What is the biggest potential drug-related harm for Australian users?

[opi8]

Sigh. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

(and nobody called me out for my typo, I saw it but thought I'd leave it there for ridicule, or at least for jokes at my expense. It gave me a chuckle anyway.)

 

[Christ!]

That's exactly my point. If heroin was dispensed by professionals, in known dosages, as has been done in numerous successful trials all over the world, you would almost instantly see the crime related to opiod use, including the crime of using itself, disappear.

Remains to be seen I think. I'm all for Doctors prescribing heroin to people who are dependant on it but so far the trials have been very selective in who they bring on. There'd be some issues if it was offered more widely like methadone. On a more selective basis I think you'd definitely see crime almost disappear in that group - but the extra monitoring and handling would be very expensive (worthwhile IMO) . Unfortunately I don't think we'll see it happen anytime soon - discussion and education on this topic helps though, lots of people have never heard of the legal heroin programs and good outcomes they've shown.

 

[lovepsychadelics]

The Australian government. That is the real fucking harm right there.

I use RC's predominantly and have no issue with their safety profile. I KNOW 2ce when I taste it, see it in powdered form, see a 20 mg weighed dose etc. A presumptive test kit will only tell me it's a 2cx end of story. GCMS data is a plus as is a reliable source of such products who can verify such data. I know MXE and it's subjective effects better than some of my own relatives.

Traditional drugs are cut to fuck, overpriced, sketchy, sold by dodgy dealers on the street level and illegal as fuck.

RC's are just as illegal (sometimes they are chemically different enough to fuck Australia's laws such as newer synthetic noids aka alphabet soup synthetic noids aka 4th/5th gen clusterfuckers) only harder to identify and therefore expensive to perform an analysis. Down side: Your a human lab rat and I've been doing my part and still have a nice shinny coat and most of my whiskers attached.

Mental Health: Meth: Very, very bad. Don't get me started It's a long, frustrating, irritating and often violent tale. These are the comedown victims who end up in our wonderful mental health units across the country. Just charming. Hint if your gonna use meth then source some valium, xanax, whatever the fuck and don't stay up for 4-5 days with almost 0 sleep. Fucktards.

Mental Health: Dope/weed: not great but probably 80-90% of regular users are reasonably functional in society, hold down jobs or at least put in their fortnightly dole form. If you get to meet the 10-20% that have lost their shit then you'll meet jesus, his apostles, possibly satan, god, microchip man, brain signals from the tv man and a heap of other nut jobs.

Ohhh and I'm waiting for the inevitable landslide from RC's and their impact on mental health.

 

[Halif]

Good post, lovepsych!

In many developed nations there are resounding cries of "The War on Drugs has failed spectacularly!"

In Australia the response to all the evidence and the turning tide in other nations is: "We just need to fight harder. Never back down. We can win this war and the good citizens will be dancing in the streets, high on nought but mainstream ideals and a sense of supreme superiority!"

It's the most dense, thick-skulled, frustrating approach. However, I must say that as a result of making everything illegal, we've come out with some great new drugs like MXE, 4-Aco-DMT and a small but precious handful of others.

The harder they fight against drug use, and the more they ban, the more plentiful drugs will become. It's really spurring RC vendors on. Who knows what they'll come up with next? For every 50 duds there's on diamond, which goes for a fraction of the price of street drugs and is almost entirely pure.

Hurray for the War For Drugs!

 

[lovepsychadelics]

Yeah gotta agree Halif 100% Hurray. Yeah fucking good times with come downs and withdrawls... The Government is the greatest source of harm maximization in this country.

Separate thought: MMMM MXE and 4 aco dmt. Fucking wonderful stuff. Love the OEV's from 4 aco dmt. Add MXE and it's wham light's, technicolor, action!! OD and it's almost like high dose yage though spewing, sweating, shitting... best kept to 20-30 mg doses 4 aco-dmt with maybe 60-80 mg MXE. MXP is already the new MXE replacement available on the clearnet from many RC vendors BTW.

