• If you are having any problems posting threads plz message Kate. since latest update we have had 6 members with problems, sorted those but yet to find the problem.

Illegal drug use in society

Smoggy

Smoggy

Foundation Member
Following the needless loss of life at the Big Day Out in Perth I thought I would make a comment about illegal drug use and the impact upon the lives of those people who use them.

I knew a young girl who died of an overdose a few years ago and it has affected me quite badly. I also knew the "friend" who supplied her. This "friend" acted as a courier picking up small quatities from one place and then dropping off at another. He made plenty of money until (as expected) the law eventually caught up with him. This person was responsible for destroying the lives of many young people.

I strongly support a zero tolerance view to drugs and that includes marijuana. I would support long jail sentances for those who deal in drugs. If we don't do something we will continue to see many innocent people destroy their lives. Some will pay the ultimate price for their folly. I realise that we will never stop it altogether but perhaps we can control it and reduce the damage done.
 
Ah, if only it was as simple as just locking up all the drug dealers, importers and manufacturers.

The reason we have always had and always will have illegal drugs around is that there is a demand for them and this drives the supply, not the other way around. The reason the Police are on a hiding to nothing in the war on drugs is that their focus is solely on the supply chain and they do little or nothing about choking off the demand.

What if this were turned around? What if every dumb kid who buys drugs knew that if he/she was caught with the stuff, however small the quantity, gaol was inevitable? No excuses, no exceptions. Minimum 6 months inside followed by a probationary period of two years during which they were subject to random urine/blood testing. A repeat and they are back inside again.

It would go from a "bit of harmless fun" to a potentially life-destroying event and at least the more intelligent young people would question the wisdom of taking the risk. Reduce the demand and watch the supply shrivel up.
 
That is a very smart comment Sven! Statistics prove that the most likely offenders to reoffend are drug dealers,basically because the market is always there and the money to be made is too tempting. Cut off the demand, little money involved, very little supply
 
The problem with your view svengali is that a large percentage of the population expect to be able to have their so called harmless bit of fun. That is not my view but there is the perception that people accept the use of so called soft drugs. Unfortunately the police are seen as the fault of this poor girls death in some peoples eyes. I think the police have every right to search for drugs and if more people were stopped then it is up to the legal system to punish the offenders appropriately.
Why would you take the risk with some homemade concoction made by criminals whose main drive is greed and an easy way to make money.
 
As prohibition of drugs has always been so spectacularly successful before (read sarcasm) there is but one solution to the drug problem.

Removing the criminal element by the government taking control. Legalisation and control of supply through tools already in place (medicare card, etc) would resolve both the criminal element of it, and the dodgy quality of street drugs. Also, as with the two drugs which cause both the most deaths and the most social problems (alcohol and tobacco) the government could then tax them.

However, if you think we have some problems in the financial sector worldwide at the moment, just imagine what would happen if the worldwide criminal supply and distribution of narcotics was shut down overnight by governments taking control of it. The world as we know it would cease to exist, banks would fall, financial institutions would never recover.

Yes my friends, we can all complain and woe about the use of illegal substances, but the truth of the matter is that trading in human misery is big business and the police can do little but be seen to try. Arms trading and narcotics are number 1 and 2 on the biggest industries in the world. Makes you wonder how serious anyone can be about shutting either of them down.

Love
swingingstories
 
Swingin, wow! Now that is what I call a spot on, hit them where it hurts, qualitative analysis.

Do you want to move states for a job over here? I need your sort of incisive thinking skills...Wow!
 
Hi Link,

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but if you're not, thanks. But I don't think it's rocket science, I'm sure many others have had this same thought.

Love
swingingstories
 
Hey Swingin, I was serious--really sorry if it came across wrong. You seem to capture the essence of the situation in a nutshell. Only problem is now what do we do about it? Must we forever accept that cut-throat opportunism reigns?
 
I have used illegal drugs on occasion, but I must say that it was legal, prescribed drugs which did me the most damage, both physically and emotionally.
I developed an eating disorder, and my personality changed, Lost many friends due to that, but the true ones knew it wasnt me talking.

Now I dont even take antibiotics if i can avoid it, and take painkillers only when my migraines are unbearable.

