A bunch of 15 year olds behaving immaturely?

While I don't think it's useful to debate the merits of decriminalisation by referring to the one case study, you'd have to be a little more empathetic to Anna Wood's parents understanding of the situation. Though water intoxication killed Anna, it was the drugs that put her in such a state to begin with. If I get beaten around the head with a metal pipe and bleed to death from my brain, you don't say that I died from "natural causes".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Though water intoxication killed Anna, it was the drugs that put her in such a state to begin with. If I get beaten around the head with a metal pipe and bleed to death from my brain, you don't say that I died from "natural causes".

How about if you're left there for hours, during which treatment would have made a difference, because people are afraid to call the police? Do we not consider the environment which leads to that as being involved in the death? How about if some deficit in education, or lack of information from the authorities lead to the situation where one was beaten with said pipe?

I get what you're saying, and I agree up to a point. However, a major deficit of zero-tolerance is that it necessarily precludes a harm reduction approach as well. So it essentially comes down to whether a zero-tolerance approach can effectively reduce supply to an extent that such situations do not occur. Historical evidence indicates this is probably not the case. Personally, I think such case studies possibly the best means to debate the merits of harm reduction, because they are exactly the situations it aims to prevent. I don't think decriminalisation, or especially legalisation, can be treated as a completely separate issue; given one of it's main strengths is that it allows effective education and treatment.

Of course we do and I'm not suggesting that the lack of education and her friends' actions had no role in her death. I disagree though that a zero-tolerance approach precludes a harm-reduction approach, the two aren't at odds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

A bunch of 15 year olds behaving immaturely?

While I don't think it's useful to debate the merits of decriminalisation by referring to the one case study, you'd have to be a little more empathetic to Anna Wood's parents understanding of the situation. Though water intoxication killed Anna, it was the drugs that put her in such a state to begin with. If I get beaten around the head with a metal pipe and bleed to death from my brain, you don't say that I died from "natural causes".

It was Anna's choice which put herself in that state.

This is besides the point, all you seem to say is that we shouldn't even try a different approach just because we shouldn't. I would've thought that you would be for it, so, at the very least, we can actually make sure that the approach you support is the right one. What are you afraid of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane

Reasonable education and availability of information (ala the pamphlets Dancesafe used to hand out before the durkur durr brigade got all up in arms) may have informed her and her friends of the dangers of guzzling water like there's no tomorrow. Or at least may have lead someone to recognise her symptoms. Furthermore, if the spectre of illegality and hush-hush mentality associated with drug taking of that variety wasn't present, she may have received treatment before it was too late. It's a classic example of a death that zero-tolerance strategies are utterly powerless to prevent (assuming supply remains relatively constant, which the overwhelming evidence suggests it does), but an actual harm-reduction approach would most likely have prevented.

How much more education and information do people need? It's easily available, we are not in the Congo. People have access to computers, the internet and moreover, most young adults are well educated in this country. Every time something goes wrong, people scream for better education. The best education is to say don't do it, it's dangerous.

Recognise symptoms of what?.......someone starting to pass out or vomiting? what education do you need to give you the common sense to ring for an ambulance?

I don't see how any of the stuff you mentioned would have led to a different result

No, the best education isn't to say 'don't do it, it's dangerous' it's to say 'don't do it, it's dangerous - but if your mates HAVE done it, these are the things to look out for.'

It's also worthwhile to hammer home the idea that if you do call the ambulance you're not going to get in trouble or anything. Same with clubs, who also have to be aware that they aren't going to get penalized if the ambos arrive because someone is in trouble.

If the kids weren't shitting themselves and the club also weren't afraid of those things, then that would have lead to a different outcome.

It's not that they didn't have the common sense to ring for an ambulance, it's that they were shit scared kids who thought that the cops would bust them. Probably because all that they have ever been told about drugs is that they are 'bad' and that the cops will bust them all.

That's the whole point of teaching more about harm minimization rather than just saying 'this is bad, don't do it'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

The best education is to say don't do it, it's dangerous.

