A coroner has recommended pill testing be conducted in NSW, along with the decriminalisation of personal drug use and the scrapping of sniffer dogs at music festivals.
The NSW Police Commissioner has strongly opposed the suggestion.
In addition to the pro/anti pill testing debate it raised the question of whether the body that enforces the law should be so publicly involved in a civilian policy decision.
Thoughts on both topics.
should the legalised drug users recieve the same public health care?
Why only drug users? why not others? smokers, alcoholics, etc…
It’s good, give parents piece of mind that reckless children can be monitored in some way
Why not keep using sniffer dogs to monitor them instead.
Because it’s not working
Yeah, why waste resources on sniffer dogs. If they die, they die.
The detection statistics say different…
@awhiskin: Yeah… that is very high.
Dog checks person - 1 in 5, to an almost 1 in 2 chance that they are breaking the law. The rest go on the way.
So by simply using a dog, at the very least, you will find 1 in 5 people who have committed crimes. Sounds good to me.
@Scantu: So why bother with the dog if they're not even accurate? You really didn't think this through, did you?
@ThithLord: Please, don't project.
1 in 5 correct at minimum is a fantastic rate for a filter. Person gets picked up by the dog, police search person, you have at minimum a 1 in 5 chance that they have committed a crime. VS the alternative - searching everyone. Those are great odds. Avoid ad hominem, it doesn't help you.
@Scantu: Wow, well, I'm glad our civil liberties can be infringed upon so that they can detect, with absolute inaccuracy, if someone has a recreational drug on them for personal use.
@ThithLord: Sounds like you don't mind that people recreationally use drugs. That's fine for you to think but that is not the law. So yes - people get pulled up for it. Suprise. Taking drugs is not a civil liberty.
@Scantu: So 80% who have nothing have been deprived of their freedom because? Slowly our freedoms are being eroded in the name of law and order and ‘our safety’. It’s a dangerous slippery slide.
@Vote for Pedro: It's not a dangerous or slippery slope at all. Do you consider being scanned at the airport an erosion of your civil liberties?
@Scantu: If a dog sits next to me, the police will not allow me to leave. That means I’ve been detained for no other reason than for wanting to go to a music festival and a dog choosing to sit next to me.
I have committed no crime, yet i’ve been deprived my freedom
@Vote for Pedro: I understand that sucks but that is a price I'm happy to pay especially when the results are actually pretty well proven even though people try to spin them as "wow less than a coin toss" which is a total false comparison.
Interested - do you disagree with RBT laws too? The police pull you over and detain you, yet you have not committed a crime (for most people anyway) nor do they have any basis for pulling you over.
@Scantu: You and I are two very different people. Never forget that people employed in law enforcement will always lobby for laws that make their job easier to catch the ‘bad guys’. And I don’t say that to suggest they have bad intentions. They’re probably quite noble intentions in fact.
However, law enforcement should never be allowed to be involved in policy decisions to determine what the law should be. There must be unquestionable separation.
@Vote for Pedro: Well I agree with that somewhat - but it is important to consult them to some extent because they're the ones implementing it.
But yes ultimately very different. I do understand the frustration though but I think it's a best of evils scenario.
@Scantu: Speaking of false comparisons, the consequences of drink-driving and recreational drug use at a festival are incredibly different.
I have no problem with RBTs as it’s (a) non-invasive (b) helps keep our roads safer. I have a problem with sniffer dogs and strip searches (which have an even lower success rate yet are increasing in numbers). Its a waste of resources and negatively impacts people’s civil liberties for little-to-no benefit.
@awhiskin: How is that a false comparison? For the thing I was demonstrating it was 100% analogous - being detailed by police even when you've done nothing wrong. You've misunderstood the principle I was demonstrating.
1 in five is not no benefit …
@Scantu: In terms of it being a false comparison, there is strong justification for random breath testing and random drug testing for drivers. You’re being detained so that they can ensure you’re fit to drive.
Sniffer dogs and strip searches are not conducted in the interest of public safety. If the NSW police and government cared about saving lives, there are better avenues such as pill testing that offer greater benefits (ensures people are able to make informed decisions about their drugs, non-invasive, no criminal repercussions for utilising pill testing).
When I say little-to-no benefit, I meant that the police are not catching dealers - they’re catching individuals who are using drugs recreationally. There is very little benefit for the amount of time and resources that are invested in catching individuals at music festivals.
@ThithLord: Why be so disrespectful when all I have is a different opinion to you? I've not been rude in any sense at all. You should learn what appeal to authority is.
