Raving Loony
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Messages
- 3,181
Maybe, but at least with alcohol you have to drink yourself stupid. The same does not apply to most street drugs.
Why are drugs illegal?
- Thread starter dexter_stayne
- Start date
SteveElektro
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Messages
- 5,438
Those who think drug criminalisation is a matter of social utility should perhaps consider exactly what 'social utility' results from having a 2,000,000 prison population in the US, largely due to drug criminalisation.
And what force keeps it that way? Social conservatism.
Social conservatism is nothing more than a product of religious morality.
And those of you drawing parallels with cigarettes, it may pay to remember how many illegal drugs are not addictive (LSD for example)
Addiction has absolutely nothing to do with drug criminalisation.
And what force keeps it that way? Social conservatism.
Social conservatism is nothing more than a product of religious morality.
And those of you drawing parallels with cigarettes, it may pay to remember how many illegal drugs are not addictive (LSD for example)
Addiction has absolutely nothing to do with drug criminalisation.
Tabernacle
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,169
Indeed authors such as Stanton Peele debate whether the phenomena of addiction is a product of physiological impairment and pharamacology or a cultural concept
Check it out:
http://www.peele.net/lib/cultconc.html
he's a bit of a maverick but there's some interesting stuff on there. He also wrote a paper entitled 'What works in addiction treatment and what doesn't: Is the best therapy no therapy?
whord steve..... i'm thinking salvia again, gotta stop the kiddies getting hooked on that shizzit!
Check it out:
http://www.peele.net/lib/cultconc.html
he's a bit of a maverick but there's some interesting stuff on there. He also wrote a paper entitled 'What works in addiction treatment and what doesn't: Is the best therapy no therapy?
whord steve..... i'm thinking salvia again, gotta stop the kiddies getting hooked on that shizzit!
It seems to me that most ppl think that drugs wont be legalised because governments etc etc would be worried about increased addiction rates. Can anyone see a simple soloution around this. Does anyone not believe that drug legalisation would lead to increased addiction rates and why?
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
2022 - the choice is ALMOST yours
Now this is a totally fantasy which some of you will think is a worthless piece of garbage....and you're probably right. It's an idealistic wank really -the result of no new textbooks
It's probably also more appropriate in drug culture, but I think it also fits the topic of this thread.
I could say why I think the outcome in this piece of fiction will at some time be representative of general society and laws regarding drug use, but it's probably easier [?] to give what I consider may be the sort of future that leads to/ hastens the process. The story is completely made up, but the sort of underworld responses to what I expect would be normal government "progression", aren't I expect too far off the mark.
So if you've got the the time and feel like a "fantasy flash to 2022 " then have a read.
Sometimes I think I've way too much time on my hands........must write that novel 8)
The year is 2022.
The History of Drug Policy Reform
The Final Rise of Prohibition
After more than 100 years of direct persecution, the past 7 years has finally seen society reconcile the recreational drug user. During the Mid-Late 1990’s, following a world trend of the time, local government policies played a central role in initiating this parallel to law enforcement, viewed largely as a supportive means to reducing harm from illicit drug use. Harm reduction strategies were being aimed towards user safety, and legislative reform looked set to arrive at where we are today some ten years earlier.
The Harm Reduction/ Minimisation movements of this period gained significant ground by emphasizing that prevention is achievable via peer education. Much of this success was largely attributed to the then unrestricted Internet resources. Around this time, the profile of the average user started to change in the eyes of the general public. Many self admitted users were emerging as responsible people, otherwise functioning normally within society. Drugs certainly weren’t killing or even adversely affecting many if not most occasional users. Policy-wise, sensibility was winning, but sensibility on a political front has always proven fragile when not supported by rationally thinking (and bold) politicians.
During the 7 years following 2001, in light of the world security upgrades of the time, the then opponents of recreational or religious drug use seized the opportunity to label drug users as supporters of terrorism. Due to propaganda linking drug syndicates to terrorism, and hence the then perceived urgency to cut off funding to these organizations, upgrades in travel security also accommodated for the detection of drugs. By early 2007 these upgrades included non-invasive X-ray / ion fingerprinting (XIF).
The Shortage
Allowing detection of picogram amounts of any listed or suspect chemical, most forms of smuggling were significantly curtailed over the 18 months following, with a world shortage of recreational drugs such as cocaine, heroin, MDMA and other illicit substances rising markedly for almost 2 years.
That was to change in late 2008 when survivors of the global drug distributor witch hunt collectively began a massive global circulation network. Undetected by authorities during the planning stage, this well conceived strategy revived a project South American Cartels employed in the late 1990’s before interception by the DEA. This involved the use of small submarines for distribution, the first of this type of operation the DEA had then discovered. (Note to young readers the DEA or drug enforcement agency was disbanded in 2015, to be replaced by what now known as the DDO or drug distribution office)
The smuggling operations of 2008-2010 used similar but larger submarines to the ones the SA Cartels manufactured. Like those of the Cartels, these subs were also capable of intercontinental travel, only this time the vessels were built in Russia and initially dispatched via the Isolated North Shelf. One of the most innovative features of these vessels was the outer coating. Made from a new Aluminum - Europium polymer, when employed with a microwave deflector beam it provided extremely effective sonar stealth.
Although the first vessel to be detected was within hours following the first simultaneous worldwide release of illegal cargo, this was more by accident than a result of received intelligence. Subsequent capture of these vessels proved an almost impossible task as encrypted communication between smugglers relayed messages using time delayed beacons which were strategically placed world wide. These worked no more than once before the CPU/PRAM self destructed, leaving no hope of tracing the sender or the receiver. Although not one of these beacons was ever located in tact, it was eventually discovered that cargo was being loaded and dispatched using model flying craft, hot air balloons, deep sea divers and other more traditional relay operations. With no sight of a second craft, it was initially easy for a fishing boat to retrieve cargo without attracting attention.
Almost simultaneously with the advent of the 2007 shortage, more regional syndicates and small groups began to explore the possibility of economically producing drugs locally. While there was no competition from oversees supply, the quality of the local product was considered unimportant, as the market was screaming for drugs like MDMA. Before the subs, availability of quality drugs had steadily fallen, with drug stories in Internet chat rooms and discussion forums mainly speaking of halcyon days. Any new report of a “good pill” was an instantly popular topic, attracting those both fascinated by substances which they’d never seen (being so young before the shortage) or those for whom such stories provided a welcomed nostalgia. So rare was quality MDMA at this time that a positive kit test was big news. For most users it got to be some time between 2 positive results on the newer immunolabeling based kits.
