NEWS : Ecstasy costs less

[Mr-E-man]

Ecstasy costs less, easier to get, says study
By Andrew Stevenson
June 24, 2004

LINK :
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/23/1087845011087.html?from=storylhs


After a decade of concern about illicit drugs, ecstasy is cheaper than ever and much easier to procure in the nation's capital cities, the head researcher of a study of nightclub patrons has said.

"The cost of an ecstasy tablet has fallen from about $70 in the mid-1990s in most of the major capital cities to about $30-35 now," said Dr Cameron Duff, the director of research at the Australian Drug Foundation. "Allied to that, we've had a significant increase in the availability of these substances in the community."

Dr Duff's findings are confirmed by research on party drug trends, conducted by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. Only 3 per cent of those interviewed in a recent study of ecstasy users reported the drug to be difficult to purchase. In contrast, 80 per cent said it was easy, or very easy, to buy.

The national survey, of more than 800 regular users, showed friends were the primary source of drugs - a significantly more common point of purchase than dealers.


Dr Duff, whose survey of 380 Melbourne bar and nightclub patrons has just been released, found 66 per cent of users bought their drugs from friends.

"People generally arrange their drug use in advance and typically they're buying them off their friends in an intimate and familiar environment," Dr Duff said.

"It's not perceived as a criminal culture and it's not a drug market as we've traditionally understood them - it's not being driven by the pusher on the corner."

 

[phase_dancer]

^ It's really interesting to note the current focus on many news reports concerning drugs. Duffs findings and comments made from social and academic groups are presenting another face to drug culture, and more importantly, a more accurate face to the "average" drug user.

Add this to the (little mentioned to date) news regarding the NSW [?] ombudsman who, after reviewing sniffer dog legislation has expressed concerned with data logging associated with the current practice; If you are "sniffed" you are entered into a database - whether drugs are found or NOT!


Is this a lead up to the Election? If so, then we can expect many bold questions to be put to politicians in the coming weeks. Both major parties have indicated no slant towards soffening, with Peter Garrett stating on Sky News (Willesee Across Australia) that he didn't support decriminalisation of marijuana (although I did x my fingers and hope this was just a cleaver way of NOT saying he supported a more direct approach towards legislation )

So will this media focus continue; looking at drug use from an average user's perspective, indicating mainstream use and acceptance? If so then the major parties better get plan B into gear....

 

[Nat]

just as an aside, is it just me who thinks that it is just wrong if a dog sniffs you and makes a mistake (ie they search you and nothing is found), your name gets recorded.

 

[Bent]

IMHO that's a disgusting invasion of privacy. Fair enough if sniffer dogs are legal and you get busted, but to give the cops the right to basically keep track of where you are (I'm assuming they'd write down more than just your name) its farkin' wrong.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

[VelocideX]

How precisely are they getting your names? AFAIK the cops cannot demand your name and address unless you have committed a crime, are suspected as having committed a crime, etc.

You don't have to tell the police anything at all. Even when they arrest you you don't have to tell them anything, except where required by law. Here is the relevant piece of legislation:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s563

s563 Power to demand name and address

(1) A police officer may request a person whose name or address is, or whose name and address are, unknown to the officer to state his or her name or residential address (or both) if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person may be able to assist in the investigation of an alleged indictable offence because the person was at or near the place where the alleged offence occurred, whether before, when, or soon after it occurred.

(2) A police officer may make a request under subsection (1) only if before making the request the police officer:
(a) provides evidence to the person that he or she is a police officer (unless the police officer is in uniform), and
(b) provides his or her name and place of duty, and
(c) informs the person of the reason for the request, and
(d) warns the person that failure to comply with the request may be an offence.

(3) A person must not, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person), in response to a request made by a police officer in accordance with this section:
(a) fail or refuse to comply with the request, or
(b) state a name that is false in a material particular, or
(c) state an address other than the full and correct address of his or her residence.
Maximum penalty: 2 penalty units.

(4) A police officer may request a person to provide proof of the person’s name and address.

(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section are to be dealt with summarily by a Local Court.

(6) Nothing in this section limits any powers, authorities, duties or functions that police officers may have apart from this section.

i.e police may only ask for your name and address in relation to a crime that has occurred.

