Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
3
Ian4 said:
that's because tobacco is too expensive. I've been a social smoker for most of my adult life (recently quit). last year I bought a carton duty free at Dubai which cost less than 1 pack in Australia.
I rest my case. ;)
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
15,855
84
Bali/Jakarta
1eyedtiger said:
If you legalize drugs, do you think that the same thing would happen, that they'll become too expensive? And without another source like Dubai, people will once again turn to the criminal element for supply. If that happens, the government will be forced to lower the price of the legalized drugs to make them more accessible. How ironic.

Hilarious assertions here. The markup on illegal drugs is in the thousands of percent and this is why organised crime runs drug traF-ficing and distribution. It's a sound business model for them.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/london-school-of-economics-chart-on-illegal-drug-markups-2014-5?r=US&IR=T
 

1eyedtiger

Tiger Superstar
Jun 2, 2007
1,132
0
antman said:
Hilarious assertions here. The markup on illegal drugs is in the thousands of percent and this is why organised crime runs drug traF-ficing and distribution. It's a sound business model for them.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/london-school-of-economics-chart-on-illegal-drug-markups-2014-5?r=US&IR=T
What's hilarious about it? It happened with tobacco. So what if illegal drugs are marked up. If tobacco was illegal, the criminal supply of it would be marked up as well. Alcohol as well. Surely you're not foolish enough to believe that governments wouldn't keep raising the taxes on legal addictive substances? Now that's hilarious. :rofl
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
15,855
84
Bali/Jakarta
1eyedtiger said:
What's hilarious about it? It happened with tobacco. So what if illegal drugs are marked up. If tobacco was illegal, the criminal supply of it would be marked up as well. Alcohol as well. Surely you're not foolish enough to believe that governments wouldn't keep raising the taxes on legal addictive substances? Now that's hilarious. :rofl
As usual this thread is a fact free zone. Read the data in my link and get back to me.
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
19,066
21
Melbourne
1eyedtiger said:
If you legalize drugs, do you think that the same thing would happen, that they'll become too expensive? And without another source like Dubai, people will once again turn to the criminal element for supply. If that happens, the government will be forced to lower the price of the legalized drugs to make them more accessible. How ironic.
if you mass produce government regulated ecstasy for example, they would be ridiculously cheap. i'm not a numbers man, but I'd be surprised if it would cost any more than a couple of dollars to produce. even if 80-90% of it is tax (similar to tobacco), you could charge $10 a pop, make lot of revenue to add to government coffers, and still undercut the street value of ecstasy by at least half.

rosy3 said:
I rest my case. ;)
what case have you rested? I don't understand. people turn to illegal chop chop because legal tobacco is too expensive.
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
21,318
45
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
And here he is, predictably, back again.

Underbelly star Vince Colosimo faces jail after being charged with drug-driving

Richmond has more chance of winning the flag than this bloke does of being sent to jail in Victoria.
This is why whenever anyone says "yep, I've learnt my lesson, I'm better now, wont happen again" I see with great scepticism. Like Bugg, he was very remorseful after the Jack incident. Some people have trouble learning the lesson.
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
21,318
45
No doubt Vince will learn from this, he,ll just want to be with his kids and his family is his greatest priority....
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
19,066
21
Melbourne
Ian4 said:
MB78 said:
I see that Dan Andrews has not allowed the trial for safe injecting houses.

I for one was happy to have the trial, subject to all injectors having themselves identified to the law in case they used crime to feed their drug habit. If it can save lives, make it easier for professionals who deal with this on a daily basis than that needs to be considered.

I really thought Andrews would come at this.
he has a very conservative attitude towards drugs for someone who is trying to portray himself as a progressive premier. Fiona Patten on the other hand. She's very impressive.
well Dan Andrews has changed his mind on this because of the increasing number of heroin related deaths. Its a small start, but a start nonetheless :clap :clap :clap
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
19,066
21
Melbourne
old article that turned up on my Facebook wall this morning.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/drug-dogs-cost-nsw-9-million-per-year/7444908

We now know sniffer dogs cost NSW more than $9m per year
Posted Wed 25 May 2016, 5:13pm

Today we've learned the New South Wales police detection dog unit - the largest in the country - costs more than $9 million per year.

That's not including the wages of the 6-12 officers who accompany the dogs on operations.

Drug sniffer dogs have long been controversial, but the criticism has mostly focused on whether the dogs are any good at finding drugs, rather than the actual cost of the unit.

That's been kept confidential until now.

These figures are in response to questions asked in NSW Parliament by Greens MP David Shoebridge - the same guy who set up the Sniff Off Facebook page that lets you know where drug dog operations are taking place.

He also asked how good the dogs were at finding drugs, including how many arrests they had caused. He was told police don't keep that information.

We already knew about three-quarters of searches result in no drugs being found.

So to summarise: there are doubts the dog program works, and now we know it costs a lot.

"Since 2010 $66 million has been pissed up against a wall by the police drug dog unit with no social return," Mr Shoebridge told Hack.

"The opportunity cost for government is four brand new primary schools state government hasn't been able to build."

Who let the dogs out?

NSW's sniffer dog program was started for the Sydney 2000 Olympics and since then unit has grown in number and expanded to regional areas. It's also been the impetus for other states and territories to start their own drug dog units.

As in NSW, how much each unit costs has not been shared with the public - the total cost of drug dog programs in Australia could be hundreds of millions of dollars.

The roll-out of sniffer dog units across the country has been accompanied by an unprecedented expansion of police powers - police normally don't have the power to search someone without "suspicion on reasonable grounds", but all this changed with sniffer dogs.

Under NSW legislation passed in 2001, police could deploy sniffer dogs without a warrant in bars and trains or at sports stadiums and music festivals.

