Primary school teachers

[Earthling]

Cris, I think it was was a case experimentation gone wrong mixed with an untouchable attitude.
It's ironic. Talking about drugs. I just found out my brother got raided by at 9 am this morning

Lucas do you think if unlimited education regarding safe and healthy drug use, plus support when they want to quit or control their use would have assisted your brother in not experimenting so badly and having an untouchable attitude?

How many times does that make now that hes been raided? Do you feel he will stop as of police intervention?

 

[Lucas]

This is his first raid. I'm now very much hoping this will be a wake up call for him.

 

[Earthling]

Goodo Lucas. good luck. What do you feel about my other question?

 

[slim6y]

I'm sorry to hear about your bro Lucas - and worse of, i doubt somehow the so called wake up call is enough.

I have heard it said before - the wrong people are in prison - people who murder, rape, steal etc - yes, they're criminals - they need some form of societal rehibilitation. But drug users and addicts can't be rehibilated by a state prison cell. That will not cure them.

They need plenty of help from family, friends, neighbours, and society in general.

Maybe they don't stop taking the drug, but start using it more responsibley.

Maybe they're helped back into society with jobs that they can do and enjoy. give them a feeling of worth...

It's so much easier to cast them out and say it was you who ruined your life... But that won't solve the problem - will it?

I do hope your brother cleans up and makes good of this situation... but if not - Lucas, suppoort and help... I guess that can be hard when the sibling rejects your help - but I bet there are ways to do it... And maybe you should seek the advice for it as well.

Anyhow... i am still waiting on junglist's reply to above... it's always exciting when I get insulted...

 

[Lucas]

He has all the support and help he could ever ask for, its just a matter of waiting for him to reach out and ask for it. Til then there isn't really anything that we can do. This has been a on again, off again situation for a few years now.

 

[Lucas]

oohhhhh, an insult party. I'll invite myself

 

[junglist*]

Finally junglist* if you wish to continue insults, don't try to make yourself look like an idiot - you're obviously intelligent and have done the research, anyone can see that. Insults don't allow people to like what you've said.

Me, I;m thick skinned, so if you want to insult me - do so - do it through PM where none of us will get infractions... The challenge is on!!!

I accept your apologies for your arrogance and uncalled for comments... Lets move on and have a party now.

I am not going to apologise to someone who continues their own destructive path of self delusion.

this coment of yours
Answer: Sometimes yes, giving up seems to be the only hope - but we're not giving up so it's not a losing battle - prescription may actually work you know...

Whether or not you choose to give up, does not change the fact that the battle is one which cannot be won. The government's war on the heroin trade merely moved the battlefield to a far more dangerous one, one with far more damaging aspects to both the individual user, and to society as a whole.

Think of this hypothetical. Despite the fact that the Anzac detachment in gallipoli did not give up, they were wholly incapable of taking and holding the beach against the turks who were dug in, and were shooting fish in a barrel.

This is the same scenario here. But we have the option of flanking the real problem which is NOT the damage any individual does to themselves, but mitigating the damage to the general public. The biggest problems we can solve,a dn there are two ones we can solve by legalisation. They are the impact of organised crime in the market (remove their cash crop and cripple the organisations functionality), adn the amount of property crime recorded. considering that at the last forensic science symposium i attended and presented a paper at, 90% of property crime is committed by people with unfunded drug addictions, this is a massive drop in the amount of B/E we can eradicate, and have our police concentrating on problems which they can actually address.

Add a corrollary to this, and if the amounts of b/e are reduced, that means that there wil be less people in gaol for drug addiction, therefore less people associating with the underworld due only to drug use.

tell me this would be a bad thing, in addition to the amount of extra money which could be spent in our ailing mental and physical health systems, the amount of teachers in the public system who we could pay what they deserve for the amount of behind the scenes work they do and are not given credit for. We could be world leaders, and yet under the recent politicians we have foolishly voted into power, they seem content to be sheep.

There is only one decision to be made in this entire matter of any significance, are you a sheep?? or will you be a leader?

 

[cris]

So........if you feel harm-minimisation isnt the answer, what is your view on the answer to our 'percieved' drug problem?

Their is no realistic solution on the governments part, I think the problem could be solved but it isnt viable in our democracy.

