Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread) | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,348
31
Agree T74.  Another factor is drugs are changing, often with very dire consequences.  Some of the ones around today are far removed from smoking a home grown joint.

I don't profess to have had any experience or personal knowledge of drugs that are in vogue today so I apologise if my comments show my ignorance. 

I do know someone who was murdered by his flatmate who was on ice. He just went into a sudden frenzied stabbing attack. Ice is rumoured to cause very violent reactions, do we want that to be legal?   

I imagine ecstasy being handed out like lollies on the dance floor would increase the risk of kids dancing themselves to death.  Aren't we responsible as parents to ensure that is never made legal?
 

collector

Tiger Rookie
Feb 1, 2010
166
0
rosy23 said:
None of us would know the answer to that. I can tell you it's not pretty to see or work with the drug affected babies born to women who used them while pregnant though. Poor little angels. :'(

I can imagine, there was a story recently about hospitals dealing with de-toxing babies. Though at the same time, they also were talking about feotal alcohol syndrome or whatever it is called.

rosy23 said:
I'm disgusted with the situation in regard to that little boy and how the Mum could breach behaviour restrictions and just get a tap on the wrist. I don't think it's a question of "society" getting it right.

Oh no, hence why I qualified with that last post. Wasn't suggesting you or anyone else here is accepting of that ridiculous sentence.

rosy23 said:
Both situations are wrong in different ways but unfortunately punishment is largely due to the mood in the courts on the day.

Mood of the day also treats "illicit drugs" in a more serious fashion than "legal drugs" - Hence why the monster got out of a custodial sentence.

rosy23 said:
The fact with Stokes is he has broken the law. Whether we do or not, we're all obliged to abide by laws whether we consider them right or wrong. Drink driving, abuse, wearing stack hats, speeding, drugs, counterfeit or whatever. If we break them we should expect to suffer the consequences.

Society needs laws...or does it? Maybe we could try the conch system and see how things turn out. >:D

On this I actually agree with you, regardless of the hypocrisy of how Alcohol is treated in comparison to other mind altering drugs, you can only abide by the laws of the day.

duki said:
i guess while we are legalizing drugs we should also legalize the sex trade ;)


Well why not? Who does it harm?
 

collector

Tiger Rookie
Feb 1, 2010
166
0
rosy23 said:
Ice is rumoured to cause very violent reactions, do we want that to be legal?

So does alcohol.

rosy23 said:
I imagine ecstasy being handed out like lollies on the dance floor would increase the risk of kids dancing themselves to death. Aren't we responsible as parents to ensure that is never made legal?

Realistically, this lready happens. & how many of these kids actually have an adverse reaction to it?

In comparison to the number of kids who get on the *smile* and kill themselves/others on the road for example
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,113
18,923
collector, your sole argument is that alcohol causing more damage to society at present. You're right, it does, but purely because of the weight of numbers. If illicit drug use was as common as alcohol use is now, I can pretty much guarantee it would make the effects of alcohol look minor in comparison.

Your argument is a valid one for making alcohol use illegal, not one for making illicit drug use legal.
 

evo

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2003
22,192
52
With you 100% Lamb

Don't expect much support, however. Most people want the government to be their mother and their neighbour's father.

Tiger74 said:
anyone who thinks legalizing illicit drugs will make them safer needs to read their history.

even though China prohibited opium use, their defeat in the Opium Wars effectively meant that they became openly available and the major export of the British to China.

So what I hear you say.

by 1900 one quarter of all chinese males were addicted to opium. how can any society function properly, when one quarter of your male population has an addiction to a drug as powerful as opium?

also for those you celebrate the open use of drugs in the Netherlands, you may want to buy a paper. Due to growing problems of drug use, the Dutch lawmakers are looking to wind back a number of the provisions they have made because the problems related to drug use are becoming more widesread.
lulz

Marijuana used to grow free-range along the Hawksbury, Heroin and Cocaine were legal in the 19th century. You could buy various forms of them at the chemist. Breakdown in society? Anarchy ensued? I think not.

Much more people use drugs today!
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,348
31
collector said:
I can imagine, there was a story recently about hospitals dealing with de-toxing babies. Though at the same time, they also were talking about feotal alcohol syndrome or whatever it is called.

Why do you keep referring to/comparing alcohol related issues on this thread? They are a very different topic. As Baloo points out, your alcohol arguments aren't of much relevance in regard legalising drugs.
 

collector

Tiger Rookie
Feb 1, 2010
166
0
rosy23 said:
Why do you keep referring to/comparing alcohol related issues on this thread?

Simple, and I've said this time and time again in each post. They are ALL mind altering substances. One, the mind altering substance of choice for the white ruling class in 19th century nations remains legal, those that were the choice of people of other races remain illegal.


