# Primary school teachers



## cris (Apr 15, 2007)

Do you think it is acceptable for primary school teachers to experiment with hard illegal drugs?
As you may know im not to backward in expressing my opinion, tonight i met a primary school teacher who would not accept my opinion that it was stupid for her to be using MDMA(Ecstasy) everyone i was with basically said i was an idiot and it was her choice what she does etc.
I just think if i had kids and she was their teacher i would be in jail at this point. am i insane? or should teachers be using hard drugs without being questioned?


----------



## horsenz (Apr 15, 2007)

I think it is unacceptable for any professional to experiment with "hard drugs". Especially if they are partly responsible for the education of our future generation.
That's a really bazaar question, may I ask why you ask this ?:shock:


----------



## cris (Apr 15, 2007)

horsenz said:


> I think it is unacceptable for any professional to experiment with "hard drugs". Especially if they are partly responsible for the education of our future generation.
> That's a really bazaar question, may I ask why you ask this ?:shock:



Well i have just edited my post, but basically i was made out to be the wrong person for saying this person was an idiot for thinking i will just try it and see if i like it :shock:


----------



## horsenz (Apr 15, 2007)

No your not insane Cris... I certainly wouldn't want my children being educated by some brain fried space cadet. :|


----------



## Earthling (Apr 15, 2007)

Was the teacher in question actually teaching a class of students whilst under the influence of Ecstasy?


----------



## Poppy (Apr 15, 2007)

It doesn't matter if they were teaching the children or not .
Teachers are regarded as role models in the community, same as Police, Judges, Doctors, and other professionals. 
Like it or not they are given extra responsibility to have influence over other people young and old.
So if they can't live by the laws of the land then they need to have a long hard look at themselves and ask the question if the are really suited for the job.:shock: 
Teachers are generaly the first adults that children have any social interaction with other than there parents. they do influence the children, Everybody remembers their teachers.
Paul


----------



## Surfcop24 (Apr 15, 2007)

Sorry But I cant believe you are even putting this poll up......

Any normal hunman being would know the answer to this.... And yes I am also being straight forward...

No No NO NO NOO NOO NNOO NNOO NNOO!! NNOO!! It IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYONE TO BE EXPERIMENTING WITH SUCH DRUGS..... ESPECIALLY SCHOOL TEACHERS.. CONSIDERING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR KIDS WHILE IN THEIR CARE.....


----------



## dickyknee (Apr 15, 2007)

No offence intended but ......
Not really any of your business IMO 
What your saying is that because he/she is a "school teacher" they cannot take drugs , wolud it have bothered you if they were the local plumber ???
I am not saying drugs are ok , and i am sure if my kids teacher was an eccy head i might see this differently ...but its their choice , not yours


----------



## dickyknee (Apr 15, 2007)

Surfcop24 said:


> Sorry But I cant believe you are even putting this poll up......
> 
> Any normal hunman being would know the answer to this.... And yes I am also being straight forward...
> 
> No No NO NO NOO NOO NNOO NNOO NNOO!! NNOO!! It IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYONE TO BE EXPERIMENTING WITH SUCH DRUGS..... ESPECIALLY SCHOOL TEACHERS.. CONSIDERING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR KIDS WHILE IN THEIR CARE.....



I am sure the teacher is not taking drugs in the staff room .:shock:


----------



## Earthling (Apr 15, 2007)

Poppy said:


> It doesn't matter if they were teaching the children or not .
> Teachers are regarded as role models in the community, same as Police, Judges, Doctors, and other professionals.
> Like it or not they are given extra responsibility to have influence over other people young and old.
> So if they can't live by the laws of the land then they need to have a long hard look at themselves and ask the question if the are really suited for the job.:shock:
> ...


 
By law teachers can not influence students in their own beliefs and morals. They can only teach what they are told to teach.

Refering to your role model question, If a year 3 teacher uses illegal drugs of any sort they would not plaster notices about this throughout the school or tell a single student. Therefore the students would not know if they use illegal drugs or not. Therfore their 'rolemodel' outlook would be 'clean'. 

Proffesional people are usually more educated then the average citizen (uni and the like), they are hopefully taught (Not everybody has good lecturers) to question what the general public are fed and to inform themselves about truth rather then listen to channel 9 news for the structure of their beliefs.
In doing this they/you will do things in public and their private lives that are not generally considered 'normal' by Joe citizen. 
Is this bad? Yes in regard to judgement from your 'peers'...however.... No for the person informing themselves and making an informed judgement themselves rather then listening to channel 9 news for their belief system.

Heres a link on Ecstasy (AKA: MDMA) which may inform you on its true effects...not channel 9 effects.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_effects.shtml

All drugs legal and illegal can have damaging effects on the human body and brain....correct doseage and uses however can have beneficial effects on the human body and brain. 

Is this teacher a brain fried space cadet for using MDMA...research evidence says No.

Firehose ready.


----------



## chrisso81 (Apr 15, 2007)

Well said Earthling! I would only see it as a problem if the drug taking interfered with their work performance, but if they're doing a good job who gives a crap what they do in their spare time.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 15, 2007)

If you all want to get a bug up your butt about something really negative and impacting on our community read this link below and do something about this rather then the ooooooo wow....aint they bad......me good! factor of illegal drugs.........

99% of drug related deaths are Cigarette and Alcohol related.

http://www.adca.org.au/publications/Drug Policy 2000/62_alcohol.htmhttp://www.drinkwise.com.au/Common/files/The_social_costs_of_alcohol.pdf


----------



## liasis (Apr 15, 2007)

hell no thats bull crap tell the cops


----------



## Nik (Apr 15, 2007)

I am trained as a primary school teacher (although right now I'm home raising my boy) and I don't think it is at all acceptable to be experimenting with hard drugs. I say this because teaching a class of children can be difficult and frustrating. You need to be calm and alert to answer question and deal with behaviours that at times are hard to deal with.

If partying on the weekend, you could be much less tolerant, and alert come monday morning and this is going to have a negitive effect on your work.

Teachers need to be aware that the things you say and do on a daily basis have the ability to say with children for life. I remember harsh comments made by primary school teachers, our job is to teach, support and foster positive attitudes. The only way to do that is to be supportive and positive whenever possible. Felling terrible after the weekend does not fit in with many of a teachers roles.


----------



## MoreliaMatt (Apr 15, 2007)

ifr it were my kids teacher, id be not impressed 1 little bit!


----------



## slim6y (Apr 15, 2007)

Wow Earthling, you neally brought a tear to my eye with that speech. I would say well said - but as I am a teacher, and I don't do hard drugs, then I must also say no matter what channel 9 or some random internet site says - it's individual effects vary so considerably, manufacture often varies also causing variable effects, allergies etc etc... No, it is not safe - and this is not dose dependant.

Have you ever heard of 'P'?

Methamphetamine... Suprisingly enough the media was kept out of the loop of 'P' for such a long time, and still many of the general public are unaware of it. Yet it is the most dangerous drug on earth.

Unfortunately, your close neighbours have a serious 'P' problem - people are being murdered, hands being cut off... many many pyschotic side effects occur because of 'P'.

I talked to a criminal psychologist (of Oxford variety if that has anything to do with it) who was an old boy at a school I taught at. He is one of the most sort after criminal psychologist in the world. I asked him straight out - what is the difference between a pyschotic person on a killing spree and someone on 'P'. His answer was plain and simple - there is no difference, these people experience the same symptoms as any psychotic person, and most will find it uncontrollable.

Ok - so that isn't 'E'... But Cris had asked is it ok to experiment with hard drugs - and 'P' is a hard drug.

No is the answer - not for a teacher, not for a plumber not for anyone...

However - individuals, in a safe environment can choose what they do and who they do it with. And I would not preach any different. 

But on saying this - alcohol is probably more damaging in the long term than E and we find it socially acceptable... go figure???

I know this doesn't answer your question... I don't know enough about E to determine if it is unsafe. I know of two cases of deaths attributed to E, but not many people, that I am aware of, have pyschotic episodes from E. But I believe strongly that people who choose E may choose harder drugs for the future if that's all they can get their hands on. And then in the pursuit of finding that original high they become addicted and fall into that pit... 

Good luck on your crusade of removing drugs from our schools... Because I would say that it is nearly impossible...

ps - Last year, I taught physics to a very nice bunch of year 12 students - one obviously had a marijuana problem and throughout the year his grades dropped, his motivation dropped, and his attention span became non-existent... From an A student of the class - to a possible A class drug taker... It is very sad to see.


----------



## mrmikk (Apr 15, 2007)

I agree with you 100% Cris, it shouldn't be on.

This person is in a position of trust, regardless of whether they take them in the staff room or not (Not sure what difference that makes anyway), that person's personality, judgement, decision making ability, ethics, morales, etc... are all going to be negatively influenced by her choice to indulge illicit drugs. 

As for the 'legal' drugs being as bad, or worse, that is not what this thread is discussing, so has no relevance here, and is always thrown into the mix to cloud things up. We are talking about a primary school teacher taking an illicit substance.

If I had a child in her class, I would be taking them out of the class and the school, making a formal compliant to the dept of education and perhaps more....


----------



## dickyknee (Apr 15, 2007)

Jye and Peady said:


> I am trained as a primary school teacher (although right now I'm home raising my boy) and I don't think it is at all acceptable to be experimenting with hard drugs. I say this because teaching a class of children can be difficult and frustrating. You need to be calm and alert to answer question and deal with behaviours that at times are hard to deal with.
> 
> If partying on the weekend, you could be much less tolerant, and alert come monday morning and this is going to have a negitive effect on your work.
> 
> Teachers need to be aware that the things you say and do on a daily basis have the ability to say with children for life. I remember harsh comments made by primary school teachers, our job is to teach, support and foster positive attitudes. The only way to do that is to be supportive and positive whenever possible. Felling terrible after the weekend does not fit in with many of a teachers roles.



So maybe we should stop them drinking alcohol as they may turn up monday morning with a hangover ......and that would have a negative affect .
Once again not saying its ok to take any drugs , but i cant see its any ones business what he/she does .
As long as she is not hurting the kids in any way .


----------



## chrisso81 (Apr 15, 2007)

liasis said:


> hell no thats bull crap tell the cops


 
You'd hope that the cops would have better things to do than follow up reports of alleged recreational drug use.


----------



## IsK67 (Apr 15, 2007)

Earthling said:


> Heres a link on Ecstasy (AKA: MDMA) which may inform you on its true effects...not channel 9 effects.
> http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_effects.shtml



Wow 30 - 12 negative results over positive. I included the so called "NEUTRAL" results as how can they honestly be considered as Neutral??

Makes me just want to rush out and try it.

After all this is based on what? An average of the contents of all the versions on the "market"?? Or just the "pure" ones? Are there any pure ones? Do they provide a certificate of authenticity or quality assurance?



Earthling said:


> All drugs legal and illegal can have damaging effects on the human body and brain....correct doseage and uses however can have beneficial effects on the human body and brain.



This is true. But then those that are legal are legal for a reason. Those that aren't.........

IsK


----------



## Serpant_Lady (Apr 15, 2007)

Teachers are expected to follow a different set of guidelines to others in the community. Its about how the present themselves not just within working hours but outside those times too. Also people talk so reguardless of how much the school tries to hush it up, it can still affect the classroom. As an example of those duble standards - I have only just finished school and at the end of last year some people in our grade were keen to invite a couple of teaches out to a party we were having at the end of our exams. The teachers could not come because even though those involoved were all 18 and finished exams we were technically still their students and it would be inappropriate. Seems silly but thats the way it is. Teachers have double standards. Its like a cop who is doing X in his time off and then arresting people for doing it when he/she is on duty. These people are supposed to be pillars of society


----------



## dickyknee (Apr 15, 2007)

Serpant lady ...."Teachers are expected to follow a different set of guidelines to others in the community. Its about how the present themselves not just within working hours but outside those times too....."
Says who ?????
Teachers are just normal people ...