It was therefore of little surprise that worldwide, local production of MDMA began to increase slowly but steadily after the shortage. Most early clandestine work involved locating indigenous plants which yielded high amounts of the starting material. Safrole sold on the black market for more than twice what it fetched before the shortage. For many involved in those secret distillations, 4 or 5 days over a “hot stove” was more than compensated for by the price paid for their product - a product which was always in demand.
However, this period of clandestine engineering was to be initially short lived. Syndicates were slow in establishing distribution and were dwarfed by the initial distribution size from the submarine syndicate. Local syndicates and groups willingly went back to repressing, cutting and mixing to ensure a high return, for less work.
Despite the precise planning by the sub syndicate, a collaborated determination among world drug agencies - at this time employing more staff than ever before - finally broke the ring in 2010, exhausting what authorities claimed would be the last of the last. There were simply no capable players left and no roads were left unchecked in the security prioritized world of the time.
But this time the local clandestine producers were a step ahead. Having seen a large Ecstasy market re-established with more fervor than was seen before the shortage, enterprising crime bosses were well organised in time to exploit the inevitable shortage, which approached with every announced capture of another sub or port of call. Local quality began to pick up surprisingly quickly as so many small operations started, often sourcing all materials from the supplier of the starting material, as was seen in Australia with their methamphetamine period of the 1990’s.
During 2011, following the fall of the subs, authorities began to refocus attention on local syndicates, employing sophisticated odour detection devices coupled with low altitude atmospheric analyses to pinpoint production and supply locations. Regarding MDMA; the main goal of local law enforcement was to cut off the supply of Safrole. In Australia this was done by first identifying the local plant varieties being used, then embarking on a massive public awareness program, similar to that seen when marijuana was banned in the US during the 1930’s.
While this enforcement strategy initially upset large networks, it little affected smaller operators. Over the 2 years which followed, the rise in small time producers was astounding. The average user would likely know 3 or 4 producers, as supply was rarely consistent. Many started producing for themselves or family/ friends. Some were tempted by the money and so increased production, others succumbed to friends’ pleas, often also influenced through seeing the casualties from the many dodgy drugs of the time.
When major local safrole suppliers were first intercepted, some of the big players initially turned to using eugenol, but many found the extra processes to be too involved and so turned to other starting materials, using almost every herb or spice conceivable to come up with some active product. Many forward thinking producers had pre-stocked these materials as a precaution against an interrupted supply of safrole.
Within months, analyses of seized local tablets was reporting mixtures of amphetamines, phenethylamines and tryptamines, and sometimes undeterminable combinations, made by using unrefined starting compounds. A spate of PMA deaths in 3 states of Australia, and similar events worldwide, coupled with whole groups of users being admitted simultaneously to emergency wards, finally rang the international alarm bells.
An Obvious Need For Change
Despite over 100 years of enforcement and the accompanying classification of drugs, often requiring unnecessary victimization of users, these policies had not reached one sustainable objective.
At best was offered a temporary void in terms of availability but that was all. Prohibition did nothing for the wellbeing of society in general, especially taking into account the per capita use of drugs, which had continued to grow despite decades of harsher penalties and rigorous detection/prevention measures. It was time for radical change. Harm reduction advocates, some of whom had been very public with their views before the shortage, now dared to re-emerge from their 10 year hiding places. Any advocacy for legislation over the first 10 years of the new millennium had to be carefully considered. The absolute directive - then inextricably associated with democracy - was enforcement without tolerance. To go against that in any public stand was seen as guaranteed political suicide or worse.
But for these patient liberators, their time was about to arrive.
Emergency heads of government meetings were called worldwide. Opposition to legislation was strong and almost threatened to undermine the process, but a very convincing if somewhat unfortunate series of events was about to unfold which would sway even the most skeptical.
This involved 2 separate events, but both served to ultimately demonstrate the inability for enforcement to keep up with future drug developments.
Over the previous 12 years a group of eccentric chemists had designed a sophisticated new type of drug. Having previously worked for a major pharmaceutical company, this group selected a novel group of compounds which had seemingly been ignored by drug discovery teams working for the company. This novel drug class was based upon an odd shaped large molecule which is inactive, but is converted by the body into a very active compound with very specific psychoactive properties. Forensics estimated there may be over 1000 variations to the compound, produced with subtle manipulation of the parent compound. Each of these would possess different psychoactive properties. Anyway, they admitted they were years behind the inventors in their understanding of the drug discovery principles which led to the invention the substances. They also admitted producers had legally distributed over 1 million kilograms of 4 different analogues prior to another well planned & executed, simultaneous world release.
The second event involved the work of 2 geneticists, who after having their post doctoral ideas rejected by a major bio-pharmaceutical company, worked privately on a genetically modified group of enzymes. Stable out of the body, but quickly metabolized in vivo, these compounds presented a whole new approach to pharmacology. Able to manipulate the desired outcome pharmacologically, a powerful new pro-psychedelic drug variation was released on the street. The enzymes are consumed with either specific amino-acids or simply boiled milk. The effect is instant and lasts about 4 hours, leaving no specific metabolites in the body after 5. Furthermore, large amounts of the enzymes could be quickly ingested in response to detection, as the compounds produce a “saturated effect” where any additional amount consumed causes no additional or increased actions.
Although not released at that time, a year later another group began to market a product which by construction, was nothing short of pure alchemy. Herbal alternatives to MDMA had been marketed since the 1980’s, but no approved formulation had the ability to mimic the illegal drug. That was until May of 2012 and the release of ”Reelee”. The formulation involves a specific combination of amino acids, minerals and vitamins; consumed together with citric acid or lemon juice to cause a multi synergistic affect resulting in large releases of endogenous amines. This product, by parts or as a whole, as far as FDA approval was concerned, constituted nothing more than a standard health formulation, impossible to regulate.
