# Drug experimentation and dependence



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2007)

Speaking generally ... and probably stating the obvious... 
where does drug dependence begin  ?
surely with the first time you try it. 

Not that I've had to deal with a drug addict personally (other than nicotine - and a sad story of a kid I used to coach who now has schizophrenia triggered by marijuana) ...
but I'd bet London to a brick that the average drug addict has been a nightmare to deal with (and probably always will be a worry at least) - probably ignored help from loved ones - taken years off everyone's life not just his or her own ....

everyone (including the addict) has been aware of where it was all heading for a long time ...   but the addiction came first, 

and a family just had to get used to the resultant suffering.

Maybe some (including some sporting heroes) are more affected than others - maybe some control themselves better than others ...

In the end, suppose (again hypothetical) that a sporting hero or a rock star dies, 
a) are they promoted to superhuman, sins forgiven?  "wasn't he brilliant!" etc
or 
b) are they shown to be merely human - in fact probably on the weak side of average, due to the fact that they yielded to temptation - albeit bigger temptation.  - My guess is the latter.    And then - so much for the hero image - it gets left in tatters you would think. 

Or in the wider community, suppose a difficult drug addict dies - is there (in some cases at least) almost a sense of relief?

Do we just try to remember that person as "they used to be pre-drugs", - when we could unreservedly laugh with them, (and reason with them for that matter) - when we had their full attention, and they didn't look around occasionally for a "fix" - whether nicotine or ecstacy or whatever.  When there was no competition for that person's attention from some monkey on his or her back.   

I was also curious about the management of a hypothetical sporting hero's image after a hypothetical drug related death.    Slightly different point, but I recall someone in show biz in Vegas saying how difficult Elvis was to "manage" whilst he was alive (and frequently drug affected) - 
and how easy he was to "manage" after he passed on.  
"The difficult king is dead,  long live the manageable king"


----------



## Lucky (4 October 2007)

Some people just shouldn't take drugs.  Some shouldn't drink.  Some drugs are addictive.  Some folk unfortunately have addictive personalities.    

Why do these people do what they do?  In the case of drugs/drink, etc is it the effect that the person is after?  The ability to change one's way of thinking/feeling?  Is an altered reality easier for them to deal with, rather than reality, the present? 

I think the other thing that you address is the cult of personality.  That in itself is a whole other kettle of fish.

At the end of the day the person that has died will have some meaning to someone somewhere - whether they were a parent/partner/sibling/team mate/friend - good times and bad, that person will have meant something to someone.


----------



## surfingman (4 October 2007)

Realistically speaking its a huge problem that is admitting more people to psychiatric wards than any other cause, I did an assignment on a similar subject and Meth-amphetamine is the worst by far (Speed and Ice).

I don't believe dependency starts first time with everyone, Lucky hit the nail on the head:


> Some folk unfortunately have addictive personalities.




Very sad to see this happen (ive seen it with friends), but the best thing they can do is get help, unfortunately because these actions (drug use) are not legal and frowned upon by society, many are not keen to seek help.

Why do they do what they do? Usually because their friends or associates are doing it seems like the "thing to do", this mixed with the personality which is addictive only leads to heart ache.


----------



## aaronphetamine (4 October 2007)

Natrually, this is a topic close to me.

Studying applied industrial and anayltical chemistry at university backed by a natural curiosity for chemistry and all things science has helped me gain alot of information both from learning and personal experiences in chemistry including a favourite of mine - psychopharmacology.

I think drugs are an amazing thing, how 400mg of say morphine can make you feel numb and generally good and how 0.006mg of LSD will send you on the biggest ride of your life as you lose your grip of reality and ego and become one with the universe for what seems like a lifetime.

Drug dependence is in my eyes different for each person, whether it be in their genetics, family history, and social circumstances. 

The media and government portray images that if you take an Ecstasy pill you WILL die and WRECK your life, and a line of cocaine WILL make u lose your job, and house.

WRONG!

Yes, these amazing substances make you feel so awesome, for 30mins for cocaina and a few hours for an E, but not everyone is going to be addicted from them !

Its like alcohol, I drink alcohol once a week, but that doesnt make me addicted becuase i dont crave it every day and i only drink it when im going out.

I personally have a fascination to how something can alter your mind so much, and what that does feel like.


----------



## Ageo (4 October 2007)

aaronphetamine said:


> The media and government portray images that if you take an Ecstasy pill you WILL die and WRECK your life, and a line of cocaine WILL make u lose your job, and house.
> 
> WRONG!
> 
> ...




Hmm yes and no, i have known 1 person that just with 1 bad pill (ecstacy) they have died as there body just couldnt cope. But i agree there is a personal side to getting addicted as i have taken a few pills and many lines of speed and cocaine in my previous years and personally not once have i ever felt the urge to "need" it. I spose to some people drugs is a way out of their misery and it gives them comfort but to me the only reason i took them was for the party and the effect it gave. Knowing where it comes from and the realibility of the dealer does help avoid getting a bad dose. I understand its wrong in the 1st place but i did what i did and have no regrets. 

I have noticed every friend of mine that had a severe drug addiction had some real life issues that they just couldnt get a hold of. To me if you find meaning and purpose in your life then drugs will only be a pass time (if you use) and never an addiction. In saying that thow there are just some people that will re-act badly to drugs no matter how well they are dealing with life, i was just speaking for the majority of people.


----------



## Trader Paul (4 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Speaking generally ... and probably stating the obvious...
> where does drug dependence begin  ? surely with the first time you try it.
> 
> Not necessarily 2020. Occassionally experimenting
> ...






Many thanks for opening this can-o-worms, 2020 ..... 

have a great day 

    paul

(volunteer D&A counsellor)



=====


----------



## prawn_86 (4 October 2007)

My view of drugs and addicts could be considered to be narrow, but i do personally know some people who are addicts so my view is not biased.

I tend to believe that if an addict really really wants to give up, then they can. The human mind has an amazing power which is unharnessed by most/all.

Some people might argue that the drugs cloud their mind/body/judgement therefore they dont know they want to give up, but you see some addicts the day after and you can tell that somewhere inside of them they do want too, they just have to find that courage/knowledge within themselves, and realistically there is very little people on the outside can do apart from offer support, as it is up to the individual to want to kick the habit, no matter what habit it is.


----------



## Lucky (4 October 2007)

I get annoyed at the hypocrisy that the media, government and the powers that be spew about the dangers of "illegal" drugs.  A "legally" taxed drug like alcohol does far more damage to society, directly and indirectly, than all illegal drugs combined.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2007)

Lucky said:


> 1. Some people just shouldn't take drugs.  Some shouldn't drink.  Some drugs are addictive.  Some folk unfortunately have addictive personalities.    ........
> I think the other thing that you address is the cult of personality.  That in itself is a whole other kettle of fish.




Lucky you are the first to suggest it, but several other posters seem to agree lol
the implication is that experimentation is ok? 

gee I wish that wasn't the case .... what else can I say 

I should add that as a young bloke I argued with various family members ( who can remain nameless) that marijuana was ok - no worse than alcohol etc - I now take back everything I said - not that booze is good - but at least there is such a thing as "alcohol in moderation" - IMO, that doesn't apply to the stronger drugs : 2twocents



			
				surfingman said:
			
		

> 2. Realistically speaking its a huge problem that is admitting more people to psychiatric wards than any other cause, I did an assignment on a similar subject and Meth-amphetamine is the worst by far (Speed and Ice).
> 
> 3. (= 1.) I don't believe dependency starts first time with everyone, Lucky hit the nail on the head:   "Some folk unfortunately have addictive personalities.  "
> 
> ...




2. Meth has gotta be absolute madness.  
NO ONE should go near it !!!- surely .  
Here's a previous post or two on "videos with a message"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=195624&highlight=meth#post195624
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=195629&highlight=meth#post195629



> I would be eating an icecream and a tooth would fall out .
> Every US family currently pays USD 1500 per year in taxes to combat illegal drug use .
> "Meth sneaks in and spreads like a virus - with Meth there is more stealing , violence, domestic abuse" , Deberah Durkin, Missesota Dept of Health
> etcetc



3. I think that we should be telling kids not even to experiment 

4. You introduce the topic of legalisation - o boy 
I used to argue - give people access to weed , and cut off the obvious inroads of the heroin pushers .
Again these days I've become less tolerant of marijuana (since that boys sad story - what a great kid - seriously talented - now all "drugged up" on medication to control his schizophrenia )    

Do I have to be more pragmatic? - do we classify drugs into 
"MUST stamp out,  
SHOULD stamp out, 
COULD stamp out ? 

5a. Peer pressure ? - get a new set of peers maybe?
Being realistic, it ain't gonna happen is it.  - One hell of a problem. 

5b. "It's OK to say NO" - can apply to teenage sex 
or drug experimentation 
or a heap of other important matters that kids have to take on board these days.  : 2twocents

5c. So many baddies (mafia etc) pushing the concept that drugs are ok - how do we start a movement that says that (hard) drugs are just NOT ok.   Prostitutes who are willing slaves to some pimp who just gets em a regular fix - sheesh - talk about a wasted life .. 

5d. Somehow get the message through to kids that 
"you only go round once" - and 
" it is impossible to experience one's death objectively, and still carry a tune" (woody allen) 

PS I have a problem - that deep down I don't believe in prohibition ( especially in the case of alcohol) - so what's the answer in the case of both booze and drugs? - education maybe?


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2007)

thanks for the constructive comments folks - good stuff - good to hear from people who know what they're talking about lol - I'll need to read em to digest em  - obviously I'm stuck in a suburban backwater, and I have no idea of what I'm talking about lol 

HOWEVER, getting back to something I DO understand lol ...

...message? - who needs drugs when you've got Monty Python 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=195673&highlight=monty+python#post195673


----------



## tech/a (4 October 2007)

> where does drug dependence begin ?




When it becomes the norm and expected behaviour.


----------



## theasxgorilla (4 October 2007)

aaronphetamine said:


> Drug dependence is in my eyes different for each person, whether it be in their genetics, family history, and social circumstances.




As you say aaronphetamine, drug dependence IS completely different for every single living person.  It's a brush with fate, or a numbers game.  YOU don't know how YOU or the person standing next to you will cope given exposure to a drug.  There are so many variables.  The only bullet-proof solution is avoiding exposure...failing that, which in drug rife Australia is practically impossible these days, you can only hope that a sound upbringing and continued tightness, support and harmony of your family unit mean that you're fortunate enough to be able to dabble and withdraw.


----------



## cuttlefish (4 October 2007)

I think addiction sneaks up on people - they start with experimentation, then it becomes recreation, before they know it time has passed and it controls them more than they control it. For some it spirals completely out of control, others can function for years without realising they've got a serious problem.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2007)

aaronphetamine said:


> .1. ..learning and personal experiences in chemistry including a favourite of mine - psychopharmacology.
> 
> 2. I think drugs are an amazing thing, .....how 0.006mg of LSD will send you on the biggest ride of your life as you lose your grip of reality and ego and become one with the universe for what seems like a lifetime.
> 
> ...



aaron...
1. psychopharmacology. - mate you'd have to be psycho to be a farmer in the first place 

2. yep, LSD was researched extensively when it first came out (back in the 60s) - university trials - with "shepherds" escorting you through the trip - interview all the while etc .   Then they found people were prone to relapses - suddenly became "LSD epileptics" (my words).  suddenly "not so cool" anymore.

3.  mmm - I don't agree that the Govt are that far wrong ... certainly I think it is seriously unwise to experiment  

4. booze? - sure some alcoholics are big worries - that goes for driving of course - as they say  " people who insist on drinking before driving are putting the quart before the hearse" 

5. - yep it is so mindboggling how it is so mindboggling !


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (4 October 2007)

I have a different opinion to most when it comes to drugs, i take them when i feel like it and i enjoy every minute of it.

I am not addicted, last time i had anything was about 6 months ago and it was E. Saying that, if i felt like it this weekend i wouldnt have a second thought. However, i'd only do E, weed, coke, a little speed.

I don't see a problem with it and think it each to their own. Nothing worse than some do gooder trying to tell you how to live your life. Ned Flanders of this world, can't stand them!!

Saying that, there's drugs and there's drugs. And this is the problem as far as i see it. 
You must consider dose and also what drugs you are taking. I wouldn't touch anything that has to be injected, crack or some of the other so called dirty drugs, not for me. However, i'd rather be out with people popping pills all blissed out than be around agressive alcohol fueled chargers.

You can't go around telling youngsters to NOT TAKE DRUGS. It simply does not work, if you have not figured that out by now your a very slow learner. Just take the consumption of drugs in Australia, it grows every year so what ever method is being used to try and reduce consumption obviously does not work.

Have you ever considered some people enjoy drugs occasionally recreationally. Not a very PC statement but everyone i know does them and i dont see a problem with it. 

I have a very good job and most the poeple at work take them recreationally.

I'd say wake up and smell the dasies, time to educate people about HARM MINIMISATION rather than try and say no.

For those that dont take them, thats your choice, good luck to you but don't go Ned Flandering me about what i should and shouldn't be doing.

You only get one life and i love every minute of it.

JW


----------



## 1234 (4 October 2007)

Drug dependence starts with a need. Everything in life starts with a need. Forget wants and needs, there's wants and wants..

Why do we want?

We are selfish creatures. 

Even when we think we're doing something to help someone else, we only do it for the self gratification. Helping doing someone for someone, it gives us the satisfaction we've 'done good'. Purely a selfish action. Everyone get's _something_ from whatever they do.

Why do people turn to drugs? They get something from it they want. A break from reality and whats actually happening perhaps? No-one likes the 'real world' It's too daunting. Pressure is high, expectations are higher. Youth suicide anyone?? 

No matter what level of use, no matter the substance. The problem is not the substance. The issue is a by-product of all of us....


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2007)

Trader Paul said:


> Not necessarily 2020. Occassionally experimenting
> with drugs does not guarantee, that you will become addicted.
> 
> There's many reasons for people to try drugs, once or twice, like:   ... often it is escapism, that brings people back to drugs, time-after-time
> ...




we should have had a poll lol
experimenting is
a) ok
b) not ok 

I like your conclusion "all of which may have been avoided, if they had simply addressed the issues confronting them" 

And you have to forgive someone once they move on - but I was more thinking that there would be a sense of relief as well - something like ... "at last !! - something to do in life other than worry about that selfish bastards drug addiction!!" - 

"Elvis will be remembered for his music " -  probably more so than if he'd been alive and continued to embarrass himself in public lol.   ( but you're right - his memory has been well managed ) 

"volunteer D&A counsellor" = well done m8. 
must be interesting, trying to get people to help themselves (as prawn also alludes to) 

As I mentioned elsewhere, my boys get it pretty easy in the parental guidance department - beer fridge downstairs - never a weekend goes past that they and a few of their mates don't crash in the downstairs room rather than go home - still I figure it's good to get it out of their system  -  I think I detect some responsibility creeping in


----------



## Gar (4 October 2007)

I think people need to open their minds with regards to illegal substances, some drugs have real potential to have positive effects on peoples lives but are shut out because they have "recreational" value.

MDMA for example is an amazing tool for helping people with anxiety disorders or post traumatic stress open up and work through their problems but in the eyes of the public its viewed as a suicide pill

It really annoys the hell out of me when I listen to people that are happy to drink themselves stupid criticizing people for indulging in drugs other than alcohol


----------



## Dukey (4 October 2007)

INteresting topic.., and posts



Lucky said:


> I get annoyed at the hypocrisy that the media, government and the powers that be spew about the dangers of "illegal" drugs.  A "legally" taxed drug like alcohol does far more damage to society, directly and indirectly, than all illegal drugs combined.




I get your point totally lucky and said the same thing to my niece today - her mother is an alcoholic.  BUT - imagine the sh%te we'd be in if anyone could buy 'ice' at the local BWS.  ALcohol can destroy a brain - but it generally happens over a long period of time.  Narcotics can do it in  few minutes, or a few hits. It's a big big gamble.

The other point made somewhere back there about people with 'unresolved life issues' being more suseptible to becoming addicts, may well be true.  Here I would add that every one of us has many difficult 'life issues' at times. ANd that is the danger time for casual users ... the time when the occasional weekend eccy or goey or whatever becomes a crutch to escape the problems.   I've seen it happen that way with friends and its a long road back. PLenty don't make it.


----------



## aaronphetamine (4 October 2007)

Its funny, in the valley you see the poor old police and ambulance rushing to fights and brawls fuelled by alcohol, then across the road you see all the people on E, all talking laughing and havin a great time, all talking to each other in a heightened state of consciousness.

I think the police have admitted that alcohol causes more problems in club districts than Ecstasy use does.

How could people not wana try it, especially when the club calls its friday nights "pharmacy fridays", i spose though pharmacy is a broad term, but we all know what they mean. after all it is at the family nightclub... yes thats right.. family nightclub - its one big HAPPY family in there.

At the bars in the city u bump into some ojne and they nearly wanna deck ya, but in the family, u bump into some one and they smile give ya a hug and a handshake haha.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (4 October 2007)

aaronphetamine - i couldn't have said it better myself, big hug.

Thats what i am talking about, spread the love!

JW


----------



## theasxgorilla (4 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I have a problem - that deep down I don't believe in prohibition ( especially in the case of alcohol) - so what's the answer in the case of both booze and drugs? - education maybe?




Prohibition is necessary.  Drugs are insidious and it's just not possible to trust people with them.  How many examples of instances of lung cancer does it take for a reasonable person to conclude that smoking is an extreme health risk?  How many cases of GREAT people self-destructing do we need to know that tampering with drugs is like Russian roulette?  They shouldn't be anywhere near within arms reach to tempt people.  Would we think it prudent to limit access to firearms and sharp objects with a person who is suicidal?  

The only way to fix the problem IMO is to rebuild societal values _en masse_ so that every single one of us believes so strongly that there can be NO WAY that taking drugs is okay.  Regardless of how capable a person claims to still be at their job or running their business or just being a _good bloke_, a drug taker is not strong and when presented with the option of "will I or won't I" they made the weak choice and and in an idyllic version of Australian society we just can't value that outcome.

Programs to support people who have already gone off the rails are fine and necessary, but the BIG solution has to hit at every individual tipping point where a member of our society thinks, "will I or won't I".  If that can be replaced with, "I would never!", then we have a solution.

The solution will not work while society is fractured in all the places that it currently is.  Putting the family back together so that people still feel a strong compulsion to seek the approval of their parents would be a VERY good place to start.

When presented with the "will I, won't I?" moment how can we expect weak, sick, ill-equipped members of society to make the correct choice?

Society needs to be rebuilt and I reckon it will take a least twice as long to do it as it took for it to break down, so we're talking 50 years plus.  This assumes of course that we want to change... compromise can be a dirty word in today's me-me-me world of extreme capitalism.

In the neighbourhood where I grew up what was once an idyllic new residential development of single family homes and 1/4 acre blocks is now rental properties.  I am not joking when I say that every single one of the 8 houses surrounding my parents house is a rental property...some have been subdivided increasing the density of tenants.  Hope everyone has enjoyed the property boom because IMO extending the number of rungs on the class ladder has had a societal cost.  

Isn't that a wacky idea, to associate a recreational drug epidemic with an economic boom??? Society is more integrated than many people think but you wouldn't know about that if you just drove from your nice suburb along the motorway to and from work every day.

This may also come as a bit of a wacko theory out of left field, but one of the key problems that is making people more susceptible to drugs _en masse_ these last 25 or so years is the crap food we're eating.  Some allergy specialists are of the very strong opinion that there is a link between the additives and excess sugar and crap like MSG, in the processed food we eat and the more sensitive individuals (of which more and more come out of the wood work every week) are susceptible to the benefits of self medicating with drugs.  

For example, to take the edge off anxiety caused by an overdose of preservatives in bread by smoking dope...countering with meth the lethargy caused by an artificial color and flavour laden fast food meal (post sugar high of course).

If people are putting absolute crap into their bodies breakfast, lunch and dinner how can we expect them to make the correct "will I, won't I?" decision when it comes to doing more harm to their bodies?

In Australia where we have fresh fruit and veg and an abundance of cheap world class fish and meat practically  all year round we're as well positioned as any country to solve this problem.


----------



## Gar (4 October 2007)

If people have self control and knowledge of what they are putting into their body's drugs can be a positive thing.... if they don't then it can be a different story.

The same applies to alcohol, food, sex etc.  its about strong grounding & common sense.


----------



## Dukey (4 October 2007)

I  don't really believe in prohibition either - just doesn't work. but the problem (I think) is exactly this.... 



Gar said:


> If people have self control and knowledge of what they are putting into their body's drugs can be a positive thing.... if they don't then it can be a different story.
> 
> The same applies to alcohol, food, etc.  its about strong grounding & common sense.




 ... a large proportion of people don't have that kind of self control. Or - it takes a while to learn it - and in the meantime, serious damage can be done.  - Just take a walk down the aisle of your local acute mental health unit- you'll see plenty of cases. Say Hi! to my sister while you're there.
(speed triggered szchizophrenia).

As for E in particular it does seem to be less of a problem than some others - but I'm no expert.


----------



## Julia (4 October 2007)

This is a huge subject and one on which I have conflicting feelings as a result of someone I loved being lost to the mire of narcotic addiction.

Aaronamphetamine said the most important thing about addiction:

"all of which may have been avoided, if they had simply addressed the issues confronting them" 

The person in my life was a doctor who experimented with amphetamines as a registrar working the long hours that junior doctors do.  It appeared to allow him to cope with the long hours and lack of sleep.  It was so easy to acquire.

Later, amongst an unhappy marriage, severe headaches began.  A single tablet of a potent narcotic not only swept away the pain but all the anxiety of the failed relationship.  The headaches persisted.  So easy to go on taking that magic drug which made it all OK.  In less than a year that one tablet had turned into 40 tablets a day.  One of these tablets would render a non-addicted person free from pain and euphoric for at least twelve hours.
To an addict, the 40 tablets are doing nothing more than allowing him to avoid going into withdrawal.

When I met this person, he showed no effects of drug use - successful, productive GP, president of the Medical Association, active in Emergency Team work, divorced father of two beautiful daughters.   But what he was doing was unethical and illegal - prescribing drugs for patients and then collecting them for himself.  No one had a clue what was going on.
Eventually he made a mistake and the whole charade fell apart.
The details don't matter.  He went to jail for an extended period of time.
Amongst all this, with the inevitable lying and deception, the second relationship crumbled.  

I went through with him countless attempts at withdrawal but each time it failed.  Why?  I don't know.  Perhaps because - as has been suggested above - he had an addictive personality, though this concept has been widely disregarded by many researchers.  Perhaps because he was one of many who always push the boundaries - drive faster, take more risks etc - than do the rest of us.  Or perhaps nothing even so complicated but simply a physiological situation where after a time of exposure of potent drugs, the area of the brain involved in decision making becomes deficient.  There appears to be some disagreement currently as to whether this brain physiology is altered prior to the drug taking or whether the altered brain chemistry is as a result of prolonged drug exposure.

Anyway, it simply doesn't matter.  He is dead now.  He left behind a trail of ravaged lives, including those of his two precious daughters.

So, to those of you who might be thinking it's pretty cool (or whatever the currently popular terminology is) to experiment with drugs, I'd suggest you reconsider.  If a highly intelligent, well educated doctor can become a victim of drug use, then how much more likely is it that some street junk of unknown origin and purity is going to cause you some problem?

So "everyone you know does drugs".  Well, whoopdedo!  I'd suggest you find another social circle and consider doing something more damn useful with your time, energy and money.

And, just to be clear, although I used the word "victim" in the preceding paragraph, I do not ever consider any addict to be a victim unless they developed the addiction as a result of narcotics being prescribed for severe and protracted pain.  The person in this story had total responsibility for his actions.


----------



## Julia (4 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> aaronphetamine - i couldn't have said it better myself, big hug.
> 
> Thats what i am talking about, spread the love!
> 
> JW




No risks involved, huh, Jessica?


----------



## Dukey (4 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Anyway, it simply doesn't matter.  He is dead now.  He left behind a trail of ravaged lives, including those of his two precious daughters.




Julia - just felt this bit was worth focusing on.
The trail of destruction is where the true cost to society lies....

... I'm off to my cot - let the ravers rave on.


----------



## Whiskers (4 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> I have a different opinion to most when it comes to drugs, i take them when i feel like it and i enjoy every minute of it...
> 
> I'd say wake up and smell the dasies, time to educate people about HARM MINIMISATION rather than try and say no.




Hi Jessica 

I would like to discuss a couple of things with you, if you don't mind.

Firstly, could you please briefly identify the harmfull effects that you are aware of for the drugs that you use recreationally?

Regards
Whiskers


----------



## disarray (4 October 2007)

the government should supply free heroin to registered users in safe locations with access to counsellors and assistance. many users turn to speed and ice - far more physically and socially destructive drugs - when there are problems with heroin supply. 

overseas trials have indicated that associated property crimes to feed habits would be reduced when people don't need to resort to desperate measures to score, and it would also curtail a major revenue source for organised crime, who use the profits from drugs to branch into other illegal activities.

party drugs like cocaine and ecstacy are luxury items, consumed by those with money (and by extension, access to education, support structures etc.) whereas speed and heroin are generally associated with a lower "class" of drug user. this would be the most logical place to target different methods of drug management and control.

drugs have always been and will continue to be a part of the human condition. working against human nature will never achieve results, however it can be guided, manipulated and channelled. all it takes is some vision and some balls to trial new strategies, however our leaders are lacking in both so they would rather continue to pour money into failed strategies, continue to make it easy for organised crime to rake in hundreds of billions of dollars a year globally and continue to have families endure suffering and shame for what is ultimately a mental health issue.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2007)

> Originally Posted by Julia
> Anyway, it simply doesn't matter. He is dead now. He left behind a trail of ravaged lives, including those of his two precious daughters



. 



