- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Idle ciggie activists to tackle alcohol next?
- Thread starter Bushman
- Start date
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
There's more money now than ever hence kids order shots instead of just beer.
Ice for a start, associated with violence.
Amphetamines - same
All available freely on the street.
prawn_86
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
Got some stats backing this up? Or any linking of shots to violence?
Ice is a type of amphetamine, so assuming this is the only one you have heard about through the media there are at least 2, probably 3, illict drugs that are used more than 'ice', especially when drinking and/or partying and to be honest of the 4 i am thinking of 'ice' would probably be the hardest to get a hold of, but it just depends on the circles you move in.
If you know where it is freely available why don't you report it to the police?
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
OK boys, we've got the cameras with us tonight. Remember, the majority of people still believe everything on TV is true, so let's put on a good show! I want the viewers at home to think they're safer in Baghdad than in Sydney. That way next time we ask for more power everyone will be so scared they won't say no.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,359
- Reactions
- 17,712
I now have images in my head of Prawn dancing to dodgy tunes on a Wednesday night at HQ and riding the bull at the Woolshed......
Seriously, of Australian cities I'd have to say that Hindley St and Kings X never worried me too much although I have certainly seen fights in the latter. There's some streets in Melbourne that scared me somewhat however.
Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
I think this is what it boils down too for many people.
One little difference between tobacco and alcohol that helped the downfall of tobacco is that it could affect adjacent people by involuntary inhalation.
The comparable arguement against alcohol is the accident causing drunk driver and the drunk thugs who pick fights.
The common theme of course is the cost to individuals and the public health and law enforcement purse in general.
I understand if you can prove you have given up smoking you will not be discriminated against treatment wise, but you may still face extra health insurance costs.
They obviously can't go back to prohibition... unles we are overtaken by extreme religious culture... so the solution must be along user pays lines.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
The more people crowded into small spaces the more dangerous it becomes, population growth in cities, add to that unemployment and substances, alcohol or otherwise and you get problems like we have now.
You cant throw the dole at people and expect them to be happy, they might survive but they will increasingly become isolated and experience low esteem.
The ideal situation is the have a society where everyone can hold their head up and have a purpose, ie employment.
Yes it wil cost money to try and fix it but you have to ask yourself what sort of society do you want to live in and if threats of any description can be eliminated or lessened than it's you that benefits, so it's worth the cost.
I dont expect miracles from Govt but they have it **** up, privatising things like transport put thousands out of jobs and made train stations dangerous, trams have no one to help a woman on with a pram any more and on it goes.
Instead of chasing financial efficiancy Govt's should be pursuing whats holistically good for the population.
I prefer a society that is "happier" than the one we have now and I'm prepared to pay for it but who's there to implement it ? No one I'm afraid.
[/early morning rant]
You cant throw the dole at people and expect them to be happy, they might survive but they will increasingly become isolated and experience low esteem.
The ideal situation is the have a society where everyone can hold their head up and have a purpose, ie employment.
Yes it wil cost money to try and fix it but you have to ask yourself what sort of society do you want to live in and if threats of any description can be eliminated or lessened than it's you that benefits, so it's worth the cost.
I dont expect miracles from Govt but they have it **** up, privatising things like transport put thousands out of jobs and made train stations dangerous, trams have no one to help a woman on with a pram any more and on it goes.
Instead of chasing financial efficiancy Govt's should be pursuing whats holistically good for the population.
I prefer a society that is "happier" than the one we have now and I'm prepared to pay for it but who's there to implement it ? No one I'm afraid.
[/early morning rant]
Logique
Investor
- Joined
- 18 April 2007
- Posts
- 4,290
- Reactions
- 768
It will be a teaser for the regulators once these new driverless cars come in. Bridge to navigator, plot a course for home.
Apparently the technology is ready (hope it has good anti-virus), it just needs regulatory approval. '..But officer, I wasn't driving!..'
Apparently the technology is ready (hope it has good anti-virus), it just needs regulatory approval. '..But officer, I wasn't driving!..'
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
The huge difference between the two is that tobacco kills 1 in 2 people who use it. Alcohol doesn't.
prawn_86
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
haha hell no. Both those venues are dives, i have only been to each a couple times. EC used to be the club to be at back in my uni days.
That is exactly what i have been saying. Stricter interpretaion and laws isnt going to change anything, merely reinforce the current cycle.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
It's a bit sad to consider that you apparently don't believe it's possible for people to be happy, smile at others and ask how they're doing, without chemical assistance.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
I'm off to the pub to discuss this and other matters with men of importance
prawn_86
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
I said 'how many' ie implying that more than usual, much more in fact, would be like this. Show me where i said it's not possible for people to feel like this without drugs.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
I could be wrong but I think prawn's point is that people don't necessarily become violent and agressive when they take drugs. If you take ecstacy, you're more than likely to react in the exact opposite way.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
OK, perhaps prawn can clarify what he meant.
prawn_86
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
I meant that in a nightclub where a lot of people are taking illict drugs, you are probably going to come across more 'friendly' people than what you would do in a different social gathering.
Of course some people are like this normally, but proportionatly i think you would find more in a club due to chemical assistance. I'm not saying you need this assistance to get like this, it is just the nature of certain illict drugs.
And McLovins point is also valid.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Your toothpaste with "chemical assistance" will improve your smile.
Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but yes, smoking probably does kill more of it's users in the long run.
But like smoking, alcohol does affect and harm or kill people other than the one who consumed it, by way of alcohol fueled violence and accidents which can kill innocent people sooner, rather than later.
I think the issue that got the anti-smoking campaign really rolling was passive smoking... the contamination of non-smokers working and living environments by smokers. That hooked the human rights and WH&S of the non-smoker to the adverse effects of smoking to get smoking banned in places where non-smokers had access.
While the health system is trying to make in-roads in terms of user pays and preferential treatment for non-drinkers, the law and public sentiment is rather lagging.
Maybe more momentum will come from WH&S drug and alcohol tests, harsher penalties and suspensions for drunk driving accidents including including civil actions.
Maybe the day will come you will not be able to start your car or enter your workplace without passing an automated breath/drug test. Sounds a bit radical, but not hard or too expensive to do really... and not far from the current position re smoking.