Who slow down college boy, you come in here with your fancy terminology and your extensive knowledge in the field like some sort of brainiac?!! Speak english man!

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

How much more education and information do people need? It's easily available, we are not in the Congo. People have access to computers, the internet and moreover, most young adults are well educated in this country. Every time something goes wrong, people scream for better education. The best education is to say don't do it, it's dangerous.

Recognise symptoms of what?.......someone starting to pass out or vomiting? what education do you need to give you the common sense to ring for an ambulance?

I don't see how any of the stuff you mentioned would have led to a different result

Anna Wood died in 1995, ze internets hadn’t yet taken over the world. I remember the time well and there were so many misconceptions about ecstasy use back then. There really was just word of mouth from other clubbers/ravers, and very little credible information. If there was a positive that came out of her death, it was the coroner’s report. It shed light on some misconceptions and recommended a harm minimisation policy (education pamphlet) that was implemented. It certainly stopped people force feeding their friends water to sober them up, and told the kids to call an ambulance when things went pear shaped (ie we live in Australia not America).

Coroner’s report: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_health5.shtml

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

A bunch of 15 year olds behaving immaturely?

While I don't think it's useful to debate the merits of decriminalisation by referring to the one case study, you'd have to be a little more empathetic to Anna Wood's parents understanding of the situation. Though water intoxication killed Anna, it was the drugs that put her in such a state to begin with. If I get beaten around the head with a metal pipe and bleed to death from my brain, you don't say that I died from "natural causes".

lol. That's a shit analogy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

It was Anna's choice which put herself in that state.

This is besides the point, all you seem to say is that we shouldn't even try a different approach just because we shouldn't. I would've thought that you would be for it, so, at the very least, we can actually make sure that the approach you support is the right one. What are you afraid of?

Of course it was Anna's choice, though, as I already posted, I don't think there's any merit discussing deciminalisation by looking at the one case, and I was suggesting that a few of you could be more empathetic to parents who have lost their daughter to what was essentially a drug overdose.

And, once again, I don't find the reasons for decriminalisation compelling, not just a matter of "just because we shouldn't".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I was suggesting that a few of you could be more empathetic to parents who have lost their daughter to what was essentially a drug overdose.

Hypothetically, what if she had died in a car accident, caused by a driver over 50 who needed glasses. Do you think they would still be crusading for eye tests?

Not sure your point because they already test your eyes before you get a licence even when you're 16.

you fail to see the point?

eyesight can degenerate significantly over a 35 year period

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

The best education is to say.......

God help the world if you ever have kids but surely you can imagine the conversation with your 16yr old son or daughter.....

Daddy buffed: "don't do it, it's dangerous"

Teenage buffed: "fuck you dad, you went to Ibiza 4 times and had week long benders you massive fucking hypocrite. You suck, I'm going to the Neo-Phoenician Club tonight with my friends whether you like it or not."

Daddy buffed: "oh no you're not" /welds door shut

Teenage buffed sneaks out window and smashes 10 pingers at Neo-Phoenician and chokes to death on his/her own vomit.

Smug with himself at the morgue Daddy buffed: "hahahaa I told you so you dead little prick. I won the argument, just like I always do on ITM arguing with those goddam lefties"

it's a matter of tact, it's important to respect and accept the feelings of her family. Analysing a single case like this will only generate a circular debate. Buffed and Fewsion need to accept that the vast majority of people simply disagree with their own views on the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CircusMidget

you fail to see the point?

eyesight can degenerate significantly over a 35 year period

And that's why you get tested whenever you get a licence when over 50.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CircusMidget

you fail to see the point?

eyesight can degenerate significantly over a 35 year period

In Fewsion's case his eyesight degenerates whenever he reads logical arguments.

