I see what you mean i just think the paper wants an arguement, the article is really quite pointless really, they dont name the site, they just say it exists we dont respond they will just forget about it. I was annoyed to find them comparing the site to a paedophilia (excuse spelling) but i think that was just to spark a reaction - which it has.
-
-
AADD Moderators: andyturbo
"Website Pushes Illegal Drug Use" - Sunday Herald Sun
- Thread starter tripped
- Start date
Infinite Jest
Bluelight Crew
You debating with him? Yes.
Debating with him *here*? No. There are many people on this site who are articulate and would argue our case well. There are also many who would make us look stupid. Have a debate here, and who would he/the media focus on? The stupid ones - the ones that portrayed BL and its members in the worst possible light.
If there was a way for you (Johnboy) and maybe a few others from the site to debate with him, then yes, go for it. But not in an open access forum.
Sudden thought: debate with him in the Mod/Admin forum. Keeps it manageable. What do you think?
pundi
Bluelighter
While i would love to get down and argue his 'educated' viewpoints, I don't really think the internet is a suitable venue in which to do it. It only takes one out-of-line remark and he can claim all his arguments proven. I'm yet to see a heated debate over the internet not turn into a flame war. Imagine if phreex turned up - all hell would break loose (no disrespect to the man - he has done a lot of good - but also a lot of bad).
If you want to get a point across to him i would better suggest a meeting in person with a couple of bluelighters (preferably experienced in PR) to have a reasoned and enlightened meeting of minds. But yeah I would still think no reaction is a better reaction.
addendum: yeah what simon said too
[This message has been edited by pundi (edited 14 August 2001).]
If you want to get a point across to him i would better suggest a meeting in person with a couple of bluelighters (preferably experienced in PR) to have a reasoned and enlightened meeting of minds. But yeah I would still think no reaction is a better reaction.
addendum: yeah what simon said too
[This message has been edited by pundi (edited 14 August 2001).]
Airwalk
Bluelighter
Better yet an actual debate to an open audience. Could be done via the net, or at a uni or town hall. Then it gives an opportunity to invite Government and special interest groups as well as the general community.
randomblondeboy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2000
- Messages
- 1,632
seriously though people. for i don't know how many years the government has 'waged war on drugs'. they have lost. i think everyone will admit that now. but just because they lost doesn't mean all of a sudden we are right.
we take drugs. according to the majority of our society, this is not 'socially acceptable'. it is frowned upon. the best part of 20million people in australia have no concerns in straight away labelling us as 'druggies', 'junkies', and general gutter trash. these people are your parents. these people are your brothers, sisters, employers, and maybe even some of your friends.
yes, bluelight has a purpose. that purpose is to promote an approach to mdma and other drugs that is focused on harm minimisation. the information here is, for us, very valuable. this information viewed by the mentioned 20million people, is complete rubbish.
i don't read the paper much, but i read this article. the only thing that annoyed me was when they suggested that the drug council was the only reliable place to get information on drugs.
at this point, i felt like fighting, like getting up and telling everyone i know that this is not true, that much more valuable information is out there. then i thought, why bother?
there are 20million people in australia who believe this rubbish. i'm sorry to rain on anybody's parade, but we're not about to change that.
in the war on drugs, drugs might have won, but that doesn't mean what we do is right.
we take drugs. according to the majority of our society, this is not 'socially acceptable'. it is frowned upon. the best part of 20million people in australia have no concerns in straight away labelling us as 'druggies', 'junkies', and general gutter trash. these people are your parents. these people are your brothers, sisters, employers, and maybe even some of your friends.
yes, bluelight has a purpose. that purpose is to promote an approach to mdma and other drugs that is focused on harm minimisation. the information here is, for us, very valuable. this information viewed by the mentioned 20million people, is complete rubbish.
i don't read the paper much, but i read this article. the only thing that annoyed me was when they suggested that the drug council was the only reliable place to get information on drugs.
at this point, i felt like fighting, like getting up and telling everyone i know that this is not true, that much more valuable information is out there. then i thought, why bother?
there are 20million people in australia who believe this rubbish. i'm sorry to rain on anybody's parade, but we're not about to change that.
in the war on drugs, drugs might have won, but that doesn't mean what we do is right.
HalLoweEn JacK
Bluelighter
This ended up being a lot longer than originally intended - sorry guys.
