• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

RADIO: 3AW Neil Mitchell 10 May 04: Asst. Comm. (Crime) Simon Overland c. 9.30am

B

BigTrancer

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 12, 2000
Messages
7,339
Did anyone else hear the talkback this morning? I caught some of the interview and a couple of questions fielded by Asst. Commissioner (Crime) Simon Overland. Unfortunately I heard this on the radio while I was in the car, but was unable to catch too many details because it was a short trip, and I was pushed for time.

The upshot of what I heard was a conversation about pills, with a big push to discredit the use of reagent testers, focussing on how people might assume that a pill which tests positive for MDMA is "safe". The Asst. Comm. used a phrase similar to "even if you get pure compounds, these drugs are not safe... there have been deaths from people using even unadulterated amphetamine-type drugs", several times. The conversation then examined the difference between the heroin toll in 99-00, and now, with Overland concluding that the decline in fatalities is directly related to police efforts in the area. They then turned to the phones to take calls, and the first calls I heard were unrelated to 'ecstasy' or pill testers.

Clearly the testers work, but the problem seems to me to be that they might be used incorrectly with inadequate education - but banning reagent testers because people could draw inappropriate conclusions from the results would be a serious disadvantage for harm reduction, in my opinion. They seem to be focussed on the limitations of reagent testers, rather than on the benefits - i.e., that they allow people to avoid pills that are potentially more damaging to health than MDMA. People aren't going to stop taking pills if they haven't got a tester, but the number of casualties could forseeably increase.

BigTrancer :)
 
Yeah he was on after me. My interview is here:

http://www.ftr6.org/Audio/3aw1.mp3

and altho I was trying to record his bit I got a phonecall and got distracted. The one bit I did record was good tho. He stressed that the number drug they have problems with is, and always has been, alcohol.

I don't really have any major problems with the police's stance on this. For one thing this is there public stance; what they believe and say in private is a very different matter. Also they have to take the more conservative approach regardless of the issue.
 
Great work as usual JB
14.gif
14.gif
. I think he had trouble grasping the whole HR concept, you can't teach someone the dangers and educate them on why it might be best not to take it if they don't even come up to the table. We do it for free, in our own time, because we want to help!
 
Great interview John,
Is it just me or is Neil Mitchell a total tool. I generally can't stand him and don't listen to 3AW because his views are generally mega conservative and he often just cant understand or come to terms with any concept that challenges traditional views. Is he genuinely as dumb as narrow minded as he comes accross in the interview or does he simply ask the questions and conduct the interview that is going to be most acceptable to his target audience.
Anyway good stuff John, I did chuckle a little when he Neil seemed to struggle to come to terms with the concept that enlighten is self funded and you provide pill testing at parrties for free. He didn't seem to understand the concept of helping others and caring for the well being of those around you.


Beech out

PS. I posted this in dif thread but think its more appropriate here
 
^^ He represents the view of a large portion of the community, and in this case probably the majority. It was good to reach an audience Enlighten does not have much contact with, and I hope they weigh up the benefits of reagents, not just the limitations.
 
i hope that they dont pose the stance of:

- drugs are bad
- reagent testers don't make it safe
- you shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place
- no more reagent testers

if that happens, hello hospital admissions and bunks galore. seems like the lovely zero tolerance policy of bob carr.
 
If testers do become illegal or unable to be purchased legally, could you see there becoming an underground market for them? As in testers being sold illegally thru shaddy channels? Can the chemicals used in the testers be purchased any other way or they otherwise quite hard to come by?


Beech out
 
Just read the interview, I think you won johnny :D

That guy is such a damn prick.

Hopefully we can get it to someones head that we have this "don't take drugs" education throughout our whole life and people still take drugs. Harm reduction is at the end of the scale, as johnny put very well, where there is already a problem and we are trying not to let things slip any worse. A safety net for society's fuckup on drugs you can say...

If their methods don't work now then where is the flaw? I think its because its just human nature to take drugs because they liberate us. Each and every drug has its little gift that it gives to you. Would you honestly think that people with the knowledge that drugs are bad for you would really take them if they didn't get anything out of it? Its like "go drink that petrol, it probably wont kill you but it wont be very damn good for you." You obviously don't get any benefits out of it....heh that wasn't a very good example but anyway, people think the good out weighs the bad (which in the majority of drugs isn't that bad if not abused).