> Originally Posted by Dukey
> Julia - just felt this bit was worth focusing on.
> "He is dead now. He left behind a trail of ravaged lives, including those of his two precious daughters."
> The trail of destruction is where the true cost to society lies....



tough story there Julia - and I agree with Dukey

meanwhile - some new terms / philosophies / dimensions to the problem ..
"tough love"  vs 
"safe injecting rooms" , "needle exchange programs" etc 

I don't see reference to HIV/ AIDS, but it's also a factor I guess
but there is also reference to adopting out the kids of addicts 

http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/09/bronwyn-bishop-gets-tough-on-harm.html


> Sunday, September 16, 2007
> Bronwyn Bishop gets tough on harm minimisers
> The Coalition’s ‘tough on drugs’ policy has been, in fact, a de facto harm-minimisation policy with a tough, external public persona. *The years of being tough on drug users in Australia are, in fact, long since finished*.
> 
> ...






> Some of the main ideas in the Bishop Report: · Constrain treatment options to be those that seek drug use abstinence rather than living with an addiction.
> 
> · Maintain a continued emphasis on policing for addressing drug issues.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2007)

then again, there's the concept of the "drug rota" - allegedly to avoid dependence ...  like this post I found on another forum ... 

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-298712.html
Weekly(monthly?) drug rota for harm minimisation and for putting an end to tolerance!



> http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-298712.html
> So moving on from the 'Who uses drugs on a daily basis?' thread i propose that us more orderly drug takers (yeah right..) make up our perfect rota for drug taking! This would involve picking drugs according to the way they affect the body to avoid tolerance and dependance issues. An example would be not using drugs which work on the GABA system every day, say not using valium and GHB two days in a row or not using serotonergic drugs within a few days of each other, like 2c-b and LSD. This is probably grossly simplified but its a good yard stick IMO.
> 
> So for me...
> ...


----------



## Ageo (5 October 2007)

aaronphetamine said:


> At the bars in the city u bump into some ojne and they nearly wanna deck ya, but in the family, u bump into some one and they smile give ya a hug and a handshake haha.




lol thats because you just need to look at what kind of people drink on a regular occasion and what people take drugs. *Most* drug takers are little panzies that like frothing in their mouth while bouncing for 24 hours then grinding their teeth to bits when they wake up. Get a footy team thow coked up you will see how they act


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2007)

Ageo said:


> lol thats because you just need to look at what kind of people drink on a regular occasion and what people take drugs. *Most* drug takers are little panzies that like frothing in their mouth while bouncing for 24 hours then grinding their teeth to bits when they wake up. Get a footy team thow coked up you will see how they act



Oh brother!


----------



## weev (5 October 2007)

Julia said:


> This is a huge subject and one on which I have conflicting feelings as a result of someone I loved being lost to the mire of narcotic addiction....




Julia, thank you for sharing your experience.

Young doctors can be rather crazy, more so than what people know. 

There is a knock on effect to losing it on drugs, your friends and family, those that survive after your gone.

OK, I think people take drugs for several reasons:

1. Because they are looking for a metaphysical experience, not available outside of spiritual ritual. 

2. Because life is by nature boring and routine. Hunt, eat, sleep, hunt eat, sleep etc.

3  Because sexual pleasures lets us know we can have heightened sensual experiences with ourselves and others.

4. Because it makes us laugh and we are completely free and living in the moment when we laugh.

5. Because society is a fabrication of colluded deceits and deceptions filled with fear and anxiety. Drugs breaks this down by cutting through it.

When I was growing up it was (apart from alcohol, the system-sanctioned drug) mostly pot and some trips. Later, people got into coke and pills.

It would be fair to say that no one tries a drug with any intention of getting hooked, and that getting hooked is more a social function first, followed by genuine addiction. The psychological before physical. "I can't go out without a line, pill, drink etc"

There are drugs out there now I am not interested in trying (ice, meth) because the old established ones are enough work as it is.

Drug-taking is like a hobby. And like all hobbies you choose one over the other. The opportunity cost of taking drugs recreationally might be career success, a family, or perhaps just better health. If you smoke pot each night then you are not reading good literature or practicing your guitar playing, that is the opportunity cost. 

A decade can slide by where you have partied your ass off, done lines in toilets with beautiful people, thought up some crazy ****, had some wild times. Actually, had a bloody fun time. Though the sum total you have left is a bunch of memories that you can't share with the people you had them with cause they/you moved on. They are like happy daydreams you must keep to yourself in a straight world.

Don't underestimate how drugs can change you. You will be the last to realise. Perhaps channel that frustration at the crap John Howard world we live in to changing the world rather than escaping from it.

And I know that you wouldn't use the word 'escape' to describe recreational use.

Do I have regrets? Only a few. I could have spent some more time into getting that dream life instead of a 'dreaming' life, but at the end of the day, at the sunset, it doesn't matter.

It is only human beings, of all animals, that understands our finite existence. We are the ones that know we will die. That we will age, and that all will pass. This alone might be the reason why we take drugs, and why we can't, in all intelligent consciousness, deny others that experience.


----------



## Ageo (5 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Oh brother!




hehe excuse my last post Wayne. See what a little booze can do


----------



## theasxgorilla (5 October 2007)

*Weev*,

While I wish we lived in a wholesome drug free society what you wrote made extraordinary sense and unfortunately that is what makes this issue such a challenge.

ASX.G


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> then again, there's the concept of the "drug rota" - allegedly to avoid dependence ...  like this post I found on another forum ...
> 
> http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-298712.html
> Weekly(monthly?) drug rota for harm minimisation and for putting an end to tolerance!



Anyone know what this bloke is talking about , GABA etc?


> An example would be not using drugs which work on the GABA system every day, say not using valium and GHB two days in a row or not using serotonergic drugs within a few days of each other, like 2c-b and LSD. This is probably grossly simplified but its a good yard stick IMO.




GABA? 
 I thought that was a cricket ground ?


----------



## Gar (5 October 2007)

Brain recepters 2020

Anybody that thinks they can keep up a regime like that and not end up with some form of dependance is clearly deluded.

Dont take the view that most drug users are that stupid


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2007)

Gar said:


> Dont take the view that most drug users are that stupid



gar, thanks - so after a while they don't enjoy particularly good reception, I take it

PS I'm sure he wasn't that stupid either - before he started taking hard drugs


----------



## Lucky (5 October 2007)

I think most people would be very surprised at the extent of drug use amongst the population.  I spent 7 years living and working in London.  I was a financial contractor and worked for various corporations in a multitude of industries; everything from oil, media, television and telecoms.  Drug use was rampant and was surprising how far up the food chain it went.  Maybe it was just London, but drug use was as common as going for a pint.  It was rampant and from what I could see tolerated(and maybe begrudgingly accepted) as part of the "London lifestyle."  I worked with a lot of "respectable" intelligent, well informed people, who had "respectable" professional jobs and careers, that took drugs, and their use of drugs did not interfere one iota with any other part of their life.  From what I could tell it was about having a good time, having a laugh.  

Now I'm not saying that everyone in London takes, or has taken drugs, but when the population has the ease of  accessability(and availabity) to drugs at very affordable prices, people are going to try, use and experiment with drugs.

I'm sorry to hear about some of the bad experiences and losses that people have had to deal with due to uncontrolled drug abuse - it's unfortunate.   As I have stated and so too have a few others, the reasons, the whys, are different for many people.  Not all drug users are the same and not all drugs are the same.  Just as we have all encountered some people who shouldn't drink(or for whatever reason are unable to exercise self restraint) it's the same with drug taking.  Some people just shouldn't take drugs.   

Personal responsibility is the key to it all, but unfortunately there are those in society that are unable or unwilling to be held responsible for their actions and the repercussions they may have not only to themselves but to others around them.


----------



## Happy (5 October 2007)

Hard to make comment and not offend somebody.

I remember a while ago when normal people died because of drug addicts in Sydney’s Liverpool suburb area were rescued by ambos for n-th time in one day.

My take on this one?

Well do as you please, but pay for your own stupidity if rescue is needed, don’t let us to fix your problems caused by your actions.

No money, no problem, NO FREE RIDE.


----------



## stockGURU (5 October 2007)

Happy said:


> Well do as you please, but pay for your own stupidity if rescue is needed, don’t let us to fix your problems caused by your actions.
> 
> No money, no problem, NO FREE RIDE.




No doubt you will also agree that smokers, drinkers and the obese should pay for any medical expenses related to their self-inflicted conditions.


----------



## Lucky (5 October 2007)

stockGURU said:


> No doubt you will also agree that smokers, drinkers and the obese should pay for any medical expenses related to their self-inflicted conditions.




Would that be the 1.5% Medicare levy that all good tax paying folk subsidise for those fortunate folk who may need or one day need those medical services due to their lifestyle choices?


----------



## Happy (5 October 2007)

stockGURU said:


> No doubt you will also agree that smokers, drinkers and the obese should pay for any medical expenses related to their self-inflicted conditions.




If you think so, I am happy to agree.


----------



## professor_frink (5 October 2007)

Happy said:


> My take on this one?
> 
> Well do as you please, but pay for your own stupidity if rescue is needed, don’t let us to fix your problems caused by your actions.
> 
> No money, no problem, NO FREE RIDE.




only a small step from that to _anyone_ that has made a poor lifestyle choice being denied an ambulance. Where would you draw the line?


----------



## Happy (5 October 2007)

professor_frink said:


> only a small step from that to _anyone_ that has made a poor lifestyle choice being denied an ambulance. Where would you draw the line?




It can be as simple as you want it to be and as difficult as it is now.

I’ll probably better answer with question, why heart attack sufferer was left to die in order to resuscitate (not the first time this day) overdosed drug addict?

This is inevitable choice irrespective of how capable ambulance service is.
Simple numbers game in 5 million residents city.

Poor life choice is just that, poor life choice but still choice and there are consequences.
Sooner we go back to being responsible for our own actions the better.


----------



## cuttlefish (5 October 2007)

And Happy - if it were your son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother, uncle, aunt, wife, lover etc. ec.  in the situation of needing an ambulance due to their "lifestyle choice" would you still agree?  

Or do drug addicts only have loser drug addict relatives and thus noone but the drug addict is affected if they die due to  a drug overdose?

Do you think the parents of Annabel Catt would support this idea? 

Do you think that not providing an ambulance for her, had she been rescuable, would have been a good thing?

What about a first time user - a 17 year old thats tried an ecstacy after peer pressure - do you deny them the ambulance?

Or maybe 000 should have 50 line questionairre before sending out an ambulance:

* have you ever taken drugs?
* are you suffering an overdose?
* have you ever eaten the fat on your steak?
* have you ever eaten more than 100g of icecream in one sitting?
* did you do at least 20 minutes of exercise yesterday?
* did you ever wag school?
* have you ever shouted at anybody?
* have you ever taken a day off work sick when you weren't really sick?
* have you ever cheated on a partner?

must be nice being perfect.


----------



## Kremmen (5 October 2007)

Ageo said:


> Hmm yes and no, i have known 1 person that just with 1 bad pill (ecstacy) they have died as there body just couldnt cope.




Knowledge is power. If the pills were legal and regulated, people would know what they were getting and this would prevent most drug deaths.

Now, the problem with this whole topic is that whether you agree with this may well go back to some fundamental attitudes towards life. I believe in freedom of choice. Some people believe in the nanny state looking after them and not having to take responsibility for themselves. While not my viewpoint, it is a valid viewpoint, and will lead to totally different conclusions.

The situation here is similar to other "sins" like gambling. 1% of us have problems with gambling and become obsessive. Should we protect 1% of the population by denying the freedom of the other 99% to engage in a particular activity? Governments have, in recent years, been allowing casinos to open. Of course, this may not be because they fundamentally approve of freedom. It's more likely because of the short-term financial gain in taxes.

And that's the point: We should decide what sort of society we want: One where we hand over power to the government to decide what's good for us, or one in which individuals have freedom of choice. Many people are total hypocrites, wanting freedom to do what they want, yet fighting against the freedoms of others. While we, as a society, remain two-faced and unprincipled, little will be solved.


----------



## Happy (5 October 2007)

And Cuttlefish - if it were your son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother, uncle, aunt, wife, lover etc. ec. in the situation of needing an ambulance due to their "lifestyle choice" and at the same time if it were your son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother, uncle, aunt, wife, lover etc. ec. in the situation of needing an ambulance due to their non-drug related condition.

There is only one ambulance at the time of both calls.

What would you do?

Where would you send the life saving ambulance?


----------



## mark70920 (5 October 2007)

Happy if one of your relatives had a heart attack due to the high intake of fatty foods for the last thirty odd years ( a life style choice ) and my relative got hit by a drunk driver both critical where would you send the ambulance?

If drugs were legal and quality controlled there would be a lot less overdoses , we could then tax them and put the money in to health care and education ,like we do with alcohol and tobacco taxes.


----------



## Ageo (5 October 2007)

Kremmen said:


> Knowledge is power. If the pills were legal and regulated, people would know what they were getting and this would prevent most drug deaths.
> 
> Now, the problem with this whole topic is that whether you agree with this may well go back to some fundamental attitudes towards life. I believe in freedom of choice. Some people believe in the nanny state looking after them and not having to take responsibility for themselves. While not my viewpoint, it is a valid viewpoint, and will lead to totally different conclusions.
> 
> ...




Mate i totally agree with you, i was just stating to the other fellow that 1 pill can make a difference. But people should be able to have choice as you have stated. Soon will be asking for permission to take a piss.


----------



## moXJO (5 October 2007)

Kremmen said:


> Knowledge is power. If the pills were legal and regulated, people would know what they were getting and this would prevent most drug deaths.




I don’t see how legalizing pills will save lives. People will pop those, then when they are at the club simply buy more from the dealers. How do you regulate something like that? At what age do you limit it at, and then what’s stopping dealers selling to younger children. Freedom of choice is not always good for the masses. Look at all the overweight people in Aust from something that’s legal(yeah great self control there) lets drug em all up as well and see how we go then.

On a side note: Heroin fell out of favor with younger people simply because it was viewed as uncool to be a junkie. The use of pot has also declined for similar reasons. However ice is getting a bit more rampant.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (5 October 2007)

Julia - people have to take responsibility for their own actions, i accept the risk of using recreational drugs, i enjoy using them and i will continue to use them. I dont see a problem with it at all, end of story as far as i am concerned.
If you dont like the idea of using them, its easy, stay away from them but for the rest of us who would prefer half an E to a few drinks let us do what we like.

Recreational drug use is extremely wide spead, common i would say. Those who don't use would most likely not have a full understanding as those who do, because those who do try and be discrete.

I have no doubt that many drugs will be legalised in the future. It comes down to choice, its my life, if i want to use them i should be allowed.

Wiskers - harmful effects depend on the dose, they could range from mild effects to death at the extreme.

But mate, there are plenty of things that can kill you in this world, if you worry about that sort of thing you'll never do anything.
Its all about risk, taking a pill of E is a very minimal risk to your health but the amazing experience is well worth it.
Life is to be lived, i am a life liver, when i finally die i want to know that i crammed in as much and as many experiences as i could.


Lucky - I lived in London for three years, it was a blast. I agree with everything you have said. I had a very good job there and partyed non stop, some of the best clubs i the world. Best time of my life, not one single regret!


----------



## stockGURU (5 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> But mate




Something tells me the only thing that's female about 'Jessica' is his username.


----------



## aaronphetamine (5 October 2007)

I pretty sure if any of you good people here at ASF took one pill one night with a few drinks, with your husband / wife. You would enjoy it and look back on it, that it was an experience, i doubt that you would get addicted to it, and your life would be worthless unless you were on it.

3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetame is an amazing drug. It works by tricking your brain into releasing some of its stores of serotonin which is a feel good chemical, it also works by stopping the brain by reabsorbing the serotonin for a period of time, its for this reason it is known as a SSRI selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor.

After the MDMA wears off the brain starts to absorb all this extra serotonin, and becuase the MDMA made the brain release lots of serotonin it must now spend some time making more and not releasing as much, this is called the come down, some ppl might feel a little under the weather for a day, i know i dont though.



moXJO - when things are legal there are no more under world dealers, people dont deal alcohol or cigarettes anymore becuase they are legal, the same would happen for MDMA.

3,4-AARONPHETAMINE


----------



## Lucky (5 October 2007)

moXJO said:


> I don’t see how legalizing pills will save lives. People will pop those, then when they are at the club simply buy more from the dealers. How do you regulate something like that? At what age do you limit it at, and then what’s stopping dealers selling to younger children. Freedom of choice is not always good for the masses. Look at all the overweight people in Aust from something that’s legal(yeah great self control there) lets drug em all up as well and see how we go then.
> 
> On a side note: Heroin fell out of favor with younger people simply because it was viewed as uncool to be a junkie. The use of pot has also declined for similar reasons. However ice is getting a bit more rampant.




I don't think it's just about legalizing pills, but also the regulation and control of pills/drugs, etc.  The time will come when industry and government realise that they can make a regulated and controlled industry out of the recreational drug market, much like that of the pharmaceutical industry.  If you do a little research you'll find out that the good old pharmaceutical industry is not so different than your local friendly drug dealer.  They are both pushers of various drugs which rely on the user to become dependent/addicted to the wares they are selling.  

The amount of people that are on some sort of prescribed drug for whatever ailment far outweighs those that use "illegal" drugs.  Some of these so called legally prescribed drugs can be as addictive if not more so than their illegal counterparts.  I've read a few reports and articles on the topic(my partner is studying to become a naturopath so she can get her hands on some great info) and some of the numbers and figures are staggering - I understand why the industry makes the massive profits that it does.  

Have a read or do a search on pain killer and/or sedative addiction if you want to some eye opening stats and figures.  What concerns me the most is the prescription of drugs to kids who are being diagnosed with all kinds of pseudo-illnesses and ailments, ADD being a classic example.

Kremmen nailed it with his last paragraph.  It's worth reading again -

*And that's the point: We should decide what sort of society we want: One where we hand over power to the government to decide what's good for us, or one in which individuals have freedom of choice. Many people are total hypocrites, wanting freedom to do what they want, yet fighting against the freedoms of others. While we, as a society, remain two-faced and unprincipled, little will be solved.*


----------



## Whiskers (5 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Wiskers - harmful effects depend on the dose, they could range from mild effects to death at the extreme.
> 
> But mate, there are plenty of things that can kill you in this world, if you worry about that sort of thing you'll never do anything.
> Its all about risk, taking a pill of E is a very minimal risk to your health but the amazing experience is well worth it.
> Life is to be lived, i am a life liver, when i finally die i want to know that i crammed in as much and as many experiences as i could.




Hi Jessica

I'm just curious. I want to have fun too, but I also want to stay young and healthy for as long as possible too. Given that the use of extacy, although it feels great, puts a severe strain on your heart, lungs and kidney while on the high and as you say effects your emotions, but also memory and reasoning, I am curious how to tell when it is starting to be too much and starting to affect my memory and reasoning.

How do you moniter the effects for you?


----------



## cuttlefish (5 October 2007)

Happy said:


> And Cuttlefish - if it were your son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother, uncle, aunt, wife, lover etc. ec. in the situation of needing an ambulance due to their "lifestyle choice" and at the same time if it were your son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother, uncle, aunt, wife, lover etc. ec. in the situation of needing an ambulance due to their non-drug related condition.
> 
> There is only one ambulance at the time of both calls.
> 
> ...




If they were both my relatives, and both needing a life saving ambulance, it would be a tough choice, but I would probably pick the one that hadn't had the chance to live their life yet.  i.e. if it was an 80 year old grandmother that had had a good life, or a 22 year old son that hadn't had a chance to have much of a life yet, I have a pretty good idea who I'd send it to - and I also have a pretty good idea which out of that scenario are more likely to have a heart attack vs a drug overdose.

Drug addicts come from all walks of life and are not all hopeless lost causes. Many are capable of making a fantastic contribution to society if they overcome their problems. There are also many drug addicts that are contributing to society whilst also managing a drug habit (this is particularly pertinent when you consider that alcohol is a drug).  There are also many young people that get lost along the way for various reasons and need help at some point but get back on track again. I don't believe in being judgemental, nobody deliberately becomes an addict, and I feel sorry for anyone that is an addict because its a miserable life for them.


----------



## Julia (5 October 2007)

aaronphetamine said:


> I pretty sure if any of you good people here at ASF took one pill one night with a few drinks, with your husband / wife. You would enjoy it and look back on it, that it was an experience, i doubt that you would get addicted to it, and your life would be worthless unless you were on it.
> 
> 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetame is an amazing drug. It works by tricking your brain into releasing some of its stores of serotonin which is a feel good chemical, it also works by stopping the brain by reabsorbing the serotonin for a period of time, its for this reason it is known as a SSRI selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor.
> 
> ...



Could you explain how the SSRI's you are describing differ from the SSRI's which are widely prescribed as antidepressants, e.g. Prozac etc?


----------



## Julia (5 October 2007)

To those of you who have happily proclaimed your drug use, could you say whether you consider this a phase of your life which you will eventually tire of, or whether you plan to continue using illegal drugs in the nursing home.
(might be a problem getting them there perhaps).

And could you explain the  reasoning behind your drug use, i.e. is it just that it adds a further dimension of experience to your existence, that it's just fun, that you enjoy the frisson of doing something illegal, that it's what you do to belong in your crowd (e.g. would you do it if your friends weren't doing it also?) or is your life somehow lacking in a sense of purpose and you are looking to fill in the empty space?  I'm just trying to understand here, and not making any assumptions about any of the above suggestions.  

If you lost your job for whatever reason, would you buy drugs if it came to a financial choice between that and food?

Re legalising drugs: to do this would be to say to young people who have never used drugs (and older people too for that matter) that it's fine.
Just roll up to your friendly family pharmacy and get your week's supply of whatever paid for by the taxpayer.  Just to go with the free needles and the state run hygienic injecting rooms.

Yes, I know drug use has been with us always.  And yes, I appreciate that legalising drug use would largely eliminate much crime, but given the drug induced psychoses I have seen with the consequent permanent effects on personality and general health, not to mention the destruction of relationships, I don't believe legalisation of currently illicit drugs will ever happen.  The majority of Australians are too sensible to allow it.

To those of you who advocate legalising drugs such as heroin, amphetamines, ice, and whatever else happens to be fashionable, could you describe just exactly how you would envisage this happening.
Do you pick it up from Woolworths along with your groceries?
Do you rock on up to your friendly GP for a prescription along with your antibiotics for the latest bacteria?
Who would pay for your drugs?  The tax payer?
Just a little detail on how exactly you envisage this nirvana would be welcome.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2007)

hell I'm not a christian
but 
if I were to say a prayer, it would go something like this ...

"hey lord but you have given me one mind
and lord but you have given me one body
hence lord, may I be able to able to "unwind"
with nothing stronger than a rum and toddy" 

(sorry but crap poetry is my forte )


----------



## 1234 (5 October 2007)

aaronphetamine said:


> I pretty sure if any of you good people here at ASF took one pill one night with a few drinks, with your husband / wife. You would enjoy it and look back on it, that it was an experience, i doubt that you would get addicted to it, and your life would be worthless unless you were on it.




I actually take offense to this comment. 

My wife and I recently spent our wedding anniversary on a cruise up the river. No drugs taken and I'll assure you my life that day was worth a HELL of alot more than yours ever has been, or will be!!


Life is a pretty amazing drug too... You should try one.. 


BTW, your grammar is deplorable. "What side effects?"


----------



## noirua (5 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> hell I'm not a christian
> but
> if I were to say a prayer, it would go something like this ...
> 
> ...




Hi 2020, If only some idiots would follow the advice in your short poem. Only one small Rum & Toddy, however. - Good Luck


----------



## Dukey (5 October 2007)

aaronphetamine said:


> .....
> 
> 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetame is an amazing drug. It works by tricking your brain into releasing some of its stores of serotonin which is a feel good chemical, it also works by stopping the brain by reabsorbing the serotonin for a period of time, its for this reason it is known as a SSRI selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor.
> 
> After the MDMA wears off the brain starts to absorb all this extra serotonin, and becuase the MDMA made the brain release lots of serotonin it must now spend some time making more and not releasing as much, this is called the come down, some ppl might feel a little under the weather for a day, i know i dont though.




So... MDMA messes with your brain chemistry. Confuses its seratonin regulation. Is that good?  Do you really believe there will be no legacy from that? 
- It's russian roulette you guys are playing - even if you think you are in control. 

Of course all drugs, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine.... even foods! - alter brain chemistry in various ways.

BUT - oils ain't oils - and molecules ain't molecules. Some drugs have greater potential to do lasting damage... just hope you make the right choices.

Another thought that occurred to me today .... many folks have said "some people just shouldn't take drugs". True - I agree - Same can be said of alcohol.

...Has anyone contributing here ever said to someone - "hey man - you are one of those people who just shouldn't take drugs"....

Do you think it works?? Of course not - it has the opposite effect. They go hell for leather - to prove they can handle it. "don't tell me how to live my life...blah blah'.

The "people who just shouldn't take drugs" *Never* understand, realise or accept that fact until *After* - usually long after - the damage has been done....

ANd once again - the families & kids pay the price.


----------



## moXJO (5 October 2007)

Lucky said:


> I don't think it's just about legalizing pills, but also the regulation and control of pills/drugs, etc.  The time will come when industry and government realise that they can make a regulated and controlled industry out of the recreational drug market, much like that of the pharmaceutical industry.  If you do a little research you'll find out that the good old pharmaceutical industry is not so different than your local friendly drug dealer.  They are both pushers of various drugs which rely on the user to become dependent/addicted to the wares they are selling.
> 
> The amount of people that are on some sort of prescribed drug for whatever ailment far outweighs those that use "illegal" drugs.  Some of these so called legally prescribed drugs can be as addictive if not more so than their illegal counterparts.  I've read a few reports and articles on the topic(my partner is studying to become a naturopath so she can get her hands on some great info) and some of the numbers and figures are staggering - I understand why the industry makes the massive profits that it does.
> 
> ...




