lil angel15
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,828
NEWS: The Age - 18/10/07 'I was right on 'evil' drugs, says PM'
- Thread starter lil angel15
- Start date
marklar_the_23rd
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 511
Yes, i see it now, a plant, sitting in a chair, stroking a cat, demanding one million dollars. Truly Evil.
yes johhny, why cant we? why cant I, as a consenting adult, in the privacy of my own home, have a marijuana cigarette ? I totally agree with ya there.
yes johhny, why cant we? why cant I, as a consenting adult, in the privacy of my own home, have a marijuana cigarette ? I totally agree with ya there.
Chronik Fatigue
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2005
- Messages
- 5,735
^^ I know. I love the way he uses smoking as an analogy. Legalise and regulate recreational drugs, coupled with a serious educational campaign such as we've seen with smoking, and you might see a similar effect 8)
Now who i gonna vote for?. Why is it that only uptight morons get into politics?is there any hope?
Do u think after all these Howards and Rudds are gone we may see some change?? Or are the next lot of wankers being incubated
in some political clone lab.
Do u think after all these Howards and Rudds are gone we may see some change?? Or are the next lot of wankers being incubated
in some political clone lab.
Last edited:
peaked
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 711
Johnny is just grasping at straws over his low approval rating. He is as "right" about the evils of drugs as he was "right" about the children overboard incident, or when he said we would never have a GST or any of the other countless lies that he's told.
It saddens me to read that there were actually people with political power trying to legalize marijuana, only to be swatted down by johnnies ignorance.
It saddens me to read that there were actually people with political power trying to legalize marijuana, only to be swatted down by johnnies ignorance.
time traveler
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2005
- Messages
- 666
Its funny we haven't heard anything about drug policy until he got to Queensland. It just confirms what i have been suspecting lately. All of S.E. Queensland is on drugs. hahaha.
Drugs are evil...took me a while to realise they stop me from reaching my full potential. I wouldnt want them ever to disappear, its just they have a time and a place.
and Koggi - "If voting actually changed things, they wouldnt let you do it" - Mark Twain
Drugs are evil...took me a while to realise they stop me from reaching my full potential. I wouldnt want them ever to disappear, its just they have a time and a place.
and Koggi - "If voting actually changed things, they wouldnt let you do it" - Mark Twain
dontlookback
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5
vote greens!
speedygonzales
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Messages
- 527
Splatt said:
right on Splatt you too the work right out of my mouth
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
Evil Drugs, or Evil Policy makers?
Some arguable points on the current ‘evil’ of drugs status.
If any of these points are correct, it indicates that illicit drug use is more dangerous today than it was a few years ago. In response to those points therefore, it begs to be asked; could recent policy changes be, at least in part, responsible for this increase in risk associated with illicit drug use?
I believe yes, and the fundamental reason for this occurring is;
Demand reduction did not parallel supply reduction
Efforts to stem demand have generally been ineffective in regards to Ecstasy. From what I can gather, deterrent based advertisements are not being received by target audiences, particularly in regards to this drug. Those experienced with MDMA might say that it's easy to see why if you've ever used Ecstasy in a social setting. It's fun, and most users believe there's little harm likely from talking pure MDMA occasionally. Why do they think this? Because for around two decades, many thousands upon thousands of Australians have, at one time, enjoyed ecstasy on an occasional or regular basis. Yet for a probable 99.99% or greater of these people, none of their friends have died or even ended up in hospital. Perhaps more to the point, few have been seen to end up with any long lasting negative psychological problems.
To imply every MDMA user will end up like every Methamphetamine user is BS and most users know it, so by comparing the drugs in this way, its unlikely the messages will be received by many of those with any real life experience. It's claimed that the ads are focused on those who have yet to try the drug, but young people who do believe the ads will, in many cases, eventually realize - maybe through a friend's use - that the ads weren't completely true. The cascading effect this produces is why prohibition sold on this pretence has always failed. What's more worrying in today’s world is that these young people may ignore more than just the ads and go on to disregard genuine warnings and HR advice, seeing it instead as more of the same hyped up, free from fact, scare-mongering.
