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.
@tryagain: The war on drugs costs ~$50 Billion per year. Over the past 50 years that amounts to TRILLIONS wasted, and for what?
Drugs are cheaper, more potent and more available then ever before.
Millions of people are imprisoned and have their lives destroyed for no benefit (US Figures):
Number of arrests in 2018 for non-violent drug law violations: 1,600,000
Number of drug arrests that were for possession only: 1,500,000
Number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2018: 700,000
Then there are the murders caused by the ongoing drug war:
Number of people killed in Mexico's drug war since 2006: 200,000+
Number of people killed in the Philippines drug war since 2016: 12,000+
Then there are the cartels that are growing ever richer, better resourced and even more powerful then whole national militaries.
Who are using the profits from the war on drugs to fund terrorist activity.
Then there is the "illegality" stigma preventing users from seeking drug treatment (for fear of punishment).
And for what benefit? Drugs are cheaper, more potent and more available then ever before.
Perhaps you could provide some positive examples of what the War on Drugs has achieved… anything at all???
@tryagain: Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster that killed tens of thousands of innocent people. It's a perfect parrallel for the failed war on drugs. Thanks for raising it:
"When large-scale fatalities occurred as a result of the policy, the agents of Prohibition shrugged it off."
Prohibition ended because of the exact same issue we have now: Black markets making and selling dangerous products with no regulation. Because prohibitionists, like yourself, wont allow it.
The Prohibitionists/Government even poinsoned the alcohol supply, in the hope it would stop people drinking. It didn't, instead it killed and blinded thousands of innocent people (who simply wanted to parttake in their drug of choice).
"A solution emerged from the anti-drinking forces in the government: that year, a new formula for denaturing industrial-grade alcohol was introduced, doubling how poisonous the product became. Three ordinary drinks of this may cause blindness." This is where the term "blind drunk" originated.
Not everyone thought it was a good idea to make alcohol deadly, when making it illegal hadn’t stopped drinkers. One Senator called it “legalized murder.” However, the Anti-Saloon League [the equivilant of those opposed to pill testing] persisted, arguing that legal alcohol had killed many more in its day than denatured alcohol would kill during the transition to a teetotaling world. One advocate said: “The person who drinks this industrial alcohol is a deliberate suicide" - Exactly what a lot of commenters on here are claiming about pill takers (while hypocritically partaking in the most dangerous drug - alcohol).
Alcohol prohibition ended in 1933, and there was no longer any need for people to risk their lives for a drink. But, as this post shows, the specter of drug deaths caused by prohibitionists ignorance of harm minimisation remains.
The whole reason for the drug war, was after prohibition ended, US federal bureaucrats needed a new "danger" to keep their funding flowing. Try googling "Harry Ansligner" and read some history.
The war on drugs is just history repeating itself. Innocent people being killed because selfish prohibitionists puritanical beliefs.
@field1985: You are falsely conflating prohibition of alcohol with the poisoning of alcohol, they may have been pushed by the same people but that doesn't make them the same thing. Nobody in Australia is proposing a Rodrigo Duterte type policy (maybe the modern equivalent to poisoning people) so it's a moot point.
But it does point to prohibition leading to a reduction in usage, which kind of is the main point of those not wanting drugs decriminalised. How the increased harm from increased use of recreational drugs weighs up against the harm now caused by the black market supply of those drugs is where the real question is in my mind, but pretending decriminalisation won't have an effect on usage is I think fanciful.
@tryagain: "Nationals backbencher George Christensen has praised Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte's hardline war on drugs that has led to the death of more than 2,000 suspects in gun battles."
Moot point? A government minister is literally praising him… stop wasting my time.
@field1985: Is he proposing a similar policy here, or is this another red herring. The death toll is far far higher than that too by all accounts.