Exactly how do you regulate things like ice??? Underage drinking is a massive problem atm I'd hate to see the effects of legalised drugs. Do you think the government is going to have required portions and that’s all people will take? More chance they will simply get it from where ever they want . This country loves to do things to excess drinking, gambling , fatty foods etc.Why expose more of the population to this filth.


----------



## moXJO (5 October 2007)

aaronphetamine said:


> I pretty sure if any of you good people here at ASF took one pill one night with a few drinks, with your husband / wife. You would enjoy it and look back on it, that it was an experience, i doubt that you would get addicted to it, and your life would be worthless unless you were on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah enjoy the come downs paranoia and the rest of the crap you forgot to mention after you’ve been popping eggs for a while. I did the whole club scene starts off fine, but there’s generally more bad times that seem to get glossed over then the good.

There’s still illegal tobacco sales , and kids still get cigarettes and are drinking to excess. In your ideal world do we just buy as much drugs over the counter as we want?


----------



## Gar (6 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> hell I'm not a christian
> but
> if I were to say a prayer, it would go something like this ...
> 
> ...




Rum is bad for your health, drugs are bad for your health, drink to much and you will stuff your liver, smoke to much and you will become a lazy bum.

are you going to become a drunkard 2020?

no I thought not

the same as my friends and I will enjoy the occasional pill or joint or line and we will not end up in the dole queue waiting for that next hit.... why? cos we got brains for ourselves.

there will always be weak people in all facets of life but that doesn't mean we are the ones to blame or drugs are to blame and it doesn't mean that we should have should have to endure rediculous penalties for situations that harm neither ourselves or the people around us


----------



## theasxgorilla (6 October 2007)

Julia said:


> To those of you who advocate legalising drugs such as heroin, amphetamines, ice, and whatever else happens to be fashionable, could you describe just exactly how you would envisage this happening.




If it ever were to happen...and I bet my left nut it never will, sorry day-dreamers...this country would become the laughing stock of the world...as if Steve Irwin hasn't given us enough to live up to already...if rec-drugs were legalised then when we go overseas we'd probably never get hired for jobs in any decent first world country because the grown ups in those countries would know better than the let stoners or pill-poppers or speed or coke heads into positions of importance.


----------



## Gar (6 October 2007)

I assure you asx there are plenty of those people in positions of power as we speak.

something I dont get is a lot of you guys seem to think that drug taking is about fashion or "being cool?", thats a load of bollocks, kids mainly try drugs in curiosity.



I don't believe legalization has a chance in hell of working though


----------



## wayneL (6 October 2007)

"Soft" drugs are decriminalised in The Netherlands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

Are they actually legal? The article seems to contradict itself. But certainly a policy of non enforcement is in place and soft drugs are very much out in the open.

And a bit of a discussion on the pros and cons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition

I'm tentatively in favour of some level of decriminalization, but agree with ASX.G, way to emotive a topic for it to happen anytime soon, if ever.


----------



## Gar (6 October 2007)

ding ding ding

wayne has hit the money word "decriminalization" 

that is a possibly the best answer yet.


grab a beer and a teddy mate


----------



## theasxgorilla (6 October 2007)

Gar said:


> I assure you asx there are plenty of those people in positions of power as we speak.




I know!  And there are alcoholics who hold high-level positions and positions of authority in countries like Sweden where a rec-drug-culture is practically non-existent.

Given the decision to make I'd still rather fight this battle on a single front and stick with alcohol as the primary legalised rec-drug.  You could say, better the devil you know.


----------



## Gar (6 October 2007)

Well I'm off to bed guys n gals.

Remember, think freely and don't become too polarised you lot, its not a black and white question.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

Gar said:


> ...do you honestly believe that rum is less damaging to your health than moderate use of some of the drugs mentioned in this post?



hey gar, I do , and that's honest.   

ok - have I occasionally regretted drinking too much alcohol ? - sure - 
in fact a major vulnerability in my argument is that almost every embarrassing moment of my life has involved excessive booze - 

(although the days of having to ask ..
"was that before or after I was sick in the swimming pool? " 
are long since behind me )

But I still think that booze in moderation is a viable proposition...
and no way - ABSOLUTELY no way is meth viable - in ANY amount. 

and (IMO anyways) that also goes for E and cocaine and heroin etc - I just can't see the need (not that I've tried them).   Nor do my kids (thanks god - well at least not as far as hard drugs are concerned) - and I can tell you that they laugh a lot unassisted by drugs : 2twocents  

me? - I'd prefer to go for a run m8 - or take the dog for a walk 

Incidentally I believe that there is no difference between the cigarette companies and a common drug pusher .  

I studied with an afghan - became good friends - he told me it was well known that long term users of pot were (often) regarded as mental cripples to some degree. 

I coached a kid who flipped on marijuana - became a schizophrenic - young teenager - his father a man of the cloth no less - had to pull out of school - he will achieve a fraction of what he could have.

Dukey has mentioned his sister in similar predicament

Julia has mentioned her doctor friend who became a stranger to his own kids

One of us is arguably not seeing the wood for the trees mate 

or else perhaps... we should (all) come back to this thread in 10 years - I think I will still think the same - and still treat all these drugs with utmost - I mean utmost - fear and respect ( purely because of the disrespect with which I believe it would treat me) 

Finally, here's an excerpts from poems of Adam Lindsay Gordon - in the first, he is comparing the courage from alcohol vs a brave and skillful horse rider (which he was)



> In the following, Gordon compares two types of courage, one from the stimulant of the bottle, one from the stimulant of the "saddle tree" (I would say a comparison of alcohol vs adrenelin :- the second you like to remember - the first you strictly cant forget because you cant bludy remember it in the first place !!) :-
> 
> *on Booze vs Exhileration *:-
> from YE WEARY WAYFARER, FYTTE III
> ...






> A couple more poems by AL Gordon - kinda relevant ( albeit "approx")
> 
> YE WEARY WAYFARER, Fytte VI
> POTTER's CLAY [An Allegorucal Interlude]
> ...






> and another - you can feel the horse hard held approaching a jump -
> 
> from YE WEARY WAYFARER, Fytte VII
> .........
> ...




PS We have as ritual at work - we all feign enthusiasm about a bludy weekly get-together with egg and bacon rolls - guess what - it actually becomes a real buzz! - and we are look forward to it lol - no drugs (unless you call ham and / or egg a drug ) - it's all attitude m8 (IMO)


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

they used to say eat strange tastes with pot ...
well
here are a few weird effects to try with a beer - or sober for that matter, lol - (NB you have to use headphones ok - important)

  Virtual Barber Shop (Audio...use headphones)
PS you'll get the effect after 30 seconds - stick it out as long as you can though - lol - preferably with someone watching your back 

and lol , I for one found it bloody disconcerting ... was happy to terminate it . 

comments on the youtube include ...


> was freaking out so much when i listened to this- i was cringing when he puts the bag over your head and the razor part too!!  everyone in math was talking about this today so i thought id better check it out. definitely worth it





> scariest haircut i ever had. it freaked me out roflmfao!"!!!





> This is the best piece of work with audio i have heard this year, by far!
> I rarely find any clips that actually takes advantage of the "from-left-to-right speaker"sound.



etc

btw here's a bloke high on weed listening to it ..
 Virtual Haircut whilst stoned on weed


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

Meth-Not Even Once

 Montana Meth Ads: Bathtub

 Montana Meth Ads: Junkie Den


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (6 October 2007)

Julia - to try and answer a few of your questions.

This is my opinion only, i dont push this on anyone and would just say again, everyone should be allowed to do as they please without having others try and make them conform to their views.

Is recreational drugs just as phase?
Good question, not sure, but i think i will use them on and off until i leave this world of ours.
I dont ever plan to be in a nursing home, i'd rather be dead than there. Who wants to not be able to remember your own name and not have control of your bodily functions, not me.
I don't measure life by how long i live, i measure it by the experiences i have and the fun things i do. I'd rather live to 40 and have done as much as i could rather than live to 100 and have done very little.
At the same time i dont have a death wish and plan to go on as long as i am enjoying myself.

Reasoning behind drug use?
I use them to further enhance an already enjoyable experience. Also, with E, it is the type of people in the club or group and the atmosphere, everyone is happy, no fights, no issues, how life should be. Thats why i avoid boozy places, its hell.
Without being smart, it is very difficult to explain to someone who has never used it.
It also opens up your mind, i dont know how to explain that either.

Its not to fill an empty space, its a choice, like when you go to the pub and have a few beers, i might go out and have a line of coke and a pill of E. I think this is a big part of the problem, many people just cant get their head around this because they have been brain washed by people saying ALL drugs are evil and will kill you. Its just not true.
Of course drugs can kill you, so can exceeding the limit and driving recklessly, so can consuming too much alcohol, so can smoking too many cigarette and even if you drink too much water it can kill you. What i am trying to say is that everything in moderation is fine.

If you lost your job for whatever reason, would you buy drugs if it came to a financial choice between that and food?

Of course not, you are getting confused between drug addicts and recreational drug users.
Its like alcoholics and the guy who has a few beverages with his mates. The alcoholic will of course by more booze before he feeds his family but your average bloke on the street will not.

Okay - on legalising drugs you ask,

Re legalising drugs: to do this would be to say to young people who have never used drugs (and older people too for that matter) that it's fine.
Just roll up to your friendly family pharmacy and get your week's supply of whatever paid for by the taxpayer. Just to go with the free needles and the state run hygienic injecting rooms.

I do not advocate legalising all drugs, drugs aint drugs as far as i am concerned (just my opinion). This is another HUGE problem, you cant just have a blanket statement that says they are all good or bad, you have to judge each individually.
Saying that, i'd legalise weed. coke, MDMA (E), mushrooms to begin with and look at the others.
I just believe peolpe should be able to have a choice. Making them illegal certainly does not work, look at the mess we have got ourselves into. Young people will always experiment, so you may as well at least let them get clean substances so they know 100% for sure what they are taking.
Of course some numpties will still abuse them as they do with everything, numpties are numpties and they always will be numpties.

You say - Yes, I know drug use has been with us always. And yes, I appreciate that legalising drug use would largely eliminate much crime, but given the drug induced psychoses I have seen with the consequent permanent effects on personality and general health, not to mention the destruction of relationships, I don't believe legalisation of currently illicit drugs will ever happen. The majority of Australians are too sensible to allow it.

All i'd say to that is, we have been trying to go along the path of illegalisation of drugs for some time now. It does not work, crime grows, people are not educated and usage continues to grow expodentially.
So those who are too sensible too allow it, may just be the cause of the problem.
Time to start thinking Australia, look at what is really happening and provide a sensible solution.

You say - To those of you who advocate legalising drugs such as heroin, amphetamines, ice, and whatever else happens to be fashionable, could you describe just exactly how you would envisage this happening.
Do you pick it up from Woolworths along with your groceries?
Do you rock on up to your friendly GP for a prescription along with your antibiotics for the latest bacteria?
Who would pay for your drugs? The tax payer?
Just a little detail on how exactly you envisage this nirvana would be welcome.

Once again - each drug needs to be looked at on an idividual basis just as they do at present with legal prescription drugs, same process.
Just as prescription drugs all vary in strength and effect so do the non prescription drugs. 
Prescription drugs are more than capable of taking you out of this world for good, if you are stupid enough to dose yourself over the recommended rate.
Same thing applies for every drug, dose is the key and knowing what you are putting inside your body which comes back to education.

I'd say let people have weed and E in cafes like Amsterdam. The others let people get from a chemist with a prescription from a doctor. As for price, happy to pay the same as the street value but knowing i was getting a clean product.

Not sure if that helps or if i have even explained it very well?

But, at the end of the day, people are using these substances by choice and they will continue to use them at an ever growing pace.
The current system is a total shambles for eveyone, its just a joke.

The Ned Flanderers have got it wrong and until they realise we need change the debarcle will continue...........................JW


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> The Ned Flanderers have got it wrong and until they realise we need change the debarcle will continue...........................JW




I doodley don't know how you can be so doodley sure about that ! 
Jessica - intersting to read your take on it (and others aaron etc) - worrying but interesting lol.

(sheesh, never thought I'd be lining up with the Ned FLanders of the world, lol!)

PS I agree with safe injecting rooms btw 

[  so defi-diddley-efinateley sure about that ?? ]



> Nedward 'Ned' Flanders is a fictional character on The Simpsons, voiced by Harry Shearer. ....often overly pompous in nature. Flanders, being amongst the most friendly and compassionate characters in the series (probably rivaled only by Lisa and Marge in terms of general good-heartedness)



PS hey Jessica - Are Marge and Lisa also wrong lol?



> . often serves as a positive representation of Evangelicals, leaning away from the "Fire and Brimstone" stereotype. Nevertheless, the writers of the show (most of whom consider themselves liberal) also often use the character as a mean to criticize fundamentalism and extreme social conservatism.
> 
> Flanders was named after Flanders St. in Portland, Oregon, the hometown of Simpsons creator Matt Groening.[1]
> 
> ...



lol


> ....Despite a meek outward appearance, Ned hides an exceptionally well-built physique under his pink shirt and green sweater combination. When he is revealed to be in his early 60s in "Viva Ned Flanders" Ned claims his deceptively youthful appearance is due to his conformity to the "Three Cs": "*Clean living, Chewing thoroughly, and a daily dose of vitamin Church*!" This age would seem to be contradicted in the episode "Hurricane Neddy", where it's revealed that *he was in a mental hospital "30 years ago," and is shown a video in which he appears to be a child*.[2]
> 
> Both Ned and his family rarely refer to his moustache as such, preferring nicknames such as *"Nose Neighboor," "Mr. Tickles," "The Soup Strainer," "The Cookie Duster," "The Pushbroom," and "Dr. Fuzzenstein.*" He once shaved it off, after Homer implied that people were mocking Ned's facial hair behind his back. Ned's moustache would also affect his decision to move to the fictional town of Humbleton, PA. After being hired at the town's Humble figurine manufacturing factory in "*Home Away from Homer",* Ned was ordered to shave his moustache, due to an unofficial ban on facial hair. Ned defiantly refused to shave his moustache for which he was labelled a troublemaker.
> 
> ...


----------



## noirua (6 October 2007)

Law and order is quite basic. If the punishment does not fit the crime, then the crime becomes worthwhile. It's all about keeping crime at low levels, otherwise, the police forces become larger and larger and the prisons as well.

People who are involved in drug trafficking should be shot by firing squad. That should also apply to those who sell drugs. No need for bigger prisons and the reoffending rate would be 0%. Persons found bringing drugs into the country should also be shot.

Be tough on crime and the causes of crime!


----------



## Mofra (6 October 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> if rec-drugs were legalised then when we go overseas we'd probably never get hired for jobs in any decent first world country because the grown ups in those countries would know better than the let stoners or pill-poppers or speed or coke heads into positions of importance.



Ummm... hate to mention this to you, but you would be surprised at the number of professionals & other people in "positions of importance" who are regular recreational users (petinant hint for this site - ever been to a shareholder meeting?). Most of them (that I speak to) do so simply because it is far easier to work at full capacity after a night involving a few lines, than it is after a drinking session.

Unfortunately, people view drugs as a black & white issue; legal = good, illegal = bad.
There are shades of grey that need to be considered. Some people can drink in moderation. Some people can use softer recreational drugs in moderation.
Some people should avoid stimulants altogether.

By the same token, some people can't resist fatty foods, in a time when heart disease is out no 1 killer. Should be start placing bans on chips, pies & preservative laden snacks? What about artifical sweeteners, many of which are appetisers that cause people to eat more anyway?

I'm not advocating easy access to heroin or ice, however the effect of illegal substances on the human body does not change depending on how we attach social stigma to it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

noirua said:


> People who are involved in drug trafficking should be shot by firing squad.



a) like all the other extremists ? lol  
b) changing the topic - but what about the Chinese Govt - they send a bill to the family to cover the cost of the bullet   (I mean different if it were clear cut etc.

Btw Noi - 
During the Opium Wars, British missionaries were ACTIVELY pushing drugs on the Chinese - the only way that they could get a (trading) foothold into the place. Where Portugal had succeeded (by normal colonising means / mainly peaceful) , the British had to rely on "subterfuge" and force - and getting people addicted.    opium grown under their supervision in one existing colony , India - to be sold in another highly desired and potential trading corner of the world (and potential colony - HK).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War


> The First Opium War or the First Anglo-Chinese War was fought between the British East India Company and the Qing Dynasty in China *from 1839 to 1842 with the aim of forcing China to import British opium*. It is often seen as the beginning of European imperial hegemony toward China. The *conflict deepened Chinese suspicion of Western society, which still lingers today in East Asia*




maybe justifiably ?? - after that ?? 



> ........ In casting about for other possible commodities, the British soon discovered opium, and production of the commodity was subsidized in British India. Between 1821 and 1837 *imports of the drug to China increased five-fold,* as the demand for the equalizing of the trade balance reversed a previous decision by the British authorities to respect the Qing government ban on the drug, dating from 1729. British importation of opium in large amounts began in 1781. *The drug was produced in India under a British government monopoly (Bengal) and in the Princely states (Malwa) and was sold on the condition that it be shipped by British traders to China.*
> 
> Alarmed by the reverse in silver flow and the epidemic of addiction (an estimated 2 million Chinese were habitual users[1]), the Qing government attempted to end the opium trade. The effort was initially claimed to be successful, with the official in charge of the effort *Lin Zexu, who wrote a "memorial" (摺奏)[2] to the Queen of Great Britain in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the trade of the drug, as it had poisoned thousands of Chinese civilians *(the memorial was given to Charles Elliott who *refused to forward it to her majesty*).
> 
> In one isolated incident, in 1818, the Laurel carried word to Sydney of a US ship laden with opium and treasure which was invaded by Chinese pirates. The crew of the US vessel had all been killed, but for the escaping first mate, who later identified the pirates to the authorities. *Lin Zexu eventually forced the British Chief Superintendent of Trade in China, Charles Elliott to hand over all remaining stocks of opium (20,000 chests,[3] each holding about 120 pounds[4]) for destruction in May 1839*.



British "above the local law" 


> However, in July 1839 rioting British sailors destroyed a temple near Kowloon and murdered a man named Lin Weixi who tried to stop them. Because China did not have a jury trial system or evidentiary process (the magistrate was the prosecutor, judge, jury and would-be executioner), the British government and community in China wanted "extraterritoriality", which meant that British subjects would only be tried by British judges. When the Qing authorities demanded the men be handed over for trial, the British refused. Six sailors were tried by the British authorities in Guangzhou (Canton),  .. etc *but they were immediately released after they reached England.*



bit like the USA these days - only tried by US !


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM


> *By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality.*
> 
> Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

Jessica , Aaron et al
If I concede that drinking alcohol is not a perfectly justifiable pastime - like it's a mental prop - it makes you someone you otherwise aren't (arguably almost like a drug cheat - like Marion Jones ) 

will you then concede that this most certainly also applies to the alternative mild drugs, and most certainly to the hard drugs?

We would then only have to agree on which is the more imperfect - and since that won't happen in a hurry - maybe these old ABC posts will be sit out there -inloved unread lol , "Another inconvenient truth" maybe ?


Firstly some old ones :-

1. the devil you know - compares alcohol and heroin
2. wake up calls - maiijuana and madness etc 



> http://www.abc.net.au/abccontentsales/s1180089.htm
> What's Your Poison: Marijuana - The Forbidden Drug
> Two thirds of 20 year olds and one in eight adults have used marijuana and for more than half a century it's been tagged a dangerous drug.
> Marijuana users have long claimed that it's harmless but nonetheless the authorities continue the ban on its cultivation and usage. They claim that it's carcinogenic and brain-damaging.
> ...






> http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1122834.htm
> Catalyst - Marijuana & Schizophrenia
> Program: Catalyst
> Year of Production: 2003
> ...






> http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1334396.htm
> Program: Four Corners
> Year of Production: 2004
> Duration: 45mins
> ...






> http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1123079.htm
> Devil You Know, The DVD
> Year of Production: 1990
> Duration: 70mins
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

here's one from ABc only a month old 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/03/2022472.htm


> Youth still using drugs despite knowing dangers: study
> Posted Mon Sep 3, 2007 1:24pm AEST
> 
> A new survey shows most *young people are aware of the harmful effects of drugs, but it does not stop them experimenting with them*.
> ...


----------



## Julia (6 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Is recreational drugs just as phase?
> Good question, not sure, but i think i will use them on and off until i leave this world of ours.
> I dont ever plan to be in a nursing home, i'd rather be dead than there. Who wants to not be able to remember your own name and not have control of your bodily functions, not me.




I don't know anyone who plans to be in a nursing home, Jessica so you are not alone or unique in this.  But has it occurred to you that if you happen to use some impure substance it could alter your brain chemistry to the point where that is exactly what would happen to you?  You would not be the first person to be rendered helpless by drug misadventure.



> I don't measure life by how long i live, i measure it by the experiences i have and the fun things i do. I'd rather live to 40 and have done as much as i could rather than live to 100 and have done very little.
> At the same time i dont have a death wish and plan to go on as long as i am enjoying myself.



Agree entirely.  However, it's not always a choice you get to make.





> Reasoning behind drug use?
> I use them to further enhance an already enjoyable experience. Also, with E, it is the type of people in the club or group and the atmosphere, everyone is happy, no fights, no issues, how life should be. Thats why i avoid boozy places, its hell.
> Without being smart, it is very difficult to explain to someone who has never used it.
> It also opens up your mind, i dont know how to explain that either.



OK.  I get that except for the last bit.
I don't suppose it's any different from my having consumed excessive quantities of alcohol in the form of fine wine and liqueurs at a stimulating gathering of people.





> Its not to fill an empty space, its a choice, like when you go to the pub and have a few beers, i might go out and have a line of coke and a pill of E. I think this is a big part of the problem, many people just cant get their head around this because they have been brain washed by people saying ALL drugs are evil and will kill you. Its just not true.



I don't think I've said all drugs are evil and can kill you.  But yes, some drugs can kill you.  So can alcohol.  So I'm not differentiating on that basis.
Rather that you are using illegal substances which presumably have minimal "quality control" in their production.  How can you always be sure that you are not ingesting something other than you think you are?




> Of course not, you are getting confused between drug addicts and recreational drug users.
> Its like alcoholics and the guy who has a few beverages with his mates. The alcoholic will of course by more booze before he feeds his family but your average bloke on the street will not.



Fair enough.  But I guess my concern is - as 2020 asked when he began this thread - how easy is it for so called recreational use to spill over into a dependence?  I know you feel you are bullet proof and in complete control.
The doctor in the story I related earlier felt in complete control also, right up until he was arrested.
It's not just that personal connection which has formed my views, but the people I see every week whose lives have been wrecked by what started as a little recreational drug use.  And their children.  A 15 year old a couple of days ago living on the street because she saw it as the only way to escape the drug induced violence of her family home.  This is not uncommon.
And yes, of course you will say:  "oh, but I'm not like those people" and hopefully your outlook will be much happier.  But all I am saying is that none of those people set out to  ruin their lives.  They were just "enhancing their existing good existence".  Pretty similar to what you are saying really.





> Okay - on legalising drugs you ask,
> 
> Re legalising drugs: to do this would be to say to young people who have never used drugs (and older people too for that matter) that it's fine.
> Just roll up to your friendly family pharmacy and get your week's supply of whatever paid for by the taxpayer. Just to go with the free needles and the state run hygienic injecting rooms.
> ...



I doubt the majority of the population will ever agree with you.
Accepted, however, that the current situation is unsatisfactory in terms of crime, but I don't believe decriminalising or legalising drugs is the right answer.





> Once again - each drug needs to be looked at on an idividual basis just as they do at present with legal prescription drugs, same process.
> Just as prescription drugs all vary in strength and effect so do the non prescription drugs.
> Prescription drugs are more than capable of taking you out of this world for good, if you are stupid enough to dose yourself over the recommended rate.
> Same thing applies for every drug, dose is the key and knowing what you are putting inside your body which comes back to education.
> ...




You've explained your views clearly, Jessica.  Thank you for responding.
I asked if you thought your drug taking might be a phase - a sort of rite of passage, if you like - because I know that most of my friends and I used alcohol irresponsibly as young adults but it was something we simply grew out of.  Just didn't want to do it any more.

I don't think any of us -who are probably a generation older than you are - are necessarily sitting in judgement which is probably how it appears.  Rather, we have seen some tragic results of drug use and naturally this forms our views.  I absolutely acknowledge that many people in all fields do use drugs.  You have said that you would be very happy to pay for getting "clean" drugs from a pharmacy.  This is an acknowledgement of the risks you run in using the street junk.  Good to know you wouldn't be asking the tax payer to fund the supply for you.  We are already doing this with all the methadone programmes - that farcical rubbish which is simply exchanging one addiction for another.


----------



## Prospector (6 October 2007)

Recently, there was a drug education forum conducted at a friend's daughters school - a wealthy private school in Adelaide.  The forum was hosted by an eminently qualified drugs educator from NSW.

His most important message was to forget the illicit drug scene, it was ALCOHOL that was impacting most significantly on teenagers these days!
And I thought about that, and realised that when we parents were young 'ens, whilst the occasional guy might get drunk, vomit etc etc, it is now 'normal' for both girls and guys to drink like there is no tomorrow!  Every week.  Underage drinking - pffft!  As soon as kids hit high school there are any number of parties where drinking amongst 13 year olds is basically encouraged by parents who provide free booze - the pressure being that no-one would come to the party unless there was booze provided.