----------



## Inkslinger (Apr 15, 2007)

If I was aware of this I would be requiring be it Primary or secondary school a drug screen done, 
They have a duty of care and even if they the drug user thinks it has no effect they do therefore it impairs your judgement.

Anyone in care of children of any age should be drug free
Report her


----------



## slim6y (Apr 15, 2007)

dickyknee said:


> Serpant lady ...."Teachers are expected to follow a different set of guidelines to others in the community. Its about how the present themselves not just within working hours but outside those times too....."
> Says who ?????
> Teachers are just normal people ...



Are you calling me normal dickyknee?


----------



## FAY (Apr 15, 2007)

I wouldn't give a rats.......esp if it is not affecting my life in any way, shape of form!!


----------



## dickyknee (Apr 15, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Are you calling me normal dickyknee?


Maybe ....maybe not


----------



## Forensick (Apr 15, 2007)

most recreational drugs are no more damaging than legal ones...

i see no one outraged over a teacher smoking, or parents for that matter.... and your children are much more likely to, for starters SEE the teacher smoking, and more likley to smoke themselves.

if the teacher takes recreational drugs, and it doesn't affect their work preformances, so what, if they aren't a heavy user i can hardly imagine your 8 year old will run into the teacher at a rave.
nor do i imagine that the teacher spends all monday morning telling the kids.

so HOW are they setting a bad example if the kids don't ever know?
so seriously, unless you as a parent don't drink, smoke, have sex, speed in your car, swear etc etc, things your child is more liley to learn from you and do, than from a teacher (who i made add is a person after 3.30pm not a teacher) doing something they can't see, mind your own damn buisness.

if you have an issue with the teachers preformance, and you think drugs are a factor, then fine, but if you can't see it effecting her preformance, then move ON.


-for the record, i am a non drug taking, non smoking, rare drinker, in an industry where most people take lines of speed at work (i am a chef...), and as long as it doesn't affect me, my job, or theirs, its non of my buisness what they waste their money on.


----------



## Vat69 (Apr 15, 2007)

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. And no I do not take it.
I'm inclined to agree with the negative side-what teachers do in their own time, away from their pupils is their own buisness * as long as it doesn't interfere with their working ability and they aren't in any way encouraging others to also use.*

As has already been stated-what about smoking teachers? If something should be targeted as providing a bad example smoking's gotta be at the forefront. Waaaay past the occasional use of ecstasy.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 15, 2007)

GARTHNFAY said:


> I wouldn't give a rats.......esp if it is not affecting my life in any way, shape of form!!



Not that I care, but isn't that an ostrich head in the sand outlook.... 

"Forensick - most recreational drugs are no more damaging than legal ones..."

Well, without swearing, show me some evidence that most recreational drugs are no more (or less) damaging than legal ones... Recall dosage - Most legal ones are taken in much higher dosage (such as tobacco) because of their availability. 

I do not really think continual use of drugs (of any sort legal or illegal) would be beneficial for teaching, but most of all, any drug that alters your state of mind in one form or another is causing damage - and may lower the ability for a person to think rationally - this may include loss of temper or something as simple as short term memory loss - although many of those things can also be attributed to todays social climate, pollution and other environmental factors as well so it is hard to pin-point to drugs alone. 

I would without hinderance say that most recreational drugs would affect the person taking it in an adverse way in some shape or form - whether or not it affects their ability to work effectively I don't know!

I am sure there are studies done on this... But there is most certainly no reason to have your head in the sand...


----------



## angua21 (Apr 15, 2007)

all illicit drugs affect peoples ability to function properly, and before you attack me, i have ssen it first hand. they completely change the way people behave, even something that supposedly wears off after a while has side effects for days, if not a week or more after being taken.

Anyone that works with or around children should bloody well know better!

were it the teacher of one of my children, i would be on the phone to the dept of education in a second!


----------



## Kurto (Apr 15, 2007)

I wasn't aware that ecstasy was a hard drug either. It always amazes me that amount of people that comment on and condemn, something that they never intend to try themselves. 

Most people I've met that take ecstasy usually grow out of it anyway. If he/she wants to take it on the weekend, away from their professional life, so be it. I've met quite a lot of school teachers, primary and secondary that smoke marijuana on a more than regular basis.


----------



## grimbeny (Apr 15, 2007)

"using recreational drugs isnt a criminal offence, just litghten up"

yes it is....

I think teachers should be treated like everyone else in this matter, if they take it and get caught it shouldnt matter if their a teacher or whatever, it is still illegal and they will be treated acordingly. Sure if they are using it within school houres then it is a slightly different matter. I dont think ecstacy is a hard drug either.


----------



## Forensick (Apr 15, 2007)

in regard to my no more damaging....

well, drug related deaths are, as someone said, 99% tobacco/alcohol related.
and so what if you are talking dosage.
we are talking recreational usage.
and even then you simply don't take as much E as you would beer, so saying that beer isn't as bad because its of a higer dosage is ridiculus.

does that mean we can't compare the dangers of paracetamol to codiene ecause they are taken in different dosages?

and as for people saying the adverse affects last for "weeks" afterwards...
given the amount of people that take recreational drugs you think you'd notice it more wouldn't you.....

you know your doctors tend to take drugs too?
and your nurses
we all know politicans do
i don't see half the afl getting fired for their drug usages, even though they are "great" role models.
50% of chefs that cook your meals tend to actually be on something AT work, but you never seem to notice either.

oh and by the way,
the kids "band" hi-5, get high in the green room before shows....
gonna boycott them too


----------



## dellywatts (Apr 15, 2007)

As someone who is studying to be a primary school teacher and someone who is going to be having a child soon i would say that it is not acceptable to take drugs. Although that said we do teach children not to smoke and many teachers smoke also. That said smoking is not illegal.
I would not feel comfortable with a teacher teaching my child knowing that they were a drug user. Many teachers probably are though and we would never find out.


----------



## tooben (Apr 15, 2007)

i dont think anyone should take hard drugs thats my opinion anyway. iv seen people that i went to school with that were fine students and had the world at there feet but now when i see them god they look shocking.


----------



## Forensick (Apr 15, 2007)

dellywatts said:


> That said smoking is not illegal.




for the people you claim are being influenced by the techers unseen after hours activities, those drugs are no less illegal then the cigarettes


----------



## slim6y (Apr 15, 2007)

Forensick said:


> in regard to my no more damaging....
> 
> well, drug related deaths are, as someone said, 99% tobacco/alcohol related.
> and so what if you are talking dosage.
> ...



So did/do some of the Aussie rugby team... 

Doesn't make it right tho does it?

Dosage is dependant on drug... Not amount of... Slight difference there, but that's ok.

And yes you do notice a difference - refer to my previous post about a year 12 student from A in the class to A class drug user....

I'm sorry if drug use is so widespread throughout our community that it's accepted... no it's not any different than turning up to work hungover, but it doesn't make it RIGHT!


----------



## dellywatts (Apr 15, 2007)

Forensick said:


> for the people you claim are being influenced by the techers unseen after hours activities, those drugs are no less illegal then the cigarettes



I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to tell us that 'those drugs' e.g. ecstasy, cocaine, etc. are legal? Because the laws are clear. tobacco - legal, alcohol - legal, others NOT LEGAL! Just because they are everywhere doesn't make them legal.


----------



## Vat69 (Apr 15, 2007)

I'm not sure why the 'legal/illegal' argument is relevent. Just because something is legal that doesn't make it safe. So someone's addicted to perscription pain killers. It's actually not a bad thing because the drug is legal?
The issue is the _effect of the drug_. We all know what smoking does to you and what alcohol can do. One could argue that occassional ecstasy use is actually much less harmful than an addiction to cigarettes.


----------



## Nik (Apr 15, 2007)

dickyknee said:


> So maybe we should stop them drinking alcohol as they may turn up monday morning with a hangover ......and that would have a negative affect .
> Once again not saying its ok to take any drugs , but i cant see its any ones business what he/she does .
> As long as she is not hurting the kids in any way .


 
Yeah, I do think it would be wrong to teach a primary school class with a hangover

For me, It's all about how you treat the kids and i'd be surprised if anyone with a hangover or who is feeling terrible from a big weekend would be able to remain in a positive calm mood when dealing with a classroom of 30 kids. 

If they can then that's fine and I have no issue.

However, if they can't then they should be more responsible or choose a job that doesn't involve kids


----------



## Hoppa1874 (Apr 15, 2007)

*too true*



Vat69 said:


> . One could argue that occassional ecstasy use is actually much less harmful than an addiction to cigarettes.


that is absolutely true..cigarettes are much much more harmful..


----------



## Hoppa1874 (Apr 15, 2007)

and 1 more thing is that if u do take ecstasy on weekdns it is prob goin to be the sat nite so that u have time to recover on sunday.. and i have found that u dont have anything like a hangover.. so she wood be fine and not teaching from a brainfried state or woteva.. u wake up in the morning feeling fine.. and cos of the lack of alcohol u drink whilst on these kinds of drugs.. she wood feel better than anyone not doin them, and just drinking or woteva..
flame suit on!!!


----------



## Forensick (Apr 15, 2007)

my point is, in terms of influence, it makes no difference to legality.
it is illegal for a student age child to smoke a cigarette, just like "illicit" drugs



dellywatts said:


> I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to tell us that 'those drugs' e.g. ecstasy, cocaine, etc. are legal? Because the laws are clear. tobacco - legal, alcohol - legal, others NOT LEGAL! Just because they are everywhere doesn't make them legal.


----------



## cris (Apr 15, 2007)

The reason i consider it a hard drug is because i know alot of ppl who have permanent brain damage from using it, it retards your brains ability to produce ceratonin(spelling?) and has a dramatic effect on your memory. Most of these ppl started out with the same attitude this teacher had, saying they would only use it occasionally etc. but that often changes when ppl realise how fun it is too use. 

Recreational drug use has been decriminalised in Qld for some time now, its only a criminal offence when you get caught a second time or with a certain quantity of drugs.

The reason i started this thread was not out of concern for the teachers health, it was more concern about the increasingly common attitude that its OK to try such drugs thinking you wont end up having a problem with them. If they were a plumber i wouldnt care, but teachers attitudes do have a strong influence on kids and i just thing its wrong that ppl with an attitude that its OK(or even good) to use drugs if you think you can control your habit are in such a position of influence.


----------



## gillsy (Apr 15, 2007)

I've just skimmed to the end of this however,

1st MDMA is rarely pure, so chances up its about 10% anyway, 

2nd its not a hard drug

3rd its school holidays 

4th how the hell are the kids going to know what their teacher does on the weekend. 

I've seen cops do it on the weekends, who cares as long as it does not interrupt their working day.


----------



## Forensick (Apr 15, 2007)

i am not saying i approve, in point of fact, i don't.

however, in terms of influence, i feel cigarettes are worse
and in terms of effect on job, long and short term, alcohol is worse, and easier to prove too.

unless this teacher is using often enough (and i mean more than every weekend) i doubt it would effect her job (depending on drug of course)

and while many people start out "recreational" and get "addicted", many more have that problem with alcohol.
i wouldn't want my children being taught by an alcoholic (legal or not) just like i wouldn't want them to be taught by a drug addict.

but what they do in their private life, E, GBH, marajuana, vodka, is none of anyones buisness as long as it stays out of their proffessional life.

and before it is said, YES i agree, sometimes, for some people, it may still effect them slightly come monday, but so does alcohol, and that is more common, and just as bad.


----------



## Magpie (Apr 15, 2007)

Vat69 said:


> I'm not sure why the 'legal/illegal' argument is relevent. Just because something is legal that doesn't make it safe. So someone's addicted to perscription pain killers. It's actually not a bad thing because the drug is legal?
> The issue is the _effect of the drug_. We all know what smoking does to you and what alcohol can do. One could argue that occassional ecstasy use is actually much less harmful than an addiction to cigarettes.


