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.
IMO the biggest issue for drug-related deaths at festivals is the heavy policing, violating strip searches, tough sentences for one or two pills and the fear of not being allowed in at all if found to be using said substances.
The irony is all the methods implemented by the NSW police force are only worsening the issues, causing people to lose jobs and potentially die.
You aren't allowed to bring your own alcohol into most venues, does this stop people getting drunk on their own?
No, they just pre-drink or sneak it in, or they will just buy the alcohol in there for a much higher price.
When this comes to drugs, people are within such fear of getting caught they are consuming way more than they should be at once, instead of taking half a pill and seeing how they feel they are popping 1-2 because they are scared to take it in.
This also causes users who are having a bad experience being in fear to seek help with the chance they could get in trouble if the police know they have consumed.
The other option is people are buying these drugs in the festivals from unfamiliar sources at an inflated price and not knowing what they contain.
I do not think all drugs should be legal, de-criminalised personal use is the way to go.
The Coroner looked at the evidence from a range of sources including many experts.
To go against the Coroner's recommendations, in my opinion, Gladys Berejiklian needs to make a compelling argument against those recommendations.
"…..her opposition to pill testing on the basis it would give a “false sense of security” to festival-goers, and her belief that young people should simply not take drugs."
….is not compelling.
The police commission has a lot of explaining to do RE: illegal strip searches of minors. Dogs, Strip-searches…. good grief.
Does no one else find it highly irregular that the Coroner, the person who cuts up dead people, is giving their opinion on this? After cutting up 10 kids in the last year who've overdosed, of course they are going to have that perspective.
People say that the war on drugs isn't working, and that's true, but that's down to the corruption and apathy of those who enforce it. A hard line and removing those who push, procure, source and produce the drugs would be far more effective than pill testing in terms of saving lives. But I don't think either of these are going to happen.
No. Making recommendations to improve public health and safety is part of their role.
Why wouldn't you want to hear from the person who cuts up dead people anyway?
Because they are biased? I
Against deaths?
Perhaps you ought to google 'coroner inquests' and see the functions of the coroner.
I find your language choice concerning the deaths of young people to be highly irregular (and offensive).
Yay for the Nanny State. And it's not just this. It's everything.
It seems we have so little faith in people looking after themselves that we have to keep putting measures in place for dumb choices.
Sure, there are always accidents where things happen that are outside our control. But there's one easy way to universally reduce the risk. Take responsibility for yourself and look out for those around you.
Yea the nanny state is just morons treating everyone else like bigger morons. I've been in Tokyo for a while and people are expected to be responsible for themselves. Which basically means everyone is free to do what they want, but they have to be aware of themselves and others. No one will stop you from getting pass out drunk because that's your choice, and it's ok as long as you aren't starting fights or something.
But it also means you can just hop on a bike and be trusted not to knock over pedestrians or position yourself under a bus. Which puts some expectation on everyone to expect to share the roads with other pedestrians, cyclists, and cars. Meaning that maybe no one has right of way and gets to stop using their heads, but no one is stopping anyone else either.
This comment brought to you by a person who either
I hope you're living off grid outside of society too because you seem so disdainful of our safety nets, you nincompoop
While I can see the similarities with alcohol and tobacco, the infrastructure is already in place to regulate these, which is probably the most important differentiation between the them. With illegal drugs, there is no education on the responsible use of them (1 or 2 in the first hour, 1 every hour after), there are no guidelines on dosage (the number of standard drinks per container) and there are no additional taxes collected to fund the damage they do to society (excise and GST).
While consumers of tobacco and alcohol can be just as irresponsible as drug users, the fact they they pay additional taxes to compensate for the increased health costs and educational programs goes some way to cover this. Drug users pay none of this, and while I have never been a drug taker, the increased costs probably would not be appreciated (this is ozbargain after all).
Guess what you do to fix the situation you describe: legalise it.
There seems to be a culture of turning a blind eye to corporate cocaine use in this country.
Sure make it legal but you are also ineligible for welfare, free healthcare and employers have the right to fire you for use
Same for alcohol?
Sure
Same for sugar, processed meats, fast food?