I have to admit that while I use a variety of chem's when out partying I have always been of two minds with regards to government programs against drug & alcohol abuse. News articles like this have always been one sided and vary in content (and possibly intent) from one sided arguments to blatant scare-tactic propoganda. What i see as the worst crime of this article is that it doesn't really tell the reader anything - the obvious intention here is to make mr and mrs joe public who know nothing about the club life or the role drugs play in it shake their heads and go 'dastardly drug users' - i'm a little surprised that this article didn't have any quote like "drug related emergency room incidents have increased by x amount costing the government an estimated $x over the past five years" - the play being not to bring awareness of a 'problem' to the people but to generate mindless support for campaigns against the propsed problem.
The issue I would really like to see debated in a public forum, and with no offence to Johnboy, but one I would like to see debated between people like Peter Ryan, the head of a couple of anti drug groups and task forces, opposed to at least one liberal minded philisopher, any politician with an open minded world view, and perhaps one person of high profile (academic profile, not celebrity) willing to admit to using chems - get this kind of group together for a weekend debate and ask the question 'WHY are drugs illegal?' - lets get some history, some reason behind legislation, an explanation of why drugs are blackbooked rather than regulated or educated against.
My reaosn for this train of thought comes from years spent working in an area of the hospitality industry that has little contact with customers who use drugs (except of course from the fact that my current place of employment is a short distance from a methedone clinic so we get the occasional group of junkies passing out at the bar) - instead my employer trades in the legal vices, alcohol and gambling. These are legal, regulated, and sure, there's a big crackdown on gambling at the moment, but if it's the huge, massive, society-fucking problem it's being painted as, why are there a variety of band-aid measures being brought to bear rather than blackbooking pokermachines? (I highly doubt the fact that it has anythign to do with the approx 1.4 million AUS dollars a day the government recieves form pokie taxes).
I can see I'm straying from my intended point a little, so instead of a longwinded re-route, I'm going to cut short.
When will the government 'grant' people the responsibility to govern their own actions? The idea of law and enforcement exists to maintain an ordered society - no one wants to live in a place where your property is fair pickings for anyone strong enough to take it off you or where there is no one to help you when the bullies come round to steal your lunch money (forgive the over-simplification) but if I choose to sit and drink myself stupid, why cannot this be my choice? sure the place I drink at may have a 'no drunks' policy and ask me to leave, but why should it be law that the bartender has to decide for me when I'm to drunk? Likewise with drugs - I know the risk I am taking, I have seen medical reports and scans of the damage done by drugs - it's a little scary but still I choose to pop a pill every once in a while and enjoy myself. Why aren't I allowed to make that choice?
I have to admit that while I use a variety of chem's when out partying I have always been of two minds with regards to government programs against drug & alcohol abuse. News articles like this have always been one sided and vary in content (and possibly intent) from one sided arguments to blatant scare-tactic propoganda. What i see as the worst crime of this article is that it doesn't really tell the reader anything - the obvious intention here is to make mr and mrs joe public who know nothing about the club life or the role drugs play in it shake their heads and go 'dastardly drug users' - i'm a little surprised that this article didn't have any quote like "drug related emergency room incidents have increased by x amount costing the government an estimated $x over the past five years" - the play being not to bring awareness of a 'problem' to the people but to generate mindless support for campaigns against the propsed problem.
The issue I would really like to see debated in a public forum, and with no offence to Johnboy, but one I would like to see debated between people like Peter Ryan, the head of a couple of anti drug groups and task forces, opposed to at least one liberal minded philisopher, any politician with an open minded world view, and perhaps one person of high profile (academic profile, not celebrity) willing to admit to using chems - get this kind of group together for a weekend debate and ask the question 'WHY are drugs illegal?' - lets get some history, some reason behind legislation, an explanation of why drugs are blackbooked rather than regulated or educated against.
My reaosn for this train of thought comes from years spent working in an area of the hospitality industry that has little contact with customers who use drugs (except of course from the fact that my current place of employment is a short distance from a methedone clinic so we get the occasional group of junkies passing out at the bar) - instead my employer trades in the legal vices, alcohol and gambling. These are legal, regulated, and sure, there's a big crackdown on gambling at the moment, but if it's the huge, massive, society-fucking problem it's being painted as, why are there a variety of band-aid measures being brought to bear rather than blackbooking pokermachines? (I highly doubt the fact that it has anythign to do with the approx 1.4 million AUS dollars a day the government recieves form pokie taxes).
I can see I'm straying from my intended point a little, so instead of a longwinded re-route, I'm going to cut short.