The only way to reduce the problem is to educate ppl enough so that they dont destroy themselves. When they educate kids about drugs they should say how much fun they are but at the same time point out how that is actually bad. Ppl who are damaged badly by drug use should go and talk to school kids(in an organised program) and tell them how it doesnt matter if you only plan to try stuff because things change etc.

 

[buck]

Junglist....... In all honesty as said by Slimy, your arrogance does absolutely nothing to help your cause. You are trying to get a message across(alot of which I don't disagree with) but your manner either makes people totally ignore you or makes them want to drag you out the back.

I'm not interested in getting into an illectual debate with you as this is obviously a feild that you are well versed on where I haven't had the same opportunity. However, you would want everyone reading your posts to believe in what you say and disregard what the government research has shown but you still have not quoted ONE single reference to support any of your claims or stats!!!!! Now before your arrogance gets carried away once again, I am all for questioning the Government(this Government especially) but you can't expect people to seriously take what you are saying as "truth" without a scrap of evidence or reference to support what you are saying. Can you not see that saying "about 250%" really amounts to squat??

Also..... who the hell do you think you are to tell someone that their opinion is not valid???

“...the image of the Lord had been replaced by a mirror.”

Jorge Luis Borges

 

[junglist*]

I'm anti drug no matter who is using it. I've seen it destroy too many lives. My little brother is an Ice addict, 2 friends have died as a result of herion. Countless people I want to school are now dealers and in and out of jail. I've been robbed by junkies.

Drugs are bad M'kay

Being anti-drug is like saying you are anti pen, or anti computer, or even anti glasses. You cannot be anti (insert inanimate object here) because an inanimate object holds no good nor bad elements. A better stance to take is anti-idiot. Drugs can be used responsibly, and your stance is irresponsible and ignorant at best.

Your friends died as a result of a DRUG ADDICTION. The fact that it was heroin is not relevant, nor is the drug your brother is addicted to. It is the addiction which is the problem.

As to the heroin related deaths, the bigest problem which was experienced by heroin users was impurities commonly found in the street samples. Then, when high grade substance appeared on the street, people were taking the dosage which they required to feel effect from the less pure substance, and ODing.

these are problems which can be fixed with proactive as opposed to reactive action. But this is something a government will unfortunately not do in the near future. They are in the business of fear and terror, and it is what they do best. If they keep you scared, they can continue to manipulate you, if you are not scared, but thinking clearly and rationally, they cannot control you and you can make your voice heard.
Once again, the drugs are not the cause of the problems, but the legislation which governs their illegality and demonises them (the media is to blame here as well, but they are a tool of the government, especially conservative government).

Buck, an indefensible opinion is one which i will tell someone is invalid. The existence of any supporting data behind the opinion would be nice to have, and would make it defensible, and thus arguable. However that is not the case here.

Take a long walk of a short cliff punk, because you've really got no clue.

The point i am making is that the research HAS NOT shown what the government says that it has shown. The reduction in total weed smoker population in the netherlands is from a paper i had on my desk, but due to its appearance as a disaster zone, i cant find it. I may have used it as a coaster.

The major point of what i have been saying is that there is not a shred of evidence which is associated with the government's claims, though they continue to make the claims as being based on concrete evidence.

I dont want everyone to take what i say as the whole truth, but someone needs to get people thinking for themselves instead of parroting idiotic politicians that drugs are bad.'

So many lies have been told, that people can't make distinction between lies and cold hard fact any more. Some of my info comes from conversations which are not documented, with forensic chemists from the netherlands, and many others from the field of research.

 

[buck]

Drugs can be used responsibly, and your stance is irresponsible and ignorant at best.
There is that attitude that is winning everyone over

Buck, an indefensible opinion is one which i will tell someone is invalid. The existence of any supporting data behind the opinion would be nice to have, and would make it defensible, and thus arguable. However that is not the case here.
An opinion is someone's thoughts on a subject. Nothing more. There is no wrong or right opinion. There are informed and ill-informed opinions granted but EVERYONE'S opinion is valid to some extent. This is democracy is it not?

Take a long walk of a short cliff punk, because you've really got no clue.

The point i am making is that the research HAS NOT shown what the government says that it has shown. The reduction in total weed smoker population in the netherlands is from a paper i had on my desk, but due to its appearance as a disaster zone, i cant find it. I may have used it as a coaster.

The major point of what i have been saying is that there is not a shred of evidence which is associated with the government's claims, though they continue to make the claims as being based on concrete evidence.