Here are a few gems and turds: 3cp. 25N Nbome (gem), Nboh (more gem than turd), Diclazepam (12 x more potent than valium with a potential half life of 100 hrs due to secondary metabolites! Fucking winner prepare for Phenaz type antics), bk-2cb (don't snort or your snot turns purple...) Diphenidine the crap alternative to ketamine IMO others disagree, 5-(2-Aminopropyl)-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene (turd), N-ethyl-ketamine (need at least 200mg + oral, snorting is out the question, ketamine metabolite, ok). 1-​naphthalenyl(1-​pentyl-​1H-​indazol-​3-​yl)-​methanone: the latest JWH distant relation to appear can't wait to toke this bad boy about as much as I want my prostate examined. 5 meo dalt/malt (5 meo tryptamines are just crap give it up already).

Most of these I have given a whirl and have not posted about previously the only exception being 1-​naphthalenyl(1-​pentyl-​1H-​indazol-​3-​yl)-​methanone at least as far as I know and 5 meo malt, after 5 meo dalt I couldn't be bothered with any 5 meo tryptamines for the rest of my life and any other potential reincarnations... especially as a rat in a lab.

Coming off a cocktail of 2ce and 25b nbome as I type... misery. Need to restock the bennies after the GF tossed 1/2 my stash thinking it was an empty box of... other stuff. Dramatic sigh. Oh well easily replaced. Drug laws? What Drug laws??? Now to cook a tasty hamburger, if I can be assed cooking. Might just eat raw meat on bun with sauce, seems like a tasty thought!

 

[ensta]

Yeah bloody good point Juvenile.
To claim sniffer dogs in public places isnt targeting small time users is bullshit

I think that there is a bigger policy reason behind that kind of practice to protect small time users. People already manage to OD at festivals, imagine if they believed there would be no bag checks, no police presence, no sniffer dogs. Further, anyone who I've heard of who's been caught gets it taken off them, gets escorted out of the venue, pays a bribe/fine, and/or sees a day in court. They don't end up in prison. They even keep their security clearances.

A few people do have to suffer for the greater good but they knew what they were doing was illegal and knew there would probably be this kind of security going on and still knowingly took the risk. At the end of the day, I think this is something Australia is doing right in terms of harm reduction as it acts as a deterrent for behaviour that would eventuate in a lot of the short term harms discussed.

The thing you may not understand about addiction is getting arrested once, twice, three times for posession is not a deterrant. Eventually, you are going to end up in jail, or on a corrections program where you are set up to fail. Users do get arrested, users do see jail, and you don't understand it unless you live it and see it every day.

My post was primarily about a physical dependance to opiods and the illegality of drugs themselves causes so many of the problems all drug users face.

I was agreeing with you that our prisons are riddled with users but merely making the point that it seems as though most of them are there for breaking other laws. You can assume what you want about me, but using addiction as an excuse prevents taking responsibility for one's own actions. I admit it might be an attributing factor but most users are aware that heroin is addictive and illegal when they try it and if they become addicts, they knowingly chose to take that risk like they knowingly choose to take the risk of committing a crime that lands them in jail. The fact that you recognise that it can be so debilitating to your free will is surely an argument for not be making it legal and more available. Instead, I think we should be educating people about addiction and showing them how bad it can be so they are more informed when they are presented with that choice.

The illegality of rape would itself cause many of the problems rapists face, but some things are illegal for a reason.

 

[spacejunk]

I think that there is a bigger policy reason behind that kind of practice to protect small time users. People already manage to OD at festivals, imagine if they believed there would be no bag checks, no police presence, no sniffer dogs. Further, anyone who I've heard of who's been caught gets it taken off them, gets escorted out of the venue, pays a bribe/fine, and/or sees a day in court. They don't end up in prison. They even keep their security clearances.

A few people do have to suffer for the greater good but they knew what they were doing was illegal and knew there would probably be this kind of security going on and still knowingly took the risk. At the end of the day, I think this is something Australia is doing right in terms of harm reduction as it acts as a deterrent for behaviour that would eventuate in a lot of the short term harms discussed.

So...sniffer dogs at train stations, on trains, in bars - targeting, lets face it - recreational users, especially of cannabis (it has a very strong odour; dogs have very sensitive olfactory senses) - is for the greater good; HOW?

I can see how police patrolling areas where alcohol and violence are a problem can/could be a positive thing; but small, personal amounts of weed, pills,maybe speed?