For Fear of Reprisal
It may seem obvious, but stigmatizing users fragments the drug using community. In a legal sense, those who ‘know and don't care’ are becoming a minority. Those who know and care about their liberty are tending to change their behavior so as to slip under the radar. Some socialise in different settings, some restrict public comment about their drug use - it's certainly happened on this site - and some seek alternative substances that don't attract attention. In short, this fragmentation negates many of the present models used to accurately monitor the drug scene, as it's no longer a 'scene' as much as individual groups practicing their own forms of 'law-harm reduction', often at the cost of 'substance-harm reduction' - staying silent and unnoticed being their safest bet.
PMA - Early Warnings
Many drug producers undoubtedly aim to protect or increase their market share at any cost. This includes using easy to procure ingredients and, for some, taking advantage of the easy procedures involved in the manufacture of PMA. Without being able to catch these crooks or prevent all chemicals used to make all drugs from being obtained, a purely prohibitionist policy merely facilitates and even directs the production of these more dangerous drugs.
What now needs to be asked is, who or what legislative committees, politicians or campaigners are to be held accountable for the deaths that have occurred and will continue to occur because of the prevalence of PMA? Will PMA passed off as MDMA tablets fall into the hands of those users the government has failed to reach with their 'just say no...' ads?
If various authoritive bodies involved in these decisions knew this would be the outcome, shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions? The current 'war on drugs' policy should never be an excuse for legislative change which will knowingly cost additional lives, should it?
So did the law makers know this would happen?
HR professionals and researchers yelled loudly that this would occur as a consequence of only partly tightening restrictions on available chemicals while simultaneously increasing border protection and local policing. In 2003 a paper was published by Dr Caldicott et al titled Dancing with "Death": P-Methoxyamphetamine Overdose and Its Acute management . Mention was made of the high numbers of reported PMA deaths that had occured in Australia, a number that was almost half of the worldwide total if irrc. A relevant number of these deaths occured in SA, indicating PMA was probably being manufactured in that state.
So it was at least suspected PMA was being made in Australia. That much the policy makers knew, or should of known. Yet if asked about the increased dangers from the increased prevalence of PMA, law enforcement and prohibitionists would undoubtedly have a similar rhetorical response. "Drugs are dangerous, we've always said so...blah blah...."
That, as we all know, is a most ridiculous response. Yes, drugs are dangerous, few here have disputed that, particularly because of unknown aspects associated with illicit substances. But when we look at the increasing numbers of deaths from substitutes like PMA coupled with increasing amounts of PMA being seized by police, it only serves to drive home the point that HR workers and advocates for safety over discipline were right all along. Law makers or at least their advisors were told, yet unwittingly or otherwise implemented legislation that has very likely caused the deaths of young Australians. Some may even ask, "was this a known and considered outcome?" Did someone assume they would need to sacrifice a few for the good of the many?.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you
I'm not religious, but that quote seems very fitting atm.
The illicit drug market is changing. I've been told even customs officials have little to no idea what's currently coming in. More to the point, they, like others in employed in LE seem to have no idea what's around the corner. And no wonder. People don't discuss things the way they used to. The means of communication is often more stealth than it used to be. Internet vendors operate differently, some discussion websites aren't public knowledge and discussion on new drugs, availability etc occurs more and more off the open public boards.
The unfortunate part of this is that the user is once again the ultimate casualty. As LE becomes less and less effective at curtailing new, masked or chemically altered substances (e.g. prodrugs), it will eventually be realised that intelligence gathering and legislative responses will not be able to effectively curtail availability. The danger to users will of course increase; as one substance is discovered and banned, another will pop up to take its place, presenting another unknown with accompanying dangers.
Take 'em to task
It's time for politicians and bureaucrats speaking about drugs and proposed legislative changes to also indicate they have addressed projected outcomes and future trends. They also need to be taken to task on issues such as the increase in PMA in response to LE related changes. Did previously given warnings fall on deaf ears, or was there an unspoken belief among law makers that a few extra deaths would actually assist their cause... the old drugs are bad record is scratched yet again
In line with the many examples listed in Silencing Dissent by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Madison those HR proponents with an ability to see a bit further ahead and who often go to lengths to ensure their concerns are communicated, are frequently given no appropriate recognition and even publicly discredited by the less educated authoritarians. I suggest the more intelligent TV and radio interviewers do some research on both what's been said in relation to PMA by those who forecasted this increase, and what future trends are now emerging. Then confront prohibitionist politicians on what their views are on these issues.