@Scantu: Your type of ignorance literally costs lives, dude. It's in the title of this thread - NSW Coroner recommends Pill Testing. NSW Coroner also recommends ceasing the use of sniffer dogs, cos it's equating to more and more deaths.
@ThithLord: OK - that is your opinion. Happy to respectfully discuss it but don't be rude. I know what I'm talking about, calling me ignorant is not intelligent or helpful when it's so clearly not true. The people that died, died from taking the drug that they intended to take. That was their decision, as sad and regrettable as it is. Self determination is important.
The people that died, died from taking the drug that they intended to take. That was their decision, as sad and regrettable as it is. Self determination is important.
I doubt any of them intended to take drugs that are either orders of magnitude stronger than they believed, or mixed with toxic chemicals. I think it's really quite ignorant to push the idea that they intended to take lethal drugs. If they had a process in place to test the pills, I can virtually guarantee most of these people would've either thrown out their drugs or vastly reduced the amount they ingested.
Let me reiterate: I'm not promoting the idea that taking drugs is safe. I'm not a drug user myself, however I am friends with many people who enjoy recreational drugs. For you to think that people deserve to die because they made the decision to take what they thought was a safe/normal drug, instead of offering a safe alternative like pill testing? That's disgusting.
It's almost the same as saying we don't need seatbelts in cars because people shouldn't be having accidents. You're not going to stop people driving cars and you can't force people to drive safely unfortunately, and as a result, accidents are inevitable - so we need to take measures to reduce the harm.
@awhiskin: In all of the cases, there were no toxic chemicals or any other issues that caused their deaths. The substance they intended to take is what caused the death. Pill testing would have told them it was what they intended to take. You can virtually guarantee anything you like, doesn't make it true.
I certainly don't think anyone deserves to die. I also am not for normalizing it by giving them places where they can go and test it. It is their decision to take it and commit a crime by possessing it, simple as that.
You have your analogy the wrong way around. Wearing a seat belt is not ingesting dangerous drugs. Not having a seatbelt is ingesting the drug. That's a choice you've made and if it causes your death then that is on you. This mentality of "hey I might do something dumb and die the state should protect me from myself" is just mind boggling.
@Scantu: That’s why I said the drugs may also be stronger than they intended? If they think they’re taking a certain dosage but the pill has been produced at a much higher purity or concentration without them knowing, this leads to problems.
Also my analogy is correct - for many years, cars did not have seatbelts and there was no legal requirement for them. Then following many many preventable deaths, governments began to regulate the industry and forced safety features like seatbelts to be mandatory. The government didn't simply say “stop driving, driving causes accidents” because of some arbitrary dislike of seatbelts.
It’s not so much asking for the state to protect these people from themselves as to just give them an option to make informed decisions about what they’re doing? The cost of pill testing in most cases is subsidised by the event organisers and comes at no cost to the government.
Anyway, if you still think that letting people die is a better alternative than letting people live contrary to your beliefs, then I think I’m just going to check out of this conversation.
@awhiskin: Feel free to check out. My answer is yes. I'd rather someone face the consequence of voluntarily and freely doing something stupid than endangering other people.
If you knew what happens with sniffer dogs around, you'd realize that they're worse for safety, not better.
Not only that, the dogs are usually wrong in their searches. I've had plenty of mates have a dog sit down next to them when they had absolutely nothing on them.
I've had plenty of mates have a dog sit down next to them when they had absolutely nothing on them.
Of course they didn't because they already sold it. Genius.
@Skramit: That's a bold assumption mate. Also who sells outside an event rather than inside?
Glad you know what you're talking about though.
@navyskies: I got the joke. You seem to be taking this sarcastic accusation about your friends on a completely anonymous platform a little more seriously than is warranted.
@navyskies: Not being sure what the joke is = taking it too seriously. The joke is obvious for all to see.
Because the kids with a handful of pills on them swallow them all out of fear of getting caught and die from that.
Lesson learnt for their friends at least
Taking 2 pills off a user doesn't solve the problem the nsw police claim they're trying to solve.
If the amount of resources spent on catching users was spent on intelligence for importation and traffickers they might solve the problem at the highest level.
Pill testing or decriminalization of personal use will save lives instead of scare people into overdosing.
But then what excuse would they have for strip-searching little girls?
They'll have to come up with something else until the new gas chambers are built.
The same excuse they use for doing it to little boys.
You need to do both - targeting users reduces demand which lowers prices. That plus enforcement against suppliers makes it less "worth it" to smuggle and deal.
The law and order route has worked so well for us over the decades addressing the use of illegal drugs
Well, to be fair, it worked for the War on Drugs, didn't it?? Right? Guys?