To mine, this doesn't serve harm minimisation in any way possible - if anything it increases people's likelihood of binge-drinking (harmful and dangerous in itself) and/or eating their stash when they see the k9 squad.

That particular scenario can and does kill people.

People go to festivals to have a good time - not to overdose themselves and risk their health/life!

If society can't accept drug use at music - especially dance music festivals - I daresay law enforcement and policy makers need to get with the times.


I agree that the use of sniffer dogs in the festival context serve a greater/more elaborate purpose - to create a climate of fear in the drug using (and non-using) community.


It is sleazy propaganda/fear mongering at best, and shooting-fish-in-a-barrel revenue raising if you want to look at it that way. Insulting to the intelligence of the general public.


Are you familiar with the psychedelic (and other drug) concepts of set and setting?

Increased fear = increased harm

There are no two ways about it.


If I were to be really cynical (fuck it - I am!) I would say that Mr Plod and his Piggie Commissioner Commanding Officers WANT more people to over-do it and have bad reactions/ODs/freak outs at events.
It
a) justifies their presence at music events (why not fucking sports events?)
b) justifies their heavy handed tactics
c) justifies them ruining people's day/night for possession of a fucking reefer
And
d) justifies the "war on evil drugs" these bullies conduct.

Makes for good press too, eh occifers? An equation that adds up to a stinking load of bullshit in my opinion.
The fuzz are very concerned with their public image, what with all that clubbing and taser-ing they do.
Gotta keep up appearances, eh coppers?

I highly commend folks that spray bong water around the areas k9 dog squads are anticipated to operate in. My kinda people.
Cynical means call for creative measures.

Have a look at my original post again. This isn't about stopping drug use; it's about reducing the harms associated with drug use.
I specifically mention police persecuting users because - well, it is a form of harm IMO.


As for "bribing" police...are you in Australia, or Cambodia?

 

[Halif]

The illegality of rape would itself cause many of the problems rapists face, but some things are illegal for a reason.

Where on Earth did that come from?! And what does it mean?

Are we comparing drug users to rapists now? I really don't get the point of that sentence at all.


Also, it seems you have your mind very much made up about drug use and users.

I think we should be educating people about addiction and showing them how bad it can be so they are more informed when they are presented with that choice.

Isn't that what is already happening with those TV commercials that occasionally pop up and run for a while? Like the ecstasy one with the tagline "What goes up, must come down" and showed a girl crying, alone in her room dealing with the comedown.

Is that really educating? Focusing on a bad aspect without actually providing much solid info. The assumption is there, in the mainstream and in your posts it seems, that drugs are simply bad news. Young people recognise bias immediately and are instinctively repelled by it so that it often has the opposite effect. If the gov-man says it's bad, then I'm gonna do it cuz I'm a crazy bad ass YOLO!!

History suggests that people are going to keep using drugs - all kinds - no matter what anyone says or does. It's time to get past the one-sided propaganda approach which assumes that the only option is "Just say no", and be realistic and assume that a lot of people ARE in fact going to try drugs at some point and they may use them regularly. That's closer to the truth. So how about REAL information about drugs with the assumption that some people WILL use them. The fact is that some are drawn to drugs and some aren't, but a lot of people are going to at least try them at some point.

So how about education which is fact based rather than fear based, unbiased, and realistic with the aim being to simply present facts which equip people with knowledge that means if they do use drugs, it'll be in the safest way possible and with realistic expectations about the possible pitfalls so that, for instance, if someone does become addicted they won't even bother trying to use it as an excuse if they commit a crime other than the use of that drug.

 

[opi8]

Thanks guys, I was about to spew some drunken shit, but my main points were already answered. I should really turn this box off.

 

[CrayZ]

...but most users are aware that heroin is addictive and illegal when they try it and if they become addicts, they knowingly chose to take that risk...

Are they really that aware? Learned from peers? Or government propaganda?

My feeling is that the over-the-top sensationalist hype from government in their anti-drug marketing actually encourages users to experiment with different drugs. Once a user (particularly a young user) finds out that they've been 'lied' to, for example, about ecstasy... well, might the government have lied about other drugs? I'd give my left ball to see an advert saying something like "yes, you will have an awesome time, but you'll probably feel like shit a couple of days later, don't do this two days in a row". Frankly, I think it would have a far greater positive impact than "drugs are bad mmkay, just say no".