Apologies for the long rant, but it’s been such a bee in my bonnet and these messages need to be repeated until some conscientious politician wakes up, or more importantly, speaks up. PMA is nasty so why not prevent the deaths which inevitably go with it, at any cost? Perhaps when the death rate from PMA in Australia eclipses MDMA related deaths, it will be enough... ....mmm, hang on, isn't that the case already![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
Some arguable points on the current ‘evil’ of drugs status.
- The number of deaths in Australia where 'party' or 'recreational' type Illicit drugs were considered contributing factors has increased markedly over the past 2 years.
- The number of users seeking alternative drugs has increased over the past year.
- Harm Reduction as a concept is less effective than it was a year ago and drug users in Australia on the whole are not communicating as they once did.
- Greater levels of substitution or supplementation of MDMA with other drugs occurs today; includes previously common substitutes, previously less common substitutes such as PMA, and newer, novel and previously unknown substances.
If any of these points are correct, it indicates that illicit drug use is more dangerous today than it was a few years ago. In response to those points therefore, it begs to be asked; could recent policy changes be, at least in part, responsible for this increase in risk associated with illicit drug use?
I believe yes, and the fundamental reason for this occurring is;
Demand reduction did not parallel supply reduction
Efforts to stem demand have generally been ineffective in regards to Ecstasy. From what I can gather, deterrent based advertisements are not being received by target audiences, particularly in regards to this drug. Those experienced with MDMA might say that it's easy to see why if you've ever used Ecstasy in a social setting. It's fun, and most users believe there's little harm likely from talking pure MDMA occasionally. Why do they think this? Because for around two decades, many thousands upon thousands of Australians have, at one time, enjoyed ecstasy on an occasional or regular basis. Yet for a probable 99.99% or greater of these people, none of their friends have died or even ended up in hospital. Perhaps more to the point, few have been seen to end up with any long lasting negative psychological problems.
To imply every MDMA user will end up like every Methamphetamine user is BS and most users know it, so by comparing the drugs in this way, its unlikely the messages will be received by many of those with any real life experience. It's claimed that the ads are focused on those who have yet to try the drug, but young people who do believe the ads will, in many cases, eventually realize - maybe through a friend's use - that the ads weren't completely true. The cascading effect this produces is why prohibition sold on this pretence has always failed. What's more worrying in today’s world is that these young people may ignore more than just the ads and go on to disregard genuine warnings and HR advice, seeing it instead as more of the same hyped up, free from fact, scare-mongering.
For Fear of Reprisal
It may seem obvious, but stigmatizing users fragments the drug using community. In a legal sense, those who ‘know and don't care’ are becoming a minority. Those who know and care about their liberty are tending to change their behavior so as to slip under the radar. Some socialise in different settings, some restrict public comment about their drug use - it's certainly happened on this site - and some seek alternative substances that don't attract attention. In short, this fragmentation negates many of the present models used to accurately monitor the drug scene, as it's no longer a 'scene' as much as individual groups practicing their own forms of 'law-harm reduction', often at the cost of 'substance-harm reduction' - staying silent and unnoticed being their safest bet.
PMA - Early Warnings
Many drug producers undoubtedly aim to protect or increase their market share at any cost. This includes using easy to procure ingredients and, for some, taking advantage of the easy procedures involved in the manufacture of PMA. Without being able to catch these crooks or prevent all chemicals used to make all drugs from being obtained, a purely prohibitionist policy merely facilitates and even directs the production of these more dangerous drugs.
What now needs to be asked is, who or what legislative committees, politicians or campaigners are to be held accountable for the deaths that have occurred and will continue to occur because of the prevalence of PMA? Will PMA passed off as MDMA tablets fall into the hands of those users the government has failed to reach with their 'just say no...' ads?