 

I disagree sorry.
It's the fact that someone who teaches kids goes out and deliberately breaks the law and does not see that as wrong that I have a problem with.
This person clearly makes no secret of the fact, otherwise how would Cris know?
You cannot say that just because you disagree with the law, breaking it is not important, the law is the law. There are quite a few laws I don't agree with, I don't go breaking them though, I respect our countries legal system.
That sort of attitude is imparted in the classroom, whether you mean to or not.
As to occasional use of e being better than addiction to cigarettes? Compare apples to apples please, how would taking e 20 times a day effect you do you reckon?


----------



## Forensick (Apr 15, 2007)

gillsy said:


> I've just skimmed to the end of this however,
> 
> 1st MDMA is rarely pure, so chances up its about 10% anyway,
> 
> 2nd its not a hard drug



i agree, i wouldn't consider it hard either.
but the thread was started on the assumption that "hard drugs" are illicit drugs.

no point arguing semantics, when there is plenty else to argue about 

besides, everyone will have a definition of hard drugs anyway.... although in my experience most are kinda soft and powdery or leafy


----------



## Forensick (Apr 15, 2007)

Magpie said:


> I disagree sorry.
> It's the fact that someone who teaches kids goes out and deliberately breaks the law and does not see that as wrong that I have a problem with.
> This person clearly makes no secret of the fact, otherwise how would Cris know?
> You cannot say that just because you disagree with the law, breaking it is not important, the law is the law. There are quite a few laws I don't agree with, I don't go breaking them though, I respect our countries legal system.
> ...



firstly, you ever openly jaywalked? gone 3km's over the speed limit? briefly double parked to pick someone up? put your feet on a bus seat? drunk a beer outside your house? talked on your mobile driving?
i don't mean to be pedantic, but the law is the law as you say, i hope you don't look after any children.


and 20 E's a day... well... aside from the fact it wouldn't be recreational (and hence irrelevant to this discussion) it probably would effect her job as she'd be taking it at work.
again that would be irrelevant to this thread too, because to my recollection no one said it would be okay for her to be popping pills in the middle of math class


----------



## Hetty (Apr 15, 2007)

I looked at this thread because of the amount of replies.. and now I can see why. :lol:

What sort of a question is that?!


----------



## cement (Apr 15, 2007)

Responsability for ourselves rest with ourselves, yes it is their choice, if they want to poison themselves so be it. But don't kid yourself to justify taking anything. The hardest thing to do is to be honest with ourself, true introspection begets wisdom.


Besides, most teachers i know are all a bit screwy anyway.


----------



## junglemad (Apr 15, 2007)

*memory*

i went to school in the 60's and 70's so who knows what the teachers were on then. I can't remember any particular lessons, i just remember if they were good women and blokes.
Perhaps some psychadelic lesson planning could result in kids actually remembering a lesson 30 yrs from now.

I am a teacher and have taught from Kindergarten to yr 12. You are not supposed to influence children by word or known lifestyle. You can be a crack ho or a mad leftie, you may gamble thousands then bash your spouse or maybe support the Broncos or even be a switchhitter. You cannot tell children it is a good thing to do these things or openly display your lifestyle when you are a teacher. There are higher standards applied when you are a teacher. Simple as that.

If you want to teach my three kids you had better be on your game. If you are on the meth and the E's and all your new-fangled psuedo-soft chemical drugs then I don't need you teaching my kids and i definitely don't want to be your colleague.

the mad one


----------



## leighroyaus (Apr 15, 2007)

hate to tell you dude but Ecstasy is not a "hard drug"
can tell you now alot more deaths injuries and other related **** happens from people drinking
so is alcohol a "hard drug"


----------



## Earthling (Apr 15, 2007)

slim6y said:


> I'm sorry if drug use is so widespread throughout our community that it's accepted... no it's not any different than turning up to work hungover, but it doesn't make it RIGHT!


 
Interesting sentence Slim.
I think you and others can accept that members of our society want to and will take drugs. So what do we do with this knowledge that its going to definetly happen? We could do as we have been doing for the last...well since laws against drugs first arrived, but that hasnt solved the problem has it? Unhealthy drug use is still occuring.... 

Perhaps we should openly start killing all known drug users to scourge the planet of this scum! Mmmmm...sounding a bit like Hitler their.

Well we know people are going to take drugs....we cant stop them..hell weve tried for years and it hasnt worked...we even legalise some drugs and the problems are still their.....
If we know people are going to use drugs what would happen if we accepted that and put in proactive measures to assist people in making the best possible choices about their drug use. In a word Educate. Educate people about drug use and their body and signs to look for of damaging effects and also support to come clean if and when they decide to. 

We can live in a me good them baaaaad mentality or we can choose to accept that something is going to happen and deal with it.

Does that answer your last statement a little cris. Hope so.
Education.


----------



## cris (Apr 15, 2007)

leighr33 said:


> hate to tell you dude but Ecstasy is not a "hard drug"
> can tell you now alot more deaths injuries and other related **** happens from people drinking
> so is alcohol a "hard drug"



Well i actually think it is, but no where near as bad as ekies. Im sure my old mates who have permanent brain damage from taking them would be glad to hear there is nothing wrong with them because you think it isnt a "hard drug". I may be slightly biased because i have seen it completely destroy many of my friends but IMO it is one of the most damaging drugs available.


----------



## Forensick (Apr 15, 2007)

cris said:


> Well i actually think it is, but no where near as bad as ekies. Im sure my old mates who have permanent brain damage from taking them would be glad to hear there is nothing wrong with them because you think it isnt a "hard drug". I may be slightly biased because i have seen it completely destroy many of my friends but IMO it is one of the most damaging drugs available.




ahhhh...

Ectacy, X, E, and eccies are the same thing.

but like i said to someone else, the definition of hard drug doesn't matter, we all know what you were talking about in your first post.

i have friends and relatives with permanant mental issues because of drugs and alcohol.
mostly alcohol, but enough marajuana and speed as well...
and while its all sad, with the exception of the EXTREME rarities, none of these people were recreational at all....
certainly more than the weekend use you started the thread with.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 15, 2007)

Earthling... Education - yes.. Education... good call... and truthful... why lock these drug users up in jail.. they haven't done anythnig wrong, essentially, they just used the end product... it's the manufacturers we need to get... they need educating... About the damage they're doing to some of these young people.

Education - yes, and where better to start than a teacher smacked out on E... Good call 

But - education is our only weapon... It's true... But unfortunately - some people just aren't ready to hear the truth or make these choices and they become beneficiaries of a society that allows the weak and needy to survive... 

I see people in the parks sniffing glue... petrol.. solvents... sniffing spray cans... are they going to be educated - I am sure if the 12 year old was AT school they might have education.. but their social network is so broken down that they can't even get to school... 

it's a dreamworld... I live in it... I miss seeing most of the bad and injustice in this world... But I can't see how a teacher on E can help educating our impressionable about the dangers of drugs, alcohol and sniffing solvents... 

 wow... Did I say that without the use of speed?


----------



## wichita (Apr 15, 2007)

No offence to any teachers ( I myself lecture at several universities on a casual - read performance -basis) but teaching is one of the last "jobs for life" and, therefore, a refuge for many incompetent dregs who somehow manage to pass what amounts to a 3 year tech course. (This doesn't include the many excellent teachers out there). As soon as teachers have to apply for work like the rest of us and are performance assessed the better our schools will be.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 15, 2007)

wichita said:


> No offence to any teachers ( I lecture at several universities on a casual - read performance -basis) but teaching is one of the last "jobs for life" and, therefore, a refuge for many incompetent dregs who somehow manage to pass what amounts to a 3 year tech course. (This doesn't include the many excellent teachers out there). As soon as teachers have to apply for work like the rest of us and are performance assessed the better our schools will be.



That's a jolly interesting outlook on life...

I am not going to justify why I teach - or even what I had to do to get there - and maybe I am one of those 'excellent' teachers out there - It sure as hell does not excuse the requirement to take drugs and boast about it... The worst part is - it is in primary school where the kids learn their environmental behaviours for the future in secondary, when I get to teach them


----------



## wichita (Apr 15, 2007)

slim6y said:


> That's a jolly interesting outlook on life...


 
Don't think I mentioned "life" - just obvious annoyance about lousy teachers. I have two kids in public high schools. Some of the teachers are excellent - some are woeful. Trouble is, the woeful don't go away. 

I agree with you. The absurdity of someone in charge of young minds asking the question "What drug will I take this weekend?" beggars belief.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 15, 2007)

I think that rather than repeating... my post at 9:20pm says exactly how I feel on this matter.


----------



## Vat69 (Apr 15, 2007)

Magpie said:


> I disagree sorry.
> It's the fact that someone who teaches kids goes out and deliberately breaks the law and does not see that as wrong that I have a problem with.
> This person clearly makes no secret of the fact, otherwise how would Cris know?
> You cannot say that just because you disagree with the law, breaking it is not important, the law is the law. There are quite a few laws I don't agree with, I don't go breaking them though, I respect our countries legal system.
> ...



I agree with what you're getting at for the most part and I'm certainly not at all saying I think what this teacher is doing is a good thing, nor am I suggesting that E being illegal is bad thing. But we're talking about (well me anyway) is what is a bad role model for school kids. I compared E to the example of cigarettes because not only have teachers been seen partaking in smoking by students, I believe that the recreational use of the former behind closed doors (or atleast used in a way that in no way directly affects the children) is _not as bad_ as _being seen_ using the latter (because you don't usually take 20 E's a day, but smoking usually leads to a many times a day habit which leads to definate problems and stinkiness). If they are a 'responsible user' (they exist right?) there is *less chance* of them developing any mental problems from their use of E as opposed to the definate problems smoking causes. Let me be clear when I say of course any drug use at all can lead to major problems.
In closing I don't think the teacher should be taking drugs but they are and in considering the drug in question and the fact that it is only being used recreationally and in a way which has not affected their students (I assume) I don't think it's something to get overly uppy about when kids see their role models smoking. Personally I believe that smoking cigarettes should be made illegal.

As for the law breaking bit of course no-one should do that I totally agree. But I think the post directly below your last one answers that well. Also they're a fool for talking openly about it. Clearly it weakens the whole 'behind closed doors' argument


----------



## Earthling (Apr 16, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Earthling... Education - yes.. Education... good call... and truthful... why lock these drug users up in jail.. they haven't done anythnig wrong, essentially, they just used the end product... it's the manufacturers we need to get... they need educating... About the damage they're doing to some of these young people.
> 
> Education - yes, and where better to start than a teacher smacked out on E... Good call
> 
> ...


 
Education is the answer when you accept that drug use is going to happen. Good that you agree.
Accepting drug use and healthy drug use education does not automatically mean it will stop drug use.....didnt we just accept that drug use is going to happen? 
As happens today, people as you suggest selfabuse with their drug use and this will continue. We can educate and offer support to all individuals however its up to them if they accept it or not. 
As to educating the growers and dealers ...they are just doing simple economic truth taught at school. Supply and Demand. As long as people demand.....people will supply.


----------



## Magpie (Apr 16, 2007)

Earthling said:


> Interesting sentence Slim.
> I think you and others can accept that members of our society want to and will take drugs. So what do we do with this knowledge that its going to definetly happen? We could do as we have been doing for the last...well since laws against drugs first arrived, but that hasnt solved the problem has it? Unhealthy drug use is still occuring....
> 
> Perhaps we should openly start killing all known drug users to scourge the planet of this scum! Mmmmm...sounding a bit like Hitler their.
> ...


 

I think we can accept that spousal abuse has always happened and will always happen, no matter what the legal deterents. Let's make it legal and educate young men on the best ways not to beat their wives.