The thing I like about pot is that I relax and stop trying to control the world. I rarely smoke now, but will choose illegal drugs over legal ones any time.

In a nutshell , Im prochoice :-)
 
Two sides to this story, one the illegal drugs have been around for as long as or longer than the legal ones. Two every person has a difference in metabolism.

Heroin was legal till 1953 till they realized how addictive it was etc.

Though without it or more so the drugs made from the poppy there would be many thousands of people each year would be subjected to pain they couldn’t bear.

Cancer patients all are on some form of morphine, where would they be without it???

Heroin itself does no damage to the body in any long term usage, except the strength you get it in.

If you knew the heroin was the same purity everyday you took it would do no damage to you except get addicted to it, no different to alcohol addiction, except the violence factor in alcohol. So that drug which is used by a very wide variety of people is wrongly commented on by so many.

You use it and you’re put in the category you’re just a thieving junkie, so wrong that percentage are. There are many users far and wide that work every day and live normal lives. In 1996- 97 the law decided it would get the heroin off out streets, and mainly did, the heroin drought.

Hence what they caused was the biggest fuck up of all time with the introduction of ICE.

Now it’s out of control and so are the people that use it. In not too many years the mental institutions won’t be able to cope with the amount of people that have looped way out there.

On that note who was busted for the biggest haul of the shit trying to import it? One of our top cops, so the wheel keeps turning as in most big drug deals. The amount of corruption has a lot to do with it and those people that think it doesn’t go on are kidding themselves.


The problem is most times these people don’t get touched as there up there with the biggest dealers. It’s always the couriers that get done..The facts are drugs have been common for years probably more than 60 years.

The 60s very much influenced the way of today, the music, the wars and so on its all about power and money.

The more power you have the more you can infiltrate the situation. You can go on and on about this situation and I for one always come back to the same answer. They will never stop illegal drugs because it’s on both sides of the law. Take a look at the next show on crime in N.S.W and Victoria or Melbourne. this one goes back to the huge amount of money involved in drugs, pot and so on. It should be a very interesting insight of where we are today in society.

Do you think PERTH is any different? Also the point that Celeste makes about prescription drugs is so true. Take a look at one of the drugs which killed Heath Ledger, oxycodine (not sure of the spelling) probably the biggest factor for his death. The drug company who made it got fined a million dollars or more because they knew how addictive it was and tried to deny they knew that, it is one of the closest drugs similar to heroin but made differently and is now prescribed out of control and a huge money spinner on the black market. the only thing they have done to curb the drug industry is to take peoples assets from them. That has stopped a lot of Mr. bigs that were once making millions of dollars from the drug trade. You want to lock up everybody that gets caught with a small amount of any drug how the fuck is society going to pay for it?

Our jails are overflowing now. The police will never stop it as they are a part of it whether you believe that or not, if you don’t well wake up and look at the cold hard facts. Yes there are only a few involved but with that happening it’s a no win situation.

They go on about drugs in our schools today what’s changed in 30 to 40 yrs, nothing there were drugs in schools back in the 70s and probably earlier had my first joint when i was 12 and I’m now 50 so not much is different.

In my view the biggest killer of drugs known to us is alcohol and you can buy it on every street corner in any town, and smoggy you didn’t even mention that. If you want a zero tolerance to drugs include them all not just the ones that are the most talked about. Also alcohol makes a lot of drugs so much more lethal.

I think from memory alcohol increases the likeliness of a heroin overdose something like 57%,.the whole subject is madness as there is so many different sides to it. take a look at what the yanks did to the Taliban, take over there drug supply and try to convince everybody they were going to get the farmers to grow coffee instead of poppies. yeah sure that’s why they say there is more heroin in America now than ever before and more cocaine getting to our shores by the container loads,

yeah you hear of few that customs get, a drop in the ocean to what gets in here. stamp out corruption and you might start winning the war against drugs, that will never happen on so many levels. you will always get the odd few Mr. bigs that do time but very few indeed.

So why go to the trouble of having police at a party where they know young people are going to have drugs??get so many minor offences, a girl that dies from being scared and you know the place will be full of undercover cops anyway.