If various authoritive bodies involved in these decisions knew this would be the outcome, shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions? The current 'war on drugs' policy should never be an excuse for legislative change which will knowingly cost additional lives, should it?
So did the law makers know this would happen?
HR professionals and researchers yelled loudly that this would occur as a consequence of only partly tightening restrictions on available chemicals while simultaneously increasing border protection and local policing. In 2003 a paper was published by Dr Caldicott et al titled Dancing with "Death": P-Methoxyamphetamine Overdose and Its Acute management . Mention was made of the high numbers of reported PMA deaths that had occured in Australia, a number that was almost half of the worldwide total if irrc. A relevant number of these deaths occured in SA, indicating PMA was probably being manufactured in that state.
So it was at least suspected PMA was being made in Australia. That much the policy makers knew, or should of known. Yet if asked about the increased dangers from the increased prevalence of PMA, law enforcement and prohibitionists would undoubtedly have a similar rhetorical response. "Drugs are dangerous, we've always said so...blah blah...."
That, as we all know, is a most ridiculous response. Yes, drugs are dangerous, few here have disputed that, particularly because of unknown aspects associated with illicit substances. But when we look at the increasing numbers of deaths from substitutes like PMA coupled with increasing amounts of PMA being seized by police, it only serves to drive home the point that HR workers and advocates for safety over discipline were right all along. Law makers or at least their advisors were told, yet unwittingly or otherwise implemented legislation that has very likely caused the deaths of young Australians. Some may even ask, "was this a known and considered outcome?" Did someone assume they would need to sacrifice a few for the good of the many?.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you
I'm not religious, but that quote seems very fitting atm.
The illicit drug market is changing. I've been told even customs officials have little to no idea what's currently coming in. More to the point, they, like others in employed in LE seem to have no idea what's around the corner. And no wonder. People don't discuss things the way they used to. The means of communication is often more stealth than it used to be. Internet vendors operate differently, some discussion websites aren't public knowledge and discussion on new drugs, availability etc occurs more and more off the open public boards.
The unfortunate part of this is that the user is once again the ultimate casualty. As LE becomes less and less effective at curtailing new, masked or chemically altered substances (e.g. prodrugs), it will eventually be realised that intelligence gathering and legislative responses will not be able to effectively curtail availability. The danger to users will of course increase; as one substance is discovered and banned, another will pop up to take its place, presenting another unknown with accompanying dangers.
Take 'em to task
It's time for politicians and bureaucrats speaking about drugs and proposed legislative changes to also indicate they have addressed projected outcomes and future trends. They also need to be taken to task on issues such as the increase in PMA in response to LE related changes. Did previously given warnings fall on deaf ears, or was there an unspoken belief among law makers that a few extra deaths would actually assist their cause... the old drugs are bad record is scratched yet again
In line with the many examples listed in Silencing Dissent by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Madison those HR proponents with an ability to see a bit further ahead and who often go to lengths to ensure their concerns are communicated, are frequently given no appropriate recognition and even publicly discredited by the less educated authoritarians. I suggest the more intelligent TV and radio interviewers do some research on both what's been said in relation to PMA by those who forecasted this increase, and what future trends are now emerging. Then confront prohibitionist politicians on what their views are on these issues.
Apologies for the long rant, but it’s been such a bee in my bonnet and these messages need to be repeated until some conscientious politician wakes up, or more importantly, speaks up. PMA is nasty so why not prevent the deaths which inevitably go with it, at any cost? Perhaps when the death rate from PMA in Australia eclipses MDMA related deaths, it will be enough... ....mmm, hang on, isn't that the case already
lil angel15
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,828
Great post Phase.
Let's just hope the right person, or people, are able to open their ears and their minds before it's too late - if it's not already.
Let's just hope the right person, or people, are able to open their ears and their minds before it's too late - if it's not already.
marklar_the_23rd
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 511
unfortunately i dont think you'd get more than:
"my view on what you have said, young man, is that drugs are bad, and these deaths prove it. Goodbye"
i really, really want christopher pyne to debate Dr Caldicott, but im guessing he didnt respond to the request because pyne knows just how full of shit he is.