Current Affairs and Politics

Richard Branson: "War on drugs a failure, decriminalise now"

View Poll Results: Is Cannabis a safe drug?
Yes. Legalise it 8 0.00%
Yes but don't legalise it 1 0.00%
In moderation 5 0.00%
Only when drinking beer 0 0%
Nope 2 0.00%
Not really. I got Schizophrenia 1 0.00%
should Dero13 not start threads 5000001 100.00%
Voters: 5000018. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Tools
gonefishin +

Registered User

gonefishin's Avatar
Joined
Mar '11
Times thanked
< 391
Posts
1,634

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

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.

Not really, this debate is not about affording people greater civil liberties- it's about the practicality and effectiveness of the current system. Poor circumstances will contribute to poor decision making and therein begins a cycle that you can't argue does not exist.
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

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.

If the decision to take it is the easy part, then it should make no difference whether or not the drug is decriminalised. They are going to do it regardless and this is precisely what the facts have been telling us for 30yrs now. What you obviously have no capacity to understand given your middle class privileged upbringing, is that the vast majority of heroin and/or meth addicts were exposed to it as children or teenagers on a regular basis before they started taking it. For those people, it IS freely available.

No matter what, drug addicts are a drain on society, thus what I am in favour of, is putting more resources (ie: money, education and skilled workers) into programs which are proven to decrease the rates of heroin and meth use. Methadone programs are proven to be much more effective at reducing the rates of heroin use compared with prohibition and they are much cheaper to implement, therefore they represent less of a drain on society than prohibition does. Yet they remain severely underfunded because all the money goes to law enforcement. Why would you spend money on something that doesn't work and not spend it on the thing that does work? It's a stupid system and the only reason it remains that way is because too many people hold onto a conservative religious belief that "drugs are immoral" and therefore it shifts the debate away from being an economic or health issue to a political one instead. People like you use emotionally based reasoning instead of factually based reasoning.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)

Last edited by didjeridude: 13-Jun-12 at 11:00am

buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144
methodone programs already exist and money and education are provided and can be provided without decriminilising or legalising drug use. I don't see what decriminilising and legalising have to do with continuing to provide methodone programs.

and i'm not religious. If you oppose poker machines and gambling are you religious? for someone who prides themselves on an 'open mind' your own prejudice and penchant for stereotyping is baffling
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

methodone programs already exist and money and education are provided and can be provided without decriminilising or legalising drug use. I don't see what decriminilising and legalising have to do with continuing to provide methodone programs.

and i'm not religious. If you oppose poker machines and gambling are you religious? for someone who prides themselves on an 'open mind' your own prejudice and penchant for stereotyping is baffling

Didn't you read the bit where I said methadone programs are underfunded? Drug addicts are more likely to seek help if they know they won't get thrown in jail. Anyway, this is one small aspect of the wider debate. You always do this, someone comes along and states one reason out of about a thousand why decriminalisation is a good idea and you act as if it's the only reason.

I never said you were religious. I said that the mentality that "drugs are immoral" is a religious belief. You don't have to be religious to be a sucker for the religious indoctrination that has infected the entire planet. And btw, as much as I come across as anti-religion, that is an incorrect interpretation. I believe in freedom of expression which includes freedom to practice whatever religion one may wish. Therefore, I respect the right of those who choose to follow a religion. Inherent in my belief however, is that religion should not seek to indoctrinate or force people against their will to follow their ideology. If you believe that drugs are immoral, then good for you, don't take them. If some addict wants to take drugs, why do you have to push your belief that drugs are immoral onto that person if they don't believe that? what difference does it make to you personally? None whatsoever, unless society criminalizes that act which has the direct effect of pushing up prices and then the addict needs to steal from you to support their expensive habit.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424
to extrapolate on the methadone program link to decriminalisation.

this is the current pathway.....