Have I ever sped? Yes I have, as a teen i used to speed quite regularly. Now I only ever speed as an accident, i certainly don't go and spend large amounts of money to be able to do so then brag about it on a suaturday night. Double park? No. Jaywalk? No, I use a crossing if it's available. 

My point with cigarettes to e's is that you cannot compare a once a week drug with a 20 times a day drug in terms of effects. Smoking once a week is not going to have any reall effect on your health, taking e's once a week is more likely to do so. Smoking 20 a day is going to be harmful, 20 e's a day will be deadly. Apples to apples.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 16, 2007)

Earthling said:


> Education is the answer when you accept that drug use is going to happen. Good that you agree.
> Accepting drug use and healthy drug use education does not automatically mean it will stop drug use.....didnt we just accept that drug use is going to happen?
> As happens today, people as you suggest selfabuse with their drug use and this will continue. We can educate and offer support to all individuals however its up to them if they accept it or not.
> As to educating the growers and dealers ...they are just doing simple economic truth taught at school. Supply and Demand. As long as people demand.....people will supply.



These growers and dealers - mostly suppliers do not always take the drugs... This is why the likes of indonesia take such a hardline on trafficing - these are the people that cause the hardship, the torture, the death of society... Not the people who take them, they're not the crims... They're the misguided.

Go on, educate them... it's not JUST education, it's their social background, their family, their environment... Unless you change all that, you can't educate... 

I recall my parents took a very hard anti drug line, I managed to keep most of that myself 

But I was lucky, i had a good family up-bringing and I was reasonably well educated. So drugs will never be my issue (well, not illegal ones anyhow).. i'm such a goody goody two shoes...

It all starts at home, then at schools and so on....


----------



## junglist* (Apr 16, 2007)

liasis said:


> hell no thats bull crap tell the cops



Prove it, on just a heresay story like this???

There is so much nonsense spread about such a beautifully simple and powerful molecule like MDMA.

If the taking of the drug does not interfere with the teaching (and the generally accepted research shows that there is more likely to be a connection after having experienced the substance) then what is the problem??

As for the person who stated that the use of drugs by professionals of any types should be outlawed, i suggest you take a read of a book called cats cradle. See how your opinions differ after reading that book. So many of our CEO, high level professionals, judges, lawyers cops etc have all used these so called hard drugs and succeeded in life.

There is no correlation at all between the use of a perceptual alterant and failure in life.

We need to move away from such drugs are bad nonsense, because these are the types of discussions which it promotes - WHOLLY uninformed nonsensical gibberish.

Im a chemist, working with these substances LEGALLY, and it is not the molecules which cause the most damage, but the laws whichh pertain to them. We need to change the laws and deal with ADDICTIONS full stop, not deal with the cheap political points which can be scored by being moronically TOUGH ON DRUGS. Ive never heard such nonsense when tobacco and alcohol do so much damage, and yet the 1-2% of the illicit drug harm stories take up so much of the police and judiciary's time to deal with.

Make everything legal and make sure that education about responsible use is out there.

Rant over,


----------



## cris (Apr 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> If the taking of the drug does not interfere with the teaching (and the generally accepted research shows that there is more likely to be a connection after having experienced the substance) then what is the problem??



It is not the effect of the drugs that i think is wrong its that they think it is ok to use drugs if you think you can control your habit. Very few ppl start out with an attitude that is differant and it simply changes after they find out how much fun the drugs are, some ppl can stay in control but others cant and it isnt anything to do with will power or intelligence. The bit i thought most disturbing is they said they wanted to see if they like it, it would be impossible not to like it(unless you overdose).

Basically if they are telling me there is nothing wrong with trying drugs, how could they try and push a positive message to the kids they teach?

I agree that most drugs should be legal, but others should be very illegal to the point where there is actually a deterent. Debating the legality wasnt the reason for starting this thread, more just a general whinge about societies acceptance of using potentially very harmful illegal drugs.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 16, 2007)

cris said:


> It is not the effect of the drugs that i think is wrong its that they think it is ok to use drugs if you think you can control your habit. Very few ppl start out with an attitude that is differant and it simply changes after they find out how much fun the drugs are, some ppl can stay in control but others cant and it isnt anything to do with will power or intelligence. The bit i thought most disturbing is they said they wanted to see if they like it, it would be impossible not to like it(unless you overdose).
> 
> Basically if they are telling me there is nothing wrong with trying drugs, how could they try and push a positive message to the kids they teach?
> 
> I agree that most drugs should be legal, but others should be very illegal to the point where there is actually a deterent. Debating the legality wasnt the reason for starting this thread, more just a general whinge about societies acceptance of using potentially very harmful illegal drugs.



Actually cris, the drug has very few potential harms associated with it. Nothing should be illegal with respect to perceptual alterants. Concerning MDMA, it is actually very very hard to overdose on. It is the adulterants within the tablets which can cause these problems, and thus the media reports it as Ecstasy overdose. There have been 0 reported fatalities from MDMA overdose, nor any directly related deaths to MDMA, so to say it is so potentially harmful is crazy.

A positive message would eb quite easy to give to children about responsibility and fully educating yourself about anything you take, legal or otherwise, and to make an informed decision. That would be a beautiful type of education to be taught in schools, and i would be fully in favour of it. But the problem is that there are too many puritanical fools out there who think that they know best, whether they entertain some sort of eternal life delusion, or are just plain scared of some things, so they try to demonise anyone else who takes them.

I reiterate my point from my previous post. 

"We need to move away from such drugs are bad nonsense, because these are the types of discussions which it promotes - WHOLLY uninformed nonsensical gibberish."

Actually the power to stay away from an addiction and remain in the recreational user group has everything to do with will power, and is highly linked to intelligence. However, they are no the only factors.

There is nothing wrong with trying drugs, this nonsensical prohibitionist stance that governments have been taking since america decided to go on its drug war (read war on personal freedom of choice) the ridiculous JUST SAY NO campaign is crazy. We as a species have receptors in our brains for opiates, for cannabinoids, and yet we're told by crazy conservatives that these things which we have an evolutionary link to are bad for us no matter the circumstance.

Ben harper's song burn one down has a very illuminating line within the song, which governments should really try to adopt 
"My choice is what I choose to do, 
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you. 

Your choice is who you choose to be, 
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me. "

As adults we should have the choice to do what we choose if it hurts noone else.

This teacher seems to be endangering only her/his friends by threatening massive amounts of hugs, and probably dancing as well.

As long as the teacher is not under the influence at school there is no problem.


----------



## Forensick (Apr 16, 2007)

cris said:


> The bit i thought most disturbing is they said they wanted to see if they like it, it would be impossible not to like it(unless you overdose).
> 
> Basically if they are telling me there is nothing wrong with trying drugs, how could they try and push a positive message to the kids they teach?




couple of points... all of us have teachers who taught us something they didn't believe... i had an athiest RE teacher one year. i had a teacher i know to be a raging leftie teach politics where they were "balanced". i have lecturers at uni that start a lecture with "i believe all this is wrong, but its in your course so you have to learn it".
The teachers ability to teach is based in part in the ability to put their own opinions aside and teach something from an unbiased teacher.
a teacher teaching "no drugs" that has never taken any could be seen as bad too, but eitherway, they should be teaching in a way where the student doesnt know if they have or haven;t.


secondly, i have tried several drugs i didn't like.
marajuana i found to be boring
MDMA (ecstasy), was really disturbing, and i felt "outside" myself...
both of which i never did again because i didn't like it.
experimentation doesn't lead to addiction, in my case is just secured the fact that i would never do drugs


----------



## cobb (Apr 16, 2007)

what if E isnt the only thing she is taking?
marajuana can make you schizophrenic.. i would not want a schizophrenic teacher anywhere near my children, what if there is a little terd in the class that makes them snap? a kid in year 3 isnt going to be able to stand up to a 30 year old!
what if they are on ice? people cut their own nuts of when they are on that, id hate to think what they could do to a young child...

rant over..
Jacob


----------



## nickamon (Apr 16, 2007)

Going off-topic, sorry Cris.



Forensick said:


> i had an athiest RE teacher one year.
> 
> i have lecturers at uni that start a lecture with "i believe all this is wrong, but its in your course so you have to learn it".


 
What was it like being taught religion by an atheist? 

Which course were you doing where the lecturer gave you that disclaimer?

Glad I'm not a teacher - it would kill me to teach my students something that I consider errant nonsense.


----------



## Forensick (Apr 16, 2007)

in regard to marajuana induced scitzophrenia, yes it happens, you are more lilkey to become an alcoholic of a single beer tho.
even then, the amount of marajuana required to cause that would mean that the teach would need to be baked CONSTANTLY, and no one, i hope, is saying that they would be okay to teach while on something.




nickamon said:


> Going off-topic, sorry Cris.
> 
> What was it like being taught religion by an atheist?
> 
> ...




RE was fine... the course work was clearly defined so he knew what we needed to do, if anything i feel it allowed for greater discussion in class, as i have been shot down by many an RE teacher for asking "why" and kicked out for blaspheming


i have had lecturers do that in physiology, biology, and biochemistry.
remember lecturers are researchers too... and sometimes they are in the process of, or recently have, discovered something new, that kinda of contradicts existing knowledge, but it hasn't made into into course material yet.
lectureres are fanatical about their research....
and science does constantly evolve

sometimes hough its as simple as a lecturer feeling that there is a better way to teach something.


----------



## zard (Apr 16, 2007)

who would want to be a teacher?
not only do they have to put up with the individulal judgment of each students parents thay also have to be so much more than an educator, councilor, doctor, nurse.. the list goes on.. and now it seems even their supposed private life is open for critisism.

a teacher should be there to teach, thats it.. as long as they are not failing in this area what they do in their own time is none of mine or anyone elses business. this is MY opinion.


----------



## cobb (Apr 16, 2007)

Forensick said:


> in regard to marajuana induced scitzophrenia, yes it happens, you are more lilkey to become an alcoholic of a single beer tho.
> even then, the amount of marajuana required to cause that would mean that the teach would need to be baked CONSTANTLY, and no one, i hope, is saying that they would be okay to teach while on something.
> .


 
from what i have heard it can only take a drag from joint to cause scitzophrenia.

jacob


----------



## slim6y (Apr 16, 2007)

Chemist or not - the use of Ecstasy or any 'perceptual alterants' must have some short and long term effects.

Personally on reading http://www.nzdf.org.nz/ecstasy I can't see what the hype is about... I am naturally energetic... Ask my GF - she's seen me dancing around for an entire day mixing music - absolutely drug free... 

I find it hard to believe someone here would choose to promote or deter from obvious truths that these drugs alter the body in such a way that can be damaging even short term. If you can't agree with that then you probably either take the drugs or live in a hole with your head burried in the sand... 

If it's just E - and they have the use of the drug under control.. do you still think it's OK that they teach our children about anti drug use? Or at least educate our children about the dangers?

E is not as dangerous as some... but 3 recorded deaths in NZ since 2002 doesn't indicate huge issues with fatalaties, but many other issues such as:

"An American study by Dr George Ricaurte indicated that ecstasy could cause Parkinson's disease and suggested that a single dose of ecstasy could cause irreversible damage."

Would you still be willing to take the risk?


----------



## junglist* (Apr 16, 2007)

cobb said:


> what if E isnt the only thing she is taking?
> marajuana can make you schizophrenic.. i would not want a schizophrenic teacher anywhere near my children, what if there is a little terd in the class that makes them snap? a kid in year 3 isnt going to be able to stand up to a 30 year old!
> what if they are on ice? people cut their own nuts of when they are on that, id hate to think what they could do to a young child...
> 
> ...



Marijuana makes you schizophrenic??