So can you really say that it was good police policy to have so many there with dogs to bust the number they did at the gates??now we have a premier that wants to change our drug laws back to zero tolerance.

Clean his own backyard up before more people are killed from these useless revenue exercises, as has been said you will not stop kids from experimenting with drugs, no matter how much you get the message out there that drugs can and most times fuck up your life.

It’s a no win war so Mr. Barnet wake up and get with reality because in my opinion and only my opinion you are fucking miles away from what’s really going on in our society.

If this is your way of dealing with our kids of today sadly there will be far more deaths to come. Start at the top not the bottom for once if you are serious about getting the drug problem under control, and personally I don’t think you would have a clue, but then you just mite...we do have freedom of speech don’t we???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so what are you saying mac?i shouldnt of wrote what i beleive is true?
 
I don't think sniffers dogs at events will solve the problem. Users buy their drugs before going so the money has already gone to the dealer who has already payed their supplier.

Music events only happen during summer so it's not exactly a very effective way to "dry up the demand". Small time dealers buy their pills thousands at a time. Maybe 2000 for $22 each. That could be enough to last you a year or more depending how much you move.

I was at Summadayze and saw first hand what was going on. People emptying their pockets and swallowing their pills as quick as they could. Honestly what did the police think was going to happen? If I could foresee a young person overdosing surely they could.

My main point is confiscating the drugs at a one time event isn't going to help in the long term at all.
 
kevin said:
I was at Summadayze and saw first hand what was going on. People emptying their pockets and swallowing their pills as quick as they could. Honestly what did the police think was going to happen? If I could foresee a young person overdosing surely they could.
Click to expand...

This is the biggest cop out and shifting of blame and responsibility I have ever heard.
The only person who is responsible for having those pills in her pocket was her. The only person responsible for her deciding to swallow the pills to avoid detection was her. She could quite easily have thrown them on the ground if the coppers scared her that much. But she didn't - she made her OWN decision to swallow the damn things.
Sorry Kevin, but the attitude that ANYONE else shares ANY responsibility for this tragedy is just plain rubbish.
 
The way i read it,he was more emphasizing on the police presence at such an event.Why target young kids at a party where there is always going to be drugs.

As he said the drugs have already been bought and this tatic is not going to stop people from taking them.Unfortunately a girl died now that can be argued to no end where the blame lies.

You say it is no ones fault but her own, yes that is true,But the whole exercise of busting a few kids for pills is that really worth the end result?

Maybe they should of done a little more surveillance before the event even went ahead to try and stem the flow of these drugs.

I guess you have to ask yourself what if it happened to your daughter or son.Would you have the same opinion?

I wonder if it would of even made the news if the girl didn't die.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
stormline said:
But the whole exercise of busting a few kids for pills is that really worth the end result?Maybe they should of done a little more survellance before the event even went ahead to try and stem the flow of these drugs.I guess you have to ask yourself what if it happened to your daughter or son.Would you have the same opinion?
I wonder if it would of even made the news if the girl didnt die.
Click to expand...

I agree! Stopping the end user doesnt fix things. They will take drugs for various reasons, and are only 'small fry' in the drug market
 
Corneus.. I'm not pointing the finger of anyone. I see life as something very precious. I understand it's part of the job description to keep drugs away from our society. The way I see it is it's also part of the job description to keep our society safe. Just like police officers don't take firearms into schools, back off on high speed car chases and so on. Clearly they're trying to find an alternative ie. amnesty bins because they've realised they could have handled the situation a different way. Of course it was the poor girls own actions that killed her. There's no doubt about that and there's noone else to blame. Hopefully it won't happen again.
 
Thank you StaceynDave. Though i did try to do this with some posts yesterday and they looked ok till i pushed the post reply,then no paragraphs.
 
Multiple reply coming here:

Storm my man, congrats on the paragraphs, I'm very impressed. Plus I agree with just about everything you say.

To those who think that hitting the end user is the way to prevent demand, please see my previous post with comments about prohibition. Making something taboo, only makes it more exciting. Hey, to illustrate another way, any of you ever cheat on your partner? Was the sex really THAT good, or was it the thrill of it being a little bit naughty that made it so exciting?