I guess the issue is whether this leads to a dependence - but even if it doesnt, this use of alcohol from the age until 13 or so, until maybe early twenties is more than enough to worry about


----------



## Mofra (6 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> His most important message was to forget the illicit drug scene, it was ALCOHOL that was impacting most significantly on teenagers these days!
> And I thought about that, and realised that when we parents were young 'ens, whilst the occasional guy might get drunk, vomit etc etc, it is now 'normal' for both girls and guys to drink like there is no tomorrow!  Every week.  Underage drinking - pffft!  As soon as kids hit high school there are any number of parties where drinking amongst 13 year olds is basically encouraged by parents who provide free booze - the pressure being that no-one would come to the party unless there was booze provided.



Absolutely true. 

(On a side note) In my experience, the only couple of times I've ever seen anyone having an eposide with illegal substances was after drinking heavily first. I wonder how many overdose statistics also mask the fact that a ridiculous level of alcohol consumption was the real trigger (ie initially causing tha massive dehydration & salt loss which is the major risk with MDMA use)?


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

1960s LSD Propaganda Film

maybe it's a way to ween people off hot dogs at least  ? 

 LSD Testing (British Troops)


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

Paul McCartney - LSD Interview
As the beatles fans used to say ..
if you can remember the 60s you weren't there 


this next one is worth listening to..
Paul differentiates between "then (pot) " 
and "NOW!! " (crack etc)



> If I tell em how exciting it was, my kids might ask "well why don't WE write like that ??"
> answer : "because now it's a much more dangerous ballgame" !



  Beatles and drugs


> Three Beatles and producer George Martin recall Sgt. Pepper-era drug use. This clip was removed from a Disney Channel documentary but apparently left in the Japanese version. Dig George's comment about 'going to the moon.' From the early to mid-90s.



 George Harrison_Talks about Julian, Drugs, TM

[including mention of many of his friends who died from heroin]


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

Marion Jones vs Melinda Gainsford - Final, 200m, Sydney 2000

a) no wonder Melinda is pissed off - (see below)
b) since I was there (well at least when she won the long jump) - who do I go to see to get my money back ! 

To me, this (and Mokbel) are just two more facets of the same drugs-worshipping trend in society 

If people didn't use em, then the drugs barons wouldn't prosper for instance.



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/05/2051835.htm
> Former rival upset by Jones drug reports
> 
> Shock admission ... US sprinter Marion Jones is reportedly preparing to come clean on drug use .  Former Australian Olympic sprinter Melinda Gainsford-Taylor says she felt "ill" after hearing reports that American athlete Marion Jones will admit to steroid use.  .... Gainsford-Taylor, who competed alongside Jones at the 2000 Sydney Olympics, told ABC TV's Midday Report she was shocked after the reports surfaced this morning.
> ...





> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/05/2051604.htm
> 
> Mokbel extradition fight fails.
> Tony Mokbel will have to pay all court costs for the appeal . The Federal Court in Melbourne has rejected an appeal by fugitive drugs baron Tony Mokbel to stop the Federal Government taking action to extradite him from Greece.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

> Football stars 'prone' to illicit drugs culture
> By Paul Lockyer
> Posted Fri Oct 5, 2007 2:15pm AEST
> back to the sports hero's role in all this -
> ...




announcement imminent ?


> .... Questions about Mainwaring's death will finally be decided by a coronial inquiry, but the episode has served to highlight the pressures that all athletes face in a new era of professional sport.
> 
> *David Crosbie from the Mental Health council says professional footballers face a higher risk of becoming involved with illicit drugs.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

then this bloke (17 year old) who (in 1999) was given animal tranquilizers !! - (murder / manslaughter whatever)  

See where "horsing around with drugs" will get you ??
so much for the "neigh sayers" ... ?? 
(sorry sick puns)



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/05/2052466.htm
> Drug use lifestyle to blame for tranquilliser death: coroner
> Posted Fri Oct 5, 2007 8:09pm AEST
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

PS it's gonna be a real bugga watching the rugby tonight and drinking "Deep Spring Mineral Water" 
maybe I'll weaken at half time and have a light beer.


----------



## Whiskers (6 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS it's gonna be a real bugga watching the rugby tonight and drinking "Deep Spring Mineral Water"
> maybe I'll weaken at half time and have a light beer.




Yeah, bugga. I'm on my last couple of sips of red , then I'll be on green tea I guess, if I'm not :sleeping:.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (6 October 2007)

Hey 2020 thats bloody funny - Damn Ned Flanderers, i blame those do gooders and brown noses for so much of the wrong in this world. 
Its like the fun police are having a crack down and all those smiling and hugging will be targeted.

Noirua - you cant just go around shooting people, then again, if i started shooting there wouldnt be many left. Maybe you are onto something.
We could trim the gene pool down a little and remove some of the numpties.

But seriously, those who think the current system is going great guns and we should continue along the same path you need to get yourself checked!


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (6 October 2007)

The other thing that always make me laugh as well is that people bag drug use because they say its a killer but what about other things that can kill you.

Again, i am not saying all drugs are safe, each must be judged individually.

Take weed and E for example - i dont know how many people died due to the taking of these substances last year but i reckon you can say with high confidence that it was less than the following:

Motor Vehicle deaths
Plane crash deaths
Motorcycle deaths
Aids related deaths
Drownings
Murder by various methods
Death by electrocution
Farming related deaths
Death by Obesity - eating ones self to death - think about that!!!!!
Death by the Flu
Death by cigarettes
Death by Alcohol
Suicides
Death by Wife Nagging
And the list goes on

So, this being the case, are you saying you'd happily drive down the road in your car knowing that you have a higher chance of death than from smoking weed or popping E.

Where's the rationale, how can you say that knowing the above?

Its a mad old world we live in....................................


----------



## Whiskers (6 October 2007)

Hey Jessica

Did you miss my earlier post? I am curious how you monitor the effects of the recreational drugs you use?


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Take weed and E for example - i dont know how many people died due to the taking of these substances last year but i reckon you can say with high confidence that it was less than the following:
> 
> Motor Vehicle deaths
> Plane crash deaths
> ...




I only see any relevance in the other drug references (cigarettes and alcohol)  (the others are about winning your daily cash / bread etc - like - how else are you gonna buy the E if you like ) 

But suppose E and weed were more likely than alcohol to cause split personality / madness ?

PS next time your "source/ pusher" offers you "two for the price of one" - 
just pretend he's not talking about 2 pills for the price of one - 
he's asking if YOU'd like to try BEING two (where now you are one)  

"PS death by wife nagging" = Webster's dictionary gives .... state of being wherein a man's death occurs from an attack to the audio system - in past years it was usually alcohol related - in modern times, more likely to involve E and stuff" 

PS Whiskers - expect to hear you hollering in the crowd  in 30 minutes - lol
if you go to sleep m8, make sure you set the alarm for the last 15 minutes - sure to be a beauty !! 
PS rugby beats E any bludy day!!


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (6 October 2007)

Apologies Whiskers,

You ask - how you monitor the effects of the recreational drugs you use? 

I also only ever use, coke, little speed, E, mushrooms, weed, alcohol, i do not take any other drugs. This is more than sufficient for me and i am comfortable with them.

I made sure i had a good undertanding of what each drug did before i took it. Well, i know from experience now.

I always try to get them from a friend or reputable source. This is not always easy and you never know 100% for certain what you are getting. This is the biggest problem and the main reason why legalisation would be good.
I always taste it before i consume it, this helps but is by no means any guarantee you have what you think you have.

I almost always take recreational drugs in the company of others, so if anything ever was to happen i have support. Nothing ever has happened.

Okay - monitoring effects.

Moderation baby, moderation.

Its like drinking alcohol, you dont just go and drop several pills of E or do 10 lines of coke unless you are a complete idiot. Would you scull two full bottles of scotch or take twenty panadols, of course not, its all about moderation and common sense.

With moderation comes dose, dose differs from each person dependng on body size, how much you have eaten and so on. 

So, to answer your question, i may start off with half a pill, or 1 line of coke or a couple of puffs on a spliff. Moderation.........

You then monitor how you feel, its like getting drunk, if you know you are getting drunk then obviously you need to drink less or drink some water.

When you drop a pill of E you dont completely lose control of yourself, you are very in control, you know what is happening. Same if you do a line of coke or a little speed, you are in control.

Its when the dose is too big that you get into trouble. Solution is to only take a little at a time. If you take any of these drugs in a large dose you will be either dead or seriously ill.

The way i see it is it is supposed to be used to enhance the experience or situation, just like a beer in the pub. 
So the goal is not to get myself smashed or mangled its to take the edge off, to add the extra dimension.

99% of the time you would have no idea i had consumed anything.

Hope that helps to answer your question.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> 1. Moderation baby, moderation.
> 
> Its like drinking alcohol, you dont just go and drop several pills of E or do 10 lines of coke unless you are a complete idiot. Would you scull two full bottles of scotch or take twenty panadols, of course not, its all about moderation and common sense.
> 
> ...



thanks Jess(ica)  
I like the bit about being dead or ill lol
thanks for completely dispelling my worries 
can't wait to try some lol

PS some quotes on moderation ( then off to the rugby ) 

Mark Twain :-
"Water, taken in moderation, cannot hurt anybody."

Donald Trump :-
"A little more moderation would be good.  Of course, my life hasn't  exactly been one of moderation."



> Troilus and Cressida > Act IV, scene IV
> 
> [Enter PANDARUS and CRESSIDA]
> 
> ...



must try to work that one out later


----------



## cuttlefish (6 October 2007)

I've known various people to come unstuck on drugs. All started out with no intention of making drugs their life it was just recreational fun and a bit of excitement/adventure.  

Out of the drugs that they were using, speed featured pretty prominently as a life wrecker and one that people seem to find hard to keep under control so I'd be advising serious caution on that front to those out there using it recreationally.   Alcohol is also the other nasty one - and a lot of people that get off other drugs still end up with a very bad alcohol problem that potentially is more damaging than the rest put together. I think alcohol is greatly underrated for the damage it causes vs illegal drugs, and there's a lot of hypocrisy about the way society views and accepts alcohol (including binge drinking and mild alcoholism) vs other drugs.


----------



## Whiskers (6 October 2007)

Thanks Jessica

Thats good so far, but I guess the main thing I am curious about is how do you know when it is starting to adversly affect you health, eg heart, kidneys, cognitive function and memory?

For example I like my red wine and beer and odd spirits etc, and I can find research that shows, and GP's and cardiologists often agree, that small rates of beer and wine can be benifical for your health, then higher rates start to be detrimental.

Provided I have good cognitive function and memory, I can make reasonable decisions to go to my doc for blood tests etc to moniter my heart and kidney health etc. It's the cognitive function and memory that I am particularly curious to monitor. 

The old adage 'you don't know what you don't know' applies here if it starts to affect you and if as you suggest, do it with company, and the company is doing it too, they are probably not going to be in a good position to judge when your cognitive function and memory is starting to decline.

How can you be sure? Do you get a medical check up occassionally?

I know I am not dumd. I did my undergraduate a bit later than most and got one of those Golden Key International Awards. But coming from a traditional country background this is a bit foreign so I am just trying to get up to speed (no pun) as fast as I can. But, since then I have a bit of trouble keeping my ego in check and I want to maintain my 'brain power'. Thats the best high I have experienced so far.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2007)

thought for the day 
 The Secret To (a drug-free) You! :


----------



## theasxgorilla (6 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> thought for the day
> The Secret To (a drug-free) You! :




I personally think that deluding people with stuff like this about how perfect life is/can be is where many of these problems stem from...media portrayal over and over and over again of how life is for other people..._and you can be one too!_.  Better to tell people the stark reality...life is a series of ups and down...seasons if you like, or if you're an Elliott Waver you might say 5 steps forward 3 steps back (!) and when you are facing set-backs that is the time when one should most avoid drugs and alcohol.  Still, its usually the first place people look...why is that?  Human nature.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> I personally think that deluding people with stuff like this about how perfect life is/can be is where many of these problems stem from...media portrayal over and over and over again of how life is for other people..._and you can be one too!_.  Better to tell people the stark reality...life is a series of ups and down...seasons if you like, or if you're an Elliott Waver you might say 5 steps forward 3 steps back (!) and when you are facing set-backs that is the time when one should most avoid drugs and alcohol.  Still, its usually the first place people look...why is that?  Human nature.




gorilla,
maybe I could have said it better ...
a) option TM - meditation,  - the more you practice the better you get, faster you reach a state of peace with the world, healthier your mind, soul, heart, blood pressure, etc.  - to the point incidentally, where meditation has been able to cure people of cancer (documented) 

or 

b) option E - the more you use it the more "tolerant" you get (as in "immune")- plus the greater the risk of addiction etc etc . 

Culture based ? maybe call it the American "get-yourself-into-an-unhealthy-lifestyle-then-buy-a-drug" response to stress rather than the Buddhist response 

m8 , "Recreational use" is not (as I understand it anyway - as Jessica paints it anyway) in response to set-backs, it's about a way to get happy fast. 

A hypothetical - Suppose you and the missus go to a beach house every weekend, and you always pop a pill (E or whatever), -  then, one weekend you forget em -   I guess the test for whether you're addicted or not is if you still enjoy yourselves without drug assist (yes? just thinking aloud btw) .

Seems to me 

a) its a real mistake to try it once, but
b) doubley mistaken to take it a second time.

You are inviting the intrusion of the mental crutch IMO 
(to say nothing of supporting an industry with a lot of ugly "hangers-on" - and screwing up countries like Columbia in the process - not that they'd go broke if Jessica stopped her habit btw )


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (7 October 2007)

I guess at the end of the day, i'll keep doing what i do and you'll keep doing what you do.

Life rolls on........................we are both happy doing as we do.

The fun police will keep banging on about how people shouldn't do this and how they should do that and drug use will grow expodentially, nothing will change and nothing will be resolved.

What can you do hey?

JW


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

Jessica
hi- diddley-ho,  neighbourino



> Quote:
> Nedward 'Ned' Flanders is a fictional character on The Simpsons, voiced by Harry Shearer. ....often overly pompous in nature. Flanders, being amongst the most friendly and compassionate characters in the series (probably rivaled only by Lisa and Marge in terms of general good-heartedness)
> 
> PS hey Jessica - Are Marge and Lisa also wrong lol?




sounds like we'll just have to argree to dis-diddley-sagree.   
hey Jessica - you think You have problems !!?

my pro-diddley transcendental-diddley medi-diddley-tation argument will probably-diddley make George Pell and Fred Nile accuse me of *flirting with the diddley-devil!!   *

I think you are suggesting we all go back to being Homer Simpsons yes?
I guess just as long as we keep hearing our conscience - and by that I mean - Marge's voice (lol) in the background - the sense of reason etc.

What's the answer? *ahhh - the answer is doh-ing in the wind , grasshopper. *

btw - this just for a laugh ok?


> Ned suggests Homer use some time-release granules to get rid of the
> crabgrass.  Homer denies that he has any.  Ned points out a few patches,
> ``There.  There.  And there's a big patch over there.''
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

btw - completely off topic - but here is an example of Harry Shearer's website ( Ned Flander's voice) - bludy clever - 
http://www.harryshearer.com/
especially when you check out one of the stories... 

- eg this one, an up-to-date review of the Burmese situation  

http://www.harryshearer.com/news/huffington_post/#post0


> If a tree falls in Burma .. and the US media don'tcover it ...
> the story in Burma just gets worse .. etc


----------



## Julia (7 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> btw - completely off topic - but here is an example of Harry Shearer's website ( Ned Flander's voice) - bludy clever -



2020, You start an interesting and thoughtful thread which has generated some quite useful discussion and then you go and stick something completely irrelevant in amongst it!!!  

I don't want to be rude/impatient, irritable, but if you want to talk about the "Simpsons" how about starting a "Simpsons" thread.


----------



## moXJO (7 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> I guess at the end of the day, i'll keep doing what i do and you'll keep doing what you do.
> 
> Life rolls on........................we are both happy doing as we do.
> 
> ...




Good luck with your line of thinking. I’ve lost countless friends who suicide when they have developed schizophrenia (one tried to murder 3 people) and had an episode from our friendly marijuana. Lost 2 to heroin. And seen a good portion destroy their minds on e and ice. Everyone starts off thinking like you do. Popping pills doesn’t make you an expert.

I don’t care if you use it. But legalizing and creating a huge problem when we have enough to deal with already is plain stupid. Go take a brain scan after a few years you might be shocked to find what you see. 
Good luck with the side effects....


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

Julia said:


> 2020, You start an interesting and thoughtful thread which has generated some quite useful discussion and then you go and stick something completely irrelevant in amongst it!!!
> 
> I don't want to be rude/impatient, irritable, but if you want to talk about the "Simpsons" how about starting a "Simpsons" thread.



well it's a very fine thread connection to the thread, I concede ...
but here goes, I 'll attempt to point out it's not "completely irrelevant" as you say :-

a) Jessica says that the "Ned Flanders of the world" should back off and stop criticising "liberated" drug-use. They are a large part of "the problem" (as I read her posts) 
b) I find myself having to argue against that - especially as she's arguably branding you and I as Ned Flanders types - a closer study of Ned Flanders is then justified IMO
c) I point out that sure, Ned Flanders may be something of a do-gooder religious fanatic, (to the point of being sickening I think I read somewhere) , but that 
d) Marge and Lisa are also very straight on these matters
e) also (more importantly) Marge and Lisa arguably THINK fairly straight on these matters

e) sure, peripherally , I discover that Ned enjoys a beer - so he's not a complete wowser
and then
f) Homer is just a loose cannon - he epitomizes the "Joe Average" in us all - and is a massive danger to himself if he doesn't start to think things through (and stop just doh-ing in the wind)

In the end I conclude (I think  ) :-
1) we should all guard against the Homer Simpson in ourselves
2) we should all try to think more like Marge or Lisa

and finally
3) even a person who believes in TM (which I think is brilliant personally, the answer to drug-induced euphoria might be meditation- induced euphoria yes?) is going to get in trouble with the Ned Flanders of this world - or if not the Ned Flanders then the George Pells and Fred Niles of this world - because "as every church-going person knows" (sic) , when you meditate you expose yourself to invasion from Satan.  

so I still think it's not totally irrelevant 
..........

ok ok I change my plea to guilty ---  because I then discover that Harry Shearer has a brilliant website - taking up the cause of New Orleans, the incompetence of the domestic response to the flooding, the plight of the Burmese, etc - 

and lol I find I REALLY agree with this man behind the voice of Ned Flanders 

PPS Somewhere along the way, I think I offered to make a deal with Jessica - that I'll wind back on alcohol, then she should be prepared to wind back on "other" drugs.  - and if she has a couple less pills because of this thread, (and lol if I have a few less wines / beers whatever )  well then it won't have been in vain  

PS bludy good idea to start a Simpson's thread btw   - maybe on one of the existing comedy threads ??


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

back on thread.
The comparison "alcohol vs pot"
I recall a debate on TV as if it were yesterday , "that marijuana should be legalised" - back in the late 60's
- Don Chipp was Minister for Customs and Trade - (I think) - was arguing whip for the No's.
a) stick with the devil you know 
b) stay away from the other (pot)
c) possibly not much difference between them on social impact (I think this is where he was right) , and
d) possibly not much difference between them on mental health impact (I think this is where even he was wrong) 

Now as a young idealist at the time, I considered he was just an old fool.
But now that I'm the same age that he was then  lol - I reckon he was probably being "an old realist" (pragmatist?)

and - although it's taken me 40 years to arrive at this conclusion, I think I agree with him 

PS Fines can be minimal - but nevertheless, I think I believe that it shouldn't be readily available at Woolies or Dan Murphy's or even (easily available) at  the Chemist for that matter.  (IMO) 

The counter argument ... (well reasoned - maybe I'll keep an open mind for a few more days ) 
 Cowboy cop wants Drug War ended


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

at risk of being accused of irrelevance,  I post some Ginsberg poetry - as originally posted by Chops 
He also lost friends to drugs it seems. - back in the "tame" old days - before the really strong **** our kids can get now 

An advertisement for drugs this is not.!! 
in fact you'd have to assume a cetain element of regret, and admission of error,  surely 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Ginsberg
> Irwin Allen Ginsberg (IPA: [ˈgɪnzˌbɝg]) (June 3, 1926 – April 5, 1997) was an American poet. Ginsberg is best known for Howl (1956), a long poem about the self-destruction of his friends of the Beat Generation and what he saw as the destructive forces of materialism and conformity in the United States at the time.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=90969&highlight=ginsberg#post90969

 HOWL-GINSBERG  - 6 minutes!! - and even that doesn't have it all lol
(You'll get the ghist after the first coupla minutes) ... 

Btw, the following text is less than half - he's just getting warmed up here lol


> *I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by
> madness, starving hysterical naked,
> dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
> looking for an angry fix, *
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howl


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

Julia said:


> 2020, You start an interesting and thoughtful thread which has generated some quite useful discussion and then you go and stick something completely irrelevant in amongst it!!!
> 
> I don't want to be rude/impatient, irritable, but if you want to talk about the "Simpsons" how about starting a "Simpsons" thread.



hey Julia - 
maybe it would help if you thought of me as a #6 canine personality


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2007)

A great discussion on pros and cons. 

The fact is, good or bad, right or wrong, recreational drugs are endemic in our society. While recognizing the lives drugs have wasted, many people use without problems. The lady that could have been my sister in law, has used marijuana regularly her entire life, plus the occasional line or pill every now and again... and she is now sixty. She leads a normal life, holds down a responsible job blah blah blah.

I have no problem whatsoever with people who use drugs in this way. I do have a problem with people juiced up on something or other behaving like idiots in public... and that includes BOOZE.

I don't use myself, but went through the typical adolescent experimentation stage. Would I use today? There is one psychedelic I would try if the opportunity arose (this "drug" is legal in certain countries), but otherwise, no.

My Choice.

The question in my mind is this; and I think it is the main question around the whole debate: Should users of recreational drugs be made into criminals?

As greater that 50% of people have used at least once, it would seem ludicrous that greater than half of us are intrinsically criminals, including many coppers, lawyers and parliamentarians.

I say no, a user is not a criminal. Furthermore, I would like to see the criminal element removed from the supply of drugs. The preposterous "war on drugs" is not working and I think some lateral thinking is in order to achieve this. A regulated market for instance?

As we all know, prohibition was a freakin' disaster with alcohol, and it is a freakin' disaster with drugs as well. I not suggesting open slather legalization either.

They say insanity is doing the same things and expecting a different result. Well I say on that basis, the current regime is insane. Let's try something different.

Cheers


----------



## prawn_86 (7 October 2007)

i think that if 'manufactured' drugs such as LSD and E were made to specification by government/industry it would take the unkown element out of drug taking, hence probably resulting in more use, but having a much greater control on it.

Im not too sure about weed, as that is grown so i dont know how you could control its 'potency'. but with E for example you could have different strengths or whatever, just like you do with alcohol.

im not endorsing it, i just think it makes sense.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

just a sample of the many artists who could still be here
stating the obvious again ... 
Michael Hutchence
Andy Gibb 
(obviously no need to listen to the full youtubes) 
  Michael Hutchence- I'm just a man tribute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Gibb


> Andy Gibb travelled to England to fulfill the label's request for more songs, moving into brother Robin's mansion in Thame He turned to drinking heavily, and fell ill. On March 7, 1988, Andy was taken to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford complaining of stomach pains.
> 
> Gibb died three days later of myocarditis, a sudden inflammation of the heart muscle caused by a viral infection. *While his years of alcohol and cocaine abuse did not directly result in his death, they did aggravate the condition.*.....
> 
> The Bee Gees would dedicate their 1989 studio album One to Andy, featuring the ballad "Wish You Were Here", which the brothers claim was inadvertently written for him shortly after his death.



 Andy Gibb - Words & Music (1975)
 Wish you were here-by robin Gibb


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2007)

prawn_86 said:


> i think that if 'manufactured' drugs such as LSD and E were made to specification by government/industry it would take the unkown element out of drug taking, *hence probably resulting in more use,* but having a much greater control on it.



That's the big glitch in the whole legalization/decriminalization route, and the one most unacceptable to anyone who has children. If that concern could be addressed somehow, it might get some legs.

It would take a ballsy administration to give it a go to see if it worked or not, until then, it will be "no way Jose".

Another comment I'd make is, governments won't do what is best, they'll do what looks/sounds the best. "The war on drugs" is bullsh!t, but it sounds like they are trying to tackle the problem, especially to parents who franticly try to steer their children away from drugs (understandable, but who will happily give them alcohol at 14-17 years). 

No win.


----------



## prawn_86 (7 October 2007)

yep,

See my blog or the drought thread for my opinions on the current governing in Aus. No-one cares anymore.


----------



## Stan 101 (7 October 2007)

Check on the research reports from the Netherlands and their free thinking to drug use. It's not leagalised per se, but a blind eye is taken to most things that don't affect others. As of a couple of years ago the debate has now opened on the effects drugs are having on others.


cheers,


----------



## Whiskers (7 October 2007)

Hi Jessica

You had a hit today, didn't you!? :

That's why you have lost interest in continuing our discussion today. That's OK, tomorrow will do.



JeSSica WaBBit said:


> I guess at the end of the day, i'll keep doing what i do and you'll keep doing what you do.
> 
> Life rolls on........................we are both happy doing as we do.
> 
> ...




Remember earlier you were telling me how you monitor the effects. All the things you have said earlier, about small doses and doing it in company in case something goes wrong etc, is all good sense. 

You said:


> I made sure i had a good undertanding of what each drug did before i took it. Well, i know from experience now.




You seem to have a subjective benchmark that works for you. I'm just trying to establish some objective benchmarks to work off, that I can replicate, because I happen to believe that abolition won't work either.  

