Drug experimentation and dependence

[2020hindsight]

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]

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.

Lin Tse-hsü
The key player in the prelude to war was a brilliant and highly moral official named Lin Tse-hsü. Deeply concerned about the opium menace, he maneuverd himself into being appointed Imperial Commissioner at Canton. His express purpose was to cut off the opium trade at its source by rooting out corrupt officials and cracking down on British trade in the drug.

He took over in March of 1839 and within two months, absolutely invulnerable to bribery and corruption, he had taken action against Chinese merchants and Western traders and shut down all the traffic in opium. He destroyed all the existing stores of opium and, victorious in his war against opium, he composed a letter to Queen Victoria of England requesting that the British cease all opium trade. His letter included the argument that, since Britain had made opium trade and consumption illegal in England because of its harmful effects, it should not export that harm to other countries. Trade, according to Lin, should only be in beneficial objects.

To be fair to England, if the only issue on the table were opium, the English probably (just probably) would have acceded to Lin's request. The British, however, had been nursing several grievances against China, and Lin's take-no-prisoners enforcement of Chinese laws combined to outrage the British against his decapitation of the opium trade. The most serious bone of contention involved treaty relations; because the British refused to submit to the emperor, there were no formal treaty relations between the two countries.

The most serious problem precipitated by this lack of treaty relations involved the relationship between foreigners and Chinese law. The British, on principle, refused to hand over British citizens to a Chinese legal system that they felt was vicious and barbaric. (LOL)

The Chinese, equally principled, demanded that all foreigners who were accused of committing crimes on Chinese soil were to be dealt with solely by Chinese officials. In many ways, this was the real issue of the Opium War. In addition to enforcing the opium laws, Lin aggressively pursued foreign nationals accused of crimes.

The English, despite Lin's eloquent letter, refused to back down from the opium trade. In response, Lin threatened to cut off all trade with England and expel all English from China. Thus began the Opium War.

 

[2020hindsight]

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.

Science has established that the truth lies somewhere in-between the claims of both groups.

http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1122834.htm
Catalyst - Marijuana & Schizophrenia
Program: Catalyst
Year of Production: 2003
Duration: 10mins

Marijuana use is on the increase. Despite its reputation as a benign drug with medicinal properties, new Australian research is showing it may have a darker side after all - particularly for adolescent users.

Links have been made between marijuana use and the onset of schizophrenia before but, as Catalyst’s Paul Willis reports, new research suggests something quite worrying for all young cannabis users.

Dr Martin Cohen at the Hunter Medical Research Institute in Newcastle is comparing the functioning brain of cannabis users and schizophrenia sufferers with a control group, and alarmingly the brains of young heavy dope smokers are actually functioning more like the brain of a schizophrenic.

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

"Imagine taking every single emotion, memory, experience, tablet all into one... and those fighting each other to see who is the victor." -- Danny, 22

"It just f... with your head. I had to sleep with a knife under my bed 'cos I used to think people were going to come in and bash me during the night or something. Just for me mull or something, yeah." -- Danni, 17.

Messing with Heads: Clinicians now believe that modern strains of super-strength cannabis are increasingly triggering psychoses, depression and anxiety disorders in teenagers.

Many young people begin smoking cannabis before they have even hit their teens and experts are warning that the younger the smoker, the greater the risk of mental illness.

Recent research shows that the human brain does not fully develop until a person reaches their twenties. Teenage brains, therefore, are more vulnerable than adults to cannabis.

Modern technology multiplies the dangers. Hydroponically grown, genetically modified varieties of marijuana plants are believed to contain much greater concentrations of the chemical THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol. Cannabis is cheap, too, making it more easily available to today's teenagers than it was for their parents' generation.

In this wake-up call to a disturbing new trend, young cannabis users in treatment for psychoses speak openly about their experiences to reporter Janine Cohen, while doctors and drug specialists explain what the new research means for young people's mental health.

NOW ON DVD

http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1123079.htm
Devil You Know, The DVD
Year of Production: 1990
Duration: 70mins
ABC-TV (C)

Heroin and alcohol - two drugs with very different reputations. One is feared and one is glamourised. Some experts are now claiming that Australians should re-examine their attitudes to these drugs - is heroin the demon we have all been led to believe it is? This program explodes some of the popular myths surrounding heroin and alcohol. It examines Australians' attitudes to these drugs - who uses them, why they use them and the effects on the individual and society as a whole. The film talks to medical experts from around Australia and users of both heroin and alcohol. It also follows the work of two paramedics, Bob Harrold and Peter Annetts, based in inner Sydney who deal with the casualties of both drugs - the heroin users who often accidentally overdose and the constant stream of people who regularly overdose on alcohol. Is our current approach of banning heroin and glamourising alcohol the best way to deal with our 'drug problem'?

 

[2020hindsight]

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.

The ORYGEN Research Centre at the University of Melbourne surveyed more than 3,500 young people and 2,000 parents.

It found about 85 per cent thought that alcohol and marijuana could lead to mental health problems, including depression.

But researcher Dan Lubman says the figures show that knowledge is not leading to a change in behaviour.

"Certainly we know that alcohol, tobacco, cannabis use and the experimentation with those drugs is extremely common in adolescents and young adulthood," he said.

The Federal Government says its drugs campaign is effective, but Mr Lubman says advertising strategies could be rethought to take the new research into account.