What is something that can replace the good that drugs do for us??? e.g. Pills can let you talk about extremely painful things and get it out of your system with the trauma, pills can break the ice and let you be yourself when you used to be an introvert, pills can break the ice in relationships by bringing the truth out and letting the most important thing in it be amplified (the feelings), psychodelics can give you an ability to think in an out of body perspective about yourself or and learn something revelational about yourself which can help you in life. It opens the mind to all kinds of realisations which could even benefit our world!
 
he scoffed at the fact that dealers buy them, laughing at the prospect of ethical dealers...

haha SO out of touch, of course dealers r gonna want 2 know if they have good stuff, and aren't going to be killing friends and/or customers!
 
Very well argued johnboy!

What a dick Neil Mitchell is he also can't believe that someone who uses drugs could be altruistic.
 
I was going to give Mr. Mitchell a call the other day, but unfortunately couldnt get through.

Even though the subject of chemical drugs is and shall remain for a long time a taboo subject among conservative society, there are definately issues that need to be addressed.

My main concern is the fact that while many of the side effects, health risks/benefits etc of MDMA are currently unknown, the health risks of tobacco and alcohol products are widely known yet these substances are still freely available on the market.

In the grand scheme of things MDMA is a new substance which is still being researched to discern wether or not it is beneficial/harmful for human use. This research is still in progress, still inconclusive, and therefore the substance is still illegal - fair enough.

What shits me is the fact that while it is known alcohol when abused causes liver disease, heart disease and ultimately death, it is still legal - even rampantly advertised.
Tobacco, while still legal, has NO known health benefits. It causes cancer, heart disease and death - you've all read the warnings on packets - and while the wings have been clipped on tobacco advertising, it still remains legal for purchase by those over the age of 18.

Why is this the case?

Is it because both products are so firmly embedded in our culture that removing them would cause too many social upsets? probably.

Is it because a government who removed these products would be voted out of power for doing so?? probably.

Is it because these products have been around since before the founding of this country, and as such the government could regulate their sale, consumption and quality all the while filling their coffers with the tax generated from said sale and consumption??? In my opinion, most definately.

It is still not known wether or not MDMA is harmful to humans to a greater extent than tobacco or alcohol, and until this is known i think it should still remain an illicit substance.
The problem is, however, that if research concludes that MDMA is LESS harmful than alcohol and tobacco it will still remain an illicit substance for the sole reason of taxation.

The black market for MDMA was long established when the government became aware of its use. For this reason, i fear it will be too difficult for the government to gain control over and subsequently tax.

What does this mean?

Simply put, i feel that if the government is unable to control the MDMA market with a controlled and taxable product, it shall forever remain a social taboo and therefore illegal.

A


*edit* I forgot to mention that i smoke cigarettes, and drink alcohol. I dont have a problem with alcohol when used in moderation, although i do feel that the government should be charged with trafficking a drug of dependence with regards to tobacco products. I hate the fucking things, yet i am addicted.

maybe something else to think about???
 
Last edited:
JB well done. I think you handled yourself quite well considering the type of show you where appearing on.
 
Fantastic work JB... I thought for a minute he was going to implicate you as a dealer, i.e. "do you sell them?"... maybe expecting you to describe how you fund Enlighten by dealing pills.

I don't think Neil could quite grasp the concept that by the time people get to testing a pill, they've already made up their minds to take it. Bloody conservatives...
 
Absolutely fantastic interview JohnBoy.....such a shame that Neil wouldn't even listen to your arguments, his debating arguments were incredibly lame, his response to everything "but but they are illegal" and kept comparing "pill testers" to "heroin shooting galleries", he simply doesn't understand what harm minimisation is all about....saving people's lives, and that people have already made there decision before using a pill tester, I'm sure his attitude would change if someone he knew ended up in hospital. But seriously, why can't we import those superior pill testers from Europe, rather than simply making local pill testers illegal and turning a blind eye on the whole scene....as i seriously can't see the Australian government investing in a laboratory testing centre..... if only they realised the techniques used overseas were Best practice :X
 
Just had a listen to the call ins, only listened to the 2nd link there (one thats 300k). Some reasonable points made by some callers but its pretty clear that Neil is just pandering to his audience throughout the whole discussion. At the end of it he comments that by having the testing areas set up that people will see it as legitimising the use of drugs and people will take the view that it is safe to take drugs because they are being ok'd by the testing people. Then he questions the legality of what would happen if the pills are given the ok by the person who tests a pill at a party and then the user consumes it and reacts badly and gets sick or whatever. From what I doubt greatly that anyone from enlighten would test a pill and then say "here ya go buddy, its safe as houses, have a good night", I'm sure its more along the lines of "the test indicates that your pill......"
Neil Mitchel is simply doing what most journos have to do, treat issues the way the majority of the demographic to which his audience belong want him to.


Beech out

Beech out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top