http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132153106546066.html?mod=WSJASIA_newsreel_opinion

Well no great surprise there.
Only the naive and ideologically manacled just say no campaigners ever believed that prohibition would be an effective strategy against drug use.
As if they were unaware of the pitifully hopeless outcomes of the nearly 50 year old war on drugs, they maintain that with just a bit more effort we can stop it.

Well smarter heads are starting to face reality, the drug war is lost.
We now have terror organisations as major drug traffickers, way to go you conservative cretins.
Enabling terrorism by providing an easy source of funding which provides them with millions, if not billions of dollars.

We will all pay the price for that folly, sooner rather than later I fear.
We already do pay a significant financial and social cost for our foolish drug policies.
We pay for it with crime figures, and insurance, and jails so full of people from drug related offences that judges and bureaucrats have to give shorter sentences for really violent crims because of the chronic overload our system is under because of the illegal staus of drugs.

It is madness, and there is only one answer, there has only ever been one answer, take the money out of it.
As long as people can make huge profits from it, it will flourish.

Drugs need to be supplied and distributed by governments.
They need to control strength, what is available.

The bottom line is people love to get high, they always have, and always will, and some of our greatest figures throughout history have been users of opium, cocaine, heroin, etc., so while I agree that some drugs like those from the amphetamine family would need to have a special approach, because of their propensity to induce psychosis in so many, the people that use those drugs would be content with much weaker, less dangerous alternatives, if they could get a satisfying buzz off something else.

So wake up world, the drug war is killing you.

Assuming the drug war is lost, what do we do now? You say that drugs need to be supplied by the government, but can't the private sector deal with this? I don't want taxpayer money suddenly going from the fight against drugs to handing out drugs. And wouldn't people naturally seek out more dangerous drugs if some of the currently illegal drugs became allowed?

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 9:37pm:

Assuming the drug war is lost, what do we do now? You say that drugs need to be supplied by the government, but can't the private sector deal with this?

Better not. The private sector always seeks to promote and advertise whatever it sells, even things like water and electricity in places where it has no competition. We don't want drugs promoted for profit; just supplied without hassles.

fawkes wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 8:10am:

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 27th, 2010 at 9:37pm: Assuming the drug war is lost, what do we do now? You say that drugs need to be supplied by the government, but can't the private sector deal with this? Better not. The private sector always seeks to promote and advertise whatever it sells, even things like water and electricity in places where it has no competition. We don't want drugs promoted for profit; just supplied without hassles.

Advertising for tobacco products is banned, couldn't that be the same for these drugs?

Another thing to consider is that the drug war might only be "lost" in the same sense as the second world war was "lost" years before it ended. The losers fought on ferociously and did not stop until leadership headquarters were over-run and destroyed. Until the leaders of the drug war are similarly dealt with, you can expect them to continue their war despite evidence of it being a lost cause. It's all at our expense, after all!

As long as their have been people, they have been looking for, and finding ways, to get off the faces.
If you think that any government initiative will change anything apart from which methods are employed then I fear you are deluding yourself.

The simple fact is the current war on drugs has created far more negatives than positives, it is an absolute failure, in every possible sense.

If they want a real war on drugs, then they should start with religions.

At least most mind altering drugs are merely a temporary delusion.

:D

Amadd wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 2:45am:

If they want a real war on drugs, then they should start with religions....

That would put atheism into hotspot.

I am sure he was just kidding Tallo.
We know very well that many religions have incorporated mind altering substances into their rituals since the eraliest days of civilisation.
We still se rastifarians using pot most enthusiastically, and all supporters of freedom of religion would necessarily respect that. ::)

mozzaok wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 12:54pm:

Drugs need to be supplied and distributed by governments.

Drugs, both legal and illegal, ARE supplied and distributed by governments. The drug war came about to make sure that governments remained the ONLY suppliers...

mozzaok wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 12:54pm:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132153106546066.html?mod=WSJASIA_newsreel_opinion Well no great surprise there. Only the naive and ideologically manacled just say no campaigners ever believed that prohibition would be an effective strategy against drug use. As if they were unaware of the pitifully hopeless outcomes of the nearly 50 year old war on drugs, they maintain that with just a bit more effort we can stop it. Well smarter heads are starting to face reality, the drug war is lost. We now have terror organisations as major drug traffickers, way to go you conservative cretins. Enabling terrorism by providing an easy source of funding which provides them with millions, if not billions of dollars. We will all pay the price for that folly, sooner rather than later I fear. We already do pay a significant financial and social cost for our foolish drug policies. We pay for it with crime figures, and insurance, and jails so full of people from drug related offences that judges and bureaucrats have to give shorter sentences for really violent crims because of the chronic overload our system is under because of the illegal staus of drugs. It is madness, and there is only one answer, there has only ever been one answer, take the money out of it. As long as people can make huge profits from it, it will flourish. Drugs need to be supplied and distributed by governments. They need to control strength, what is available. The bottom line is people love to get high, they always have, and always will, and some of our greatest figures throughout history have been users of opium, cocaine, heroin, etc., so while I agree that some drugs like those from the amphetamine family would need to have a special approach, because of their propensity to induce psychosis in so many, the people that use those drugs would be content with much weaker, less dangerous alternatives, if they could get a satisfying buzz off something else. So wake up world, the drug war is killing you.

The term 'war on drugs' is a bit of a  furphy as there is mainly only one side doing the dying.
Dealers and manufacturers serving time in gaol are treating their short stint in comfortable surroundings like attending an education workshop boning up on new techniques and gaining new contacts.
The reason the 'war' is getting away from us because the penalties to provide a deterrence aren't there in the first place.
It's good that you mention history because that is always a good place to start.
China did not fight three deadly Opium Wars with Britain on Chinese soil two centuries ago because they wanted something to do.
The forced importation of Opium into China in exchange for the export of Tea and spices to the Empire was the deal.
No Free Trade Agreement there, and the British weren't prepared to lose money on the Chinese renegging on the deal so war it was all three times.
The importation of Opium into China resulted in addicts deaths in the millions, the wars cost China thousands of dead in each one.
The Chinese initially sought to restrict the trade by allowing only one port in China for importation, but this attempt failed.
Queen Victoria also eventually banned Opium and Marijuana because of the impact it was having in British society, despite the government receiving revenue from it.
So by all means, mention the past.
The idea that governments can control supply, distribution, quality and what is available is also a furphy.
Chop Chop tobacco is still today been grown and sold illegally on the Far North QLD Tablelands and being send southwards despite cigarettes and tobacco being available everywhere.
Who doesn't know someone with a home brew kit at home?
Homes all over the country are making their favourite 'doom juice', and the home brew kit business in this country is absolutely flourishing.
How can the government control what is available in the future when they can't do so now?
Sourcing and the manufacture of new drugs will continue, surely you don't suggest 'everything' is legalised?
Do we really want 'Ice' legalised?
We can expect that there will still be drug labs out their making their own improved version of the governments 'low carb' product.
Drug manufacturers and dealers will not donate their time in Aged Care facilities singing songs to the oldies, or get real jobs if drugs are legalised.
They will simply find another activity to sponsor their tax free illegal lifestyle, that's human nature.
However, you are right that our gaols are full of drug dealers etc, whilst the 'real' violent criminals get short sentences because of overcrowding.
Although if the truth be known, most offenders have short stays today.
Even the Anita Cobby animals have already had their life sentences halved, and none are more violent than them.
You want to empty the gaols out for 'real' criminals and provide a deterrence for drug dealers and manufacturers, then that can be acheived.
If the government was deadly serious about the 'War on Drugs', then we would see dealers and manufacturers in the morgues rather than getting free education on Her Majesties pleasure.
Now, that's a deterrent.

Shame on you, blinkered ignorant and ugly.
Kill people you do not like, all these drug dealers and pushers are just some poor buggers kid who got addicted themself and turned to selling drugs to pay for it.

Should we kill prostitutes, shoplifters, car thieves etc?

Maybe we should kill people who disagree with your political ideas as well, I mean why stop at just scum that you dislike because they use drugs?
Why not kill your political enemies too, you also think they are scum.

The obvious major problems of illegal tobacco and alcohol consumption are huge problems for us?????? Come on, they do it for the money, money is the key, and if smokes were $1 a pack, instead of $15, we would see very few people supplying chop chop, as it would not be worth their while.

So these drugs need to be available, but uncool, so young people do not keep choosing to use them.
The whole Pusher fantasy is just so much garbage for parents in denial about little johnny doing dope.

Quote:

So these drugs need to be available, but uncool, so young people do not keep choosing to use them. The whole Pusher fantasy is just so much garbage for parents in denial about little johnny doing dope.

Possibly, however, the main intent in taking drugs is to feel cool.
I don't know many people who take drugs because they are after a bad trip. It's the promise of some desirable feeling that intiates the intent.

And for all intents and purposes, if there is a drug (of choice) that makes one feel cool, then they probably will be cool whilst the drug is having the desirable effect.
But of course most drugs do have a tradeoff. The tradeoff may vary amongst different types of people and may very often be relatively minor whilst the user is in control.
Society often warps that tradeoff for controlled drug users into a straight out lie, this will cause nothing but mistrust in the long run ..IMO.

In that vein, I think that the only lesson that Ben Cousins has learned is to tell them what they want to hear, and then rake in the cash for doing so from these dummies.
$600k for a doco that puts him in the limelight, just where he so desperately wants to be? Why would he bother busting his guts playing footy?
Forget about wearing white boots on the footy field to get noticed, get out there with a white nose and the gratuities will come rolling in.
I think that most rational teenagers would much prefer Cousins as a role model than that fat-ass booze swilling Les Twentyman, or many other (supposed) role models for that matter.

[Edit] ...If Cousins wasn't a pretty boy, then he would've been gone and forgotten long ago without a penny being added to his name. ..not that there's anything wrong with that.iii

mozzaok wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 2:47pm:

Shame on you, blinkered ignorant and ugly. Kill people you do not like, all these drug dealers and pushers are just some poor buggers kid who got addicted themself and turned to selling drugs to pay for it. Should we kill prostitutes, shoplifters, car thieves etc? Maybe we should kill people who disagree with your political ideas as well, I mean why stop at just scum that you dislike because they use drugs? Why not kill your political enemies too, you also think they are scum. The obvious major problems of illegal tobacco and alcohol consumption are huge problems for us?????? Come on, they do it for the money, money is the key, and if smokes were $1 a pack, instead of $15, we would see very few people supplying chop chop, as it would not be worth their while. So these drugs need to be available, but uncool, so young people do not keep choosing to use them. The whole Pusher fantasy is just so much garbage for parents in denial about little johnny doing dope.

The subject of the thread is about the Drug War, not prostitution, shop lifters, car thieves or even people with differing political opinions.
So, no points for the deflection I'm afraid.
The thrust of my post was about the poor deterrence value in our justice system for people who manufacture or sell drugs.
The other issue is that some believe that the government 'buying in' to the supply and sale of former illicit drugs will be the panacea that fixes everything, and turns criminals into choirboys.
But clearly the sale of chop chop & home brews demonstrates the government has no more control whatsoever.
And furthermore, history clearly shows us that broad based legalisation leads to disasterous consequences.
And if you believe that the government would be interested in selling cigarettes, alcohol or former illicit drugs below market price for a $1 is a good thing for society, you are dillusional.
Another 500,000 or so users would benefit this country how???
Our taxes going towards sponsoring this foolishness would benefit this country how???
Your proposition only benefits the users.
Whether you like it or not, people are dying right now as I type this.
And they will still die whether drugs are made legal or not.
But we can reasonably expect that more people will die if the illicit drugs are made legal, simply by the virtue their would be an increase in users.
Do you really think for one moment that a hardline penalty for manufacturing or supply of illicit drugs would not result in people changing their ways.
Absolutely it would.
When dealing with illicit drugs, someone always eventually dies.
I'm just proposing that the war ledger is evened up somewhat to provide a real and lasting deterrent.
You dont get more 'uncool' than that. :)

Quote:

When dealing with illicit drugs, someone always eventually dies. I'm just proposing that the war ledger is evened up somewhat to provide a real and lasting deterrent. You dont get more 'uncool' than that.

Somebody always dies anyway. That's the non-negotiable deal that we are all involved in.
Breaking news: Humans have dabbled in mind-altering substances or practices ever since they've had the cognitive ability to do so. And even before that.

A political system will always fail when it builds itself around a psyche of we are not, rather than what we are.
There is no better method IMO than to educate people upon the dangers in an honest and upfront manner. If that doesn't work, then adjust the political system around what is, rather than what isn't.

It's for that very same reason that a "one size fits all" Religio-Political system has never worked, and never will.

This thread is a tad hypocritical IMO in that the war was never there to be won. The war on drugs is in essence a war on yourself.

We need to consider the reason behind drug abuse.

Why do many young people have such terrible lives
that the only solution they can think of is to buy some
unknown powder at a railway station & inject it up their arm?
The powder could be Ajax for all they know - and instantly kill them.

We need to understand why people are so miserable
& help them to discover a happier life.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 5:51pm:

We need to consider the reason behind drug abuse. Why do many young people have such terrible lives that the only solution they can think of is to buy some unknown powder at a railway station & inject it up their arm? The powder could be Ajax for all they know - and instantly kill them. We need to understand why people are so miserable & help them to discover a happier life.

Why can't we just accept that some people in the world are idiots, and live with that.
And is it really necessary to understand why they are idiots and why they make such poor life choices.
Perhaps that's a question they should be asking themselves.

Drug USE, and drug ABUSE, are not one and the same, and as rightly pointed out by Ammad, ever since the guys were out chasing wooly mammoths, and the ladies out gathering, noticed they got a nice buzz on when they ate the mushrooms with the purple stems, people have been using the gifts that our divine creator(wink) provided us with, to better enjoy our temporary existence upon this mighty rock.
So to just condemn any and all things which alter us from our natural state is small minded and foolish.
Many people need drugs to function, and as such they have them prescribed to them, and many people find a glass of wine a pleasant addition to a fine meal, as such, these people are all DRUG users, but the whole drug issue needs to be considered in relation to the harm that may flow from any particular drug use, and we all know that Alcohol, and tobacco, both fully LEGAL drugs, produce the greatest harm, and the greatest costs to our society, so to marginalise, and criminalise others who do no harm to any, but who happen to indulge a desire to get off their nut on some drug occasionally, is a strange decision for a civilised society to make.

Many people need drugs to function, and as such they have them prescribed to them ..

- Mozza

Most people know the difference btwn taking prescribed medication in order to live a healthier life as opposed to taking drugs like speed, heroin etc which do the opposite .. they slowly kill you.  

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:25am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 8th, 2010 at 5:51pm: We need to consider the reason behind drug abuse. Why do many young people have such terrible lives that the only solution they can think of is to buy some unknown powder at a railway station & inject it up their arm? The powder could be Ajax for all they know - and instantly kill them. We need to understand why people are so miserable & help them to discover a happier life. Why can't we just accept that some people in the world are idiots, and live with that. And is it really necessary to understand why they are idiots and why they make such poor life choices. Perhaps that's a question they should be asking themselves.

You sound like someone who wants simple answers to complex problems.
Idiots?
Sometimes very intelligent & successful people are
destroyed by drugs - especially heroin & cocaine.

Quote:

Sometimes very intelligent & successful people are destroyed by drugs - especially heroin & cocaine.

If they fall to drugs, then they fail. Tough titty.
If it's not cocaine or heroin that they need to bring about the "definition of success", then it would be some other personality trait. Maybe wife bashing, maybe religion, maybe paedophilia, ..there's always something.

Amadd wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 8:57am:

Quote: Sometimes very intelligent & successful people are destroyed by drugs - especially heroin & cocaine. If they fall to drugs, then they fail. Tough titty. If it's not cocaine or heroin that they need to bring about the "definition of success", then it would be some other personality trait. Maybe wife bashing, maybe religion, maybe paedophilia, ..there's always something.

Amadd - I think society should take a medical approach to drug abuse.
Surely it's a medical problem & we are wasting time & money
turning it into a policing problem?
For many harmless pot users the legal problem is the only problem.
They contribute to society - harm no one & pay taxes yet they are treated as criminals.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

Amadd wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 8:57am: Quote: Sometimes very intelligent & successful people are destroyed by drugs - especially heroin & cocaine. If they fall to drugs, then they fail. Tough titty. If it's not cocaine or heroin that they need to bring about the "definition of success", then it would be some other personality trait. Maybe wife bashing, maybe religion, maybe paedophilia, ..there's always something. Amadd - I think society should take a medical approach to drug abuse. Surely it's a medical problem & we are wasting time & money turning it into a policing problem? For many harmless pot users the legal problem is the only problem. They contribute to society - harm no one & pay taxes yet they are treated as criminals.