@tryagain: Decriminalisation can reduce usage:
- Users can seek rehabilitation without fear of punishment
- Users don't become social outcasts (driving them to use more drugs)
- Drugs are made LESS potent (The only alcohol you could buy during prohibition was pure spirits - because pure drugs make transporting them easier, this is known as the "Iron Law of Prohibition")
- Less overdose deaths
- Increased funding of police/hospitals and rehab through taxation
- Reduced cost of prisons/courts
@field1985: Are you honestly telling me you want to Decriminalise illicit drugs so users can seek help and not be outcasts, or is it just a convenient argument to legalising your use?
@tryagain: The poisoning of alcohol was a direct and predicatable outcome of alcohol prohibition. It turns out illegal booze suppliers don't care about the safety of their customers.
Poisoned ecstasy pills are a direct outcome of drug prohibition. It turns out illegal pill suppliers don't care about the safety of their customers.
Who could've predicted??
@tryagain: You need "evidence" to tell you illicit drug dealers will sell anything the can for a profit? Are you serious???
@field1985: The cigarette black market teaches us that if you think legalised drugs will be cheap you're joking.
lol. Next they are going to want to test the bullets of people playing Russian Roulette.
If you are dumb enough to take a pill, made in some back yard cooking set up, cut with who god knows what, that has been stuffed into someone’s prison wallet and dragged out for others to consume, I say that pill testing is the last thing you require.
Didn’t anyone’s mum teach them to not take candy of strangers? Especially candy that contains petrol, cleaning chemicals and god knows what else that some stranger smuggled into the music festival by shoving it up their arse?
I say, no pill testing and just let natural selection sort them out.
At least you’re not advocating for a continuation of the clearly failed ‘strong policing’ route
Should be less policing. There should also be less medical assistance to go with it.
If people want to ingest butt candy, have at it, but there should be a policy in place that if you need medical attention after ingesting some random butt candy, you release your rights to any medical treatment.
Can’t sell drugs to dead people.
That goes to the issue of where do we stop helping people for their (poor) life choices in every aspect?
@Vote for Pedro: Pretty good place to stop helping is “as soon as they ingest, shoot up, smoke or shove illicit drugs up their arse”.
We shouldn’t spend any more tax payers dollars and police time trying to control it, but just spend less tax and medical facility time treating it. Less policing and less medical treatment. Sounds like a tax win/win to me.
@pegaxs: What about helping people who choose to live in bushfire prone areas? Why should I subsidise their fire protection? Or the myriad of other examples where we socialise the costs of assistance for individual choices
@Vote for Pedro: Taking drugs is akin to somebody choosing to light a bush fire for fun and end up burning their house down. Not exactly accidental if you ask me.
@Bad Company: The same could be said for diving cars, if you decide to drive and you crash then no medical assistance for you.
Or how about if you sun tan and get skin cancer than no treatment.
Or if you're overweight then no treatment.
Infact we should just stop all medical treatment unless it's from natural causes, because otherwise it was from self harm.
Sounds like a tax win.
if you decide to drive and you crash then no medical assistance for you.
For many, driving is not an option. For the rest of us, shutting down road transport means going back to the middle ages. Try a better analogy perhaps.
Or how about if you sun tan and get skin cancer than no treatment.
Again, for many, being under the sun is not an option. I'm not against banning artificial sun tan places though.
Or if you're overweight then no treatment.
People are overweight because they have an unhealthy diet. Unfortunately food remains essential for human survival, so placing a restriction on food is both inhumane and ridiculous. Not the same thing as drugs.
Please, try a better analogy.
@Bad Company: For many driving is an option. People refuse to walk / ride / catch public transport and because people see driving as mandatory we don't focus on providing better avenues for the other methods.
Being under the sun might not be an option but being in the sun with protection is. Using hats, sunscreen, sunglasses, long sleeved clothing. People could be doing a lot more to protect themselves from the risks of skin cancer.
People been overweight is 100% a choice and is no different to the choice of taking drugs. Just because it is essential to eat that doesn't give you the right to over indulge, especially when the health risks and medical costs associated with it is a burden on the economy.
