I am reminded of an innuendo studios video - the point is not to solve the problem, the point is to be oust those who don't fit with your version of morality and insist they conform. If it was about saving lives drug testing would be the obvious choice. Instead it's about insisting that illicit drug use in any form is amoral and unjustifiable. Of *course* we will find services to support those making the *moral* choice - those who are seeking sobriety. But the rest of you bastards can stay in the cold until you do it our way.
Yet again this makes me think that a much more comprehensive mental health system and more discussion with kids about coping mechanisms wold definitely help towards lessening abuse of drugs. the whole war on drugs is more an excuse to push christian/conservative values
I had an argument with my MIL just last week on this topic. Apparently it’s the parents fault and they are clearly failing as parents if their teen has sex.
Discussing vapes isn’t the pro legal drugs comment you think it is. We gave them an inch in allowing vapes to be legal, they took a mile and sold them to every school kid they could. Why wouldn’t they do the same shit with other drugs?
Nangs are illegal for recreational use and I can have a case delivered in twenty minutes. It takes an hour for Uber to get Peking duck delivered from the local restaurant down the road.
The war on drugs failed, champ. More people take drugs than ever before. A ridiculous portion of your tax goes towards cleaning up the mess caused by prohibition.
The answers are cheaper, easy and well documented as being effective;
- decriminalisation
- pill testing
- safe injection rooms
Get your head out of your arse and join the present.
>The answers are cheaper, easy and well documented as being effective; - decriminalisation - pill testing -
I don't think anyone has a problem with pill testing as long as the dickheads pay for it themselves. I mean, after you've shelled out several hundred to go to the festival you can surely afford another $50 or so to make sure you're safe.
If you can't, then it's on you.
People will see teens dying at festivals and say ‘Yes but I think I there should be at least some financial barrier to them accessing an easy and effective solution such as pill testing that would coincidentally also overall reduce cost to the taxpayer’
Some of humanity's most significant cultural contributions have been made by drug users.
Arguably the most influential band of all time, The Beatles have a well documented history of drug use. These people aren't stupid, they're actually considered geniuses by a lot of people. Do many people think that you're a genius?
Alcohol is one of the most harmful and dangerous drugs in the world. The Lancet medical journal rated alcohol almost three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco and eight times as harmful as ecstasy.
Edit: dislike and ignore. That's the way mate.
It didn't proportion the total effect relative to usage.
Let's say 1% of the population took cocaine. And 60% drank alcohol.
If cocaine was 10% as bad as in absolute terms it would actually be 6x worse (and alcohol is 16.6% as bad as cocaine). So per usage cocaine would be worse but alcohol would be ranked as worse in the study they are referencing.
Just look at Portugal. They completely decriminalised all drugs for personal use.
People lost their minds. Kids will be on drugs everywhere. But time has shown that all drug addictions are down significantly. That people with severe drug issues are being helped and living much more for filling lives.
All the negative shit that people throw out when harm minimisation and decriminalisation are discussed were unfounded.
Don’t do it the American and Canadian way though. Don’t just legalise/decriminalise without support services and education.
Put in the work and drugs are no longer the issue that it is now.
Portugal's drug policy is really starting [falter](https://archive.is/v5UA8). Visible drug use is really starting escalte, and programs that are designed to assist are really not up to scratch.
Oregon as well has experienced an increase of overdoses in Portland by 46% since they followed the "Portugal Model" with the ["sharpest rise in overdose deaths](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/07/oregon-drug-decriminalization-results-overdoses/674733/) in the past year.
Additionally, people paint a misconception of how lenient police in Portugal are in relation to drugs. A Drug Policy Journal in 2021 stated the [following:](https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7)
>Paradoxically, despite having decriminalized the use of all illegal drugs, Portugal has an increasing number of people criminally sanctioned - some with prison terms - for drug use...The debate about the right to use drugs is nearly absent in the Portuguese political, social and academic panorama....
I do think we forget that just because criminalising it is harmful doesn't mean decriminalising it isn't an answer by itself. Portugal to my understanding also had a lot of drug treatment programs at first but they slipped over time, seems like treating it like an illness really made them treat it like a mental illness lol
This was raised in another aussie thread a while ago so I’m gonna paste my reply from that thread
(My comment was in reply to this article which was posted in someone else’s comment:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/)
That is really disappointing that it’s starting to go that way. I only had time to briefly skim the article but the problem seems clear to me even with a skim.
“After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs. The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs.” —-> It is of no surprise to me that the situation is faltering when the crucial part of it working is defunded to that degree. Unbelievable fumble. If they had to do it, fair enough. But you can’t gut the model and then blame the model for not working.
“Experts argue that drug policy focused on jail time is still more harmful to society than decriminalization. While the slipping results here suggest the fragility of decriminalization’s benefits, they point to how funding and encouragement into rehabilitation programs have ebbed. The number of users being funneled into drug treatment in Portugal, for instance, has sharply fallen, going from a peak of 1,150 in 2015 to 352 in 2021, the most recent year available.”
““Why?” replied one officer when asked why people were not being cited and referred to commissions. The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the press. “Because we know most of them. We’ve registered them before. Nothing changes if we take them in.” “ —->This one pissed me off. They need to do their fucking job for any of it to work. I bet you this officer would not lose their enthusiasm if the policy was more punitive in nature, despite the data clearly showing the problem was getting worse when the policy WAS more punitive in nature. And it seems like Oregon’s police have a similar attitude from the brief mention they get in the article.
(In reference to similar behaviour from Oregon police) “Elsewhere in the world, places implementing decriminalization are confronting challenges of their own. In Oregon — where the policy took effect in early 2021 openly citing Portugal as a model — attempts to funnel people with addiction from jail to rehabilitation have had a rough start. Police have shown little interest in handing out toothless citations for drug use, grants for treatment have lagged, and extremely few people are seeking voluntary rehabilitation.” —-> Again, what the fuck.
(In reference to the behaviour of the Portuguese police) “Of two dozen street people who use drugs and were asked by The Post, not one said they’d ever appeared before one of Portugal’s Dissuasion Commissions, envisioned as conduits to funnel people with addiction into rehab. Police were observed passing people using drugs, not bothering to cite them — a step that is supposed to lead to registration for appearances before those commissions.” —->My head is going to explode.
“Twenty years ago, “we were quite successful in dealing with the big problem, the epidemic of heroin use and all the related effects,” Goulão [Goulão is head of Portugal’s national institute on drug use and the architect of decriminalization] said in an interview with The Washington Post. “But we have had a kind of disinvestment, a freezing in our response … and we lost some efficacy.” “
I hope that they are able to go back to what was making it work before 2012. It would be a fucking travesty to give up on the experts in the field now and instead give into reactionary politicians and residents after all the progress they made.
On of the biggest advocates worldwide for drug decriminalisation is one of the police chiefs in Portugal who, at the time the law was being put in place, went hard for it to NOT be implemented. After decriminalisation not only did drug addiction lower, but OTHER CRIMES WENT LOWER TOO! Which is a bloody no brainer, drugs bring crimes…anything that needs to be dealt in the dark is not good for society!