So what's your reasoning for denying a tax paying member of society these things? Or do you just feel like you're morally superior?
End the moral panic,decriminalize and charge excise like alcohol and tobacco
So now is musical festival, then what's next? Sports event? NYE fireworks? Opera House events? Melbourne Cup? Schoolies to Gold Coast? Street Party? Seriously? how about we demand the drug dealers to pay levy or tax to fund the testing? What if people still die regardless if the pill had been tested? Will the testing agency, the Government and eventually the tax payers be held accountable for not providing a " quality" testing service to the users? Will the drug dealer eventually be able to advertise the pills they are selling be " government tested?" will there be state or national standard of "good pills" ? And conversation at a event where pills being test could be, people( a.k.a drug dealer to kid going to the event who has no exposure to drug before like,
Drug dealer: C'mon, it's safe, government just tested it.. it won't kill you, just make your experience much better.
Kid: Oh nice, let me have one then, it's safe anyway.
You are entitled to your opinion, but as a tax payer and also parent, in no way I will support using tax payer's money to underwrite drug dealing.. the tax I paid should go to law enforcement to put the drug dealers to jail not boost their business.
Today you underwrite pill, tomorrow it will be cocaine, ice, other hard drugs … because people dies of using these contraband .. creating a testing is false assurance … a band-aid to hide the underlying issue.
Injecting clinics already exist for ice/other hard drugs. As stated previously, no person is likely to die from consuming 1 pill of pure MDMA, no matter how opinionated you are, if you say it can than you are completely wrong and ignoring the facts. People die of dancing too much and overheating, or not hydrating enough/too much. Education to support their experiences on MDMA will reduce harm and lead to nil deaths.
This is also no underwriting drug dealing, it is cutting off the drug dealers who kill people by putting unknown/dangerous substances in their pills and not pure MDMA. This does not boost their business in the slightest, and no one is suggesting that drug dealers shouldn't face prosecution for supply. It is so evident from your comment that you're a classic "just say no" type person and are making a comment on a topic in which you have no knowledge about.
As I said, people are entitled to their opinions, including yours and mine. Opinions are based on prospective as well as facts to their logic and way to process information. Your simple comments like" there is no underwriting for drug dealer" came with no reasoning and logic.
I never said you were not entitled to your opinion. You made a number of statements that were factually incorrect. Opinion does not matter when facts outweigh your opinion, if you still choose to ignore them, then that's just embarrassing for yourself, reminds me of a certain orange looking president.
Also, number 2 - it did come with reasoning and logic. The logic is that where pill testing and drug decriminalisation has been implemented, drug taking has gone down, and so has deaths. Refer to the article below, testing doesn't create false assurance because we can see that people have disposed of their unsafe drugs in the trials that have taken place. I have evidence to back up what I say, when you have no evidence, just simply an opinion which is factually incorrect.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2019-01-15/pill-testing-c…
As a guy who goes to music festivals, drugs are something that are very prevalent. Even with a ban and heavy fines, drugs will never disappear from the scene. If music festivals were to allow pill testing it could save lives :). Yes to pill testing!!
7 news facebook - car crash at auburn from a driver with positive alcohol reading.
Just because legalising a drug means it's legal doesn't mean it is safe.
It impairs cognition and directly or indirectly harms/kills people.
Seriously? We’re talking about pill testing. You do get the point of pill testing?
For someone in the ‘health’ field, you’re not grasping the point of pill testing.
Is pilling testing going to prevent this? https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/vic-paramedic…
Impaired cognition? OP comment?
I've said enough in this thread. Take drugs at your own peril, I just hope you're not on the receiving end one day of an adverse event, directly or indirectly.
I really really hope OP does not run for government because I definitely wouldn't vote for pedro or whatever
this alone demonstrates why you don’t understand the point of pill testing - or how to reply to a comment
Sleet is pointing out a hypocrisy: you guys talk about harm minimisation and use that as an argument for pill testing, but the reality is, you're only interested in harm minimisation of drug addicts, not the people around them.
Please address sleet's point instead of attacking his post.