Not only that, because of the criminal element involved in illegal drug dealing, many "normal" law abiding people come into contact with a criminal element that they normally would not.
This can see criminality "normalised" in their minds, and lead to the acceptance of other things they would not entertain if they did not mix with this criminal element because of their drug use.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 8:37pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 9:25am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 8th, 2010 at 5:51pm: We need to consider the reason behind drug abuse. Why do many young people have such terrible lives that the only solution they can think of is to buy some unknown powder at a railway station & inject it up their arm? The powder could be Ajax for all they know - and instantly kill them. We need to understand why people are so miserable & help them to discover a happier life. Why can't we just accept that some people in the world are idiots, and live with that. And is it really necessary to understand why they are idiots and why they make such poor life choices. Perhaps that's a question they should be asking themselves. You sound like someone who wants simple answers to complex problems. Idiots? Sometimes very intelligent & successful people are destroyed by drugs - especially heroin & cocaine.

I've always found that the simple answer is usually the best one in life.
We can procrastinate and find excuses to do nothing looking for complex answers till the cows come home, but the problems remain.
Just because someone in considered to be very intelligent by some and are successful in life, doesn't mean they don't make poor life choices as we have seen many times before.
There has been enough education in the last thirty years in this country on the use of illicit drugs, so they have no excuse for not being informed.
So yes, that does make them idiots.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 12:36pm:

Drug USE, and drug ABUSE, are not one and the same, and as rightly pointed out by Ammad, ever since the guys were out chasing wooly mammoths, and the ladies out gathering, noticed they got a nice buzz on when they ate the mushrooms with the purple stems, people have been using the gifts that our divine creator(wink) provided us with, to better enjoy our temporary existence upon this mighty rock. So to just condemn any and all things which alter us from our natural state is small minded and foolish. Many people need drugs to function, and as such they have them prescribed to them, and many people find a glass of wine a pleasant addition to a fine meal, as such, these people are all DRUG users, but the whole drug issue needs to be considered in relation to the harm that may flow from any particular drug use, and we all know that Alcohol, and tobacco, both fully LEGAL drugs, produce the greatest harm, and the greatest costs to our society, so to marginalise, and criminalise others who do no harm to any, but who happen to indulge a desire to get off their nut on some drug occasionally, is a strange decision for a civilised society to make.

Well the reason that alcohol and tobacco cause the greatest harm, is because they are LEGAL and millions more people indulge.
That is a simple fact.
So don't pretend that legalising illicit drugs wont have the same effect on society that the legal ones do as the level of users skyrockets.
And as we have seen so many times before, the overwhelming majority of young people don't know the difference between 'use' and 'abuse'.
To young people 'more' is good.
The last thing this country needs is to see our road toll skyrocket even more, or the crime rate because of the legalisation of these substances.

Some years back I was on a course where as an exercise we were split into teams and told to come up with a solution to the drug problem.

Our team came up with:

Addicts do not go to prison for minor possession but are encouraged to attend rehab. Addicts convicted of criminal offences are not sent to mainstream prison but to a secure rehab facility. They will be helped over their addiction and given vocational training and education to enable them to function on the outside. There will be no fixed sentence, but a panel will review progress and decide when an inmate is ready for release. If they reoffend all bets are off and the traditional prison system will deal with them.

Traffickers will be dealt with harshly, with mandatory sentences and asset seizure made easier.

Not a perfect solution, but the world is not a perfect place. The course participants included Police who were very definite that the system as it was was failing.

I hate to laugh, but what they would like us to construe as well meaning naivety, when people come up with such ideas is really more about trying to make themselves feel better,, they could not give a rat's rectum about drug users, unless they are an immediate family member, and there ultimate solution, "chuck 'em in jail", is what they really want to do all along, and all the mealy mouth prelude is simply salve to their own consciences, so they do not feel like the ignorant judgmental fwits they are.

I agree that there is really little concern for the drug user per se'. The concern seems more about how to force them to contribute to society as others would see fit.
And people clammer to rip the arms off of drug users in an attempt to "save" them. Sometimes, you'd have to wonder who is need of being saved.

Obviously, drug use is an extremely complex issue. No mathematical formula could realistically ever hope to input all of the variables where the desired result is a variable.

Usually, I think, the question of what harm a specific drug is doing to the user is not the issue. The issue is wtf are we getting out this person's decision to partake in a certain drug?

In tablet form, it would be hard to argue that many of the "recreational" drugs out there are any more harmful to the human body than many of the manufactured and controlled drugs in the same form.

It would be a sin to stop anybody trying to stop anybody going to the edge for the promise of mediocrity.

Is adrenalin a drug? Should it be banned?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNfgu-bYEvc

I loved that clip. No, adrenalin should not be banned.

- but at least adrenalin is produced by the body and not prepared in drug labs by sociopathic criminals (who just want to get rich fast on the addiction of others) and laced with calcium hypochlorite or something.

We need to draw the line somewhere. Many drug addicts pay a terrible price in terms of physical health and the loss of mental stability. There are those who make themselves rich at the expense of the weak like that - but it's blood money.

I don't support the death penalty, but I feel elated when I hear about drug smugglers being arrested in Indonesia and Singapore.  I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. It's a similar feeling to that when I step on a cockroach.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

Amadd - I think society should take a medical approach to drug abuse. Surely it's a medical problem & we are wasting time & money turning it into a policing problem? For many harmless pot users the legal problem is the only problem. They contribute to society - harm no one & pay taxes yet they are treated as criminals.

I agree. Make it easy for drug users to get health checks in a non-judgmental environment.

However, There is no such thing as harmless pot.

Drug dealers deserve no mercy.

muso wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 4:32pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 10:41am: Amadd - I think society should take a medical approach to drug abuse. Surely it's a medical problem & we are wasting time & money turning it into a policing problem? For many harmless pot users the legal problem is the only problem. They contribute to society - harm no one & pay taxes yet they are treated as criminals. I agree. Make it easy for drug users to get health checks in a non-judgmental environment. However, There is no such thing as harmless pot. Drug dealers deserve no mercy.

The only thing that annoys me about drug users is that to me they are selfish.
They expect society to pick up the pieces with social welfare etc
& many contribute no taxes in return - I'm talking about the ones
who indulge to excess - & the same could be said of alcohol.
They are just parasites on the rest of us who work hard.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 10:02pm:

The only thing that annoys me about drug users is that to me they are selfish. They expect society to pick up the pieces with social welfare etc & many contribute no taxes in return - I'm talking about the ones who indulge to excess - & the same could be said of alcohol. They are just parasites on the rest of us who work hard.

When it comes to drug users (and people with STI's) society as a whole suffers. You're right - as individuals these people are selfish, however I tend to think more about what can be done collectively to reduce the overall risk for society as a whole.

If we do nothing and expect eveybody to pay up for medical supervision, then we'll end up like the US, which has a much bigger problem than we do.

These people tend to use what money they have to buy drugs. Some of them will even rob or commit violent crime to feed their addiction.  They generally won't spend money on medical checks. It comes down to the question of whether we want some degree of medical supervision, or total chaos.

Safe injection rooms may be an option, with methadone programs, clean syringes etc. I know it's controversial, but it's for the benefit of society as a whole. If you had a son or daughter who was attacked by a deranged crackhead, you'd probably think that any degree of medical supervision is better than none.

We read about some really heinous violent crime and wonder - what kind of person could have done this? In many cases, drugs are involved.

Muso,
When you say drugs - always include  - alchohol.   ;)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 12:39pm:

Muso, When you say drugs - always include  - alchohol.   ;)

Alcohol is a legal drug. I'm not suggesting the death penalty for all publicans.  ;D - but in the context of violent crime, of course.

Those people who say "They stuffed up their life - Big deal" don't grasp the fact that there are consequences, like increases in homicides, rape and other violent crime. They stuffed up their life, and that of every poor soul whose path they happened to cross.

The vast majority of "drug related" crime is more a function of the illegality of the drug than the actual effect of the drug itself.

Heroin addicts choose their method of making money - shopping, blagging or working - it takes an incredible leap to resort to violence to obtain that cash - and only then when they're hanging out and not because of direct effects of the drug.

While coming off meth can cause some probs, it only affects a tiny proportion of users - but then you have to remember it was the controls on the chemicals used to make old style speed (which always had a much smaller market due to the extreme experience of using it) that caused the introduction of meth here.

Prohibition is counter-productive, but the damage has been done now. I don't know what the solution is.

Antisocial drug users are a hideous underclass - regardless of their income -  sheltering behind 'addiction'. A load of nonsense.
Send them to an orphanage in Africa to work and see if they have the hide to bleat about how hard they have it.
If drug users can't cover the expenses and wear the social consequences of their habits then they are nothing but full-of-sh!t parasites.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 5:51pm:

We need to understand why people are so miserable & help them to discover a happier life.

Because they have their soft heads up their own pampered arses. All the way. If that's too traditional, try 'because it's Nature's way of telling them they are redundant'.

Either way, it's their own doing. Either they are responsible for themselves or not. They can't have the vote and a driver's licence but no responsibility for what they do.

Soren wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 8:04pm:

Antisocial drug users are a hideous underclass - regardless of their income -  sheltering behind 'addiction'. A load of nonsense. Send them to an orphanage in Africa to work and see if they have the hide to bleat about how hard they have it. If drug users can't cover the expenses and wear the social consequences of their habits then they are nothing but full-of-sh!t parasites.

I agree (for once), but there are two ways of looking at the problem 1. - from the view that these undeserving 'dregs of society' shouldn't get any free handouts from society, or 2. from the perspective that we're not going to solve this problem overnight, so how do we manage the problem in order to have the most cost effective risk reduction for society? If we go for this outreach option, we should also consider how we go about it in order to achieve the maximum effect.

As a parent, surely you must see some merit in the latter approach.  


Quote:

Send them to an orphanage in Africa to work and see if they have the hide to bleat about how hard they have it.

Send them to build toilets in Africa  :P

I believe the drug law is a drastic failure...

I believe Marijuana should legalized for those aged over 18 and sold alongside alcohol, and Magic Mushrooms should be legal to collect for your own person use, but illegal to sell / trade/ provide to people under 18.

I believe heroin should be prescribed by doctors for enthusiasts and people with addictions. Prescription grade heroin isn't that bad when used sensibly. As long as you don't overdose or allow yourself to suddenly run out if you have a physical dependence, it has no serious effects on the body beyond constipation and drowsiness. IMO, I prefer Kava to heroin- honestly.

Meth and cocaine should be illegal, they are really scummy drugs. Ecstacy should be legal, but you should require a letter of authorization or a prescription from a doctor.

Alcohol deserves to be illegal far more than Marijuana or Ecstasy.

There should be strong laws discouraging the supply of drugs to minors.

I was a heavy smoker of marijuana up until several months ago, since then I have moved on to my new love- Kava. I think the ridiculous restrictions which make Kava hard to obtain should be lifted. Kava when used in moderation by even semi-sensible people, given some basic education about how to use it- is harmless. Makes you feel really nicely relaxed and happy when you have the right amount, but have too much and you can feel overly sedated, and temporarily zombified. However it does not cause out of control behavior like alcohol. Very high doses may aggravate depression in susceptible people (until it clears out of the system) because it is a CNS depressant. I myself suffer from depression (treated successfully with medication) and I drink a fair bit of Kava, as you might have guessed lol. Chronic misuse can cause apathy and mild to moderate health problems, but we are talking very heavy use.

BTW first post, just found this forum the other day.

Now I remember actually buying a can of drink that contained Kava from a shop in Hindley Street or thereabouts in Adelaide.  Apparently it's perfectly legal in Australia. It didn't do much more than a cup of coffee.

It's one of the less objectionable 'drugs'


Quote:

In 2007, new restrictions on importing kava into Australia were introduced. These include:    * The importation of kava in Australia is only permitted for medical or scientific purposes.    * People aged over 18 years entering Australia can bring in up to 2kg of kava in their accompanied baggage.

Interesting. I just tried it once because it was something different to the usual soft drinks.

Oh it does something if you have enough of it... You need to have strong Kava on a totally empty stomach (as in 6-7 hours nothing but water or longer if you last had a big meal), and drink a serving every 20 minutes or so for 1-1.5 hours, then you will get an effect stronger than coffee I can assure you, except the opposite :-)

I don't know about the drink you mentioned but doesn't sound encouraging. You need Kava root or at least decent root power. It tastes like the devil though. Also the Kava "tablets" are rubbish.

Kava looks and tastes like used washing up water* and I fail to see how anyone could get pleasure out of drinking it. However each to their own and kava does have a generally calming effect.

The reasons its import into Australia had been restricted however is because of its misuse by aboriginal communities. They have moved away from the ceremonial use of the pacific islanders and are using in such quantities as to seriously damage their health.  

*i once drank washing up water on a scout camp as a dare, so I can truthfully make this comparison. ;)

Well said Soren.
I think that you are extremely pompous. In fact, I think that you represent the dregs of pompousness. You are in fact the dregs of society without even knowing or caring ..but that's OK, it takes all types...but I'd dearly hope that you of all people aren't granted with the honour of teaching our young ones.

You are in fact on the same platform as the most deprived and dredded drug user without even knowing. So at least you have something in common with them.

If you think that the exclusion of drugs within a society would be a resultant positive, then you should research your history a little more closely.
You have your facts all wrong IMHO.i

Soren wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 8:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 8th, 2010 at 5:51pm: We need to understand why people are so miserable & help them to discover a happier life. Because they have their soft heads up their own pampered arses. All the way. If that's too traditional, try 'because it's Nature's way of telling them they are redundant'. Either way, it's their own doing. Either they are responsible for themselves or not. They can't have the vote and a driver's licence but no responsibility for what they do.

That's rubbish Soren.
We have created a society where people are unhappy  often through
NO of fault of their own.
Many people get can't buy a house to live in - they can't pay their bills -
they are working poor being exploited.
Drug use seems to be more rife in the lower demographics.
It's a symptom of a failing society.
You have to feel sorry for people who are so miserable that their only
way of escaping for a short while is to stick a needle in their arm
of some powder that a gangster sells them on the street -
which could be Ajax for all they know.
They could have the cleanest veins in town but also be dead.

This caused by our sick, unfair society but once
again you blame the drug addicts.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 8:36am:

We have created a society where people are unhappy  often through NO of fault of their own. Many people get can't buy a house to live in - they can't pay their bills - they are working poor being exploited. Drug use seems to be more rife in the lower demographics. It's a symptom of a failing society. You have to feel sorry for people who are so miserable that their only way of escaping for a short while is to stick a needle in their arm of some powder that a gangster sells them on the street - which could be Ajax for all they know. They could have the cleanest veins in town but also be dead. This caused by our sick, unfair society but once again you blame the drug addicts.

Good point that drug use is a symptom of underlying problems.  I have absolutely no sympathy for drug dealers who are main reason for the scale of this problem.  

However Drug addicts need to be treated as patients rather than felons. The suggestion of outreach programs makes more sense in that context.

Whatever we can do to reduce drugs on the streets is  a good thing.

muso wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:11am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 8:36am: We have created a society where people are unhappy  often through NO of fault of their own. Many people get can't buy a house to live in - they can't pay their bills - they are working poor being exploited. Drug use seems to be more rife in the lower demographics. It's a symptom of a failing society. You have to feel sorry for people who are so miserable that their only way of escaping for a short while is to stick a needle in their arm of some powder that a gangster sells them on the street - which could be Ajax for all they know. They could have the cleanest veins in town but also be dead. This caused by our sick, unfair society but once again you blame the drug addicts. Good point that drug use is a symptom of underlying problems.  I have absolutely no sympathy for drug dealers who are main reason for the scale of this problem.   However Drug addicts need to be treated as patients rather than felons. The suggestion of outreach programs makes more sense in that context. Whatever we can do to reduce drugs on the streets is  a good thing.

Ditto!

The unmitigated proliferation of dangerous illicit drugs throughout the world is no accident - there is corruption at high levels which results in a systematic over-emphasis on the more visible petty crimes of individual lower level traffickers and dealers, whilst leaving the well-resourced king-pins of organised crime to do and profit as they amorally please...

We are all addicted to some type of drug.
In the case of our society, less physically harmful drugs, such as marijuana, get a bad name because they affect productivity.

If it so happened that marijuana had a positive affect upon productivity, then undoubtably it would be advertised as an acceptable drug.
What we are really debating with marijuana is individual worth vs. society worth. In that respect, I see it as kind of a magical drug which transcends capitalism and communism alike.