[Edit: Now this was all utter rubbish and I could have probably picked more realistic examples, but hey it makes a better tale don't ya think]
Following the almost unanimous decision to formulate a global policy on drug use, 2013 saw rational suggestions for acceptable drug use policies which eventually resulted in proposals for legalized distribution and sales of the compounds. Health and Safety concerns were addressed and in 2015 a world endorsed policy resulted, a policy which which has now been in place for 71/2 years.
Restricted to those over 18 years old, all drugs including nicotine and alcohol (recently added), are available only with the appropriate approval. This involves a medical examination which may either advise against, or serve to restrict quantities a person may obtain. Appropriate maximum levels are individually established, decided through consolation between the applicant and the physician. The person must also complete regular workshops on the dangers of drugs and understand the physiological effects, harm reduction practices etc. Approval for one drug does not automatically approve someone for all drugs. A separate approval is required for each drug but the number of different drugs a person may be approved for is unlimited. The applicant must also have private health insurance and (negotiable) public liability cover.
Drugs excluding alcohol and tobacco are only available through pharmacies and drug stores. Although inexpensively priced, all purchases must be approval confirmed and be DNA signed for.
Epilogue
2022 sees health and social policies regarding drug use directed completely towards harm prevention, respectfully acknowledging that safer self prescribed drug use can be managed to a socially acceptable degree. Figures relating to drug supply allow authorities to check on anyone purchasing more drugs than is deemed “reasonable”. Individuals may explain intermittent overindulgence through social, family or other occasions all of which are totally acceptable reasons providing patterns of use do not go over individual predetermined guidelines.
Statistical figures relating to drug use are far more accurate than prior to the world decrimalization of drugs, but there still exists a small but substantial market for illicit supply which is impossible to accurately gauge. In light of the preceding 20 years and the eventual realization that enforcement only served to restrict and hamper social progression, it has become more than evident that any form of forced compliance in regards to substance use will always facilitate illicit supply.
How then does the forward thinking policy maker of modern 2022 deal with the implications of the next move; the personally un-monitored, unregulated supply/ consumption of drugs? Popular opinion is that we may have to wait another 100 years before society is capable of dealing with that.
So there you have it, hard to know whether such a world would be much better than what we've got now. But then we're also talking of what may lie ahead and how the now preferred options may change.......8(
Now this is a totally fantasy which some of you will think is a worthless piece of garbage....and you're probably right. It's an idealistic wank really -the result of no new textbooks
It's probably also more appropriate in drug culture, but I think it also fits the topic of this thread.I could say why I think the outcome in this piece of fiction will at some time be representative of general society and laws regarding drug use, but it's probably easier [?] to give what I consider may be the sort of future that leads to/ hastens the process. The story is completely made up, but the sort of underworld responses to what I expect would be normal government "progression", aren't I expect too far off the mark.
So if you've got the the time and feel like a "fantasy flash to 2022 " then have a read.
Sometimes I think I've way too much time on my hands........must write that novel 8)
The year is 2022.
The History of Drug Policy Reform
The Final Rise of Prohibition
After more than 100 years of direct persecution, the past 7 years has finally seen society reconcile the recreational drug user. During the Mid-Late 1990’s, following a world trend of the time, local government policies played a central role in initiating this parallel to law enforcement, viewed largely as a supportive means to reducing harm from illicit drug use. Harm reduction strategies were being aimed towards user safety, and legislative reform looked set to arrive at where we are today some ten years earlier.
The Harm Reduction/ Minimisation movements of this period gained significant ground by emphasizing that prevention is achievable via peer education. Much of this success was largely attributed to the then unrestricted Internet resources. Around this time, the profile of the average user started to change in the eyes of the general public. Many self admitted users were emerging as responsible people, otherwise functioning normally within society. Drugs certainly weren’t killing or even adversely affecting many if not most occasional users. Policy-wise, sensibility was winning, but sensibility on a political front has always proven fragile when not supported by rationally thinking (and bold) politicians.
During the 7 years following 2001, in light of the world security upgrades of the time, the then opponents of recreational or religious drug use seized the opportunity to label drug users as supporters of terrorism. Due to propaganda linking drug syndicates to terrorism, and hence the then perceived urgency to cut off funding to these organizations, upgrades in travel security also accommodated for the detection of drugs. By early 2007 these upgrades included non-invasive X-ray / ion fingerprinting (XIF).
The Shortage
Allowing detection of picogram amounts of any listed or suspect chemical, most forms of smuggling were significantly curtailed over the 18 months following, with a world shortage of recreational drugs such as cocaine, heroin, MDMA and other illicit substances rising markedly for almost 2 years.
That was to change in late 2008 when survivors of the global drug distributor witch hunt collectively began a massive global circulation network. Undetected by authorities during the planning stage, this well conceived strategy revived a project South American Cartels employed in the late 1990’s before interception by the DEA. This involved the use of small submarines for distribution, the first of this type of operation the DEA had then discovered. (Note to young readers the DEA or drug enforcement agency was disbanded in 2015, to be replaced by what now known as the DDO or drug distribution office)
The smuggling operations of 2008-2010 used similar but larger submarines to the ones the SA Cartels manufactured. Like those of the Cartels, these subs were also capable of intercontinental travel, only this time the vessels were built in Russia and initially dispatched via the Isolated North Shelf. One of the most innovative features of these vessels was the outer coating. Made from a new Aluminum - Europium polymer, when employed with a microwave deflector beam it provided extremely effective sonar stealth.
Although the first vessel to be detected was within hours following the first simultaneous worldwide release of illegal cargo, this was more by accident than a result of received intelligence. Subsequent capture of these vessels proved an almost impossible task as encrypted communication between smugglers relayed messages using time delayed beacons which were strategically placed world wide. These worked no more than once before the CPU/PRAM self destructed, leaving no hope of tracing the sender or the receiver. Although not one of these beacons was ever located in tact, it was eventually discovered that cargo was being loaded and dispatched using model flying craft, hot air balloons, deep sea divers and other more traditional relay operations. With no sight of a second craft, it was initially easy for a fishing boat to retrieve cargo without attracting attention.