 

[Halif]

Thank you, CrazyZ, for concisely expressing what I was trying to get at, using a single paragraph instead of 18 like I did!!

 

[CrayZ]

Thank you, CrazyZ, for concisely expressing what I was trying to get at, using a single paragraph instead of 18 like I did!!

No worries (but that 1 paragraph took 18+ minutes to write, lol). I was actually surprised to read your new post saying much the same thing as mine when i finally posted it.

 

[spacejunk]

Agree with both of you - and especially what lovepsychedics had to say as well.

It is nice to see this thread bearing some nice healthy fruit of ideas.
And the odd dissenting view as well...
(Not referring to the user I have on "ignore")

 

[ensta]

So...sniffer dogs at train stations, on trains, in bars - targeting, lets face it - recreational users, especially of cannabis (it has a very strong odour; dogs have very sensitive olfactory senses) - is for the greater good; HOW?

...

People go to festivals to have a good time - not to overdose themselves and risk their health/life!

...

As for "bribing" police...are you in Australia, or Cambodia?

Sorry I wasn't aware of sniffer dogs patrolling random public places. I was only aware of them in high risk areas. If this is the case then its probably overkill and unnecessary.

You can't seriously believe people don't go to festivals to get wasted? Sure they want to have a good time but its become an environment where people are more comfortable using and thus use more than they normally would and push their limits.

And the bribing was to security who were about to hand them over to the police.

Where on Earth did that come from?! And what does it mean?

Are we comparing drug users to rapists now? I really don't get the point of that sentence at all.


Also, it seems you have your mind very much made up about drug use and users.

...

Is that really educating? Focusing on a bad aspect without actually providing much solid info. The assumption is there, in the mainstream and in your posts it seems, that drugs are simply bad news. Young people recognise bias immediately and are instinctively repelled by it so that it often has the opposite effect. If the gov-man says it's bad, then I'm gonna do it cuz I'm a crazy bad ass YOLO!!

I was just trying to say, admittedly not very well, that saying something society has deemed unacceptable being illegal causes problems for someone committing that crime sounds selfish. Looking at how some people treat alcohol, I am personally glad that opiates are not more accepted or available. People tend to be more cautious of drugs because they're meant to be 'bad' but unfortunately that means its a bit of an inconvenience for users to self-indulge all the time.

I mostly agree with what's being said. Its just I like to keep an open mind and wouldn't want to take the opposing one-sided propaganda approach. I am all about making realistic information more available so people can make better informed decisions. My comment about 'how bad it can be' was referring to addiction, which I explicitly stated. When I was young I thought addiction was just liking something and not caring about others. I had no idea there were different types of addiction let alone what it entailed and how varied it was. I am completely against the government's approach to drugs when it comes to media but at the same time people need to take some responsibility. If someone chooses to do something without properly informing themselves of the risks, is that not a choice in itself?

 

[One Thousand Words]

It's a war on drugs and many of you have chosen to be the expendable grunts who run blindly from the trenches straight into enemy fire.

The number of arrests at music festivals for drugs are embarrassingly low for such a coordinated police operation. At best they pick up 20-30 in a crowd of tens of thousands of majority drug users. Sniffer dogs are nothing new, that's why I refuse to take weed to such events. Redosing pills is pointless over 12 hours yet that doesn't stop people carrying in 5 sometimes ten for personal use. Why? All this does is increase the chance of getting busted. If you want to transport drugs around a city why would you choose to travel through obvious train stations with reputations for high incidence of sniffer dogs? Take the bus, take a cab direct to the front door, hell get off a stop earlier and walk the back streets keeping a low profile.

Contrary to want many of you think, police are not mindless gorms with no idea. I bet many of you have no problem profiling a potential drug dealer in a crowded venue so why would they be any different? To be successful in battle one of the best pieces of equipment is your camouflage. If you are a group of young guys hanging on the streets yelling and drawing attention to yourself ywhy would you be surprised that the cops want to search you? The best advise for harm reduction is Don't get caught. Buy a cheap suit from the salvos, brush your hair and carry a briefcase and I doubt you would even raise and eye brow. Don't drive around in a hotted up shit box with three mates screaming from the windows if you have drugs in your pockets. Better yet if you have a prior conviction don't drive a car registered in your name. If you have a pocket full of drugs on a night out stay a one bar and don't spend too long on the streets, particularly during the witching hours when police presence is at its greatest.