Paracetamol or aspirin will be in the same category if administered in the same manner.
A side effect of marijuana is that one is probably not going to be very productive, whereas paracetamol or aspirin will no have a great influence upon productivity.

If used in the correct manner, natural marijuana can obliterate the requirement for many other drugs in certain situations. In fact, it can be far more useful and also less physically harmful...that's why we have such democrratic political parties like the "Marijuana Party" who are regularly scoffed at.

Before scoffing, you need to read up and know what you are scoffing about, because there just may be a little sustance in the argument there.

Equitist.

Quote:

Whatever we can do to reduce drugs on the streets is  a good thing.

One way is to reduce poverty so that people don't use drugs as
an escape from their miserable lives.

I cannot see any way in the criminilisation of drugs helped this woman, I can see almost every way it had the opposite of the desired effect..........


Quote:

FOR five anguished, exhausting and educative years in the 1990s I, like thousands of other ordinary Australians, was addicted to heroin. And I can honestly say that during that time the thought that heroin was illegal was very far from the top of my mind. I was focused on protecting myself from violence, hoping to avoid overdose, battling overwhelming messages of shaming and hostility from society, and simply getting through each day without collapsing. In this way, although I was never actually charged with using heroin, the criminal penalties attached to the drug would inevitably propel me further and further into a dark, unhappy, alienated and criminal world. When society hates and fears you, what is your interest in observing a law that seems so arbitrary (alcohol is legal) and unjust (addicts are the most vulnerable in the drug supply chain)? Everything has already been lost. What's a criminal conviction to someone whose body is screaming in pain and has nothing further to forfeit? I'm not expecting pity for heroin addicts, though I believe sympathy, at least, is more useful than revulsion. What I propose is reconsideration of prejudicial legislation that is wrong, no matter that it is based on genuine concern for the wellbeing of society. Criminalisation of drugs such as heroin simply doesn't make sense. Whether you view drug addiction as illness, affliction, vice, symptom or destiny, my experience was that I never intended to become a heroin addict. Legality wasn't my concern when I was addicted. And my suffering was truly punishment enough, if punishment were even warranted for what is a problem more akin to mental illness than criminal malice I never, ever, met a junkie scared straight by the law. ''You'll be next,'' a counsellor told me, pointing out a girl headed for prison. Even that dire warning couldn't permeate the slimy combination of shame, defiance and disbelief I was wrapped in. The drug owned me: it was that simple. All I could fight for was the dignity being steadily stripped by prejudice, poverty, desperation and illness. Illegality did not deter me from heroin for a moment, any more than it had prevented me and every well-educated, employed and emotionally stable friend of mine from experimenting with other drugs. Soon I was not only a victim, a sufferer and a patient; I was also a fugitive and criminal. Heroin is expensive, even in the 1990s when it was comparatively cheap. By the high point of addiction I needed several hundred dollars a day - every day. Black market economics grossly inflated the price. This ''prohibitive'' expense in turn pushed me first to petty pilfering, then illegal sex work on the street. There was simply no other way to finance my habit, nor could I defeat it. I ended with a criminal record, not for heroin possession but for street soliciting. (This police record, incidentally, threatened my entry to the US several years later on a tour to speak about recovery and rehabilitation to drug users.) Others - usually males - turned to burglary, mugging and scams. Thus one supposed criminality engendered real others. Buying drugs on the street, I risked rip-off, arrest and violence. The dealers I met were generally fellow users (or gambling addicts), as captive and hapless as I was. Unregulated supplies of potentially lethal drugs meant injecting unknown substances, abscesses of the veins, organ damage and dangerously fluctuating potencies. Being present at an overdose meant risking further criminal charges, from possession to manslaughter. Stricken people were left to die alone as their associates fled in apprehension of the law. I shot up in lanes, on railway sidings, among rubbish and in cafe and bar toilets. Being a junkie doesn't mean you don't find rubbish smelly. Fearful of discovery, I fixed up hurriedly and therefore carelessly; there are public toilets in Melbourne that still fill me with a sense of humiliation and horror. If I had overdosed in a lonely, weed-grown lane, no one would have noticed for some time. Unconscious and vomiting in a public toilet cubicle, I would have traumatised an innocent discoverer. Heroin addiction was a geography of exile, of shunned wastelands, repulsive illness, and constant furtive anxiety. Becoming a pariah only made me seek the drug's consolation all the more. Medical practitioners regarded me with varying degrees of sympathy or contempt. Magistrates sighed and made examples of me. Newspapers called for the extermination of my kind. My family wept; and terror grew in my heart by the year until it was all I knew. Hope, like heroin, was too expensive. But none of this was soothed, or avoided, by the threat of criminal charges. No one, neither myself nor the community, was protected. Rather, it was shame, suffering, silence and stigma that flourished in the shadow of those punitive and futile laws. Kate Holden is the author of In My Skin and The Romantic. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/take-it-from-an-exaddict-outlawing-drugs-does-not-work-20120524-1z7tb.html#ixzz1vqeemrqJ

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/take-it-from-an-exaddict-outlawing-drugs-does-not-work-20120524-1z7tb.html#poll

the only people that benefit from her experience are the drug dealers, the legal system.
the police do not benefit, she did not, society does not.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 7:16pm:

Equitist. Quote: Whatever we can do to reduce drugs on the streets is  a good thing. One way is to reduce poverty so that people don't use drugs as an escape from their miserable lives.

It is a genuine fact.
A well known study (done many times by many different people) shows that rats and mice will almost always choose drugs over food, to the point that they starve to death.
It was later tried (and since has been done many times by many different people) that if you expand the cage to a certain size the majority will choose food over drugs, if they even picked drugs at all.

If you people are for keeping drugs illegal then surely you would want pharmaceuticals to become illegal and their dealers, cooks and pushers to be incarcerated?

The illegal drug trade makes 300 billion dollars a year, an insane amount of money to be going into the hands of terrorists and criminals.
A significant amount of that 300 billion gets spent on weapons, and funding, for terrorists, and the fact6 that the world's major heroin production follows the world's worst conflicts around, is not a coincidence, it is a financial imperative.

The ignorant people who wish to see this horrendous pattern stay unchanged, do so from a position of ignorance, often justified by personal moral and religious imperatives that defy logic.

Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same actions, and expecting a different outcome.
Well we have tried the War On Drugs as a course of action, and it has failed utterly, so to expect that continuing it will somehow see us witness a different outcome, according to Einstein, and just about every intelligent person who has ever taken the time and trouble to examine the facts, is INSANE.

It is long overdue that societies take a different approach, and a staged transition to a system which legalises, controls, and taxes drugs, combined with advanced harm minimisation as well as education and rehabilitation programs, is the mature, intelligent, and humane way forward, on this issue.

Quote:

Well we have tried the War On Drugs as a course of action, and it has failed utterly, so to expect that continuing it will somehow see us witness a different outcome, according to Einstein, and just about every intelligent person who has ever taken the time and trouble to examine the facts, is INSANE.

That comment, by Blair, " The war on drugs", was pretty short lived and got snuffed out immediately.

Pretty soon it was to do with the "Re-production of hard drugs", the re-emergence of what the Taliban had conquered.
That innocent-faced Taliban guy got cold-murdered. Nobody gave a crap, as long as the heroin production continued, and continued to drive a bs society which was/is off it's head in the ridiculous name of power.

It was merely a "Redistribution of morals".... ;D ;D ;D

A Redistribution of morals? Yeah I can go with that  ;D

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 9:37pm:

Assuming the drug war is lost, what do we do now? You say that drugs need to be supplied by the government, but can't the private sector deal with this? I don't want taxpayer money suddenly going from the fight against drugs to handing out drugs. And wouldn't people naturally seek out more dangerous drugs if some of the currently illegal drugs became allowed?

By legalising drugs, it does not mean that the government should issue free drugs; but if drugs would be legal the price would plummet. As the prohibition of alcohol produced huge profits for criminals, the same is happening now with drugs.
At times it appears that the governments do not want to find solutions, and that goes for gambling, smoking and drinking.
The government should should maybe put advertisements on their media outlets, like, if your silly to gamble, go ahead and lose all your money, if you want to smoke, and smell like a stale ashtray, go ahead, and if you want to kill yourself with drugs, feel free to do it.
It may sound too radical, but then, it may solve many problems.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 7:16pm:

Equitist. Quote: Whatever we can do to reduce drugs on the streets is  a good thing. One way is to reduce poverty so that people don't use drugs as an escape from their miserable lives.

What you are suggesting, is the last thing the elites want to do; just consider the huge pay rises to politicians and highly paid public servants, many are now on $500,000 plus a year.

You either have to legalize them to remove the profit motive which too many powerful people would not allow to happen because they make too much money.

Or have a mandatory death penalty for anyone in possession.

There is no middle ground.

namnugenot wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 10:30am:

You either have to legalize them to remove the profit motive which too many powerful people would not allow to happen because they make too much money. Or have a mandatory death penalty for anyone in possession. There is no middle ground.

Middle ground is actually legalisation.

hawil wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:12pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 7:16pm: Equitist. Quote: Whatever we can do to reduce drugs on the streets is  a good thing. One way is to reduce poverty so that people don't use drugs as an escape from their miserable lives. What you are suggesting, is the last thing the elites want to do; just consider the huge pay rises to politicians and highly paid public servants, many are now on $500,000 plus a year.

Drug use is caused by poverty.
We treat the symptom & not the cause.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 11:03am:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 1st, 2012 at 10:30am: You either have to legalize them to remove the profit motive which too many powerful people would not allow to happen because they make too much money. Or have a mandatory death penalty for anyone in possession. There is no middle ground. Middle ground is actually legalisation.

Oh yes Saul.... it's commonsense really.
Something sadly lacking in political leaders today. :(

Quote:

Drug use is caused by poverty. We treat the symptom & not the cause.

I agree that poverty may be a contributing factor, however, I think it far more likely that the state of "being" is a far more contributing factor.

In the "old days" there was a certain respect for a state of "being" through God and religion.

Religion has lost it's way and now thinks itself as God via capitalism.
Capitalism, of course, takes no prisoners and has no mercy..it is hardly God-like. It is the anti-Jesus.

It is a fact that answers are more often realized within the "state of being" rather than the state of "being without". If drugs are a part of it, then who are we to judge?

Amadd wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:20am:

Quote: Drug use is caused by poverty. We treat the symptom & not the cause. I agree that poverty may be a contributing factor, however, I think it far more likely that the state of "being" is a far more contributing factor. In the "old days" there was a certain respect for a state of "being" through God and religion. Religion has lost it's way and now thinks itself as God via capitalism. Capitalism, of course, takes no prisoners and has no mercy..it is hardly God-like. It is the anti-Jesus. It is a fact that answers are more often realized within the "state of being" rather than the state of "being without". If drugs are a part of it, then who are we to judge?

And what dictates the 'state of being'? In a majority of cases it is the person socioeconomic position.

I think you will find religion pushes more acceptance of the state of being, you know 'don't worry that millions of people including your loved ones are starving to death because jesus loves you'.
This is a temporary solution by the ruling class to subdue the slaves but as you can see it was not going to last long. The animal mind through adaption will seek to overcome the environmental factors which inhibit it from living life freely.

[quote author=17282B2E332E24262B173237372233470 link=1269226484/61#61 date=1344212011]I think you will find religion pushes more acceptance of the state of being, you know 'don't worry that millions of people including your loved ones are starving to death because jesus loves you'.
This is a temporary solution by the ruling class to subdue the slaves but as you can see it was not going to last long. The animal mind through adaption will seek to overcome the environmental factors which inhibit it from living life freely.[/quote]

Oh well said Saul.!!

Like it or not.  :) Of course we may well end up back in the dark ages, but hey, it may be the price our descendants pay for our greed and consumerism.

DESERVED.!! :) But not by them, surely. Aren't WE responsible for the absolutely abysmal state of the world, our home?

Religion should  only be an aid to well-being. Surely.!  Yet what do we see everyday,...on News.?? War Hatred Chaos.
I think its only now, in the 21st century, that greed (ie Capitalism) is finally approaching/surpassing the power of superstition over people.

Money is now the dominant goal, not the grace of your God.!!

ERRR and  to my point,  which somehow I failed to add.??

The Drug War is Lost, because there are huge tax-free dollars to be made,
..usually, but not always, taken from those least able to bear the cost. And often financing terrorism and criminal activity.

I look at what we do in our society to our young, primarily, and wonder what we think the end result will be.  :(

How stupid ARE we.???? :(

Quote:

And what dictates the 'state of being'? In a majority of cases it is the person socioeconomic position. I think you will find religion pushes more acceptance of the state of being, you know 'don't worry that millions of people including your loved ones are starving to death because jesus loves you'. This is a temporary solution by the ruling class to subdue the slaves but as you can see it was not going to last long. The animal mind through adaption will seek to overcome the environmental factors which inhibit it from living life freely.

Yes a good point, and also a good point by Jalane that money is the overriding factor.

Control is probably just proportional to the size of the herd.
We all cry about it. Stop this, stop that..and in the end, we may as well have conveyor belts to take us to the next point of our existence.

Damn these conveyor belts. I prefer taking jet skis or roller blades to the next part of my existence.  They are more fun and I get to drive.

The fault lies squarely with all those people who are in control of their own lives (group 1). All the others who claim that they are being manipulated and that they have no control of their destiny are just trapped in a self-perpetuating prophecy, and it's not their fault (of course). What, do you think paranoia is drug induced or something? Paranoia is caused by the ruling class. They put things in the water, in your cocoa and in your broccoli when you're not looking.

Actually those of us who are in group 1 are controlling you all.  and there is nothing you can do about it. Keep taking those drugs. You have no choice. (evil laugh)

There is nothing wrong with your life. Do not attempt to adjust it. We are controlling your life. We already control the horizontal and the vertical. We now control the unconscious. We can change the focus from a soft blur to crystal clarity. Sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to the outer limits........    ;)

whatever

Firstly, why do people use illegal drugs?
The root of the problem is not the growers or the suppliers, its the user.
There is a market demand for illegal drugs.

Take the demand away and the market will crash. Its that simple.

De-registered User wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 11:18am:

Firstly, why do people use illegal drugs? The root of the problem is not the growers or the suppliers, its the user. There is a market demand for illegal drugs. Take the demand away and the market will crash. Its that simple.

Take the market away and the demand will be able to be treated like the insidious addiction it is.
Users shouldn't be criminalised, I mean, we don't lock up boozers just because they booze do we?

Didn't we lose the war on booze almost 100 years ago?

The 'War on Drugs', in the meantime, will prove just as ineffective. Too much money, and too many vested interests, for it ever to succeed.

We should also never forget the human propensity for seeking such 'illumination', whether that be for religious purposes or mere self-gratification.

One thing remains a constant - Homo Sapiens, on an individual level, is ever seeking an escape from the modern reality it is ill-equipped to deal with.

De-registered User wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 11:18am:

Take the demand away and the market will crash. Its that simple.

Heh.  yeah if people everywhere just spontaneously cease seeking intoxicants.

Like that's ever gonna happen.  ;D ;D

De-registered User wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 11:18am:

Firstly, why do people use illegal drugs? The root of the problem is not the growers or the suppliers, its the user. There is a market demand for illegal drugs. Take the demand away and the market will crash. Its that simple.

What's a quarter of 'bush' worth these days, if you can score it, $60?

Ipso facto.  8-)

De-registered User wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 11:18am:

Firstly, why do people use illegal drugs? The root of the problem is not the growers or the suppliers, its the user. There is a market demand for illegal drugs. Take the demand away and the market will crash. Its that simple.

X??
the question you put is biased , prejudicial and totally naive.

The solution you posit  'take the demand away'... is ludicrous.
Simplistic,  slanted, and unrealistic..
How would you do that??  Eh??


your question should have been

WHY DO PEOPLE USE ,,...DRUGS.??
You have no idea.??.. 

[/quote]

X??
the question you put is biased , prejudicial and totally naive.

The solution you posit  'take the demand away'... is ludicrous.
Simplistic,  slanted, and unrealistic..
How would you do that??  Eh??


your question should have been

WHY DO PEOPLE USE ,,...DRUGS.??
You have no idea.??.. 

My answer is biased not the question.


And for prejudicial and totally naive,

Well I have been there and beaten it, though its always with you, I must admit it does get easier with time, but the odd thought of temptation comes to haunt once in a blue moon.
Its been 20years for me.

It starts and ends with the user.






[/quote]

.' My answer is biased not the question'.
-GX

Sweetie ..??
don't go getting your knickers in a knot now..

tho your comment (above) is actually ummm  truth... :)

seemingly you refer to 'my answer..' ?  meaning your answer..