Many chemicals metabolise or pass through our system, but some don't and either progressively accumulate in our body or progessively damage our body with more exposure... like some diseases. This is the little, but important bit of how to monitor the effects that I am not clear about.

Take someone who suffers from dementia for example. They cannot make a subjective assessement of themself for dementia. They are usually the last to know. I mean I couldn't even 'subjectively' determine that I had a melanoma until it was nearly too late. High cholesterol and high blood pressure even many cancers are not detectable subjectively. We have to do some sort of objective tests. For example I've had a brain scan and neurological tests to check for disease or effects from a concussion, so I have an objective assessement that tells exactly what condition my brain and nervous system is in... and heart and eyesight etc.

Can you see what I mean here Jecssica? I'm interested in what objective tests you do or are considering to monitor the effects of your dosage rates.


----------



## theasxgorilla (7 October 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> Check on the research reports from the Netherlands and their free thinking to drug use. It's not leagalised per se, but a blind eye is taken to most things that don't affect others. As of a couple of years ago the debate has now opened on the effects drugs are having on others.




There is a similar region on Copenhagen and the general take is that while the drugs were contained to that region the rest of the city was relatively clean.  Crack downs apparently led to business moving elsewhere...often times to previously reputable and clean neighbourhoods.  FWIW nobody in that region wanted heroin.  It was all about the hash.  I don't think anyone wants heroin or these other ****ty drugs like meth or crack in their neighbourhood.  They're each a slippery slope to the same place.

Perhaps this is the answer, drugs is a business after all.  Crime related to drugs isn't just about addicts committing burglaries, its also about turf wars and such things.  Accepting that it exists and keeping it contained goes a long way toward a compromised solution IMO.

IF we at least took marijuana as a decriminalised drug then between tobacco, alcohol and dope we'd cover the absolute largest majority of rec-drug users and with the support of that majority it would be a lot easier to get behind the effort of the cops efforts to crack down on the dirty stuff.


----------



## Julia (7 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> hey Julia -
> maybe it would help if you thought of me as a #6 canine personality




Lol!  Good suggestion, 2020.  I'll give it a try.  But just so I attempt to have the last word in this exchange, in your post which precipitated my irritation you did in fact say "completely off topic......" .  
Now I shall have to give some serious thought to those rules about managing a No. 6 type canine!  How do you think you'd go with a command of "sit and stay"?


----------



## Lucky (7 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> just a sample of the many artists who could still be here
> stating the obvious again ...
> Michael Hutchence




good thing there wasn't a ban on belts...and btw wasn't it prescription drugs and alcohol that was supposedly found in Hutchence's hotel room?


----------



## Lucky (7 October 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> There is a similar region on Copenhagen and the general take is that while the drugs were contained to that region the rest of the city was relatively clean.  Crack downs apparently led to business moving elsewhere...often times to previously reputable and clean neighbourhoods.  FWIW nobody in that region wanted heroin.  It was all about the hash.  I don't think anyone wants heroin or these other ****ty drugs like meth or crack in their neighbourhood.  They're each a slippery slope to the same place.




Chirstiania is the place in Copenhagen.  Spent a day exploring, quite an interesting place.  They say you need to be wary of the place, but we wandered all over the place and had no hassles.  Seemed like a pretty cool community, almost commune like.  I do remember that photos or filming was not allowed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

Lucky said:


> good thing there wasn't a ban on belts...and btw wasn't it prescription drugs and alcohol that was supposedly found in Hutchence's hotel room?



quite likely lucky (I'm no expert)   - apologies if "stating the obvious" was in fact "obviously wrong" oops

likewise I deliberately included Andy Gibb - where there was a fair bit of alcohol involved. - who knows the relative contribution of coke and booze   (although I have my own suspicions - .. do you?)

PS I'm going to try to limit myself to 10% less alcohol per week (arithmetic progression)  for the next 10 weeks after reading this thread 

no make that 5 weeks 

PS maybe you could find some better examples of rock stars who have dropped out due to drugs.

PS I can tell you of one that I wouldn't post as an example of self -administered drug overdose - and that is Marilyn Monroe  - considering there was a room full of people present, and she was a risk to the nation's security etc etc .


----------



## Stan 101 (7 October 2007)

Thanks for that Gorilla, I remember in my 20s in amsterdam with a wodge of hash and a half caraffe of red munching on cheese in the park that is the home to a fine statue of Rembrant. It all seemed okay then. Haven't touched the stuff in years after seeing so many friends lose their minds or their lives.

2020, the Pearl was one entertainer to lose her life.. She had a terrific voice.. was that '70 or '71?


cheers,


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Now I shall have to give some serious thought to those rules about managing a No. 6 type canine!  How do you think you'd go with a command of "sit and stay"?



hey Julia -  one thing not to get any sleep, but I have to go to work soon ! 

PS lucky / Stan 101 ..
http://www.av1611.org/rockdead.html
doesn't sound like a particularly healthy profession !! 



> Average Age at Death of Included Rock Stars (1) *36.9 Years *
> Average Age at Death of Americans (2) 75.8 Years






> NOTE: This is EVERY death of a Rock star we've found. This is NOT a "RIGGED" list to produce FALSE numbers, but an HONEST observation.
> 
> (2) From "The World Almanac and Book of Facts", 1997, p.973
> 
> ...






> Steve	Clark	Def Leppard	91-01-08	30	Alcohol
> Rory	Gallagher		95-06-14	47	Alcohol
> Bill	Haley		81-02-09	56	Alcohol
> Ron 'Pigpen'	McKernan	Grateful Dead	73-03-08	27	Alcohol
> ...






> Phil	Lynott	Thin Lizzy	86-01-04	35	Drug Abuse
> GG	Allin		93-06-28	36	Drug overdose
> Mike	Bloomfield		81-02-15	37	Drug overdose
> Tommy	Bolin	Deep Purple	76-12-04	25	Drug overdose
> ...






> Johnny	Ace		54-12-24	25	Suicide
> Nick	Acland	Lush	96-10-17	30	Suicide
> Bobby	Bloom		74-02-28	28	Suicide
> Graham	Bond		74-05-08	36	Suicide
> ...



That many again with "heart attack"
many more with "medical", "stroke" etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

mind you, jessica is gonna tell me not to catch anymore flights 



> David	Box	Crickets	64-10-23	21	Airplane Crash
> Ronnie	Caldwell	Bar-Kays	67-12-10	19	Airplane crash
> Bill	Chase	Chase	74-08-12	39	Airplane crash
> Walter	Clark	Chase	74-08-12	25	Airplane crash
> ...




and that doesn't even include this bloke (Kyu Sakamoto) 
 NB "*look up whilst walking*" 
died inplanecrash - had 30 minutes "to scribble a shakey note to his wife" 

 Sukiyaki 上を向いて歩こう Kyu Sakamoto 坂本九
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=166347&highlight=stew#post166347


----------



## Prospector (8 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Should users of recreational drugs be made into criminals?




Like you, I have no problems with users. And not in itself should users be classified as criminals on the basis of their use of drugs.  But when users go on to commit crimes against others (our house has been broken into by a druggie looking for money) or their addiction is used as an excuse for other criminal behaviour expecting to be let off, then we have gone too far.  

Your list of deaths amongst performers/artists is interesting 2020; but since time began, people with amazing creativity have met early deaths; so this is not something new and related to the current drug/alcohol culture.  Maybe extreme creativity and longevity are incompatible?


----------



## Agentm (8 October 2007)

whiskers, i like your style..

i had a family member who smoked all her life, and the abuse there led to a neurosis and depression that she treated with alcohol.  which in turn led to the loss of her daughters by DHS, and the deep depression and continued alcohol abuse led to the tragic attempted suicide last year.  

She is now in a hostel, recovering from severe brain injuries, she died on boxing day after 2 long weeks in the ICU unit, but was revived, and spent a few further months there before being able to be taken off the ward.

I recommend any person who experiences or has a friend or family member that is using alcohol and other drugs to self medicate, to get the best possible help and assisitance that you can to them before things get out of control. in my case many years of painstaking calls all returned with abuse, could not turn the tide, i cant hide the fact i was the last person she called and i was unable to help her on that day, but having done numerous suicide calls on her and alerted the authorities to her mental illness, i could do nothing. best thing really i can see is that my mother didnt have to bury her daughter.. and my neices didnt have to bury their mother

The moment you use drugs and alcohol to alter your state of being, your already developing a pattern, that in some circumstances in some people becomes a pattern and behaviour that is impossible to overcome.

i have always seen her as the bravest and strongest soul on this plant, her current state of mind is peace, she has overcome some amazing hurdles. from communicating with her by her heartbeat when she was in a coma, to now only being able able to talk to her and communicate mainly one way (her head trauma is such that her damage to her left side disallows a lot of balance function and her ability to speak)   

long yards ahead still, 

there is always cause and effect to consider with drugs of any nature..

my story is no different to many others.. drugs and alcohol are killers.. living in a bubble and using with friends is now socially acceptable, and consequences are not noticed on initial use of the drugs used today.. i see it as a major issue, a major cause of social problems, suicide and it nice to see a few here are taking it seriously. 

because its deadly and serious!!


----------



## nioka (8 October 2007)

I'm in favour of letting anyone take whatever drugs they like. PROVIDING THEY HAND OVER THEIR DRIVING LICENCE, Providing also that they do not fly planes, prepare food for sale, work near anyone who relies on their activities etc. etc. I have had a full head on crash, on my side of the road where the other driver was drug affected, claims we hit on his side and bounced over to mine. Drugs alter the mind, that's not disputed. Anyone with a mind that needs altering must be a problem to themselves and others.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

(PS nioka - I actually take this seriously - just that I always thought the best way to tell young kids not to do wild things in trees - for instance- was to say " if you fall out of that tree and break your leg, don't come running to me" 

- just thought this concept could be applied to drugs as well ... 
adapted to late teenagers / young adults , this might read ...  "I know you're out of your tree, hope you didn't hurt yourself" sort of thing  )

My guess at the (first) eight stages of "a high" (??)
maybe the junkies amongst us can set me straight on the correct sequence.. 

1. you say you're not high but I can tell you're winging it

2. you reckon it's given you insomnia, ? ahh just don't lose any sleep over it

3. if you take those drugs and end up with violent mood swings - don't come crying to me

4. I realise it's just a temporary loss of bowel control - but well, **** happens. 

5. it's one thing to get high, but just don't go floating around here like you own the place

6. If you lose temporary control of your dribbling and tongue, don't go mouthing off at me 

7. it's not the lack of sleep creeping up on me that's the worry, it's the purple alligators 

8.  I tell you there's a risk you'll jump off a building with this stuff, and now you want to jump on me for telling you!


----------



## professor_frink (8 October 2007)

2020,

did you take a lot of drugs when you were younger?


----------



## Prospector (8 October 2007)

professor_frink said:


> 2020,
> 
> did you take a lot of drugs when you were younger?




You think?


----------



## Julia (8 October 2007)

Prospector said:


> Like you, I have no problems with users. And not in itself should users be classified as criminals on the basis of their use of drugs.  But when users go on to commit crimes against others (our house has been broken into by a druggie looking for money) or their addiction is used as an excuse for other criminal behaviour expecting to be let off, then we have gone too far.



So, Wayne and Prospector, if you have no problems with users, are you going to be happy to have a root canal performed by a drug using dentist, a piece of delicate surgery performed by a drug using surgeon, your tax returns done by a drug using accountant?

And are you going to be OK with your children using drugs as long as they don't burgle someone's home to get the money to pay for them?


----------



## nioka (8 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> (PS nioka - I actually take this seriously - just that I always thought the best way to tell young kids not to do wild things in trees - for instance- was to say " if you fall out of that tree and break your leg, don't come running to me"
> 
> - just thought this concept could be applied to drugs as well ...
> adapted to late teenagers / young adults , this might read ...  "I know you're out of your tree, hope you didn't hurt yourself" sort of thing  )




I couldn't give a damn what they do to themselves, I gave up worrying about that a long time ago. It is what they have done to me and to others because they think they are smart is what I care about. I can't relate that to falling out of a tree.I have fallen out of a tree in the past. I didn't fall onto someone else. Taking drugs, legal and illegal, affects someone else apart from the drug taker.


----------



## Prospector (8 October 2007)

Julia said:


> So, Wayne and Prospector, if you have no problems with users, are you going to be happy to have a root canal performed by a drug using dentist, a piece of delicate surgery performed by a drug using surgeon, your tax returns done by a drug using accountant?
> 
> And are you going to be OK with your children using drugs as long as they don't burgle someone's home to get the money to pay for them?




Hey Julia, it wouldnt surprise me if that hasnt already happened.

But again, if a surgeon was operating and he had consumed illicit drugs (or also abused prescribed drugs!) then that would constitute an offence.

Alcohol consumption is legal, yet its abuse is more of a problem than illicit drugs; however the law has defined a limit whereby some use is OK, but over that limit, it is an offence.  I really dont see why some things are legal, others are not. So for the surgeon, zero tolerance for both alcohol and drug use while they are operating; but if the surgeon wants to get drunk over the weekend, well, as long as he doesnt drive, that is legal and he is not committing a crime; but if he consumes any amount of illicit drug, well he has committed a crime.  That is the bit that doesnt really make sense - one thing is legal, the other is not.  

Of course I would not be happy if the kids started a lifestyle where drug consumption was the norm; but that is a values issue for me; but at the moment, again unless they drive, they can consume as much alcohol as they liked and not suffer any penalty; but if they consume an illicit drug then they end up with a police record etc.  And if they smoked, again something that is legal, then they are doing themselves a lot of harm but no-one can say anything to stop them.

The cynical part of me wonders if the Government could charge a tax on drug sales (like they do with alcohol and cigarettes) then drugs that are illicit now might someday become legal.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

> car on wrong side ....
> Drugs alter the mind, that's not disputed. Anyone with a mind that needs altering must be a problem to themselves and others.




nioka - I hear you, and completely agree with those two points.  ( but  then  I'm vulnerable when challenged on why I drink surely). 

However I disagree with you / or rather have a different tack from you, on the following ...



nioka said:


> I couldn't give a damn what they do to themselves, I gave up worrying about that a long time ago. It is what they have done to me and to others because they think they are smart is what I care about. I can't relate that to falling out of a tree.I have fallen out of a tree in the past. I didn't fall onto someone else. Taking drugs, legal and illegal, affects someone else apart from the drug taker.




If this thread stops one casual junkie from becoming a full-blown junkie, then it will have achieved something.

If us Ned Flanders ( as Jessica likes to label us) just let off steam, then it probably will achieve nothing. 

That's how youngsters think - at least it's how I used to think lol.  

(I'm sure you know the one about "why don't you leave home, quick , now, while you know everything )

when I was young I tried pot once - didn't inhale lol.

but oh boy I drank too much that's for certain. had the yardglass record in the Army etc - and I'm prepared to admit that I still do (i.e. drink too much - my record has probably been decimated ) - but Jessica has convinced me I should cut back lol. 

PS I'm just waiting for her (and / or anyone else) to commit to cutting back as well 

maybe you think I'm high because I even suggest such a thing lol.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

I'm tolerant of a "rare" drug use
keep it mild - every fifteen years - 
even those who won't tolerate drinking booze 
or Ned Flanders (who likes his beers) - 
but the problem path as I understand
that only a fool would follow on
we shouldn't tolerate ANY plan
where we grow even SLIGHTLY tolerant.


----------



## wayneL (8 October 2007)

Julia said:


> So, Wayne and Prospector, if you have no problems with users, are you going to be happy to have a root canal performed by a drug using dentist, a piece of delicate surgery performed by a drug using surgeon, your tax returns done by a drug using accountant?
> 
> And are you going to be OK with your children using drugs as long as they don't burgle someone's home to get the money to pay for them?



Julia,

All fair questions.

If we include alcohol as a recreational drug, then I have experienced each and every one of those instances. Thankfully, to my best knowledge they weren't under the influence while doing their job. 

We aways assume that drug takers are off their rocker 100% of the time. This is not so... but acknowledge that some drug users (including alcos, are off their face most of the time)

Look, I would be happy if drugs weren't in our society, and that again includes alcohol. But the fact is that they are and people will use them no matter what others may think. Some people will overuse and become addicts.

Missus and I thought we were overusing alcohol a couple of years ago and have gone on the wagon, we stopped cold turkey... and it was damned hard. I guess you could say we were slightly addicted.

Since then I have had the grand total of 1 beer and 1 glass of wine and my physiological respose is now totally different. I can now stop at one drink and not even want any more. Before, once I started it had to be at least 3 or 4 and possibly more. 

How many people are in our society now that are like I was? At a guess, somewhere between 25% and 50% of the whole population! Now that is a drug problem.

Both our parents have drinking problems they don't even know they have. Come 4 or 5 PM, out comes the booze... EVERY SINGLE DAY, and they drink until their speech slurs. They ARE addicted. We don't bother phoning them after about 6:30 because they are sure to be half pissed by then.

So in conclusion, I don't see the difference between alcohol and most drugs, except that one is legal and ENCOURAGED. It is advertised everywhere and the peer pressure to drink is massive.

Why is one a criminal, and the other a good ol' boy/girl?


----------



## Ageo (8 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Julia,
> 
> So in conclusion, I don't see the difference between alcohol and most drugs, except that one is legal and ENCOURAGED. It is advertised everywhere and the peer pressure to drink is massive.
> 
> Why is one a criminal, and the other a good ol' boy/girl?





Because in this country the government spends money in areas that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy. The truth is never on the main agenda, but votes and political influence is.

How many times have we seen something get banned for which is has no apprent effect? yet the government does it because the public "feels" its the right move.

In Italy there is no legal age for alcohol yet they dont have a problem of alcoholism. I find the more we take away personal responsibility from people the more we are prone to giving into peer pressure (because we cant make decisions on our own), parents are solely responsible for teaching their kids the effects alcohol and drugs have.


----------



## wayneL (8 October 2007)

Ageo said:


> Because in this country the government spends money in areas that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy. The truth is never on the main agenda, but votes and political influence is.
> 
> How many times have we seen something get banned for which is has no apprent effect? yet the government does it because the public "feels" its the right move.
> 
> In Italy there is no legal age for alcohol yet they dont have a problem of alcoholism. I find the more we take away personal responsibility from people the more we are prone to giving into peer pressure (because we cant make decisions on our own), parents are solely responsible for teaching their kids the effects alcohol and drugs have.




Yer darn tootin' Ageo. (that means agree 100%)


----------



## wayneL (8 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Yer darn tootin' Ageo. (that means agree 100%)




BTW, I really like the Italian approach to booze... very healthy IMO.


----------



## Ageo (8 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> BTW, I really like the Italian approach to booze... very healthy IMO.




Wayne my younger brother was there last year in Summer, he said the nightlcubs (where under age are allowed) were allowed to buy alcholic drinks, but because anyone can get them there isnt a big fuss about (oOoOo im gonna get pissed tonight because im under age) so they dont have a major problem. But i think its more to do of the fact that like food alcohol is promoted as being good for you in moderation (1 glass of wine a night will help the blood etc..).

All i know is the more laws you put in and take away freedom/responsibility the more handicaped people become in their decision making process.


----------



## misterS (8 October 2007)

One of the issues is the confusion generated by having legal and illegal drugs, where the justification for the status of each is hard to discern if looked at simply in terms of personal harm.  For instance, leaving aside constipation and addiction symptoms (withdrawal), heroin is much less harmful than alcohol. 

You could take pure heroin for 50 years without destroying your liver, kidneys, heart or brain - but it would have to be unadulterated, not 10% heroin and 90% kitty-litter, glucose, or whatever else it is cut with.

Becoming intoxicated with pure alcohol every day would see you a physical and mental wreck. 

Llikewise, cigarettes kill more people than all other drugs combined, and yet they remain legal - for the moment.

And yet such is the hysteria that heroin cannot even be used for its medicinal properties in the terminally ill - despite its superior properties compared to morphine or pethedine (a synthetic opiate).  Ironically. methadone is a more addictive sythetic opiate than heroin and heroin was originally used to ween people off morphine, until it became apparent that this "diacetyl morphine" weened them off morphine alright...

However, drug laws aren't entirely about which should be legal based on relative personal harm at all.  It is probably a "me generation" thing to think that it is.  It is as much if not more about society demanding that people work and be productive.  Remember tea ladies, and that cup of coffee we all need in the morning?  At the same time, the hard drugs are generally ones where the dosage itself is small and so the immediate harm risks from accidental overdose are greater.  

The Opium Wars are a good example of the social effect of widespread opiate abuse - nodding off in opium dens is more enjoyable than working - who would have guessed?  Entering a dream-like and euphoric state on demand must be a hard habit to break, withdrawal symptoms aside. 

Taking drugs and drinking alcohol is enjoyable, soothing and relaxing (or invigorating) and that is why people continue to do it.

You could buy drinks containing rum, metho and opium at the bar in the early Australian goldfields - that would have a bit of a charge wouldn't it?  Many cough medicines used to contain heroin as their principle ingredient, as codeine linctus still contains the heroin precursor, codeine.

However, the argument for legalising or decriminalising all or selected drugs is attractive in the sense that it rationalises the personal harm aspect of drugs by removing some contradictions.  

Society could move to the view that all drug-taking is self-indulgent and anti-social, a bit similar to the way smoking has shifted from being portrayed as "the international passport to smoking pleasure" for beautiful people, to a filthy, deadly, habit that smelly, loser, addicts must now do out in the street.

This would at least put drug-taking generally into some perspective, instead of being clouded in ignorance, delusion and hypocrisy, as it is currently.

But once again it comes back to the point about the general good of society, and society wants people to be competent to do whatever the hell they are doing - all the time, if possible, and not have any serious proportion of the population sit just around stoned to the eyeballs all the time.  National security anyone? The economy? Pass the pipe.

We also want not to pay the cost of drug abuse of all kinds, and this offends our moral sense of taking responsibility for you own acts (especially other people and their acts!) - especially un-wise and voluntary acts committed in search of a good time - a bit like that old goat who keeps sailing off and turning his boat upside down and wanting to be rescued.

We also want to avoid increasing the number of people having adverse mental reactions to strong drugs.  Prescribed sedatives and so on aren't too bad, despite the powerful addictions they generate because the addicts are invisible.  For the addicts themselves it is often a personal nightmare. The prescription of amphetamines to so many "overactive" children is a disgrace.   Outside the absolutely uncontrollable children for whom it may be appropriate, the prescription of psycho-active drugs to help restless and naughty kids concentrate is appalling.  Everyone concentrates better with a bit of speed (Ritalin). Thank heavens Steve Irwin grew up before it became the fashion.

That said, there is too much money in illicit drugs for it to be decriminalised. What about the distorting effects on the economy if this huge money-spinner crashed to the ground? Governments wouldn't be generating that money in their at cost-recovery prices, selling dope from drab, nondescript buildings.

The world economy, and especially the luxury goods market would be adversely effected, and we can't have that...

Luckily, children today tend to be a bit better informed and see that an integrated personality and sport and learning and health and "doing good" are worthwhile things to aspire to, or be involved in and these are interfered with by drug use - whatever their legal status.  

I'm full of admiration for the younger generation, who seem much more grown up and mature in their outlook than mine was, but maybe that's just a pampered middle-class observation 

I'll stop there, it's too complicated to solve.  But lastly, on the alcohol and Italians - I read this is mainly a cultural thing because they drink wine with food and family and frown on drunkeness, unlike their neighbours, the French, who, although they also drink wine with food, have a massive alcoholism problem.
cheers


----------



## Julia (8 October 2007)

Wayne and Prospector,

Thanks for responses to my question.  You have both argued from a similar base and I accept the logic on the surface.

So what would you have governments do?
Do you advocate all narcotics, (e.g. heroin plus synthetic narcotics like pethidine, codeine  methadone etc, ) being made legal and able to be purchased over the counter along with the wine cask?  Along with cocaine, MDMA, all other forms of stimulants?

Would the legal age to purchase these compounds be the same as for alcohol?  Would the parents who now buy their kids thousands of dollars worth of alcohol (this happened recently at Stradbroke Qld) be able to buy their kids unlimited quantities of whatever drug(s) they currently were attracted to?

Such sales would, I imagine, be taxable and therefore would represent a hugely increased revenue base for government.  What an irresistible proposition if we accept that alcohol sales exist purely to provide an additional source of taxation. 

I'm just seeking some clarification of your argument where you say that if alcohol is legal then there seems no reason for other mind altering substances to also be legal.

Putting aside my personal loathing of hard drugs which I acknowledge is as a result of my very personal experience of loving someone who died as a result of their use, I'm interested to know how exactly you would envisage a society where all drugs are considered equal.


----------



## Lucky (8 October 2007)

Julia said:


> So, Wayne and Prospector, if you have no problems with users, are you going to be happy to have a root canal performed by a drug using dentist, a piece of delicate surgery performed by a drug using surgeon, your tax returns done by a drug using accountant?
> 
> And are you going to be OK with your children using drugs as long as they don't burgle someone's home to get the money to pay for them?




As long as the dentist administers his drugs to me before I have a root canal I'll have no problem at all. 

Do you seriously think that there aren't dentists, surgeons or accountants that use drugs?  And why those professions?  What about truck drivers, or say paramedics, or a land scape gardener?

Things seem very black and white in your world Julia.  As I said not all drug users are the same, nor are all drugs, but I get the feeling that everyone is tarred with the same brush in your book.   Why is that?

Kids + drugs = burglary??? 

I don't see the connection, or is that just jumping to conclusions?  Or maybe it's just me.  So what's the difference if an underage kid swipes alcohol from the parents stash, or better yet they take it from a friend's parents alcohol cabinet?  Is that theft?  Is this ok?    

