PSH RIP

[mech]

I don't know how large a bag of heroin is, but they found 50 of them at PSH's house.

But yeah, if only it were regulated.

[itch]

Well yeah we wouldn't want to break how wonderfully things are going now.

[itch]

It's amazing how people think

'Now that I know he was really naughty', he deserves it.

Ten bags I could abide, but not 50.

Someone who uses heroin that much should be safe using heroin (high tolerance and experience). Unless theres a fluctuation in strength. Which would be solved with regulation.

If anything, less bags of heroin suggests regulation wouldn't have saved him, not more.

Besides we know how well not regulating works (it doesn't). The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Not to mention driving the price up only increases the amount of crime, giving squares the ammunition they need to fill prisons with people who don't deserve to be there.

And hearing it from people who drink alcohol because it 'tastes nice' and think that it's 'healthy', it's just the icing on the cake.

[Madmya]

Depressed people are more likely to drink too much too fast, are heroin users immune from this?

[Peppermint Lounge]

Erm, since when would transacting drugs be something you'd want to do more often than not? As I said people with money drop a large quantity of cash for a large quantity of drugs. One of the reasons why wealthy people get into trouble.

And yes regulation, decriminalisation means people wouldn't have to engage crims to buy drugs. With criminality factor negated there's less pressure to stock up like a squirrel in winter.

[mech]

Sounds like the guy just had a freaking nasty habit and overdid things.

[Peppermint Lounge]

Russel Brand nails it:

"People are going to use drugs; no self-respecting drug addict is even remotely deterred by prohibition. What prohibition achieves is an unregulated, criminal-controlled, sprawling, global mob-economy, where drug users, their families and society at large are all exposed to the worst conceivable version of this regrettably unavoidable problem."

[Madmya]

More people will use illicit drugs if it wasn't banned -> more problems.

[t0mby]

Not necessarily.

[Peppermint Lounge]

Miranda Devine doesn't agree with this and thinks cops like these are why the drugs problem is as bad as it is.

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opi ... 6826410726" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[selfish]

More people will use illicit drugs if it wasn't banned -> more problems.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

[Madmya]

What is this, a research submission? It's an opinion, and it's based entirely on statistics. This whole discussion started because people thought PSH's life could have been saved if illicit drugs were regulated. I'm arguing that by the pure weight of statistics more people would die if illicit drugs were regulated.

I know pep wants to separate functioning users vs abusers but you can't. There are many functioning users of alcohol but no pro-drugs advocate separates them from the abusers.

[Gamma]

I have to agree with your assertion, evidence or no. There's absolutely no reason to expect existing users to stop- their drug of choice just became legal, cheaper and more readily available. At best you could hope the number of people taking these drugs would remain the same. It seems far more likely to me that the availability and price drop would lead to both an overall increase in users and an increase of use amongst existing users. Such a change would make the drugs safer in terms of purity, but I really question whether someone off their head on Class As is going to pay much attention to the recommended dosage on the side of the packet. The current situation with booze seems to support this line of thinking.

I guess my point is, I'd expect any benefit from drugs being properly measured and labelled to be vastly outweighed by the negatives of them being more accessible. No proof, but I think anyone arguing the opposite would have a harder time providing any.

Of course, if the government wants to try it and find out, I wouldn't mind at all if I could buy the odd pinger from Woolies.

[Cletus]

I agree also. Making drugs cheaper, legal and more available couldn't possibly lower the overall number of users and would be unlikely to stop people dying because of them. Alcohol is a perfect example.

Fuck, make meth legal and cheap and see what happens.

In fact, those arguing for regulation and decriminalisation should be providing the rock solid evidence that it will work, not the other way around.

[Lepo5]

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Alcohol, moron.

[t0mby]

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Alcohol, moron.

Exactly. People wouldn't drink beer and spirits if it didn't contain alcohol, but it is accepted worldwide that people get shit faced because alcohol is legal.

[Seraph]

Assuming there are two types of user: the casual user "in control" and the addicted abuser...

Legalising a drug means casual users have cheap and easy access to the drug. Very few casual users will actually stop using it if they're already ok with it now - it's more likely that casual users will become addicted thanks to said access allowing them to consume more drugs for less money with less social backlash.