Almost simultaneously with the advent of the 2007 shortage, more regional syndicates and small groups began to explore the possibility of economically producing drugs locally. While there was no competition from oversees supply, the quality of the local product was considered unimportant, as the market was screaming for drugs like MDMA. Before the subs, availability of quality drugs had steadily fallen, with drug stories in Internet chat rooms and discussion forums mainly speaking of halcyon days. Any new report of a “good pill” was an instantly popular topic, attracting those both fascinated by substances which they’d never seen (being so young before the shortage) or those for whom such stories provided a welcomed nostalgia. So rare was quality MDMA at this time that a positive kit test was big news. For most users it got to be some time between 2 positive results on the newer immunolabeling based kits.
It was therefore of little surprise that worldwide, local production of MDMA began to increase slowly but steadily after the shortage. Most early clandestine work involved locating indigenous plants which yielded high amounts of the starting material. Safrole sold on the black market for more than twice what it fetched before the shortage. For many involved in those secret distillations, 4 or 5 days over a “hot stove” was more than compensated for by the price paid for their product - a product which was always in demand.
However, this period of clandestine engineering was to be initially short lived. Syndicates were slow in establishing distribution and were dwarfed by the initial distribution size from the submarine syndicate. Local syndicates and groups willingly went back to repressing, cutting and mixing to ensure a high return, for less work.
Despite the precise planning by the sub syndicate, a collaborated determination among world drug agencies - at this time employing more staff than ever before - finally broke the ring in 2010, exhausting what authorities claimed would be the last of the last. There were simply no capable players left and no roads were left unchecked in the security prioritized world of the time.
But this time the local clandestine producers were a step ahead. Having seen a large Ecstasy market re-established with more fervor than was seen before the shortage, enterprising crime bosses were well organised in time to exploit the inevitable shortage, which approached with every announced capture of another sub or port of call. Local quality began to pick up surprisingly quickly as so many small operations started, often sourcing all materials from the supplier of the starting material, as was seen in Australia with their methamphetamine period of the 1990’s.
During 2011, following the fall of the subs, authorities began to refocus attention on local syndicates, employing sophisticated odour detection devices coupled with low altitude atmospheric analyses to pinpoint production and supply locations. Regarding MDMA; the main goal of local law enforcement was to cut off the supply of Safrole. In Australia this was done by first identifying the local plant varieties being used, then embarking on a massive public awareness program, similar to that seen when marijuana was banned in the US during the 1930’s.
While this enforcement strategy initially upset large networks, it little affected smaller operators. Over the 2 years which followed, the rise in small time producers was astounding. The average user would likely know 3 or 4 producers, as supply was rarely consistent. Many started producing for themselves or family/ friends. Some were tempted by the money and so increased production, others succumbed to friends’ pleas, often also influenced through seeing the casualties from the many dodgy drugs of the time.
When major local safrole suppliers were first intercepted, some of the big players initially turned to using eugenol, but many found the extra processes to be too involved and so turned to other starting materials, using almost every herb or spice conceivable to come up with some active product. Many forward thinking producers had pre-stocked these materials as a precaution against an interrupted supply of safrole.
Within months, analyses of seized local tablets was reporting mixtures of amphetamines, phenethylamines and tryptamines, and sometimes undeterminable combinations, made by using unrefined starting compounds. A spate of PMA deaths in 3 states of Australia, and similar events worldwide, coupled with whole groups of users being admitted simultaneously to emergency wards, finally rang the international alarm bells.
An Obvious Need For Change
Despite over 100 years of enforcement and the accompanying classification of drugs, often requiring unnecessary victimization of users, these policies had not reached one sustainable objective.
At best was offered a temporary void in terms of availability but that was all. Prohibition did nothing for the wellbeing of society in general, especially taking into account the per capita use of drugs, which had continued to grow despite decades of harsher penalties and rigorous detection/prevention measures. It was time for radical change. Harm reduction advocates, some of whom had been very public with their views before the shortage, now dared to re-emerge from their 10 year hiding places. Any advocacy for legislation over the first 10 years of the new millennium had to be carefully considered. The absolute directive - then inextricably associated with democracy - was enforcement without tolerance. To go against that in any public stand was seen as guaranteed political suicide or worse.
But for these patient liberators, their time was about to arrive.
Emergency heads of government meetings were called worldwide. Opposition to legislation was strong and almost threatened to undermine the process, but a very convincing if somewhat unfortunate series of events was about to unfold which would sway even the most skeptical.
This involved 2 separate events, but both served to ultimately demonstrate the inability for enforcement to keep up with future drug developments.
Over the previous 12 years a group of eccentric chemists had designed a sophisticated new type of drug. Having previously worked for a major pharmaceutical company, this group selected a novel group of compounds which had seemingly been ignored by drug discovery teams working for the company. This novel drug class was based upon an odd shaped large molecule which is inactive, but is converted by the body into a very active compound with very specific psychoactive properties. Forensics estimated there may be over 1000 variations to the compound, produced with subtle manipulation of the parent compound. Each of these would possess different psychoactive properties. Anyway, they admitted they were years behind the inventors in their understanding of the drug discovery principles which led to the invention the substances. They also admitted producers had legally distributed over 1 million kilograms of 4 different analogues prior to another well planned & executed, simultaneous world release.
The second event involved the work of 2 geneticists, who after having their post doctoral ideas rejected by a major bio-pharmaceutical company, worked privately on a genetically modified group of enzymes. Stable out of the body, but quickly metabolized in vivo, these compounds presented a whole new approach to pharmacology. Able to manipulate the desired outcome pharmacologically, a powerful new pro-psychedelic drug variation was released on the street. The enzymes are consumed with either specific amino-acids or simply boiled milk. The effect is instant and lasts about 4 hours, leaving no specific metabolites in the body after 5. Furthermore, large amounts of the enzymes could be quickly ingested in response to detection, as the compounds produce a “saturated effect” where any additional amount consumed causes no additional or increased actions.
Although not released at that time, a year later another group began to market a product which by construction, was nothing short of pure alchemy. Herbal alternatives to MDMA had been marketed since the 1980’s, but no approved formulation had the ability to mimic the illegal drug. That was until May of 2012 and the release of ”Reelee”. The formulation involves a specific combination of amino acids, minerals and vitamins; consumed together with citric acid or lemon juice to cause a multi synergistic affect resulting in large releases of endogenous amines. This product, by parts or as a whole, as far as FDA approval was concerned, constituted nothing more than a standard health formulation, impossible to regulate.