'Take the demand away and the market will crash. Its that simple'.
???  ::)

Like everyone will choose to stop..  ???
Sorry Darl  ..  your logic is flawed.

Your answer is NOT .. an answer. :)

Not to worry..  :) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ-ICivXMyY

Quote:

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus says more than 23 tonnes of drugs worth over $5 billion were seized nationally in 2011-12, up 154 per cent from the year before. There were also 93,000 drug-related arrests, and a record 809 hidden drug laboratories were discovered.

source

Needless to say it's our post-WWII immigrants, mainly from South East Asia, who are the main culprits in organising and facilitating the distribution of this toxic plague that is killing the grand-children of Australians who fought to protect their loved ones.

What should happen to address this problem:

1. The announcement of a 5-year amnesty for all drug-takers, dealers, suppliers, mules, snake-heads, importers and the rest.

They may identify themselves at no risk of judicial penalty.

2. After the expiration of this 5-year moratorium on punishment ~ all importers, distributors and dealers will face a mandatory death sentence to be carried out on contract to Indonesia.

3. At all embarkation points from foreign lands to Australia, passengers must be searched for drugs. Baggage-handling must be under close supervision and CCTV monitoring.

4. Upon arrival in Australia, the same procedure as above must be carried out. And here's the twist: If drugs are found, no judicial action will be taken. Only confiscation and the recording of the person's name.

This is because a great many who return to Australia from South East Asian holidays are unaware they have been made drug mules through the switching of bags and other surreptitious strategies.

5. After this amnesty of 5-years, anyone found to be addicted to hard drugs has a choice: Identify the supplier, or take his place on Death Row in an Indonesian jail. Those people addicted to drugs would no longer be facing criminal charges, but would be required to enter into rehab.

No exceptions. No negotiations. No intervention by sob-sister pro bon leftwing lawyers and church identities.

And there should be special vigilance to make sure 'ethnic minority' offenders don't get any kind of exemption and leniency because of their 'black-ass' credentials as Abos or nignogs from Tuscaloosa, Tallahassee or even from Tuskegee.

8-)

The Oracle has spoken

Lord Herbert wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Quote: Australian Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus says more than 23 tonnes of drugs worth over $5 billion were seized nationally in 2011-12, up 154 per cent from the year before. There were also 93,000 drug-related arrests, and a record 809 hidden drug laboratories were discovered. source Needless to say it's our post-WWII immigrants, mainly from South East Asia, who are the main culprits in organising and facilitating the distribution of this toxic plague that is killing the grand-children of Australians who fought to protect their loved ones. The Oracle nitwit has spoken

Needless to say there was nothing remorely connected to ethnicity in your 'source'.

Grey wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

Needless to say there was nothing remorely connected to ethnicity in your 'source'.

Isn't that the truth though. Mustn't upset the Ethnic Voting Blocs until it becomes absolutely inevitable that the TV cameras will once again capture images of Muslim family-and-friends bursting out of the Criminal Courts screaming and brawling with the media reporters.

We've seen this so many times on our news services here in Sydney.

Muslim bitch mothers of crime families flailing at the media scrum with handbag flying and kicks and punches.

And our pollies STILL meekly and obediently continue the immigration and refugees program that is bringing these sick bastards into Australia by the tens of thousands each year.

I can see another holocaust coming before the end of the century. I just hope it's not us who gets railroaded.

Europe, Scandinavia and Britain are heading the same way. It's almost inevitable.

And I hope it will be our politicians who are in the front carriages.

Have a Nice Day, Mr Grey.

And keep smiling.  :P

DO stay on topic ..there's a good fella...

Emma wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 11:37pm:

DO stay on topic ..there's a good fella...

I thought I was on topic. "Drug war is Lost": Cause and Solution. I think I covered that fairly well.

Needless to say ~ 'The Drug War' has not been lost ... for the very good reason that it has never been started.

Leftwing politics has ensured that the draconian measures necessary to tackle the problem of society being swamped by the illegal drugs trade have never been tried.

Does Singapore have a drug problem? Does Bali? China?

Hmmm ... I wonder why not? Could it be that as they are not signatories to UN Charters banning the death penalty - they have a tool for discouraging the drug trade that western nations do not?

The West has been dominated by soft-Socialism since the end of WWII. The judiciary has become all about leniency, and soft sentencing, and touchy-feely sympathy for the bad potty training that leads to criminality, etc etc.

The No1 public complaint against our courts is lenient sentencing. What the public is rarely made privy to is the stack of prior convictions before a judge or magistrate will finally, and reluctantly, send a proven public menace and anti-social arsehole to jail.

Only one in 200 shipping containers that arrive from known drug exporting countries are checked by our customs personnel ~ once again demonstrating that our government is not serious about the problem.

The world's biggest opium producing country is Afghanistan ... where Western troops are stationed in their tens of thousands ... and yet production has increased for the past 3 years in a row.

The do-gooder Socialists who run Western nation policy from the United Nations headquarters have been more concerned with the local Afghan farmers having an income source through the growing of poppy fields than they've had about the huge numbers of Western youth and young adults whose lives are ruined by heroin addiction.

The 'War on Drugs' has never been tried, and that's because the methods needed to halt the problem are ideologically too severe and 'fascist' for the socialists who dictate much of Western government policy through UN Charters, Agreements, and Protocols.

****

The sale of marijuana should be a legal retail commodity just as alcohol is.
  i

Lord Herbert wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 8:08am:

Emma wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 11:37pm: DO stay on topic ..there's a good fella... I thought I was on topic. "Drug war is Lost": Cause and Solution. I think I covered that fairly well. Needless to say ~ 'The Drug War' has not been lost ... for the very good reason that it has never been started. Leftwing politics has ensured that the draconian measures necessary to tackle the problem of society being swamped by the illegal drugs trade have never been tried. Does Singapore have a drug problem? Does Bali? China? Hmmm ... I wonder why not? Could it be that as they are not signatories to UN Charters banning the death penalty - they have a tool for discouraging the drug trade that western nations do not? The West has been dominated by soft-Socialism since the end of WWII. The judiciary has become all about leniency, and soft sentencing, and touchy-feely sympathy for the bad potty training that leads to criminality, etc etc. The No1 public complaint against our courts is lenient sentencing. What the public is rarely made privy to is the stack of prior convictions before a judge or magistrate will finally, and reluctantly, send a proven public menace and anti-social arsehole to jail. Only one in 200 shipping containers that arrive from known drug exporting countries are checked by our customs personnel ~ once again demonstrating that our government is not serious about the problem. The world's biggest opium producing country is Afghanistan ... where Western troops are stationed in their tens of thousands ... and yet production has increased for the past 3 years in a row. The do-gooder Socialists who run Western nation policy from the United Nations headquarters have been more concerned with the local Afghan farmers having an income source through the growing of poppy fields than they've had about the huge numbers of Western youth and young adults whose lives are ruined by heroin addiction. The 'War on Drugs' has never been tried, and that's because the methods needed to halt the problem are ideologically too severe and 'fascist' for the socialists who dictate much of Western government policy through UN Charters, Agreements, and Protocols. **** The sale of marijuana should be a legal retail commodity just as alcohol is.

Why not the sale of heroin? It is after all the most toxin free drug of the lot.

Fact is drugs have been available as long as there have been humans to use them. The difference in our time is that so many people want to use them so often. They want to get 'out of it'. Ever wonder what 'it' is they want to get out of? 

Grey wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

Why not the sale of heroin? It is after all the most toxin free drug of the lot.

Sometimes I despair ~ I really do.

Have you ever sat next to a heroin addict who is heating a teaspoon of heroin in order to melt it down before injecting it?

Have you ever witnessed drug addicts recovering in a psychiatric ward while they are in a state of suffering from painful withdrawal symptoms?

The only time heroin is good for humans is when it is used as a palliative medicine for people in the final stages of cancer.

As for marijuana, I had bosses and workmates using it as a 'pick-me-up' at the start of stressful work days.

The downside of marijuana is that it saps young minds of the energy and ambition that's needed to push them through tertiary education. They simply don't care any more. 


Grey wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

Fact is drugs have been available as long as there have been humans to use them.

What a cop-out!

If our ancestors took the same fatalistic attitude we would all still be back in the Stone Age clubbing the women and dragging them home to the back of the cave for a bit of horizontal dancing.


Grey wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

The difference in our time is that so many people want to use them so often.

You've jumped a couple of steps here. The difference is that drugs are now so readily available... AND they are being 'pushed' onto the young as never before. During my entire childhood I never ONCE heard the term ... 'drugs' ... 'have a hit' ... 'smack' ... 'horse' ... etc. It simply wasn't anywhere in our environment.

From a standing-start I could right now bring home ANY drug-of-choice within an hour.


Grey wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

They want to get 'out of it'. Ever wonder what 'it' is they want to get out of?

'Get out of it' ~~ or 'Get a high' ... ?

First it's getting a 'high' at parties, and at rave dances, and open-air rock concerts. The effect soon wears off, but for some of the more depressed and socially insecure ~ they feel they've found the perfect panacea for all their stresses and woes.

Just as with gambling and alcohol, it's only 10% or so who are genetically or psychologically vulnerable to substance abuse and addictive behaviour.

righto then

you seem to be saying, basically,  2 different things... 

One................drug offences should be harshly dealt with...caning,  life in prison, death penalty.. Isn't this the thrust of your whine..??

..presumably you feel the same about the others in your percentile.... gamblers, alcoholics and??  perhaps atheists??  that 10% of the pop...  are only worthy of punishment, imprisonment and/or death.

Then you say

The sale of marijuana should be a legal retail commodity just as alcohol is.

I am confused...  and you are ridiculous. WHAT  ARE   YOU  trying to say.?
 

Emma wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 12:02am:

righto then you seem to be saying, basically,  2 different things...  One................drug offences should be harshly dealt with...caning,  life in prison, death penalty.. Isn't this the thrust of your whine..?? ..presumably you feel the same about the others in your percentile.... gamblers, alcoholics and??  perhaps atheists??  that 10% of the pop...  are only worthy of punishment, imprisonment and/or death. Then you say The sale of marijuana should be a legal retail commodity just as alcohol is. I am confused...  and you are ridiculous. WHAT  ARE   YOU  trying to say.?

;D

You certainly are confused. Being a woman it's your RIGHT to be confused. Men were put on this Earth to give guidance, and mentorship, and a sympathetic shoulder for you highly confused creatures to cry upon.

And so, Emma my dear, let me take your trembling hand and gently lead you out of the fog of your confusion...

1. 5 year moratorium on punishment. No jail for dealers or anyone else.

This 5 year period is to be used by all concerned to get out of the illegal drugs business either as an addict or a purveyor and facilitator. All concerned are to use this time to find alternative employment, income-source, and legal medications for what ails them.

2. End of 5 year Period of Grace: Anyone caught importing, distributing, dealing, and carrying a commercial quantity of an addictive drug ~~ DESPITE being addicted themselves ~~ gets summarily euthanized. No excuses.

3. After the 5 year Period of Grace anyone found to be addicted to a hard drug must undergo compulsory rehab ... and either divulge the name of his/her supplier ~~ or face capital punishment him or herself.

No more kid-gloves. No more sob-sister defence lawyers. No more wailing parents pleading leniency for their offspring. No more option for judges and magistrates to play the role of do-gooder welfare workers.

Countries long since identified as sources of heroin and cocaine to no longer receive any annual Foreign Aid. Colombia, Afghanistan, the countries of South East Asia's 'Golden Triangle' ... etc.

Marijuana to be universally de-criminalised just as alcohol is.

Most of Australia's cocaine is grown in the blue mountains.

so herbie...  YOU are the arbiter, the judge and jury, and you KNOW you are right.

You r a fwit. A total egoist who knows whats best for everyone.  Why don't you start your own rehab religion... you could rip off heaps of money from fools who listen to you. ::) ;D

Emma wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:58pm:

so herbie...  YOU are the arbiter, the judge and jury, and you KNOW you are right. You r a fwit. A total egoist who knows whats best for everyone.  Why don't you start your own rehab religion... you could rip off heaps of money from fools who listen to you. ::) ;D

Thanks for those kind words, Emma.

It was an opinion piece. You know ~ as in: "What do you think might improve the illegal drugs situation?"

But you've made me realise I shouldn't really have an opinion at all unless I'm one of the Ruling Elite. You're quite right of course. I shouldn't assume to know better than our masters ~ especially as they're doing such a fine job with 'The War on Drugs'.

Please accept my apologies.

I am now going to assume the foetal position on the floor with my thumb in my mouth.

Have a nice Evening, Emma.

GOOD
I find YOUR opinion/solution excrement.

Emma wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 10:54pm:

GOOD I find YOUR opinion/solution excrement.

Which part of it don't you agree with? Or shouldn't I ask? I don't want to stretch your intellectual resources beyond a couple of sentences from you. I want to remain sensitive to your limitations.

But have a try anyway.

"Why I disagree with Herbert's opinion on this".

Think of it as a school assignment.

Here we go. Just a coupe of sentences:

Sentence No 1 ....


Sentence No 2 ....


Thanks in advance.

Quote:

"Why I disagree with Herbert's opinion on this". Thanks in advance.

I disagreed in advance, it saved time.

Grey wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Quote: "Why I disagree with Herbert's opinion on this". Thanks in advance. I disagreed in advance, it saved time.

I can't fault you there. They do say that ... "Ignorance is bliss".  :P

(and wot's with emma? Is she on the rags again? That time of month?)

Lord Herbert wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 1:39pm:

Grey wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 1:33pm: Quote: "Why I disagree with Herbert's opinion on this". Thanks in advance. I disagreed in advance, it saved time. I can't fault you there. They do say that ... "Ignorance is bliss".  :P (and wot's with emma? Is she on the rags again? That time of month?)

You'll be up on a sexism charge for that comment Herbert.

Emma and I have previously argued about the legalisation of pot. I'm against it for many reasons - Emma isn't for other reasons.

Your post stating that it should be sold as a retail commodity alongside grog is a bit confusing in the fact that you denigrated its effects in one sentence and then suggested it be legalised in the next.

mantra wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 4:25pm:

You'll be up on a sexism charge for that comment Herbert.

Quite right. My apologies.


mantra wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 4:25pm:

Emma and I have previously argued about the legalisation of pot. I'm against it for many reasons - Emma isn't for other reasons.

Perhaps somewhere between the both of you there's a compromise position that you could both agree to, even if a little begrudgingly?


mantra wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 4:25pm:

Your post stating that it should be sold as a retail commodity alongside grog is a bit confusing in the fact that you denigrated its effects in one sentence and then suggested it be legalised in the next.

I'm still a work in progress. I experiment with different ideas ~ some of them conflicting ~ and see where it takes me. A lot of my 'racist' commentary is also in the nature of being experimental probing to see how the cards fall.

It's a way of exploring oneself. Self-realisation, etc. It's just a technique for sorting out where one really stands on any one issue.

Ideally marijuana should not be indulged in, but in reality it's always going to be available because of the very fact that it grows like a weed. It's prolific and doesn't need tending in the backyard.

I worked casual work with a fellow who took a day off every fortnight or so. In that one day a fortnight he made more money than the two weeks wages. He had two children to feed.

I've heard it said many times that marijuana is nowhere near as addictive as cigarettes.

My boss used to have a 'joint' with his coffee every morning before coming to work.

I personally have never smoked marijuana.

Ask the police who gives them the most trouble throughout the year ~ marijuana smokers or those with a gut-full of grog.

My main objection to marijuana is its availability to youths who are going through school, TAFE, and uni. Marijuana is known to sap motivation something cruel.

Every parents nightmare. A son or daughter who is a good student and a lively teenager suddenly becomes dull-eyed and unresponsive to stimuli. They seem permanently 'chilled-out' in a fog of indifference to everything that's going on around them.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 4:56pm:

mantra wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 4:25pm: You'll be up on a sexism charge for that comment Herbert. Quite right. My apologies.

I wasn't being serious.


Quote:

I'm still a work in progress. I experiment with different ideas ~ some of them conflicting ~ and see where it takes me. A lot of my 'racist' commentary is also in the nature of being experimental probing to see how the cards fall. It's a way of exploring oneself. Self-realisation, etc. It's just a technique for sorting out where one really stands on any one issue.

Sounds promising. Perhaps you might eventually come to love our Muslim and black brothers?