Which type of schizophrenia is that?? The link is artefactual not causal. Weed DOES NOT MAKE YOU SCHIZOPHRENIC. Get the facts before you start making these outrageous claims. There is no documented evidence of it, and the statistics say that it cannot be said to be the causal factor.

Saying that is the same as saying that drinking alcohol makes you a sexual predator. Some people are sexual predators who commit their offences after consuming large amounts of alcohol, but not all people who consume become sexual predators.

COBB, you have been severely misinformed, but thats not unusual of the government's anti drug propaganda. Considering that it has a documented history of use ranging over 5000 years that we know of, to prohibit it in the past 50 years is ridiculous...


----------



## slim6y (Apr 16, 2007)

zard said:


> who would want to be a teacher?
> not only do they have to put up with the individulal judgment of each students parents thay also have to be so much more than an educator, councilor, doctor, nurse.. the list goes on.. and now it seems even their supposed private life is open for critisism.
> 
> a teacher should be there to teach, thats it.. as long as they are not failing in this area what they do in their own time is none of mine or anyone elses business. this is MY opinion.



I wanted to be a teacher, and I suceeded - it is the most rewarding, satisfying job I have ever done and I plan on doing it for many many more years... I will never make it rich, but my love and passion for this world will only encourage me to continue teaching... 

It doesn't matter if I can't change them all... It's the ones I do change and see the passion in their eyes, then my job is done....

I am an educator, a councillor, a doctor, a nurse, a coach, a (sort of) friend... but I do not involve my students in my private life. If I did choose to take drugs (which I don't) I certainly wouldn't openly brag about it to anyone - whether I am a teacher or not!


----------



## slim6y (Apr 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Marijuana makes you schizophrenic??
> 
> Which type of schizophrenia is that?? The link is artefactual not causal. Weed DOES NOT MAKE YOU SCHIZOPHRENIC. Get the facts before you start making these outrageous claims. There is no documented evidence of it, and the statistics say that it cannot be said to be the causal factor.
> 
> ...



From my previous post - check out http://www.nzdf.org.nz/cannabis

And if you didn't already read it http://www.nzdf.org.nz/ecstasy

Do you not trust it? Is that what you're saying? 

The fact is - if you have the possiblity of mental disorder, then cannibis may have the ability to 'bring it out'. I don't see why you doubt it - or are you just being junglist* the stirrer again... Cause you do seem to like to stir... which is why I like getting on threads with you in it


----------



## zard (Apr 16, 2007)

because your private life is PRIVATE.. it seems the op is wanting to know the ins and outs of a teachers life after school and i think that is hardly reasonable. god help his kids teachers.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 16, 2007)

My area of research (forensic chemistry) means that i have been looking into this area for a very long time. NOW, irrespective of what the site you directed me towards states as their research results, the fact of the matter is that the whole ecstasy burns holes in your brains argument is specious because the dosage which was supplied to the rats in the US government funded research was about 100 time higher than any person would ever be able to take in a recreational setting. Sure there are problems associated with addiction and abuse, BUT USE DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUATE TO ABUSE.

I do not doubt the fact that marijuana can, as you so ineloquently stated it "bring out" schizophrenia, but the fact is that schizophrenia is an amalgum of many, many psychological conditions, which vary between every individual diagnosed with the condition. It may not be the marijuana causing the onset of the already present but dormant condition, but it may also be the "i need a cigarette", the "you looked at me funny", or the bad day we all have.

There is a parallel theory about the use of marijuana and the higher than normal levels of people who develop schizophrenia using the drug. It goes like this.

There are people who do not know that there is a problem, but they are drawn towards substance use as a form of self medication for an as yet undiagnosed condition.

This is not only the case for marijuana, but or alcohol abuse, heroin abuse, and also gambling addictions have been investigated, but much more research needs to be done in this area.

I personaly would be much happier with my child being taught by a stoner or a cookie monster (read e-taker) than by an alcoholic. The chances of the personality type who use those drugs is much safer than the alcoholic who everyone knows in an alco, but thinks is harmless.

Oh, and as for those deaths related to ecstast, they are not directly related to the active ingredient MDMA. They are generally due to lack of education about the substance being taken (ANNA WOODS, died of hyponatremia water poisonng, not MDMA overdose). But also because of the impurities within the tablets sold as E (usually ketamine, DXM and PMA are the worst lethal offenders, though methamphetamine and others can cause problems here).

Yes i am saying DO NOT TRUST THOSE STUDIES. They do not tell the whole story.

You must look at who has funded the research, and their desire for findings of a specific nature.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 16, 2007)

THe site you posted slimy is incorrect. It is not MDMA which causes all of the symptoms described, but serotonin. This is the neurotransmitter which is released by the brain when MDMA is present. MDMA leaves NO HINDERANCE TO SLEEP, does not affect you dramatically over the proceeding days/weeks.

It is the adulterants which are responsible for this. 

People whoa re vulnerable to depression and mental problems such as anxiety are more likely to develop problems once the effect of the substance has worn off, not during the active period.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 16, 2007)

Junglist you are a goldmine of information on this topic and I salute you..insert salute smiley here.

I have only done a Tafe course on Drugs and Alcohol and found it amazingly enlightning and also very disturbing how manipulative Governments and the press can be (and have been) regarding all facists of drugs and the individual.
More people such as yourself are needed in this War on Drug Miseducation!
Keep up the good work.

It truely saddens me how many deaths are related to miseducation about a drug or total lack of appropriate education.


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 16, 2007)

I work with kids and i will be a qualified teacher in less than a year. I experiment with ecstacy. It DOES NOT EFFECT MY ABILITY TO WORK WITH KIDS. I do my job well and effectively, if i thought i wasn't then i would do something else and i'm sure others would tell me to lift my game if i wasn't.

Apart from the parents of the kids i work with i think very few people would come as close to me in regard to how much i, and their teacher, care for the kids i am involved with. I am positive the teacher in question feels the same way if she doesn't she shouldn't be a teacher.

IMO and in my experience alcohol does far worse things than ecstacy to both teachers and other people in our society. I would much rather a kid see me pinging than being legless drunk.


----------



## MrBredli (Apr 16, 2007)

I agree with junglist*, Earthling and waruikazi. There is a lot of misinformation out there and most of it comes from the government! Harm minimization is the only way to go. You'd be amazed at how many actual lives would be saved if the funding that the government wastes on non-realistic, scare-tactic, false advertising instead went towards harm minimisation, particularly to pill testing and education programs. SBS did a terrific show a few years back which may just open a few peoples eyes. You can download it here but it is a huge file, don't even think about it if you're on dial up. http://www.fullreleases.com/NewMembers/pre_download-SBS-Insight-17-05-05-Dealing-With-Drugs.php?id=387878&aid=&files=c2VsZWN0IExpbmtzLiosIChtYXRjaChEZXNjcmlwdGlvbikgYWdhaW5zdCgnQ3JlZGl0IEluc2lnaHQnIElOIEJPT0xFQU4gTU9ERSkpIGFzIHJlbGV2YW5jZSBmcm9tIExpbmtzIHdoZXJlIChtYXRjaChEZXNjcmlwdGlvbikgYWdhaW5zdCgnQ3JlZGl0IEluc2lnaHQnIElOIEJPT0xFQU4gTU9ERSkpICBvcmRlciBieSByZWxldmFuY2UgZGVzYw%3D%3D


----------



## da_donkey (Apr 16, 2007)

I Know some of my teachers were on Trips...............................Power Trips.

I do not do or condone drug use, but if the person in question was a good teacher and my child liked him/her, who cares what they might do on the weekend.

Donk


----------



## Mangy_Wombat (Apr 16, 2007)

Teachers should be setting the right example to the children they teach. That includes not using and promoting the use of illegal drugs. If I found my daughters teacher was a drug user I'd want that teacher removed.

My personal opinion is that if any teacher is proven to be an illegal drug user then they should be removed from their position and banned from teaching. Not to mention charged and dealt with by the courts.


----------



## Forensick (Apr 16, 2007)

See I think drugs have done good things for us, I really do. 
And if you don't believe that drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. 
Go home tonight, take all your albums, all your tapes, all your cds and burn them. 
'Cause you know what, the musicians who made all that great music that has enhanced your lives throught the years?
Real ******ing high on drugs.

_____________________________________________________
It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on person freedom is what it is, OK? Keep that in mind at all times, thank you.


----------



## cris (Apr 16, 2007)

My original post and poll where very poorly written because i was completely wasted(legally) :lol:

I dont think this person taking drugs will affect their ability to teach, someone i know is actually becoming a teacher after being in a mental institute for some time from the effects of taking pills, he would be able to tell them what can happen very easily, i think he could make a great teacher. On the other hand someone who can handle their drugs(possibly) but goes around telling other ppl its OK to try them if you *think* you can control your habit shouldnt be teaching IMO.


----------



## lol93 (Apr 16, 2007)

I'm a primary school teacher, and I would say that as long as it in no way affects their work or professional life then it's up to them what they do. I know a few colleagues who have experimented with drugs, but don't take them on a regular basis.


----------



## OzRocks (Apr 16, 2007)

To put it simply no one should be experimenting with drugs....only recently ive had a huge argument over the affects of drugs in the family....and no drugs should be tolerated with anyone anywhere its that simple!!!


----------



## Earthling (Apr 17, 2007)

cris said:


> My original post and poll where very poorly written because i was completely wasted(legally) :lol:
> 
> I dont think this person taking drugs will affect their ability to teach, someone i know is actually becoming a teacher after being in a mental institute for some time from the effects of taking pills, he would be able to tell them what can happen very easily, i think he could make a great teacher. On the other hand someone who can handle their drugs(possibly) but goes around telling other ppl its OK to try them if you *think* you can control your habit shouldnt be teaching IMO.


 
Cris I fail to see the negative link between teaching and a Teacher who can handle their drugs and tells other people in their private life to try it if they *think* they can handle it (remember their is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe she would promote drug use to her students). In my way of thinking this teacher would be an asset if they teach children the same way they teach about drugs in their private life. 
Basically she is saying if you think you can do something...then go and do it! Good life philosphy in my books. Something that should be promoted more in our school and life system.
Perhaps the only thing which she may or may not have said (as you were high on drugs yourself and may have missed it :lol: ) which would help people (and should be promoted as it does save lives), is to research and educate yourself about the drug in question before you try the drug. This would allow the individual to make an informed decision about their drug of choice. Not an illegal drugs baaaaaad....legal drugs goooooood mentality. 
Then you would be truely taking charge of your life.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 17, 2007)

Forensick said:


> See I think drugs have done good things for us, I really do.
> And if you don't believe that drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor.
> Go home tonight, take all your albums, all your tapes, all your cds and burn them.
> 'Cause you know what, the musicians who made all that great music that has enhanced your lives throught the years?
> ...



ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!!! What a total crock!!! 

Just one psychadelic trance band - the most likely to use hallucinagens (apparently) one of the biggest names in psy trance absolutely do not use drugs and promote the non-use of drugs at their concerts... This band (group) is Infected Mushroom - and if you read in the papers 10 people were arrested in Cairns on drug related charges at their recent weekend concert... Something Infected Mushroom never promote is drugs... 

I might only have come up with one band out of millions, but I can guarantee they're not alone. 

Most of you drug users are trying to justify what is actually very harmful to you and society. 

And yes, it is only in 10% (or some stat that you will be able to quote junglist) where people misuse drugs or overuse drugs or do something stupid on drugs or have a reaction to the drugs or so on and so on... But even if it is 10% - that's a huge amount of population of drug users... Even if it's 1% that has some adv erse affect, it's still 1% too many...

I don't say alcohol isn't the same... I would say statistically speaking it's easier to make findings on the use of alcohol than the use of drugs. 

The drug foundation of NZ is NOT government funded... If the stuff they put on their website is incorrect, which I doubt it is, but i would say at the least it's simplified to allow the common drug user to understand as part and parcel of 'education' then the stuff you're reading may also be incorrect.