[Edit: Now this was all utter rubbish and I could have probably picked more realistic examples, but hey it makes a better tale don't ya think
]Following the almost unanimous decision to formulate a global policy on drug use, 2013 saw rational suggestions for acceptable drug use policies which eventually resulted in proposals for legalized distribution and sales of the compounds. Health and Safety concerns were addressed and in 2015 a world endorsed policy resulted, a policy which which has now been in place for 71/2 years.
Restricted to those over 18 years old, all drugs including nicotine and alcohol (recently added), are available only with the appropriate approval. This involves a medical examination which may either advise against, or serve to restrict quantities a person may obtain. Appropriate maximum levels are individually established, decided through consolation between the applicant and the physician. The person must also complete regular workshops on the dangers of drugs and understand the physiological effects, harm reduction practices etc. Approval for one drug does not automatically approve someone for all drugs. A separate approval is required for each drug but the number of different drugs a person may be approved for is unlimited. The applicant must also have private health insurance and (negotiable) public liability cover.
Drugs excluding alcohol and tobacco are only available through pharmacies and drug stores. Although inexpensively priced, all purchases must be approval confirmed and be DNA signed for.
Epilogue
2022 sees health and social policies regarding drug use directed completely towards harm prevention, respectfully acknowledging that safer self prescribed drug use can be managed to a socially acceptable degree. Figures relating to drug supply allow authorities to check on anyone purchasing more drugs than is deemed “reasonable”. Individuals may explain intermittent overindulgence through social, family or other occasions all of which are totally acceptable reasons providing patterns of use do not go over individual predetermined guidelines.
Statistical figures relating to drug use are far more accurate than prior to the world decrimalization of drugs, but there still exists a small but substantial market for illicit supply which is impossible to accurately gauge. In light of the preceding 20 years and the eventual realization that enforcement only served to restrict and hamper social progression, it has become more than evident that any form of forced compliance in regards to substance use will always facilitate illicit supply.
How then does the forward thinking policy maker of modern 2022 deal with the implications of the next move; the personally un-monitored, unregulated supply/ consumption of drugs? Popular opinion is that we may have to wait another 100 years before society is capable of dealing with that.
So there you have it, hard to know whether such a world would be much better than what we've got now. But then we're also talking of what may lie ahead and how the now preferred options may change.......8(
Last edited:
nickthecheese
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 2,551
^ heh, great post, I enjoyed reading that
I especially like the part about the submarines....
I especially like the part about the submarines....
SteveElektro
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Messages
- 5,438
Hmm I don't like the idea of government rationed 1984 style drug distribution any more than I like thecurrent situation! ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
T think that a lot of illicit drugs are this way simply because the government cannot put a tax on it..
Take tobacco for example.. it was brought in to the country vie the original settlers, and never really developed a "black market" of sorts until the tobacco industry was well and truly established.
Now look at cannabis, meth, mdma and all the other illicit substances floating around... the black market for these substances is so widespread that almost everyone know someone who can score something or other, which makes the situation too difficult for the government to gain control over, and subsequently tax the shit out of it.
what is the governments stance on things they cant make money from??? make the shit illegal..
pain in the ass, but hey, what can we do..... a whole lot of mcfuck all thats what..
A
Take tobacco for example.. it was brought in to the country vie the original settlers, and never really developed a "black market" of sorts until the tobacco industry was well and truly established.
Now look at cannabis, meth, mdma and all the other illicit substances floating around... the black market for these substances is so widespread that almost everyone know someone who can score something or other, which makes the situation too difficult for the government to gain control over, and subsequently tax the shit out of it.
what is the governments stance on things they cant make money from??? make the shit illegal..
pain in the ass, but hey, what can we do..... a whole lot of mcfuck all thats what..
A
Very interesting post.
That was the exact idea i had about 2 years ago.
Government interference?
The government interferes in your life, in every facet of it, everyday. You cannot help that, just be greatful we have a Democracy with a Constitution the High Court is willing to use to restrict the amount of interference our government can engage in.
That sort of supply at least forces EVERY user to understand what they are doing, be responsible for themselves and actually deal with the proper authorities rather than the punk on the street corner. Surely interference from our democratically elected government is better than any similar ruthless control and interference from organised crime.
At the end of the day you only have to go down to the District Court to see how many robberies, burglaries, home invasions and thefts are "caused" by illicit drugs. The defence lawyers trot out the old excuses in EVERY SINGLE CASE. I see it all the time.
At least in the government controlled setting, the drug users are only harming themselves and not the rest of the community who may finally be able to feel safe and secure in their own homes.
I bet if you ask the old lady who was robbed yesterday for her last few dollars by some desperate drug user if she would prefer the current situation or instead have a few people existing as mindless zombies (because they cannot control themselves) under government supervision, but with the bonus that she no longer has to fear such an attack, i'm pretty sure i know what she will choose.
SteveElektro
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Messages
- 5,438
Actually, our constitution is largely concerned with parliamentary structure and process, we have nothing comparable to the US Bill of Rights, or anything of the sort. Parliament are pretty much free to pass any damn laws they want, so long as it doesn't interfere with the way the laws are passed and the way the state manages power.Biscuit said:
It does have a list of what laws can be with respect to, but this covers every conceivable oppressive measure they may one day feel necessary, short of structural change of parliament.
I especially like this particularly fucked up bit:
51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxvi. ) The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:
(xxvi. ) The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:
That's right folks, we have constitutionally protected state rights to racial discrimination! wh00t! 8( (White Australia Policy anyone?)
IMO, social liberty should be kept at a maximum, which means less government interference in personal matters.
I don't trust the government any more than a punk on the street corner, in fact I trust it less. It's record with propaganda speaks for itself.
I also don't believe one has the right to impose their own ideas of responsibility to oneself upon others. Education by force sounds like thinly disguised morality to me, education should remain as a choice for consenting adults. In short, I have the right to sit in a gutter killing my liver with cask wine as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite happy with the current status of cigarrettes and alchohol and would like to see all drugs treated similarly, maybe with an accompanying compulsory warning pamphlet at most.
Consumption of psychoactives is not a privilege to be rationed and monitored at the whims of the state, it is a fundamental human right and should be treated as such.
IMO you are missing the point. "Ruthless control and interference from organised crime.", as you put it, is a direct result of government interference, which for the record, is backed by violent coercion (ie. Policing)
Drug related organised crime is merely a result of the market reacting to a demand in a prohibitive society. The law reacts to this through violent coercion, so the drug market does the same.