Quote:

Ideally marijuana should not be indulged in, but in reality it's always going to be available because of the very fact it grows like a weed. It's prolific and and doesn't need tending. I worked casual work with a fellow who took a day off every fortnight or so. In that one day a fortnight he made more money than the two weeks wages. He had two children to feed. I've heard it said many times that marijuana is nowhere near as addictive as cigarettes. My boss used to have a 'joint' with his coffee every morning before coming to work. I personally have never smoked marijuana. Ask the police who gives them the most trouble throughout the year ~ marijuana smokers or those with a gut-full of grog. My main objection to marijuana is its availability to youths who are going through school, TAFE, and uni. Marijuana is known to sap motivation something cruel. Every parents nightmare. A son or daughter who is a good student and a lively teenager suddenly becomes dull-eyed and unresponsive to stimuli. They seem permanently 'chilled-out' in a fog of indifference to everything that's going on around them.

It's harder to disguise alcohol inebriation than it is to hide marijuana intoxication - youth excluded, and if legalised it would be too easy for half the population to be stoned on the job. All they'd have to do is pop into their local bottle-o and purchase a packet of joints. We would be at the mercy of tradesmen, health workers, cab drivers etc. Obviously we still are to a certain extent - but if they want to indulge in weed - let them do it the hard way. It lowers the odds of the general public becoming their victims.

Mantra your argument that 'we'll all be at the mercy ..of  stoned worhers etc  bblah blah.. is rubbish.

Most people responsibly indulge... 
never smoke at work  .. for example..

much like most people responsibly indulge in alcohol.  So ... half the pop .. on your logic.. is going to be pissed at work,  and the other half ,   stoned...???  ::) ::)

Nonsensical my friend... 
.. of course there are people who aren't responsible.... 

what are you going to do...??? 

alkies and druggies lined up against a wall and shot..?? Responsible people being rounded up to labour on the roads ??

so that is the extreme , more or less suggested by herbie  ...

silly don't you think.. Mantra??   :-?

I disagreed in advance, it saved time. 
Grey

Wise  man..   :)

mantra wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 5:18pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 4:56pm: mantra wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 4:25pm: You'll be up on a sexism charge for that comment Herbert. Quite right. My apologies. I wasn't being serious. Quote: I'm still a work in progress. I experiment with different ideas ~ some of them conflicting ~ and see where it takes me. A lot of my 'racist' commentary is also in the nature of being experimental probing to see how the cards fall. It's a way of exploring oneself. Self-realisation, etc. It's just a technique for sorting out where one really stands on any one issue. Sounds promising. Perhaps you might eventually come to love our Muslim and black brothers? [quote]Ideally marijuana should not be indulged in, but in reality it's always going to be available because of the very fact it grows like a weed. It's prolific and and doesn't need tending. I worked casual work with a fellow who took a day off every fortnight or so. In that one day a fortnight he made more money than the two weeks wages. He had two children to feed. I've heard it said many times that marijuana is nowhere near as addictive as cigarettes. My boss used to have a 'joint' with his coffee every morning before coming to work. I personally have never smoked marijuana. Ask the police who gives them the most trouble throughout the year ~ marijuana smokers or those with a gut-full of grog. My main objection to marijuana is its availability to youths who are going through school, TAFE, and uni. Marijuana is known to sap motivation something cruel. Every parents nightmare. A son or daughter who is a good student and a lively teenager suddenly becomes dull-eyed and unresponsive to stimuli. They seem permanently 'chilled-out' in a fog of indifference to everything that's going on around them.

It's harder to disguise alcohol inebriation than it is to hide marijuana intoxication - youth excluded, and if legalised it would be too easy for half the population to be stoned on the job. All they'd have to do is pop into their local bottle-o and purchase a packet of joints. We would be at the mercy of tradesmen, health workers, cab drivers etc. Obviously we still are to a certain extent - but if they want to indulge in weed - let them do it the hard way. It lowers the odds of the general public becoming their victims.[/quote]

My whole answer to you disappeared in a flash when I googled to check something. Gone. Couldn't get back to my 99%-finish post. On the old Debate and Relate forum this didn't happen. It's happened a few times to me here now.

It's late, and I'm tired. And Sooty, Gizmo, and Muffin are waiting for me to go to bed. In fact, Gizmo is conked-out right here next to the keyboard. He couldn't wait.

Emma wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 8:14pm:

I disagreed in advance, it saved time.  Grey Wise  man..   :)

Wise-arse..   :P

go to sleep...

yep its a real piss-off  thats for sure.  Happened to me more times than I care to remember...

..one must be most careful whilst one is preparing a post else one loses ones own words to nowhere.. 

Lord Herbert wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 9:01pm:

My whole answer to you disappeared in a flash when I googled to check something. Gone. Couldn't get back to my 99%-finish post. On the old Debate and Relate forum this didn't happen. It's happened a few times to me here now. It's late, and I'm tired. And Sooty, Gizmo, and Muffin are waiting for me to go to bed. In fact, Gizmo is conked-out right here next to the keyboard. He couldn't wait.

Next time you make a lengthy post - copy and paste it onto a word pad or similar before you get distracted or in case there is a glitch when you post it. It's very frustrating when that happens.

Emma wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 8:11pm:

Mantra your argument that 'we'll all be at the mercy ..of  stoned worhers etc  bblah blah.. is rubbish. Most people responsibly indulge...  never smoke at work  .. for example.. much like most people responsibly indulge in alcohol.  So ... half the pop .. on your logic.. is going to be pissed at work,  and the other half ,   stoned...???  ::) ::) Nonsensical my friend...  .. of course there are people who aren't responsible....  what are you going to do...???

Yes - most people are fairly responsible, but there are some who aren't. My point is that it's harder to disguise the smell of alcohol on someone than it is pot. If we were selling the stuff legally, a lot more people would be indulging and we wouldn't have a clue. It shouldn't ever be made easy to buy.


Quote:

alkies and druggies lined up against a wall and shot..?? Responsible people being rounded up to labour on the roads ?? so that is the extreme , more or less suggested by herbie  ... silly don't you think.. Mantra??   :-?

Hmmm. Not necessarily shot or sentenced to hard labour, although if I was in a cab with a stoned cabbie or had to be injected or operated on by a stoned nurse or doctor - I would probably think along those lines.

If pot was legal - we'd have to enforce mandatory drug testing in the workplace.

At least with alcohol we can smell it on them and are given a choice to decline their services.

Emma wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 9:22pm:

go to sleep... yep its a real piss-off  thats for sure.  Happened to me more times than I care to remember... ..one must be most careful whilst one is preparing a post else one loses ones own words to nowhere..

It's my own fault for not remembering to SELECT ALL and COPY before I nip over to Google to check a date or whatever.

I'm enjoying your creative writing style, Emma. You're not related to Warrigal are you? You're giving him a bit of competition with your highly original alternative spelling choices.

Good stuff.

Keep it up.  :) 

mantra wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 6:31am:

Next time you make a lengthy post - copy and paste it onto a word pad or similar before you get distracted or in case there is a glitch when you post it. It's very frustrating when that happens.

I'm planning on starting texting here as an easier option to composing longish posts.

For copying and pasting I use Yankee Clipper 3. Does images as well as text. The icon sits in the system tray.

mantra wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 6:40am:

At least with alcohol we can smell it on them and are given a choice to decline their services.

I've just had open heart surgery from a doctor with a bulbous nose...  :-?

I now realise why whiskey bottles are shaped to be square.

They don't roll around in the desk draw making a tell-tale noise when the doctor reaches in to fetch something during your pre-op interview with him.

One of my fellow patients had to go through the whole op again because the valve was leaking from it not having been sewed (sewn?) tightly enough ...  :o hic

mantra wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 5:18pm:

Sounds promising. Perhaps you might eventually come to love our Muslim and black brothers?

I do already.

Was it something I said?  8-)

I've probably been misinterpreted, taken out of context, misquoted, or even mistranslated.

I'm enjoying your creative writing style, Emma.


I'm glad about that herbie  :)

I enjoy writing.. I find putting words down a singular experience.
I do strive to remain topical , and try to engage others with some rather florid, at times, wording hoping to challenge and produce thought in those who read it... one way or another. 'tis a bit of fun indeed...   ;)

Emma wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

I'm enjoying your creative writing style, Emma. I'm glad about that herbie  :) I enjoy writing.. I find putting words down a singular experience. I do strive to remain topical , and try to engage others with some rather florid, at times, wording hoping to challenge and produce thought in those who read it... one way or another. 'tis a bit of fun indeed...   ;)

Just the act of writing sentences that are composed of dozens of these squiggly little insects we call 'letters' is quite amazing, isn't it? It's almost telepathic communication.

You can read my thoughts by looking at these little insects I'm typing onto the screen.  :)

we always say more than we realise/....
same when we write it down... 
'tis only for the eyes to see..   :) 8-) ::) ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

mantra wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 6:40am: At least with alcohol we can smell it on them and are given a choice to decline their services. I've just had open heart surgery from a doctor with a bulbous nose...  :-? I now realise why whiskey bottles are shaped to be square. They don't roll around in the desk draw making a tell-tale noise when the doctor reaches in to fetch something during your pre-op interview with him. One of my fellow patients had to go through the whole op again because the valve was leaking from it not having been sewed (sewn?) tightly enough ...  :o hic

As long as his nose was only bulbous and not purple - you would have been pretty safe. Still the thought of some life threatening operation being performed by someone with an addiction is scary. I've got to have an op soon to remove a broken sewing machine needle which has moved up into a difficult position in my foot and I will be at the mercy of hospital staff. The more stories I hear - like your mate with the slap happy stitching, makes me wonder whether I would be better off leaving the needle there. As well as staph/strep being rampant through lack of cleanliness in staff, there's no guarantee any op will improve your chances. :o

Emma wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:

we always say more than we realise/.... same when we write it down...  'tis only for the eyes to see..   :) 8-) ::) ::)

You're a poet. You just can't help yourself.  :)

mantra wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 8:27am:

As long as his nose was only bulbous and not purple - you would have been pretty safe. Still the thought of some life threatening operation being performed by someone with an addiction is scary. I've got to have an op soon to remove a broken sewing machine needle which has moved up into a difficult position in my foot and I will be at the mercy of hospital staff. The more stories I hear - like your mate with the slap happy stitching, makes me wonder whether I would be better off leaving the needle there. As well as staph/strep being rampant through lack of cleanliness in staff, there's no guarantee any op will improve your chances. :o

GOOD LORRRD! Why on Earth did you stick your big toe under the sewing machine needle and then press the foot-pedal to start it up?

You weren't a Thalidomide baby were you? No hands, and have to do everything with your feet? You type these posts with your toes?  8-)

Go to the hospital. They'll use a strong magnet to pull the piece out. And then they'll give you a course of anti-biotics to clean up any Micro-Nasties that might be lurking around in there.

Good luck with that. 

****


Quote:

"As long as his nose was only bulbous and not purple - you would have been pretty safe".

Very cleverly, he had sat with his back to the bright sunlit window so I could only see him in relative shadow.

For just a moment, he turned to the side to inspect my X-Ray, and that's when I noticed his nose looked like an eggplant. But then he quickly looked back towards me when he noticed I had jerked forward in my chair with a gasp of horror and alarm.

The rest of the interview was conducted in reluctant monosyllables, and he soon had me ushered out of his office. As the door closed behind me I could swear I heard a drawer being opened with sudden desperation...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/eggp_zps765e759f.png
:o

yeah..  just happens... 

what is there to say?

Snap go the neurons
creating feeling
snap snap again
translation in progress
germ of an idea
transmitted in waves
air vibrations
received, retranslated
ear'ole to finger
pen, lines and curves
retranslated,
mind to mind, book to book, country to country, language to language, age to age, culture to culture.

It is Bible, not open to interpretation, the divine word of god.

Strange and chancy communicators these gods  ;D

THIS NEXT BIT..!!   ..   GREY ??? 
WOTYA?

It is Bible, not open to interpretation, the divine word of god.

Strange and chancy communicators these gods





I CLAIM NO GODHOOD..   :-? :o 8-)
but thanks anyway   8-)
:) :) :) :) :) :)

Emma wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 1:20am:

THIS NEXT BIT..!!   ..   GREY ???  WOTYA? It is Bible, not open to interpretation, the divine word of god. Strange and chancy communicators these gods I CLAIM NO GODHOOD..   :-? :o 8-) but thanks anyway   8-) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Well I didn't mean to insult you with such a suggestion Emma. It was just a reflection on the incongruity of taking religious texts literally.

Now go to bed or you wont get up bright and early  ;)

Oh my Gawd. Emma ~ you've even got Mr Grey waxing lyrical now.  :o

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

Very cleverly, he had sat with his back to the bright sunlit window so I could only see him in relative shadow. For just a moment, he turned to the side to inspect my X-Ray, and that's when I noticed his nose looked like an eggplant. But then he quickly looked back towards me when he noticed I had jerked forward in my chair with a gasp of horror and alarm. The rest of the interview was conducted in reluctant monosyllables, and he soon had me ushered out of his office. As the door closed behind me I could swear I heard a drawer being opened with sudden desperation...

;D That would make an excellent children's bedtime story.

Haha.  And no - I'm not a Thalidomide baby and I wouldn't even consider having an op if I was positive the needle was stainless steel. I suggested a magnet also, but the surgeon didn't take me seriously.

mantra wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 9:21am: Very cleverly, he had sat with his back to the bright sunlit window so I could only see him in relative shadow. For just a moment, he turned to the side to inspect my X-Ray, and that's when I noticed his nose looked like an eggplant. But then he quickly looked back towards me when he noticed I had jerked forward in my chair with a gasp of horror and alarm. The rest of the interview was conducted in reluctant monosyllables, and he soon had me ushered out of his office. As the door closed behind me I could swear I heard a drawer being opened with sudden desperation... ;D That would make an excellent children's bedtime story. Haha.  And no - I'm not a Thalidomide baby and I wouldn't even consider having an op if I was positive the needle was stainless steel. I suggested a magnet also, but the surgeon didn't take me seriously.

Magnets have been used since before WWII to extract steel splinters embedded in the eye.

Good luck with your op...
Hope your toe's not in for the chop...
If the doc says "Oh my God, it's all too late!"
Then stick out your toe and use it for bait!    :) :-? :-[

:)
good one herbie

Emma wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:32pm:

:) good one herbie

I don't have permission to open up a Members Thread. Perhaps you could open up a Poets Corner for us?  :)

you are a gold member .. :) :) ;) 8-)

you can start a topic.. just as well as I can..
give it a go.. :)

Emma wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:

you are a gold member .. :) :) ;) 8-)

Wow. You're right.  :)


Emma wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:

you can start a topic.. just as well as I can.. give it a go.. :)

:) Thanks.

(How come we're blinking at the same time? We must be telepathically connected somehow) :)

You ...  :)
Me ....  :)

you think?

So ..did you start a topic..??  don't be shy now.. :)

Emma wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:15am:

you think? So ..did you start a topic..??  don't be shy now.. :)

How can I start a topic if I don't have permission to open my own Members Topic Board?  :-[
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
Hold the horse while I get on.

:)

To start a new topic - all you've got to do is go straight to the sub-forum of your choice - click on its name at the top of the board eg. Relationships, Politicians Suck etc. When it opens you'll see on the top right hand side - start a new topic. Click on that and it opens up a new blank topic.

Member run boards are sub-forums opened up specifically for a particular interest. Someone is appointed moderator of that sub-forum to run it as they please.

mantra wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 8:10am:

Member run boards are sub-forums opened up specifically for a particular interest. Someone is appointed moderator of that sub-forum to run it as they please.

Thank you. I've just contacted freediver for a Member run Board titled 'Cats and other Critters'.

:)

Lord Herbert wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 8:15am:

mantra wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 8:10am: Member run boards are sub-forums opened up specifically for a particular interest. Someone is appointed moderator of that sub-forum to run it as they please. Thank you. I've just contacted freediver for a Member run Board titled 'Cats and other Critters'. :)

Great idea. Hopefully he'll be receptive, although it's not really political. It could be though. We used to talk about our pets here, but only when the board had a handful of members.

mantra wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 8:43am:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 8:15am: mantra wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 8:10am: Member run boards are sub-forums opened up specifically for a particular interest. Someone is appointed moderator of that sub-forum to run it as they please. Thank you. I've just contacted freediver for a Member run Board titled 'Cats and other Critters'. :) Great idea. Hopefully he'll be receptive, although it's not really political. It could be though. We used to talk about our pets here, but only when the board had a handful of members.

It has to be political? How very odd. No wonder the membership here is so thin on the ground.