a. 16-21yr old starts taking heroin (for whatever reason)
b. gets heroin on the street at massively inflated prices due to prohibition
c. becomes addict and turns to crime to support habit
d. stays an addict for several years
d. eventually gets thrown in jail after multiple arrests for break and enter and
e. in jail, gets exposed to a methadone program
f. starts using methadone instead whilst in jail
g. gets out of jail, can't get methadone reliably because its underfunded
h. goes back to heroin

this is the decriminalised/legalised pathway.....

a. 16-21yr old starts taking heroin (for whatever reason)
b. uses or gets heroin at an injecting room (since it has been decriminalised/legalised and funding exists to run these rooms)
c. is exposed to a methadone program
d. starts using methadone instead and eventually gets off heroin
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

Didn't you read the bit where I said methadone programs are underfunded? Drug addicts are more likely to seek help if they know they won't get thrown in jail. Anyway, this is one small aspect of the wider debate. You always do this, someone comes along and states one reason out of about a thousand why decriminalisation is a good idea and you act as if it's the only reason.

I never said you were religious. I said that the mentality that "drugs are immoral" is a religious belief. You don't have to be religious to be a sucker for the religious indoctrination that has infected the entire planet. And btw, as much as I come across as anti-religion, that is an incorrect interpretation. I believe in freedom of expression which includes freedom to practice whatever religion one may wish. Therefore, I respect the right of those who choose to follow a religion. Inherent in my belief however, is that religion should not seek to indoctrinate or force people against their will to follow their ideology. If you believe that drugs are immoral, then good for you, don't take them. If some addict wants to take drugs, why do you have to push your belief that drugs are immoral onto that person if they don't believe that? what difference does it make to you personally? None whatsoever, unless society criminalizes that act which has the direct effect of pushing up prices and then the addict needs to steal from you to support their expensive habit.

Don weatherburn's report suggested that drug addicts are more likely to seek help due to the fear of arrest.

It's not a religious belief as far as i'm concerned, i think on balance, they are harmful and i'm yet to be convinced that legalising or decriminilising is going to be beneficial for society.
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

Don weatherburn's report suggested that drug addicts are more likely to seek help due to the fear of arrest.

It's not a religious belief as far as i'm concerned, i think on balance, they are harmful and i'm yet to be convinced that legalising or decriminilising is going to be beneficial for society.

BRAVO! well done!!. I play your game to see if you would pick me up on it. Now, imagine that I keep repeating that made up statistic over and over again for the next 2yrs and ignore all of your attempts to educate me by linking to Don's publications and whatnot. This is the annoying shit that everyone in this forum has to put up with from you all the time.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144
i don't make my statistics up, i just couldn't be bothered posting sources etc
gonefishin +

Registered User

gonefishin's Avatar
Joined
Mar '11
Times thanked
< 391
Posts
1,634
^buffed you do make shit up and it is annoying to many, just be happy that you believe your own bullshit and leave it at that-cos nobody else does
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin View Post

^buffed you do make shit up and it is annoying to many, just be happy that you believe your own bullshit and leave it at that-cos nobody else does

everyone on here posts and believes their own shit, including you because everyone has their own opinion on matters. If you don't like mine, then i don't give a flying continental, but that's my opinion. And if the nobody else is the 28 people on this thread who support legalisation, then clearly, that ain't huge. As i've said before, forums like this encourage debate among people who take a left leaning slant on issues, whatever the issue.......it just seems like a consensus to you because that's the flavour of the forum posters, left leaning
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

i don't make my statistics up, i just couldn't be bothered posting sources etc

Nice cop out. Even a drug addict would make an effort to post his sources when offered $500 to do so.

Whilst I think Don Weatherburn makes an excellent summary of the debate here, he always seems to be conspicuously quiet regarding the huge cost of law enforcement, and he always stops short of suggesting a solution to the problem.

Anyway, this debate has been done to death. My preferences lie with the Australia 21 report and the Global Commission on Drug Policy. To use your terminology, I think we should "give it a go" and if after 5-7yrs it is dismal failure, then we can bring back the sniffer dogs at music festivals.