Have you ever thought that maybe some of the great ideas, inventions, creative works, art, literature, music, etc., may have come from folk that may been under the influence?

And what business is it of yours if someone in the privacy of their own home/place/wherever decides to take whatever they want and it doesn't harm or interfere with another persons freedom, rights or being?

Maybe instead of a place of fear, people are given the knowledge and education to make up their own minds.  Give people the facts about drugs, rather than typical moralistic, fear based hypocrisy driven campaigns that paint all users the same(wouldn't it be ironic if the agencies that came up with those campaigns had a couple of users in their ranks?  don't ya think?)


----------



## Julia (8 October 2007)

misterS said:


> You could take pure heroin for 50 years without destroying your liver, kidneys, heart or brain - but it would have to be unadulterated, not 10% heroin and 90% kitty-litter, glucose, or whatever else it is cut with.
> 
> cheers



Mister S

Interesting observation about the pure heroin.  What's the source of that statement?


----------



## Ageo (8 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Mister S
> 
> Interesting observation about the pure heroin.  What's the source of that statement?




probably personal experience


----------



## Whiskers (8 October 2007)

misterS said:


> One of the issues is the confusion generated by having legal and illegal drugs, where the justification for the status of each is hard to discern if looked at simply in terms of personal harm...
> 
> However, the argument for legalising or decriminalising all or selected drugs is attractive in the sense that it rationalises the personal harm aspect of drugs by removing some contradictions.
> 
> ...




I think you are getting close to where I think the 'drugs' issue is heading, misterS.

As you alluded to with smoking, I think essentially market forces in the health and insurance industries will dictate how things pan out in the future. I just don't see legislation alone solving the problem. Whether the use of drugs is considered legal or illegal will to some extent become a moot point. What I see becoming more common is that personal consequences for taking ALL drugs will increase.

We already see doctors and hospitals either refusing to treat smokers for tobacco related conditions or perpetually putting them at the end of the line, unless they can demonstrate that they have given up the habit.

Insurance companies now discriminate against smokers in terms of premiums so that non smokers aren't picking up the higher cost of smokers health care.

While tobacco and alcohol are legally availabe ,inapproperiate use of them does lead to criminal behaviour, eg driving under the influence and endangering the health of others by smoking in the company of children or smoking in desegnated smoke free areas.

All drug use I feel will start to come under similar financial burden or criminal consequences, because with the right or choice to do drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) comes responsibility (to pay) for your actions. The use of drugs may not be effectively legally prohibited, but people who indulge in drug use will face increasing responsibility for their use of drugs such as by non drug users automatically given priority for free health services, and in reduced costs of health, vehicle and home insurance etc. 

Courts can now impose criminal penaltities for driving under the influence of a drug. I think employment conditions will eventually include declarations about drug use and possibly even limiting the jobs that drug users can hold. It is not incomprehensible that even social security payments may eventually be reduced or refused to drug users along the line that is being introduced in the aboriginal communities.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

Whiskers said:


> We already see doctors and hospitals either refusing to treat smokers for tobacco related conditions or perpetually putting them at the end of the line, unless they can demonstrate that they have given up the habit.
> 
> Insurance companies now discriminate against smokers in terms of premiums so that non smokers aren't picking up the higher cost of smokers health care.



great posts there MisterS and Whiskers.
gee, but how I hate tobacco companies - (and smokers - but in that order).
Tobacco companies should be closed down - end of story. (imo)

like a story I heard recently.  Some fellow ( a heavy smoker) suddenly felt pain in one side - figured he was probably having a (mild) heart attack - gently made his way down to the lounge where his wife was - asked her to pass his cigarettes - calmly had a cigarette - then 

phew......   phew ....  gently stubbed it out 
turned to his wife and asked her to call an ambulance... 
AN AMBULANCE!!!! she said - WHY!! 
because dear, I've just had a heart attack.
panic - calls ambulance etc - 

goes to the hospital - triage nurse smells his breath - asks him "do you smoke?" 
- "nope" - 
she sniffs again  " you sure !!?"  - 

" ah I used to but 

......I gave up "

"when ?" she asks 
"ahh about 10 minutes ago " 

(sad that people have such a demanding monkey on their back)


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

Likewise lol - we had a school reunion a few years back - was bludy fantastic except lol
 all the smokers reunited with all the smokers (outside)
and all the non-smokers reunited with all the non-smokers (inside) 

(PS any cross-mingling was always at the instigation of the non-smokers - 
 smokers would prefer to ignore someone - for the duration of the event - who might have been their best mate at school lol - 
but if it meant having to go inside, and break the chain of their chain-smoking, - you've gotta be kidding lol - "stuff em"  - they'd meet again "some other day " lol - like maybe the other side of "the big mystery".


----------



## misterS (8 October 2007)

Hi Julia, 

It is actually not controversial, you just don't see many direct references to it in mainstream media, given its iconic status as the pinnacle of evil drugs.

However, even this basic medical fact is largely unknown by many people who nonetheless hold very strong views about it.

All of the available research agrees that, so far as harm is concerned, heroin is likely to cause some nausea and possibly severe constipation and that is all again leaving aside the no doubt unpleasant and lengthy withdrawal phase.

In the words of a 1965 New York study by Dr Richard Brotman: "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body." "  

It is certainly highly addictive and that is probably its main notoriety.  The nexus between addiction and high illicit cost naturally generates a lot of crime, which adds to its sensational reputation.

Mentioning this incontrovertible fact can easily be misconstrued as meaning you must therefore support its non-medical use - which I do not. 

It is mainly the adulterants and viruses and bacteria on the skin or injected through unhygenic practices and needle sharing that cause related health problems and the debasement and life of crime many are drawn into to fund their habit.

The overdoses are primarily through un-controlled strength variations in the  product because of the path to market.  Aside from that, even glucose powder, a common cutting agent, introduced intravenously, is quite bad for you, not to mention whatever other powdered crud that gets mixed with it because of a similar appearance.

It isn't entirely at the heart of the issue, just wanted to introduce an unpopular fact that isn't often mentioned.  For obvious reasons, misapprehensions about its basic pharmacutical properties are not corrected when heard by people who know this fact, but who are violently opposed to it, and so it tends not to get repeated much.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

PS sad story this one ..  when I was a student I went to the Uni rowing club - a fellow - (an ex-student who had put on a bit of fat, but was a heavy smoker) had just had a go on the ergometer (rowing machine with a flywheel) - really crazy to do such an intense workout - had a heart attack just as I got there - massive! unconscious, black in the face etc .
Anyway there was oxygen handy - I'd just finished first aid course - I ended up giving him external cardial massage all the way into the hospital in the back of the ambulance - I watched as he was given defibrillating shocks etc - sheesh - then they cut his chest open and physically massaged his heart - all to no avail -   

... he had 5 kids under 10 years 

(Gee I hate cigarettes) !!

(and MisterS - you'd agree I trust - in fact I think someone here already mentioned - the relative ease for an ambulanceman to attend to an overdose of heroin - one injection and "right as rain" 

compared to an alcohol related incident - where a drunk can be difficult for hours until that alcohol oxidises etc - nothing the ambos can do but duck his punches for a few hours )


----------



## Whiskers (9 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> (Gee I hate cigarettes) !!




Me too, 2020

I think all the men in my family including uncles, cousins, and a couple of women smoked at least for awhile. I don't know why, but I could never stand the stuff and never smoked. 

Even alcohol, when I was a teen, once I had my fill it stopped tasting nice and cobsequently I rarely got stoned out of my mind unlike everyone around me. Even now I can go months without a drink and it doesn't bother me. 

Actually, I have started sipping a bit of red more often now to avoid drinking so much pepsi and coke.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Me too, 2020
> 
> I think all the men in my family including uncles, cousins, and a couple of women smoked at least for awhile. I don't know why, but I could never stand the stuff and never smoked.
> 
> ...



lol - to avoid pepsi and cocacola I assume - lol - wise choice m8

PS gotta feelin these problems will still be around tomorrow  - adios amigos






PS in my family it was mainly the women who smoked  
- cept my dad who died from lung cancer - a mixture of melanoma plus (undoubtedly) smoking didn't help  - when I was in about kindergarten or first year


----------



## misterS (9 October 2007)

Hi Whiskas,

Yes I think you're quite right about that... good old market forces.

On the argument about illicit drugs, at the same time as heroin having this gruesome reputation, the propensity can then become to then to talk about the relative physical harmlessness of heroin as though it has some application to other illicit drugs - which it does not.  

It does however, have some relevance when thinking about the wisdom of using our two favourite licit drugs - with lovely bright-lit shops in every shopping centre and robust sportsmen and Mum and Dad and everyone else it seems, socking it down like water and the booze-culture perpetuating itself at every turn.

It is easier to develop the attitude that there is not much wrong with a bit of illicit drug-taking when you compare it to very wide-spread alcohol dependency - or even frequent use, if you don't see it as dependency.  It is really only in comparsion to not taking drugs that it may seem less defensible.   

Mind you, on days when you wake up and find yourself, for no tangible reason, flying forlornly through the universe on a spinning ball of mud, along with apparently the only other sentient creatures in that entire universe, cognisant of you own inevitable death, and that of everyone else who will ever live, it is entirely understandable that you might occasionally, if not more often, take comfort from the hopeless solidarity in the face of the human condition that drinking and so on can provide.

Incidentally, I recognise that blithely referring to "addiction" as though it is some minor inconvenience, is not attributing it sufficient gravity when the effects on personality can be profound.

Think I'll scuttle back to some less troubling thread now.

cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

I'll just throw this one in b4 I retire.

WHAT A GREAT IDEA Kava would be for the aborigines !!

and for the rest of us maybe ??

(yet it was recently banned in NT by the Feds - (Brough and co)   - presumably harder to collect the tax??)

PS It's about time Jesus came back and went into "the temple" and upended the tax-collectors' tables again (IMHO) - you listnin JC!!? 

Some expert said on AM that kava has almost none of the harmful effects of alcoho . 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/03/2022735.htm


> NT kava ban 'not to blame' for alcohol problems
> Posted Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:32pm AEST
> 
> Map: Nhulunbuy 0880
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/24/2013781.htm


> NT kava retailer bills Govt for $582,000
> Posted Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:40am AEST
> 
> *A Northern Territory kava retailer has sent the Federal Government a bill for $582,000 and a kava wholesaler is planning to follow suit, in response to a Commonwealth kava ban.*
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/15/2006088.htm

someone asked me back there had I used many drugs 
well I've had a few gallons of this stuff .



> Brough to ban kava in Indigenous communities
> Posted Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:06pm AEST
> 
> *Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough says kava will be outlawed in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory by the end of the week.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

recipe for kava
one virgin , one large salad bowl 
a handfull of kava root
virgin chews kava, "places" the root remains and "liquid dust" in a bowl  
adds water to taste
one handfull of root and large bowl serves about eight (times three coconut shellfuls each). 

after that you can use a bucket - and two virgins.
meanwhile virgin(s)  sleeps off the effects of the cooking ceremony (sweating over a hot stove etc) while the party goes on. 

one shell = your tongue goes a bit numb
two shells = your throat goes a bit numb 
three shells = your brain goes a bit numb 

Here's a NT gov website .....



> http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/health_promotion/bushbook/volume2/chap1/kava.htm Kava comes from the root of the pepper plant Piper methysticum. It is used in traditional ceremonies and for social occasions in many of the Pacific Islands. Kava is valued for its medicinal properties and is sold as a herbal preparation or medicine in many countries.
> 
> In the NT, Aboriginal people make a kava drink by mixing the dry, powdered root with water. Kava resin, suspended in water, contains active chemicals known as kava lactones. The strength of kava varies greatly and depends on the plant from which it is prepared and how it is prepared.
> 
> When kava is drunk, the active chemicals are absorbed through the stomach into the bloodstream and pass quickly to the brain. Kava acts as sedative and soporific (sleep inducing). It also induces generalised muscle relaxation (Alexander et al 1987:6). Depending on the strength of the kava mixture, it can have a psychoactive effect. While kava does not contain alcohol, people talk about getting 'drunk' on kava. A person is thought to be drunk on kava if he or she cannot walk or talk properly, is very friendly, dizzy, sleepy or is acting 'funny' (Watson et al 1988:66).






> There is more to learn about the short and long-term health effects of drinking kava and more research is being done.
> 
> Short-term effects of drinking kava
> In small to moderate amounts, kava causes:
> ...




oops looks like there are some after effects after all 
still I'd like to see the origin of that website - and a true and fair comparison with the alternatives of  - alcohol (and petrol sniffing etc) 

http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/health_promotion/bushbook/volume2/chap1/kava.htm



> Kava and sudden death
> There have been a number of sudden deaths of young, adult men during heavy exercise after they had drunk large amounts of kava. *These young men had diseased hearts. We know that smoking, alcohol, high blood pressure, diabetes, lack of exercise, excessive weight and poor nutrition all contribute to cardiovascular disease. It is also known that unaccustomed exercise puts a strain on a diseased heart, increasing the risk of sudden death. Dehydration from heavy sweating and not drinking water can also be dangerous. *
> 
> Some young Aboriginal people have cardiovascular disease without knowing it. *Some of these young people drink alcohol heavily and smoke and so are already at risk of further damaging their hearts. Drinking kava may add to this risk.*



As above - I find that last sentence a case for banning alcohol and smoking , as much as it is for banning kava !!  ??


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

PS 


> Withdrawal
> *There have not been any documented reports of withdrawal symptoms *when heavy kava drinkers stop drinking kava. However, people who stop using should be monitored initially to see if any health problems emerge and need attention



wow - brilliant Mr Brough !!!
gotta be a good reason to ban it 
and encourage alcoholism instead 
sheesh!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

yep - good one mister Brough 
PS hope you enjoy your time in opposition 



> ..unlike alcohol, *kava was said to be good for 'keeping relationships strong'. .. it was known as a 'family drink'. *   ......... helped *people talk about issues*. .......could drink kava socially *without the disruptive effects *associated with alcohol misuse.  etc





> History of use
> Kava was first introduced into Eastern Arnhem Land in 1981 after some community members visited Fiji. They thought it might be beneficial for Aboriginal people and stop them from drinking alcohol. It did not take long before kava use spread. By 1986, people in eight Top End communities were drinking kava when it was available. Most communities in the NT have chosen not to allow kava drinking and therefore its use is confined to Arnhem Land.
> 
> How many people drink kava?
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

while I think of it, this website is canadian - about alcohol - (alchohol  whatever - they spell it either way in the first two sentences)  and teenagers 


> http://www.news-medical.net/?id=731
> *Teenagers being bombarded by alchohol advertising *
> Published: Wednesday, 21-Apr-2004
> 
> ...





> *"This dramatic increase in alcohol ads seen by our children in 2002 suggests the problem got worse," *said Jim O'Hara, executive director of the Center. "While a step in the right direction, the industry's new marketing codes lag far behind its aggressive marketing practices."
> 
> Key findings from the study include:
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (9 October 2007)

misterS said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> It is actually not controversial, you just don't see many direct references to it in mainstream media, given its iconic status as the pinnacle of evil drugs.
> 
> ...



Hi Mister S

Thank you.  It might surprise some people reading this thread to know that I agree about pure opiates not in themselves being a cause of physiological or psychological dysfunction.

In my original post on this thread, I referred to the addicted doctor.  Whilst he was just taking an opiate, carefully titrated to simply avoid going into withdrawal, there was no problem.  But mixed with other drugs, particularly stimulants (Brampton Cocktail, anyone?) and alcohol, the descent into drug induced psychosis was rapid.

The point I've been trying to make is that it's almost impossible for a drug user to know when that recreational use is going to turn into an addiction.
And I can simply never describe the ugliness of addiction.

Lucky, no I don't see most things as black and white at all.  I have readily admitted that my views about drugs are undoubtedly coloured by my personal experience of losing someone I loved to drugs.  That doesn't make that experience any less relevant to this discussion.  All of you who are so absolutely sure you can use drugs without risk could do worse than consider an alternative point of view.  That's all I'm offering.

And "what business is it of mine what people do in the privacy of their own home".  None.  As long as the effects of that behaviour do not subsequently affect me or any other innocent person on the road or anywhere else.
Nioka has already made this point.

Whiskers and Mister S - you've both made a lot of sense.  Thanks.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (16 October 2007)

Whiskers - i did lose interest just because its one of those arguments that everyone has their own opinion and we could argue back and forth but i dont see any changes being made.
Guess i have become apathetic, but i'm like that, i don't even bother voting anymore much for the same reason, just dont feel it matters either way who gets in, not much will change.

But, to your question...............what objective tests do i do to monitor the effects of my dose rates?

Hmmmmm, good question Whiskers.

This is how i see it - drug use carries with it risk and with that risk comes damage to the body. This damage will be to different parts of the body and will depend on the dose. However, everything in life damages the body to a degree so my view is that this is all part of living life.

Like i have said, i am not out to smash myself senseless, this is not what most recreational drug users do, i am just out to enjoy myself. Just like having a beer at the pub.

I think it is worth pointing out that drug addicts and recreational drug users are two different groups of people as far as i am concerned. In my opinion i feel that a recreational drug user is no more likely to become a drug addict than say people who drink alcohol and become alcoholics. Of course with abuse it can happen but in my experience most recreational drug users are not abusing substances. 
I say all this because i think this is the biggest problem, many people can not seperate the issue of drug addict and rec. user. Further to this, it depends on what drugs the rec. user is using, this is also important to clarify as far as i am concerned.

I do not ever get check ups at the Doctors or ever have any tests so scientifically i can not be sure how i am travellling. It is possible that i am slowly declining and dont even know it but i am pretty certain i am in good health. Well reasonable anyway.

How do i know i am in reasonable health. Well, i have not had a sick day off work for over two years, i feel great and my appearance seems to be good.

As for my insides, well, who knows but i would think i would be no better or worse than the average guy on the street. I could be wrong?

The noggin seems to be functioning okley didily doodily because i have a very good job and have it together in that department. I could lose more than half my brain and still whip **** on some of the drips we have in our society.

I am a non smoker which helps, unless the occasional spliff is considered smoking. I'd say someone who drives to work in the city each day would suck in way more nasties into their lungs than me.

Whiskers, thats very thorough of you to have yourself checked. I am actually impressed.

I am unfortunately not as thorough as you about those sorts of things, must come back to my apathy. Maybe when they tell me someday that i have 7 days to live i will wish i had those regular check ups. But, thats just me, i cruise through life and its not in my personality to change.

I accept that some day i will die, hey, its going to get us all some day. Whether i die at 40 or 90 that remains to be seen but i'd say i've got a few more years in me yet. Lets just say, i look a damn sight better than every smoker i work with.

I'll go out on a limb and say 10,000 more people will die in Australia in the coming year from obesity related illness than than do from, E, Cocaine and Weed. 
Have you seen the size of people when you go to shopping centres, absolutely massive. They aint going to make 90 thats for sure. 

So in summary - i accept some damage from recreational drugs on my body, however i dont beleive this damage is very significant. I can not prove this to you other to tell you i feel great!
To me, its a risk assessment and the risk is very very low as far as i am concerned.
Not sure what else to say except your are correct to say i dont know exactly what these substances are doing to my body. This also forms part of my arguement for the government issuing the drugs so i know what i am buying is exactly what it is supposed to be. 

This being the case, the problems is - Myself and others will keep using regardless of whether it is pure, legal or otherwise. This is proven historically, so why would you persist with the same laws?
Especially while usage grows................i'll never understand.

Lets face it, if you accept that 50% of Aussies have used recreational drugs then we are fooling ourselves with the system we currently have. I can only see usage increasing so why not at least provide clean MDMA (E), Coke and Weed so that young kids dont go taking something that is not what it is supposed to be.

I could bang on but i'm sure you see what i am trying to say, its a tricky one and i dont see an easy solution but at least we should try some other things.

JW


----------



## Sean K (16 October 2007)

LOL 



> *Cousins charged with possessing prohibited drug*
> October 16, 2007 - 8:01PM
> 
> AFL star Ben Cousins has been charged with possessing a prohibited drug, WA police said tonight.
> ...


----------



## Whiskers (17 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Whiskers - i did lose interest just because its one of those arguments that everyone has their own opinion and we could argue back and forth but i dont see any changes being made.
> Guess i have become apathetic, but i'm like that...




It's good to see you're back, Jessica. 

I'm a realist. I accept that people have always used drugs and potions and chemicals of all sorts. That is not going to stop just because someone makes some laws. I know people who smoked all their life and lived to a ripe old age and similarly with some people who like a little grog every day.

On the other hand I have seen severe reactions in my extended family from the most innocuous substances like preservatives in food and dyes in imported clothes that cause allergic reactions. 

I can tell you are not out to smash myself senseless. You come across as a bright well balanced person with a healthy bit of a sense of humour.



> The noggin seems to be functioning okley didily doodily because i have a very good job and have it together in that department. I could lose more than half my brain and still whip **** on some of the drips we have in our society.




This is what I am a bit concerned about, because it comes as you say with the personality.



> I do not ever get check ups at the Doctors or ever have any tests so scientifically i can not be sure how i am travellling. It is possible that i am slowly declining and dont even know it but i am pretty certain i am in good health. Well reasonable anyway.




It's good that you like company and seem to associate well, but sometimes your best friends can't or won't tell you what you really need to know. I know my mates didn't for me.



> I could bang on but i'm sure you see what i am trying to say, its a tricky one and i dont see an easy solution but at least we should try some other things.
> 
> JW




That's the attitude, Jessica. As I said above some people get severe reactions from the most innocuous substances and others can appear to be doing all the wrong things and thrive. A lot gets down to your own individual genes and physiology, to see what you can and can't tolerate. 

You sound a bit like my late father (and me when I was younger too). He was complacent about his health and getting check-ups until he started to get noticeably ill from a stomach cancer. Conversely a brothers partner just felt a bit off, and she got a check-up and looks she will survive a similar type of cancer, just because she got regular check-ups. 

Can I ask you as a friend, would you organise to get a full medical check up sometime soon? I promise you it will pay enormous dividends later in life to find a good GP now that you can get along with. 

You don't have to tell him/her about drugs if you don't want to, but in your case if you found the right GP you would be able to discuss the issues in full confidence. 

It may well be that your doseage is not doing much harm. But in the event that you inadvertantly had a problem one day, wouldn't it be better if you saw your own GP that you trusted, than land in a casualty department and get put through the ringer.

Keep in touch won't you, cos we like your wit and knowledge and humour around here.

P.s. So long as you don't find fault with my grammar and spelling.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Guess i have become apathetic, but i'm like that, i don't even bother voting anymore much for the same reason, just dont feel it matters either way who gets in, not much will change.
> JW




Yes i feel the same way.Didn`t vote for ten years and now the system has found me i still don`t vote.Empty boxes and i`m sure there are a few thousand others that feel powerless to change anything with their vote.



> I think it is worth pointing out that *drug addicts and recreational **drug users are two different groups *of people as far as i am concerned. In my opinion i feel that a recreational drug user is no more likely to become a drug addict than say people who drink alcohol and become alcoholics. Of course with abuse it can happen but in my experience most recreational drug users are not abusing substances.




This is one of the problems.Who are going to be addicts and who are not?Alcohol is `controlled` by the laws so anyone can drink freely until they 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.The mind altering effect of alcohol can vent a persons inner happiness, sadness or bitter rage.Apparently thc has a calming/pacifying effect.The problem with that is `afterwards` it can leave you feeling lethargic and craving for another `hit` to `escape` again.The addictive cycle.If one is strong willed then the craving can be overcome.This is the crux of the problem with all mind altering stuff.
Another thing about taking any mind altering stuff is it begins when the individual is young.When young, impressionable and weak-willed to "peer" groups.No life experience or information.Mostly to escape their present difficulties in life.A rebellious thing to do.After years the kids, now adults,  make excuses that it`s under control and o.k. avoiding the truth that they are hooked.



> So in summary - i accept some damage from recreational drugs on my body, however i dont beleive this damage is very significant. I can not prove this to you other to tell you i feel great!




Finally, it is not only what people do to themselves.It is the effect the drug cycle has on innocent people.The continuous dysfunction of mind altering drugs in society, either peripheral or direct, is the reason why kids should not have access to mind altering substances that WILL fock up their lives.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 October 2007)

Peripheral or direct results of mind altering drugs....(in any order)

poor concentration
lethargy
hallucination
induced schizophrenia
killing
theft
accident prone
lying
self conscious
delusions of grandeur
paranoia
unsociable
poor grades/work
poor comprehension
broken families
failed relationships or never getting started in one
introverted
no one knows that i`m on drugs
i feel cool that everyone knows i`m on drugs
i`m cool because i`m not addicted
crying/grieving mothers 
angry fathers
innocent pensioners in hospital
money laundered
raped people
failed sports
hyperactive
disrespectful
ignorant
abusive


Oh by the way......i`m sure there are some nice "mind altering drug" users out there.


----------



## Whiskers (17 October 2007)

Agentm said:


> whiskers, i like your style..
> 
> there is always cause and effect to consider with drugs of any nature..
> 
> ...




Thanks Agentm.

And MisterS, Julia and everyone else of like mind.

To 2020, here's to cutting back a bit on the grog... to JeSSica WaBBit's honesty in discussing her vices and I'm still working on cutting back on my caffine drinks (under doctors orders).


----------



## nioka (17 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> I think it is worth pointing out that drug addicts and recreational drug users are two different groups of people as far as i am concerned.
> 
> JW




They are 2 different groups of people. The first group has got there and the second probably will get there. That is the difference.