The criminal underworld as it relates to drugs is solely a creation of our laws, so it is not a choice between the two that we face, for if we get rid of government interference, drug related organised crime will also disappear.
Drugs don't create crime, prohibition does.
IMO, the state should not be the provider of drugs, especially those that are addictive.
Monopolies and addiction sound like extremely bad news to me, I'd prefer to see a legal competitive market with drugs, so as to keep the price down.
This would necessitate the government taking no more in tax from the sales of drugs than is necessary to pay for any increased burden placed on our healthcare system. (a move they should make with smokes and booze, they'd be alot cheaper!)
Having only one dealer is never a good thing, and frankly I don't trust the state to run a responsible monopoly on something so personal and powerful as psychoactive substances. It would be akin to having only one television station, and therefore one widely used news source, being run and controlled by the state. Too much power to be concentrated.
I'm well aware of what the Constitution contains and the powers our parliament can use to make laws.
Many laws have been struck down on account of infringing the constitution.
Anyway my post was not about Constitutional law, and I dont propose to get into an argument about it on BL.
The Race power was actually used to enact the Racial DISCRIMINATION act - arguably if they did not have it then the RDA would be invalid and COULD be challenged by racists.
A Bill of Rights would be good but hey what the hell has that ever done for the U.S.A - i'd take our Government over theirs any day.
Unless you go and live on a deserted island, you are going to be GOVERNED by a government - thats the real world and it is not going to change in a hurry.
Thus my point about our Constitution and our government, was that at least the interference we are subjected to, is not the sort you see in countries in the Middle East, Asia etc.
I do not disagree with you - but when Doctors prescribe you prescription drugs they explain to you the side effects - what is wrong with that?
If you have far more powerful and deleterious drugs on the market are you suggesting that the doctors or pharmacists should not be informing people of their effects too, just as with prescription drugs??
Thats crazy.
Is it?
Can you guarantee that you will not harm other people in this endeavour.
What I was trying to be was realistic. You are proposing something that is never going to happen. What is wrong with incremental steps in reducing prohibition - of course prohibition is wrong - i know that - but its not going to be wiped off in one go. You have to give to get a little.
I'm well aware that prohibition is what creates crime - and the reason we have organised crime. But its clearly too late now and so we have to work out a way that the government (which like it or not runs this country - not us) will relax the laws.
They wont relax them if all we are proposing is a free market free for all - that is a pipe dream and wont get anywhere.
I completely agree.
I never said that the government should SUPPLY the drugs or determine WHO should take them.
If psychoactive drugs were legalised they would be integrated into the PHARMACEUTICAL system.
The people who prescribe the drugs (the doctors), the people that supply the drugs (pharmacists) and the people that manufacture the drugs (drugs companies) are not all invovled with the government - the vast majority are not. And they are all part of our economy dictated by supply and demand.
Like it or not illicit drugs will NOT become like cigarettes or alcohol - but they MAY become like prescription drugs - or at least have a similar regulatory system. Illicit drugs are chemicals - hence the people that produce them are either chemical companies or pharmaceutical companies. The former can never be allowed to supply things for human consumption and for good reason. And the latter is bound up within the health system and will likely have to stay that way.
You cannot go to your pharamcist and demand antibiotics, morphine, or benzos, so why the hell should you be able to demand MDMA, amphetmaine and cocaine.
Its never going to happen.
I understand what you are saying, but i also think being realistic with our expectations is important.
Things are far more likely to get done that way.
Before man went to the moon he built a jet aircraft. Before that there was the Wright Brothers.
We cant expect to go to the moon, or in this case some fantasy land where all drugs are available in any quantities we want. At least not immediately.
But we might one day be able to fly, just for a short while at least.
Then in the years to come after that, who knows?
Many laws have been struck down on account of infringing the constitution.
Anyway my post was not about Constitutional law, and I dont propose to get into an argument about it on BL.
The Race power was actually used to enact the Racial DISCRIMINATION act - arguably if they did not have it then the RDA would be invalid and COULD be challenged by racists.
A Bill of Rights would be good but hey what the hell has that ever done for the U.S.A - i'd take our Government over theirs any day.
Unless you go and live on a deserted island, you are going to be GOVERNED by a government - thats the real world and it is not going to change in a hurry.
Thus my point about our Constitution and our government, was that at least the interference we are subjected to, is not the sort you see in countries in the Middle East, Asia etc.
I do not disagree with you - but when Doctors prescribe you prescription drugs they explain to you the side effects - what is wrong with that?
If you have far more powerful and deleterious drugs on the market are you suggesting that the doctors or pharmacists should not be informing people of their effects too, just as with prescription drugs??
Thats crazy.
Is it?
Can you guarantee that you will not harm other people in this endeavour.
What I was trying to be was realistic. You are proposing something that is never going to happen. What is wrong with incremental steps in reducing prohibition - of course prohibition is wrong - i know that - but its not going to be wiped off in one go. You have to give to get a little.
I'm well aware that prohibition is what creates crime - and the reason we have organised crime. But its clearly too late now and so we have to work out a way that the government (which like it or not runs this country - not us) will relax the laws.
They wont relax them if all we are proposing is a free market free for all - that is a pipe dream and wont get anywhere.
I completely agree.
I never said that the government should SUPPLY the drugs or determine WHO should take them.
If psychoactive drugs were legalised they would be integrated into the PHARMACEUTICAL system.
The people who prescribe the drugs (the doctors), the people that supply the drugs (pharmacists) and the people that manufacture the drugs (drugs companies) are not all invovled with the government - the vast majority are not. And they are all part of our economy dictated by supply and demand.
Like it or not illicit drugs will NOT become like cigarettes or alcohol - but they MAY become like prescription drugs - or at least have a similar regulatory system. Illicit drugs are chemicals - hence the people that produce them are either chemical companies or pharmaceutical companies. The former can never be allowed to supply things for human consumption and for good reason. And the latter is bound up within the health system and will likely have to stay that way.
You cannot go to your pharamcist and demand antibiotics, morphine, or benzos, so why the hell should you be able to demand MDMA, amphetmaine and cocaine.
Its never going to happen.
