Primary school teachers

[Earthling]

Slim: If harminimisation is no good could you suggest something else?

 

[slim6y]

Wow! Slim!:shock:
Harm-Minimisation for drugs means educate and ideally supply drugs without the crap that the backyarders put into them that cause a lot of negative health risks.
Guns are about using fear (not education)..no similarity. Policies focusing on using peoples fears only causes more misery.
Car stealing...Murder....totally different kettle of fish my friend. They are acts of stealing anothers goods or life. Harm-minimisation approach does not do this. It educates not steals. No comparison.
Reason why Amsterdam is so bad is of all the foriegners squatting and having orgies of drugs.
they cant get it much normally or as cheap so when they can they selfabuse. Just like we all do when we go to Bali on alcohol. Party party party!

As to bandaids we are in an 'ice' epidemic...health services are being pushed to the limits. bandaid isnt going to fit no more..we need a solution....

Slim realistically LOOK: the drug laws that have been put forward the last 50 years if they were sound and worked we would have sorted out the percieved problem yeah?! But the percieved 'problem' is actually getting much worse. Obviously our approach of lock em up and punish and criminilise drugs is NOT working. Isnt THAT obvious!
We HAVE to try something else and far as I can see Harm-minimisation is the way to go.

Earthling - this was not in relation to harm minimisation - was in relation to junglist* suggesting legalisation... By no means would I deny the fact that harm minimisation is essential.. and with that, legalisation therefore is not required!

 

[slim6y]

Slim: If harminimisation is no good could you suggest something else?

It's like the water problem in the south east - it won't just go away unless you throw HUGE sums of money at it...

Yes, it is here to stay... So I say - and as said above.. with MANY MANY more tests, research etc etc then - and only then, can it be prescribed...

I somehow doubt that legalisation will curb the problem even with harm minimisation...

i really don't know much more than that - because a) I have no experinece in the field and b) have only begun researching since this thread came up - But I would be very suprised if legalisation would actually help - it would not prevent harm... sorry Earthling, it's not the way to include harm minimisation.

 

[Forensick]

i'd prefer the banning of tobacco...
but if i have to choose between passive marajuana or tobacco, i'd prefer the marajuana, it doesn't smell so bad.

so if you think drugs should be illegal, start lobbying to bad one of the know addicitve damaging ones.
and give my hospitality lungs a rest!

 

[slim6y]

i'd prefer the banning of tobacco...
but if i have to choose between passive marajuana or tobacco, i'd prefer the marajuana, it doesn't smell so bad.

so if you think drugs should be illegal, start lobbying to bad one of the know addicitve damaging ones.
and give my hospitality lungs a rest!

Interesting and I fully agree - In NZ and Qld smoking in public places such as bars, restaurants etc is 100% banned.. just a few weekends ago a man was asked to put his ciggarette out as he was smoking in the pub... he blatantly said NO... so the bouncer took him outside and the police arrested him (I know, police have much better things to do than that, but... they just happened to be there at the time ok...).

I think you should also watch the movie "Thank You For Smoking"

A very interesting look at how the real bull artists work... And have a laugh at it to!

 

[leighroyaus]

i love drugs. alot more then i love alcohol.

 

[buck]

an anti drug site quoting news papers, and politicians.
right......

thats unbiased and well researched....

i don't agree with legalising drugs, but that site has as much "evidence" as out total opinions in this thread

Yeah about as unbiased as people in the chemistry feild arguing FOR the continued use of drugs. Or the medical feild talking about alternate medicines. It doesn't matter what subject or what side you take there will always be bias.
All I wanted to acheive is to put up another side of the argument with a little more fact then something like "about 250%".

 

[buck]

I know hundreds of people and have met literally thousands of people who have consumed MDMA on many, many, many occasions and not one of them have had any problems either physically or mentally. Now that is a FACT.

I smoked cigarettes for a few years and could boast the same, but what could have happened if I had continued????

EDIT: Just further to this..... So you have sat down and discussed if each and every one has had any adverse effects from MDMA?? Considering you said that it is a fact.

 

[MrBredli]

Yes buck, as hard as it may be for you to believe, MDMA is safe when used in recreational doses and not used excessively (i.e. every weekend).

 

[Earthling]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_minimisation

read this link please.....5th line...legalisation.

I thought some people may need to redefine their understanding of harm-reduction.

 

[slim6y]

Quick idea - The prescription idea...

Does this work?

Allow the drug (MDMA) to be thoroughly tested to see if harm minimisation actually occurs by allowing it to be presented to the public in the form of a registar through hospitals, nurses, doctors, pharmacists etc.

Tis way drug users who will use the drug can get it easilly and have it in the purest of forms with minimal risk. Dosage is supplied via prescription and registar so they can not overdose...

There's more to this idea than that... but this is the basis of my idea of harm minimisation...