Oh dear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

it's a matter of tact, it's important to respect and accept the feelings of her family. Analysing a single case like this will only generate a circular debate. Buffed and Fewsion need to accept that the vast majority of people simply disagree with their own views on the matter.

you mean the vast majority of people in this thread, which is about 17 and insignificant when you consider it's a forum on website which encourages or supports drug culture. If you took it to the electorate, it would be a landslide against decriminlisation or legalisation

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

Anna Wood died in 1995, ze internets hadn’t yet taken over the world. I remember the time well and there were so many misconceptions about ecstasy use back then. There really was just word of mouth from other clubbers/ravers, and very little credible information. If there was a positive that came out of her death, it was the coroner’s report. It shed light on some misconceptions and recommended a harm minimisation policy (education pamphlet) that was implemented. It certainly stopped people force feeding their friends water to sober them up, and told the kids to call an ambulance when things went pear shaped (ie we live in Australia not America).

Coroner’s report: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_health5.shtml

with respect, it has made fuck all difference. No one tests their pills and they neck them with little regard to any safety. And i would be very surprised if any of the young (or old) people who still take them take any heed of how much (or little) water they ingest while on them. People who take drugs will do so irrespecive of the risks, education is a waste of time as is so called harm minimisation........it's just a ruse for people who want to legalise the activity for social reasons. The reason that not as many people get harmed is that promoters have ambulance and medical staff present at events now and illegal parties and raves don't happen anymore, so it has little to do with punters being more responsible..........that's just bullshit.

If anyone on this thread who takes pills can honestly tell me they test them, i will be fucking floored

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

you mean the vast majority of people in this thread, which is about 17 and insignificant when you consider it's a forum on website which encourages or supports drug culture. If you took it to the electorate, it would be a landslide against decriminlisation or legalisation

The elephant in the room for this entire thread. There have been limited admissions of partiality thus far.

I counted 59 for, 2 against

Can you count past 61? There's a whole lot more people outside this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

The elephant in the room for this entire thread. There have been limited admissions of partiality thus far.

Admissions to illegal acts are highly discouraged here, on the basis that it is stupid.

Retrospectively there have been few even.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

The elephant in the room for this entire thread. There have been limited admissions of partiality thus far.

the irony is that the same people who are so vocal on here about wanting the single biggest social policy change in the country's history are also the same people that in real life would never campaign against it for fear of being stigmatised, so they let others such as Nicholas Cowdry et al fight their battles. They can then jump up and down on here as the anonymous 'majority'

Reminds me of the 99%

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

with respect, it has made fuck all difference. No one tests their pills and they neck them with little regard to any safety. And i would be very surprised if any of the young (or old) people who still take them take any heed of how much (or little) water they ingest while on them. People who take drugs will do so irrespecive of the risks, education is a waste of time as is so called harm minimisation........it's just a ruse for people who want to legalise the activity for social reasons. The reason that not as many people get harmed is that promoters have ambulance and medical staff present at events now and illegal parties and raves don't happen anymore, so it has little to do with punters being more responsible..........that's just bullshit.

If anyone on this thread who takes pills can honestly tell me they test them, i will be fucking floored

Not that I do them anymore but I did start to test once those tests became more available: which for a long time weren't particularly easy to get, nor reliable.

Anna's death impacted on my water use also: I never sculled it back, I only ever sipped it and wet the back of my neck and forehead. This was all because of how she died.

---

@Fewsion: I have complete empathy for Wood's parents. I can only imagine how truly devastating it would be for a parent to lose a child in an entirely preventable way.

Imagine though, had the drug been legal: bought from a regulated licensed supplier - whose stuff has been tested and complies with the specific purity requirements - with proper education about the healthiest way to consume the substance i.e. how to consume water etc.

It's impossible to say that Wood would have had a different outcome but it's almost certain that we can not know how many more people might avoid a similar fate while there is no chance of trying a different approach. What we can say in Wood's case is that a legalisation approach couldn't have a worse outcome than the criminalisation approach that was in place at the time of her death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

with respect, it has made fuck all difference. No one tests their pills and they neck them with little regard to any safety. And i would be very surprised if any of the young (or old) people who still take them take any heed of how much (or little) water they ingest while on them. People who take drugs will do so irrespecive of the risks, education is a waste of time as is so called harm minimisation........it's just a ruse for people who want to legalise the activity for social reasons. The reason that not as many people get harmed is that promoters have ambulance and medical staff present at events now and illegal parties and raves don't happen anymore, so it has little to do with punters being more responsible..........that's just bullshit.