I understand what you are saying, but i also think being realistic with our expectations is important.
Things are far more likely to get done that way.
Before man went to the moon he built a jet aircraft. Before that there was the Wright Brothers.
We cant expect to go to the moon, or in this case some fantasy land where all drugs are available in any quantities we want. At least not immediately.
But we might one day be able to fly, just for a short while at least.
Then in the years to come after that, who knows?
Last edited:
SteveElektro
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Messages
- 5,438
So would I, and their constitutional protections are all but meaningless when they'll happily distort the meanings. But still, it's a nice idea. There's not one bit in our constitution that I find particularly compelling. Quite a boring document really, but then I guess we weren't a result of revolution and enlightenment ideas.Biscuit said:
And regardless of the original motives for the racial powers, it's wording allows constitutionally protected racial discrimination by the state, and it's a little unsettling given our recent shift back towards anglocentrism.
I think we should have the right to choose whatever drug we want without having what essentially amounts to state approval. Of course most people would take doctors reccomendations anyway which would generally be a good thing, but I feel we should hav the right, if we so choose, to self medicate according to our own research.
I can't guarantee I won't harm someone when I walk outside, yet still have the right to do so.
Once we hand control over to the state, there's no reason to believe they will ever give it up. They can and will also arbitrarily restrict them to who they see fit to take the substances. It's a lot easier to get heroin than it is to get oxycodone!
Doctors must follow guidelines set by the state or risk having their licenses revoked, which can and does happen. Ultimately, government scheduling takes precedence over a doctors wishes, hence, it is state control.
Given current trends here and in most of the world, I don't see any reason to think either approach will happen. I mainly argued these points to highlight the drawbacks of state control, whhich hadn't been discussed in the thread yet.
Maybe if we all start taking obsene amounts of drugs, the government will be forced to chuck a Portugal on our asses, and a free drug market may develop from there with a little luck. Doubtful though.
Doubtful any steps towards greater freedom with respect to drugs will happen here anytime soon, one only needs to recall the ridiculous banning of salvia to see why.
I understand what you are saying.
I guess we are coming at it from different points of view. For me i was encouraging a POTENTIAL solution that has some degree of chance at actually one day occuring.
Whereas clearly for you, state regulated illicit drug supply is not a preferred method at all, and I presume retaining the status quo is.
(Yes the Portgual system is an option, but sadly our government is too like the US and the English to agree to that and it also does not address a major problem with recreational drug use - see below).
For me the worst thing about taking recreational drugs is being labelled a criminal for doing so. In addition to that you (or perhaps the person who supplied you) invariably mix with people who are "criminals". Not because they are trafficking drugs but because they are playing an underworld game of power and greed - with that comes many other acts which are without question "criminal".
Of course that is due to prohibition - but like I said, prohibition is here to stay unless an alternative is put forward - and mine was one of many.
It does not necessarily have to be the same regulation as for prescription drugs but at the least some form of approval would have to be in place - or at least it will be in place for any reform to be undertaken.
To me that statement indicates you want to essentially abolish the entire prescription drug system - with that goes pharmacies and takes away significant control from our hospitals.
As I said, if you need a script to get morphine for pain or amphetamine for ADD or valium for insomnia then you are going to need something similar if you want meth or MDMA for recreation. If those drugs became available to anyone whenever they so choose it would cause a large part of our health system to not be able to function.
People on prescription drugs would demand that their drugs (and lets face it they are potentially life saving unlike the ones we want to ingest) be available as freely as all the recreational drugs. No one would see doctors or specialists unless there were significant problems with their health. Every single drug now currently administered under the watchful eye of health professionals and whose supply is in part funded by the government, would now have to be freely available to all just as those for recreation are.
Like it or not, the synthetic drugs are closer to pharmaceuticals than they are to alcohol and tobacco.
Alcohol is a drink and drinking it is a custom - when people buy it they may be for any number of reasons - refreshment, to have with dinner, to toast a wedding, or just because they like the taste. Being drunk is a side effect - for some it is the reason alcohol is drunk - but not for the majority in the community.
Drugs on the other hand are deliberately taken for a specific, desired effect on one or more of the body's physiological processes. There is not other possible reason for them to be ingested.
Thus they are no different than legitimate pharmaceuticals bar perhaps the reason the specific effect is sought. Many of those illicit drugs in the community are of course close relatives to those being lawfully provided the world over.
With all that in mind I hope now it is obvious that despite all the drawbacks of government control, it is the only way we are going to see any reform happen. (bar rescheduling or decriminalisation.)
Decriminalisation fails to change the state of affairs much at all - we are still left with illegally produced chemicals, filled with impurities (Meth anywhere from 20-95per cent) being peddled by an underworld fuelled by greed and a lust for power. And who are the types of people who will do anything to retain control over what they believe is their domain. And the very thing that funds their wealth.
I know who i would rather be getting my drugs from, or more accurately, I'd know who I'd rather have granting me the permission to go to a legitimate company to get my drugs from.
Especially with the added knowledge that they contained 100% of what I was paying for, and that I was free to do as I pleased without fear from the authorities or the groups currently serving the job of the legitimate companies, who are known to employ rather questionable business practices.
I guess we are coming at it from different points of view. For me i was encouraging a POTENTIAL solution that has some degree of chance at actually one day occuring.
Whereas clearly for you, state regulated illicit drug supply is not a preferred method at all, and I presume retaining the status quo is.
(Yes the Portgual system is an option, but sadly our government is too like the US and the English to agree to that and it also does not address a major problem with recreational drug use - see below).
For me the worst thing about taking recreational drugs is being labelled a criminal for doing so. In addition to that you (or perhaps the person who supplied you) invariably mix with people who are "criminals". Not because they are trafficking drugs but because they are playing an underworld game of power and greed - with that comes many other acts which are without question "criminal".
Of course that is due to prohibition - but like I said, prohibition is here to stay unless an alternative is put forward - and mine was one of many.
It does not necessarily have to be the same regulation as for prescription drugs but at the least some form of approval would have to be in place - or at least it will be in place for any reform to be undertaken.
To me that statement indicates you want to essentially abolish the entire prescription drug system - with that goes pharmacies and takes away significant control from our hospitals.