I dont want everyone to take what i say as the whole truth, but someone needs to get people thinking for themselves instead of parroting idiotic politicians that drugs are bad.'

So many lies have been told, that people can't make distinction between lies and cold hard fact any more. Some of my info comes from conversations which are not documented, with forensic chemists from the netherlands, and many others from the field of research.

I agree with alot of what you are saying - well except with where you want me to jump off a cliff. What has been suggested SOUNDS great but what also needs to be considered is what if it doesn't work or creates an unforseen problem later down the track? Who is honestly going to make such a big call with so much unknown?
You say yourself that addiction is the problem not necessarily the drug but how can anyone honestly say that addiction levels will go down if drugs are made more available?Do you think that people won't because we will tell them not to? Look at cigarettes... how much education has been offered to students about the risks of smoking yet still so many become smokers. Can you at least see that point?
How many times have you witnessed drunks on the street harrassing people and commiting crime so they can buy more drink? Why will any other drugs have different results?

Please answer at least some of these as I have "no clue".

.

 

[Mr feegle]

The problem is what you class as a hard drug
MDMA isnt a hard drug its a rec drug
And most people would have been taugt at some time by a person who
uses drugs.
Dont forget that in the 60s and 70s a lot of teachers were at the front of the hippy movements

 

[junglist*]

There is that attitude that is winning everyone over

Care factor 0%. As long as i am making you think about it, my goal is achieved.
An opinion is someone's thoughts on a subject. Nothing more. There is no wrong or right opinion. There are informed and ill-informed opinions granted but EVERYONE'S opinion is valid to some extent. This is democracy is it not?

No, this is an internet forum. not a political system. No, were the opinion of hitler to the rest of the jews considered valid, would we have gone to war?

I agree with alot of what you are saying - well except with where you want me to jump off a cliff. What has been suggested SOUNDS great but what also needs to be considered is what if it doesn't work or creates an unforseen problem later down the track? Who is honestly going to make such a big call with so much unknown?

Yes, but the status quo is not working, so will we really be any worse off?? Could the situation get any worse than it is now??? You say yourself that addiction is the problem not necessarily the drug but how can anyone honestly say that addiction levels will go down if drugs are made more available?Do you think that people won't because we will tell them not to? Look at cigarettes... how much education has been offered to students about the risks of smoking yet still so many become smokers. Can you at least see that point?
How many times have you witnessed drunks on the street harrassing people and commiting crime so they can buy more drink? Why will any other drugs have different results?

The evidence is right in front of you. Ive never witnessed drunks on the street harrassing people for their next drink. But again, you miss the point. The harm someone does to themselves is no concern of the government. It is when that harm is done to society as a whole that the controller of that society - the government - should become involved to mitigate that harm.

Were sufficient treatment facilities available for those who wanted to get off the gear, then the situation would be far better. THose that desire addiction treatment, not just drug and alcohol addiction, the drain on society would be far reduced, and it is my experience from talking to people who have these addictions, and hate the cycle that they go through, that if the option for treatment was available, they would take it with both hands, and never let it go.

Yes, i think that addiction levels would go down dramatically were substances made legal. You are merely making the mistake of classing use as abuse. Now considering that australia was just found to have the 4th lowest smoking rate in the developed world, the addiction rate does not seem as though it would be crippling to the country.

Your point about smokers has just crippled your own argument and made a point for the side i am on. Yes smoking is so obviously bad, yet people continue to choose to do it. We know it is bad for our health, but the practice continues, and is being taken up by younger generations. No matter how much older generations preach something, younger ones must find out for themselves about the best course of action. Would it not be better for those younger generations who WILL try and experiment with drugs, if we have full education, and no stigma which goes along with drug addiction so that they can get help and not fall into a cycle of criminality. Would it not be better if we said that these drugs are harmful to your health. BUT if you must take them, here is the best way to mitigate the problems associated with them. Would it not be better to know what is in that tablet or powder, to know that even ifyour kid is doing drugs, at least its only the drug contained, not some random binder and filler?? not some washing detergent?

 

[Tsidasa]

I have to admit I wasn't aware that ecstasy was a 'hard' drug. When I first read the beginning of the thread I thought it was in reference to something like heroin or crack. Ecstasy is far more 'user friendly' than most people are lead to believe.