People refuse to walk / ride / catch public transport and because people see driving as mandatory we don't focus on providing better avenues for the other methods.
Oh yeah there's plenty of that, but medical cost is covered by CTP.
People could be doing a lot more to protect themselves from the risks of skin cancer.
I agree, but how do you think the government can enforce "being-under-the-sun-without-protection" rules? There are literally millions of people who do this.
If you believe criminalising drug possession is a waste of public resources, what do you propose needs to be done for sun protection?
People been overweight is 100% a choice and is no different to the choice of taking drugs.
I agree with the first part but not the second. Damage caused by a lot of drugs is either irreversible or extremely unlikely to be reversible.
What I'm trying to say is, food is addictive, but it is possible for someone to wake up one day and start a healthy lifestyle. Drugs ruins you, full stop, almost no chance to go back.
Why should there be less medical assistance? The vast majority of Cocaine users for example will be likely paying taxes highly in excess of the median earner. Doesn't this mean they should be entitled to more healthcare not less?
Why should there be less medical assistance?
Because the buying of and consuming of illicit drugs is illegal.
The vast majority of Cocaine users for example will be likely paying taxes highly in excess of the median earner.
Source? Most drug addicts I volunteer to help are definitely not "high income earners", cocaine or otherwise.
Doesn't this mean they should be entitled to more healthcare not less?
They hoovering up loads of cocaine? Then I would say less.
We test alcohol to ensure it is not deadly. You buy alcohol off strangers all the time.
We should have no alcohol regulation/testing and just let natural selection sort drinkers out.
Stupid analogy is stupid.
You are trying to compare a totally regulated and controlled legal industry with an unregulated, uncontrolled illegal, DIY, back yard, anything goes community.
Tell you what, when Meth, Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstasy, and whatever other illicit drug you can think of is made by reputable companies and distributed through a correct distribution and sales network, then you are free to compare them.
Things like tobacco and alcohol are regulated industries. What they are not, is made by criminals in dirty, disgusting conditions with no regards for safety of themselves, anyone around them or for the quality of their product or their ingredients.
So, buying unknown drugs is more like if you were buying home made methanol labelled as "Dad's best moonshine" then yes, have at it. But should there be testing stations for this home made firewater because retards want to get wasted? No.
You buy alcohol off strangers all the time.
I am pretty sure that any alcohol I buy isn't cooked up in some filthy guys basement and hidden in the bartenders prison wallet until I want to buy some…
Alcohol was "cooked up in some filthy guys basement" until is was legalised. It killed many, many people, just like pills are now. We could stop the deaths if people stopped opposing commonsense harm-reduction policies like pill testing.
But some people like yourself want kids to die for making one bad youthful descision.
until is was legalised.
Well, until the illicit drug industry is regulated and legalised, your point is moot. When I can go to a bottl'o near me and get some meth or some cocaine, or pick up a packet of ecstasy at the fuel station on my way home, then, I will change my opinion the illicit drug industry.
But some people like yourself want kids to die for making one bad youthful descision.
It is the age of information at your fingertips. It's the age of knowledge on tap. There is awareness of it everywhere, from news stories, to ad campaigns, to information. It's in TV, movies, internet, newspapers and magazines, basicall everywhere you search, there is information about drugs and what their harm is if you take them.
So, if they ignore all this, then basically, yes.
"I didn't know that a pill this guy pulled out of his arse, that was made by someone I have no idea about, using chemicals I cant even guess at would have killed me…"
there is information about drugs and what their harm is if you take them.
No there isn't. Most of it is scary propaganda. A kid takes a drug, realise's they have been told a load of rubbish then ignores the real, indisputable issues that comes with drug use.
For example, Heroin's issue isn't how addictive the high is, it's how rubbish the withdraw symptoms are. Ice makes people more emotive, not psychopaths. Paint filled arse pills don't kill people, substituted drugs like phenylalanine do.