When will the government 'grant' people the responsibility to govern their own actions? The idea of law and enforcement exists to maintain an ordered society - no one wants to live in a place where your property is fair pickings for anyone strong enough to take it off you or where there is no one to help you when the bullies come round to steal your lunch money (forgive the over-simplification) but if I choose to sit and drink myself stupid, why cannot this be my choice? sure the place I drink at may have a 'no drunks' policy and ask me to leave, but why should it be law that the bartender has to decide for me when I'm to drunk? Likewise with drugs - I know the risk I am taking, I have seen medical reports and scans of the damage done by drugs - it's a little scary but still I choose to pop a pill every once in a while and enjoy myself. Why aren't I allowed to make that choice?
Airwalk
Bluelighter
RBB first of all there aren't any stats that I'm aware of that say most of Australia's 20 million people frown on drug users. Secondly I've personally educated four non-drug takers to the point that they belive in some for of leigilisation/decriminalisation and no longer look down on recreatinoal drug use. For the record they still don't take drugs and two of them are my parents mid 50 something's. So yes we can each make a small differnece and small differences lead to big differences.
HJ I agree with your reasoning in part. THat thing I do not is that you say you work in a place where you don't come across drug use, you may be very damned surprised where people choose to use illicit drugs. From Raves to the Melbourne Club it all goes on. Othere than that some very good points.
HJ I agree with your reasoning in part. THat thing I do not is that you say you work in a place where you don't come across drug use, you may be very damned surprised where people choose to use illicit drugs. From Raves to the Melbourne Club it all goes on. Othere than that some very good points.
johnboy
Bluelight Crew
well i just got off the phone to the journo who wrote it. i asked her if she had bothered to contact us, she said she had clicked on the "contact us" link, but when she saw it only gave her email address for people in europe she decided to not bother.
i explained to her that there were innumerable other ways of contacting us, including just posting a message on the board, which other journos have done. i asked if she felt this was good journalistic practice. she admitted it wasn't.
i told her that if the story was just another critical piece, we could have lived with such sloppy work, but as the story quoted someone comparing us to pedophiles it was inexcusable and we were disgusted.
she said that they weren't responsible for the pedophilia slur, as they were just quoting someone. i offered that, by this logic, we could not be held responsible for any content on our site, as little of it is written by the people that run the site, and we are only quoting what people have posted.
i asked if she was planning any followup stories. she said no, she "hadnt been instructed to do any".
i said that, in a way, we were grateful for the web address being left out of the story, but that it does make it hard for us to respond to these allegations and slurs.
i asked if we could respond with a letter to the editor. she said we could. i said we would also not refer to our name in that letter. she said that would be fine.
i'll start drafting up a letter now, taking into account all the responses here, and we can all add our bit, but we gotta keep it short and snappy to get published.
oh and i grilled her about some of her "facts". she arrived at the figure of 700 Melbourne users by putting "Melbourne" into the pill reports search engine and taking the 700 reports as each being by one person.
and Graeme Rule, the man who compares us to nonces, hadn't even heard of the site, let alone seen it, before he came out with those quotes...
i explained to her that there were innumerable other ways of contacting us, including just posting a message on the board, which other journos have done. i asked if she felt this was good journalistic practice. she admitted it wasn't.
i told her that if the story was just another critical piece, we could have lived with such sloppy work, but as the story quoted someone comparing us to pedophiles it was inexcusable and we were disgusted.
she said that they weren't responsible for the pedophilia slur, as they were just quoting someone. i offered that, by this logic, we could not be held responsible for any content on our site, as little of it is written by the people that run the site, and we are only quoting what people have posted.
i asked if she was planning any followup stories. she said no, she "hadnt been instructed to do any".
i said that, in a way, we were grateful for the web address being left out of the story, but that it does make it hard for us to respond to these allegations and slurs.
i asked if we could respond with a letter to the editor. she said we could. i said we would also not refer to our name in that letter. she said that would be fine.
i'll start drafting up a letter now, taking into account all the responses here, and we can all add our bit, but we gotta keep it short and snappy to get published.
oh and i grilled her about some of her "facts". she arrived at the figure of 700 Melbourne users by putting "Melbourne" into the pill reports search engine and taking the 700 reports as each being by one person.
and Graeme Rule, the man who compares us to nonces, hadn't even heard of the site, let alone seen it, before he came out with those quotes...
BigTrancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2000
- Messages
- 7,342
Nice work JB - very diplomatic.
Could you sent me a copy of the letter to editor when you have something fleshed out, or post it in here if you feel it's necessary?