Note particularly that they have to tell you WHY you're being asked for it, and they cannot charge you with anything BEFORE they tell you its an offence for you not to provide it.

STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

 

[Cowboy Mac]

As a side note Victorian's should read this post in regards to their legal rights.

 

[goatyoghurt]

When I read the title of this thread I thought for a second that the media might have discovered that MDMA is less costly than alcohol (with regard to health and social costs) but I knew it was too good to be true.

 

[Pleonastic]

Isn't discussing prices against the guidelines?

/me gives Dr Duff a CLAWS warning

 

[diegoblunt]

Oh no! Don't fine me 2 penalty units (whatever they are).

 

[VelocideX]

1 penalty unit = $110 currently.

 

[Mr-E-man]

QUOTE / goatyoghurt :/ When I read the title of this thread I thought for a second that the media might have discovered that MDMA is less costly than alcohol (with regard to health and social costs) but I knew it was too good to be true.


Same here GY and coincidently heres an artice from todays paper pretty much saying just that !!
=====================================================
Legal drugs the deadliest: report
June 29, 2004 - 2:55PM

LINK http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392648656.html?oneclick=true

Alcohol and tobacco kill nine times more Australians than illicit substances.

In a major review of the scientific evidence for drug harm, the National Drug Research Institute found tobacco is the biggest cause of death and disease, followed by alcohol, then illicit drugs including heroin and amphetamines.

Institute director Professor Tim Stockwell said the finding is in stark contrast to the distribution of government funds for the prevention of drug-related death, disease and injury.

"Ninety per cent of drug-caused disability and death is from alcohol and tobacco and just under 10 per cent is from illicit drugs," Prof Stockwell said.

"The health cost of legal drugs per year is about $28 billion, roughly 20,000 lives are lost from legal drugs, and thousands of preventable hospital admissions from diseases and injuries caused by legal drugs.

"But the government spends so much more on targeting illicit drug use."

In last year's federal budget, $470 million was allocated over four years to a national illicit drugs strategy, compared with $4 million for a national alcohol harm reduction strategy and about $70 million on anti-smoking measures

"The evidence is much much stronger in terms of what works for alcohol and tobacco than for illicit drugs but that's not reflected in investment," Prof Stockwell said.

Of the 159 strategies the Drug Research Institute reviewed, the most effective in reducing legal drug-related harm and death included restrictions on smoking in public spaces and the use of tax to prevent the availability of cheap high-strength alcoholic drinks.

"At the moment fortified wine attracts very little tax and that's favoured by people who want to drink a great deal and we know that's associated with violence, admissions to hospital and alcohol related death," Prof Stockwell said.

Enforcing liquor laws and legal age of purchase laws for tobacco and alcohol also were effective, as was advice and intervention given by GPs to patients who smoke or drink to excess.

Economically and socially disadvantaged people and those with mental health problems are more likely to smoke, binge drink and use illicit drugs, the review found.

"But the bulk of risky use of tobacco and alcohol takes place among average people who are averagely well off, not just the disadvantaged people," Prof Stockwell said.

"It's a problem for the whole of society, a central cultural issue about the extent to which we tolerate and engage in the use of drugs."


=====================================================

So if we say over 90 % of drug related deaths are from legal drugs ie Alcohol & Smokes and the remainder 10% I would be guessing many would be heroin related.

I find it ironic the billions spent on drug detection by various govt agencies to seize continually record breaking amounts of deadly drugs and save us all from ourselves when all along the real killer drugs killing most of the people were for sale at every supermarket and newsagent throughout the land.

Mr Man

 

[keystroke]

just as an aside, is it just me who thinks that it is just wrong if a dog sniffs you and makes a mistake (ie they search you and nothing is found), your name gets recorded.

happened to me at a niteclub last year (small wollongong club)

I was playing the poker machines and the dog sat next to me, police asked me to go outside to be searched - I said no right here in plain view of everyone in the club would be fine - they found nothing on me but recorded my license numbers and stuff.

then said nothing and went on their little way.

 

[keystroke]

forgot to add - they kept asking me 'have you smoked pot tonight mate?'

'been to a party and smoked some pot hey?'

which I hadn't anyway, so I said No...