I'd also predict an increase in the number of weekend death-by-party incidents, as those who currently avoid drugs purely from a legal/financial standpoint are no longer limited to binge drinking.

Addicted abusers would have cheap and easy access to the drug, too, meaning their chances of recovery take a dive as they're more likely to OD with the amount of temptation all around them.

I think there is some argument for the legalisation of certain drugs, particularly marijuana. The civil libertarian in me says that responsible adults should be able to do what they want with their bodies as long as their actions don't have negative effects on society. Things like heroin and meth though, seem* too dangerous to be something that should be legalised - I find it very hard to envisage a world where widespread access to these drugs doesn't result in major societal problems much greater than those caused by alcohol's current legality.

*based only on knowledge gleaned from cultural exposure to drug (mis/dis?)information.

[Peppermint Lounge]

In fact, those arguing for regulation and decriminalisation should be providing the rock solid evidence that it will work, not the other way around.

The closest real-world example of decriminalisation is Portugal. It was just over a decade ago when their laws were enacted so some decent stats and material are available.

[Lepo5]

How about Prohibition in the US from 1920 to 1933 and more importantly, what happened when it was lifted.

We had a drug that was legal and therefore more freely available banned and it was a harsh fucking ban............and then it was lifted.

Surely that's much older info for a longer time period and therefore also worthy of consideration along with more recent stats.

[itch]

Well, meth is near legal in North Korea and they have a huge problem with it.

So yeah, maybe you're right.

I just think it's better that way, and you don't create 'drug barons' like that Mexican dude that was caught recently who had enough -cash- in his house to provide healthcare for every american for like 10 years.

[selfish]

How dare I ask for evidence. What a fucking prick! Opinions should be immune to evidence.

What happened in Portugal?

[Cletus]

wow...confusing. You want people to provide evidence that a largely untested theory won't work rather than provide evidence that same untested theory will work. Way to get confused by your own socialism champ.

[Peppermint Lounge]

Portugal has the most liberal drug laws in the world, surpassing the popular guess Netherlands. You can acquire and carry a fair quantity of gear - around a bag of heroin, bag of cocaine, pills, mdma and if law enforcement catch you it's essentially a parking fine. No arrest, no record. Trafficking remains illegal. It means tragic situations such as one is Aus not long ago where a dopey teen got off a train on the way to a music festival, swallowed 3 pills upon seeing police and dogs rather than dropping them, then dying, would not occur. Drug users and addicts are not criminals or demonised in Portugal. You wouldn't have comical scenes such as that which I saw on A Current Affair last night where an ACA reporter followed cops along to some busts and shouted "so are you the scum of the earth?" at a couple of young girls being stuffed into a police van.

Reports I've read indicate drug use in Portugal hasn't increased overall and that overdose deaths have decreased. Portugal went this way due to wanting to try something different given prohibition doesn't prevent drug use or drug-related deaths.

Remember too the reason drugs like meth, G and other ghetto shit exists is to fill a hole in a criminal market. Cheap alternatives to cocaine. Ironically in Australia ice is now more expensive than cocaine. If there's decent quality gear available as if people would bother paralysing their faces with mail-order shit. Prohibition is a gold mine for criminals who inflict high order violence and death to keep it that way.

[Cletus]

Actually that sounds sensible.

It goes grey when you add in PCP, Meth and speed. They're worse than alcohol in terms of raising aggression and violence. "Allowing" people to use them or not punishing possession and use would have to have adverse consequences, surely. (?)

[Madmya]

Have you got references to back up what you've said pep? (kidding)

The argument can easily go both ways, and it probably depends on whether you're happy to go without drugs or not. But that kid dying after popping only 3 pills is exactly why it should be illegal. I'm aware that he only took the 3 pills because they were illegal in the first place, but it shows just how dangerous they are. How many toddlers would die from eating pills left lying around by parents? Teens are dumb and make mistakes and imagine the dumb things they'd do if everyone were on drugs. Shit, I've made a tonne of mistakes.

I'd also imagine that relaxing laws is not the same as regulating the drugs.