There is absoloutely no difference between any of them, apart from the fact that you, me and everyone else in our country is indoctrinated to accept one, and wave our judgemental fingers at the other.

rosy23 said:
They are a very different topic. As Baloo points out, your alcohol arguments aren't of much relevance in regard legalising drugs.

No, they are one and the same. Except of course, for the fact that society refuses to accept that alcohol is no different to any of these other drugs, apart from it's legal status.

& Baloo is as wrong as well on this point. It is a valid argument as part of this debate. One person goes home after a hard day and to relax, cracks open a stubby, the other goes home and lights up a joint. Regardless of legal enforcement, one is breaking the law, and both are doing equal damage to their bodies, brains and potentially the people around them.


I also stated quite clearly earlier in the thread, I take a position neither way on the topic, short of posing the question as to why the hypocrisy? Treat them all the same, legal or illegal.

Baloo said:
collector, your sole argument is that alcohol causing more damage to society at present. You're right, it does, but purely because of the weight of numbers. If illicit drug use was as common as alcohol use is now, I can pretty much guarantee it would make the effects of alcohol look minor in comparison.

Except that you have absoloutely no evidence to back that claim up. Remember, legalising would bring the price down, would bring people into the mainstream, and the associated violent crime that goes along with these drugs, would generally dissapear, due to the fact that the violent crime is mostly related to people attempting to fund their addiction...

It would, like alcohol/nicotine, solely become a health issue, not a crime issue.

Think back to your american history and the rise in all sorts of crime that came with prohibition before we start blowing the pro-alcohol trumpets ;) Or those with money who are heroin junkies - models - They aren't out committing crimes, or OD'ing on a large scale basis
 

Disco08

Tiger Legend
Sep 23, 2003
21,757
3
Agree with you too Lamb, to an extent. The biggest problem I see is ice. Legalise it and the effects will still be just as damaging on the user and those around them. I think it needs to remain illegal and the resources being put into fighting it maintained and added to. That raises the problem of drawing the line. A lot of people, including most bureaucrats, would put heroin (and coke, speed, etc) and ice in the same basket (ie jaw droppingly sinful) but in reality these drugs are nothing compared to ice.
 

Tiger74

In deedily doodily neighbourino!
Jul 2, 2004
11,601
5
Melbourne
collector said:
Except that you have absoloutely no evidence to back that claim up. Remember, legalising would bring the price down, would bring people into the mainstream, and the associated violent crime that goes along with these drugs, would generally dissapear, due to the fact that the violent crime is mostly related to people attempting to fund their addiction...

It would, like alcohol/nicotine, solely become a health issue, not a crime issue.

Think back to your american history and the rise in all sorts of crime that came with prohibition before we start blowing the pro-alcohol trumpets ;) Or those with money who are heroin junkies - models - They aren't out committing crimes, or OD'ing on a large scale basis

how did free access to cheap opium help China in the 1800's? curious to understand how having 25% of the male population addicted improves society
 

lamb22

Tiger Legend
Jan 29, 2005
11,484
1,545
Disco08 said:
Agree with you too Lamb, to an extent. The biggest problem I see is ice. Legalise it and the effects will still be just as damaging on the user and those around them. I think it needs to remain illegal and the resources being put into fighting it maintained and added to. That raises the problem of drawing the line. A lot of people, including most bureaucrats, would put heroin (and coke, speed, etc) and ice in the same basket (ie jaw droppingly sinful) but in reality these drugs are nothing compared to ice.

I've been thinking of the very genuine arguments for prohibition. It's interesting in relation to guns I'm probably more in favour of stricter controls although in essence I'm a civil lbertarian.

I think you should model the drug laws in a similar way. I have mates who are shooters and have educated their kids as teenagers but their principle are saftey first. There are absolute rules about never pointing a gun at anyone irrespective of whether its loaded or not, rules on carrying it, rules on storing it securely and separation of ammo and guns in transit. Guns are a differnt issue because they are dfangers to people other than users but if you treat and undertsand drugs for the qualities they posess and the dangers they pose its a start.

If I was King of OZ, I'd start with full legalisation of dope. I'd make it illegal for anyone to offer induce or sell to anyone under 18 and double the current penalties for such a breach. Commence an exhasutive education campaign on the potential negative effects of cannabis and then allow people to grow a small amount for personal use and allow larger scale production under licences and strict quality control and transparency so that people know where it comes from and who to sue if the product is other than as is understood. Unauthorised production to be hit hard. I think you'll find users will quickly gravitate to the safer options and work with authorities to limit unauthorised production.

If succesful then move incremenatally on to other drugs, save that there is no personal production option.