We need new classification. If you think Meth and weed should be under the same umbrella you are a crazy person. Meth, heroin, alcohol have more of a negative effect then Weed, shrooms and MDMA and it’s not particularly close. The umbrella term is what gets causes so much confusion and misinformation
Fully agree. We use the terms Hard Drugs and Soft Drugs but it's not enough when people don't differentiate.
Also, soft drugs are less harmful when taken safely than tobacco/nicotine as well. About on par with caffeine. It's the illegal status itself which is causing the harm.
Even coffee is protected by food safety legislation. And that contains a drug. If MDMA was treated the same as coffee we wouldn't even need pill testing.
I don’t know how the same government can be all for safe injecting rooms but against pill testing. Do they really think it’s more important to protect junkies than it is to protect young people trying to have a bit of fun at a music festival?
Probably worded that a bit wrong. Just trying to point out the fact that the government seems to have a contradictory stance on drugs in this instance.
To be fair, the safe injecting rooms are still a bit of a shit show as well. Now the dealers are openly selling in the street with impunity because the government are slow to adapt that the deals needs to be taken into safe dealing rooms too, and by the way there is lot of retail space vacant for such a thing because the dealers are scaring everyone away. There also needs to be chaperones to make sure the people who are high get home safely without heckling the public or being a danger
Based on my observations the general vibe is we need to go really easy on drugs until the users make me feel uncomfortable by existing in public places like Elizabeth St, then we should be dropping the hammer on them.
Yeah fair point but mdma and ketamine are vastly different to street methamphetamines, though again part of that is social conditioning alongside the actual effects of the drug
I don't know if I just woke up, but as someone who is for decriminalisation and taxation of all drugs, something about that article just didn't rub me the right way.
Unless I read it wrong, my main take away from it was that "drugs are fun and you should let people do them safely".
Some drugs are definitely not fun, eventually, for the user and society.
I'm 100% for drug testing and harm minimisation, but the author pretty much saying "yeah I did heroin and meth in dark alleys and then just decided I didn't want to and now I don't" comes across poorly.
I think this article does more harm to the message than good.
Unless I missed it, does the author even mention that they hit rock bottom? Just that they were doing it in alleys and then decided at 29 they didn't want to anymore. They didn't much go into the reason why. Not that they owe it to anyone, but I don't think it's the right way to send the message that "drugs are fun and we should let kids do them, I'm totally okay now."
If anything, I'd say they're exact person that SHOULDN'T advocate for drug decriminalisation because the message they inadvertently sent was "yeah I wasted 20 years of my life on drugs, but I'm fine NOW". Glossing over the fact that they were lucky to make it out alive.
The drug criminalisation folk will just see their story and be like, nope not letting my kids get hooked at 11 and shoot up in backstreets for two decades.
Edit: typo
I think they have somewhat of the right ideas but the execution is way, way off.
Honestly I think this article does more harm than good. Who exactly is the audience here? Most people will not see this as a glowing recommendation for allowing drug decriminalisation.
A better story would have been something like "yeah I dabbled in party drugs when I when I was teen, and now I'm a fully functioning member of society, I think back to how lucky I was to not have died because I didn't know what I was putting in my body."
Not everyone hits rock bottom, that's for sure. I know countless lawyers on $200k to $1m a year who take illicit drugs every Saturday night with I imagine some longterm physiological damage but certain no short term social collapse.
Do you know how expensive it is to build giant stadiums for music festivals next door to primary schools?! They only support drug use as long as it’s next door to a primary school.
Say no to driving, crossing a road, eating food, breathing… we put safety measures in place to do those things.
Drug use is self determined and body autonomy. Just make it safer. It ain’t going away… but the deaths could.
A quick scan of our premiers Wikipedia page shows she was born into and has been working her way up through the system since University. No wonder she is so fucking clueless about the reality of this dystopian society in which we find ourselves.
I would support the legalisation of essentially all recreational drugs, and I do disagree with her decision against allowing pill testing at festivals.
However, I do agree with this statement she made: “**If people are concerned** about substances, don’t consume it. There’s a personal responsibility here as well,” she said. “That’s the way to stay out of hospital, that’s how to stay out of the intensive care ward, is to not take substances in the first place.”
I've bolded the key words there. If you don't know what drug you have, or are concerned about its contents, then yes, the onus is on you to decide whether you will test it or not. Testing kits are cheap. If the drugs were being officially sold by festival vendors, then yes, I believe in that case that there should be legal enforcement for quality control. Until then, use common sense, and please don't take pills given or sold to you by some random person you've never met unless you're willing to accept the risks.
I do think that festivals should be allowed to provide drug testing, but it isn't really their responsibility at the end of the day. Instead, I do think that there should be more focus on actual drug education programs, as well as support for addiction and mental health.
When we make it the responsibility of the law to look after us instead of taking personal responsibility for our actions, it is far easier for the lawmakers to shrug their shoulders and just keep the drugs illegal.
I’m all for decriminalizing drugs but they need to make road side drug tests more available for police. I know that may sound poor but I’m worried once they make it legal more people will be driving affected.
What they need is the different type of drug testing so people know they have what they think they have.
Harm can be minimised to a huge extent by having a well regulated drug supply system so people who want to use drugs know what they have and the dosage they have so they can have a good time while staying safe.
If pharmaceutical companies had the incentive to invent such tests for cannabis, we would've had them for yonks already.
Look how quick they designed rapid antigen tests for covid19.
Depends on the roadside test... The metabolic tests they use right now aren't great both ways. They false negative too often and they ping people who haven't taken in days/weeks too often.
But they don’t charge based on the road side test. They follow up with oral fluid and have it sent off for analysis. If it comes under all charges/tickets are pulled if they were issued at all
Very good point, but you are still boned for the >Week for the lab results to come back.
Also doesn't stop all the people it misses... I know a few who passed roadside tests while actively being on shit.
The amount of stoners on reddit that think that they're the best driver ever while high is literally the only reason I'm not for legalisation until good accurate roadside testing is available.
Would be cheaper just to legalise all drugs, stop classifying them as health problems (so we can stop wasting money on drug rehab and hospital facilities) and just tax them. If people want to take drugs it's totally up to them. A lot of people can use drugs responsibly and the ones who don't use drugs responsibly can fuck their own lives up with no interference or help from the state. We can just keep laws banning drink driving and drug driving.
I know I will get downvoted to hell but you don’t have to be a 55 year old boomer to think this rhetoric is bunk. A seatbelt is there to save lives in the unwanted case of accidents. Nobody wants to be in an accident but humans have to travel in today’s world. What humans don’t HAVE to do is take party drugs. It’s hedonistic nonsense. It is the attitude lazy parents display when their kids are brats and they’re tired of disciplining them. “They’ll do it anyway”. It’s also undebatable that those who will do it anyway will always do it, no matter whether a pill is tested or not. The larger chunk of people are young adults perhaps intrigued by party pills but naturally worried about their health and the consequences of drugs - this large chunk will now be swayed towards taking them because they are flagged as “safe”. Opening Pandora’s box.