And next to no one dies of drug overdoses compared to car crashes, yet every illicit drug use servery suggests illicit drug use is more popular than car driving (yeah, in the people they are surveying…).
Kid's can't make informed decisions when most governments push anti drug propaganda.
HOWEVER
I agree with controlled substance laws and anti drug propaganda as I believe they reduce use. But we can't blame the kids while we support these systems. Better onsite emergency medical care and pill testing, paid for by event organisers, is just meeting their duty of care to their patrons.
No there isn't.
Ah, yeah there is…
Most of it is scary propaganda
It’s only propaganda if you don’t like it and/or you’re on the other side of the debate. I help out in my community with the underprivileged and the drug addicted and have done for many years and have first hand experience of what drugs do to people. Disappointed now I find out they were all just shills for the propaganda machine.
Ice makes people more emotive
Are these the same people that go on benders and eat other people’s faces off? Have you ever seen an ice/meth addict in your life? “Emotive” isn’t quite the work I would use.
As for your “yeah, but drugs kill less people…” and suggesting that it’s more popular than driving. I’m not convinced. Walk up to 100 random people on the street and ask how many of them drive, most probably all of them. Now, I’m not convinced that illicit drug use is even remotely that high.
The other issue is that drugs have a far greater impact on the community. It contributes on a whole heap of levels. And drug use would be more a kin to a car accident if you watched the same person get into a car crash, in slow motion, every day they are on those drugs. I think would sooner be killed in a car accident than to live my life like some of the people I try and help.
Kid's can't make informed decisions when most governments push anti drug propaganda.
So, you are saying that the government and whoever prints this propaganda need to be unbiased and give both sides of heroin and meth use? They should balance out their propaganda with some benefits of taking these drugs?
paid for by event organisers
So long as it isn’t paid for by the government.
Are these the same people that go on benders and eat other people’s faces off? Have you ever seen an ice/meth addict in your life? “Emotive” isn’t quite the work I would use
I work and live in Australia. I have worked with many current and ex users (yes, some ice users can hold jobs). They have never eaten a face off. They don't get angry unless they are treated poorly, but so will everyone.
As for your “yeah, but drugs kill less people…” and suggesting that it’s more popular than driving. I’m not convinced. Walk up to 100 random people on the street and ask how many of them drive, most probably all of them. Now, I’m not convinced that illicit drug use is even remotely that high.
I agree, hence the
(yeah, in the people they are surveying…)
Surveys I was shown as a young adult indicated 70% usage (yeah right). Government data suggests 43% of people have used an illicit drug (click download report) and that there is 0.735 Australian drivers licences per Australian. That said, The life time use data seems off in the first report and I am not satisfied that the licence data excludes duplicate licences or non Australian holders (because I did not see either claim in that report and I have known people in both circumstances).
And drug use would be more a kin to a car accident if you watched the same person get into a car crash, in slow motion, every day they are on those drugs. I think would sooner be killed in a car accident than to live my life like some of the people I try and help.
I don't mean to be rude, but it sounds like you are in the wrong line of work. I have worked in drug heavy industries and I have no interest in the level of 'socialising' some of my colleagues do, but I wouldn't criticise their life. It's usually half decent and far less self destructive than the colleagues who live down the pub. People with mental health problems tend to have the worst life in my experience.
So, you are saying that the government and whoever prints this propaganda need to be unbiased and give both sides of heroin and meth use? They should balance out their propaganda with some benefits of taking these drugs?
What benefits??? Numbness? Withdraw? Limited social acceptance? and
I agree with controlled substance laws and anti drug propaganda as I believe they reduce use.
My only argument was can't blame kids for dying from accidental poisoning when we lie about the consequences. I was only replying to
there is information about drugs and what their harm is if you take them.
My argument was long because I was trying to change your perspective, as you seemed cool with kids, like your clients, dying because some scum sucker was greedy and tainted drugs they sold.
True that. I'd say let Darwinism take care of it.
Could someone please remind me how the war on drugs has been going for the past few decades?