Like you Disco if a drug is so potentially damaging to health then like with medicine or food controls, it should be prohibited as being too dangerous. However even then you need to make a call on whether it is better to have something supplied that is as safe and quality controlled as possible rather than some concontion by a tattoed bearded bandianed backyard chemist.
 

lamb22

Tiger Legend
Jan 29, 2005
11,484
1,545
Tiger74 said:
how did free access to cheap opium help China in the 1800's? curious to understand how having 25% of the male population addicted improves society

The sex was probably better and the cesspools, poor roads and sanitation, feudal governance lack of human rights and other 1800's hardships more tolerable.

Aahh 1800's China - why in the world would you take drugs?
 

Panthera tigris FC

Full Blown Chimp Crush
Oct 28, 2004
4,808
3
Torquay
Agree with your gist Lamby.

The bottom line is humans are going to use drugs, including those that are currently illegal. The question one must ask is where will those drugs come from and what information will the user receive regarding them? Put the supply in government control and you cut off one of the black market's most lucrative sources of income. You also ensure that content and dosage are better controlled and you combine that with increased funding for education and harm minimisation strategies. The vast majority of drug users (and there are a lot of them) are indistinguishable from your average Joe. I agree with Lamby when he states that drugs are a symptom, not a cause. People often use drugs to escape personal issues or mental issues. Forcing them into the criminal world to source their drugs, with minimal avenues of support can often lead to tragedy.

One other benefit is the savings of policing drug use, the so-called war on drugs. Not directly applicable to our situation, but 1/4 million people were incarcerated in the U.S. at the end of 2005 on drug charges. If there is a state-controlled supply, the demand for drugs on the black market will quickly drop.

Of course, this position should not be presented as a 'drugs for all!' stance. The education and harm minimisation strategies should be highly prominent (as they are for alcohol and tobacco).

Just my 2c.
 

Tiger74

In deedily doodily neighbourino!
Jul 2, 2004
11,601
5
Melbourne
lamb22 said:
The sex was probably better and the cesspools, poor roads and sanitation, feudal governance lack of human rights and other 1800's hardships more tolerable.

Aahh 1800's China - why in the world would you take drugs?

don't you think having a quarter of all men whack out of the noggin may have made these issues worse, with people caring more about their next fix than building a proper road, installing decent sanitation, and working to improve their govt?
 

Panthera tigris FC

Full Blown Chimp Crush
Oct 28, 2004
4,808
3
Torquay
Tiger74 said:
don't you think having a quarter of all men whack out of the noggin may have made these issues worse, with people caring more about their next fix than building a proper road, installing decent sanitation, and working to improve their govt?

There are such things as 'white collar junkies' in our society. Not all narcotics users are 'whacked out' all of the time. I think you are portraying the use of drugs in an extreme light. Just as there are raging alcoholics and hopeless junkies there are also occasional users of these drugs that continue to act as functional and productive members of our society. Unfortuately (IMO) our society sees one as 'normal' and the others as criminals.
 

Tiger74

In deedily doodily neighbourino!
Jul 2, 2004
11,601
5
Melbourne
Panthera tigris FC said:
There are such things as 'white collar junkies' in our society. Not all narcotics users are 'whacked out' all of the time. I think you are portraying the use of drugs in an extreme light. Just as there are raging alcoholics and hopeless junkies there are also occasional users of these drugs that continue to act as functional and productive members of our society. Unfortuately (IMO) our society sees one as 'normal' and the others as criminals.

when you have 25% of the population living on an opium pipe, don't you think thats getting extreme?

when you start dealing with proportions like that, and for something as addictive as opium, its not like we are comparing it to poms getting baked in a coffee house in amsterdam

personal I am for decriminalisation on use, but I think we are kidding ourselves if we think herion, ice, cocaine and the like are recreational substances that don't kill and don't destroy lives
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,348
31
lamb22 said:
If I was King of OZ, I'd start with full legalisation of dope.

You'd have to have some very good reasons to legalise dope King lamby. What are they?
 

evo

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2003
22,192
52
Panthera tigris FC said:
Of course, this position should not be presented as a 'drugs for all!' stance. The education and harm minimisation strategies should be highly prominent (as they are for alcohol and tobacco).

Just my 2c.
Harm minimisation and education is the real benefit of decriminalisation. It is no longer a criminal problem, to be swept under the carpet - it becomes a health and education issue that can be treated maturely like say depression or a gambling addiction. A problem to be tackled at high school, like sex education and with real ad campaigns informingv the public,not scaring them.

"Drugs are bad mmmkay" hasn't worked for the last 50 years, drugs use has increased in that time. Why would people suddenly think it will become successful in the future?


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,113
18,923
collector said:
Except that you have absoloutely no evidence to back that claim up. Remember, legalising would bring the price down, would bring people into the mainstream, and the associated violent crime that goes along with these drugs, would generally dissapear, due to the fact that the violent crime is mostly related to people attempting to fund their addiction...

glad to see I'm not the only one making wild claims with no evidence to back it up