If anyone on this thread who takes pills can honestly tell me they test them, i will be fucking floored

I've tested when possible, and I'm careful about how much water I drink. Also there are some I won't touch because I believe they're too risky.

You really seem to think that anyone who uses has no desire to educate or use responsibly. Granted maybe 80% of people don't really think about what they're doing to themselves, but I don't think that's just limited to illict drug use. How many people are out each w'end drinking far more than they should? Belive it or not there are some people out there who will take the time to educate themselves and modify their behaviour.

Face it, for some of us this issue is more than just wanting to go out and party with one less thing to worry about, if you can't even acknowledge that there's more to the debate than that, then you've made your point so why keep repeating yourself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

with respect, it has made fuck all difference. No one tests their pills and they neck them with little regard to any safety. And i would be very surprised if any of the young (or old) people who still take them take any heed of how much (or little) water they ingest while on them. People who take drugs will do so irrespecive of the risks, education is a waste of time as is so called harm minimisation........it's just a ruse for people who want to legalise the activity for social reasons. The reason that not as many people get harmed is that promoters have ambulance and medical staff present at events now and illegal parties and raves don't happen anymore, so it has little to do with punters being more responsible..........that's just bullshit.

It certainly made a difference at the time, and probably saved a few lives in that ’95-’98 period. Before Anna Wood’s death that generation of ravers/clubbers used drink bucket loads of water (because they thought it was right) and were shit scared to call an ambulance if someone was in trouble. A simple pamphlet backed by the coroner’s findings from Anna’s death were very powerful in changing practices. It was a more innocent time, with people craving reliable information, so that helped get the message across. Probably wouldn’t have the same impact today.

Promoters having medical staff at events is harm minimisation, which you admit is working. What are we debating again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

ItPromoters having medical staff at events is harm minimisation, which you admit is working. What are we debating again?

for one, a promoter has to provide security and medical staff otherwise they won't get approval for the event and second, they are covering their arse legally

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

Imagine though, had the drug been legal: bought from a regulated licensed supplier - whose stuff has been tested and complies with the specific purity requirements - with proper education about the healthiest way to consume the substance i.e. how to consume water etc.

.

the experience with cigarettes, alcohol and prescription drugs says that's a load of shit

Buffed all you do is make shit up and claim it to be fact, you were offered a $500 bet to simply back up one of your "facts" and what did you do- you ran away like a little girl

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

for one, a promoter has to provide security and medical staff otherwise they won't get approval for the event and second, they are covering their arse legally

that's right, harm minimisation entrenched in regulation. This started a few years after the moral panic from Anna Wood's death and the NSW Government finally realising that a zero tolerance approach was not working and regulation was needed. It was called the Code of Practice for Dance Parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

that's right, harm minimisation entrenched in regulation. This started a few years after the moral panic from Anna Wood's death and the government finally realising that a zero tolerance approach was not working.

umm no, medical staff have always had to be present at events, not just dance party's. The only new piece of regulation was that venues and promoters needed to provide free cold drinking water........all of the other pieces of legislation were already in place and simply incorporated into the dance party code of practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

umm no, medical staff have always had to be present at events, not just dance party's. The only new piece of regulation was that venues and promoters needed to provide free cold drinking water........all of the other pieces of legislation were already in place and simply incorporated into the dance party code of practice.