There is nothing you or I can add which isn't going to be a repeat of the first 20 pages of this thread.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
gonefishin +

Registered User

gonefishin's Avatar
Joined
Mar '11
Times thanked
< 391
Posts
1,634

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

everyone on here posts and believes their own shit, including you because everyone has their own opinion on matters. If you don't like mine, then i don't give a flying continental, but that's my opinion.

Thats fine, have your own opinion-just don't make up bullshit in support of it. You keep mentioning Don Weatherburns name yet what he says clearly contradicts what you claim to be fact.
mischa21 +

yessum

mischa21's Avatar
Joined
Aug '10
Times thanked
< 3,072
Posts
4,058
A TOP health official says taking pure ecstasy can be safe when consumed responsibly by adults, despite warnings by police about the dangers of the street drug after a rash of deaths.
Perry Kendall, the chief medical officer of British Columbia province in Canada, said yesterday that the risks of MDMA - the pure substance synonymous with ecstasy - are overblown, and that its lethal dangers arise when gangs mix the man-made chemical with other toxic substances.

Sixteen people from Canada's west coast died last July from a tainted batch of ecstasy they obtained from dealers. It was cut with a toxin called PMMA.

Kendall said that MDMA should be sold through licenced, government-run stores where the product is strictly regulated, but he later clarified his statement, and said he is not advocating legalisation. Rather, he is a strong critic of prohibition.

"I don't think it keeps drugs out of the hands of vulnerable people and I don't think it does much to reduce harmful use and I think it has other harmful effects like putting billions of dollars into the hands of criminal enterprises," Kendall said.

MDMA usually comes in the form of a capsule or a tablet, and produces feelings of increased energy, euphoria, emotional warmth and distortions in time, perception and tactile experiences, according to the US National Institute on Drug Abuse.

However, it also can increase a user's heart rate and raise one's blood pressure, and in some cases causes confusion, depression, sleep problems and severe anxiety, the institute said on its website. Chronic users also experience some memory and cognitive problems. On rare occasions, it can be lethal.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/pure-ec...#ixzz1xpbZmewS
Davomaxi +

No. Money Down!

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 982
Posts
7,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21 View Post

A TOP health official says taking pure ecstasy can be safe when consumed responsibly by adults, despite warnings by police about the dangers of the street drug after a rash of deaths.
Perry Kendall, the chief medical officer of British Columbia province in Canada, said yesterday that the risks of MDMA - the pure substance synonymous with ecstasy - are overblown, and that its lethal dangers arise when gangs mix the man-made chemical with other toxic substances.

Sixteen people from Canada's west coast died last July from a tainted batch of ecstasy they obtained from dealers. It was cut with a toxin called PMMA.

Kendall said that MDMA should be sold through licenced, government-run stores where the product is strictly regulated, but he later clarified his statement, and said he is not advocating legalisation. Rather, he is a strong critic of prohibition.

"I don't think it keeps drugs out of the hands of vulnerable people and I don't think it does much to reduce harmful use and I think it has other harmful effects like putting billions of dollars into the hands of criminal enterprises," Kendall said.

MDMA usually comes in the form of a capsule or a tablet, and produces feelings of increased energy, euphoria, emotional warmth and distortions in time, perception and tactile experiences, according to the US National Institute on Drug Abuse.

However, it also can increase a user's heart rate and raise one's blood pressure, and in some cases causes confusion, depression, sleep problems and severe anxiety, the institute said on its website. Chronic users also experience some memory and cognitive problems. On rare occasions, it can be lethal.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/pure-ec...#ixzz1xpbZmewS

That's enough for me. Legalise it and make it rain down from the sky to the mouths of the children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144
awesome.........when can we start to giving it to children as part of a healty, balanced diet?
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 14,959
Posts
49,487
You mean like the ones they don't eat now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

walkdogz +

Registered User

walkdogz's Avatar
Joined
Mar '08
Times thanked
< 510
Posts
7,168
http://www.smh.com.au/world/state-go...621-20qto.html

Quote:

MONTEVIDEO. Uruguay says it wants to legalise cannabis sales as a crime-fighting measure.