I doubt that the long term benefits of drug use out wiegh the long term side effects, and if you want to continue using drugs, do so at your own peril, don't encourage others. Keep it to yourselves.

But - to slightly contradict - I think the most dangerous drug on earth at the moment is fat... Fat appears to be more addictive than nicotine and it shows... 

So should we ban fat teachers?


----------



## slim6y (Apr 17, 2007)

Earthling said:


> Cris I fail to see the negative link between teaching and a Teacher who can handle their drugs and tells other people in their private life to try it if they *think* they can handle it (remember their is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe she would promote drug use to her students). In my way of thinking this teacher would be an asset if they teach children the same way they teach about drugs in their private life.
> Basically she is saying if you think you can do something...then go and do it! Good life philosphy in my books. Something that should be promoted more in our school and life system.
> Perhaps the only thing which she may or may not have said (as you were high on drugs yourself and may have missed it :lol: ) which would help people (and should be promoted as it does save lives), is to research and educate yourself about the drug in question before you try the drug. This would allow the individual to make an informed decision about their drug of choice. Not an illegal drugs baaaaaad....legal drugs goooooood mentality.
> Then you would be truely taking charge of your life.



the problem is earthling... finding good information - junglist says it's all wrong.. drugs are good for you, forensick says everyone is doing it, the greatest people on earth do it, so should you.

The drug foundation of NZ says - do it at your own risk, here is what we know... but kjunglist says it's wrong, it has to be, the government conspire against the manufacture of drugs even though they know it's good for you...

So where do you start to find this education... apparently all that I was taught is wrong... 

Even doing 2 years of toxicology, all that stuff was wrong too...

I can't believe I spent $3000 per year doing a great university course to be told it was all wrong on a snake website... Oh well...

Education is the key, yes, as it is with almost everything, but getting the correct information from non-biased sources is the important part... The doctors who see it, the scientists who test it, and the drug users that exeprience it... No where else... Not off here... Informed choices can only be made by informed persons...


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 17, 2007)

How many people here who are getting up on their high horse telling teachers what they can and can't do in their own private lives has ever taken a pill?


----------



## slim6y (Apr 17, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> How many people here who are getting up on their high horse telling teachers what they can and can't do in their own private lives has ever taken a pill?



Think of it this way - How many people here (who follow rugby union) were on their high horse telling Wendel Sailor not to do cocaine?

I don't think it stops at a teacher - I think it goes further than that... 

I think what the teacher does is their own business - it becomes the worlds business when they brag about it... 

If I were to do something illegal, or something that could impede my position as a teacher, i don't think I would brag about it at all... So who cares whose horse these people are on - they're saying what they think is right - and even if they have taken a pill.. doesn't mean they do now...

I used to smoke cigerettes - do I tell people NOT to? Nope... I suggest there's evidence showing it's harmful but I do not brag about my ex-smooking (until now apparenlty  ). So high horse? I doubt it... Beliefs... Yep, that's what it is - whether informed or not!


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 17, 2007)

So from that ramble i am assuming no you have never tried a pill. The point i am making from that rhetorical question is unless you have tried one you don't have the insight into what they do to people. You are relying on second hand information to make your decision.

And who is bragging about it? If a teacher or anyone else went and bragged about it to their kids then i reckon they should be locked up. But somehow i doubt that a good teacher would do that.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 17, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> So from that ramble i am assuming no you have never tried a pill. The point i am making from that rhetorical question is unless you have tried one you don't have the insight into what they do to people. You are relying on second hand information to make your decision.
> 
> And who is bragging about it? If a teacher or anyone else went and bragged about it to their kids then i reckon they should be locked up. But somehow i doubt that a good teacher would do that.



I doubt a good teacher would brag either - but what they do in public can also have consequences and they do have to be aware of that - it's no different to politicians or our top sportsman...

And no - I have never used hard drugs or taken illegal pills. I have used asprin, paracetamol and antibiotics - but never any illicit substance that was not prescribed...

I think I had pethadine when in hospital years and years ago - but I can't remember that....


----------



## junglemad (Apr 17, 2007)

i don't think your 6 grand was wasted.


----------



## Forensick (Apr 17, 2007)

slim6y said:


> the problem is earthling... finding good information - junglist says it's all wrong.. drugs are good for you, forensick says everyone is doing it, the greatest people on earth do it, so should you.




er..... i didn' say everyone is doing it....
i kind of said i didnt, including tobacco and alcohol.
in fact i also said i had tried a few tings and found them boring.

nor did i encourage other people to, it is their choice, and its no one elses buisness so long as it doesnt affect them.

and as for "some of the greatest people", i believe i mentioned politicians and AFL players....
only difference between the 2 i can see is that a politician can't get you pregnant when they rape you. not something that qualifies for greatest people on earth.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 17, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Informed choices can only be made by informed persons...


 
Very nice sentence. 
In this day and age with so many different parties and special interest groups sprouting out all sorts of statements and tests and statistics about drugs and drug use it is hard for people to wade through it all. However, until people have a proactive harm minimisation approach from our powers that be, wade through it they must if they want to take drug taking healthily. Unfortunately most people will not even be aware of the risks they are putting themselves into and the harmfull situaltions.......just because our powers that be would rather demonise drug taking and users thus killing many innocent victims as of 'ignorance' of safe drug taking measures.

Jungilist is right...I know it sounds radical,but he is right..My lecturer for the Alcohol and Other Drugs course taught us the same things. The Lecturer was an undercovercop who realised the current approach is just killing people and the way ahead is harm minimisation. Proactive not Reactive. If you react after the event its to late the event has taken place...however if you react in a positive manner before the event has taken place a more desirous result will usually take place.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 17, 2007)

Forensick said:


> er..... i didn' say everyone is doing it....
> i kind of said i didnt, including tobacco and alcohol.
> in fact i also said *i had tried a few tings* and found them boring.
> 
> ...



AYE???

I'm no longer convinced experimenting with drugs does not have short or long term effects...

You didn't need to say that - you were promoting it as something that many famous people do... These people may be role models for many of our young... and in some cases old...

Earthling - i do agree with harm minimisation - and I think it is the correct way to go, it is just unlikely that the right people will get the right information - that's the tough part. And having teachers who enjoy getting wasted in the weekends may also not be the best people to impart their knowledge for harm minimisation - then yet again, it could be to their advantage!


----------



## Forensick (Apr 17, 2007)

er, forgive my lack of eloquence, i have been studying all night.

but you will find i didn't say everyone was doing it.
nor was i "promoting" it as something famous people do.

we were talking role models, and yes these people are role models, and my point, way back when, was, that if they do take drugs and it is not common knowledge (just as students wouldnt know about the teacher), how can it have a effect on people that look up to them.

and even when it does become common knowledge i don't see every 10 year old wannabe cricketer rushing out to take preformance enhancing drugs, or sexually assault women, just because shane warne does.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 17, 2007)

slim6y said:


> AYE???
> Earthling - i do agree with harm minimisation - and I think it is the correct way to go, it is just unlikely that the right people will get the right information - that's the tough part. And having teachers who enjoy getting wasted in the weekends may also not be the best people to impart their knowledge for harm minimisation - then yet again, it could be to their advantage!


 
Goodo.
The teachers who enjoy getting wasted occasionally may be the best people to teach harm minimisation especially if they practice what they preach. Walk the walk, talk the talk......


----------



## leighroyaus (Apr 17, 2007)

this thread is making me laugh, people referign to groups of people as "drug users" etc. 
if someone drinks ocne a month do you see people saying "hey look stay away they are alcoholics or drunks" 

i can assure you, that it is not just teachers who experiment with drugs.
chances are that every day you talk to a few people who have done drugs casually or experimentaly. 

to be honest, i would rather a teacher of my kids go out on the weekend n have a pill, or have a joint then go out and get **** faced drunk or be in the school yard smoking ciggeretes.

some of you need to get off your high horse and open your eyes. The problem with the world is that people are demonised for casual/experimental drug use. Its there life, why kick the hell out of them for it. I can assure you, if you havent tried drugs once in your life, your kids will.

this thread is a joke.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 17, 2007)

Forensick said:


> See I think drugs have done good things for us, I really do.
> And if you don't believe that drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor.
> Go home tonight, take all your albums, all your tapes, all your cds and burn them.
> 'Cause you know what, the musicians who made all that great music that has enhanced your lives throught the years?
> ...




And to add to your quote of Mr Hicks, 
"Why is it that we never hear of good news drug stories, its always Boy took acid thought he could fly, jumped off the roof. Bad drugs. Its never, Today a young man took some acid and realised that we are all just matter condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, Haha, Back to you Tom with the weather"...

I mean have you ever seen a duck take the elevator to the top of a building and jump off just to see if it could fly?? Here's and idea, Try flapping your arms on the ground to see if it works.

Oh, Mr slimy, not once have i said that drugs are necessarily good for you. But the fact of the matter is that they have many uses for us, and to just put a blanket ban on a substance because it MAY harm someone is ludicrous. It is lack of education and stigmatisation which is causing the major harm and damage to society as a whole.

If the major problem associated with a drug/activity is addiction, then banning the substance because it could addict someone is idiotic. It would be better to fully inform people of the risks of becoming addicted, provide active support if someone does become addicted and ensure that they do not become disconnected from society just because of a health problem.

If you believe that the government is not lying to you about this issue then look again. Looka t the history, look at the cheap political point scoring that goes on about being tough on drugs. It is not having an impact, in fact it is making things worse.

While the government will pat itself on the back for reducing the amount of heroin related deaths, and the amount of people overdosing, and the amount of people having heroin addictions, they are at the same time very very scared about ice. Now ice is nothing at all new to the scene, but purity levels and availability have sky rocketed since the hard line on heroin was taken. Considering the strain on an already crippled mental health system, which was not too affected by heroin abusers, this plague is 100% government caused.

Addictions are noted for many behaviours and compulsions, however it is a noted fact that the behaviour of an IV drug user/abuser will relate not only to the substance being injected, but the instant rush from injecting a substance itself. Consider two of the most common methods of delivery for recreational use of both the opiates and for crystalline methamphetamine are IV injection, it can be clearly sen that the statistics being used by the government for not only the reduction of heroin user is directly related to the jump in methamphetamine users.

The way they use these statistics is very very similar to the current unemployment figures. They do not relate to the amount of people in full time work, but to the people involved in even 5 hours of work every week or even every fortnight. These people are no longer classed as unemployed - thus we see very low figures, and artificially so.

If you cannot see how you are being deceived by our elected representatives on the drugs issue and many others i have only one thing to say to you BAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAA. Go back to sleep.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 18, 2007)

junglist* said:


> If you cannot see how you are being deceived by our elected representatives on the drugs issue and many others i have only one thing to say to you BAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAA. Go back to sleep.


 
Junglist.....having a dig and personally critisising people for their views is usually the sure fire way to get them to not listen to you. Their defense shield goes up and no matter how much truth you throw at them they will deny it. Notice how nobody has said anything in this thread for a while? Defense mode....not listening. 
This especially goes for a subject that has been rammed with a big stick into their brain since knee high to a grasshopper. The majority of people believe drugs are BAD Fullstop and all people who have anything to do with illegal drugs are bad and should be punished with severity. To convince them otherwise is going to take time....and unfortunately more lives. 
Most people dont want to change.....change is bad....they prefer to stay safe where they are, they know this reality, to change what they think to something the total opposite is a very confronting process for the majority of people.....especially conservatives. Thats what we have to accept is the line and step up to it if we want to make a differnce.....or we can mount personal attacks..............
Passion in argument is good, it shows that you truely believe what you are talking about......however to critisize others if they dont swing to your side immediately just pushes them away more.
Educate if you want to make a difference......personally attack if you want to make no difference.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

I just stopped posting in here because I have really said all i can say with the knowledge that I have at present. And apart from what i have seen in the real world (working with young people) I can't honeslty say there's NO 'good' (illegal) drug use. But again, as you have always put it throughout this thread, harm minimisation is the only way we're going to control the growing number of fatalaties in this country and the world.