But that’s the thing, dance parties and electronic music were seen by politicians as a special case in the 90s. They couldn’t get their heads around it and responded to the public’s moral panic by taking a zero tolerance approach following Anna Wood’s death. That changed by the late 90s and the Code of Practice regulated the industry and harm minimisation practices (such as free cold drinking water as you mentioned) were central to it. That reminds me, remember when clubs and venues used to just have hot water in bathrooms so punters would have to buy bottled water? That sucked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

the irony is that the same people who are so vocal on here about wanting the single biggest social policy change in the country's history

Just curious buffed, as this is the 2nd time you've mentioned this. Why do you think decriminalising drugs would be a bigger social policy change than making them illegal in the first place? For the first half of this countries history, drugs were legal and for a time opium and marijuana could be purchased legally from a chemist.

all the code did was bring together all the existing regulations under the one code.......it looked like it was designed specifically for dance party's and was really just window dressing to placate the masses because those regulations were already in place, but just under a few different statutes. The only new innovation was the free drinking water, which i agree was a worthwhile regulation

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

all the code did was bring together all the existing regulations under the one code.......it looked like it was designed specifically for dance party's and was really just window dressing to placate the masses because those regulations were already in place, but just under a few different statutes. The only new innovation was the free drinking water, which i agree was a worthwhile regulation

And thus it legitimised dance music events and made them regulated, something they had never been in the past. Central to that was harm minimisation policy embedded in regulation. What are we debating again? I think we agree for the most part.

Everyone read this?

After 33 years, I can no longer ignore the evidence on drugs - by Mick Palmer, AO APM, a former 33-year police practitioner who was commissioner of the Australian Federal Police during the ''tough on drugs'' period and is currently a director of the Australia 21 think tank.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/societ...c=1&fwcl=1&fwl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acperience 1

Everyone read this?

After 33 years, I can no longer ignore the evidence on drugs - by Mick Palmer, AO APM, a former 33-year police practitioner who was commissioner of the Australian Federal Police during the ''tough on drugs'' period and is currently a director of the Australia 21 think tank.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/societ...c=1&fwcl=1&fwl

pft what would he know....

that's not my response.. but my predicted response from buffed

The anti-legalization/decriminalization spiel in the Daily Shitgraph today was so fucking rage inducing that I was pissed the entire day.

"Heroin addicts choose to be addicted to Heroin"
"Heroin addicts choose to commit crime"
"We need more draconian laws on those found with drugs"
"Leftists, Scientists and Medical staff have misplaced good will in supporting decriminalization"
"Methadone clinics have been a complete failure, they just make people addicted to drugs"

some choice quotes from my memory.
The Heroin addicts choose to be addicted one had me fucking yelling what the fuck in the lunch room, how in fuck can this drivel be allowed to be printed? "OH YEAH LETS GET THE PUBLIC TO START BASHING ON HEROIN ADDICTS BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST LAZY NO GOODER LEFTISTS WHO CHOOSE TO BE ADDICTED AND SUCK DICK FOR CASH". Not only was the article outrageous and offensive, but what it was saying was fucking dangerous, shut down Methadone clinics? Are they fucking insane?
The first time in my life I'm actually tempted to write their editor and tell him to go suck a giant fucking dick and apologize for allowing such a piece of trash to be printed..

so heroin addiction is not a choice now? Since when is injecting a needle full of heroin into your arm not a choice?

every decision in life is a choice, every single one

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so heroin addiction is not a choice now? Since when is injecting a needle full of heroin into your arm not a choice?

every decision in life is a choice, every single one

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so heroin addiction is not a choice now? Since when is injecting a needle full of heroin into your arm not a choice?

every decision in life is a choice, every single one

Fuck you're ignorant.

My wife's job prior to this year was to write the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) for the ACT. This is done for every state and territory every year. This involved interview injecting drug users to ascertain statistics.

You would not believe the stories that come from heroin users.

Pretty much every user has a story of child abuse, rape, incest, mental illness or pretty much any awful thing you could possibly think of. Most have gone through more tragedy in one single day of their lives than what you would go through during your entire existence.

Your lack of empathy is kindred to that of a psychopath.

i know a few people that were abused when they were younger, none of them are heroin addicts.