The government would have a monopoly over the distribution and sales of the drug, which could be sold only to adults registered as users.

Minister of Defence Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro has told reporters at a news conference in Montevideo that the idea was to remove profits from drug dealers and divert users from harder drugs.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Uruguayan newspapers had reported that money from taxes on cannabis cigarettes would go towards rehabilitating drug addicts.

Possession of the drug for personal use has never been criminalised in Uruguay.

Abziie +

Registered User

Abziie's Avatar
Joined
Jun '06
Times thanked
< 59
Posts
1,378
The weed is possessed
horst +

Registered User

horst's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 407
Posts
5,407
Threads merged, we don't need another drug discussion thread.
And Dero please don't start threads they have this tendency to descend into garbage at an alarming rate.
reak0r +

crum guzzler.

reak0r's Avatar
Joined
Apr '12
Times thanked
< 897
Posts
1,264
IMO...
police (globally) made precursor chems for MDMA harder to get, making (especially in australia) MD a drug of the past, altho it is still available, its at an inflated price compared to ~6 years ago.

From a 'war on drugs' perpective i guess this is a success.

on the flipside. everone turns to shard.

suddenly taking MD off the streets seems like a bad idea.

this is only my bias opinion tho.
Kiron +

Mess with the best, Die like the rest!

Kiron's Avatar
Joined
Aug '07
Times thanked
< 347
Posts
4,271
Media Player
Weed Kills - YouTube
Yak, yak, yak. Get a job
Kiron22 << Add me to Last.fm bitches so we can Hipster it up together
YossarianIsSane +

Registered User

YossarianIsSane's Avatar
Joined
Nov '05
Times thanked
< 182
Posts
1,404

Quote:

Originally Posted by reak0r View Post

IMO...
police (globally) made precursor chems for MDMA harder to get, making (especially in australia) MD a drug of the past, altho it is still available, its at an inflated price compared to ~6 years ago.

From a 'war on drugs' perpective i guess this is a success.

on the flipside. everone turns to shard.

suddenly taking MD off the streets seems like a bad idea.

this is only my bias opinion tho.

While there's not a lot of hard data to back that up, I think it's absolutely correct. That's one of the main arguments behind government controlled manufacture. Not necessarily everyone turning to shard but increases in weird cutting agents and research chems turning up in 'pills'.The other classical example in this vein is the sheer volume of Levisamole turning up in Cocaine in North America; completely avoidable under a legalisation scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_e_de View Post

It's the same as going out on a busy street and looking at the people around you, most of them are fgts.

Weinertron +

random shoutbox generator

Weinertron's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 926
Posts
3,642
^the shard thing can also be attributed to the heroin war (which, I hate to say, was largely successful).

Whilst this is anecdotal evidence, a close friend's brother was battling heroin addiction for many many years. But his most recent trip to rehab was all because of the shard (2 years in rehab and counting).

I'm not sure whether this has been a positive or negative outcome. Meth is fucking evil but so is heroin. nobody wins this round
Fuck Everything Forever
Kiron +

Mess with the best, Die like the rest!

Kiron's Avatar
Joined
Aug '07
Times thanked
< 347
Posts
4,271
http://oursay.org/hangout-with-the-p...r-of-australia

Vote for my question too the prime minister
Yak, yak, yak. Get a job
Kiron22 << Add me to Last.fm bitches so we can Hipster it up together
liberabit +

One of these days you'll wake up dead

liberabit's Avatar
Joined
Jan '06
Times thanked
< 2,844
Posts
4,294,967,295
just had this come up on my fb



discussion about it here, is about an article in the Lancet done by David Nutt et al.
This is no love song and it serves no use, but if you want to sing along to some verbal abuse
It might make you feel better and it's good for the soul, take four letters and let's rock n roll
TrainsPillsBreaks +