Unless of course it has a negative affect and your cousin experiments with it on New Years Eve and goes into cardiac arrest and dies leaving behind his wife and 1 yr old son.

A drug that you decide to administer yourself of any kind can have very serious consequences even if you have a great experience at some other point.

Cocaine for example is fabulous, it increases your stamina, it makes you think faster and focus a lot more. However you take too much and your heart is going to explode.
The point is there's a risk that in my book is not worth it on any degree.

Watching my best friend overdose on it at a party was also not the best experience of my life.
The silly <expletive> continues to do it too.

Let's not preach on a site where children are going to read this thread how user friendly and fun a drug like ecstacy is.
Let's not preach that a little street smarts is going to tell you how much of a drug you should take or how to look out for what it might be laced with.
Earthling lets not pretend that everyone is a doctor and knows the correct dose to achieve that high without the fall.

Personally i don't give a rats bottom what people do on their weekend...that's their perogative, i'm not a cop and i'm certainly not the moral police. As long as it wasn't done in front/around or in some way that will affect those children at some point I really don't care. However let's not pretend for just a second that it's not a dangeous decision no matter how insignificant it may seem and may probably be.
It only takes one stuff up.

 

[IsK67]

Let's not preach on a site where children are going to read this thread how user friendly and fun a drug like ecstacy is.

This is probably the wisest thing that has been said in this whole thread.

After all it is promoted as a "Family Friendly Site"

Don't Do Drugs Kids!

IsK

 

[Lucas]

My stance is ignorant and irresponsible is it?

My stance is that I don't agree with the use of drugs full stop. How you can find ignorance and irresponsibility there has got me stuffed.

Are you supporting the use of drugs? Are you a user yourself? Are you trying to justify to yourself that you aren't destroying your life?

There is no responsible use of drugs. It only takes one pill to OD Junglist, It is a lottery. That one little pill, the first pill you take has the potential to kill you. But hey, its not the drug that kills you, its not the drug thats the problem. Nice realm you're living in.

Would you like to face up to the families of children or young adults who have died as a result of drugs and call them irresponsible? Tell them that it wasn't the drug that killed their kids, that it was their kids inexperienced use that killed them. I think you'd be plesantly surprised at their reaction.

Now, sprout some long winded comment thats purely aimed at proving how intellectual you are

 

[cris]

Let's not preach on a site where children are going to read this thread how user friendly and fun a drug like ecstacy is.

The thing is with the exception of the few ppl who cant handle drugs or take too much etc. using most drugs is awesome fun, it is simply idiotic to suggest otherwise IMO. If you try what i consider to be a hard drug you will most likely really like it and you will never be able to feel that good again without using it(or another drug). Thats why so many ppl change their minds about only using drugs once and end up in alot of trouble. It is an extremely simple concept but generally most drug education focuses only on the obvious bad points and they are often exagerated and lose their credibility.

 

[junglist*]

My stance is ignorant and irresponsible is it?

My stance is that I don't agree with the use of drugs full stop. How you can find ignorance and irresponsibility there has got me stuffed.

Are you supporting the use of drugs? Are you a user yourself? Are you trying to justify to yourself that you aren't destroying your life?

There is no responsible use of drugs. It only takes one pill to OD Junglist, It is a lottery. That one little pill, the first pill you take has the potential to kill you. But hey, its not the drug that kills you, its not the drug thats the problem. Nice realm you're living in.

Would you like to face up to the families of children or young adults who have died as a result of drugs and call them irresponsible? Tell them that it wasn't the drug that killed their kids, that it was their kids inexperienced use that killed them. I think you'd be plesantly surprised at their reaction.

Now, sprout some long winded comment thats purely aimed at proving how intellectual you are

Not inexperienced, but irresponsible use yes. The parents wont believe you though, they have a vested interest in the situation.
YOu mean to tell me that there is no responsible way to drink alcohol??No responsible way to deal with a headache??

Think before typing silly man.

Its irresponsible and ignorant for it does not deal with the issue, it just sweeps it under the carpet.

I did say that to the mother and father of anna woods, the country's most celebrated death due to idiocy not only of anna woods, but the irresponsibility of her friends.
Whether or not they accept fact, does not change it from being so.

Nonsense, there is such thing as responsible use of illicit drugs. Just as there is such things as irresposible use of licit drugs.