 

[Forensick]

mrbuck....
i compared it to here because that site does just pull numbers out of what they think they remember someone saying, and spell it wrong.

just like a forum.

if you like i could go into immense detail, but most people here wouldn't understand, then i'd simplify and be told that i need proof.

the proof is there, that certain illicit drugs are less damaging and less addictive (in their pure states).
the rest is in how people choose to use those facts, do we include the added ingredients in an "E" to measure its damage. to some that is reasonable, and others it isn't, however it changes the "safeness".

there is a great deal of evidence that many many legal things are damaging, tobacco, mobile phones, the sun!
its pointless to really debate the facts, unless you are going to pull on a white coat, join me in a lab and spend months picking at details.

you are entitled to still think they shouldnt be legal, even if you accept harm is negligable, as i do.
but by the same token, i don't much care if people do as long as it doesn't effect me.
of all the minor laws that get broken by damn near everyone, there are others that bug me more.
but i can't imagine people would be very popular if i was demanding a teacher get sacked for not indicating and cutting off a motorbike, as it sets a bad example.
the threat to me as a rider is much greater than if she took e on the weekend, especially if she drives her children to an excursion (more likely than seeing her on drugs) and think it must be ok.

 

[Earthling]

Quick idea - The prescription idea...

Does this work?

Allow the drug (MDMA) to be thoroughly tested to see if harm minimisation actually occurs by allowing it to be presented to the public in the form of a registar through hospitals, nurses, doctors, pharmacists etc.

Tis way drug users who will use the drug can get it easilly and have it in the purest of forms with minimal risk. Dosage is supplied via prescription and registar so they can not overdose...

There's more to this idea than that... but this is the basis of my idea of harm minimisation...

Sounds reasonable to me...would need to reeducate the public BIG time though.....but hey thats what harm-minimisation is all about correct?

 

[MrBredli]

It's a good idea and it would save lives instantly. The young lady from the North Shore who died recently after consuming PMA would still be alive today if she had the chance to buy pharmaceutical grade MDMA instead of some dodgey pill pressed in someones back yard.

 

[buck]

I just want to clear one thing up here as I'm afraid I may have given the wrong idea. I am in no way anti -drugs as such. I used to use some "recreational drugs" a few years back and I still to this day believe that if the government could find a way of taxing marijuana, and stopping people from growing it at home, it would be at least decriminalised already.
However I do still beleive that we have to be very careful about what we are saying amongst a possible young teenage audience. Yes we should be able to make up our own mind on certain matters but the fact is that a young teenage mind can be very easily influenced and they may not see that what people here are saying is that drugs are less dangerous in pure form, but that drugs are not as dangerous as authorities make them out to be. The problem with this is that even if they accept and understand the points made about drugs in their pure form they have no access to them at present so WILL experiment with them in whatever form they can get hold of, possibly based on arguments here. That is my main point.

In regards to all of the other stuff ....... I took offence to being called "moronic" for trying to express my opinion and concern about the above.
If that person wants to jump in and start quoting facts then I think it is only reasonable that he can supply some reference to where they came from. Surely someone from a scientific background should no better then to quote facts without a reference, after all as I stated earlier, any fool can get on the net and "quote" some numbers.

 

[buck]

Yes buck, as hard as it may be for you to believe, MDMA is safe when used in recreational doses and not used excessively (i.e. every weekend).

That may be so but you can't make a statement like "I know hundreds of people and have met literally thousands of people who have consumed MDMA on many, many, many occasions and not one of them have had any problems either physically or mentally. Now that is a FACT" without having consulted EVERY ONE of them and asked if they have had any physical or mental problems from it's use. The fact is that the above "fact" is no fact at all. You could have said "I know heaps of people that use it and none have mentioned any adverse effects" but that doesn't sound quite as good as how you put it does it, even though it is probably a more accurate account.

 

[MrBredli]

Buck, i meant whilst i was there with them, nobody has ever had any issues, and nobody i speak to now, or have ever spoken to, has ever had any problems whatsoever.

550000 Australians use ecstacy every year, and i am yet to hear of a single person dying from an overdose of MDMA. It just doesn't happen.

 

[fishbot]

Buck, i meant whilst i was there with them, nobody has ever had any issues, and nobody i speak to now, or have ever spoken to, has ever had any problems whatsoever.

550000 Australians use ecstacy every year, and i am yet to hear of a single person dying from an overdose of MDMA. It just doesn't happen.

I have never died from snake bite...surely it never happens?

ALL drugs...from aspirin to heroin...from paracetamol to cocaine...ALL drugs have side effects. MDMA has plenty of side effects other than death. Most people continue to function at less than maximum efficiency, this does not mean they are 100% healthy.

I do not condemn drug users, but I sure don't condone it. I find it highly hypocritical and extremely ironic for any alcohol drinker or cigarette smoker to condemn a fellow drug user.

Cris's teacher friend sounds like a knob...but this is probably not a side effect from MDMA. Unfortunately we lack laws against knob behaviour.

 

[buck]

ALL drugs...from aspirin to heroin...from paracetamol to cocaine...ALL drugs have side effects. MDMA has plenty of side effects other than death. Most people continue to function at less than maximum efficiency, this does not mean they are 100% healthy.
.

Exactly my point...

 

[MrBredli]

I eat lots of McDonald's and as a result i'm most certainly not 100% healthy. Should McDonalds be made illegal?