Registered User

TrainsPillsBreaks's Avatar
Joined
Apr '09
Times thanked
< 22
Posts
444
Forbes had an article in the last day or two which opened with some fairly striking choice of language.
Weinertron +

random shoutbox generator

Weinertron's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 926
Posts
3,642
Upvoted
Fuck Everything Forever
mischa21 +

yessum

mischa21's Avatar
Joined
Aug '10
Times thanked
< 3,072
Posts
4,058
upvoted
liberabit +

One of these days you'll wake up dead

liberabit's Avatar
Joined
Jan '06
Times thanked
< 2,844
Posts
4,294,967,295
and here we have another new couple of reports: "The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children and we are all letting it happen" and "Alternatives to Prohibition: Illicit drugs: How we can stop killing and criminalising young Australians"

ABC article here which also links to facebook for comments
This is no love song and it serves no use, but if you want to sing along to some verbal abuse
It might make you feel better and it's good for the soul, take four letters and let's rock n roll
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 14,959
Posts
49,487

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,614
Posts
12,087
That's gold on a number of levels.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
claude glass +

Registered User

claude glass's Avatar
Joined
Jun '10
Times thanked
< 760
Posts
4,157
I could have posted this in a number of threads, but it is a classic example of why we should be cautious about taking hard lines on anything

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...-of-drug-tests
Kill Whitey +

Registered User

Kill Whitey's Avatar
Joined
Jun '06
Times thanked
< 321
Posts
1,200
Holy lord. That's just... how in the hell could that go on unnoticed for so long?
Kiron +

Mess with the best, Die like the rest!

Kiron's Avatar
Joined
Aug '07
Times thanked
< 347
Posts
4,271

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass View Post

I could have posted this in a number of threads, but it is a classic example of why we should be cautious about taking hard lines on anything

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...-of-drug-tests

Quote:

here is no justification, at any time, at any place, in my country, for a urine test to be made on any individual, unless there is a reason stated for supposing that there has been a crime committed.
Let me state that again, in different words. To demand that a person pee in a cup whenever you wish him to, without a documented reason to suspect that he has been using an illegal drug, is intolerable in our republic. You are saying to him, "I wonder if you are not behaving in a way that I approve of. Convince me that you indeed are."
Outrageous.
Intolerable.

I don't care if the man is the pilot of Air Force One with the President on board, or the trigger man on a nuclear submarine with 24 Trident 11 D5 missiles at his disposal; it is unthinkable that there could ever be a urine test demanded of a person, unless there were reason to suspect him of being impaired. Yes, it is possible that we might lose a plane here, or a skirmish there, but such would be a minor price for us to pay for having a nation that respects the privacy of the individual and the presumption of his innocence.

The pilot/trigger man could be in a bad state of mind for many reasons (argument with a lover, burnt toast for breakfast), so our efforts must be directed to an evaluation of his behaviour, his capabilities, and the intactness of his skills; there can be testing of his reflexes and coordination, in order to give evidence of impairment. If he is not considered completely competent to do his job, then—and only then—can a search into his urine be justified.

In any case, a blind search for drugs in a pilot's urine can provide only minuscule protection against aberrant behaviour, since he will fly his plane today, and the urine test results won't be available until next week. There is no protection provided under these conditions.

I believe that a major reason for the wide promotion of urine testing is that, as a new, rapidly growing industry, it is an extraordinary moneymaker.

There are other actions of the authorities that illustrate this "assume them guilty and let them prove otherwise" attitude. Last year the DEA contacted all the advertisers in the counter-culture magazine High Times who were offering hydroponic horticultural supplies for sale. Their customer lists were confiscated, and all those who had made purchases of any kind were visited by representatives of the DEA, on the assumption that they were growing marijuana. After a number of innocent orchid growers had been raided, the authorities' enthusiasm died down. But the heavy handedness of this undertaking does present a frightening picture of our law enforcement authorities in action.

Let me ask each of you this simple question. What indicators would you accept as a definition of a police state, if it were to quietly materialize about you? I mean, a state that you could not tolerate. A state in which there is a decrease in drug use, but in which your behavior was increasingly being dictated by those in power?