Under the new law, being searched by a police dog was not the same as being searched by a police officer - it was only a "positive indication". Based on this indication police could have a reasonable suspicion to justify a search.

One of the problems with this approach is the dogs get it wrong most of the time.

Last December Hack reported on the story of two girls, 20 and 21 years old, who were on their way to Strawberry Fields Festival in Victoria when they were stopped by police.

They got out of the car, and were questioned. Then a sniffer dog sat down next to them - a sign it had made a "positive indication".

They were forced to strip and squat in front of officers. They had no drugs.

"It's incredibly violating and dehumanising in a way," one told Hack. "Just because this dog sits at your feet, suddenly all your rights are gone and you have to get naked in front of a stranger."

When you get down to it, you're literally in a tent by the side of the road, naked, in front of a stranger, squatting."

Do they work?

Even in the early days of the sniffer dog program, there were grave doubts about whether the dogs were any good at finding drugs.

The most comprehensive review came in 2006 - the NSW Ombudsman (a public sector watchdog) found police found drugs in only 26 per cent of the recorded positive indications by drug dogs.

Of these, only 19 successful prosecutions were made. That's a strike rate of 0.19 per cent.

Aside from concluding the dogs were not any good at sniffing out drugs, the study also found there was little evidence to support claims the dogs deter people from using drugs.

It also questioned whether the program was cost-effective.

At the time, there were 14 dogs in the program - that number increased soon after the review, and has grown further in the past decade. David Shoebridge, the Greens MP, said he expected there were now "dozens and dozens" of drugs in the unit.

"The drug dog unit in NSW is far and away the biggest of than any state or territory," he said.

This should be a warning sign to other jurisdictions about the real costs of expanding this kind of policing unit."

Why do we have them?

In recent years, both supporters and opponents of the drug dog program have pointed to the example of drug deaths as music festivals to justify their position.

"The cost of losing one life is worth more than the cost of having a sniffer dog," the president of the NSW Police Association said in 2011.

By this reasoning, it doesn't matter what the program costs, because sniffer dogs prevent drug deaths.

Mr Weber said they do this partly by deterring people from smuggling drugs into festivals. Exactly how many people they deter, or how many deaths they prevent, is obviously hard to measure.

"It is hard to get tangible results of that success," Mr Weber said.

But the presence of dogs at festivals such as Strawberry Fields has not entirely prevented drug deaths.

There was a string of drug-related deaths at last summer's music festivals as well as lots of people being treated for overdoses.

It seems not everyone is deterred - neither by the dogs, nor the deaths.

The Brisbane leg of Steresonic festival, for example, happened when anxiety over drug deaths was at a peak. There had been deaths at the Sydney and Adelaide legs in the weeks earlier, and organisers had put on extra security.

But their hopes of a drug-free festival were dashed - 20 people were treated for overdoes.

Critics say either the dogs don't work, or they actively endanger lives. A person going in a festival might see the dogs and then swallow all their drugs at once to avoid detection.

But this is also hard to prove.

David Shoebridge says the war on drugs rhetoric is a distraction from the real justification: the dogs are cute and look good on TV.

"I don't think there's any doubt the reason the drug dog unit has so much money is the police see it as PR stunt," he said.

"They know they can't win the so called war against drugs -it's utterly unwinnable with traditional policing methods. They know dogs have no impact on supply or demand.

The unit provides copy for them they can pump into the lounge rooms of middle Australia on the six o'clock news bulletins.

"They think that works for them on PR level.

"But as as evidence of the cost and ineffectiveness becomes increasingly apparent even their PR use will begin to wane."
the yellow highlight is why is have always been against sniffer dogs.
 

taztiger4

Shovelheads- Keeping hipsters off Harley's
Jul 13, 2005
4,206
82
Richmond Victoria
I am certainly no prude as those on here that know me will attest !!, but isn't swallowing your drugs man to avoid detection the same as speeding away from a booze bus or similar thus also risking your life (as well as others)
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
21,318
45
taztiger4 said:
I am certainly no prude as those on here that know me will attest !!, but isn't swallowing your drugs man to avoid detection the same as speeding away from a booze bus or similar thus also risking your life (as well as others)
Look, when I see the breath test vans I ALWAYS skoll the rest of my scotch. You know it makes perfect sense.
 

Rfc4Ever

Tiger Legend
Oct 5, 2007
10,812
12
Ian4 said:
old article that turned up on my Facebook wall this morning.

the yellow highlight is why is have always been against sniffer dogs.
Are you taking the ****?
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
19,066
21
Melbourne
taztiger4 said:
I am certainly no prude as those on here that know me will attest !!, but isn't swallowing your drugs man to avoid detection the same as speeding away from a booze bus or similar thus also risking your life (as well as others)
If you speed away from a booze bus, isn't it police policy not to chase these days if its considered too dangerous? not only are sniffer dogs ineffective, they are dangerous for similar reasons. people take risks, that is human nature.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
3
Ian4 said:
If you speed away from a booze bus, isn't it police policy not to chase these days if its considered too dangerous? not only are sniffer dogs ineffective, they are dangerous for similar reasons. people take risks, that is human nature.
Why swallow the drugs if the dogs are ineffective anyway? I reckon the booze bus is a good analogy. Neither the booze bus nor the dogs are dangerous if people are not breaking the law. It's neither the fault of the police or the dogs if people choose to take risks.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,323
4
Brisbane
rosy3 said:
I reckon the booze bus is a good analogy. Neither the booze bus nor the dogs are dangerous if people are not breaking the law.
This line of reasoning can be taken to any law made by the government, regardless of its immorality. For example, would you have said the same thing to homosexuals when sodomy law made it illegal for them to engage in sexual acts together? Back then the police were not dangerous to homosexuals if they were not breaking the law after all.