The fact of the mater is that governments (SA and victoria in particular) have come down hard on harm minimisation groups such as bluelight and ravesafe, preventing them from doing reagent testing in nightclubs and rave events to increase the level of safety for the punters. The government has in fact made it more dangerous to take the drugs the kids will take anyway.

There are products such as EZtest and EZtest extreme which allow determinations of the content of the pill about to be consumed so that adulterants can be screened for.

Lucas, crossing the road has more potential to kill you than taking a pill. MDMA has not been linked to a single fatality caused by the substance. Yes the media will tell you this girl took ecstasy and died, but thats not the case. It was para-methoxyamphetamine that killed the girl after the good vibes festival, it was hyponatremia that killed anna woods.

Were there more responsible information instead of the JUST SAY NO crap that the kids are force fed in schools, were there the opportunity for real discussion it would be less of a problem, and were people willing to be more open about it with children, maybe there would not be such a problem as there is, but the fact remains that there are still so many misguided, LETS GET TOUGH ON DRUGS halfwits out there, that they believe, even in the face of the failure of every single prohibition experiment in history, that if we keep trying to ice skate up that hill we will eventually get there.

 

[Tsidasa]

The thing is with the exception of the few ppl who cant handle drugs or take too much etc. using most drugs is awesome fun, it is simply idiotic to suggest otherwise IMO. If you try what i consider to be a hard drug you will most likely really like it and you will never be able to feel that good again without using it(or another drug). Thats why so many ppl change their minds about only using drugs once and end up in alot of trouble. It is an extremely simple concept but generally most drug education focuses only on the obvious bad points and they are often exagerated and lose their credibility.

refer to rest of my post

 

[buck]

Care factor 0%. As long as i am making you think about it, my goal is achieved.
But think how many more people might actually read your posts if you were to use a different approach.

No, this is an internet forum. not a political system. No, were the opinion of hitler to the rest of the jews considered valid, would we have gone to war?
We are all here in a democratic society. Not sure exactly the point you are trying to make about Hitker's opinion on Jews baut I would assume that we went to war for alot more than his opinion. Most probably had alot more to do with his actions in Europe then anything else. In fact WE as in Australia went to war basically because Britain did.

Yes, but the status quo is not working, so will we really be any worse off?? Could the situation get any worse than it is now???
Who knows?? That's the whole point.

The evidence is right in front of you. Ive never witnessed drunks on the street harrassing people for their next drink. But again, you miss the point. The harm someone does to themselves is no concern of the government. It is when that harm is done to society as a whole that the controller of that society - the government - should become involved to mitigate that harm
WRONG!!! harm done to ones self is of concern to the government. Why are doctors in public hospitals refusing to operate on cancer patients who refuse to stop smoking?
How can people committing crime to feed their alcohol addiction not harm society? I'm starting to think that you may have missed the point.

Yes, i think that addiction levels would go down dramatically were substances made legal. You are merely making the mistake of classing use as abuse. Now considering that australia was just found to have the 4th lowest smoking rate in the developed world, the addiction rate does not seem as though it would be crippling to the country.
No I am not mistakingly classing use as abuse. How many of these people who are addicted to cigerettes would still be addicted if it were not so readily available? Doesn't it make sense that when you make something that is addictive easily accessable more people will become addicted? You have just crippled your own argument!!!

Your point about smokers has just crippled your own argument and made a point for the side i am on. Yes smoking is so obviously bad, yet people continue to choose to do it. We know it is bad for our health, but the practice continues, and is being taken up by younger generations. No matter how much older generations preach something, younger ones must find out for themselves about the best course of action. Would it not be better for those younger generations who WILL try and experiment with drugs, if we have full education, and no stigma which goes along with drug addiction so that they can get help and not fall into a cycle of criminality. Would it not be better if we said that these drugs are harmful to your health. BUT if you must take them, here is the best way to mitigate the problems associated with them. Would it not be better to know what is in that tablet or powder, to know that even ifyour kid is doing drugs, at least its only the drug contained, not some random binder and filler?? not some washing detergent?
Why do so many people continue to try smoking? Because it is a legal substance. If it were illegal many people would stay clear of it for fear of breaking the law. Yes some people will try drugs regardless of it's legality but by making them legal more are going to try. I also feel that part of what keeps some people away from certain drugs IS the unknown factor. It most certainly was for myself. I would love to see some stats that show the percentage of the population addicted to legal drugs and the percentage addicted to illegal drugs. I think I know which would be greater.