Each of you, personally and privately, please draw an imaginary line in front of you, a line that indicates: up to here, okay, but beyond here, no way!

Let me suggest some thoughts to use as guides. What about a requirement for an observed urination into a plastic cup for drug analysis before getting a welfare check, or to qualify for or maintain a job at the local MacDonalds, or to allow your child enrollment in the public schools? Would any one of these convince you that our nation was in trouble?

More and more companies are requiring pre-employment urine testing, and insisting upon random analyses during working hours. Not just bus drivers and policemen, but furniture salesmen and grocery store clerks. Some local school districts are requiring random urine tests on 7th graders, but as of the present time they are still requesting the parent's permission. Recipients of public housing, of university loans, or of academic grants must give assurance that they will maintain a drug-free environment. Today, verbal assurance is acceptable, but what about tomorrow?

What about the daily shaving of the head and body so that no hair sample can be seized to provide evidence against you of past drug-use? There are increasingly strong moves to seize and assay hair samples in connection with legitimate arrests, as a potential source of incriminating evidence of past illegal drug use.

What if you had to make a formal request to the government, and get written permission, to take more than $300 out of the country for a week's vacation in Holland? Or $200? There used to be no limit, then the limit dropped to the current level of $10,000, but this number will certainly continue to drop as legislation becomes more severe with regard to the laundering of drug money.

A lot of what I have been talking about has to do with the "other guy," not you. It is your drug-using neighbor who will have to live in fear, not you. It is easy to dismiss these invasions of personal rights when they don't affect you directly. But let me ask you a not-quite-so-simple question, the answer to which is very important to you, indeed: where are your own personal limits?

To what extent do you feel that it is justifiable for someone else to control your personal behavior, if it contributes to the public's benefit? Let me presume that the idea of urine tests for cocaine use is okay with you. You probably don't use cocaine. Would you allow demands upon you for random urine tests for tobacco use? What about for alcohol use? The use of coffee?

To what extent would you allow the authorities into your private life? Let us presume that, having committed no crime, you would permit a policeman, who is visiting you officially, into your home without a warrant. But what about officials entering your home in your absence? Would you still proclaim, "I don't mind; I've got nothing to hide!"

I doubt that there are many of you who feel disturbed about the existence of a national computerized fingerprint file. But how about a national genetic marker file? What about police cards for domestic travel? How would you react to a law that says you must provide hair samples upon reentering the country from abroad? How would you feel about the automatic opening and reading of first class mail? Any and all of these things could be rationalized as being effective tools in the war against drugs. Where would you personally draw the line?

Each of us must carefully draw that line for himself or herself. It is an exquisitely personal decision, just where your stick is to enter the ground to mark that boundary. This far, and no further.

There is a second and equally important decision to be made.

Let's ease into it by recapitulation. The first requirement is to establish a line, up to which you will allow the erosions of liberties and freedoms, all in the good cause of winning the drug war.

The second requirement is to decide, ahead of time, exactly what you will do, if and when your personal line has been breached. The point at which you say, "This has gone too far. It is time for me to do such-and-such."

Decide what such-and-such really is. You must figure it out well beforehand. And beware. It is so easy to say, "Well, my line has been exceeded, but everything else seems benign and non-threatening, so perhaps I will relocate my line from right here to over there." This is the seductive rationalizing that cost millions of innocent people their lives under the Nazi occupation in Europe.

If you can move your line, then your line was not honestly positioned in the first place. Where is your line? And if your limits are exceeded, What will you do?

Stay continuously aware of where things are, politically, and in what direction they seem to be heading. Think your plans out ahead of time, while doing everything in your power to prevent further dismantling of what rights and freedoms are left the citizens of your country.

Do not give away your rights simply to make the police enforcement of criminal law easier. Yes, easier enforcement will catch more criminals, but it will become an increasing threat to you, as well. The policeman's task should not be easy; the founders of this country made that clear. A policeman's task is always difficult in a free country.

A society of free people will always have crime, violence and social disruption. It will never be completely safe. The alternative is a police state. A police state can give you safe streets, but only at the price of your human spirit.