All this debate about illegal drugs, and I'm amazed at the level of naivete employed here. WA has the highest per capita use of street speed/ice/meth, whatever you call it, it's all the same stuff, just varying strengths. Also, this state has the highest level of prescribed adult users of ADHD medication. Anyone think there might be a link there? You cannot just isolate one area of mismanagement in isolation.

Does anyone think that perhaps the clues lie in why people take drugs in the first place. Thereby enabling or helping people to deal with the issues that cause problems first.

Many here may disagree strongly with my next statement but it comes from years of both participation, observation, research and study, and I have yet to be proven wrong.

You often hear someone say, I was so drunk I didn't know what I was doing. Bull shit.

or He was on drugs, he's not responsible for his actions. Bull shit.

or He was such a gentle creature, not an angry bone in his body, those drugs made him someone else altogether. Bull shit.

I personally believe that drugs (at least the illegal street ones and socially acceptable alcohol and tobacco) do not create personality traits and or moral vacancies that were not already there in the first place. I believe that people use them as excuses.

That doesn't mean that drugs don't make it easier to compromise your values, but they do not all of a sudden create a sociopath, where once was a normal functioning, feeling
human being.

I guess therefore what I am trying to say, is social issues, broken families, abuse, disenfranchised youth, fear about the future, growing up too quickly, the oversexualisation of our youth, whether these issues be chronic or acute, there is always a trigger, something that could be dealt with another way. But it takes great honesty, great courage and genuine desire for a person to be able to confront such difficult things as these head on. (I'm not going to share every dark recess of my mind, but I speak from experience.)

Therefore we have drugs. Whether they be prescription meds (anti-depressants, SSRI's, tranquilizers, diet medications, dexamphetamines, ritalin, codeine, oxycontin etc etc etc etc) or street medications and yes they mostly had their start in main stream medication too. They are the lazy person's way out. They are the scared person's way out. They are the fragile person's way out.


Love
swingingstories
 
ADDENDUM:

One of the previously mentioned prescribed pain medications (oxycontin) I believe had a significant effect on a very close family member. Her ability to made sound judgements and reasoning, however it did not create a different personality.
 
Two very interesting previous posts, one by Svengali and the other by Swinging stories point to very different approaches to the problem. Both of these approaches and the limitations of each can be explained and understood through a very interesting branch of science called Behavioral Economics.

In a nutshell, it has been found that ALL animals, humans included, will pursue “non-essential” rewards such as better tasting food, drugs, sex etc. provided that the cost to them is not too high. With the exception of essentials such as food, water and air, we can forgo any of these if we wish to, and will definitely do so if the cost is too great. We are not talking about just financial cost, but simply the effort required getting the stuff, the possibility of a negative result either from the stuff itself or as a result of the effort required and so on. The findings all show that at a certain point the cost becomes too great and the animal (person) stops seeking it out.

And how does this affect the drug debate? Well, as Swingingstories argues, prohibition doesn’t work in most cases so we should legalise it. There is a pretty strong argument that this is the case, but the reality is that if prohibition is not actually enforced properly, it is doomed to failure from the start. Our drug laws and courts are so lax that there is very little chance that a casual user is going to get caught, and even if they do the penalty is so minor as to not act as any deterrent. However, if the penalty, i.e. the “cost” in Behavioural Economics, was great enough there would be almost no rational person willing to do it.

Of course, once you make something illegal only criminals are willing to supply it. They have a vested interest then in creating a demand and actively prey on young impressionable people to build a market. Unless prohibition is vigorously enforced at EVERY level, it does not work. Without belaboring the point, this is what the police were trying to do by having sniffer dogs at a concert. People who blamed the police for Gemma’s death have totally missed the point that enforcement happens (or should happen) at every level.

The other end of the scale of course is decriminalization, or at the extreme - legalisation and control. You only have to look at the immense damage a legal drug like alcohol does to know that this will not solve much either. When alcohol was prohibited in the 20s in the US, the criminal elements ensured that there was plenty around for those who needed it, and there was blood in the streets as a result of their efforts to control a very lucrative trade. Legalising it took the profits away from the crooks, but the damage to human lives still goes on.