Yes, it’s about helping minimise harm to people taking drugs at music festivals. It’s two fold. First, it’s about testing things people are about to take but most importantly it’s an engagement opportunity to start an education conversation about the potential dangers of the substance. The second part is of significant importance and goes towards encouraging people to reconsider use.
The pill testing would allow engagement with people who would otherwise not have any positive engagement.
You might not like it or agree, but that’s the point of pill testing
And that’s why my response was as it was.
The pill testing would allow engagement with people who would otherwise not have any positive engagement.
You might not like it or agree, but that’s the point of pill testing
Oh I agree, and I admit that there are many studies have shown evidence backing up the benefits claimed.
However, I'll point it out again: harm minimisation benefits of pill testing is only beneficial to drug addicts. It provides no benefit, in fact, often negative effect, to people around drug addicts.
If you see the overall picture, it's easy to argue that pill testing isn't worth it.
@Bad Company: So the conversation that encourages people to reconsider drug use has no benefit to society? What if the conversation leads to a cessation in use? Perhaps one less person who may behave in a manner that leads to harm to others thereby reducing impacts on society?
And yes, it won’t necessarily stop everyone. But it just might save a persons life if the pill is shown as terrible and it may even lead some to reconsider. Of course, it may not, but I reckon it’s worth a shot. What we’re doing today isn’t working.
So the conversation that encourages people to reconsider drug use has no benefit to society?
I do not know for sure but in my opinion an overall negative effect is plausible.
What if the conversation leads to a cessation in use?
I agree this is a possible outcome for many users, but the concern is, a softer approach may be seen as an encouragement to try drugs. Don't try to tell me this isn't going to happen: it is possible for many people who are current on the fence to jump over if the risk of prosecution doesn't exist.
Perhaps one less person who may behave in a manner that leads to harm to others thereby reducing impacts on society?
………..and at the same time perhaps two more have decided to try drugs because the current practice of a hard line crackdown does not exist any more?
What we’re doing today isn’t working.
That's a pretty arbitrary thing to say.
@Bad Company: Drug use in Australia is increasing, so I guess I’m comfortable to say the current methods aren’t working.
You’re welcome to disagree. I’m happy to be put in the same category as the coroner.
(Disclaimer: I don’t use drugs)
Drug use in Australia is increasing
Therefore let's not send out a message that can potentially encourage drug use. Saying hard line approach haven't deterred people is putting head in the sand.
Plus, your statement is only partly true.
Drug use is actually decreasing when adjusted by the population.
The sky is blue. No it’s not!
Are you that simple minded that you don't realise we are talking about a complex social issue that is a hot topic of debate?
Coroner just gets ignored?
No one is ignoring the coroner, they're just challenging the coroner.
Rofl can you even form an argument without falling back to "coz coroner said so" all the time?
I'll tell you what got ignored. The fact that the current hard line approach is deterring people. The same people who may decide to jump on the fence once the threat of arrest and having a criminal record is gone.
@Bad Company: Unfortunately you have made statements that are not supported by any evidence. Just your gut feel. So yeah I’d rather back the coroner
Unfortunately you have made statements that are not supported by any evidence. Just your gut feel. So yeah I’d rather back the coroner
Oh, is reasonable speculation not allowed? Is the idea that a soft approach to drug usage may be a signal for encouragement so wild that your imagination can't handle it?
@Bad Company: So you’re entitled to opinion but everyone else must use facts? I’m sorry, that’s not how it works.
You do have a lot of opinions about what will happen if we allow pill testing. But without a trial we will never know.
I’ve listened to opinions from doctors, community social workers and the coroner. I’ve also listened to your opinion. I choose to take the advice of the former rather than the latter.
I’m of the opinion what we are doing has failed miserably and we should be adult enough to try something else and sometimes something we might not like
I’m of the opinion what we are doing has failed miserably
I want to point out a fact that drug users are steadily decreasing once you adjust for population size.
So, no, we have not failed. Stop this sensationalist rubbish.
@Bad Company: I want to point out that you are incorrect (and am entitled to my opinion)
Also, so far, the fact is simply based on you saying it’s a fact. About as good as me saying eating dirt cures cancer is a fact :-)
I want to point out that you are incorrect (and am entitled to my opinion)
You can say whatever you want, doesn't make it true.