We haven't had a "war" on drugs, same as we haven't had a war on burglaries or a war on murder.
We're not the US, stop letting US pop culture influence how we view the Australian context.
It’s going smashingly helping line the pockets of drug cartels.
Cool, it sounds like the world's lawmakers and law enforcement have been using a winning strategy. :-P
The ‘getting tough on drugs’ is a tried and tested slogan to win votes. Kind of like a current affair targeting ’dole bludgers’. Neither do anything constructive to solve the issue. Simply win votes and viewers.
Times are changing . Look at Woodstock over 300000 people attended yet i think there was like 3 deaths and I don't even think there were any directly linked to an overdose but they were using cannabis and lsd .
Weed should be legal . Alcohol should be cheaper . Growing up money was scarce and you had to make your 20 go as far as it could .
That's why most of the kids take drugs at these events . Think about it what is one drink going to do for you when you can take a pill that would last the whole event .
I think alcohol has done far greater damage to individuals and society than all the other drugs combined.
The primary reason some drugs are illegal is because they can aid people to think about challenging the political and social establishment. Alcohol does not usually do that - it is the perfect drug to keep the masses entertained yet contained, even if it causes more damage than many other drugs would. The establishment can easier deal with alcohol fueled violence than the peaceful introspection that other drugs may offer.
Fentanyl often leads to a permanent peaceful state.
What exactly is your point here, on a per user basis I am sure heroin has done more damage. What is the argument you're trying to formulate with that statement?
Because alcohol is legal and easy to get. If illegal drugs become legal, I'd say the damage will be greater than alcohol.
I love the "pro drug" debaters who cough up this little nugget… If drugs were legal…
Alcohol and Tobacco are legal and they are massive contributors to health issues in society. If all of these hard drugs were legalised tomorrow, the uptake on it would be astronomical. There wouldn't be "less" users, there would be more, and A LOT more and in a very short period of time.
The people who wouldn't do, a lot may make the move to "on the fence"
The on the fence people would move to "well, now it's legal and I won't get in trouble."
Current drug addicts would be "oh well, business as usual…"
And the other argument is always "well, it would make the drugs cheaper" and there would be less crime." No. It would have to be made by big pharma type companies and sold and taxed in much the same way as alcohol and tobacco. It wouldn't get cheaper, it would just get easier to access…
@pegaxs: That is a silly assumption. If heroine was made legal tomorrow, would you or anyone you know take it?
Anyway the conversation is about de-criminalising, luckily it's already been done in other countries and the results are there for anyone to consider.
@pegaxs: If the government produced and regulated doses of specific drugs they could monitor problem people, make money and provide clean drugs. The reality is that you have no issues with hospitals giving you drugs because you dont question the quality. Why is it that as a people, we have decided that some drugs should be legal and some should not be? It is purely about perspective and politics and as new information comes to light, we should explore new ideas and methods dealing with this issue.
Look at Woodstock over 300000 people attended yet i think there was like 3 deaths and I don't even think there were any directly linked to an overdose but they were using cannabis and lsd .
You don't just get run over by a tractor when you are sober…
decriminalisation of personal drug use
The criminalisation it’s okay as long as we can tax the bejesus out of each pill or gram that is manufactured. Starting from $666 per pill or gram manufactured.
What is even the point of your comment? It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and it's in bad faith. Nice contribution.
Tax the users rather than the taxpayers. Was that not clear?
Why stop at pill testing? The police or maybe event organiser should sell these pills directly. That would make it 100% safe and earn some coin.
So when will the event organiser have an IPO? I'll definitely buy some shares.
Yeah, IPO as in Intended Pill Offering
I don't agree with pill testing. It should be buyer beware.
If kids/young-adults are dumb enough to take unknown drugs, then they should wear the consequences. Pill testing is just another expense on the taxpayer for the stupidity and bad parenting of others.
Exactly. Taking illegal drugs that you don't know the contents of is the very definition of play stupid games, win stupid prizes - I don't know why so many people want to enable deliberate stupidity.