"Even though people are strongly endorsing the fact they know using drugs and drinking heavily can increase the risk of mental disorders, we know that doesn't necessarily translate into their own individual behaviour," he said.

 

[Julia]

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 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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

1960s LSD Propaganda Film

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

LSD Testing (British Troops)

 

[2020hindsight]

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]

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.

"If you are taking drugs and lining up and getting on the podium, you're obviously comfortable with lying," she said. "It makes me feel quite ill. How many athletes are out there taking these drugs?"

Gainsford-Taylor said she hoped the incident would be an eye-opener for other athletes. "Hopefully it will scare a lot of athletes out of taking drugs," she said. "I don't think we will get a "clean" Olympics [sic]... but hopefully we get it a lot cleaner than it has been."

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.

Federal Court Judge Michelle Gordon dismissed the appeal by Mokbel's lawyers saying their claim wholly failed. Mokbel's lawyers argued the extradition orders to have him bought back to Australia were invalid as they had been signed by the Justice Minister David Johnston and not the Attorney General Philip Ruddock. But Judge Gordon ruled the extradition act allowed for the minister to sign the order as long as it was authorised by the Attorney-General.

The lawyers also claimed the orders had been compromised by emails from a high ranking Australian diplomat to a member of the Greek Justice Department. The 41-year-old is facing two murder charges and several drug charges in Victoria. Judge Gordon has dismissed a claim by his lawyers that he is unable to meet court costs because his assets have been frozen.

Mokbel's lawyer Mirko Bagaric says they may appeal against the decision. "This is some possibility of an appeal here but we can't make any informed opinion in relation to that until we actually have read the judgement," he said.

Mokbel was on trail for cocaine trafficking when he jumped bail in March 2006. He was captured in Greece earlier this year.

 

[2020hindsight]

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 -
- 19 year olds themselves - etc

Former Newcastle Knights captain Andrew Johns admitted in August that he used recreational drugs throughout the majority of his playing career . Another football season has come to an end, but 2007 will be remembered as the year marked by drug scandals.

The AFL's Ben Cousins and rugby league's Andrew Johns both admitted to long-term substance abuse while they were thrilling the crowds on the field.

Now the issue is back in the headlines with the death of former West Coast Eagles player, Chris Mainwaring.

Tougher guidelines to try to curb drug use by Australia's elite athletes are to be unveiled by the Federal Government this weekend, in the face of opposition from many sports.

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.

"I think all football clubs that have large numbers of young men aged 18 to 30, who have significant incomes and significant time will have issues," he said.

"I mean, I think it's just a given, you would expect them to have issues around drug use."

Mixed messages
Drugs has now blemished the career of one of rugby league's greatest players. Andrew Johns admitted on Channel Nine's The Footy Show in August to using ecstasy for the majority of his player career after he was arrested for drugs possession on a recent trip to London.

Former Fremantle Dockers coach Damian Drum says Cousin and Johns have sent the wrong message to young players who should be drawing a distinction between playing professional sport and indulging in drugs.
"What happens with the Ben Cousins issue and the Joey Johns issue is the message we are sending to our young impressionable 16-year-olds throughout Australia," he said.

"These young people previously had the understanding that they can either go down and dabble in these illicit drugs, or pursue life as professional sports person.

"What these individuals have done is they've smashed that perception, and they've effectively said you can do both."

Mr Drum, now a Victorian State MP, has long argued that the code's drug control programs have been a failure and that the string of scandals involving players of the West Coast Eagles and other clubs clearly demonstrates that.

He hopes that Mainwaring's death will now serve as a warning to all about the duty of care that must be extended to young impressionable footballers.

"At the moment we're not even prepared to tackle that," he said.

"We want to treat these 17 and 18 and 19-year-old kids like superstars, we want to pay them like movie stars, and yet at the end of the day when they develop all the bad social habits of our movie stars and pop stars, we start wondering what's going wrong?"

 

[2020hindsight]

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

The inquest into the death of 17-year-old David Michael Spry has found the two animal tranquilliser drugs he overdosed on were probably administered by someone else.

David Spry was living with Roleystone vet Marcel Christiaan-Rauch in 1999 when he died from an overdose of ketamine and halothane.

Christiaan-Rauch was charged with manslaughter and sexual abuse, but died earlier this year just before he was due to be tried.

Today the deputy coroner Evelyn Vicker said Christiaan-Rauch had created a lifestyle for several boys living on his property where drug use was encouraged and it was this lifestyle that was responsible for the teenager's death.

Outside the court David Spry's father Ian said witnesses were brave to give evidence.

"They do have the chance to bring these people to justice if they step forward and I've got to admire all the kids that came forward," he said.

The inquest found the combination of drugs had caused David Spry to suffer a heart attack

 

[2020hindsight]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hey Jessica

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

 

[2020hindsight]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.........

............

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.

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]

PANDARUS: Be moderate, be moderate.

CRESSIDA: Why tell you me of moderation?
The grief is fine, full, perfect, that I taste,
And violenteth in a sense as strong
As that which causeth it: how can I moderate it?

If I could temporize with my affection,
Or brew it to a weak and colder palate,
The like allayment could I give my grief.
My love admits no qualifying dross;
No more my grief, in such a precious loss.

must try to work that one out later