We'll have to call it ... "The Politics involved in Keeping Cats and other Critters as Domestic Pets".  ;D

Lord Herbert wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

It has to be political? How very odd. No wonder the membership here is so thin on the ground. We'll have to call it ... "The Politics involved in Keeping Cats and other Critters as Domestic Pets".  ;D

Haha. If pet laws were mentioned occasionally it might help. Councils change their minds all the time on the legal rights of a feline. Council by-laws can be quite involved in regard to most animals and state governments are even worse.  >:(

mantra wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 10:29am: It has to be political? How very odd. No wonder the membership here is so thin on the ground. We'll have to call it ... "The Politics involved in Keeping Cats and other Critters as Domestic Pets".  ;D Haha. If pet laws were mentioned occasionally it might help. Councils change their minds all the time on the legal rights of a feline. Council by-laws can be quite involved in regard to most animals and state governments are even worse.  >:(

My biggest gripe by far with Council laws pertaining to cat ownership is that toms are NOT required to be neutered.

This amounts to criminal negligence on the part of the City elders.

A great number of cat deaths comes from fights with strays that infect domestic cats with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (Feline AIDs).

I had a wonderful (abandoned) all-white fluffy Norwegian Forest Cat that died from this horrible disease. Had him for 13 years.

Unfortunately, in Australia you have a strong anti-cat culture due to the ferals and the exaggerated 'macho' posturing of your menfolk.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

mantra wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 12:19pm: Lord Herbert wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 10:29am: It has to be political? How very odd. No wonder the membership here is so thin on the ground. We'll have to call it ... "The Politics involved in Keeping Cats and other Critters as Domestic Pets".  ;D Haha. If pet laws were mentioned occasionally it might help. Councils change their minds all the time on the legal rights of a feline. Council by-laws can be quite involved in regard to most animals and state governments are even worse.  >:( My biggest gripe by far with Council laws pertaining to cat ownership is that toms are NOT required to be neutered. This amounts to criminal negligence on the part of the City elders. A great number of cat deaths comes from fights with strays that infect domestic cats with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (Feline AIDs). I had a wonderful (abandoned) all-white fluffy Norwegian Forest Cat that died from this horrible disease. Had him for 13 years. Unfortunately, in Australia you have a strong anti-cat culture due to the ferals and the exaggerated 'macho' posturing of your menfolk.

Bullsh!te.

The ONLY reason I haven't got another cat is the fact that I've had to move to Brisbane for work and, subsequently, have had to rent. At this point in my life, the decision to take on another feline would be selfish in the extreme.

When re-settled, however, I have my eyes on a Maine Coone tom, suitably neutered.

Now THAT'S a cat!

And as an old, single chappie, council could find no objections - at least in my area.

I might even buy him a small, fluffy dog as a toy.  8-)

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Bullsh!te. The ONLY reason I haven't got another cat is the fact that I've had to move to Brisbane for work and, subsequently, have had to rent. At this point in my life, the decision to take on another feline would be selfish in the extreme. When re-settled, however, I have my eyes on a Maine Coone tom, suitably neutered. Now THAT'S a cat!

Well, what a surprise you are, Lionel!  Join the club!

For years I thought my cat was a Maine Coone until I discovered it was a Norwegian Forest Cat.

As I'm sure you know, Maine Coones were ships' cats on the old galleons which used to ply between the US eastern seaboard and the UK. They were specifically employed to hunt out and kill the rats and mice during the crossings.

I was always going to get a dog when I bought my house, but a number of things made me change my mind:

1. Sh!t all over the backyard.
2. It would be left alone, pining all day while I was at work.
3. A front fence was quoted to me as costing $3000.
4. I have no car, so heavy dog food tins would have been a bitch to haul onto a bus from the shops every week or so.
5. I didn't want barking problems with my neighbours.

And when I bought the property I found an abandoned cat living under the house. Hungry, scared, ragged-looking.

And then I would stay with my brother 'down south' for a week at a time.

With the cat/s I had none of the above problems.

And then I discovered that if you live alone, cats will behave towards you almost as dogs do.

***
Lionel ~ if you want a talkative cat and one that is known as the 'dog' of the cat world, then get an all-black Bombay cat. Personality like a Burmese.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 8:50pm:

Lionel ~ if you want a talkative cat and one that is known as the 'dog' of the cat world, then get an all-black Bombay cat. Personality like a Burmese.

Thanks, Herb. I'll do some research. I like Burmese. I once had a much appreciated tortoise-shell Burmese molly who had the misfortune to hang herself on a paling fence.  :'(

*********

Back to drugs.  :D

The reason the 'Drug War' will never be won is because it's a guerrilla war. It's conscripts against the convinced and converted.

A drug, in this context, is a stimulus, though one deemed illegal. Correct?

It didn't work when attempted with alcohol and hasn't worked with tobacco. Other than public disobedience, there are other factors at work in these battles - money and power.

Same is true with drugs. Marijuana use is so mundane and widespread it's almost publicly acceptable  - best to bow to the inevitable, I'd say. It's a weed anyway, no way to regulate it except by making criminals of all those who enjoy the odd toke.

Heavily penalise the rest - the artificial mind-benders.

I have a real problem with the Government taxing the shiite out of tobacco and alcohol, while at the same time bleating about the social and medical costs incurred by their continued sanctioned use. Treat us like bloody kids, "No, no, no, can't have that! Here, have this instead - only $25 a packet".

You can cook yourself with pot just like you can with alcohol. And pot is just like alcohol - you want whisky or beer?

In all my years, I don't ever recall a pot smoker going to the extremes of a smack or whizz user, even a hard-core alcoholic, to score the the next high.

Maybe they weren't motivated enough.  ;)

Moderation in all things.

Attempting to ban artificial stimulants is akin to banning masturbation. It'll be seen to be working - if only outdoors.

In all my years, I don't ever recall a pot smoker going to the extremes of a smack or whizz user, even a hard-core alcoholic, to score the the next high.

Maybe they weren't motivated enough. 

Moderation in all things.

Attempting to ban artificial stimulants is akin to banning masturbation. It'll be seen to be working - if only outdoors....LE

You  get a bit lost here don't you?? An irrelevancy after a good post..   ::)   

OK  the focus isn't necessarily Pot,  ... but ... it still serves to prove the 'War' is lost. Sadly too many people are getting rich with the status quo.

Now if the arseholes in power would act justly,  huge changes could occur.. for the better.

As for Cats  ??  another War lost.. to the eternal detriment of the Oz ecology. 

IT is undeniable guys...  your pretty pussycats are decimating native wildlife. ( They are NOT alone.. but they ARE a Plague)

Shame pet owners aren't more responsible,  ...  BUT... its way past that now.  We really need bounties on feral cats and dedicated hunters... 

and all domestic cats should be de-sexed and kept indoors. 

If you want a killing machine as a pet, you must insure it doesn't get to do what is it's nature. I think that is in itself cruel to cats... so ..unless you want to supply them with rattus rattus and other ferals... get rid of them.. !!

choose a more viable pet.
Of course the optimum use of cats would be if we could get them to only kill imports like themselves... Indian Mynahs, Rabbits, Rats  etc.

oh and herbie...??
on this forum you don't need to ask permission first... you just start a topic  .. and go for it.. If the mods don't like it they'll get back to you. :)

So .. did you start a topic yet...???

Emma wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 1:00am:

oh and herbie... did you start a topic yet...???

See? Unless its a Member run Board you don't even know if I've started a topic or not. Needle in a haystack. Why would I bother if my topic is buried amongst heaps of others? Cui bono?

Thanks anyway.

*sniff*

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:

Thanks, Herb. I'll do some research. I like Burmese. I once had a much appreciated tortoise-shell Burmese molly who had the misfortune to hang herself on a paling fence.  :'(

Ouch. Poor pussy.

My sad story is that I once had to lift my still-warm beautiful fluffy white cat off the front lawn moments after a neighbour's dog had killed it.

The cat was deaf ...  so it didn't escape in time.

It had been a lost cat given to me by a couple up the road who weren't yet ready to get a new cat after their own had recently died. She was willing, but HE was still suffering from bereavement.

(Yes, girls, secretly, men are FAR more sensitive and sentimental about the loss of a Loved One than you lot...  Men are also WAY more romantic and caring. And .... er ... I can feel a new Topic Thread coming on  ..  8-)  )

Lionel! It's vital to chose the right cat breed for you and your particular circumstances.

Different cat breeds = totally different temperaments, behaviours, aloofness or friendliness, vocal or not vocal, loyal or not loyal, companionable or independent, nervous or calm, etc etc.

By FAR the most companionable cats I've ever had are the all-black Bombay breed. Generally, they stick to you like sheets to a blanket.

   

Emma wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 12:48am:

Attempting to ban artificial stimulants is akin to banning masturbation. It'll be seen to be working - if only outdoors....LE You  get a bit lost here don't you?? An irrelevancy after a good post..   ::)

She's SHOUTING, Lionel. Batten down the hatches! Cyclone Emma has arrived!  ;D

Lord Herbert wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 8:44am:

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 9:53pm: Thanks, Herb. I'll do some research. I like Burmese. I once had a much appreciated tortoise-shell Burmese molly who had the misfortune to hang herself on a paling fence.  :'( Ouch. Poor pussy. My sad story is that I once had to lift my still-warm beautiful fluffy white cat off the front lawn moments after a neighbour's dog had killed it. The cat was deaf ...  so it didn't escape in time. It had been a lost cat given to me by a couple up the road who weren't yet ready to get a new cat after their own had recently died. She was willing, but HE was still suffering from bereavement. (Yes, girls, secretly, men are FAR more sensitive and sentimental about the loss of a Loved One than you lot...  Men are also WAY more romantic and caring. And .... er ... I can feel a new Topic Thread coming on  ..  8-)  ) Lionel! It's vital to chose the right cat breed for you and your particular circumstances. Different cat breeds = totally different temperaments, behaviours, aloofness or friendliness, vocal or not vocal, loyal or not loyal, companionable or independent, nervous or calm, etc etc. By FAR the most companionable cats I've ever had are the all-black Bombay breed. Generally, they stick to you like sheets to a blanket.

You should be posting this in your new members' forum.

Emma wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 12:56am:

As for Cats  ??  another War lost.. to the eternal detriment of the Oz ecology.  IT is undeniable guys...  your pretty pussycats are decimating native wildlife. ( They are NOT alone.. but they ARE a Plague)

Don't blame the cats ~ blame the Local City Council By-Laws, The State legislature, and the federal Parliament.

It was they who didn't think to legislate for heavy penalties against irresponsible cat owners. Even as late as the year 2013 my City Council does not require cat owners to have their males spaded.

And it has only been in the last couple of years that cat owners must have their cats micro-chipped and registered with the council.

If I was asked why there are so many suburban strays ... (that eventually drift into the wooded national parks) ... I would unhesitatingly say that it's because of the crippling fees that vets charge for even the simplest and most routine of their services.

I know from my own experience that owning even one cat is a blistering impost on one's meagre Age Pension resources.

Age Pensioners should be allowed to supplement their government benefits by blazing away in the bushlands as feral cat bounty hunters ~ (thanks for the idea, Emma).  :)


Emma wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 12:56am:

.... all domestic cats should be ... kept indoors.

 

And dogs, of course ... ?

Do you have any idea how many TONS of dog-poo is laid each day in Sydney's backyards, streets, and gutters ... attracting gazillions of flies in from the surrounding bushlands? And rats.

... 300 tons.  >:(

Where ... I said WHERE do you keep YOUR dogs, Emma Peel?

Hmmm..... ?  >:(

After Emma told us to "Keep your cats inside!"
She walked her dogs to the nearest curbside,
And THAT's where several deposits were made
When we all know that kitties bury theirs with a spade ...

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 8:50pm: Lionel ~ if you want a talkative cat and one that is known as the 'dog' of the cat world, then get an all-black Bombay cat. Personality like a Burmese. Thanks, Herb. I'll do some research. I like Burmese. I once had a much appreciated tortoise-shell Burmese molly who had the misfortune to hang herself on a paling fence.  :'( ********* Back to drugs.  :D The reason the 'Drug War' will never be won is because it's a guerrilla war. It's conscripts against the convinced and converted. A drug, in this context, is a stimulus, though one deemed illegal. Correct? It didn't work when attempted with alcohol and hasn't worked with tobacco. Other than public disobedience, there are other factors at work in these battles - money and power. Same is true with drugs. Marijuana use is so mundane and widespread it's almost publicly acceptable  - best to bow to the inevitable, I'd say. It's a weed anyway, no way to regulate it except by making criminals of all those who enjoy the odd toke. Heavily penalise the rest - the artificial mind-benders. I have a real problem with the Government taxing the shiite out of tobacco and alcohol, while at the same time bleating about the social and medical costs incurred by their continued sanctioned use. Treat us like bloody kids, "No, no, no, can't have that! Here, have this instead - only $25 a packet". You can cook yourself with pot just like you can with alcohol. And pot is just like alcohol - you want whisky or beer? In all my years, I don't ever recall a pot smoker going to the extremes of a smack or whizz user, even a hard-core alcoholic, to score the the next high. Maybe they weren't motivated enough.  ;) Moderation in all things. Attempting to ban artificial stimulants is akin to banning masturbation. It'll be seen to be working - if only outdoors.

I need it on record that, as you would expect from a good Anarchist, I'm a cat person. I've never been without a cat and never chosen one; we just adopt each other. I refuse to give shelter space to more than one, I'm not nuts. I respect cats I don't own them.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2781/2781-h/2781-h.htm#link2H_4_0011

Okay carry on .......................................................

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

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

just a few lines, in case anybody wants one.

methinks you lay down a challenge herbie.. :)

sadly it has nothing to do with the topic. 
Yes it is a big forum... I miss heaps of stuff I wouldn't mind replying to.. but hey thats all good...

what you need to understand is people don't all access this forum in the same way... BUT  you .. as a MEMBER  can start a TOPIC.

to see the latest posts on the forum  I go to the main forum.. see above top left ...

I might check to see ??   :)

..

'twould have read better

without a spade//   :)

well done herbie... you are making your mark...

which topic would you suggest I reply to your q's  above?  on..

Lord Herbert wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

Emma wrote on May 30th, 2013 at 12:56am: As for Cats  ??  another War lost.. to the eternal detriment of the Oz ecology.  IT is undeniable guys...  your pretty pussycats are decimating native wildlife. ( They are NOT alone.. but they ARE a Plague) Don't blame the cats ~ blame the Local City Council By-Laws, The State legislature, and the federal Parliament. It was they who didn't think to legislate for heavy penalties against irresponsible cat owners. Even as late as the year 2013 my City Council does not require cat owners to have their males spaded. And it has only been in the last couple of years that cat owners must have their cats micro-chipped and registered with the council. If I was asked why there are so many suburban strays ... (that eventually drift into the wooded national parks) ... I would unhesitatingly say that it's because of the crippling fees that vets charge for even the simplest and most routine of their services. I know from my own experience that owning even one cat is a blistering impost on one's meagre Age Pension resources. Age Pensioners should be allowed to supplement their government benefits by blazing away in the bushlands as feral cat bounty hunters ~ (thanks for the idea, Emma).  :) Emma wrote on May 30th, 2013 at 12:56am: .... all domestic cats should be ... kept indoors.   And dogs, of course ... ? Do you have any idea how many TONS of dog-poo is laid each day in Sydney's backyards, streets, and gutters ... attracting gazillions of flies in from the surrounding bushlands? And rats. ... 300 tons.  >:( Where ... I said WHERE do you keep YOUR dogs, Emma Peel? Hmmm..... ?  >:( After Emma told us to "Keep your cats inside!" She walked her dogs to the nearest curbside, And THAT's where several deposits were made When we all know that kitties bury theirs without a spade ...

Emma wrote on May 31^st, 2013 at 2:05am:

'twould have read better without a spade//   :)

I've changed it //    :)

Grey wrote on May 31^st, 2013 at 1:52am:

I need it on record that, as you would expect from a good Anarchist, I'm a cat person. I've never been without a cat and never chosen one; we just adopt each other. I refuse to give shelter space to more than one, I'm not nuts. I respect cats I don't own them.

Well, I'm flabbergasted.

There are more male cat keeper/servants/slaves here on Oz-Pee than at my cat forum site.

In the 'fair dinkum' department I like dogs better than cats, but if your circumstances doesn't allow for dog-ownership then cats are a good substitute.

Emma wrote on May 31^st, 2013 at 1:58am:

methinks you lay down a challenge herbie.. :) sadly it has nothing to do with the topic.  Yes it is a big forum... I miss heaps of stuff I wouldn't mind replying to.. but hey thats all good... what you need to understand is people don't all access this forum in the same way... BUT  you .. as a MEMBER  can start a TOPIC. to see the latest posts on the forum  I go to the main forum.. see above top left ... I might check to see ??   :)

You've lost me.