But to say the least... As always, with any human on earth, goodness always starts at the home!


----------



## Earthling (Apr 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> But to say the least... As always, with any human on earth, goodness always starts at the home!


 
Yes and unfortunately when the home has not enough goodness for any particular human unfortunatly the rest of society has to pick up the pieces. 
But hey isnt that what we are here for....to support ourselves and others.....
Or condemn........

Mencius says"The disease of men is this: that they neglect their own fields and go to weed the fields of others."

Jesus says "Judge not and ye shall not be judged; condmen not, and ye shall not be condemned."


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

quite frankly earthling, i have been educaing people on this issue for so long now that its begining to mimic the exact statement i made before. People who will not accept that as a whole, the species known as politician lying buggerii will never ever tell them the truth as it stands and will only ever give them enough information to militarise the lowest common denominator into emotive action. 

Good and Evil are pathetically constructed lies about our species. If you want confirmation of this read richard dawkins book, the GOD delusion.

My comment was not a personal attack at anyone in particular. However i believe that my comment still holds truth. The government does not want its members to think for themselves and question authority, (i thought this was the corner stone of democracy), It want to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace and in my opinion the only people who will allow them to continually do so are sheep. BAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAA Vote FOr Howard, He's Honest BAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAA. WAKE UP PEOPLE


----------



## Forensick (Apr 18, 2007)

just like people can't accept that if we measure unenployment the way we did in the 80's it is at an all time high.....
but for political expediency, like in all things, you alter facts till they suit your needs...
worked 5 hours in the last fortnight (incl work for the dole), not unemployed.
not "actively" seeking work, not unemployed....

but we trust these people no matter how much people say they don't
follow along like blind sheeple, being scarded of men with beards, and people with pills...

i second that BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

wake up! this country needs a ******* shake up!


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

[


----------



## Earthling (Apr 18, 2007)

Yeah I see where your coming from Junglist. All good. Just came across a bit harsh thats all.
Dont give up...keep educating though. 
Perhaps politics is your next project!?
More educated free thinkers that go into politics the better....many of the public is waiting for a new leader. The times are ripe for a new party. A party based on Educating could go a long way.

As to mans 'bad and good'...definetly man made concepts that have no place in the normal universe, however humans continue to grasp at it. Perhaps because it makes them feel worthy....condeming 'bad' people, 'bad' practices, 'bad' ideas.

I contacted the library re:Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion......17 copies they have and all out and a waiting list of over 100.....POPULAR


----------



## MrBredli (Apr 18, 2007)

Furthermore, MDMA is now being trialled in the USA for treatment of post traumatic stress disorder. Before it was banned in the USA some pschologists/psychiatrists/psychotherapists were prescribing it to both themselves and their patients during sessions. One was quoted as saying they made more progress in one session using MDMA then they would make in 3 months of normal therapy!


----------



## grimbeny (Apr 18, 2007)

Many ppl want a new leader, but no one votes in members from ouside the 2 major parties. what is wrong with ppl i will never know.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 18, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> Many ppl want a new leader, but no one votes in members from ouside the 2 major parties. what is wrong with ppl i will never know.


 
Remember the might of One Nation?


----------



## grimbeny (Apr 18, 2007)

I suppose they did have some following. I think the motivations there for wanting a new leader were all wrong though.


----------



## Inkslinger (Apr 18, 2007)

ONE letter between use and Abuse the majority of people falling into the trap of ABUSE.
Canberra white collar workers are the biggest group of recreational Herion users seemingly with no affects to their lives this is I think is more unusual than the norm.

I see where I work the effects of drugs daily from so called harmeless smoko to hard core intravenous.

Smoko now is not harmeless the pushing with chemicals to get better quicker higher yeilds is causing a huge amount of drug induced psychosis amongst our young.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

MrBredli said:


> Furter more, MDMA is now being trialled in the USA for treatment of post traumatic stress disorder. Before it was banned in the USA some pschologists/psychiatrists/psychotherapists were prescribing it to both themselves and their patients during sessions. One was quoted as saying they made more progress in one session using MDMA then they would make in 3 months of normal therapy!



LSD was also used to treat the PTSD symptoms and the same comment was made. 

Drugs are not bad, but they need to be used responsibly, even for recreation. Our government will not even make real moves to counter the toxic nature of the two most popular and damaging drugs available by education.  Nothing is done to educate kids on how to deal with these substances responsibly, its still an all or nothing approach.

I will never venture into politics, because i dont know if you have noticed that the ideaological ones who go in, quickly get turned around and become sycophantic little slimeballs. Michael costa is one of these. He used to be a campaginer for drugs policy change, but one sniff of power, he becomes demonspawn (kinda funny because i do no believe in gods devils ghosts etc)


----------



## Julie-anne (Apr 18, 2007)

Ultimately it is up to the individual what they do, but in my opinion, no one that works with kids should be taking those kind of drugs... it's called 'Suicide Tuesday' for a reason


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

Inkslinger said:


> ONE letter between use and Abuse the majority of people falling into the trap of ABUSE.
> Canberra white collar workers are the biggest group of recreational Herion users seemingly with no affects to their lives this is I think is more unusual than the norm.
> 
> I see where I work the effects of drugs daily from so called harmeless smoko to hard core intravenous.
> ...



TOTALLY WRONG. 

No matter the observations you have made, the incidence of psychosis increase may have more to do with differing scales of diagnosis than anything else. Also read the post i made earlier. Its the self medication of pre-existant conditions, not the condition is caused by marijuana.

Isnt this an argument for legalisation so that everyone can grow their own????

and there are two letters difference. Use = 3 letters, ABUSE = 5 letters.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

Julie-anne said:


> Ultimately it is up to the individual what they do, but in my opinion, no one that works with kids should be taking those kind of drugs... it's called 'Suicide Tuesday' for a reason



Those types of drugs??? The drug is wonderful. Less toxic than alcohol, less chance of getting macho and wanting to fight with the guy next to you for looking at you funny, more chance of actually connecting with people who you may not have felt comfortable conversing with before??

MDMA should be legalised in the interests of having a cohesive community. Sure it can be abused, but so can sniffing petrol. What are we going to do ban petrol?

If you know nothing about the drugs then you have no valid input to make so i suggest educating yourself before you make yourself sound uneducated again.


----------



## phantomcat (Apr 18, 2007)

all i can say is that if they screen for drugs in alot of work environments (one of my mates works for bundy rum and he and his workmates get screened regularly) why are they not doing the same in jobs with a high level of responsibility? 

*i agree that something like taking illicit drugs is a personal choice, after all they are the one that has to live with the consequences if it all goes wrong.*
BUT i do think it strange that jobs, like teaching and other positions where they are employed by the government and the level of responsibility is so high, dont , at this stage, have testing along these lines.
some other countries do test certain government jobs. In the private sector it is up to the indervidual company, and i know of quite a few who do.

that said the person in question in this particular instance obviously wasnt real discreet in what they were doing in their personal life, or else she wouldnt've gotten caught. 

non smoker, lemon-lime and bitters drinker, never-taken-drugs-ever (saw too many of my mates die because of drugs) and *my personal opinion* is that i dont aggree with taking drugs ever, cause i've seen first hand how it can and will stuff you up good and proper.

but hey , live and let live.


----------



## grimbeny (Apr 18, 2007)

if the letters fall consecutivly in the alphabet, it doesnt matter how many of them their is they count as one letter. God i dont know who is educating todays public, probably some pill poppers or somthing.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> if the letters fall consecutivly in the alphabet, it doesnt matter how many of them their is they count as one letter. God i dont know who is educating todays public, probably some pill poppers or somthing.



Well looks like its back to kindergarten for me then. If that theory holds then i guess its only a single letter alphabet. Thats gonna screw people up who need to sing the song to remember the letters.

Phantom cat, You mean to inform us that someone who works in a fatory manufacturing drugs is tested for drug use?? Oh geez. Could it be that working in a factory like that presents many possibilities for injuring others through inattentiveness??? I think thats why it is. Nothing else makes sense.

But on the question of MDMA or other amphetamines anyway, they're excreted by the body within 72 hours anyway, so thats not to say that those guys dont take drugs.

The person has NOT been caught it was told to the person who started the thread in conversation.

Do you hold some deluded eternal life theory pantomcat?? Do you believe that just because you missed out on so many exciting and fun things that you are somewhat more entitled not to die than the rest of us??

Here's a little gem i've got for you and from your statement i KNOW THAT YOU DONT KNOW IT.........................................


...........................................

..........................................


.......................................


NON SMOKERS DIE EVERY DAY!


You can make your choices, but just like those with religious intolerance (read right wing conservative america, australia and the UK to mention only a few), But why do you have to force them upon others.


----------



## nickamon (Apr 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> RE was fine... the course work was clearly defined so he knew what we needed to do, if anything i feel it allowed for greater discussion in class, as i have been shot down by many an RE teacher for asking "why" and kicked out for blaspheming
> 
> 
> i have had lecturers do that in physiology, biology, and biochemistry.
> ...


 
Kids like you provided me with entertainment in RE classes. The rest of the time, I just ignored the teacher. 

I did arts, so I never had contact with science lecturers. I've become really interested in science since graduating, so I kinda wish I'd studied that instead.


----------



## phantomcat (Apr 18, 2007)

dude bundy rum is not what i would consider an illicit drug lol.
and he's a computer programmer for them, he doesnt even get to smell the stuff let alone be involved in the preparation of the rum!
lol
it is just a stance that his employers have taken, everyone who is employed by them is tested regularly.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

phantomcat said:


> dude bundy rum is not what i would consider an illicit drug lol.
> and he's a computer programmer for them, he doesnt even get to smell the stuff let alone be involved in the preparation of the rum!
> lol
> it is just a stance that his employers have taken, everyone who is employed by them is tested regularly.



but it is still a drug, thats my point.


----------



## phantomcat (Apr 18, 2007)

evidently i have read the initial post that started this thread incorrectly.
my apologies for offending you.

but read my original post again and settle down. 
i raised a point that i thought it strange that some government jobs that carry high responsibility like teaching, dont have drug testing.
all in my *own opinion.* which last i checked was ok to do.
so your opinion differs from my own, big deal. Thats a good thing. Who wants to have the exact same opinion as every one else? Society as we know it would never get anywhere if we all aggreed with one another.
I arrived at my personal stance on drugs through experiences that affected me personally, i didnt arrive at this conclusion because someone else told me what to think.
so just chill.


----------



## Bryony (Apr 18, 2007)

bah!
bugger the judges and teachers ect! let them do what they like....as long as its not within school times.....its called weekend for a reason lol 

I would be more worried about public transport people (plains, trains, busses , taxis ect), bank tellers, window washers, mechanics ect taking illicit drugs a then going to work on the monday......


and just to put it out there... there is more alcoholics out there than addicts


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

phantomcat said:


> evidently i have read the initial post that started this thread incorrectly.
> my apologies for offending you.
> 
> but read my original post again and settle down.
> ...



HIGH RESPONSIBILITY??? Teaching?? you must be kidding me. Whatever a teachers chooses to do in theri own time as ling as it does not endanger the kids they have in their care should be their own choice. Taking a pill on the weekend hardly endangers the kids, pther than to the danger of being indoctrinated to think for themselves.

We cant fund ourrhospitals and schools as it is, so how on earth could this be funded.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 18, 2007)

phantomcat said:


> so your opinion differs from my own, big deal. Thats a good thing. Who wants to have the exact same opinion as every one else? Society as we know it would never get anywhere if we all aggreed with one another.