Next we'll be giving drunk drivers a police escort instead of fines.
I don't know why so many people want to enable deliberate stupidity.
Simple - it's the lazy solution.
It makes people 'feel good' by 'helping' these poor, helpless pill takers. It's all about feeling good right?
Either legalise these drugs or enforce the law. This half-way between scenario with "pill testing" is just bulldust.
Happy to let young people experimenting with drugs die, because it doesn't accord with your morals? When a proven and cheap harm minimisation option exists (pill testing)?
You sound like a good person.
Pill testing doesn't have to cost the tax payer though. It could be a paid service, or covered by event organiser, sponsors, or private charity etc
Organisers should be paying for pill testing, as they have the duty of care to their patrons. But there are plenty of volunteers that would happily do it for free, as many people really don't like seeing young adults die out of youthful ignorance.
they have the duty of care to their patrons
Their duty of care is to have the police present to enforce the law.
It is illegal to get a patron intoxicated. By your logic we should have police stationed at every bar.
@This Guy: You’re right that it is unlawful to supply alcohol to someone that is drunk in licensed venue.
The organises are not supplying illicit drugs.
Im totally astounded at some of the attitudes on here, anyone would think its a forum for right wing geriatrics totally out of touch with society.
Sniffer dogs are out in pubs, clubs and train stations in NSW every week, follow sniff off on Facebook if you want evidence of that or just actually go out.
The cops are wearing body cams and they are not switching them off when they perform a strip search.
The dogs do not have a high success rate, they have more false positives than anything else and if you are stopped entering a festival but have no drugs, you are still denied entry and your ticket confiscated.
How is that fair?
The cops are not catching drug importers or dealers with the dogs and they are not even targeting them.
They are targeting people who are knowingly taking drugs for a feeling of euphoria who just want to dance and feel the music.
This is very different from people injecting Ice and becoming psychotic and stabbing an innocent to death or a needle junkie robbing houses and bashing grannies for their handbags to fuel a habit.
If you dont understand that then you are missing a whole side to the story.
Its not a simple as saying, dont take drugs, MDMA is ingrained in our society, we have been taking it for decades, its responsible for a music revolution and is as much part of a change in society as LSD and marjiuana were in the 60s and 70s.
People attending festivals or going clubbing are not intentionally consuming drugs they know to be harmful, there is just no way of knowing if youve got a strong pill or one cut with filth until you take it.
Someone can have 2 or 3 pills the week before and handle it and then buy more from the same dealer and they cant because theres no quality control.
Pill testing at least makes some effort to address that.
What it doesnt do is address the fact that someone queuing up to enter a festival, sees cops and sniffer dogs then panics, they take all their pills in one go so they have nothing on them and hopefully get past the dogs.
That same person then can feel unwell inside the festival and they are too scared to go for help at the first aid tent because the cops are positioning themselves right outside it knowing that anyone who goes there has taken drugs. This is actually happenning.
We are allowing it to happen!
Young people are dying because of the government sanctioned cops and their dogs, thats the reality. You'll never ever change my mind on that.
Young people are dying because
They're taking illegal drugs.
I also reckon we should go harder on firearms. Completely ban them except for law enforcement or other regulatory enforcement. The ban to date from howard has been effective to a point. Now we need to go all the way!
Ok very observant, now the question is what can we do to minimise the risks.
There is no magical "don't take drugs" wand.
There's also no "don't steal stuff" wand or "don't hit people" wand either.
@trapper: I'm not proposing the death penalty for drug users or thieves, but if a thief runs onto a road while trying to get away and is run over, I'm not going to advocate for PSAs that drivers watch out for thieves running onto the road just in case.
@HighAndDry: It does sound like you want to make it more likely that the thief gets run over though…
Kids will always take drugs. Attitudes like yours are what kills the kids, through the prevention of harm-reduction (pill testing).
Then why aren't young people dying from "pills" in European countries with pill testing?
