does a drug being made legal prevent an OD? Didn't Heath Ledger just die from an OD of legal drugs?
phase_dancer - great read, great points! I agree on the whole and will find the time to appropriately respond on some specific points!
Because the people making the real drug money like things just the way they are. Filenet you seem to laugh at harm reduction, whats your story?
WatMyConditionIsIn
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 236
people are gonna do stupid shit no matter the legality of drugs but thats why i included the word "most". and amsterdam is just giving into international pressure that is mainly put forward by the united states. and those tourists that died in amsterdam from mushrooms were also drunk as fuck but no one seems to notice that. drugs are illegal because most profits from the sale of illegal drugs is being used as donations to politicians and such. and if drugs were legal than they would be pure and doses would be exact. most people OD because they over estimate their tolerance or underestimate the strength of their drugs. legalization would be the best harm reduction strategy ever but it wont happen because of my points above. too much money would be lost.. yeah filenet im interested where you are coming from please explain why you are hating on harm reduction especially on BlueLight?
WatMyConditionIsIn
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 236
and at the safe injection site in vancouver canada nobody has died from an OD since it was created, also people at safe injection sites are still injecting illegal drugs cut with god knows what but in vancouver they have still prevented some 500 possible OD deaths since it was started. shame that it got closed down though...
and in regards to heath ledger... he still obtained most of the drugs he died from illegally, they werent all legal scripts, also with that many different downers in your system the possibility of suicide never occured to you?
and in regards to heath ledger... he still obtained most of the drugs he died from illegally, they werent all legal scripts, also with that many different downers in your system the possibility of suicide never occured to you?
Last edited:
filenet
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 888
no, definitely no laughter coming from me! I fully believe in harm reduction - I believe in one with a "realistic" balance that is adaptive to the current environment!
In my last post I was merely trying to point out that a liberal approach to drugs also has its challenges and sometimes this ends up creating another problem!
There has to be a sensible balance - hell, democracy took its time but it has proven to be an effective way for humans to live - so there is help for what we are talking about now!
Its a complex animal, however looking at it from a micro point of view instead of a macro point of view is ineffective! Focusing in and blaming the police & their dogs 100% for what happened isn't looking at the big picture - it wont fix anything!
We have a 17yr old girl, who brings 4 pills of unknown substances to music festival on a very hot day, drops one before she enters which indicates she knew that police were performing searches and attempts to take the remaining 3 pills through the gates. Even before getting to that stage with the police dogs, there was already a situation that had the potential to turn nasty!
In my last post I was merely trying to point out that a liberal approach to drugs also has its challenges and sometimes this ends up creating another problem!
There has to be a sensible balance - hell, democracy took its time but it has proven to be an effective way for humans to live - so there is help for what we are talking about now!
Its a complex animal, however looking at it from a micro point of view instead of a macro point of view is ineffective! Focusing in and blaming the police & their dogs 100% for what happened isn't looking at the big picture - it wont fix anything!
We have a 17yr old girl, who brings 4 pills of unknown substances to music festival on a very hot day, drops one before she enters which indicates she knew that police were performing searches and attempts to take the remaining 3 pills through the gates. Even before getting to that stage with the police dogs, there was already a situation that had the potential to turn nasty!
filenet
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 888
what, just like alcohol & tobacco? It's so lucky that these drug aren't our top causes of deaths and that associated medical costs aren't a burden on the economy!
What I am trying to point out is that there is not a simple solution - just making everything legal would be ludicrous!
WatMyConditionIsIn
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 236
i agree that its a complex problem but obviously prohibition does not work, so i think its time we tried some new and possibly radical strategies. as for democracy ill quote winston churchill
"democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all those other kinds that have been tried from time to time"
i just think recreational drugs like MDMA should be legalized and regulated like alcohol. and if that were the case then this poor girl would not be bringing 4 pills of "unknown substances" to the festival, she would know exactly what she had and have a much better idea of what a safe dose would be. alcohol prohibition just made a lot of criminals really rich and made a lot of normal law abiding citizens into "criminals". Prohibition simply doesnt work it only makes people suffer.
"democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all those other kinds that have been tried from time to time"
i just think recreational drugs like MDMA should be legalized and regulated like alcohol. and if that were the case then this poor girl would not be bringing 4 pills of "unknown substances" to the festival, she would know exactly what she had and have a much better idea of what a safe dose would be. alcohol prohibition just made a lot of criminals really rich and made a lot of normal law abiding citizens into "criminals". Prohibition simply doesnt work it only makes people suffer.
filenet
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 888
not at all! im just looking at it with a wider angle than you!