Ta, BT
------------------
Load universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Shoot.
Could you sent me a copy of the letter to editor when you have something fleshed out, or post it in here if you feel it's necessary?
Ta, BT
------------------
Load universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Shoot.
johnboy
Bluelight Crew
i was going to post i here first, just to get everyone's input...
Tarsarlan
Bluelighter
Nice work JB!
I've already given my input in the couple of posts I've made in this thread, use my comments if you want... If you want me to expand on them let me know...
I've already given my input in the couple of posts I've made in this thread, use my comments if you want... If you want me to expand on them let me know...
My thoughts...
This website promotes harm minimisation and does not promote the use of illegal drugs. Patrons of the site do not buy or sell drugs via the site in any way, shape or form.
This website does encourage forum users to discuss their experiences with drugs, in that way others can learn from their mistakes without having to repeat them.
On another tangent; Censorship laws do leave the Federal and State Government incapable of any action in this situation. Indeed it's my understanding that Australian law actually protects a site like this via The Broadcasting Services Act which is designed in part to protect Internet Content Hosts.
My two cents + a lil extra cause this posts makes me a BL
[This message has been edited by swipe (edited 15 August 2001).]
This website promotes harm minimisation and does not promote the use of illegal drugs. Patrons of the site do not buy or sell drugs via the site in any way, shape or form.
This website does encourage forum users to discuss their experiences with drugs, in that way others can learn from their mistakes without having to repeat them.
On another tangent; Censorship laws do leave the Federal and State Government incapable of any action in this situation. Indeed it's my understanding that Australian law actually protects a site like this via The Broadcasting Services Act which is designed in part to protect Internet Content Hosts.
My two cents + a lil extra cause this posts makes me a BL
[This message has been edited by swipe (edited 15 August 2001).]
Great work Johnboy looks like journo not too experienced in research - but i guess if we look at the paper she writes for it speaks for itself.
Be very interested in reading over the reply and having a bit of input thanx 4 that
- true tho its best site address not published
Be very interested in reading over the reply and having a bit of input thanx 4 that
- true tho its best site address not published
mibrane
Bluelighter
this anti-BL article is part of an ongoing campaign on the part of the HS to attack the right of drug users to self-expression.
three weeks ago the HS ran a very concerted campaign against VIVAIDS' magazine WHACK.
They started with a page three article on the thursday, an editorial on the friday calling for our funding to be cut, and a further article on the monday with a disgruntled parent.
one of the most offensive things was that they had had the stroy for about six weeks, and we had been able to raise a fuss b4 they ran with the initial story.
they then ran it in the context of 5 out of the first seven pages being devoted to the "heroin High rollers" who were laundering money through and operating from Crown. the message was blatant - all users arte rich and having the time of our lives, then we take government money to teach others how to do it more effectively!
in the wake we also faced TV (Today Tonight on our doorstep at 9am) and corporate radio.
we raised a very good campaign of letters to the editorial from AIDS and HEP C Councils, our peak body and various other groups.
none of these were printed, which is to be expected, but they need to know they can't get away with these things scot-free. we have informed them that we will no longer provide commentary for their papers when they ask for it, only on our own terms.
a part of our response needs to be continuing the development of our own media -radio shows like drugtalk, the ravesafe specials we have coming up -, community TV, utilising sites like indymedia to post the truth.
i can't agree that there are 20 million australians opposed to drug users - if i didn't believe we were getting somewhere drug user activism would have got too hard for me several years ago. we are moving forwards.
the fact that a body like the NCA -for fucks sake! - can call for heroin trials as part of a range of measures; and the response - mostly positive- it sparked through talkback over the next couple of days proves that there is real possibilities for drug law reform.
i wrote an article for the Whack summer edition entitled "come out of the drug closet - but check whose bedroom you're in first."
it is really hard to put ourselves on the line when we're being compared to paedophiles, but reform isn't given, its won, and drug users have to be a part of, in fact lead that movement for change.
the more of us who come out and speak up, the less likely they are to print this defamatory shit
------------------
venceremos - hasta la victoria siempre
Al-Qahira, Ares, Auquakah, Bahram.
Harmarkhis, Hrad, Hou Hsing, Kasei.
Ma'adim, Maja, Mamers, Mangala, Mars.
Nirgal, Shalbatanu, Simud and Tiu.
three weeks ago the HS ran a very concerted campaign against VIVAIDS' magazine WHACK.