(see for a discussion on prohibition)

So why have laws at all? Drugs are classified as therapeutic, dangerously addictive and/or illegal for a reason; to protect consumers from the known dangerous effects of the active ingredients. Some might argue that their drug of choice is harmless, but there would be plenty of studies to show that that is simply not true. If we are ever going to stop the senseless waste of young lives like Gemma’s, I strongly believe that we need to take the lessons of Behavioral Economics and make the cost to the user simply too high to want to dabble in it. If you supply, you go away for a long time. If you use, you also go away.

Even impressionable teenagers will understand the economics of having your life turn to shit if you get caught. And maybe we can save some lives.

For a bit more on behavioral economics, see (warning – it’s a bit dry...)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent post corneus, and I agree in principle to everything you say.

However, when we are dealing with someone (for example only) of Gemma Thoms, we are talking about a child (I don't care about the legal definition) a child who has not yet fully formed the frontal lobes of her brain. She actually did not have the ability to foresee the potential outcome or consequence of her actions. That ability has been proven to not be fully formed until the mid 20s, sometimes older depending on socialisation, intellect, stimulus etc.

I do not blame the police for Gemma's death, certainly there were a lot of factors, her youth and inexperience, coupled with the invincibility that young people feel.

However, the facts which are indisputable are that it is highly unlikely she would be dead today if the sniffer dogs had not been present, or had perhaps not even been so visible. Again, I do not blame the police for doing their job, I just think sometimes their job sucks.

As a parent I have open and frank discussions with my children about drugs, and have a 22 and 15 year old who have not indulged at all, yet. I would like to think I will have the same success with my little baby when her time comes. However, as a parent, I would prefer my child get a little fucked up if they need to, get medical attention, and live, than be so scared of discovery that they overdose. Hopefully my children will never be so scared of my potential reaction that they will do anything to avoid discovery.

And yes, this very case will be used as a discussion point at the right times with my children.


Love
swingingstories
 
Sorry to be so prolific guys, but I just had another thought.

I think my last post actually may hit the nail on the head, the solution to the drug problem lies at an individual level. Each parent must take the lead in caring for their child's mental and physical health to the best of their ability.

Will that stop the drug problem, of course not, but it might save one or two otherwise totally good kids, like Gemma.

Love
swingingstories
 
Yup. Parents definitely have a huge influence. What makes me sick is when parents take drugs openly in front of their children or even with them.

I also agree that drug laws are too lenient on the marijuana side of things and too strict on the pill side of things. I think you can grow 3 large marijuana plants before you're done for dealing but if you're caught with 3 pills that's dealing. Bit silly.
 
Thanks Swingingstories - your points are well made too!
I agree with you on most of them.
swingingstories said:

However, the facts which are indisputable are that it is highly unlikely she would be dead today if the sniffer dogs had not been present, or had perhaps not even been so visible.
Click to expand...

it is also highly unlikely that she would be dead if she had legalised, controlled access to pharmaceutical grade MDMA either - this is the "legalise everything" end of the scale. However, even if it were legal, would you want your child to use it? (Ecstasy and the Brain - What Does Ecstasy / MDMA Do to the Brain?)

It is also highly unlikely that she would be dead if we went to the other end of the scale and made the potential cost (legal and social) of scoring a few eccies, and the likelihood of being caught, so high that even a child would not consider it a good, fun thing to do.

And it is the very fact that kids are not capable of reasoned thought until they are in their twenties that means that education alone will not stop them doing stupid things like this. On the one hand they have parents and other authority figures telling them the facts about drug abuse, on the other they have their peer group saying it's all good fun and the adults don't know anything. The messages are different and they will mostly choose to follow their peer group, because the "cost" of doing so is so low.

However, if even the peer group knows that the likelihood of getting caught is extremely high, and the penalty for getting caught is also dramatically high there are no mixed messages and even a child can understand it.

But now if we throw in the financial and social cost to society of strictly enforcing a REAL zero tolerance approach, you will probably find that it is too high to be acceptable. So we unfortunately find ourselves back at square one, tinkering around the edges and every so often grieving the loss of another seemingly innocent life.
 