It's all become a tangled web in which I find myself drowning.  :)

Lord Herbert wrote on May 31^st, 2013 at 1:02pm:

Grey wrote on May 31st, 2013 at 1:52am: I need it on record that, as you would expect from a good Anarchist, I'm a cat person. I've never been without a cat and never chosen one; we just adopt each other. I refuse to give shelter space to more than one, I'm not nuts. I respect cats I don't own them. Well, I'm flabbergasted. There are more male cat keeper/servants/slaves here on Oz-Pee than at my cat forum site. In the 'fair dinkum' department I like dogs better than cats, but if your circumstances doesn't allow for dog-ownership then cats are a good substitute.

Ah yes the true colours showing. You prefer the fawning sycophants. The obedient servant, the dim, needy children who never grow up. 'Don't leave me Pleeease don't leave me, not for a second Whiiyyyynnneee  whiiiiiynnnneee'. Other peoples are okay I suppose for a while. But y'know I just can't respect an animal so willing to give up its sovereignty. They're like women who marry Bob Hawke, pathetic underlings.

Emma wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 12:56am:

As for Cats  ??  another War lost.. to the eternal detriment of the Oz ecology.  IT is undeniable guys...  your pretty pussycats are decimating native wildlife. ( They are NOT alone.. but they ARE a Plague) Shame pet owners aren't more responsible,  ...  BUT... its way past that now.  We really need bounties on feral cats and dedicated hunters...  and all domestic cats should be de-sexed and kept indoors.  If you want a killing machine as a pet, you must insure it doesn't get to do what is it's nature. I think that is in itself cruel to cats... so ..unless you want to supply them with rattus rattus and other ferals... get rid of them.. !! choose a more viable pet. Of course the optimum use of cats would be if we could get them to only kill imports like themselves... Indian Mynahs, Rabbits, Rats  etc.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329450615/51#51

OK Grey 
I'll read your link...

personally I like cats, in their place,.... and have loved them in the past...but ..since becoming a wildlife supporter through Land for Wildlife,  and indeed even before then,.. I knew that cats didn't belong in this ecology.  I truly don't have a problem with responsible cat ownership... but .. sadly thats rare.

I've heard all sorts of pathetic excuses for allowing cats free-range..  ... BUT 

.. I'll get back to you  :)
on your link topic.

Grey wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 1:25am:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 31st, 2013 at 1:02pm: Ah yes the true colours showing. You prefer the fawning sycophants.

Exactly.


Grey wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 1:25am:

The obedient servant,

Precisely.


Grey wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 1:25am:

the dim, needy children who never grow up.

You're on a roll. Don't stop now...


Grey wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 1:25am:

'Don't leave me Pleeease don't leave me, not for a second Whiiyyyynnneee  whiiiiiynnnneee'.

Got it in one.

Clinging, dependent, cloying, sticky, devoted, worshipping, boot-licking ...


Grey wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 1:25am:

They're like women who marry Bob Hawke, pathetic underlings.

;D ;D ;D

Or women who used to hide in Bill Clinton's broom cupboard ...   ;D

you should both be ashamed of yourselves... 

such sexism is surprising and TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.  >:(

furthermore 

I won't rush to read your kitty korner. :P

Emma wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 10:48pm:

you should both be ashamed of yourselves...  such sexism is surprising and TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.  >:(

;D ;D ;D

Correct! Mr Grey surprised me and it was totally irrelevant.

He should be ashamed of himself and apologise.  >:(

Emma wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 10:49pm:

furthermore  I won't rush to read your kitty korner. :P

awwwww....? (upward inflection)  :-[

I'm opening up a 'Graffiti a Poem Here' corner'.  :)

It looks like a lost cause

jalarcon wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

It looks like a lost cause

The drug war has not been lost, and that's because it hasn't even been started.

Lenient sentences will never deter people from trying to win the Million Dollar Lottery through involvement in the illegal drugs trade.

Most offenders are back on the street within months.

Singapore's drug problem has all but been solved because of the draconian punishments.

Yes, we need to get tough on drug dealers.

bump

oh.. and you'd like to live in Singapore, would you...?

muso wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Yes, we need to get tough on drug dealers.

I would have a 5 year period of grace during which there would be an amnesty with those involved in the drug trade.

No jail time if they declare themselves, and come forward to be inducted into programs designed to set them on the straight and narrow.

Same with the addicts. Naltrexone to get them off the addiction, and then intensive therapy towards rehabilitating them towards a more normal and healthy lifestyle.

When the 5-year moratorium has expired ~ the importation, distribution and sale of addictive drugs then becomes a capital offence.

Emma wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

bump oh.. and you'd like to live in Singapore, would you...?

;D

I hear the place is a wonderful success. You could do a lot worse than live in Singapore. You as a woman would be a lot safer walking alone at night there than here in Sydney or Melbourne.

you did not answer my question herbie..

Emma wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

you did not answer my question herbie..

YES! I would love to live in Singapore. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/eusa_liar_zps85754e8f.gif

Emma wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

bump oh.. and you'd like to live in Singapore, would you...?

Singapore rocks.

@Mozz

" I agree that some drugs like those from the amphetamine family would need to have a special approach, because of their propensity to induce psychosis "

So you are in favour of prohibition? you nasty narrow minded conservative right winger.


Oh I am trying to understand how this interwebby thing works, I am meant to add some abuse to my opinion ?

Quote:

Oh I am trying to understand how this interwebby thing works, I am meant to add some abuse to my opinion ?

No. Don't pick up bad habits  ;D

Mao Tse-tung was by far the greatest therapist of drug addiction in world history. He threatened to execute opium addicts if they didn’t give up. Threats to murder were about the only utterances of Mao’s that could be believed, and 20 million addicts duly gave up.

I hope you don’t think that I am advocating Mao’s methods, but it does seem to me that his success tells us something very important about addiction. Mao didn’t say, nor would it have made sense for him to say, I will execute anyone who suffers from hypothyroidism, say, or rheumatoid arthritis; and therefore there must be a category difference between illness and addiction.
...
Most people think that addicts are ‘hooked’ by their drug, but this is nonsense. Heroin addicts, for example (and heroin addiction is the paradigm that most of us use in thinking about addiction) spend on average 18 months taking the drug on and off before they are addicted to it. Among other things, they must overcome a natural revulsion to a substance that makes them nauseated and sick. It is not true that they are ‘hooked’ by heroin, then, as if they were fish in a sea swallowing a baited hook without any awareness of what they are doing; it would be more true to say that they hook heroin than that heroin hooked them. Incidentally, the fact that it takes considerable effort and determination to become addicted has been known ever since De Quincey’s Confessions of an English Opium Eater, in which he described how he took laudanum once a week for ten years before he became addicted to it.

I have asked hundreds and possibly thousands of heroin addicts how they started taking heroin. Almost invariably they said, ‘I fell in with the wrong crowd.’ I would reply, ‘It’s strange that I meet so many people who fall in with the wrong crowd, but I never meet any member of the wrong crowd itself.’ And they laughed: they knew perfectly well that this notion of passively falling into the wrong crowd, by some kind of social gravitational force, was absurd.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9090841/should-we-be-threatening-cocaine-addicts-with-execution/

Quote:

Among other things, they must overcome a natural revulsion to a substance that makes them nauseated and sick.

Something that doesn't occur from taking the stuff, but when you stop taking it after a prolonged period.


Quote:

It is not true that they are ‘hooked’ by heroin, then, as if they were fish in a sea swallowing a baited hook without any awareness of what they are doing; it would be more true to say that they hook heroin than that heroin hooked them. Incidentally, the fact that it takes considerable effort and determination to become addicted has been known ever since De Quincey’s Confessions of an English Opium Eater, in which he described how he took laudanum once a week for ten years before he became addicted to it.

Take it daily for a week and let me know how you feel 24hrs after your last dose. Your first thoughts will be ones of denial... "it couldn't have happened to me".

...or in your case "what I'm going through doesn't exist".

This is SO obvious I fail to see how any logical right thinking person could continue to argue otherwise,.. oh  :(  but people DO, don't they..?? .. they say ' we mustn't encourage the idea that taking drugs is OK '  ????????????????? :)

Do we live in 2014 ?  or 1914..? 

The latter if you listen to talking heads (  ::) ) on things like Sunrise.

Goodness me, but I hear the same old  rubbish... ...'  like wouldn't this indicate to our precious youth that drugs are OK..?? '  // wtf .??.
where do these people live.. they  say things like ,, this could lead to ..  I MEAN REALLY.. GUYS.. its happening all around you.. and you'd rather let criminals profit and dictate the drugs YOUR children  WILL take,, ??? 

I have to ask.. WHO IS LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD.. ??  not these supporters of the status quo.. that's for sure.

The sheer stupidity of the prohibitionist argument must not continue to be denied, or ignored.  But despite the 'poke in the eye' obvious..??       Our pollies.  and others who have some perceived image,? like say cockie.?? . oh  is the name Cochie,, something like that    to 'uphold'..  continue to argue for the same old same old.  Gosh.. he has now got  Kochies Angels.. !!  3 women to comment on the crapola .. only one of them had any sense.. the others..?? 

deep meaningful sad rubbish.
Please please.. wake up Australia...!!! 
Do the Dakota Dance..!!

Quote:

Do we live in 2014 ?  or 1914..?

How much do you think humans have changed genetically in the past 100 years?

relevancy..???

in the last hundred yrs.. the human environment has changed beyond recognition.
the genome..?? minimally...

the same old imperatives apply... but the means with which to put those imperatives into play has increased beyond our ability to comprehend.

We never seem to learn.................................................. :(

no comment?

well perhaps you have heard of some of the very EFFECTIVE THERAPEUTIC uses  of maryjane.??

The latest revelation..??  Autistic children, fitting up to 60 times in 24 hrs, wheel-chair bound, functionally helpless  and likely to die within a yr... are now SO improved even medical authorities are starting to pay attention.  !! NOW THAT IS INCREDIBLE.!!

of course the government still warns its a dangerous illegal drug... BECAUSE THEY SAY SO.

Sick old world when political aspirations override the GREATER GOOD.
And HEY PEOPLE... this Drug Policy.. is just one of their counter-productive and destructive agendas.

Emma wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 9:02pm:

relevancy..??? in the last hundred yrs.. the human environment has changed beyond recognition. the genome..?? minimally... the same old imperatives apply... but the means with which to put those imperatives into play has increased beyond our ability to comprehend. We never seem to learn.................................................. :(

No I don't think that there is any relevancy as to the effect of mj now compared to 100 or even 10000yrs ago.
What has changed dramatically however, is the reliance of a capitalist system upon a drone workforce.
There is no concrete evidence to suggest that mj is any more harmful than over the counter products but there is ample evidence to suggest that it is not good for a drone capitalist society.

Neither are alcoholics...
so
why the discrimination...?
when pot smokers are much less aggressive than alcohol users, and are mostly only interested in no dramas. .

I think you're preaching to the converted. I've always been of the opinion that mj is less harmful (and maybe even helpful) to a peaceful society.

The problem for a capitalist (less than peaceful) society is that mj doesn't help to promote the holy dollar as being God.

well  it DOES....  on the BLACK MARKET.

I ASK YOU... are politicians THAT FAR OUT OF SYNC ?? 

I always wonder at these protestors against legalisation... 

I mean.. what have they got to lose...??  Hmmm??

I'd suggest  BIG MONEY.

Emma wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:41pm:

well  it DOES....  on the BLACK MARKET. I ASK YOU... are politicians THAT FAR OUT OF SYNC ??  I always wonder at these protestors against legalisation...  I mean.. what have they got to lose...??  Hmmm?? I'd suggest  BIG MONEY.

Ahh yess...very good point. It effectively turns it in on itself.

Good point..??

It is essentially the best argument for legalisation.  There are several others.

Conversely,, there are NO good arguments which stand scrutiny, to continue with this bogus  'War'...  what a  criminal waste of public monies ...  when a 'profit' is there for the taking.

It beggars description.. the stance of the 'War on Drugs'.

What a furphy.. perpetrated on all of our society... to very serious detriment.

. 

Supply and demand??
Drugs in Oz are changing, and the scourge of Meth is gonna hit hard, soon.
I remember when Grass was $300 an ounce, Heroin was $300 to $400 a gram, and Speed was $30 to $50 per gram.
I think Grass is about the same price, some thirty years down the track, Heroin is now $250 to $300, and Meth is $1000 a gram.

So Grass and Heroin are the same or cheaper, but speed is twenty to thirty times dearer.

WTF is going on??
I have never tried methamphetamine, I have had Methedrine back in the early 70's, which was the king of speed in those days, but never really cared for speed much anyway, so never used it regularly, just a once in a blue moon thing, when someone else was shouting, so I do not understand what the hell is happening with people paying so much for speed now.
Do they like the randy sex feeling they get?
Do they want to stay awake for three days in a row?
Do they wish to become loony, paranoid, and delusional, as seems the common path for heavy speed addicts?

We would be better off with kids breaking apart Codral cold tablets to take out the 5Mg Dexedrine tablet in the middle, like we did when we were kids.
Dexys weren't good for you, but a lot less harmful than the current Ice epidemic I thinks.
Any Ice freaks care to enlighten me on the joy of Ice, cos I still don't get it.

I don't get it either. 
Such a filthy destructive drug in which to choose to indulge.  :(
But perhaps the aim is to have no responsibility...?? 
A bit like drunkards..who cause havoc for their families. Could it be some sort of revenge against them? or even self-punishment and self-loathing,,..??. 

Personally? I've never more than tried 'speed' once... and didn't like it at all.  YUK. But then again, I don't drink coffee because of its effect on me... I don't want it...  bit like Coca Cola..never touch the shite.!

I'm naturally  'wired'..  :) which is why I prefer the gentler calming types.. 

Hey Mozzaok ?   I remember when an ounce of pot cost $30.   YEP ... believe it.  For an Oz of QLD heads.
It stayed at $30 dollars for yrs and yrs... when the original smokers.. the hippies and such were into love and freedom...  not MONEY ...... and imported hashish ..from Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Lebanon went for $110 -150 an oz. 
and then all of a sudden..   no doubt due to the ingress of organised crime..  pot went to $50....    and ... then on and on till as you said, $300 was an accepted price.!!!    so that now..???
it is more than that!!!!!!! 

the market sets the price it seems... NOT.  The crims set the price.

Take it back to the days of freedom,  cut out the crims and the world would be a better place.

The whole clusterfvck of drug laws is just so stupid..  I'm seriously tired of hearing the fools spout the same old garbage..

LOOK where the War on Drugs has led us... to chemical factories producing foul and addictive drugs,  'cos it is a whole lot easier to do ...much more addictive, cheaper to make, harder to find, easier to produce and smuggle...

That is what the War on Drugs has done.... created a whole new bad world of chemical drugs....  the Laws are the crime, the perpetrators are criminals through negligence and political ambition.

Too bad eh?? :(

no comment..?

well emma, astoundingly enough and to my great surprise I totally agree with you.

Meth isn't $1000 a gram. Even where it's scarce, it's still only $250-300 a gram.

That's about three times what it cost 20 years ago. Coke is twice the cost.

As for potency, it has neither the effects or the legs of the old "snorty" speed of the pre-meth days. There's none of the hair standing up on end, up for a couple of days on a single dose thing that there was with proper amphetamines.

so?
that proves the point really doesn't it?

pay more for badder stuff, more addictive etc etc...  so that crims make all the money...

IT IS A CRIME.

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 6:45pm:

Meth isn't $1000 a gram. Even where it's scarce, it's still only $250-300 a gram. That's about three times what it cost 20 years ago. Coke is twice the cost. As for potency, it has neither the effects or the legs of the old "snorty" speed of the pre-meth days. There's none of the hair standing up on end, up for a couple of days on a single dose thing that there was with proper amphetamines.

i thought it was more: but then my tryhard mate i never gave money too!!

Point is I think things drastically changed at some point price wise a few years back - care factor zero mind you!!

  8-)

Emma wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:37pm:

so? that proves the point really doesn't it? pay more for badder stuff, more addictive etc etc...  so that crims make all the money... IT IS A CRIME.

Meth/speed: fun once or twice but it really is for the birds.. they just stay \up for days searing at each other but in the end it's just a useless crowd pretedning they are legends in their lunchbox.

Misery needs company and dope gets boring so it's understandable: most people wake up to what life is after a few lines of speed or they smoke that meth now but it's all the same.

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 6:45pm:

Meth isn't $1000 a gram. Even where it's scarce, it's still only $250-300 a gram. That's about three times what it cost 20 years ago. Coke is twice the cost. As for potency, it has neither the effects or the legs of the old "snorty" speed of the pre-meth days. There's none of the hair standing up on end, up for a couple of days on a single dose thing that there was with proper amphetamines.