They started with a page three article on the thursday, an editorial on the friday calling for our funding to be cut, and a further article on the monday with a disgruntled parent.
one of the most offensive things was that they had had the stroy for about six weeks, and we had been able to raise a fuss b4 they ran with the initial story.
they then ran it in the context of 5 out of the first seven pages being devoted to the "heroin High rollers" who were laundering money through and operating from Crown. the message was blatant - all users arte rich and having the time of our lives, then we take government money to teach others how to do it more effectively!
in the wake we also faced TV (Today Tonight on our doorstep at 9am) and corporate radio.
we raised a very good campaign of letters to the editorial from AIDS and HEP C Councils, our peak body and various other groups.
none of these were printed, which is to be expected, but they need to know they can't get away with these things scot-free. we have informed them that we will no longer provide commentary for their papers when they ask for it, only on our own terms.
a part of our response needs to be continuing the development of our own media -radio shows like drugtalk, the ravesafe specials we have coming up -, community TV, utilising sites like indymedia to post the truth.
i can't agree that there are 20 million australians opposed to drug users - if i didn't believe we were getting somewhere drug user activism would have got too hard for me several years ago. we are moving forwards.
the fact that a body like the NCA -for fucks sake! - can call for heroin trials as part of a range of measures; and the response - mostly positive- it sparked through talkback over the next couple of days proves that there is real possibilities for drug law reform.
i wrote an article for the Whack summer edition entitled "come out of the drug closet - but check whose bedroom you're in first."
it is really hard to put ourselves on the line when we're being compared to paedophiles, but reform isn't given, its won, and drug users have to be a part of, in fact lead that movement for change.
the more of us who come out and speak up, the less likely they are to print this defamatory shit
------------------
venceremos - hasta la victoria siempre
Al-Qahira, Ares, Auquakah, Bahram.
Harmarkhis, Hrad, Hou Hsing, Kasei.
Ma'adim, Maja, Mamers, Mangala, Mars.
Nirgal, Shalbatanu, Simud and Tiu.
BigTrancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2000
- Messages
- 7,342
Kudos to you mibrane for dealing with all that - I'll admit I saw a byline about Whack in the Age and I took no further notice of it, I had no idea that you guys had been beseiged like that.
BT
BT
Infinite Jest
Bluelight Crew
Johnboy - don't know if you've already written to them.
One anecdote may interest you:
I recently returned to New Zealand. I came to this forum looking for info on 1-4B, which is still legal in NZ. A supplier in NZ was mentioned, but, according to our "no sources" policy, no-one mentioned the name or address.
Two days later, I opened my local paper, and THEY gave the guys name, his business name, and where he was located - practically an invitation for anyone reading their story to order some "CD cleaner"
Moral of my story is that BL is more responsible in a lot of ways than the mainstream media.
One anecdote may interest you:
I recently returned to New Zealand. I came to this forum looking for info on 1-4B, which is still legal in NZ. A supplier in NZ was mentioned, but, according to our "no sources" policy, no-one mentioned the name or address.
Two days later, I opened my local paper, and THEY gave the guys name, his business name, and where he was located - practically an invitation for anyone reading their story to order some "CD cleaner"
Moral of my story is that BL is more responsible in a lot of ways than the mainstream media.
B
blufluffybunny
Guest
Swipe..as it has been pointed out to me, our harm minimisation has dwindled. More and more people are coming on the site saying..buy this..try this..was SO fucked etc etc.
Dont get me wrong, the media pisses me off too, but 'we promote safe drug use' is a bit thin.
And yes, this was pointed out to me earlier in this thread I think.
*thinks* Yes. Media sucks anyway. makes you wonder about all the other stories and how 'true' they are......
Dont get me wrong, the media pisses me off too, but 'we promote safe drug use' is a bit thin.
And yes, this was pointed out to me earlier in this thread I think.
*thinks* Yes. Media sucks anyway. makes you wonder about all the other stories and how 'true' they are......
Bigboy
Bluelighter
" WEBSITE AIDS RAVERS BY PROVIDING INFORMATION LEADING TO GOOD TIMES AND HARM MINIMISATION"
you people should be ashamed of yourselves
if there's one thing we need less of in this country it's fun and safety....
you people should be ashamed of yourselves
if there's one thing we need less of in this country it's fun and safety....
Here's my short breakdown of the article.. I'm not an arts student so sorry if my observations are a bit simplistic
There is other other more positive side of promotion through harm minimization and the spreading of knowledge..