Also, so far, the fact is simply based on you saying it’s a fact. About as good as me saying eating dirt cures cancer is a fact :-)
When I say something is a fact, I make sure I back it up with evidence.
When I speculate, I make sure I back it up with plausible reasoning. I don't go "coz the coroner said so".
Here's evidence that adjusted for population, illicit drug use rate is steadily declining. Keyword being adjusted for population.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/ndshs-2…
Keyword being adjusted for population. I never deny the fact the total user may have increased.
Plus, your statement is only partly true.
The true part being the total user part. User per population is at a steady decrease. The current system is working. Never said it's perfect, but it ain't a failure.
@Bad Company: Yes. I know that report well. You’ve read that report right?
“ Although the proportion using any illicit drug did not significantly increase from 2013 to 2016, there has been a gradual increase in use since 2007 (from 13.4% to 15.6%) and the number of people illicitly using drugs has increased from about 2.3 million to 3.1 million.”
It has many interesting facts with some decreases and so me increases. Interestingly the increase in use of illegal drugs by those 50+. Perhaps we should position sniffer dogs outside houses of boomers and lay off the kids.
Also… “ Cocaine is now the second most commonly used illegal drug in the last 12 months after cannabis.” so perhaps we should have sniffer dogs outside the logies or big corporate events flush with money. Again, boomers need to lay off kids at music festivals
Again, boomers need to lay off kids at music festivals
Maybe kids need to lay off drugs.
And if that's too much to ask, stay away from music festivals.
Do whatever is necessary to avoid swallowing 10 hours of worth pills in one go, coz, you know, that kills you.
@Bad Company: Because you presented a report as supporting your “fact” but cherry picked sections to support your argument (which I don’t blame you for) but when called out that the report seems to suggest that kids taking drugs at festivals is less of a problem than cocaine use (the drug of choice for the elites) and drug use increasing in the 50+ bracket, you responded like a boomer.
You probably arrogantly assumed I hadn’t read the report or wouldn’t make the effort to read it.
And you’re last response is typical boomer dummy spit.
Peace be with you.
@Bad Company: OK, this discussion between you two started off great, valid points on both sides but has started to deteriorate. There is a state govt study coming out by the end of the year on the results of the two pill testing trials conducted at the latest two ACT Groovin the Moo festivals, let's hope it gives some clear outcomes regardless of which side of the fence we are on. Read more about it here
@ps3_andy: Our conversation deteriorated when Pedro fell back to "coroner got ignored" which he seem to do quite often in this thread.
Thanks for the link, I look forward to seeing the result of the trial.
It's interesting that the web page said:
No - evidence suggests that people don’t end up consuming more illicit substances as a result of a pill testing service.
It'll be good if the final report justifies, or perhaps even hypothesize an explanation for this claim.
@Vote for Pedro: I never denied the fact that drug use in absolute terms may be increasing.
But I guess it's really difficult for you to admit that drug use as ratio of the population is steadily on the decrease.
It's difficult because it doesn't fit the "the current approach has failed" agenda you're advocating.
@Bad Company: That report doesn’t say what you saying. It actually contradicts your alleged fact. I’ll include the comment again.
“Although the proportion using any illicit drug did not significantly increase from 2013 to 2016, there has been a gradual increase in use since 2007 (from 13.4% to 15.6%) and the number of people illicitly using drugs has increased from about 2.3 million to 3.1 million.”
So the proportion has increased since 2007. The proportion is a % of population. Nowhere does it say there has been an overall decline.
That report doesn’t say what you saying. It actually contradicts your alleged fact
It appears that you are right and I'm wrong. I concede. My memory mislead me.
I have a very simple rebuttal; is not having pill testing going to prevent this? You can argue hypotheticals all you want but that is all they are, hypotheticals. Until we have empirical evidence that pill testing will cause more harm to society than banning it we cannot say what the outcomes will be.
The status quo is not working as you have just pointed out sleet.
These people don't exist. I know heaps of people including myself that have used MDMA in the past, some people I know far more than is healthy, and they're not disabled and living on the pension. They're working full time, in skilled fields with six figure jobs.
Nice try though.