Really?

hey Deathray  how are ya..?

I'm good.  Your point is valid...  people will generally NOT do too much damage to themselves, whilst youthful and experimenting with life.. those that do have big problems are generally ..what's the word..>??   predisposed to abuse of substances.
OR.. very unlucky. 8-)

It is the creation of the War...and therefore the huge increase in profits which drive what's happening today. 

Because like it or not,  most of us will try some type of mind-bending substances in our lives.. whatever it may be.. it seems part of the human condition.
To criminalise this behaviour is so harmful to society it beggars description.
Much better to care for those who have problems, than to punish them,  and not only them,  but any young person who in the course of learning about life try something ,, get caught by the jackboots,  and then therefore get dragged into the whole filthy system that has become  'our' policy.

The only people I have ever met,  who have NEVER even smoked a cigarette,,, or had a beer..are either religious fanatics..  or psychopaths... who are totally paranoid about losing control and exposing themselves for what they are.. >:(

  .  ...   

REPEAT


The only people I have ever met who have NEVER even smoked a cigarette or had a beer are either religious fanatics or psychos.

Emma wrote on Feb 7^th, 2014 at 12:08am:

The only people I have ever met,  who have NEVER even smoked a cigarette,,, or had a beer..are either religious fanatics..  or psychopaths... who are totally paranoid about losing control and exposing themselves for what they are.. >:(   .  ...

;D ;D ;D

I wish there were more of them, Emma.

Starting from around 6 in the morning I have a neighbour opposite me who sits on his backyard porch making the most disgusting noises as he coughs, hoicks, and spits phlegm with no attempt to keep the noise to a minimum.

In the quietness of the early morning, pigs like this piece of bogan garbage ruin the charm of this time of day when the dawn is breaking and the birds are calling to each other.

Speaking of 'where have manners gone'.

Pigs. Surrounded by pigs.   

Utterly revolting. And this goes on for at least a good half hour.

I think it might be time that 'Manners Police' were created to patrol our suburban streets and public transport systems, etc etc. handing out tickets for breaches of common courtesy.  8-)

Emma wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:37pm:

so? that proves the point really doesn't it? pay more for badder stuff, more addictive etc etc...  so that crims make all the money... IT IS A CRIME.

Well... not really.
It's not like "crims" suddenly thought "hey, let's start selling a more addictive speed, but with less bang for your buck".

During the 1990's there was an increase in amphetamine use here in Australia (coinciding with the rise of the rave and dance party scene). The government got concerned about it and in 1996 they severely limited or banned the chemicals used to make the old type speed. Suddenly it was cheaper to import meth. You could buy pseudoephedrine over the counter back then - 100 tablets of straight PE setting you back less than a tenner and a box of Sudafed cost a couple of dollars - yet there was no widespread meth use - it was quite rare to encounter it. As the old style speed production completely dried up, meth replaced it and it was now produced locally. The local stuff was cheaper than imported due to the widespread and easy access to PE. With the ban on the sale of over the counter PE products, the price of meth then rose dramatically - about 250% in 10-15 years.

In trying to fix one perceived problem, they created another.

Much like the cane toad experience....

like I said.

The point proved ..?  the DRUG WAR is LOST.

Emma wrote on Feb 8^th, 2014 at 11:15pm:

like I said. The point proved ..?  the DRUG WAR is LOST.

The drug war was never started.

Public injection rooms ... needle-bins in every public toilet ... prohibition on minimum sentencing ... reluctance to deport immigrant offenders ... the police utterly frustrated by lenient sentencing in the courts ... juvenile offenders not named and given suspended sentences ... etc etc.

Short sentences means that at any one time there are scores of dealers on the streets keeping this industry going. The longer the sentences, the greater the depletion of drug dealers on the streets.

Quote:

The longer the sentences, the greater the depletion of drug dealers on the streets.

Who and what do you think a drug dealer is?

You probably meet and deal with several each month and you don't even realise.

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Quote: The longer the sentences, the greater the depletion of drug dealers on the streets. Who and what do you think a drug dealer is? You probably meet and deal with several each month and you don't even realise.

The longer the sentence, the fewer drug peddlers are put back on the streets. People who are happy to profit from someone's ruinous addiction are the scum of the earth, and deserve a bullet to the back of the head at the edge of an open ditch.

you mean like all those undercover narcs,  and members of the Drug Squad..?? 
Herbie you are such a stirrer.  Perhaps you don't realise that the vast majority of those jailed are small-time users... NOT the real money-makers.??? 

Then of course there are all the CEO's , Board Members and owners of pubs, breweries, casinos and the players in the tobacco industry who do nothing BUT profit of the addictions of others. All the shop owners who sell tobacco and alcohol,  and by extension everybody who works in these industries.

  They must all be on your list for a bullet..

Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 4:37pm:

you mean like all those undercover narcs,  and members of the Drug Squad..??  Herbie you are such a stirrer.  Perhaps you don't realise that the vast majority of those jailed are small-time users... NOT the real money-makers.???

Check out ... the 'Broken Windows' theory of how to reduce lawlessness.

New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani imposed this theory on New York to control crime around Times Square. It worked.

Footnote: The so-called 'Broken Windows' theory that is touted as the brilliant inspiration of a Harvard academic ~ is only what citizens have been asking for since Queen Victoria was a girl.

Namely ~ give young offenders a hard time when they first go to court, and don't leave it until they become hardened criminal adults. Finally, someone in authority listened to the commonsense of the general public.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 4:37pm:

Then of course there are all the CEO's , Board Members and owners of pubs, breweries, casinos and the players in the tobacco industry who do nothing BUT profit of the addictions of others.

Wrong. Statistically only 10% of drinkers are alcoholics.

And smoking is not an addiction ~ it's a habit.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.  :)

Herbie your comments are actually totally irrelevant....

and I love the 'smoking is not an addiction its a habit' comment  ..WTF r u on... do you smoke perchance??. :)

I didn't say all drinkers are addicts.. alcoholics..  nor are all drug users... but these fat cats are still profiting from the addictions of others.  I suppose you don't think gambling can become an addiction either.. Good grief ...

The 'Broken Window'  was that to have some meaning at the end..??  you quite unclear.. 
I mean
is it good to send young folk to jail so they can become hardened criminals.. ? you may have been a bit short on substance there Herbie.. ;) because I miss whatever you mean by the reference

have a nice evening   ;D

Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

Herbie your comments are actually totally irrelevant....

;D ;D ;D


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

and I love the 'smoking is not an addiction its a habit' comment  ..WTF r u on... do you smoke perchance??. :)

;D ;D ;D Good lord, no! I broke the habit ages ago.  :P


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

I didn't say all drinkers are addicts.. alcoholics..  nor are all drug users... but these fat cats are still profiting from the addictions of others.

90% who drink are not addicted to alcohol.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

I suppose you don't think gambling can become an addiction either.. Good grief ...

A very small percentage become addicted.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

have a nice evening   ;D

You too, Emma.  :)

and this isn't about how many people become addicted to these often lethal products..
like alcohol and nicotine...
but the money these scumbag CEO's take out of our economy,  knowing full well that their products do lead to addiction, family break-downs,  and death.
Deny if you must Herbie...
perhaps YOU got wealthy from the alcohol  or tobacco industry..
why on earth would you say Tobacco is not addictive.???
I mean... even climate change headless chook deniers,  and right-wing right thinkers ( ::)) agree with that.!!

Just how skewed ARE you herb.??

Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

and this isn't about how many people become addicted to these often lethal products..

Moving the goal-post isn't going to help you, Emma.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

like alcohol and nicotine...

A far greater percentage of people around the world are killed by electricity than alcohol and tobacco combined.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

but the money these scumbag CEO's take out of our economy, knowing full well that their products do lead to addiction, family break-downs, and death.

Where does personal responsibility come into this?

You want a Nanny State in which freedom of choice is barred to the great majority so as to protect the small minority who fall victim to addiction and lack of self-control.

How about all the fat people we see in the supermarkets?

Do we close the supermarkets as a strategy for stopping a few from over-eating?

Where does it stop, Emma? How far do we go to protet the vulnerable from themselves?


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

Deny if you must Herbie...

;D ;D ;D I feel compelled to. The anti-denial patches aren't working. 


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

perhaps YOU got wealthy from the alcohol  or tobacco industry..

::)


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

why on earth would you say Tobacco is not addictive.???

I've heard it said by people in authority that it's not so much addictive as a habit. I always found giving up from two-packs a day quite easy. No physical withdrawal symptoms whatsoever. The habit of wanting to go through the process of reaching for a cigarette, lighting it, inhaling ... etc is what I missed most.

But okay ~ I'll concede that it's an addiction.


Quote:

How powerful is nicotine addiction? About 70% of smokers say they want to quit and about half try to quit each year, but only 4% to 7% succeed without help. This is because smokers not only become physically dependent on nicotine; there is a strong emotional (psychological) dependence. This is what leads to relapse after quitting. The smoker may link smoking with social and many other activities. Smokers also may use tobacco to help manage unpleasant feelings and emotions, which can become a problem for some smokers when they try to quit. All of these factors make smoking a hard habit to break.

'Strong emotional dependence' ~ not a strong physical dependence.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

I mean... even climate change headless chook deniers,  and right-wing right thinkers ( ::)) agree with that.!!

Oh well, it must be true then. Whenever my friends and I can't agree on something, I simply go to the fridge and bring out a barbecued headless chook and slap it down on the coffee table in the lounge-room and let it decide the matter for us.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

Just how skewed ARE you herb.??

They don't call me The Human Shishkebab for nothing. You'll see me in Sideshow Alley at Sydney's Royal Easter Show every year.  :P

no doubt herb

Emma wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

no doubt herb

Is that a 'Yes' ... or a 'No' ... or a 'whatever' ... ?  ;D

well ..

whatever.

I changed no parameters.... yours was the blanket assertion/... then yours was the desire to reduce  those absolutes... and generalisations..to percentages... 

sad eh..?

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:

[quote author=life_goes_on link=1269226484/197#197 date=1391911964][quote] The longer the sentences, the greater the depletion of drug dealers on the streets. The longer the sentence, the fewer drug peddlers are put back on the streets. People who are happy to profit from someone's ruinous addiction are the scum of the earth, and deserve a bullet to the back of the head at the edge of an open ditch.

herby

Just to remind YOU of what you said.. :)

bummer

From this ‘vague idea that it’s not their fault’, much pandering to criminals has followed. Judges hand down pitifully short prison sentences, or worse, community service orders, thereby providing insufficient protection to the community and scant punishment or deterrence to criminals; rulings are not enforced, as in when, ludicrously, magistrates impose driving bans on people found driving a car while banned (or, in an even crazier example reported in a newspaper, from which Davidson quotes, a criminal ‘was released on bail by the court, on condition that he kept to his bail conditions this time’); and the consumption of illegal drugs is commonly taken by the courts not as an additional contravention but as a mitigating factor – ‘the defence will actually say, “He is a burglar but, in his defence, he regularly takes heroin”’. The refusal of the authorities to unequivocally condemn drug usage extends even to the counsel handed out to children, via the government website ‘Frank’, the self-styled ‘non-judgmental source of drugs information and advice’. As Davidson points out, ‘you might expect the Criminal Justice System to say that drugs are a) illegal; b) bad for you; c) part of the explosion of acquisitive crime we’ve seen in the last few decades; and d) damaging society’. But no. Through all such genuflections to illegality, the doctrine of social inclusion wreaks havoc among the very people it is supposed to be serving, an iatrogenic consequence starkly articulated by Davidson: ‘The majority of people living on our worst council estates are completely law-abiding, in my experience. Yet their lives, like the lives of many of the poor and vulnerable in society, are dominated by a fear of disorder.’ In other words, ‘those poor are reaping what the liberal elite have sown. Various criminals run our council estates’.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/142306/sec_id/142306

Read the whole thing. Nonjudgemental social inclusion is a bad thing with terrible iatrogenic (negative and unintended) consequences.

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

From this ‘vague idea that it’s not their fault’, much pandering to criminals has followed. Judges hand down pitifully short prison sentences, or worse, community service orders, thereby providing insufficient protection to the community and scant punishment or deterrence to criminals; rulings are not enforced, as in when, ludicrously, magistrates impose driving bans on people found driving a car while banned (or, in an even crazier example reported in a newspaper, from which Davidson quotes, a criminal ‘was released on bail by the court, on condition that he kept to his bail conditions this time’); and the consumption of illegal drugs is commonly taken by the courts not as an additional contravention but as a mitigating factor – ‘the defence will actually say, “He is a burglar but, in his defence, he regularly takes heroin”’. The refusal of the authorities to unequivocally condemn drug usage extends even to the counsel handed out to children, via the government website ‘Frank’, the self-styled ‘non-judgmental source of drugs information and advice’. As Davidson points out, ‘you might expect the Criminal Justice System to say that drugs are a) illegal; b) bad for you; c) part of the explosion of acquisitive crime we’ve seen in the last few decades; and d) damaging society’. But no. Through all such genuflections to illegality, the doctrine of social inclusion wreaks havoc among the very people it is supposed to be serving, an iatrogenic consequence starkly articulated by Davidson: ‘The majority of people living on our worst council estates are completely law-abiding, in my experience. Yet their lives, like the lives of many of the poor and vulnerable in society, are dominated by a fear of disorder.’ In other words, ‘those poor are reaping what the liberal elite have sown. Various criminals run our council estates’. http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/142306/sec_id/142306 Read the whole thing. Nonjudgemental social inclusion is a bad thing with terrible iatrogenic (negative and unintended) consequences.

Umm Soren? I rarely read links like this you advise to read.

Perhaps I'll read this one..ah  um how much of the preamble did you actually write..?  Is any of it ..yours words..??  or are you just posting stuff under your name.?

I have hi-lighted in BOLD  above.. the only thing I think is correct in your post.  I'll read your link  if you reply.

Law makes Criminals...  Criminals do not make Law.

I think that is original.. who knows.. minds greater than mine may have already said it.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 5:26am:

Emma wrote on Feb 9th, 2014 at 11:31pm: and this isn't about how many people become addicted to these often lethal products.. Moving the goal-post isn't going to help you, Emma. Emma wrote on Feb 9th, 2014 at 11:31pm: like alcohol and nicotine... A far greater percentage of people around the world are killed by electricity than alcohol and tobacco combined. Emma wrote on Feb 9th, 2014 at 11:31pm: but the money these scumbag CEO's take out of our economy, knowing full well that their products do lead to addiction, family break-downs, and death. Where does personal responsibility come into this? You want a Nanny State in which freedom of choice is barred to the great majority so as to protect the small minority who fall victim to addiction and lack of self-control. How about all the fat people we see in the supermarkets? Do we close the supermarkets as a strategy for stopping a few from over-eating? Where does it stop, Emma? How far do we go to protect the vulnerable from themselves? Emma wrote on Feb 9th, 2014 at 11:31pm: Deny if you must Herbie... ;D ;D ;D I feel compelled to. The anti-denial patches aren't working.  Emma wrote on Feb 9th, 2014 at 11:31pm: perhaps YOU got wealthy from the alcohol  or tobacco industry.. ::) Emma wrote on Feb 9th, 2014 at 11:31pm: why on earth would you say Tobacco is not addictive.??? I've heard it said by people in authority that it's not so much addictive as a habit. I always found giving up from two-packs a day quite easy. No physical withdrawal symptoms whatsoever. The habit of wanting to go through the process of reaching for a cigarette, lighting it, inhaling ... etc is what I missed most. But okay ~ I'll concede that it's an addiction. [quote]How powerful is nicotine addiction? About 70% of smokers say they want to quit and about half try to quit each year, but only 4% to 7% succeed without help. This is because smokers not only become physically dependent on nicotine; there is a strong emotional (psychological) dependence. This is what leads to relapse after quitting. The smoker may link smoking with social and many other activities. Smokers also may use tobacco to help manage unpleasant feelings and emotions, which can become a problem for some smokers when they try to quit. All of these factors make smoking a hard habit to break.

'Strong emotional dependence' ~ not a strong physical dependence.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

I mean... even climate change headless chook deniers,  and right-wing right thinkers ( ::)) agree with that.!!

Oh well, it must be true then. Whenever my friends and I can't agree on something, I simply go to the fridge and bring out a barbecued headless chook and slap it down on the coffee table in the lounge-room and let it decide the matter for us.


Emma wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

Just how skewed ARE you herb.??

They don't call me The Human Shishkebab for nothing. You'll see me in Sideshow Alley at Sydney's Royal Easter Show every year.  :P

This Topic was moved here from Drug Policy by freediver.