OK, potentially dangerous, yes - but at the same time it has PROVEN to be harm reducing and potentially life saving. The article fails to acknowledge it's logical oppositional side.
Ok, thats it for me... I was basically trying to look at the thing without a knee-jerk reaction. It's not TOO bad an article (accept for the last few paragraphs!). Tell me what you think.
------------------
-----
How d'yah like bass?
This site IS controversial, and I have found it does directly promote the use of illegal drugs. Some of the posts (especially on pillreports.com) read like a dodgy dealer trying to sell bunk pills. No help to the experienced E'er and dangerous to the newbie.
There is other other more positive side of promotion through harm minimization and the spreading of knowledge..
A factually corrent statement. Although BL'ers would not find this a "shocking" statement, i feel that was the intent here.
Instead of directly saying the site is popular internationally, the phrase "hosted overseas" has been used. Strange.
Yeah, talk about an exersize in futility.
OK, potentially dangerous, yes - but at the same time it has PROVEN to be harm reducing and potentially life saving. The article fails to acknowledge it's logical oppositional side.
Yes, there are posts on guides, tips and methods. Most of these do not condone anything but harm minimisation. The others mentioned about smuggling and avioding cops do as much good for the law as they do bad.. for example, any intelligent customs officer will search and read about tricks all over the net, thus being more aware of smuggling methods than before.
A vague nod to the real reason BL has been created!
And why not? I'm not sure on this one. All i know is shit would have hit the fan if they had have!
I think tarsarlan summed this up best by saying, "The statement made by Graeme Rule is baseless sensationalism..."
I have yet to see someone on BL proclaim that a drug is totally safe for everyone who uses it. People love using extremes to illustrate a point. It manipulates the reader into thinking in black and white... Yes, there is a grey area of risk in drug use. There has awlays been a focus on the variation between experiences on this board. Within reading the first couple of trip reports you will understand that the same drug may effect you differently to the next person.
waiting for the "...but".
But a forum holds so much more value than a bias network! Not only is BL bigger than any drug information site around, it is a product of thousands of indepentant minds, instead of a few "credible" sources.
ie: All those words just to say the ABA and the OFLC cant touch this site...
Ok, thats it for me... I was basically trying to look at the thing without a knee-jerk reaction. It's not TOO bad an article (accept for the last few paragraphs!). Tell me what you think.
------------------
-----
How d'yah like bass?
melancholic
Bluelighter
im fucking sick of the people in the media, politicians and 'experts' who are giving raves, ravers, clubbers, and this website the image that is being presented by the lies and exaggerations in their articles/speeches.
drug use is etched deep within society as a part of life. experience, curiousity, escapism, enjoyment, and relief of all kinds.
there is no possible way you can stop people taking drugs.
the only possible solution to the 'drug-problem' is education and rehabiliation and harm minimisation.
i can safely say i know more about all drugs than my parents, and more than any teachers are willing to speak of.
wheres the education on behalf of the government/state/country?
whichever journalist wrote that article should take a look at this site for themselves. and WAKE UP to their judgemental perceptions.
these people condemn us because 'taking drugs is illegal' - and generally for no other reason, they know nothing about the drugs, the settings (raves/clubs) or the reasons for usage.
i do not disagree that heroin abuse is a horrible part of life today, and yes it kills people.
all drug abuse is a painful site, but what can you do apart from educate and rehabilitate?
there is so much that surrounds us in life which do more harm than drugs such as speed and ecstacy, such as tobacco and alcohol, are they blind to this?
i jsut rambled
bah
drug use is etched deep within society as a part of life. experience, curiousity, escapism, enjoyment, and relief of all kinds.
there is no possible way you can stop people taking drugs.
the only possible solution to the 'drug-problem' is education and rehabiliation and harm minimisation.
i can safely say i know more about all drugs than my parents, and more than any teachers are willing to speak of.
wheres the education on behalf of the government/state/country?
whichever journalist wrote that article should take a look at this site for themselves. and WAKE UP to their judgemental perceptions.
these people condemn us because 'taking drugs is illegal' - and generally for no other reason, they know nothing about the drugs, the settings (raves/clubs) or the reasons for usage.
i do not disagree that heroin abuse is a horrible part of life today, and yes it kills people.
all drug abuse is a painful site, but what can you do apart from educate and rehabilitate?
there is so much that surrounds us in life which do more harm than drugs such as speed and ecstacy, such as tobacco and alcohol, are they blind to this?
i jsut rambled
bah