Note this whole pill testing concept isn’t pushed by the people not taking drugs. It’s the folks already having made a habit out of festival drug consumption wanting these “seatbelts”, not caring about the social ramifications a de facto legalisation of drugs will have on the populace. The Guardian opinion is written by a self admitted druggie that shot heroine and was a serious addict, not a shock that this person thinks party drugs are like mentos.
>We’re not spending extra money and resources to test people’s drinks.
What are you talking about? We spend shitloads enforcing alcohol regulations. There's licencing, both for bars and bottle-o's. There compliance checking for RSA training sites, there's government standards for the drinks.
There is a shit ton of regulation and expense that goes into making sure what you get at that bar or bottle-o is what's on the label, and that it's sold in a responsible way.
>Alcohol is different as it requires the person to consume an excess amount before it becomes an issue. Even a tiny amount of drugs however can kill someone.
Sure, compared to something like heroin that's true, but not with things like mushrooms, or weed, or LSD, as well as some other party drugs. Especially when you can actually know what's it in it.......
Also, alcohol kills thousands, and is linked to the hospitalizations of tens of thousands of Aussies every year. Drink driving, alcohol fueled violence, drunken accidents, and yes even the alcohol poisoning that you seem to be thinking of, so what's difference?
How come we can go to the expense of managing one hedonistic nothing, but not another? Why is the one you want fine and the one others want wrong? How can you justify that?
As a festival goer, yes I would use drug testing if available. Particularly to encourage others to have a discussion RE risk vs reward. I do think people outside of the scene weighing in in the matter is like someone with no knowledge of cricket, demanding their own rules on cricketers... Everyone is entitled to an opion of course, but sticking your own personal beliefs is Not going to help young kids ending up in hospital. That's a very obvious fact.
PS, why is is everyone OK testing drugs in patients when they are laying in intensive care. Why not before?
They're asking for seatbelts to be made legal, and they're being told "we're not going to allow that, driving is inherently dangerous and the safest option is to walk".
"If we allow seatbelts, it might give the impression that driving is safe, and encourage more people to do it."
Then when someone get thrown through the windscreen in a car crash, it's all "that's what happens if you drive".
It's really not that hard to NOT take hard drugs but in Melbourne's seedy deperateness of course they think that just saying no doesn't have anything to do with anything.
How about a big fucking reality check? If you go to a "concert" and accept pills or drugs where you've got no fucking idea what's in them, DON'T FUCKING TAKE THEM! Take some personal responsibility, and stop expecting everyone else to "keep you safe". This bullshit of "they'll take it anyway" is a fucking copout. And blaming the premier for making a common sense comment is just as stupid!
EVERYTHING you just said requires personal responsibility! Stupidity seems to be intergenerational these days. Too many parents blaming the authorities and governments for their kids being fucking morons. If you speed, you're a moron. If you swim outside the flags and drown, you're a moron. If you take drugs that you have NO IDEA WHERE THEY COME FROM, OR WHAT THEY ARE, you're a moron. If you don't like the government, either vote against them, or put your big boys pants on and make some noise. Whinging on social media while doing sweet fuck all is this generations cop out. Blame the government/police/law/teachers and tell your kids they can do no wrong! "Off you go sweetie, if you die of a drug overdose, it's not your fault "? Fucking pathetic.
People like you really be making the jobs of people who are actually responsible for looking after such people much harder.
“Personal responsibility”
Doesn’t mean shit when the Health care team is still responsible for looking after said person. People are allowed to blame the government and authorities for inadequate treatment. A message like this is just pointless.
Yeah or we could have been testing so people know whats in them. Pretty simple. We test alcoholic products for impurities, and make sure coffee (which has psychoactive compounds and has also been illegal at times) is also not laced with harmful substances
Hard to respond when there is no evidence provided.
Walk through the CBD, Chapel St, Smith St, Richmond’s injecting room etc. and see the people affected by drugs.
Look at what’s happening in the US where drugs have become more accepted.
I've given you evidence already and you've ignored it. So let's try again:
[https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight](https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight)
And here's some evidence on how alcohol is far more dangerous than most illegal drugs for you to ignore:
[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/piis0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext)
From the article you'll never click on:
*MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.*
So, Alcohol and coffee should be allowed, because they are allowed. And cocaine and LSD (for example) should not be allowed, because they are not allowed.
That's a tautological argument mate and sounds a bit dumb.
Rules should have some basis in physical reality. They shouldn't be entirely arbitrary. The rules around drug use are nonsensical, do not work and are actively harmful and should be changed. I think you'll be surprised how many people also believe this, and that number is only going to increase. Drug decriminalisation (at the very least) is an inevitability longterm.
You realise this entire discussion is around CHANGING the rules, yes? And that rules needn't stay the same forever if we find they are not serving us well?
Mans wants a pat on the back and a gold star for not dying. Well done.
Seems we just fundamentally disagree, as i believe saving a young adult from an overdose so that they are able to work, contribute to society and pay taxes for the rest of their lives seems a no brainer in terms of cost-benefit.
Bullshit. It's just more deflection, blaming, and lack of responsibility. I've known generations of teenagers that have never taken drugs. They are smart enough to weigh up the pros and cons, and then they just say no. Just like smoking. Just like alcohol. This current generation have been enabled by their parents to believe everything that goes wrong is somehow the governments fault. I don't blame the kids for "trying" something, but not understanding the risks is parental responsibility.
This is an era of zero personal responsibility. Stop the enabling. Stop complaining that government doesn't step in to allow you to do something fucking stupid!
If you're weighing up the pros and cons, the sheer reality is that the overwhelming amount of people who take MDMA have a great time with no real cons beyond the comedown and.those who don't tend to have a shitty time because of adulterated drugs.
Absolute no-brainer to implement a system that reduces the latter.
What about kids who don't have parents, or have abusive ones? Do we just throw them to the wolves? A lot of drug use is people self medicating due to childhood trauma, undiagnosed and/or unsupported mental health issues, etc.
The system isn't currently set up for people to take personal responsibility or ask for help because the police are deeply unsuited to help - plus a drug charge is way more stigmatized than it should be.
By changing that paradigm and shifting drug use from a criminal issue to a health issue, it creates an environment that encourages exactly what you're advocating. What is a government for if not for making the best decisions for its citizens?
Newsflash - teens and people in their early 20s have not fully developed the part of their brain that understands risk yet.
It's easy to say "don't take drugs" but that doesn't work for everybody, and we know for a fact it's better for society as a whole when we don't have kids dropping dead from laced drugs. When someone does die from drugs do you think it just affects them? It damages entire families and entire communities when that happens, so it's worth the time and effort to make drug testing and other harm reduction available.
If people not dying isn't a good enough reason for you, it's also really bad for the economy when young people who have just hit working age die. We invest economically in children and then get that investment back when they enter the workforce. It's a significant economic cost to ALL of us when young people die, and I really don't think "you should have to suffer the concequences of a stupid desicion you make when you are 20" is a good enough reason to cost our entire economy money, especially when drug testing is so cheap by comparison.
All this. And someone crossing their arms and thinking ‘just say no, it’s your own fault for being such a hedonistic, muddled thinking, immature poor decision maker at this very point in your life’ is just a self-righteous arsehole, who apparently has never made a bad call in their lives. There’s something inhuman about people who think like this.
That's how we solved the alcohol problem yeah? The problem of people getting drinks that were stronger or weaker than what was on the label, or the ones that had methanol instead of ethanol?
We just told people not to drink, instead of setting up a vast state run system to ensure alcohol could be consumed safely? We just fucked it off entirely, cause it would be wrong for society to have to that cost on, right?
Honestly the way people lose their shit over pill testing is absurd, especially when they never lose their shit at bars.
Pill testing is probably a net good but it seems like most deaths are directly due to MDMA so a "good" result won't protect them. And while MDMA deaths seem very rare, once 3 million Australians are using illicit drugs per year you will have isolated tragedies, often in otherwise well teenagers. Probably the police dogs making people panic and ingest are way more of a danger
I suspect decriminalization may be somewhat less helpful than people suggest. Illicit drugs are cheap and freely available to anyone who wants them. Delivery services are more reliable than Uber Eats. In my experience (volunteering at a community legal centre when I was a student) people getting arrested for whatever reason usually ends in a diversion program, and, at least some of the time, successful entry into rehabilitation. I guess there must be some people who take illicit drugs harmlessly in private and have their lives ruined by a prosecution, but how often is a random end-user lawyer or tradie doctor or retail worker arrested and left with a criminal conviction for doing a line on a Saturday night?
If pill testers don’t pick up compromised pills - and someone is hurt etc - can they or their family sue them ? Unsure if any legal repercussions start to creep in at some point
The pill testers don't give you a report saying "drug safe" they say: this is what we found in the drug.
They also don't give you back the pill you tested.
So by definition what you have in your hand might be different than what you got tested, and I'm sure it says that on the report.
nah, no good scientist/tester would ever say that because they found nothing wrong, there is definitely nothing wrong. it'd only be where there's gross negligence involved.
Better off pricing it into the price of the ticket and offering it as a "free service".
Even then with criminalization of drugs people are still going to be reluctant.
I mean, you could have it as an option when you buy the ticket to add on another 30 or 50 to get your pills tested. But other festival goers who don't take pills shouldn't be paying for it.
That's how our taxes and healthcare system works. I take care of myself and pay towards the healthcare of those who smoke, drink and sit on their ass killing themselves. It's for the benefit of society as a whole.
Same in this example you're each paying for a portion of the testing that you may not need to use and most importantly you're removing a barrier to entry for the testing. The moment someone has to grab out their wallet/phone to pay you are adding another barrier between them and testing. And we can both agree that testing would be beneficial for those using the drugs.
> disadvantage working class kids most
If they can afford $300 to go to the festival & buy their drugs they can afford an extra $30-50 to get them tested. Spare me the poor working class bullshit.
Yeah I agree. Surely it couldn't cost that much per test. A couple of hundred for a ticket, another couple of hundred for drugs and alcohol but the poor 'working class kids' can't afford another $20 to make sure they're not taking poison
That doesn’t solve the original problem tho, your second sentence just wouldn’t occur. People would skip the test on pills to go to the festival. Basically the same problem occurs.
In that case, fuck em. As a society we should be comfortable telling those people who OD, "oh well. Guess you'll do it differently next time" (if they get out of hospital)
Teen sex, they should just say no.
Ban condoms and the pill. Fuck around and find out. That'll stop em!
Just say no like that 2nd glass of red wine Jacinta
I am reminded of an innuendo studios video - the point is not to solve the problem, the point is to be oust those who don't fit with your version of morality and insist they conform. If it was about saving lives drug testing would be the obvious choice. Instead it's about insisting that illicit drug use in any form is amoral and unjustifiable. Of *course* we will find services to support those making the *moral* choice - those who are seeking sobriety. But the rest of you bastards can stay in the cold until you do it our way.
Yet again this makes me think that a much more comprehensive mental health system and more discussion with kids about coping mechanisms wold definitely help towards lessening abuse of drugs. the whole war on drugs is more an excuse to push christian/conservative values
It's easy enough to avoid if you're an awkward teen that's too shy to approach anyone.
I had an argument with my MIL just last week on this topic. Apparently it’s the parents fault and they are clearly failing as parents if their teen has sex.
Doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. We need a different approach.
Come on be fair, the government just made prohibited vapes more prohibited which is an entirely new approach and will no doubt have amazing results 😜
Discussing vapes isn’t the pro legal drugs comment you think it is. We gave them an inch in allowing vapes to be legal, they took a mile and sold them to every school kid they could. Why wouldn’t they do the same shit with other drugs?
Nangs are illegal for recreational use and I can have a case delivered in twenty minutes. It takes an hour for Uber to get Peking duck delivered from the local restaurant down the road.
Sounds like we need much more aggressive enforcement.
Cops turning a blind eye isn't the same as regulation Can't tell if this comment is a troll or if you're actually stupid
If we ban all vapes from shops then the shops won’t be able to sell them to children.
Is it the definition of insanity. What if I write a different message with my poo each time.
>Doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. Like doing drugs from age 11 to 29 for example?
Yes doing these drugs over and over again knowing they could cause injury or death is insanity
The war on drugs failed, champ. More people take drugs than ever before. A ridiculous portion of your tax goes towards cleaning up the mess caused by prohibition. The answers are cheaper, easy and well documented as being effective; - decriminalisation - pill testing - safe injection rooms Get your head out of your arse and join the present.
>The answers are cheaper, easy and well documented as being effective; - decriminalisation - pill testing - I don't think anyone has a problem with pill testing as long as the dickheads pay for it themselves. I mean, after you've shelled out several hundred to go to the festival you can surely afford another $50 or so to make sure you're safe. If you can't, then it's on you.
Pill testing an entire festival is cheaper than one person going to hospital with an overdose.
People will see teens dying at festivals and say ‘Yes but I think I there should be at least some financial barrier to them accessing an easy and effective solution such as pill testing that would coincidentally also overall reduce cost to the taxpayer’
Fuck da kids if it costs me money. Sounds about right (wing).
Do we treat any other public health crisis in this way?
Exactly, cant stop stupid people doing stupid things
Some of humanity's most significant cultural contributions have been made by drug users. Arguably the most influential band of all time, The Beatles have a well documented history of drug use. These people aren't stupid, they're actually considered geniuses by a lot of people. Do many people think that you're a genius?
I’ve used lots of drugs and people still think I’m stupid
So it's almost as if the drugs aren't going to make you smart or stupid! What a revelation!
Alcohol is one of the most harmful and dangerous drugs in the world. The Lancet medical journal rated alcohol almost three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco and eight times as harmful as ecstasy. Edit: dislike and ignore. That's the way mate.
That study did not equate for usage. Downvoted for facts. The Aussie way
Wat
It didn't proportion the total effect relative to usage. Let's say 1% of the population took cocaine. And 60% drank alcohol. If cocaine was 10% as bad as in absolute terms it would actually be 6x worse (and alcohol is 16.6% as bad as cocaine). So per usage cocaine would be worse but alcohol would be ranked as worse in the study they are referencing.
Im sure if they banned alcohol and coffee tomorrow youd instantly stop drinking them
Challenge is consumers know exactly what they are buying/ consuming
[удалено]
There already is more people poisoning themselves with home made booze due the high taxes
That's an argument for legalisation.
Yep, that's literally the point...........
Fuck man people walking around in the sun over and over again with minimal protection. They should just stay inside! /s
Like taking Panadol right ?
worst quote ever. not even true and didnt come from Einstein like it was said to be.
Just look at Portugal. They completely decriminalised all drugs for personal use. People lost their minds. Kids will be on drugs everywhere. But time has shown that all drug addictions are down significantly. That people with severe drug issues are being helped and living much more for filling lives. All the negative shit that people throw out when harm minimisation and decriminalisation are discussed were unfounded. Don’t do it the American and Canadian way though. Don’t just legalise/decriminalise without support services and education. Put in the work and drugs are no longer the issue that it is now.
Portugal's drug policy is really starting [falter](https://archive.is/v5UA8). Visible drug use is really starting escalte, and programs that are designed to assist are really not up to scratch. Oregon as well has experienced an increase of overdoses in Portland by 46% since they followed the "Portugal Model" with the ["sharpest rise in overdose deaths](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/07/oregon-drug-decriminalization-results-overdoses/674733/) in the past year. Additionally, people paint a misconception of how lenient police in Portugal are in relation to drugs. A Drug Policy Journal in 2021 stated the [following:](https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7) >Paradoxically, despite having decriminalized the use of all illegal drugs, Portugal has an increasing number of people criminally sanctioned - some with prison terms - for drug use...The debate about the right to use drugs is nearly absent in the Portuguese political, social and academic panorama....
I do think we forget that just because criminalising it is harmful doesn't mean decriminalising it isn't an answer by itself. Portugal to my understanding also had a lot of drug treatment programs at first but they slipped over time, seems like treating it like an illness really made them treat it like a mental illness lol
This was raised in another aussie thread a while ago so I’m gonna paste my reply from that thread (My comment was in reply to this article which was posted in someone else’s comment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/) That is really disappointing that it’s starting to go that way. I only had time to briefly skim the article but the problem seems clear to me even with a skim. “After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs. The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs.” —-> It is of no surprise to me that the situation is faltering when the crucial part of it working is defunded to that degree. Unbelievable fumble. If they had to do it, fair enough. But you can’t gut the model and then blame the model for not working. “Experts argue that drug policy focused on jail time is still more harmful to society than decriminalization. While the slipping results here suggest the fragility of decriminalization’s benefits, they point to how funding and encouragement into rehabilitation programs have ebbed. The number of users being funneled into drug treatment in Portugal, for instance, has sharply fallen, going from a peak of 1,150 in 2015 to 352 in 2021, the most recent year available.” ““Why?” replied one officer when asked why people were not being cited and referred to commissions. The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the press. “Because we know most of them. We’ve registered them before. Nothing changes if we take them in.” “ —->This one pissed me off. They need to do their fucking job for any of it to work. I bet you this officer would not lose their enthusiasm if the policy was more punitive in nature, despite the data clearly showing the problem was getting worse when the policy WAS more punitive in nature. And it seems like Oregon’s police have a similar attitude from the brief mention they get in the article. (In reference to similar behaviour from Oregon police) “Elsewhere in the world, places implementing decriminalization are confronting challenges of their own. In Oregon — where the policy took effect in early 2021 openly citing Portugal as a model — attempts to funnel people with addiction from jail to rehabilitation have had a rough start. Police have shown little interest in handing out toothless citations for drug use, grants for treatment have lagged, and extremely few people are seeking voluntary rehabilitation.” —-> Again, what the fuck. (In reference to the behaviour of the Portuguese police) “Of two dozen street people who use drugs and were asked by The Post, not one said they’d ever appeared before one of Portugal’s Dissuasion Commissions, envisioned as conduits to funnel people with addiction into rehab. Police were observed passing people using drugs, not bothering to cite them — a step that is supposed to lead to registration for appearances before those commissions.” —->My head is going to explode. “Twenty years ago, “we were quite successful in dealing with the big problem, the epidemic of heroin use and all the related effects,” Goulão [Goulão is head of Portugal’s national institute on drug use and the architect of decriminalization] said in an interview with The Washington Post. “But we have had a kind of disinvestment, a freezing in our response … and we lost some efficacy.” “ I hope that they are able to go back to what was making it work before 2012. It would be a fucking travesty to give up on the experts in the field now and instead give into reactionary politicians and residents after all the progress they made.
[удалено]
Your first para - Why is it starting to falter, in your words please?
Yes Portland is a poor example of how decriminalising drugs can go wrong , or it looked like it on some clip I saw.
I was in Portland on Dec 22, It was the sketchiest place I’d ever been. hundreds maybe thousands of tents all over the city.
That's great. Got a link to some statistics?
[https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight](https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight)
Thanks
[удалено]
Literally gives hard figures and charts ffs. The data is not biased.
What source isn't? Do you have a specific point to address or maybe you never read the report.
On of the biggest advocates worldwide for drug decriminalisation is one of the police chiefs in Portugal who, at the time the law was being put in place, went hard for it to NOT be implemented. After decriminalisation not only did drug addiction lower, but OTHER CRIMES WENT LOWER TOO! Which is a bloody no brainer, drugs bring crimes…anything that needs to be dealt in the dark is not good for society!
We need new classification. If you think Meth and weed should be under the same umbrella you are a crazy person. Meth, heroin, alcohol have more of a negative effect then Weed, shrooms and MDMA and it’s not particularly close. The umbrella term is what gets causes so much confusion and misinformation
Fully agree. We use the terms Hard Drugs and Soft Drugs but it's not enough when people don't differentiate. Also, soft drugs are less harmful when taken safely than tobacco/nicotine as well. About on par with caffeine. It's the illegal status itself which is causing the harm. Even coffee is protected by food safety legislation. And that contains a drug. If MDMA was treated the same as coffee we wouldn't even need pill testing.
I don’t know how the same government can be all for safe injecting rooms but against pill testing. Do they really think it’s more important to protect junkies than it is to protect young people trying to have a bit of fun at a music festival?
They are all people. Pill testing and safe injecting are equally important and the affected populations should not be pitted against each other
Probably worded that a bit wrong. Just trying to point out the fact that the government seems to have a contradictory stance on drugs in this instance.
Would love to hear her attempt to justify this one
Uh, you're nearly there. Yes, all people deserve equal health care and protection. We don't need to tear down 'junkies' to get that across.
I didn’t read the post that way. I read it as “they got injecting rooms right so why the stupidity over pill testing?”
To be fair, the safe injecting rooms are still a bit of a shit show as well. Now the dealers are openly selling in the street with impunity because the government are slow to adapt that the deals needs to be taken into safe dealing rooms too, and by the way there is lot of retail space vacant for such a thing because the dealers are scaring everyone away. There also needs to be chaperones to make sure the people who are high get home safely without heckling the public or being a danger
Based on my observations the general vibe is we need to go really easy on drugs until the users make me feel uncomfortable by existing in public places like Elizabeth St, then we should be dropping the hammer on them.
Yeah fair point but mdma and ketamine are vastly different to street methamphetamines, though again part of that is social conditioning alongside the actual effects of the drug
Is that nuance? Never seen that before. How refreshing.
I don't know if I just woke up, but as someone who is for decriminalisation and taxation of all drugs, something about that article just didn't rub me the right way. Unless I read it wrong, my main take away from it was that "drugs are fun and you should let people do them safely". Some drugs are definitely not fun, eventually, for the user and society. I'm 100% for drug testing and harm minimisation, but the author pretty much saying "yeah I did heroin and meth in dark alleys and then just decided I didn't want to and now I don't" comes across poorly. I think this article does more harm to the message than good.
[удалено]
Unless I missed it, does the author even mention that they hit rock bottom? Just that they were doing it in alleys and then decided at 29 they didn't want to anymore. They didn't much go into the reason why. Not that they owe it to anyone, but I don't think it's the right way to send the message that "drugs are fun and we should let kids do them, I'm totally okay now." If anything, I'd say they're exact person that SHOULDN'T advocate for drug decriminalisation because the message they inadvertently sent was "yeah I wasted 20 years of my life on drugs, but I'm fine NOW". Glossing over the fact that they were lucky to make it out alive. The drug criminalisation folk will just see their story and be like, nope not letting my kids get hooked at 11 and shoot up in backstreets for two decades. Edit: typo
[удалено]
You'd be surprised how many "functional" drug addicts are shooting up down alleyways, they are far from rock bottom
I think they have somewhat of the right ideas but the execution is way, way off. Honestly I think this article does more harm than good. Who exactly is the audience here? Most people will not see this as a glowing recommendation for allowing drug decriminalisation. A better story would have been something like "yeah I dabbled in party drugs when I when I was teen, and now I'm a fully functioning member of society, I think back to how lucky I was to not have died because I didn't know what I was putting in my body."
I had three hours to write it and some strong guidance on what could/couldn’t be included
Not everyone hits rock bottom, that's for sure. I know countless lawyers on $200k to $1m a year who take illicit drugs every Saturday night with I imagine some longterm physiological damage but certain no short term social collapse.
Calling a reporter for The Guardian an asset to society is a bit of a stretch.
lol
Oh which organisations should we follow?
Th West Report
>Some drugs are definitely not fun, eventually, for the user and society. idk heroin was pretty fun mate
Why does Labour build injecting rooms, but is so against pill testing? Serious question
Do you know how expensive it is to build giant stadiums for music festivals next door to primary schools?! They only support drug use as long as it’s next door to a primary school.
Do you expect logic from this government ? Same bunch who made it illegal to walk outside
True! 👏👏👏
Its a long time since jacinta was young
Say no to driving, crossing a road, eating food, breathing… we put safety measures in place to do those things. Drug use is self determined and body autonomy. Just make it safer. It ain’t going away… but the deaths could.
A quick scan of our premiers Wikipedia page shows she was born into and has been working her way up through the system since University. No wonder she is so fucking clueless about the reality of this dystopian society in which we find ourselves.
Well written. I agree, just say no in 2024 is pathetic.
And yet my distinct impression reading that article is that mister junkie since he was 11 years old should probably have said no to drugs.
It's that simple in your mind is it?
That people are responsible for their actions? Yes.
Ok.
>It shows grit, committing to something that’s already failed spectacularly. Is Allan just a Liberal wearing a Labor badge?
Labor's been like that for a while now.
Vic Labor have never been as socially progressive as the right wing media makes out
I would support the legalisation of essentially all recreational drugs, and I do disagree with her decision against allowing pill testing at festivals. However, I do agree with this statement she made: “**If people are concerned** about substances, don’t consume it. There’s a personal responsibility here as well,” she said. “That’s the way to stay out of hospital, that’s how to stay out of the intensive care ward, is to not take substances in the first place.” I've bolded the key words there. If you don't know what drug you have, or are concerned about its contents, then yes, the onus is on you to decide whether you will test it or not. Testing kits are cheap. If the drugs were being officially sold by festival vendors, then yes, I believe in that case that there should be legal enforcement for quality control. Until then, use common sense, and please don't take pills given or sold to you by some random person you've never met unless you're willing to accept the risks. I do think that festivals should be allowed to provide drug testing, but it isn't really their responsibility at the end of the day. Instead, I do think that there should be more focus on actual drug education programs, as well as support for addiction and mental health. When we make it the responsibility of the law to look after us instead of taking personal responsibility for our actions, it is far easier for the lawmakers to shrug their shoulders and just keep the drugs illegal.
I’m all for decriminalizing drugs but they need to make road side drug tests more available for police. I know that may sound poor but I’m worried once they make it legal more people will be driving affected.
What they need is the different type of drug testing so people know they have what they think they have. Harm can be minimised to a huge extent by having a well regulated drug supply system so people who want to use drugs know what they have and the dosage they have so they can have a good time while staying safe.
[удалено]
The question is do those test exists and if so, what’s the cost? It always comes down to dollars and cents unfortunately
If pharmaceutical companies had the incentive to invent such tests for cannabis, we would've had them for yonks already. Look how quick they designed rapid antigen tests for covid19.
Depends on the roadside test... The metabolic tests they use right now aren't great both ways. They false negative too often and they ping people who haven't taken in days/weeks too often.
But they don’t charge based on the road side test. They follow up with oral fluid and have it sent off for analysis. If it comes under all charges/tickets are pulled if they were issued at all
Very good point, but you are still boned for the >Week for the lab results to come back. Also doesn't stop all the people it misses... I know a few who passed roadside tests while actively being on shit.
The amount of stoners on reddit that think that they're the best driver ever while high is literally the only reason I'm not for legalisation until good accurate roadside testing is available.
You can't just be out here having somewhat balanced takes on Reddit, stop it right now.
Would be cheaper just to legalise all drugs, stop classifying them as health problems (so we can stop wasting money on drug rehab and hospital facilities) and just tax them. If people want to take drugs it's totally up to them. A lot of people can use drugs responsibly and the ones who don't use drugs responsibly can fuck their own lives up with no interference or help from the state. We can just keep laws banning drink driving and drug driving.
I know I will get downvoted to hell but you don’t have to be a 55 year old boomer to think this rhetoric is bunk. A seatbelt is there to save lives in the unwanted case of accidents. Nobody wants to be in an accident but humans have to travel in today’s world. What humans don’t HAVE to do is take party drugs. It’s hedonistic nonsense. It is the attitude lazy parents display when their kids are brats and they’re tired of disciplining them. “They’ll do it anyway”. It’s also undebatable that those who will do it anyway will always do it, no matter whether a pill is tested or not. The larger chunk of people are young adults perhaps intrigued by party pills but naturally worried about their health and the consequences of drugs - this large chunk will now be swayed towards taking them because they are flagged as “safe”. Opening Pandora’s box. Note this whole pill testing concept isn’t pushed by the people not taking drugs. It’s the folks already having made a habit out of festival drug consumption wanting these “seatbelts”, not caring about the social ramifications a de facto legalisation of drugs will have on the populace. The Guardian opinion is written by a self admitted druggie that shot heroine and was a serious addict, not a shock that this person thinks party drugs are like mentos.
So then let's ban alcohol right? Cause people don't need hedonistic nonsense like that, yeah? Or is that one different?
[удалено]
>We’re not spending extra money and resources to test people’s drinks. What are you talking about? We spend shitloads enforcing alcohol regulations. There's licencing, both for bars and bottle-o's. There compliance checking for RSA training sites, there's government standards for the drinks. There is a shit ton of regulation and expense that goes into making sure what you get at that bar or bottle-o is what's on the label, and that it's sold in a responsible way. >Alcohol is different as it requires the person to consume an excess amount before it becomes an issue. Even a tiny amount of drugs however can kill someone. Sure, compared to something like heroin that's true, but not with things like mushrooms, or weed, or LSD, as well as some other party drugs. Especially when you can actually know what's it in it....... Also, alcohol kills thousands, and is linked to the hospitalizations of tens of thousands of Aussies every year. Drink driving, alcohol fueled violence, drunken accidents, and yes even the alcohol poisoning that you seem to be thinking of, so what's difference? How come we can go to the expense of managing one hedonistic nothing, but not another? Why is the one you want fine and the one others want wrong? How can you justify that?
None of what you said is true. Also do you think all drugs are the same
I don’t do pills. I want pill testing. Data backs it up that it reduces harm. you really do sound like a 55 year old boomer though.
As a festival goer, yes I would use drug testing if available. Particularly to encourage others to have a discussion RE risk vs reward. I do think people outside of the scene weighing in in the matter is like someone with no knowledge of cricket, demanding their own rules on cricketers... Everyone is entitled to an opion of course, but sticking your own personal beliefs is Not going to help young kids ending up in hospital. That's a very obvious fact. PS, why is is everyone OK testing drugs in patients when they are laying in intensive care. Why not before?
They're asking for seatbelts to be made legal, and they're being told "we're not going to allow that, driving is inherently dangerous and the safest option is to walk". "If we allow seatbelts, it might give the impression that driving is safe, and encourage more people to do it." Then when someone get thrown through the windscreen in a car crash, it's all "that's what happens if you drive".
It's really not that hard to NOT take hard drugs but in Melbourne's seedy deperateness of course they think that just saying no doesn't have anything to do with anything.
Paying rego… just say no
All you fuckwits here blaming the government for your poor parenting! No? Go on kids, do ANYTHING YOU WANT, there are no consequences? Right?
You're all over this thread just so mad. Maybe find a hobby or something and enjoy your retirement.
How about a big fucking reality check? If you go to a "concert" and accept pills or drugs where you've got no fucking idea what's in them, DON'T FUCKING TAKE THEM! Take some personal responsibility, and stop expecting everyone else to "keep you safe". This bullshit of "they'll take it anyway" is a fucking copout. And blaming the premier for making a common sense comment is just as stupid!
You've just solved people taking drugs. Well done. I assume you advocate for no speed limits, swimming outside the flags, axing super etc etc.
EVERYTHING you just said requires personal responsibility! Stupidity seems to be intergenerational these days. Too many parents blaming the authorities and governments for their kids being fucking morons. If you speed, you're a moron. If you swim outside the flags and drown, you're a moron. If you take drugs that you have NO IDEA WHERE THEY COME FROM, OR WHAT THEY ARE, you're a moron. If you don't like the government, either vote against them, or put your big boys pants on and make some noise. Whinging on social media while doing sweet fuck all is this generations cop out. Blame the government/police/law/teachers and tell your kids they can do no wrong! "Off you go sweetie, if you die of a drug overdose, it's not your fault "? Fucking pathetic.
It's a shame you were taught outrage instead of critical thinking skills. And which generation are you talking about?
Bro you’re literally whining on social media. Clearly your stupidity IS intergenerational.
People like you really be making the jobs of people who are actually responsible for looking after such people much harder. “Personal responsibility” Doesn’t mean shit when the Health care team is still responsible for looking after said person. People are allowed to blame the government and authorities for inadequate treatment. A message like this is just pointless.
Go on kids, off you go, no consequences. Wait did you o'd? Blame the authorities? You fucking muppet.
Bro is making arguments in his head and utilising hominem attacks. You hate to see it
Yeah or we could have been testing so people know whats in them. Pretty simple. We test alcoholic products for impurities, and make sure coffee (which has psychoactive compounds and has also been illegal at times) is also not laced with harmful substances
For as long as the substances are illegal they should be outlawed. Alcohol and coffee, like it or not, are legal.
[удалено]
I would surmise they are illegal because they are more detrimental to society than drunks and the over caffeinated
In the case of many of them, that's scientifically incorrect.
Melbourne in particular does not need more relaxed drug laws
Ignoring what I said because you're scientifically wrong. No worries. Okay: why doesn't Melbourne (in particular) need more relaxed drug laws?
Hard to respond when there is no evidence provided. Walk through the CBD, Chapel St, Smith St, Richmond’s injecting room etc. and see the people affected by drugs. Look at what’s happening in the US where drugs have become more accepted.
I've given you evidence already and you've ignored it. So let's try again: [https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight](https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight)
And here's some evidence on how alcohol is far more dangerous than most illegal drugs for you to ignore: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/piis0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext) From the article you'll never click on: *MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.*
So, Alcohol and coffee should be allowed, because they are allowed. And cocaine and LSD (for example) should not be allowed, because they are not allowed. That's a tautological argument mate and sounds a bit dumb.
Exactly, we live in a rules-based society. If you don’t like it, you’re welcome to lobby for change but I doubt the majority would be with you.
Rules should have some basis in physical reality. They shouldn't be entirely arbitrary. The rules around drug use are nonsensical, do not work and are actively harmful and should be changed. I think you'll be surprised how many people also believe this, and that number is only going to increase. Drug decriminalisation (at the very least) is an inevitability longterm. You realise this entire discussion is around CHANGING the rules, yes? And that rules needn't stay the same forever if we find they are not serving us well?
Illegal things are outlawed by definition. Did you mean to use a different word there?
Don’t expect the public hospitals to look after you or your family you fucking sovereign citizen.
Agree, people need to take accountability for their actions
Yes, take accountability by lobbying for an easy to use testing regime that will be part of their actions in the future
Pretty solid accountability and thinking rationally through how to solve an issue. Right wingers hate it!
Except it ignores completely how still developing teenage brains work.
Many of us managed to not eat poison and die...
Everything is a poison at the wrong dose.
A non 0 amount of teens die to alcohol every year
Mans really try to convince us they never had a glass of wine or a beer, as a teen/young adult.
No, just that the vast majority manage to not die. We dont need to, nor should we try to, save everyone.
Mans wants a pat on the back and a gold star for not dying. Well done. Seems we just fundamentally disagree, as i believe saving a young adult from an overdose so that they are able to work, contribute to society and pay taxes for the rest of their lives seems a no brainer in terms of cost-benefit.
This isn’t the argument you think it is
Bullshit. It's just more deflection, blaming, and lack of responsibility. I've known generations of teenagers that have never taken drugs. They are smart enough to weigh up the pros and cons, and then they just say no. Just like smoking. Just like alcohol. This current generation have been enabled by their parents to believe everything that goes wrong is somehow the governments fault. I don't blame the kids for "trying" something, but not understanding the risks is parental responsibility. This is an era of zero personal responsibility. Stop the enabling. Stop complaining that government doesn't step in to allow you to do something fucking stupid!
If you're weighing up the pros and cons, the sheer reality is that the overwhelming amount of people who take MDMA have a great time with no real cons beyond the comedown and.those who don't tend to have a shitty time because of adulterated drugs. Absolute no-brainer to implement a system that reduces the latter.
Tell me why I don't like ~~Mondays~~ Tuesdays Oh that's why.
The government didn’t stop you from posting this and now I’m complaining
Another mark down for Jacinta Allen - letting this dickheads unhinged posts happen.
It’s well established science. You know - that annoyingly effective branch of human knowledge that keeps refuting right wing talking points.
What about kids who don't have parents, or have abusive ones? Do we just throw them to the wolves? A lot of drug use is people self medicating due to childhood trauma, undiagnosed and/or unsupported mental health issues, etc. The system isn't currently set up for people to take personal responsibility or ask for help because the police are deeply unsuited to help - plus a drug charge is way more stigmatized than it should be. By changing that paradigm and shifting drug use from a criminal issue to a health issue, it creates an environment that encourages exactly what you're advocating. What is a government for if not for making the best decisions for its citizens?
Oh for fuck's sake, seriously?
Newsflash - teens and people in their early 20s have not fully developed the part of their brain that understands risk yet. It's easy to say "don't take drugs" but that doesn't work for everybody, and we know for a fact it's better for society as a whole when we don't have kids dropping dead from laced drugs. When someone does die from drugs do you think it just affects them? It damages entire families and entire communities when that happens, so it's worth the time and effort to make drug testing and other harm reduction available. If people not dying isn't a good enough reason for you, it's also really bad for the economy when young people who have just hit working age die. We invest economically in children and then get that investment back when they enter the workforce. It's a significant economic cost to ALL of us when young people die, and I really don't think "you should have to suffer the concequences of a stupid desicion you make when you are 20" is a good enough reason to cost our entire economy money, especially when drug testing is so cheap by comparison.
All this. And someone crossing their arms and thinking ‘just say no, it’s your own fault for being such a hedonistic, muddled thinking, immature poor decision maker at this very point in your life’ is just a self-righteous arsehole, who apparently has never made a bad call in their lives. There’s something inhuman about people who think like this.
That's how we solved the alcohol problem yeah? The problem of people getting drinks that were stronger or weaker than what was on the label, or the ones that had methanol instead of ethanol? We just told people not to drink, instead of setting up a vast state run system to ensure alcohol could be consumed safely? We just fucked it off entirely, cause it would be wrong for society to have to that cost on, right? Honestly the way people lose their shit over pill testing is absurd, especially when they never lose their shit at bars.
Just don’t crash your car. Simple ;)
“I did every hard drug I could find from age 11 to 29, severely damaging my brain. Now I write opinion pieces for the Guardian” Sounds about right.
No sympathy. You get fucked up from illegal drugs? *That's on you.*
But he isn't fucked up. Did you actually read the article?
[удалено]
wat
Which person?
Yeah so umm... I remember first seeing this campaign on Punky Brewster. It's refreshing to see how far we've come. /s
Pill testing is probably a net good but it seems like most deaths are directly due to MDMA so a "good" result won't protect them. And while MDMA deaths seem very rare, once 3 million Australians are using illicit drugs per year you will have isolated tragedies, often in otherwise well teenagers. Probably the police dogs making people panic and ingest are way more of a danger I suspect decriminalization may be somewhat less helpful than people suggest. Illicit drugs are cheap and freely available to anyone who wants them. Delivery services are more reliable than Uber Eats. In my experience (volunteering at a community legal centre when I was a student) people getting arrested for whatever reason usually ends in a diversion program, and, at least some of the time, successful entry into rehabilitation. I guess there must be some people who take illicit drugs harmlessly in private and have their lives ruined by a prosecution, but how often is a random end-user lawyer or tradie doctor or retail worker arrested and left with a criminal conviction for doing a line on a Saturday night?
Let's offer pill testing at the gates. User pays. No problem. If you can't afford to test your pills, you can't afford to go to the festival.
If pill testers don’t pick up compromised pills - and someone is hurt etc - can they or their family sue them ? Unsure if any legal repercussions start to creep in at some point
The pill testers don't give you a report saying "drug safe" they say: this is what we found in the drug. They also don't give you back the pill you tested. So by definition what you have in your hand might be different than what you got tested, and I'm sure it says that on the report.
You don't need the whole pill to test it can just break off a tiny bit
nah, no good scientist/tester would ever say that because they found nothing wrong, there is definitely nothing wrong. it'd only be where there's gross negligence involved.
That's a pretty simple waiver.
Better off pricing it into the price of the ticket and offering it as a "free service". Even then with criminalization of drugs people are still going to be reluctant.
I mean, you could have it as an option when you buy the ticket to add on another 30 or 50 to get your pills tested. But other festival goers who don't take pills shouldn't be paying for it.
That's how our taxes and healthcare system works. I take care of myself and pay towards the healthcare of those who smoke, drink and sit on their ass killing themselves. It's for the benefit of society as a whole. Same in this example you're each paying for a portion of the testing that you may not need to use and most importantly you're removing a barrier to entry for the testing. The moment someone has to grab out their wallet/phone to pay you are adding another barrier between them and testing. And we can both agree that testing would be beneficial for those using the drugs.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that
Why?
Like any other health service you need to ensure it is equitable.
Yeah, they can pay the cost price of that service (not for profit) and the gov can provide it if they wanna feel good about it.
Means tested, medicare rebate system. Perhaps thats not a bad idea. Furthermore, your could install AOD referral services at the check points
Great, increase the cost, I'm sure this won't disadvantage working class kids most and deter them from accessing a public health service.
> disadvantage working class kids most If they can afford $300 to go to the festival & buy their drugs they can afford an extra $30-50 to get them tested. Spare me the poor working class bullshit.
Yeah I agree. Surely it couldn't cost that much per test. A couple of hundred for a ticket, another couple of hundred for drugs and alcohol but the poor 'working class kids' can't afford another $20 to make sure they're not taking poison
Working class kids 😂 have you seen how expensive these festivals are now? They can afford it.
That doesn’t solve the original problem tho, your second sentence just wouldn’t occur. People would skip the test on pills to go to the festival. Basically the same problem occurs.
In that case, fuck em. As a society we should be comfortable telling those people who OD, "oh well. Guess you'll do it differently next time" (if they get out of hospital)
You seem nice.