I also know of people who had a fantastic upbringing who have tried heroin. if everyone who faced a bit of shit in their life became a heroin addict, we would have millions in this country

In all cases it's a choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by New Scientist 2868

David Nutt, former adviser to the UK government, says the ban on drugs like ecstasy is hampering neuroscience

How do the drug laws in most countries affect scientific research?
One of the things I find very disturbing about the current approach to drugs, which is simply prohibition without necessarily any full understanding of harms, is that we lose sight of the fact that these drugs may well give us insights into areas of science that need to be explored and may give us new opportunities for treatment.

In what way?
Almost all the drugs of interest in terms of understanding brain phenomena such as consciousness, perception, mood and psychosis are illegal. And so there is almost no work done in this field.

How bad is the impact?
The effects these laws have had on research is greater than those caused by the US government hindering stem cell research. No one has done an imaging neuroscience study of smoking cannabis. I can show you 150 papers telling you how the brain reacts to an angry face, but I can't show you a single paper that tells you what cannabis does.

Any examples of missed opportunities?
There were six trials of LSD as a treatment for alcoholism, the last one in 1965. The evidence is it's as good as anything we've got, maybe better. But no one is using it for this. I wonder how many other opportunities have been lost in the past 40 years with important drugs, like MDMA (ecstasy) and its empathetic qualities or cannabis for all its possible uses and insights into conditions like schizophrenia. All those opportunities have been wasted because it is virtually impossible to work with a drug when it is illegal.

How do you see change coming about?
The scientific bodies in the UK are the ones that should really be challenging the government. I will try to get the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences to support my campaign for a more rational approach to the regulation of drugs for research.

You were sacked as a UK government adviser for comparing the risks of horse riding with taking MDMA. Do you still take this line?
It is still a very important discussion. It raises the question of what the appropriate comparisons are. Where do you draw the line on harm? Should it be drawn equally across all sorts of endeavours and activities that humans engage in?

Should recreational-drug laws be relaxed?
If you are using a drug less dangerous than alcohol, that is a rational choice. If you are using drugs that are more harmful than alcohol, essentially heroin or other forms of opiates and crystal meth and cocaine, then that's different.

As head of the UK Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs you've written a book, Drugs: Without the hot air. Who is it for?
Parents and those with no scientific background can read it, children can read it and hopefully the media and politicians will read it. I hope we can start having more of a discussion about drugs.
Profile

David Nutt is neuropsychopharmacology professor at Imperial College London. He headed the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs technical committee for seven years

different angle for the debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so heroin addiction is not a choice now? Since when is injecting a needle full of heroin into your arm not a choice?

every decision in life is a choice, every single one

I agree, but it's not black and white. The decision to give up heroin is the easy part. In fact a great many heroin users want to give up. Following through on that decision and actually giving up is very difficult (see look, degrees of difficulty of acting on a decision. It's not just a simple yes/no which equals your black and white view).

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

I agree, but it's not black and white. The decision to give up heroin is the easy part. In fact a great many heroin users want to give up. Following through on that decision and actually giving up is very difficult (see look, degrees of difficulty of acting on a decision. It's not just a simple yes/no which equals your black and white view).

the decision to take it is the easy part like any addiction and that's why i don't want drugs legalised or decriminilasied. If a vice like that is freely available, then it simply makes the decision much easier. I know you will say it already is freely available, but that's where i disagree. It is not easily available, particularly for those who have no experience with it.

And the irony of arguing for legalisation or decriminilisation is that on the one hand you argue for personal responsibility and discretion in being able to choose what a person puts into their body and on the other, you argue that the person is a victim of circumstance as soon as they become addicted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

the decision to take it is the easy part like any addiction and that's why i don't want drugs legalised or decriminilasied. If a vice like that is freely available, then it simply makes the decision much easier. I know you will say it already is freely available, but that's where i disagree. It is not easily available, particularly for those who have no experience with it.

And the irony of arguing for legalisation or decriminilisation is that on the one hand you argue for personal responsibility and discretion in being able to choose what a person puts into their body and on the other, you argue that the person is a victim of circumstance as soon as they become addicted.

No one who argues for responsible legalisation would ever use the term 'freely available'. Drugs would not be freely available, they would be legalised, yet restricted.