I'm not against decriminalisation of possession of small quantities but your argument is flawed, as the same can be said about other illicit activities, should we just stop fighting and let criminals be criminals?
Murder will always be a thing, so why waste police resources policing it?
Stealing will always be a thing, so why waste police resources policing it?
Corruption will always be a thing, so why waste police resources policing it?
See where I'm getting at?
@Bad Company: Not really.
Having heavy handed police presence has done nothing to stop people taking drugs. You know what it does? It gets headlines. That’s it.
Having heavy handed police presence has done nothing to stop people taking drugs. You know what it does? It gets headlines. That’s it.
Look mate, think about the kind of paths we're going down. If we allow pill testing so people can take illicit drugs, then should we also provide a road just for drink driving so drunks can get home safe?
I know it sounds ridiculous, but the same benefits can also apply to a drink driver's road.
@Vote for Pedro: Double standards.
If you realise how ridiculous it is to build roads just for the drunk, you'll realise how ridiculous it is to provide free pill testing.
Unless of course, when you apply double standards, perhaps you have an agenda to push.
@Bad Company: What a crap analogy - driving drunk and driving impaired by any other substance is dangerous to others - popping a pill at a music festival is not putting others at risk.
@singlemalt72: I agree that popping a pill does not harm others around you in the same dramatic and bloody way a drink driver does.
But to say it doesn't put others at risk is putting head in the sand.
@Bad Company: @Bad Company - If someone tests their pill and it’s a dude they’ll throw it away.
If it tests as pure then they’ll just have a good time at the festival.
It’s no different to pubs and clubs having breathalysers.
Bad Company - If someone tests their pill and it’s a dude they’ll throw it away.
That's a bit ideal. I mean, we are talking about the same group of people who ignore repeated signs of danger and chooses to pop 16 hours of pills in one go.
Having heavy handed police presence has done nothing to stop people taking drugs. You know what it does? It gets headlines. That’s it.
same argument can be used for examples from @BadCompany.
no matter how many police resources you throw at, there always be crime.
That doesn't mean we should give up and legalise crime.
@Bargain80: Do we keep doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a better result or do we try something different?
@Vote for Pedro: We should do the same thing although some adjustments to method of policing is not a bad idea.
@Vote for Pedro: sure. if you have a bright idea how to tackle crime (such as legalise them), you can talk to your MP.
@Bad Company: None of these crimes are even compareable. Drug and Alcohol use has minimal effect on other people. Drug use even when disruptive would be a similar crime to disorderly conduct.
@Yawhae: You need to acknowledge that drug abuse harms more than just yourself. Sure, the effect on people around you are not as dramatic and bloody compared to say a drink driver, but yeah drugs do affect more than just the user.
Gambling is a good analogy. It does affect more than just the user.
@Bad Company: Those examples are not comparable as they all cause significant harm to other people.
A guy smoking a joint in his garage is not harming anyone.
@trapper: A guy smoking a joint in his garage (or the example we're discussing, a guy popping some pills at a music festival) is harming people around him as much as a gambling additive is harming people around him.
The effect is nowhere near as dramatic as a drink driver causing a massacre but the harm is there. There are far more implications than just the person himself.
@trapper: Mate, it's really not that hard to imagine (or perhaps you don't have to imagine) a close family member of yours becomes an addict. Just think about all the implications and the headache that falls on someone close to him/her to deal with the rubbish he/she makes up.
There are millions of horror stories about how a gambling addict/drug addict ruins families. "Harm" should not just be confined to physical harm (although that is certainly an element in a lot of those stories).
Yes, drug addiction does harm people around you. Arguing otherwise is futile. At the small scale, you have a few ruined families. At a large scale, social unrest a very real possibility.
@Bad Company: What are you talking about man, pills are not 'highly addictive' or even addictive at all.
@trapper: Not true according to what I found on the internet…………the topic is debatable. So perhaps you shouldn't call it yet.
@Bad Company: I agree with you, but you are wrong on this point.
Taking pills is not in itself addictive, and no amount of internet factoids will change that. And the effects of taking pills can be harmless to other people, such as in the setting of a music festival.
Yet, I don't think the action should be glorified or encouraged. It is the encouragement and glorification within social circles that leads to adoption by other people. And in most cases (I'd throw out a figure like 80% from my butt), the people that start taking controlled substances are those aged between 15 and 25.
So if you really think these controlled substances are harmful to the collective, you would continue strict rules in the substances and its pre-cursors as well as the Import/Export side of things. Now that supply is hampered, you would then focus on demand.