I guess what we have to accept, like it or not, that there is no ONE answer.

Fortunately, we have law enforcement, social workers, counsellors, parents, etc each taking a slightly different approach, and we have to hope that we can reduce the loss of life.

I think it was the loss of life that began this thread, the damage, real, imagined, scientifically "proven" or otherwise, can be debated and argued up hill and down dale. Factor in that many of the young people experimenting with substances are second generation drug users, meaning that many of the parents of these children also had their time of using illegal drugs.

Most of us go through phases in life and grow out of them.

For that matter, we all use different tools to manage, progress or retard our lives, emotional growth etc. How many on this forum acknowledge that they are using sex in one form or another as a tool for masking, revealing or otherwise managing issues in their lives? Does this come risk free? I feel another thread being opened.

Love
swingingstories
 
Your last post sums it up i believe Swingstories. Everybody has some vice that gets them thru each day, whatever that maybe.

As you and i have both said its a debate that can go so many different ways. The argument on illeagal drugs borders into leagal drugs that are used by many and abused by so many.

The black market for legal drugs is as much of a money spinner as illeagal drugs.A person say on oxycontinent can get a script over the counter on consession and pay around $5.Then go out and sell them up to $1400 a box,eg $70 a pill.Ritlan is another one that the younger kids sell at school ect.
So its a never ending cycle.Take all of leagal drugs and you can come up with as many deaths related to those as illeagal ones.Alcohol causes so many deaths,car accidents,the damage it does to the body over time.Though so many use it on a daily basis and its accepted as the norm to go and have a few beers which can turn into an all nite session at the pub.

What hasnt been said in this debate is the amount of teenage suicides that are getting more and more as each year goes by,but they dont have that broadcast in the media very often at all.As you said the reasons behind these kids taking drugs,overdosing,suicides is far more important to try to find the answer to.So being a parent in this day is very hard to know what your teenagers are geting involved in or who they are involved with.

These are the issues that need so much more research done by those in control of it than worrying about a drug being illeagal or leagal.I think i read somewhere we have one of the highest amount of suicides amongt our teenagers of today comparred to the rest of the world per capita.

So it goes on and on and where is there an answer to the problem?A young girl dies of an overdose at a party and makes a headline news.how many other kids died that day to some related way? Who knows as i said if the girl didnt die at the event it probably would not of even made the news.Finding an answer to the problem stems far beyond zero tolerance to drugs in my belief....
 
Drugs are only available in our society because they are big money earners. Let's face it money talks and is able to turn blind eyes and even cause murder without stopping the selling of drugs. It is sad this has happened in our society. I have never taken drugs but I am sure with the right amount of care and guidance some could be taken and the experience enjoyed. LSD use to be used as an approve drug many years ago. i am sadden by the loss of the lives of those who have died or their life ruined forever.
 
I don't see the point in taking illegal drugs (I have before in the past..) The risk isn't worth it. You never know if it's going to kill you or not. Plus it totally messes with your brain chemicals, depletes your serotonin and dopamine. Why bother!? When you can get high on life ;). An adrenaline rush like skateboarding or abseiling is a lot more fun for me. I'd much rather die doing that lol
 
Id agree with swingingstories, drugs have been handled as a criminal problem for nearly 40 years, there can be no argument that this has been a spectacular failure, there has been no imporvement to the drug problem whatsoever during this time, obviously the problem has only got worse over that time.

The solution is to handle it as a health problem administered as a health problem by those more qualified, all drug users should become registered uses and obtain their supplys through chemistis under prescription, this would totaly destroy the illegal opertations if all users are able to obtain their drug of choice in this method, removing the highly profitable illegal side will do a lot more to stoping new users.

They have had trials in the Netherlands and done this exact thing with heroin addicts and found after a short period of obtaining clean drugs through hospitals these addicts were able to clean themselves up hold down a job and be a useful member of society.

There may be many reasons why drugs are illegal most of them are due to one group or another being able to make more profits through there illegailty.
this includes legal drug and alcohol companys and conected citizens who make profit from illegal drugs.
 
I think some drugs that are class "illegal" shouldn't be. For example, marijuana. To live your life doing and not doing what other people tell you, is a sad way to live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top