----------



## Agentm (17 October 2007)

whiskers,

i understand the urge and need to experiment and use drugs, i have many friends in various stages of use and abuse of the different substances.. 

i dont pass judge,ment, i ask that people see cause and effect..


its not the drugs thats the problem , the cause of the use is the issue.. 

my sister used dope and alcohol to deal with a mental illness, and nearly died.

we cant help everyone all the time,, just try and understand and be there!!  like you are whiskers, i see your way and i admire your style!!

cheers


----------



## Happy (18 October 2007)

nioka said:


> They are 2 different groups of people. The first group has got there and the second probably will get there. That is the difference.





This is probable the best way to put it.


----------



## Kremmen (21 October 2007)

nioka said:


> They are 2 different groups of people. The first group has got there and the second probably will get there. That is the difference.




What an inane suggestion.

According to government statistics, 17% of Australians use illicit drugs each year and "In 1998, approximately 19,000 deaths were attributed to tobacco use, while 2,524 were alcohol-related and 1,023 were associated with illicit drugs."

So, you have smokers making up 23% of the population and yet 19 *times* as many deaths being caused by smoking as by the 17% using "illicit" drugs. It's extremely obvious that the vast majority of those drug users are not addicts and are not doing themselves much damage. What's more, as most of the deaths due to illegal drugs are caused by other ingredients mixed in or unexpected doses, most of the deaths are caused by the drugs being illegal. If they were legal, deaths would drop dramatically.

Most politicians like demonising drugs just because they know that a "war" on something makes them popular because they are seen to be doing something about an evil, albeit one which they have largely created themselves. Most cops are gullible or gutless enough to follow the party line. It was good to see that finally one of Britain's most senior police officers is calling all drugs to be legalised.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 October 2007)

Kremmen said:


> What an inane suggestion.
> 
> According to government statistics, 17% of Australians use illicit drugs each year and "In 1998, approximately 19,000 deaths were attributed to tobacco use, while 2,524 were alcohol-related and 1,023 were associated with illicit drugs."
> 
> So, you have smokers making up 23% of the population and yet 19 *times* as many deaths being caused by smoking as by the 17% using "illicit" drugs.




Do you think that making *highly addictive mind altering drugs more available *is going to get your stats. balanced?This is the sort of narrow minded view that is thankfully rare among the wider community.I am so glad folks like this aren`t in power.Sheesshhh, we all would be affected by the disease.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2007)

Of all the drug and alcohol taking hooligans that I hung out with when I was young, only three ever became adversely affected - one by drugs and two by alcohol.

Person 1/ Just a straight out pisstank. Alcoholism was a given.

Person 2/ One guy regularly smoked weed, took a few lines every now and a gain and rarely drank. He was healthy, well balanced, worked well etc. He decided to get off the drugs, but then started to increase his drinking. Very quickly became an alcoholic, and $#@!ed up his life in short order.

Person 3/ This guy started on grog, graduated to dope, then to the harder stuff, eventually heroin. He was the stereotypical media paradigm of a drug addict. (with all the typical dire results)

This is out of dozen and dozens of people.

Even more got into trouble from being pissed. (fights, dumb stuff like that)

I don't personally know anyone who got into trouble because of drugs. (but not suggesting that it doesn't happen, of course it does)

My point is that in my limited experience, the vast majority of recreational drug takers do not become addicts. Just about all of my current friends used when they were younger... some still do into their late 40's, one into her 60's, but are not addicts.

FWIW


----------



## Mofra (21 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> My point is that in my limited experience, the vast majority of recreational drug takers do not become addicts. Just about all of my current friends used when they were younger... some still do into their late 40's, one into her 60's, but are not addicts.



Bingo. Somehow enough people have subscribed to the view that all drug users are junkies or on a downward spiral. This is simply not the case.

I know plenty of people who used recreational drugs 4-5 times a year, in moderation. Somehow these people are to be the subject of a zero tolerance policy, when they know the risks & are responsible about their useage?

Given the incidence of heart disease in this country, we'd be doing more good banning obese people from fast food outlets


----------



## nioka (21 October 2007)

Mofra said:


> Bingo. Somehow enough people have subscribed to the view that all drug users are junkies or on a downward spiral. This is simply not the case.
> 
> I know plenty of people who used recreational drugs 4-5 times a year, in moderation. Somehow these people are to be the subject of a zero tolerance policy, when they know the risks & are responsible about their useage?
> :




Yes but ARE THEY SAFE ON THE ROAD. Or just think they are.


----------



## Julia (21 October 2007)

One thing which needs to be taken into consideration when quoting stats for people dying from smoking or alcohol related diseases as opposed to deaths from illicit drugs is probably the fact that most people who abuse alcohol and tobacco do so for life, whereas it seems people who use drugs (discounting the few who do get to be irretrievably addicted) do so for a limited period.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2007)

Julia said:


> One thing which needs to be taken into consideration when quoting stats for people dying from smoking or alcohol related diseases as opposed to deaths from illicit drugs is probably the fact that most people who abuse alcohol and tobacco do so for life, whereas it seems people who use drugs (discounting the few who do get to be irretrievably addicted) do so for a limited period.



V. true Julia


----------



## Sean K (21 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> V. true Julia



Yep, great insight Julia. This may be the difference. Illicit drugs are hard and fast, alcohol and tobacco (and maybe fatty acids - another 'drug') are slow and insidious. That doesn't make them any better however. 

Is a slow and insideous death any better than a hard and fast one?

Is this a quality v quantity argument?


----------



## insider (21 October 2007)

My solution to the drugs issue is legalize Marijuana... No body has ever died from a marijuana overdose and if it was easily attainable then drug dealers would be pushed out... as for the harder stuff well hopefully legalising Marijuana well help curve the direction of users away from the drug dealers that I assume sell Marijuana and Cocaine or heroine or Ice or whatever... Just An Idea... I've never used drugs in my life and am happy to continue that...


----------



## insider (21 October 2007)

I hate Drug addicts with a violent passion... thought I'd throw that in there


----------



## Sean K (21 October 2007)

insider said:


> I hate Drug addicts with a violent passion... thought I'd throw that in there



Just to throw in another perspective, what is a 'drug' addict? 

I think we're discussing the surface elements of what is a 'drug', which IMO is fairly superficial so far. 

Any  'drug' is only a thought or chemical that causes hyperinflation of our hormones and emotions. You can find that by all sorts of means, legal, or otherwise....


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 October 2007)

insider said:


> My solution to the drugs issue is legalize Marijuana... No body has ever died from a marijuana overdose ...




Lets hope  no one we know gets smacked in a head on collision by a drug user that has fallen asleep or made a poor decision while in charge of  an automobile.


----------



## insider (21 October 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Lets hope  no one we know gets smacked in a head on collision by a drug user that has fallen asleep or made a poor decision while in charge of  an automobile.




Alcohol is responsible for more deaths, more poisoning than Marijuana can ever... The real solution is ban everything... Suddenly no one is listening if you catch my drift... The sad truth is people are selfish and prefer recreation over responsibility... This is another Iraq and Vietnam style war where you are fighting an invisible enemy or maybe just one that doesn't really exist...


----------



## Bushman (21 October 2007)

insider said:


> I hate Drug addicts with a violent passion... thought I'd throw that in there




Why hate drug addicts? They are fairly harmless lot with exceptions off course. The real harm they commit is self harm. The scariest thing I have seen in my time as a reveller is drunken yobs on the sauce knocking each other senseless.  

Drugs - been there, done that and got over it fairly easily. So did most of my friends. Would I do it again? No way but so we learn. What 'drugs' continue to do harm amongst my 'now in our 30's' mates? Good old alcohol and ciggies ie the most addictive of the drugs out there. What is the only drug that ever made me act like a knob - alcohol. I love the way we just follow what the government tells us is good and bad. Alcohol - legal and a national past time so not a whimper. Ciggies - bad but legal. Dope, smack, ecstacy - illegal; thus immoral. Give me a break. Not to say that these do not cause harm. They do but that is not my point. Smack is a scourge, MDMA causes depression etc. But lets get real as to what does the *most harm *to society and what is a media beat up. 

And while I am at it, no one ever questions the use of automobiles even though their use kill and maim more than all drugs put together.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Lets hope  no one we know gets smacked in a head on collision by a drug user that has fallen asleep or made a poor decision while in charge of  an automobile.



Does that include legal drugs?

e.g. *Alcohol*
Cigarettes (CO poisoning)
Barbiturates
Antihistamines
Diazepam etc
Fluvoxamine etc

Not condoning driving under the influence of drugs in the slightest, but one of the worst of all is legal... alcohol. It makes you want to drag everyone off and do burnouts in front of the Police station.

Marijuana for eg, is more likely to make you a far less aggressive driver.

I really think there is much Gu'mint induced hysteria around the whole topic IMO.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2007)

Bushman said:


> What is the only drug that ever made me act like a knob - alcohol.




Ditto there.


----------



## insider (21 October 2007)

Bushman said:


> Why hate drug addicts? They are fairly harmless lot with exceptions off course. The real harm they commit is self harm. The scariest thing I have seen in my time as a reveller is drunken yobs on the sauce knocking each other senseless.
> 
> Drugs - been there, done that and got over it fairly easily. So did most of my friends. Would I do it again? No way but so we learn. What 'drugs' continue to do harm amongst my 'now in our 30's' mates? Good old alcohol and ciggies ie the most addictive of the drugs out there. What is the only drug that ever made me act like a knob - alcohol. I love the way we just follow what the government tells us is good and bad. Alcohol - legal and a national past time so not a whimper. Ciggies - bad but legal. Dope, smack, ecstacy - illegal; thus immoral. Give me a break. Not to say that these do not cause harm. They do but that is not my point. Smack is a scourge, MDMA causes depression etc. But lets get real as to what does the *most harm *to society and what is a media beat up.
> 
> And while I am at it, no one ever questions the use of automobiles even though their use kill and maim more than all drugs put together.




I'm thinking at the same frequency as you... Statistics show that more people die from alcohol poisoning than from marijuana related accidents yet no one cares... people die younger due to polution etc. and nobody is doing a thing... very odd

But why do I hate Drug addicts? Because of the things they do to feed their habits... because they rob from my parents business thats why... They steal wallets for bank cards and money etc. All crap I have to deal with on occasion... You are right they are often very weak and don't put up a fight...


----------



## Bushman (21 October 2007)

insider said:


> But why do I hate Drug addicts? Because of the things they do to feed their habits... because they rob from my parents business thats why... They steal wallets for bank cards and money etc. All crap I have to deal with on occasion..




Fair enough. We can only comment on our own experiences. That sounds like an annoying problem to deal with especially as you and your folks are trying to make a decent living. Drug dependents can be a lot like parasites from my experiences. I used to live in Fitzroy in inner city Melbourne. I had my car stolen by smack users every 3 months in the late 90's/early nougties. Pain in the ass. I knew they were smackies as they once left a bag of hypodermics in the car!


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 October 2007)

insider said:


> Alcohol is responsible for more deaths, more poisoning than Marijuana can ever...




Yes that is true and it is legal to take alcohol!What would be the stats. if the rest of the mind warping stuff is readily available and legal?
I`ll tell you what, the society would have a generation of low/nil conscious people walking around that would not care  about anyone but themselves.

As i mentioned earlier the side effects are many, you think alcohol and tobacco are worse well allowing the rest of the halucinegens would certainly bring an increase in dysfunction to the group.More laws more police and more freakin` nutters for the rest of us to deal with.


----------



## petervan (21 October 2007)

I think we already have a new generation of low/nil conscious people walking around that would not care about anyone but themselves.Not thru drugs but fed to us by the media.Dumbed down role models,you know,like whatever


----------



## Kimosabi (21 October 2007)

Well, I've been experimenting with RAW Organic Foods and Herbs and all I can say so far is, WOW.

This is some powerful stuff, heaps more energy, motivation, clearer thinking, weight loss, etc is where it is at.

I've just gone through my first batch of Home Grown Alfalfa Sprouts and the Wheat Grass is just about ready for Juicing.

I'm not sure why anyone would bother with the illegal crap when you can get an even better high just by eating some decent food...


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Well, I've been experimenting with RAW Organic Foods and Herbs and all I can say so far is, WOW.
> 
> This is some powerful stuff, heaps more energy, motivation, clearer thinking, weight loss, etc is where it is at.
> 
> ...



Big ditto there. 

Try making your own Essene bread too, dead easy and 100 times healthier than that bought crap.


----------



## Mofra (21 October 2007)

nioka said:


> Yes but ARE THEY SAFE ON THE ROAD. Or just think they are.



Everyone I know going out for "a big night" doesn't drive.
I doubt the same could be said for drinkers.


----------



## Julia (21 October 2007)

insider said:


> My solution to the drugs issue is legalize Marijuana... No body has ever died from a marijuana overdose and if it was easily attainable then drug dealers would be pushed out... as for the harder stuff well hopefully legalising Marijuana well help curve the direction of users away from the drug dealers that I assume sell Marijuana and Cocaine or heroine or Ice or whatever... Just An Idea... I've never used drugs in my life and am happy to continue that...




On the surface, it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do to at least decriminalise marijuana.  Of itself, it doesn't seem to induce aggression, paranoia or any of the other mind altering effects of other harder drugs.
But I'm still uncomfortable about it, partly because then it would be so much easier to say "oh well, now we've done this, we might as well do the same for heroin et al".  We already have real harm done to our society in general as well as to ourselves as individuals by alcohol and tobacco (and yes, I've used both), and knowing this, you'd surely have to say why would we risk adding to this by offering tacit approval to yet another drug.

One further point:  there is no longer any doubt that marijuana use in susceptible individuals will potentiate schizophrenia.


----------



## Julia (21 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Does that include legal drugs?
> 
> e.g. *Alcohol*
> Cigarettes (CO poisoning)
> ...


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (21 October 2007)

I think this whole thing comes back to being a people issue.

Some people in our society are plonkers, you know the people i am talking about. 
The rest of us are responsible, unfortunately the number of plonkers seems to be on the increase.........................lets make the most of genetic modification or quater labotomise them at birth.

I don't think it matters what you do, some people just seem to have the ability to cause grief and harm to others and make a nuscience of themselves.

Arghhhhhhhhh, idiots, the bane of my life...................


----------



## Kimosabi (21 October 2007)

One of the most amusing things about Illegal Drugs, is that you can buy the seeds of one of the major Illegal Drugs at the supermarket.

Go Figure...


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (21 October 2007)

Exactly Julia,

Idiots - they will stuff themselves regardless, it can be legal or illegal drugs.

If that does not do the trick they will find some other creative way to kill either themselves or others.

Idiots i tell ya....................they have not found a medical procedure to increase brain function and ability to my knowledge and until they do it looks like we are stuck with these creatures.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (21 October 2007)

Kimosabi - if you are referring to either hemp or poppy seeds i am under the impression these are radiated so they can not germinate if sown.

I could be wrong here but pretty sure that is the case especially with poppy seeds.

JW


----------



## Kimosabi (21 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Kimosabi - if you are referring to either hemp or poppy seeds i am under the impression these are radiated so they can not germinate if sown.
> 
> I could be wrong here but pretty sure that is the case especially with poppy seeds.
> 
> JW



All I can say is get some Kitchen Paper, some water and see what happens....


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (21 October 2007)

Interesting, although i dont think true drug addicts would somehow have the patience or nouce to grow it in sufficient number. Anyways, dont the Afghanistans have that market wrapped up?

I was certain a baker once told me the seeds were radiated or supposed to be anyway.

Opium Poppy is grown as an ornamental bedding plant in Australia in some circumstances. I know that in Victoria this plant can often be seen growing in some of the older gardens in the suburbs. I have also seen it planted by Councils, although this was a few years ago now and was in country Victoria.

The flowers are lovley, quite spectacular although fragile the seed heads are also very pretty. I say this from a horticultural point of view.

With Hemp, there is hemp and hemp. The hemp grown to produce fibre is much different to that smoked as weed. Its the THC or concerntration of active ingredient that differs.
I suspect that hemp seed in shops would have a low THC content if grown into plants and you could most likely smoke it all day without getting much of a high. Although, i can not say this with certainty without knowing the source.


----------



## Kimosabi (21 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Interesting, although i dont think true drug addicts would somehow have the patience or nouce to grow it in sufficient number. Anyways, dont the Afghanistans have that market wrapped up?
> 
> I was certain a baker once told me the seeds were radiated or supposed to be anyway.
> 
> ...




As far as I know, in Australia it's illegal to grow these plants without appropriate governmental approval.

And the government doesn't make anything illegal without a very good reason, does it.

One of the tests to check if seeds are organic or not is to see if they will germinate.


----------



## wayneL (22 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Not sure about barbiturates these days, Wayne?  Do you find that they are still prescribed?  They were largely replaced about 30 or more years ago by the benzodiazepines (e.g. diazepam/valium) because of their extreme toxicity.
> If they are still available, then I think Dr. Phillip Nietschke would like to know about it.



Quite right Julia, scratch that one.


----------



## Whiskers (22 October 2007)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> With Hemp, there is hemp and hemp. The hemp grown to produce fibre is much different to that smoked as weed. Its the THC or concerntration of active ingredient that differs.
> I suspect that hemp seed in shops would have a low THC content if grown into plants and you could most likely smoke it all day without getting much of a high. Although, i can not say this with certainty without knowing the source.




That is quite right Jessica.

This is the situation as I know it for Qld. http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/hemp/16239.html

A few years ago I got a flier inviting growers to apply to participate in trials for growing industrial hemp conducted by Crop Tech P/L in the Bundaberg region. You do have to be licensed to grow industrial hemp.

Cannabis with a THC concentration of 3% or more is considered as marijuana, and less than 3% is considered as industrial hemp. 

Industrial hemp varieties are being selected for the low THC concentration in their leaves and flowering heads of not more than 0.5%.

It's a similar story with popies. As I understand it, the varities grown for seed have lower levels of active ingredient. The opium poppy obviously has the highest active ingredient. 

Unless the seed has been collected, dried, often treated with a fungicide, packaged and marketed to exacting standards for re-growing, the seed will loose it's viability expenontially over time. 

I would believe that the seed for human consumption has probably been quite over dried to prevent any chance of fungi infection of the seed in storage as it certainly can't be treated with fungicides. The alternative to chemical treatment, often used for pest control of export fruit, is vapour heat treatment which if applied to seeds would render the seed unviable anyway.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (22 October 2007)

Kimosabi - i am not sure if my post came across the correct way but i am agreeing with you that both poppy and hemp are illegal to grow in Australia. 
I am a qualified horticulturalist and have a very good undertanding of DPI regulations, i have imported huge quantities of plant material into this country.

But trust me, Opium poppy can be found regularly in some older gardens. Enthusiats will also have it tucked away in there collection, these people do not represent a threat or have this plant growing for sinister drug cultivation reasons. These are typically people who either dont even realise it is a Opium Poppy or just grow them to admire the beauty of the flowers.

However, 'One of the tests to check if seeds are organic or not is to see if they will germinate', this statement is incorrect.

I think what you were trying to say is viable instead of organic?

Organic generally relates to how the plant has been cultivated particularly referring to plants which have been grown without the use of chemicals.


----------



## noirua (4 November 2007)

A modern day warning:  http://vx.org.ua/lib/static/vdat/misc0006.htm


----------



## Lucky (5 November 2007)

Just to add something else to the debate -

medicinal marijuana


----------



## Kremmen (6 November 2007)

insider said:


> But why do I hate Drug addicts? Because of the things they do to feed their habits... because they rob from my parents business thats why... They steal wallets for bank cards and money etc. All crap I have to deal with on occasion...




All of which are *caused* by the drugs being illegal and hence expensive. Making them legal reduces drug-related crime by about 90%.


----------



## Kremmen (6 November 2007)

Julia said:


> We already have real harm done to our society in general as well as to ourselves as individuals by alcohol and tobacco (and yes, I've used both), and knowing this, you'd surely have to say why would we risk adding to this by offering tacit approval to yet another drug.




How about: Because saying "I've used these evil drugs but other people aren't allowed to use these other drugs" is simply selfish and hypocritical.

A great deal of why the laws are as they are is simply social conditioning and racism. We are allowed to use "our" (Westerners) drugs (tobacco, alcohol, caffeine) but we make it illegal to use "their" (those evil Asians and Middle Easterners) drugs (opiates, marijuana, etc). This same silliness has just continued into the current day with no scientific, logical or rational basis and you (and many others) simply perpetuate it.


----------



## moXJO (6 November 2007)

Kremmen said:


> How about: Because saying "I've used these evil drugs but other people aren't allowed to use these other drugs" is simply selfish and hypocritical.
> 
> A great deal of why the laws are as they are is simply social conditioning and racism. We are allowed to use "our" (Westerners) drugs (tobacco, alcohol, caffeine) but we make it illegal to use "their" (those evil Asians and Middle Easterners) drugs (opiates, marijuana, etc). This same silliness has just continued into the current day with no scientific, logical or rational basis and you (and many others) simply perpetuate it.




are you suggesting ice should be made legal as well?


----------



## Julia (6 November 2007)

Kremmen said:


> How about: Because saying "I've used these evil drugs but other people aren't allowed to use these other drugs" is simply selfish and hypocritical.
> 
> A great deal of why the laws are as they are is simply social conditioning and racism. We are allowed to use "our" (Westerners) drugs (tobacco, alcohol, caffeine) but we make it illegal to use "their" (those evil Asians and Middle Easterners) drugs (opiates, marijuana, etc). This same silliness has just continued into the current day with no scientific, logical or rational basis and you (and many others) simply perpetuate it.




That's a reasonable argument.  OK, so can you describe exactly how it would work if a government said "right, from now on we will allow everyone to use all the heroin, crystal meth, barbiturates, amphetamines et al they want".
None of them are illegal any more.  Would you want the government to e.g. put them on the PBS?  Would you like shops - perhaps pharmacies or supermarkets if you like - to stock them so you can just go in and buy whatever you want?

And presumably you'd like the taxpayer to pay for some quality control process, such as currently happens with prescribed medications, to ensure no one overdoses or is otherwise harmed?


----------



## moXJO (6 November 2007)

Julia said:


> That's a reasonable argument.  OK, so can you describe exactly how it would work if a government said "right, from now on we will allow everyone to use all the heroin, crystal meth, barbiturates, amphetamines et al they want".
> None of them are illegal any more.  Would you want the government to e.g. put them on the PBS?  Would you like shops - perhaps pharmacies or supermarkets if you like - to stock them so you can just go in and buy whatever you want?
> 
> And presumably you'd like the taxpayer to pay for some quality control process, such as currently happens with prescribed medications, to ensure no one overdoses or is otherwise harmed?




Exactly, not to forget we have to deal with more drugged users on the roads that would have to be policed. At what age do you start handing this junk out otherwise there will still be a black market to under agers.And what’s stopping something more serious hitting the black market that the youth would take up. Last time I checked we were trying to get rid of smoking. Why add more health concerns to the mix.


----------



## disarray (6 November 2007)

moXJO said:


> are you suggesting ice should be made legal as well?




if good quality heroin and ecstacy were readily available people wouldn't use ice. ice is a low quality, sh1tty drug that people take because it is cheap and readily available. the war on drugs cannot be won, the longer we keep it in the realm of law enforcement and not helth (where it belongs), the more we will continue to wage war on our society with all the collateral damage that entails.

prohibition fails. repeatedly. its time to examine other options.


----------



## kgee (7 November 2007)

Does anyone out there think the press has been irresponsible in declaring that the toxic drug in the childrens toy "Bindeez" is similar to the drug Fantasy
or GBH (grievous bodily harm)?
I'm thinking that the stores that haven't removed them from their shelves will have sold out of stock by now.... and there's a whole new world of drug experimentation going on!


----------



## moXJO (7 November 2007)

disarray said:


> if good quality heroin and ecstacy were readily available people wouldn't use ice. ice is a low quality, sh1tty drug that people take because it is cheap and readily available. the war on drugs cannot be won, the longer we keep it in the realm of law enforcement and not helth (where it belongs), the more we will continue to wage war on our society with all the collateral damage that entails.
> 
> prohibition fails. repeatedly. its time to examine other options.




Each has a different high price is not the overiding factor.So whats the cut off age for these free drugs?


----------



## disarray (7 November 2007)

not really. getting ruined is the overriding factor, heroin junkies will shoot speed if smack isn't available, kids will drop acid if they can't get their hands on ecstacy, people will get drunk if they can't get stoned. heroin is probably the ultimate high so if it was available and clean that would be the overriding drug of choice for intravenous users.

its easy to understand - people just want to get wasted. john lennon, brett whitely, john belushi, countless people with loads of money and fame and everything your heart could desire pick getting fked up as their primary motivation. the war on drugs is a war on human nature, there is not a culture in the world that doesn't have a way to distort your perceptions. some cultures ritualise it (such as kava use, peyote use etc.) while others use it as a means to wash away the trials of reality. making drug use illegal (except for the damaging "legal" drugs which the government loves to tax) creates a whole black world of crime, corruption and criminality.

i think the cut off age should be 18, any younger and we are moving into the realm of parental responsibility which is not legislated for (but in many cases it seems it should be). however laws like this need to be flexible to take into account circumstances.

the sad thing is we saw this ice wave coming. we knew it was an extremely toxic drug that causes a great deal of damage to society and the users and yet we did nothing. now we have meth psychotics roaming the streets when all we needed was a controlled and reasonably safe way for people to get high. prohibition fails. it will always fail. drugs need to be a health issue.


----------



## moXJO (7 November 2007)

disarray said:


> not really. getting ruined is the overriding factor, heroin junkies will shoot speed if smack isn't available, kids will drop acid if they can't get their hands on ecstacy, people will get drunk if they can't get stoned. heroin is probably the ultimate high so if it was available and clean that would be the overriding drug of choice for intravenous users.
> 
> its easy to understand - people just want to get wasted. john lennon, brett whitely, john belushi, countless people with loads of money and fame and everything your heart could desire pick getting fked up as their primary motivation. the war on drugs is a war on human nature, there is not a culture in the world that doesn't have a way to distort your perceptions. some cultures ritualise it (such as kava use, peyote use etc.) while others use it as a means to wash away the trials of reality. making drug use illegal (except for the damaging "legal" drugs which the government loves to tax) creates a whole black world of crime, corruption and criminality.
> 
> ...