More than 70 percent of all kids take drugs. More than 70 percent of all kids reach adulthood. Where are all these dead druggy kids your talking about?
More than 70 percent of all kids take drugs.
This sounds high. Could you please provide a link to support this claim?
Young people are dying because of the government sanctioned cops and their dogs, thats the reality.
Young people are dying because of bad parenting.
And bad parents are bad because of bad parenting. Why punish the the youth when generations before them acted no better.
Why punish people that don’t take illicit drugs.
Young people are dying because of bad parenting
Then why aren't the parents dying? Shouldn't the people doing the bad thing die? Or do movies lie? I just might Cry.
Good bye.
This is the silliest post of the year so far. Sir I gather you are a heavy user yourself given your first hand knowledge and desperation to excuse drug taking. It sounds as though you want to blame everybody but yourself for taking these risks at festivals. Its screams of a pathetic lack of resposibility for your own health.
It's a whole list of feeble excuse after excuse after excuse. Instead of taking personal responsibility for ones own health and safety, and that of their friends by not doing risky stuff like taking backyard made drugs, you've listed the stupidest reason ever why pills should be tested.
It's always somebody else's fault! Its not my fault if I choose to take this potentially dodgey pill! SOMEBODY ELSE MADE IT DODGY ITS NOT MY FAULT!
Seriously.
Young people are dying because of the government sanctioned cops and their dogs
ROFL! Line of the year.
It's about time our public hospitals stopped treating anyone with lung cancer. Smokers should take personal responsibility for their actions!
Obese people too. Let the diabetes take them.
Healthcare in this country would be a lot cheaper if you were PM
And stuff the farmers. It’s a business they chose knowing full well the risks. Why should Government help.
@Vote for Pedro: I somewhat agree with this. When their profits are based on what they export to other countries we are essentially not subsidising or own needs we are subsidising their profits.
Cigarettes are not illegal. Nor is sugar. Completely different scenario to illegal substances.
If party drugs are legalised then you have a valid argument. Until then you're just comparing apples and oranges.
@trapper: No kidding but they’re legal. It’s kinda important to the whole discussion around poll testing.
Young people are dying because of the government sanctioned cops and their dogs
ROFL! Line of the year.
NSW Coroner:
That, given the evidence of a link between the use of drug dogs and more harmful means of consumption (including panic ingestion, double dosing, pre-loading, and insertion in a vaginal or anal cavity) the model of policing at music festivals be changed to remove drug detection dogs.
NSW Coroner is expletive deleted in the brain.
No wonder NSW is introducing this stupid pill testing nonsense. The kids are in charge.
@Skramit: So someone with decades of legal experience who is qualified enough to be given a position as a deputy state coroner is suddenly a "kid" because their legal, impartial view is different from your opinion?
Arguing against kids dying makes someone a heavy drug user.
Nice.
Oh no I wrote the word Nice. Are you going to suggest I approve of male students having sex with female teachers?
Nice. (the faulty logic, not the insinuation…).
Arguing against kids dying by their own stupid choice to take illegal ilicit drugs
Fixed.
They seemed to have first hand knowledge and a clear emotional attachment for their right to be able to take these drugs. A fair assumption they are a heavy user of them IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that some of the less hardcore drugs are less dangerous than alcohol and should be decriminalised - hopefully reducing the rate of deaths along with it. BUT, the fact of the matter is: the reason young people are dying is because they are knowingly and willfully ingesting illegal and dangerous substances - not because of police, medical staff, or anyone but themselves - and that is a cold, hard fact.
Couldn't agree more!
yet compulsory medication for the mentally ill is medically known to be highly dangerous, addictive, and toxic, and medical staff do it by choice. So whats your damn point? that young people shouldn't have any choice like the mentally ill?
@trapper: On what basis? Comparing to say alcohol, which is legal, but similarly used for recreational purposes. the uptake of recreational drugs is significantly lower. It seems there is so quantifiable justification to your assertion