Work smarter, not harder. Sure some of this is an inconvenience but you have to accept that as a drug user you are a minority who chooses to break the current laws. Complaining and stupidly thumbing your nose will only get you arrested. Sometimes it is better to bend in the wind and survive, rather than fight and be broken in two.

 

[Halif]

If someone chooses to do something without properly informing themselves of the risks, is that not a choice in itself?

Indeed it is. However, the information needs to be factual and easy to access and that should, IMO, be part of the government's program because by definition the government dictates how its citizens live, and if it claims to be a fair government it should help people to make the best decisions for themselves and society as a whole.

Actions like disallowing pill identification machines in clubs or at festivals and having sniffer dogs instead suggests that the government would not like its population to have the power of knowledge regarding substances it deems illegal. The fact that alcohol is not only legal, but promoted in advertisements and widely regarded by the mainstream as an acceptable drug pretty much kills the credibility of any arguments against illegal drugs, as you'd be hard pressed to find many other drugs (perhaps methamphetamine is a rival) which cause so many serious problems, including violent crimes.

Australia is a conflicted nation when it comes to what is/isn't acceptable. We have commercials on TV for betting agencies and the lottery and we also have commercials depicting how gambling can ruin people's lives. We have alcohol ads which tend to be extremely stupid and "wacky" giving a light-hearted attitude towards alcohol, and we have very graffic shock ads depicting violence and traffic accidents as a direct result of alcohol consumption. Kind of strange, but at least there are two sides (sort of). For illegal drugs, there's only one side presented: The Dark Side.

I'd like to see the shock ads AND the promotional ads ditched in favour of factual ads which point people to an information source which has detailed documentation regarding ALL drugs, legal and illegal, and gives as much unbiased info as possible.

I believe that people should be responsible for their ACTIONS. If I crash a car and it's my fault, I have to take responsibility for that whether there are drugs involved or not. That's fair enough. If I use opiates, but nobody sees or hears it, and there's no resultant action outside of my ordinary behaviour (in other words, I have actually done anything to cause harm or damage) then why should I be punished? I don't see a definitive link between drug use and criminal behaviour (other than the possession and use of drugs).

There are what I believe to be a minority of drug users, and this includes alcohol of course, who commit offences after taking drugs or in order to fund a habit. There are people who have existing emotional issues which are triggered by drugs and causes them to lash out. Keep in mind, however, that this minority is virtually the only representation that drug users receive in the media because let's face it, a person who has a discreet drug habit, holds a steady job, pays taxes and manages to stay out of trouble doesn't make for an exciting news story.

If a government wants its citizens to act responsibly, it needs to grant them the freedom to make their own choices - and take responsibility for them.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Alcohol is one of the safest and benign drugs out there. It really is clutching at straws to suggest it is evil. I live in an apartment block of 200 people and would estimate that almost everyone had an alcoholic drink last night when they came home from work last night. Yet there wasn't a single fight, no one screamed the neighbourhood down and I doubt any one will miss work this morning because of a hangover. Why? Because 99% of the population isn't an idiot and knows how to drink responsibly.

Sure if you you head to the night club district you will see its negative effects just as when you head to a music festival chill out tent you see the idiots who can't handle their drugs. Two paraphrase the bush tucker man, two beers per man, per day, perhaps, and you won't have any problems.

 

[Halif]

Alcohol is one of the safest and benign drugs out there.

I'm shocked!

You've lost me...

I didn't say alcohol was evil. No drug is evil. I wouldn't call alcohol benign at all, though.

If there's a clause added; "Alcohol is safe and benign when used responsibly, by responsible people" then I'd agree. However, you could apply that same sentiment to any drug. It's the user, not the drug which determines the behaviour.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Percentage of users who get into trouble compared to most drugs is low. If you take out the 18-25 male population and it's safer than swimming in the ocean.

It takes a long dedicated stretch to become an alcoholic compared to opiates or amphetamines. I know meth and heroin addicts who have used for less than 6 months. Alcoholics take several years of abuse to get to that same level.

 

[spacejunk]

Wow, this ignore function is some good shit.