Actually heroin has dropped right off the scene due to the younger crowd not wanting to be associated with being called a junkie and the public perception of it. Same thing happened with crack in the U.S. I think you underestimate fad drugs that hit the scene and how quickly the are taken up.Things like pot and heroin have been losing popularity for years.Think GBH heres something that they know is high risk yet still its taken simply because it was the scene drug.

Cut off at 18 years and we can have underage drug use to go with our underage drinking. Only now drugs would be  much more accessible since anyone over 18 can now get drugs to sell to kids.So a black market will always remain unless you plan on everyone getting wasted.All I see is more problems if it were made legal.


----------



## disarray (7 November 2007)

the younger crowd are only a small section of drug using society. people of all ages and all walks of life regularly use drugs, and according to the law they are all criminals.

i agree "scene drugs" come and go over time, when i was in school it was acid, after uni it was ecstacy, however i think demand is largely determined by supply. heroin droughts see an upswing in amphetamine use, lack of good ecstacy sees people taking GBH and so on. pot and heroin will never go out of fashion, people will always use them, just because they aren't getting the media attention of GBH and ice doesn't mean their use has declined, it just means the media has a new evil thing to make a fuss about.

underage drinking and drug use is a problem for parents, educators, peer groups and health officials. a holistic approach is needed that ties in all these groups with law enforcement to achieve a better outcome. demonising drugs will not make them less attractive to young people and wagging a finger saying "don't do it" will achieve nothing. as for a young person black market, under 18's have hardly any disposable income so i don't see them funding criminal empires like it currently does.

the problems you forsee with legal drugs seem to revolve around young people, however i think this is only a small part of a wider problem that we are facing now with large sections of our society being criminalised by using, the vast amount of repetetive crime caused by users who commit crime solely to feed addictions, and the growing power of global criminal empires that use drugs to fund terrorism and other far more damaging activities.


----------



## moXJO (8 November 2007)

disarray said:


> the younger crowd are only a small section of drug using society. people of all ages and all walks of life regularly use drugs, and according to the law they are all criminals.
> 
> i agree "scene drugs" come and go over time, when i was in school it was acid, after uni it was ecstacy, however i think demand is largely determined by supply. heroin droughts see an upswing in amphetamine use, lack of good ecstacy sees people taking GBH and so on. pot and heroin will never go out of fashion, people will always use them, just because they aren't getting the media attention of GBH and ice doesn't mean their use has declined, it just means the media has a new evil thing to make a fuss about.
> 
> ...




It’s a younger person’s game. Between the ages of 15- 27  I seemed to know a lot more people on various types of drugs then I do in my 30's.I think you underestimate the underage drug use and its potential to explode if cheap accessible drugs came to market on a wide scale. At the moment we can’t even handle underage drinking. As far as being able to afford it what’s stopping them from stealing and repeating the cycle. Also the types of tourists we are likely to attract and a whole list of new problems that are currently unseen.

In theory legalizing drugs works, but in reality there are too many additional problems that it will create. Until our education system doesn’t let so many kids fall through the cracks, then I don’t think we are ready to introduce something like this. Not to mention the new class of workers that will be discriminated against or the OHS nightmare trying to revolve around people with drugs in their system. Dollar for dollar I don’t know if it would make much of a difference. Socially I think it would introduce filth to a wider audience to benefit a few, many of who would probably outgrow it.

Surely you can see problems with the legalization of it?


----------



## disarray (8 November 2007)

moXJO said:


> It’s a younger person’s game. Between the ages of 15- 27  I seemed to know a lot more people on various types of drugs then I do in my 30's.




18-27 is adult. thats only a 3 year gap for underage use.



> I think you underestimate the underage drug use and its potential to explode if cheap accessible drugs came to market on a wide scale. At the moment we can’t even handle underage drinking. As far as being able to afford it what’s stopping them from stealing and repeating the cycle. Also the types of tourists we are likely to attract and a whole list of new problems that are currently unseen.




slight misunderstanding here. i'm not advocating having all drugs cheaply available at stores or having heroin users go to cafes and shoot up amsterdam style. i am definately advocating the government supply of heroin to registered addicts in safe locations with access to counselling and health services. marijuana should also be legalised and people allowed to grow personal stash plants.

other drugs such as cocaine and ecstacy require a lot more thought because the concerns you raise do become an issue. wholesale legalisation of everything in one fell swoop is dangerous, it must be a measured, controlled and tested procedure to gradually enact change. i'd like to see a start with heroin to cater for the hopeless junkies and pot for wider society.

i understand the issues you raise and i agree that they will be major issues if its just open slather, however a measured, health based response is needed to confront this issue in concert with law enforcement. i'm a big fan of the carrot and the stick, but at the moment drug policy is all stick.


----------



## moXJO (8 November 2007)

disarray said:


> 18-27 is adult. thats only a 3 year gap for underage use.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok misunderstanding on my part thought you were advocating open season on drugs ,my bad. I'd agree (with tight controls) with trials for registered heroin addicts. Methadone has done more harm then good imo.And see what the effects are from there.

I think you are allowed to grow 2 plants in most states. Funny enough I was told years ago that it is illegal to grow tobacco plants and the fine is greater then that of pot. Not sure if it’s true or not, something to do with tax apparently.


----------



## Kremmen (12 November 2007)

Julia said:


> That's a reasonable argument.  OK, so can you describe exactly how it would work if a government said "right, from now on we will allow everyone to use all the heroin, crystal meth, barbiturates, amphetamines et al they want".
> None of them are illegal any more.  Would you want the government to e.g. put them on the PBS?  Would you like shops - perhaps pharmacies or supermarkets if you like - to stock them so you can just go in and buy whatever you want?
> 
> And presumably you'd like the taxpayer to pay for some quality control process, such as currently happens with prescribed medications, to ensure no one overdoses or is otherwise harmed?




Currently, criminals (by which I mean real criminals, not just people who happen to use drugs) control the trade. Therefore, I would expect it to be a slow and careful process. The government would need to initially run or at least very carefully check the shops, as the current suppliers would probably try to retain their business. Rather similar to the same way as we want casinos to be above board, not run by the same people who used to run illegal casinos.

The PBS is for necessary drugs, not recreation, so non-addictive drugs definitely don't belong there. Maybe addictive drugs belong there for recovering addicts with a prescription? I'd not thought about that one before.

The ideal of the taxpayer "paying" for some quality control process is ridiculous. What would the quality control processes cost us? Let's say it's really expensive and costs $10M/year and let's even ignore all the tax money the government would receive, which should cover it anyhow. Drug crime currently costs us $32B a year. If drugs were legal, some parts of that $32B would remain (lost output and human costs) amounting to about $4B. If, as some argue, use of drugs increased, that might even go up a bit. But the $28B of fraud, burglary, robbery, assault, etc, would be close to zero. The cost of making drugs cleanly and safely available would be something well under 1/1000 of the cost of the drug-related crime that would go away.


----------



## stefoid (23 November 2007)

If you want a mirror for drug use/prohibition in this day and age, just look at alcohol prohibition in US earlier last century.  the rampant flaunting of the law, the organized crime, the corruption, the health hazards for the users associated with poor quality control.  Same situation then as now, and same problems, although they quickly repealed prohibition when it became obvious that banning something that there is a demand for not only doesnt work, but creates more problems in and of itself.

legalizing recreational drugs would actually enable the government to control their quality and distribution, as opposed to now where the head in the sand approach ensures that quality and distribution is relegated to unscrupulous criminals.  drug dealers dont ask for id.  they dont test their batches for contaminants or consistant potency.

I agree that legalization might encourage more users.

but thats not the point, unless your a wowser.   human beings have always craved mood and conciousness altering substnaces, and they always will.  the point is that it might reduce the amount of drug related health and social issues.  



moXJO said:


> It’s a younger person’s game. Between the ages of 15- 27  I seemed to know a lot more people on various types of drugs then I do in my 30's.I think you underestimate the underage drug use and its potential to explode if cheap accessible drugs came to market on a wide scale. At the moment we can’t even handle underage drinking. As far as being able to afford it what’s stopping them from stealing and repeating the cycle. Also the types of tourists we are likely to attract and a whole list of new problems that are currently unseen.
> 
> In theory legalizing drugs works, but in reality there are too many additional problems that it will create. Until our education system doesn’t let so many kids fall through the cracks, then I don’t think we are ready to introduce something like this. Not to mention the new class of workers that will be discriminated against or the OHS nightmare trying to revolve around people with drugs in their system. Dollar for dollar I don’t know if it would make much of a difference. Socially I think it would introduce filth to a wider audience to benefit a few, many of who would probably outgrow it.
> 
> Surely you can see problems with the legalization of it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2007)

Thinking ahead to all those who plan to give up smoking or booze or meth etc for the new year ....

Speaking of Dimemnas...
"The addict is double-minded because he cannot really and truly desire recovery until he already has it. "  

http://www.bma-wellness.com/papers/addicts_dilemna.html



> The Addict's Dilemna
> Floyd P. Garrett, M.D.
> 
> Abstract.  Addictive behavior attempts to repair a state of bad feeling but is a Faustian Bargain that perpetuates itself and often asks the ultimate price. Addiction can be compared to an unhealthy, fanatical love. Unnatural and arbitrary hedonic management by substances or stereotyped processes distorts and cripples the psyche and places the individual at a grave survival disadvantage. The addict is double-minded because he cannot really and truly desire recovery until he already has it. Recovery is about restoring natural, spontaneous and healthy regulation of mood and feelings. Because addicts may be seriously impaired in their pre-addictive self-care and self-management they often require prolonged help learning to feel well without resorting to the "tricks" of addiction.
> ...


----------



## noirua (7 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Thinking ahead to all those who plan to give up smoking or booze or meth etc for the new year ....
> 
> Speaking of Dimemnas...
> "The addict is double-minded because he cannot really and truly desire recovery until he already has it. "
> ...





Addictive behaviour 2020 et al: I've become addicted to many things during my life, not drugs, smoking or drink. 
In the the 1980's I was addicted to coca cola and pepsi cola, haven't drunk any for over 25 years now. 
Before that, mars bars and then in the late 1980's I drank 10 cups of coffee each day, due to giving up pepsi and coca cola.
In the 1970's mining boom I bought about 30 newspapers and magazines each week.

Different types of addictive behaviour around. Even playing too much tennis, cricket or football. Spending too much time on the computer and there are others - good luck, Oh yes gambling, very bad news that one.

Overeating, when my BMI went up to 32 and is now 23.6. - Good luck again


----------



## moXJO (7 December 2007)

stefoid said:


> If you want a mirror for drug use/prohibition in this day and age, just look at alcohol prohibition in US earlier last century.  the rampant flaunting of the law, the organized crime, the corruption, the health hazards for the users associated with poor quality control.  Same situation then as now, and same problems, although they quickly repealed prohibition when it became obvious that banning something that there is a demand for not only doesnt work, but creates more problems in and of itself.
> .




Banning alcohol after it was legal is different to drugs being illegal. If we made drugs legal then ban them again, then we would have the massive problems of alcohol prohibition. There’s a difference when you take something away from people after its been ingrained into society


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2007)

I hear on ABC that there's more evidence emerging that Schapelle Corby was probably into drug smuggling more than she at first appeared to be... 

She had me fooled ...
but then (depending on whether marijuana or worse- and sounds like could be worse) ..

I still think that even that has to be seen in context - i.e. when the cigarette companies are treated like criminals and put in jail, then I'll be more accepting of these massive penalties for drugrunners 

PS sounding like meth was involved, but I'd better check the facts there as well. 

Also when the Bali bombers are (also) seen in context - not that I propose death penalty - just for "time commensurate with crime".



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/07/2113150.htm
> Corby's associates involved in Bali drug run: informant
> Posted 15 minutes ago
> A Queensland Police informant has told the ABC that associates of Schapelle Corby were involved in a drug run between Brisbane and Bali that ended after Corby's arrest.
> ...


----------



## Pat (8 December 2007)

disarray said:


> the younger crowd are only a small section of drug using society. people of all ages and all walks of life regularly use drugs, and according to the law they are all criminals.
> 
> i agree "scene drugs" come and go over time, when i was in school it was acid, after uni it was ecstacy, however i think demand is largely determined by supply. heroin droughts see an upswing in amphetamine use, lack of good ecstacy sees people taking GBH and so on. pot and heroin will never go out of fashion, people will always use them, just because they aren't getting the media attention of GBH and ice doesn't mean their use has declined, it just means the media has a new evil thing to make a fuss about.
> 
> ...



Good post Disarray. I have to agree. 
I know many people my age, 26, who smoke on a daily basis, but I know more people over the age of 35 who smoke on a daily basis. This being through work and friends. I work in the financial industry, you'd be surprised... I was.
I think some drugs are sought after by different age groups, while others are used among all age groups, like alcohol, pot and nicotine...
I don't see too many 40yr olds going to rave parties and dancing it up for 6 hrs at the club... but you do spot the odd one out on occasion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2007)

http://louisville.edu/~kprayb01/WCQuote.html#A6
The following suggest that WC Fields was an alcoholic and beyond help. .....


> Now don't say you can't swear off drinking; it's easy. I've done it a thousand times." (From "The Temperance Lecture")
> 
> "How well I remember my first encounter with The Devil's Brew. I happened to stumble across a case of bourbon--and went right on stumbling for several days thereafter." (Ibid)
> 
> ...




At least this last one suggests he realised that there was something called "drinking to excess" 



> (Fields, who never got falling-down drunk, explained why
> "When you woo a wet goddess, there's no use falling at her feet."


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 January 2008)

This article from 4 years ago ... (but there have been more instances in 2007 - see youtube)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/02/mistaken.bombing/



> 'Friendly fire' pilots: Air Force pushes 'go pills'
> Lawyers say amphetamines led to accidental killing
> NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- A lawyer for one of two U.S. pilots who released a bomb over southern Afghanistan in April, accidentally killing four Canadian soldiers, says the Air Force had pressured the pilots to take amphetamines that may have impaired their judgment during the mission.
> 
> ...




and this from recent July 2007 

  Another Canadian Hero Killed by Crappy,Doped-up US Troops ! 


> This brings to six the number of Canadian troops killed by doped up and careless US troops. Four were killed by US pilots high on Meth.("go pills"). No American has been killed by any Canadian's so called "friendly fire".
> 
> CNN:"'Friendly fire' pilots: Air Force pushes 'go pills'"
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 January 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20050321/

Four Corners on Marijuana - from March 2005

Since I know a kid who has fallen victim to the pot-induced / triggered schizophremia, I thought I'd post this in recognition of the brilliant kid he once was, and , although he's battling it, the uphill fight he has ahead of him for the rest of his life


----------



## noirua (19 January 2008)

I don't have much time for drugs, whether it be experimentation or/and dependence.
The reason for drugs being sold, be it on the streets or anywhere else, is due to weak Laws, weak policing and weak Government.

Catching the bigger fish is a more difficult task and there is a need to come down hard on those selling drugs and those in possession.

Anyone found selling hard drugs should be shot by firing squad. Those found bringing hard drugs into the country, in quantities that are obviously for distribution or sale, should be shot by firing squad.
Those found selling marijuana (or other similar drugs) or bringing it into the country in quantity: Should be sent to a hard labour camp for 5 years. On the second offence they should be shot by firing squad. 

Weak Laws and weak Government make these crimes worthwhile.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 January 2008)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Opium Poppy is grown as an ornamental bedding plant in Australia in some circumstances. I know that in Victoria this plant can often be seen growing in some of the older gardens in the suburbs. I have also seen it planted by Councils, although this was a few years ago now and was in country Victoria.
> 
> The flowers are lovley, quite spectacular although fragile the seed heads are also very pretty. I say this from a horticultural point of view.



It's a commercially grown (legal) crop in Tasmania. I'm not sure how it's going lately but a decade or so ago there were several hundred growers - a substantial industry by local standards.


----------



## tigerboi (19 January 2008)

moXJO said:


> Ok misunderstanding on my part thought you were advocating open season on drugs ,my bad. I'd agree (with tight controls) with trials for registered heroin addicts. Methadone has done more harm then good imo.And see what the effects are from there.
> 
> I think you are allowed to grow 2 plants in most states. Funny enough I was told years ago that it is illegal to grow tobacco plants and the fine is greater then that of pot. Not sure if it’s true or not, something to do with tax apparently.




i see you mentioned methadone doing more harm than good in your opinion,

what has been your experience?do you know anybody on methadone?

why would it have done more harm?


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 January 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/29/2149398.htm?section=justin



> *Cannabis 'bigger cancer risk' than cigarettes*
> Posted 21 minutes ago
> 
> *Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk*, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.
> ...


----------



## Stormin_Norman (29 January 2008)

moXJO said:


> Ok misunderstanding on my part thought you were advocating open season on drugs ,my bad.




i do.

and so do penn + teller (personal freedom): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRutaNMZt54

and so does milton friedman and 500 other economists (market forces): http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html


----------



## Julia (29 January 2008)

tigerboi said:


> i see you mentioned methadone doing more harm than good in your opinion,
> 
> what has been your experience?do you know anybody on methadone?
> 
> why would it have done more harm?



I'd also be interested in the background to this assertion.
Certainly putting people on methadone is just swapping one addiction for another but addicts on appropriately adjusted methadone are usually able to lead a fairly 'normal' life, have a job, maintain family relationships etc., which they can't when absorbed in criminal activity necessary to access heroin.

As long as the daily dose of methadone is taken in the pharmacy to avoid any likelihood of stockpiling and subsequent injecting, it's a fairly manageable way of coping with an addiction.  I know several addicts who have managed to gradually reduce their dose and eventually come off all narcotics.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 April 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/11/2214875.htm?section=justin


> *Kava takes off in US*
> By Pacific correspondent Campbell Cooney
> 
> Posted 2 hours 39 minutes ago
> ...




as they say
one cup numbs your lips
the second numbs your tongue
the third numbs your brain


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

Don;t experiment with over-indulgence with the bottle kids,  you might end up looking like this ...

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html



> Dry Drunk
> Is Bush making a cry for help?
> by Alan Bisbort
> 
> ...


----------



## Sean K (9 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/11/2214875.htm?section=justin
> 
> as they say
> one cup numbs your lips
> ...



Yep, Kava does that. But beyond the third, it doesn't make you get agressive and want to hit things, or cry.

I think it's amazing that Kava is a banned drug in Australia. (I think)

Interesting that the Fijians are allowed to take Kava on overseas military operations, becuase of it's cultural significance. 

I had a nice Christmas and New Years with a bunch of Fijians in East Timor in 2003. 

Very mellow and social.

Didn't cry, or make any undeliverable crazy pledges to myslelf, didn't want to hit anything, and woke up sparkly.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

kennas said:


> Yep, Kava does that. But beyond the third, it doesn't make you get agressive and want to hit things, or cry.
> 
> I think it's amazing that Kava is a banned drug in Australia. (I think)
> 
> ...




Apparently in the old days, the root was prepared by chewing by young girls and the juice was spat into the communal bowl. - Then everyone hopped into the spittoon with gusto  (sorry - in fact it is and was a very cultured ritual - love those kava ceremonies  :bowdown: ) 

I really like the stuff as well.  
I believe you can buy it in Sydney :2 twocents
Max allowance of 2kg per passenger for (Melanesians and) Polynesians arriving in  Aus (according to this website) 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ders-warnabbott/2007/10/01/1191091029986.html




> Even its aficionados admit it tastes vile and looks like muddy water.
> 
> But to an estimated 100,000 Pacific Islanders living in Australia it's the water of life, the social lubricant that *keeps their culture alive and their young people out of trouble*.
> 
> They will plead with Mr Abbott to relax Canberra's strict limits on the importation of kava, imposed in June *to stop the flow to remote Aboriginal communities where it has been blamed for exacerbating health problems*.




Heck, the only reason they don't let the Abs use it in any quantity - as a substitute for white man's fire-water -  is that there would be massive objections from those with vested interests , (the publicans and the taxman).    But it would immediately make a massive reduction in domestic violence and abuse etc.  



> Now there is only an allowance of *two kilograms of powdered kava in accompanied baggage for arriving passengers - not nearly enough for the dozens of "kava clubs" around Sydney* that draw Tongan, Fijian, ni-Vanuatu and Samoan residents every night.
> 
> "If we don't have kava there's no point coming here," said the Reverend Sione Pinomi, at a kava club this week at the Fanongolelei ("Surely Heard") Hall in Glendenning, a light industrial zone near Mt.Druitt. "We will just yak-yak, then go home.''
> 
> "*What really worries me a lot is the youth, and some of the people including the lay preachers,'' he added. "I am very scared they might go back to alcohol*."


----------



## Julia (9 August 2008)

There was a piece in today's "Courier Mail" about inadequate police numbers.
Brisbanites will be familiar with "The Valley" where apparently a good bit of drug use happens.  The police commented that thank God so many people there were using ecstasy rather than alcohol as these people were a great deal easier to deal with than drunks.

Hospitals echoed the comment on the basis of injuries incurred amongst drunken brawls, falls/accidents.

Suspect they feel less kindly towards users of ice, however.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

spot on Julia

Then of ourse they mix em up - and add alcohol as well - and end up like Sarah May Ward (currently waiting in jail for murder trial) ....

One of my boys was drinking with Eli Westlake earlier that evening of his death   Ward has been charged with his murder, plus drink-driving - together with a cocktail of drugs - including ecstacy from memory - gotta feeling they are calling it "meth like rage" rather than accusing her of using meth as such. 

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23832174-5006009,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,23827862-1242,00.html


----------



## gav (9 August 2008)

kennas said:


> Yep, Kava does that. But beyond the third, it doesn't make you get agressive and want to hit things, or cry.
> 
> I think it's amazing that Kava is a banned drug in Australia. (I think)
> 
> ...




True.  When I served in the Solomon Islands, the Fijian Police drank kava every night.  On one of my nights off I had some with them.  It did nothing except make me more relaxed, and I had a great night sleep.  Its still sold in health food stores here in tablet form, but the doses are extremely tiny.


----------



## nick2fish (9 August 2008)

When the lawmakers of the land put Ecstasy and Ice in the same basket you will always have a drug problem. 
Ecstasy is a non addictive drug and Ice is probably the most addictive drug known to mankind. 
Ignorance to this fact will lead to lives ruined and lost. 
Kids have to thumb through their Dads Zoo or picture mags to get the true facts on all drugs.
Draconian lawmakers just shuffle papers and put their heads in the sand while their failed understanding leads to MDNA being almost impossible to source in its pure (and less harmful) form and ICE freely available as it is cheap.

There is nothing wrong finding an occasional escape from the turmoil we call life.

Purity and Moderation be the key and stay the hell away from the additive's


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

nick2fish said:


> Purity and Moderation be the key and stay the hell away from the additives



nick, sounds like you're making the Oscar Wilds argument ...
"moderation in all things - especially moderation"  

PS personally, if I did it all again, I'd be staying well away from anything other than a moderate amount of alcohol.  - and by moderate, I mean probably about half the alcohol I have actually consumed 

PS on the wagon tonight though, city2surf in the morrow 

running /adrenalin is a drug y' know 

especially if you keep singing something like this in your head.. 

 The Seekers - When The Stars Begin To Fall

good tune to run to : 2twocents

PS gee I get pissed off when 90 year olds pass me on heartbreak hill though lol.

or this one.. (for the downhill bits )

 mexico les humphreys singers


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS gee I get pissed off when 90 year olds pass me on heartbreak hill though lol.




2020, on the hill climbs i lean forward so the next step has to come or fall over.You haven`t got computer belly have you??


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> 2020, on the hill climbs i lean forward so the next step has to come or fall over.You haven`t got computer belly have you??



  - wys - you asking me have a got a laptop m8, lol - nope 

or like some of the runners - more Chins than a HK phonebook    - In my league, noone cares how well you run , it's just the mood that is seriously addictive (speaking of drugs, lol).  -  I'm sure you'll agree.

PS the dog has had a bad leg for a few months, - plenty of walks, but my running preparation has been almost non-existent.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2008)

Addictiveness of nicotine vs heroin, cocaine, alcohol etc has been discussed on another thread (Schappelle's Innocence).  Probably more sense here.   "Dependence" sequence (worst to least dependence) :-
Nicotine, Heroin, Cocaine, Alcohol, Caffeine, Marijuana. 

http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm



> But researchers now know, says *Dr. Jack Henningfield, chief of clinical pharmacology at the Addiction Research Center of the Government's National Institute on Drug Abuse*, that many qualities are related to a drug's *addictiveness*, and the level of intoxication it produces may be one of the least important.
> 
> If one merely asks how much pleasure the drugs produce, as researchers used to do and tobacco companies still do, then heroin or cocaine and nicotine do not seem to be in the same category. Dr. Kozlowki said, "It's not that cigarettes are without pleasure, but the pleasure is not in the same ball park with heroin."
> 
> ...






> *Experts Rate Problem Substances*
> Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on *five problem areas*.
> 
> *Withdrawal*: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2008)

That article from 1994 - and ecstasy and meth / ice not mentioned 



			
				nick2fish said:
			
		

> When the lawmakers of the land put Ecstasy and Ice in the same basket you will always have a drug problem.
> Ecstasy is a non addictive drug and Ice is probably the most addictive drug known to mankind



I'm sure you're right nick 

God you'd be mad to try meth !

PS And the terrorists' finances would dry up (to some extent) you'd think, if all drugs of the likes of heroin were stopped.  Pipe dream obviously.


----------