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/shulgin2.htm

full thing here, 100% in agreement
Yak, yak, yak. Get a job
Kiron22 << Add me to Last.fm bitches so we can Hipster it up together
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
And here's a guy from the UK who was held on remand in the UK for 5 months because some technician in a lab reused a tray that had been used to run tests on the sperm of a rapist.

In good news for him though the company responsible for the "mix-up" says they deeply regret the incident.

Can't be easy for the victim either being told they have your attacker locked up then 5 months later ring her back and say "oops."
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
camlv +

Yeah nah

camlv's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 513
Posts
1,384
Eh Griggle? War on drugs yeah
http://soundcloud.com/talismusic
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
Read the story.

The company that was responsible for that mixup of test subjects is the company that handles pretty much all forensic investigation for the UK.

So it's pretty much pertinent for pretty much any case that has ever used forensic evidence to send people to jail. You know like drug tests, ballistic tests, DNA tests etc.

Clearly there aren't any effective controls on forensic testing if they realise they might have managed to cross contaminate as many as 26,000 samples for DNA testing in the UK a mere 3 days after finding that another forensic lab in the USA was involved in dodgy testing of as many as 60,000 samples for drug tests.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
claude glass +

Registered User

claude glass's Avatar
Joined
Jun '10
Times thanked
< 760
Posts
4,157

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle View Post

Read the story.

The company that was responsible for that mixup of test subjects is the company that handles pretty much all forensic investigation for the UK.

So it's pretty much pertinent for pretty much any case that has ever used forensic evidence to send people to jail. You know like drug tests, ballistic tests, DNA tests etc.

Clearly there aren't any effective controls on forensic testing if they realise they might have managed to cross contaminate as many as 26,000 samples for DNA testing in the UK a mere 3 days after finding that another forensic lab in the USA was involved in dodgy testing of as many as 60,000 samples for drug tests.

Labs make mistakes all the time. How much margin do you think there is on one sample? As an environmental scientist, I used labs a lot. We could quite easily identify errors because we were working in ranges with large numbers of samples, we could resample if we thought the results looked dodgy. We often did round robin double blind tests on our labs as do NATA. Mistakes are made but the risks are low because the sample volumes high.

When you are talking about a one off test, particularly a positive or negative result etc, which can change a persons future, the risks are huge. We don't get science right. We think 200 years of climate science by thousands of scientists is questionable, yet we imprison people on one single sample, analysed by a jobbing chemist getting paid probably around or less than the average wage.
ratticus +

facebook.com/thepublicworksdepartment

ratticus's Avatar
Joined
Jul '07
Times thanked
< 1,449
Posts
6,768
A six-year study of Britain's drug laws by leading scientists, police officers, academics and experts has concluded it is time to introduce decriminalisation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...se-say-experts

Permanent clearance by: #1-01
Kiron +

Mess with the best, Die like the rest!

Kiron's Avatar
Joined
Aug '07
Times thanked
< 347
Posts
4,271
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226497322729

TROLLS HIT CANNABIS CAMPAIGN

"A VICTORIAN state-funded youth cannabis awareness campaign has been hijacked by internet trolls who have posted links to pro-cannabis websites."

Trolls? Really this should be interesting!

https://www.facebook.com/dreamsupinsmoke?ref=nf

Oh wait, it's people posting scientific research and studies showing the campaign is pushing outdated, incorrect misinformation.

That's it, I'm officially fucking sick of News Corp. Who can I complain too?
Yak, yak, yak. Get a job
Kiron22 << Add me to Last.fm bitches so we can Hipster it up together
claude glass +

Registered User

claude glass's Avatar
Joined
Jun '10
Times thanked
< 760
Posts
4,157

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiron View Post

That's it, I'm officially fucking sick of News Corp. Who can I complain too?