You want to incentivise people to trust and work with the policing force. So people who are addicted will be helped financially to learn independence, and physical and psychological therapy. And people who are users (but not in dire addict conditions), should not be jailed. Instead have them visit primary, secondary, and tertiary schools to show the long-term effects. And since there are enough abusers, you can have them visit the schools only a few times and cycle through with other addicts. Teaching children at a young age "no" is the most powerful tool, however, just like exercise consistency is important (so regular intervals through each school).
With that said, you do have to approach this from a logical and fact-based form. Humans should not be totally controlled, we need to have liberties to do wrongful and harmful things. If some drugs are good or have negligible effects on health, addiction, price etc etc then it should be either legalised or reduced in severity of law. You don't want to jail someone for smoking a menthol cigarette, nor should you give them a $50 fine for smoking crystal.
These complex problems require complex solutions. And for that reason, I will be voting for someone else/non-Pedro
@Bad Company: I think you need to do more research here, I don’t deny the fact that some drugs drugs heck even alcohol can cause problems with people around you but here we are talking about pill testing or specifically mdma, which is nearly impossible to overdose on or even get addicted due to the nature of the drug requiring seretonin in your body to work and taking it too much without letting your body recover doesn’t do anything or much at all. It’s the cutting agents or fake pills that are killing people, that’s the purpose of the pill testing to get rid of what’s actually harming people.
To apply the logical inference that by reducing control on illicit drugs reduces the damage associated with illicit drugs would also suggest that if we increase speed limits, there would be fewer incidents of speeding.
Targeting users does nothing, sorry. Most people caught will have no conviction recorded and pills are cheap enough to just buy more.
Same deal as fining speeding drivers. You'll only catch 1-5% and most will just get off with a few points and a fine.
It's the risk you can be caught and face consequences that's the main disincentive.
Right now deaths and injuries are limited to a couple a year, far less than our speeding enforcement regime, so I'd say it's working perfectly fine.
@HighAndDry: Yeah I see your point. I just think the resources nsw is using could be better appointed.
We dont have drug dogs entering pubs etc to catch users in Qld. Nsw police must have a large budget to be doing that. A budget that could be better spent imo.
We dont have drug dogs entering pubs etc to catch users in Qld.
The main subject of this argument is more music festivals and other events. I have never seen a sniffer dog inside a pub (or even a club) ever.
@HighAndDry: It's a catch 22, if you stop having detection at festivals, you open the gates for dealers. That's why my opinion is that a personal use amount should merely be confiscated and told to move on. Even if it saves one life it's worth it. Same goes for pill testing, if people don't get caught by detection, they can at least minimize harm in some form.
@crashloaded: That's a kind sentiment and I'd agree, but it's coming from the mistaken (imho) premise that doing that would lower deaths and injuries.
Look at the numbers of deaths and injuries from just say, alcohol vs even crack cocaine - it's a lot higher because it's legal and so as a result many more people use it.
That's what would happen with drugs, but without any of the health and safety restrictions for ingredients and manufacture, service and training requirements of having an alcohol licence for example, and/or even as an easy a method for policing (alcohol is one easily detected chemical - there are dozens of different recreational drug compounds).
@HighAndDry: The main issue I see is all this attention to music festivals because…boomers.
If they want to go Zero tolerance, let’s start with Pollies and Police having mandatory drug tests. Why don’t we have sniffer dogs at the logies or around the Casino.
@crashloaded: No person should be searched by the police without probable cause.
It's unreal the shit that happens in Australia… I mean innocent teenage girls being flipping strip searched at random? It's disgusting and should not be legal.
If they want to catch dealers then send a few under-covers in and do it that way.
It's a catch 22, if you stop having detection at festivals, you open the gates for dealers. That's why my opinion is that a personal use amount should merely be confiscated and told to move on.
The coroner actually mentions this in report.
Basically says police should focus on detection and let the basic searches by done by security. Calling police over to intervene only if there is a real need.
@HighAndDry: Except with speeding you're also putting others at risk. With drugs and alcohol it generally results in self harm.
With drugs and alcohol it generally results in self harm.
Except with speeding you're also putting others at risk. Not if they are driving.
@highanddry You clearly have zero understanding of how demand and supply works.
Despite 50+ years of prohibition drugs are now cheaper, more potent and more available.
Enforcement against suppliers makes it MORE "worth it" to smuggle and deal. Because demand for addictive substances is inelastic and any reduction in supply INCREASES PRICES.
Despite 50+ years of prohibition drugs are now cheaper, more potent and more available.
Nobody is claiming prohibition is perfect, but have you got any proof of causation as opposed to just correlation. Prohibition of alcohol in the US probably has some interesting parallels https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibit…
I agree most drugs should be decriminalised, but lets not pretend this would reduce use…