As I said, if you need a script to get morphine for pain or amphetamine for ADD or valium for insomnia then you are going to need something similar if you want meth or MDMA for recreation. If those drugs became available to anyone whenever they so choose it would cause a large part of our health system to not be able to function.
People on prescription drugs would demand that their drugs (and lets face it they are potentially life saving unlike the ones we want to ingest) be available as freely as all the recreational drugs. No one would see doctors or specialists unless there were significant problems with their health. Every single drug now currently administered under the watchful eye of health professionals and whose supply is in part funded by the government, would now have to be freely available to all just as those for recreation are.
Like it or not, the synthetic drugs are closer to pharmaceuticals than they are to alcohol and tobacco.
Alcohol is a drink and drinking it is a custom - when people buy it they may be for any number of reasons - refreshment, to have with dinner, to toast a wedding, or just because they like the taste. Being drunk is a side effect - for some it is the reason alcohol is drunk - but not for the majority in the community.
Drugs on the other hand are deliberately taken for a specific, desired effect on one or more of the body's physiological processes. There is not other possible reason for them to be ingested.
Thus they are no different than legitimate pharmaceuticals bar perhaps the reason the specific effect is sought. Many of those illicit drugs in the community are of course close relatives to those being lawfully provided the world over.
With all that in mind I hope now it is obvious that despite all the drawbacks of government control, it is the only way we are going to see any reform happen. (bar rescheduling or decriminalisation.)
Decriminalisation fails to change the state of affairs much at all - we are still left with illegally produced chemicals, filled with impurities (Meth anywhere from 20-95per cent) being peddled by an underworld fuelled by greed and a lust for power. And who are the types of people who will do anything to retain control over what they believe is their domain. And the very thing that funds their wealth.
I know who i would rather be getting my drugs from, or more accurately, I'd know who I'd rather have granting me the permission to go to a legitimate company to get my drugs from.
Especially with the added knowledge that they contained 100% of what I was paying for, and that I was free to do as I pleased without fear from the authorities or the groups currently serving the job of the legitimate companies, who are known to employ rather questionable business practices.
Last edited:
SteveElektro
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Messages
- 5,438
I think our differences of opinion are more political than anything, it really comes down to what we each perceive as acceptable roles of the state in society. Many would consider me extreme in regarding drug prohibition as no less than oppression, a flagrant human rights abuse, but I hold that view as strongly as anything.
I have to say, I disagree with you here:
And how many Hep C sufferers bother with non alchoholic wine and beer. I know a few and none of them do, they wish they could still drink safely though.
If MDMA was sold in chocolate from the start, we'd all be eating chocolates before raves, and if it was legal, I have no doubt that the rich would be eating belgian chocolates
Its all the same, just a drug.
You propose that the state can make a solution, I propose that the state is the only problem here. Like I said, more of a political difference than anything.Biscuit said:
I have to say, I disagree with you here:
Obviously drinking alchohol is a custom, but I don't believe for a second that people drink it for reasons other than the alchohol. They just choose which drink hides the flavour in the most tasteful way. The pathetic sales figures in non-alchoholic beer and wine are a testament to this.
And how many Hep C sufferers bother with non alchoholic wine and beer. I know a few and none of them do, they wish they could still drink safely though.
If MDMA was sold in chocolate from the start, we'd all be eating chocolates before raves, and if it was legal, I have no doubt that the rich would be eating belgian chocolates
Its all the same, just a drug.
As far as questionable practices go, I think that governments are the worst offenders to humanity by any standards, (think about it for a moment) and should be restricted from interfering in our personal lives. Again a political difference, but one that defines my reasons for thinking the way I do.
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
That is what i was going to say but i didnt really want it to get political.
I certainly respect your ideologies but i personally do not really subscribe to any particular one regardless - my opinion of what the state should and should not do will change with the circumstances of the present situation - it is not fixed on a larger, general stance. Governments all over the world have long interfered in one aspect of my life that is extremely personal to me - it is who i am - and in that circumstance i find their interference, and at times persecution, to be criminal and certainly an "affront to humanity".
But i dont have a problem with the state controlling pharmaceuticals and thus recreational drugs if it came down to that.
There is nothing wrong with either way of being, but i dont want to give the wrong impression about the sort of person i am.
You are quite right to pull me up on the alcohol comment - it was my attempt to demonstrate that pure recreational drugs in tablet or powder form will always be treated differently than alcohol or tobacco. And that fact cannot be discounted.
Im prepared to agree to disagree - my comments throughout have been aimed at what could be a solution without reference to any particular ideals i may hold; not necessarily what should be the solution.
So be it - but that again is a globally influenced idelogy and not one, in regards to this issue, i can accept. Whatever our Australian government does that is questionable and affront to "humanity" it does not make my opinion of what goes on out in the community i live in any more acceptable - violence and greed on a global scale is one thing - violence and greed in our faces, in our streets and clogging up our Courts is another.
Prohibition has got to go - but only in ways in which our elected government will be happy with - and sadly its unlikely they ever will be.
Last edited:
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
I wanted to bump this old thread in light of a recent post in Drug Culture. It concerns a BBC program aired in Britain in January 2005 titled "If drugs were legal"
The thread is here
To get the movie & debate, you need a torrent d/Ling program which is also available via the page.
Excerpts from the BBC web page:
From here
It's well worth the download time, and I do wonder if we'll see it shown in Australia under the present trend of curtailing such controversial and alternative policy subjects. I couldn't help but laugh that the date of 2015 was also that which I chose in my totally fictitious story on page 2 of this thread...
The thread is here
To get the movie & debate, you need a torrent d/Ling program which is also available via the page.
Excerpts from the BBC web page:
From here
It's well worth the download time, and I do wonder if we'll see it shown in Australia under the present trend of curtailing such controversial and alternative policy subjects. I couldn't help but laugh that the date of 2015 was also that which I chose in my totally fictitious story on page 2 of this thread...
BigTrancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2000
- Messages
- 7,339
Nice bump PD, thanks for the links.
BT
BT
pharm_friendly
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 277
Im downloading the file from bittorrent now (27% ).
Just wondering once it is completed, do you always need to have b-torrent installed to view the file or is it compatible with media player etc?
Cheers
~pharm_friendly~ %)
Just wondering once it is completed, do you always need to have b-torrent installed to view the file or is it compatible with media player etc?
Cheers
~pharm_friendly~ %)