Tweet Rupert.
YossarianIsSane +

Registered User

YossarianIsSane's Avatar
Joined
Nov '05
Times thanked
< 182
Posts
1,404

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiron View Post

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226497322729

TROLLS HIT CANNABIS CAMPAIGN

"A VICTORIAN state-funded youth cannabis awareness campaign has been hijacked by internet trolls who have posted links to pro-cannabis websites."

Trolls? Really this should be interesting!

https://www.facebook.com/dreamsupinsmoke?ref=nf

Oh wait, it's people posting scientific research and studies showing the campaign is pushing outdated, incorrect misinformation.

That's it, I'm officially fucking sick of News Corp. Who can I complain too?

TBH from reading through a bit, I think about 70% or higher of those comments are of the 'herp derp weed is harmless' variety. Even quite a lot of the posted scientific studies are not directly relevant to marijuana consumption in a recreational setting. The comments from the page's authors actually make a reasonable attempt to explain their position and even detail that they are in favour of decriminalisation (and then get shat on for it).

Certainly if the Australian says it, the opposite is probably true. I would absolutely agree they are not trolls or even wholly incorrrect. However I don't see a single post rationally discussing the evidence for and against the harmful effects of marijuana. Particularly in this case where the stated goal of the website revolves around the potential harm to young people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_e_de View Post

It's the same as going out on a busy street and looking at the people around you, most of them are fgts.

Kellyboop +

Lettuce be cereal here, guys.

Kellyboop's Avatar
Joined
Nov '09
Times thanked
< 2,735
Posts
10,701
I remember having to take a urine test for drugs when I applied to work as a cashier at Sears in the US. What, afraid I'm going to try to scan an item so it sounds like funkytown because I'm stoned?
Fangoriously +

Fusion Aerodynamical Science

Fangoriously's Avatar
Joined
Jun '07
Times thanked
< 1,177
Posts
3,818
No, but you might steal from the register if you're a smackie and have no other way to support yourself or your habit.
Aerodynamical Fusion Science Terminal Velocitising Scientician Experimentalising
Hdb2 +

Sup.

Hdb2's Avatar
Joined
Oct '07
Times thanked
< 2,349
Posts
7,869
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20165371

Quote:

Amsterdam tourist cannabis ban rejected by mayor

20
Digitalgrub +

Registered User

Digitalgrub's Avatar
Joined
Dec '03
Times thanked
< 83
Posts
1,022
Guess weed is legal in three American states now. This should be interesting...

http://www.news.com.au/world/colorad...-1226512416239
Dragon Dreaming Festival - 25-27 October @ Canberra - Prog/Psytrance

Soliton Drop Festival - 10-12 January @ NSW - Prog/Psytrance

Hard NV - 1 February - @NV Nightclub, Canberra - Hard Techno

Brotherhood - 8 February @Canberra Warehouse - Techno/Trance

Kazuki.com.au
Kiron +

Mess with the best, Die like the rest!

Kiron's Avatar
Joined
Aug '07
Times thanked
< 347
Posts
4,271
It will cascade across the US over the next decade or so I suspect. This is how Alcohol prohibition also ended.

The question is, will this eventually lead to the legalization of other recreational drugs and will Australia take heed (I doubt it).
Yak, yak, yak. Get a job
Kiron22 << Add me to Last.fm bitches so we can Hipster it up together
twistedbydesign +

grokkin it over

twistedbydesign's Avatar
Joined
Mar '04
Times thanked
< 179
Posts
16,102
Interested to see how it goes in a fully regulated industry. This is unprecedented innit?
Beats
Worrying is using your imagination to create something you don't want
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign View Post

Interested to see how it goes in a fully regulated industry. This is unprecedented innit?

Just like alcohol after prohibition.

Soon we'll have smoke responsibly ads on tv.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
McFargus +

Weeeeee!

McFargus's Avatar
Joined
Nov '06
Times thanked
< 73
Posts
1,152

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalgrub View Post

Guess weed is legal in three American states now. This should be interesting...

http://www.news.com.au/world/colorad...-1226512416239

Yeh good news. Uruguay is getting on board as well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml
Reply

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Posting Rules

+
    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts