Jump to content

Drug deaths and pill testing.


red750
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm sick of hearing about these idiots who have been told over and over till the cows come home, how deadly this sh!t is, and yet they continue to put the pills in their mouth. Testing will only pick up the pills that are found, not the ones which get through the net (which is most of them, it appears). If these stupid twits want to risk their lives, let the b*ggers die. As for those pushing the rubbish, they should be charged with murder or attempted murder.

 

I know, I'll cop heaps of flack over this statement, but some people wont be told.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

not from me red my bloody taxes paying for the transport to hospital

 

mother of a drag taking wasted oxygen sucking theif got a bit upset when I told her that her son was the reason I have to lock my doors and place security cameras all around my house

 

I will not tolerate sick birds drugs in any form neil

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most reasonable people have the same view: The message has been out there since Sgt Pepper formed the band. Drug taking is a form of suicide. At least back in the 70's it was mainly grass, which made people giggly or sleepy. Then it was hash. Those drugs were pretty safe compared to heroin (because of the crap it was diluted with), and the man-made drugs. Now we have all sorts of man-made crap whose production quality control is haphazard and the carrier components could be anything.

 

It's an old truism that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The same applies here. We've provided our kids with the information that these substances are dangerous, but they refuse to accept it. As far as I am concerned, we should follow the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest. If a person hasn't the intellectual capacity to accept the wisdom of the Ages, and chooses to take drugs, then let them die where they drop.

 

As for pill testing, can you imaging the boon this would be to dealers? Just rock up to a testing centre and get a random sample of your stash tested. If the tests don't reveal any nasties, then you can advertise that you are selling good shit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm going to stick my head up over the parapet and disagree with all of the above.

 

What's the difference between popping an "e" at a music festival or having a couple of vodkas?

 

Yep, you got it, the vodka is manufactured to a certain standard and has been tested & certified.

 

Kids have been doing what they're not meant to since, well, forever. They're not going to stop because their parents or outraged elderly citizens tell them to. Nancy Reagan did the whole "just say no" thing and it didn't work there either.

 

So yes, if you don't care about kids dying from making one silly choice, then oppose pill testing.

 

Otherwise in every respect - socially, ethically, logically, scientifically, and economically - it makes more sense to legalize and certify all recreational drugs (not just alcohol and tobacco), or failing that, at least provide pill testing at festivals.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Marty, I'll pop up from the other side. I don't drink or smoke, and therefore have never been drunk. My beverages of choice are coffee, iced coffee or zero sugar lemonade. On the rare occasion I go to a pub (my son is manager and part owner of one) for a bistro meal, my wife and I drink lemon squash. I don't see a need for any "mind altering" substance. By the way, my father didn't drink either (he liked Sarsaparilla).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, that's great, congratulations.

 

I'm assuming though that even though you eschew mind-altering substances yourself, you wouldn't condemn someone else to death who chooses to use them.

 

From what I hear from young people these days (I must be getting old... I just used "young people" and "these days" in the same sentence) - they view recreational drugs as the same as alcohol. There's nothing inherently evil about them, it's just another alternative to enhance the experience.

 

And who's to say they don't have a point?

 

Every culture in the world uses mind-altering substances. Betel nut. Coffee. Tobacco. Alcohol. Peyote. Mushrooms. Peace pipes. The people of Lapland apparently fed magic mushrooms to reindeer and collected their urine to drink (gives a whole new meaning to "getting on the piss").

 

My point is, that Ecstasy or similar are just the latest in a long list of drugs that the majority of the human race have taken since time immemorial.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a very big difference between mind altering chemicals from natural sources, and the concoctions from drug labs.

 

What can you cut marijuana with - parsley, rosemary and thyme? Hash and opium are consumed mainly as smoke. Cocaine is cut, but with stuff that does not get into the body. It's the concoctions that get cut with all sorts of nasty stuff.

 

Also, gram for gram, the chemicals in the natural products that give the effect are at low levels. Who knows what the levels are in man-made stuff.

 

Where is the dosage control in illegal drugs? Where is the quality control? How good is the purification of the end product?

 

Based on our own experience, we have done our duty and warned our children. We have encouraged their self-determination. If they can't accept our advice then,

 

[ATTACH]49817._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

1548626899981.png.1ab3b64050a6f9908112188837723a64.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well after doing a bit of reading I am for it, or at least a trial. For me supporting or not supporting drug testing is not a decision that comes from an emotive angry place but form having looking at the evidence. If we have a trial and it doesn't work then fine close it down.

 

The anti case seems to be based on this, People know they are undertaking a risky activity and they know the consequences. Therefore we should allow them to suffer those consequences and should not help lessen those consequences.

 

I have heard the argument put forward that we all know the dangers of being overweight. We make a choice about how much we eat and exercise. When we inevitably suffer negative health consequences, perhaps we should not be offering these people medical testing or nice shiny new cardiac stent or a bypass. We could also save money if we did not search for missing recreational pilots who may have miscalculated their fuel needs. They knew the risks.

 

The benefits of being able to test pills are not just for that particular person but it can alert the authorities of new drugs are contaminated drugs.

 

If at a festival a batch of pills turns out to be toxic you can at least put out a warning, not everybody is going to ignore it. Perhaps disgruntled buyers who feel ripped off will help identify the seller and perhaps they can be located and taken off the street.

 

I can understand why people might be wary but for me, it is about evidence. My question to those who oppose this is this if it does happen (and at sometime it probably will given public opinion) and if it reduces deaths would that make a difference?

 

To put this as an ethical dilemma lets say you happen to own equipment that can quickly test the toxicity of a pill. You are approached by a 15 year old girl, perhaps even your daughter. She asks if you can test this pill. Do you say no and hope she decides not to take it and if she does and goes cardiac arrest do you choose not to render CPR because well you know it would send the wrong message about consequences. You could test the pill and maybe it is toxic, you then suggest that this could have been fatal and pill testing is not always available. Perhaps she would feel lucky and that she had dodged a bullet and may change perhaps this time or next time or the time after. Perhaps it does not test as being toxic, you at least have the chance to have a conversation with this person.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest reason a lot of kids do it besides the fun part is they do not believe all the anti drugs propaganda. They are told all drugs are killers but their experience and that of thousands of party goers are different. So they risk it.

 

If you can demonstrate they possess a bad trip or pill they will not take it and warn there friends.

 

It is called harm minimisation and we do it across society for lots of things.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marty said you wouldn't condemn someone else to death who chooses to use them.

 

neil said think about this statement yes I would and I have

 

marty said view recreational drugs as the same as alcohol

 

neil said so you load up on drugs and go flying to get a thrill

 

apparently marty you condone the bashing and robbing of a 86 year old by drug fuxxxx piece of shxx for a couple off dollars

 

apparently marty you condone the bashing of ambulance by drug fuxxx imbersiles

 

marty you have never seen a 2 week old baby out of a drug fuxxx mother what hope has that child got

 

marty you have never seen a 16 year old girl fly from the third floor of a set off units in Balmain

 

marty you have never seen what a 50 cal machine gun does to banana trees when fired by a drug fuuxxx soldier

 

marty you have never seen a drug fuxx truck driver who has just killed a mother and two children

 

marty the drug fuxxx I mention was the one that stole my ingal fridge from my car

 

I can give many more reasons for the death of of drug users and suppliers

 

your fanantasy world marty I have no intension of going there neil

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The greatest amount of crime due to drugs is the market and violence caused by prohibition. We criminalize the users and providers, growers etc so prices are huge and crime lords are involved.

 

If Instead we didn't jail users but provided the same resources on rehab we would have a different society.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marty said you wouldn't condemn someone else to death who chooses to use them.neil said think about this statement yes I would and I have

 

marty said view recreational drugs as the same as alcohol

 

neil said so you load up on drugs and go flying to get a thrill

 

apparently marty you condone the bashing and robbing of a 86 year old by drug fuxxxx piece of shxx for a couple off dollars

 

apparently marty you condone the bashing of ambulance by drug fuxxx imbersiles

 

marty you have never seen a 2 week old baby out of a drug fuxxx mother what hope has that child got

 

marty you have never seen a 16 year old girl fly from the third floor of a set off units in Balmain

 

marty you have never seen what a 50 cal machine gun does to banana trees when fired by a drug fuuxxx soldier

 

marty you have never seen a drug fuxx truck driver who has just killed a mother and two children

 

marty the drug fuxxx I mention was the one that stole my ingal fridge from my car

 

I can give many more reasons for the death of of drug users and suppliers

 

your fanantasy world marty I have no intension of going there neil

 

Neil since I broadly agree with Marty you must then be levelling those accusations at me also. Can I ask you Neil if you honestly believe that what you have typed is true?

 

I can give many more reasons for the death of of drug users and suppliers

About 15 years ago I tried a hash brown I did not enjoy. Does this mean you wish me to be dead?.

 

I guess we are coming from different personal philosophies. I don't really wish for anyone's death even if they have made poor choices.

 

For me being logical and compassionate means that I enjoy my life, I am not riddled with anger an resentment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

octave what part do you not like what are you trying to say neil

is it not clear?

 

Neil, you are implying that anyone who does not support the "let die" philosophy is therefore in favour of all of the things in your list. I think this is hysterical nonsense. Perhaps this is not what you are implying. "Your example of a druggy bashing and robbing an 86 year old" of course I want to stop that but nothing so far has stopped it. But wouldn't it be better if that druggy was in a more controlled environment? Why does a druggy rob someone? It surely is because drugs are expensive and illegal. You may think I am a horrible person but what I am saying is this, if drugs were decriminalized and somewhat supervised don't you think the 86 year old might be less likely to be bashed?

 

Neil, there are not just 2 extreme positions, there are many shades of grey. If you believe that anyone who advocates for harm minimisation is therefore in favour of the items in the list you presented then I think you are wrong.

 

I do accept that you believe your position is the most likely to fix things, that's fine but what you are saying is anyone with a different opinion is as bad as the worst drug pusher

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marty said you wouldn't condemn someone else to death who chooses to use them.neil said think about this statement yes I would and I have

 

marty said view recreational drugs as the same as alcohol

 

neil said so you load up on drugs and go flying to get a thrill

 

apparently marty you condone the bashing and robbing of a 86 year old by drug fuxxxx piece of shxx for a couple off dollars

 

apparently marty you condone the bashing of ambulance by drug fuxxx imbersiles

 

marty you have never seen a 2 week old baby out of a drug fuxxx mother what hope has that child got

 

marty you have never seen a 16 year old girl fly from the third floor of a set off units in Balmain

 

marty you have never seen what a 50 cal machine gun does to banana trees when fired by a drug fuuxxx soldier

 

marty you have never seen a drug fuxx truck driver who has just killed a mother and two children

 

marty the drug fuxxx I mention was the one that stole my ingal fridge from my car

 

I can give many more reasons for the death of of drug users and suppliers

 

your fanantasy world marty I have no intension of going there neil

Neil, I think you need to take a pill and calm down...

 

If you get all that from what I said, your mind must be an interesting place.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And who's to say they don't have a point? "

 

The LAW !.

 

", if drugs were decriminalized"

 

The government would make lots of money (TAX & GST ) out of it.

 

Just like Alcohol and Tobacco.

 

Also Petrol, Double dip this time.

 

The girl at Parramatta would have been given her pill back, as it was PURE,.

 

And she would have Still Died. (Her Dad said so)

 

Therefor "Pill testing on that occasion was useless.

 

The Law has identified her supplier, And I do not hear anything about the Pusher's court case, which should be "Manslaughter".

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And who's to say they don't have a point? "The LAW !.

I seem to remember a law in the USA in the 1920's which prohibited the sale of liquor. What happened? Smuggling, criminal gangs, illegal stills (which produced alcohol that sometimes killed the drinkers), people jailed for having a drink.

 

Seem familiar?

 

Sometimes the law's an ass.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The girl at Parramatta would have been given her pill back, as it was PURE,.And she would have Still Died. (Her Dad said so)

No one thinks that pill testing would have a 100% success rate. Space would you be for or against a limited trial where the results could be evaluated rather than going on peoples gut instinct either way?

 

In medicine, if there is a problem to be solved we do trials. For me the data is everything. I don't know what the answer is although I do know that what we are doing now is not working. Space do you believe that we should investigate the evidence from elsewhere. If pill testing does not work or makes matters worse then fine look for another way. To not look at the data seems to me to be ridiculous and dumb.

 

I suspect that people would rather voice there opinion based on gut feeling rather than doing a little intellectual work and examining the evidence.

 

https://www.ecstasydata.org/text/2011/2011_tedi_factsheet_on_drug_checking_in_europe.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our party-going Millenial pays, say, $20 for a pill from an unknown person. Goes to a music festival and decides to have a pill tested. The pill is consumed by test process (destructive testing). The Millenial gets told one of two things:

 

  1. The components of the pill were the 'drug' plus inert fillers and binders. Consuming the pill would only result in causing the effects of the 'drug'
     
  2. The components of the pill were the 'drug' plus amounts of toxic precursors and other impurities whose effects on the chemistry of the 'drug' in the body are not well understood. Consuming the pill is likely to result in severe illness, even death.
     

 

Either way, the Millennial is out the money for the pill and the pill. The Millennial might be a pill-popping moron, but knows when it has been ripped-off. Do you think that it will surrender another pill in the future?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goes to a music festival and decides to have a pill tested. The pill is consumed by test process (destructive testing).

The testing is not destructive.

 

it only requires a scraping

 

"After signing a disclaimer which reinforced that the results did not show the drugs were “safe”, and filling out a short pre-test survey, attendees put a sample of their drugs onto a sheet where a chemist scraped off a small amount for testing."

 

As keep saying my position is that it should be tried on a small scale (and so should other things) and we should adopt whatever improves the situation. I am neither for or against but to rule it out and not to even consider results of schemes being used overseas is frankly stupid.

 

In order to have more than just an opinion, it is important to actually analyse evidence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am all for testing but they (the pill popper) should pay for the service , and not take recourses away from cancer research, or any research into medical matters, see how they would run, drugs are a blight we are soft on the sellers and pushers mandatory 20 years for pushers and sellers of the drugs not the soft cock approach of our system, if you use drugs you must take the consequences and bear the costs

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...