 
But there are times when we must and do agree with each other....
Remember slavery? 
Remember women not being able to vote? 
Remember Aboriginals being treated as Fauna?

Before the passing of each new law regarding the above three freedoms there was great debate and many people were not prepared to look at the truth of the matter.........so it continues.....


----------



## buck (Apr 18, 2007)

Kurto said:


> I wasn't aware that ecstasy was a hard drug either. It always amazes me that amount of people that comment on and condemn, something that they never intend to try themselves.
> .


 

So using your logic if I never intend to try heroin I am in no position to say that I think it is a dangerous drug?? Interesting!!!! 


For everyone using the same old alcohol and tabacco lines, you can't make any comparison until other drugs are as readily available as these are and consumed in the same numbers. Who is to say that some of these other "softer" drugs won't pose similar problems when/if able to be consumed in comparable quantities? Just to clarify I am in no way saying that there isn't problems with acohol and tabacco. It just annoys the crap out of me when people who are questioned about their recreational drug use seem to use the "alcohol and tabacco are a bigger problem" line.

I only hope that some of the younger members of this site who were until this thread unsure whether to take drugs don't think that it's ok to go and try them. I think some of the posts in this thread, considering the fact that it is a family site where it will be veiwed by young teens, are just plain irresponsible. Junglist what you have said may well be correct but think about what will be seen through the eyes of a young teen when they read your "the government is lying, drugs are good" posts.

Byrony an alcoholic is an addict. The addiction being alcohol.


----------



## phantomcat (Apr 18, 2007)

i agree with what you are saying earthling. 
But please dont take what i was saying to junglist out of context.
The fact that he and i dont share the same personal view on drugs is not necessarily a bad thing. 
That doesnt mean that i think it's ok for anyone to ear-bash or force their own opinions on anyone else. 
But without people discussing things that they feel are issues, and actually listening to each other, exchanging ideas/opinions/information no progress will ever be made. Because if everyone had the exact same opinion on *everything* we would never get anywhere.
but i think we're getting side-tracked here.
the discussion was originally about *illicit* drugs. Yes legal drugs do alot of damage too, but the thing that started this whole topic was not the (still rageing) debate about what is or is not a drug, or what my personal opinion on illicit drugs is or isnt.
i raised a point about testing (which i was not the first to do) and junglist didnt agree, now we move on.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

buck said:


> So using your logic if I never intend to try heroin I am in no position to say that I think it is a dangerous drug?? Interesting!!!!
> 
> 
> For everyone using the same old alcohol and tabacco lines, you can't make any comparison until other drugs are as readily available as these are and consumed in the same numbers. Who is to say that some of these other "softer" drugs won't pose similar problems when/if able to be consumed in comparable quantities? Just to clarify I am in no way saying that there isn't problems with acohol and tabacco. It just annoys the crap out of me when people who are questioned about their recreational drug use seem to use the "alcohol and tabacco are a bigger problem" line.
> ...



Quite frankly, your post is moronic. yes alcohol and tobacco are far bigger problems, simply because people think that because they are legal, they must not be bad for you. (stupid idea). The research has indicated the MDMA has very very few deletorious effects on the human brain at recreational doses.

I hope that the younger members of this forum read what i am typing and take it on board. If you bothered to read my posts, i am advocating intelligent informed choice and decisions about substances which are not fully discussed past a drugs are bad ok, nonsensical drug education policy in schools.
I am not advocating that everyone go out and take drugs, but this is generally the standpoint that people whoa re anti drugs assign to any individual who would rock the boat.

These drugs are dangerous IF ABUSED. But use does not necessarily equate to abuse. Kids inform yourselves of the information, and do not let others push you into making a decision you are not confortable with. 

Drugs are a tool to be used, and they can be used responsibly, but the people need to move towards making their voices heard on this issue.

As to the comparable levels of use idea you postulated.

The netherlands legalised marijuana and decriminlaised many drugs. Their incidence of marijuana use is about 250% below the levels recorded within america and australia, two countries which prohibit the drugs. Thats a message which needs to be put out there.

Yes the drugs may be harmful if youtake too many, but a large bus to the head will have a far quicker action on the cessation of life.


----------



## cris (Apr 18, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Yes the drugs may be harmful if youtake too many, but a large bus to the head will have a far quicker action on the cessation of life.



Funny you should say that, i know someone who has been hit in the head with a bus and the damage it caused is insignificant next to the damage they have done to themselves through taking pills.
They were well educated about the side effects of using and always used to say how stupid it was for ppl to take them etc. now they cant enjoy a night out without them and claim to have many problems caused by them.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

cris said:


> Funny you should say that, i know someone who has been hit in the head with a bus and the damage it caused is insignificant next to the damage they have done to themselves through taking pills.
> They were well educated about the side effects of using and always used to say how stupid it was for ppl to take them etc. now they cant enjoy a night out without them and claim to have many problems caused by them.



funny, i know some people like that too, but the average person will go out and be unable to stay away from a beer wine etc, and is this any different?


----------



## cris (Apr 18, 2007)

junglist* said:


> funny, i know some people like that too, but the average person will go out and be unable to stay away from a beer wine etc, and is this any different?



Yes, alcohol is a very addictive drug and far less harmful to a persons mental well being, it does cause brain damage but not in the same way(or as dramitically), it does not retard the brains production of seratonin or severely damage short term memory. Alcohol doesnt change a persons personality either(although it can amplify bad traits). There is also the legal side and the fact that there are no safety standards for producing illegal drugs.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 18, 2007)

cris said:


> Yes, alcohol is a very addictive drug and far less harmful to a persons mental well being, it does cause brain damage but not in the same way(or as dramitically), it does not retard the brains production of seratonin or severely damage short term memory. Alcohol doesnt change a persons personality either(although it can amplify bad traits). There is also the legal side and the fact that there are no safety standards for producing illegal drugs.



Incorrect. in fact it is just as dangerous to a person's mental health. In fact, the evidence is there that it actually does far more harm to a person's brain, just kids wont be toldthat because the government wants to sell it to them. Alcohol does severely damage a person's short term memory.

The seratonin syndrome you're speaking of is ehxibited only after prolonged continual exposure to MDMA. MDMA does not retard the production of seratonin, but it releases the stockpile, and so while the body replenishes its stockpile, the amount available is reduced. HOWEVER, at this point i must ass that if you are going to take it, its better if you pre load and post load with 5-HTP, the precursor to seratonin. 

Alcohol can totally alter a person's personality by removing inhibitions, giving a god complex,, and also making people far more aggressive and violent than they would otherwise have been, or than they are when sober. But alcohol can actually bring some factor to the fore front of a person's personality, like brutal violence, rape sexual assault etc, MDMA does not do this.

Isn't the fact that there are no manufacturing standards for illicit substances reason enough to legalise them and monitor their production. We can never stop people taking substances, but that would be a good first step in harm minimisation. You have to accpet that people will take drugs no matter what, and that it is not the harm to the individual which is of ultimate importance, but the harm to the community as a whole. With this in mod, alcohol does far more damage than all of hte other drugs combined, even when the amount of people taking the substances is factored into the equation.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

I agree - alcohol is very dangerous, and probably more commonly abused than drugs...

Just don't ignore the fact, that while it is a fine line, there is a difference between therapeutic drugs (and alcohol) and abuse which society picks up the pieces of.

It's the latter that is of the major concern.

Both you and Earthling, and many others still agree that the correct education is the answer, not the scare tactics that are employed by the powers to be... But promotion of such drugs is not nesescary at all (by anyone).

Yes, take your drugs, enjoy them, increase your body temperature, feel your pulse at 150 - 200bpm without even lifting a finger, feel the effects of dehydration... watch you don't drink too much water... Watch that paranoia doesn't start to take hold... (This may not represent everyone or every drug, these symptoms may or may not occur - I am not talking just MDMA).

But one thing that shouldn't be done is promotion of the drug - and this thread, the way i read it, stated a teacher, someone with a bit of authority, maybe even power, the ability to change young childrens' minds - someone in front of a class room of eager young children, may have been taking drugs, and promoted such use to the extent of bragging in front of general public when it is known she is a teacher...

If you can't see there is something wrong with that scenario - even if it is so mildly wrong, without firstly saying but you drink alcohol or you speed, or did you ever break a law... That's not what this is about... this is about THAT teacher and their ability to promote a drug that is not only banned, but to some extent dangerous...

Can you see that this is not a perfect, not even a good situation?


----------



## Julie-anne (Apr 18, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Those types of drugs??? The drug is wonderful. Less toxic than alcohol, less chance of getting macho and wanting to fight with the guy next to you for looking at you funny, more chance of actually connecting with people who you may not have felt comfortable conversing with before??
> 
> MDMA should be legalised in the interests of having a cohesive community. Sure it can be abused, but so can sniffing petrol. What are we going to do ban petrol?
> 
> If you know nothing about the drugs then you have no valid input to make so i suggest educating yourself before you make yourself sound uneducated again.




I never said anything about the affects people experience whilst on drugs, i just said that people working with children shouldnt be using it. 

It is a known fact that 2 days after taking mdma or amphetamines your seratonin levels are so low that you experience what is known as 'Suicide Tuesday' or 'Suicide Monday' (depending on which day you took the drugs). From my experience i would not like to have these feelings while working with children as it would greatly affect my work and therefore have a negative outcome for the children. 

Do not tell me that my opinion isn't valid (this is a public forum) and do not tell me that i'm not educated .


----------



## Australis (Apr 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> See I think drugs have done good things for us, I really do.
> And if you don't believe that drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor.
> Go home tonight, take all your albums, all your tapes, all your cds and burn them.
> 'Cause you know what, the musicians who made all that great music that has enhanced your lives throught the years?
> Real ******ing high on drugs.




Yes alot might of been high, and alot died young, lives cut short.


----------



## -Peter (Apr 18, 2007)

I suppose my answer is a question, do parents who use recreational drugs have the right to keep their children and do they have the right to question whether others should or should not? If the answer to the first part is yes then the second is no but if the first answer is no then the second is yes.


----------



## liasis (Apr 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Wow Earthling, you neally brought a tear to my eye with that speech. I would say well said - but as I am a teacher, and I don't do hard drugs, then I must also say no matter what channel 9 or some random internet site says - it's individual effects vary so considerably, manufacture often varies also causing variable effects, allergies etc etc... No, it is not safe - and this is not dose dependant.
> 
> Have you ever heard of 'P'?
> 
> ...


what is p


----------



## Forensick (Apr 18, 2007)

cris said:


> Yes, alcohol is a very addictive drug and far less harmful to a persons mental well being, it does cause brain damage but not in the same way(or as dramitically), it does not retard the brains production of seratonin or severely damage short term memory. Alcohol doesnt change a persons personality either(although it can amplify bad traits). There is also the legal side and the fact that there are no safety standards for producing illegal drugs.




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh, god, its good to laugh.
oh dear, sorry hate to break it to you, alcohol is actually worse than many illicit drugs, long term and short term.
legal does not equate to safe.


and for the preson that said the teacher wasn't being discreet.... how often would a teach run into a grade 3 student at 1am in a bar?


----------



## liasis (Apr 18, 2007)

oh and if you take any type of drug you should be shot i have no time for losers that take drugs


----------



## buck (Apr 18, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Quite frankly, your post is moronic. yes alcohol and tobacco are far bigger problems, simply because people think that because they are legal, they must not be bad for you. (stupid idea). The research has indicated the MDMA has very very few deletorious effects on the human brain at recreational doses.
> 
> I hope that the younger members of this forum read what i am typing and take it on board. If you bothered to read my posts, i am advocating intelligent informed choice and decisions about substances which are not fully discussed past a drugs are bad ok, nonsensical drug education policy in schools.
> I am not advocating that everyone go out and take drugs, but this is generally the standpoint that people whoa re anti drugs assign to any individual who would rock the boat.
> ...


 
Well if we are to be frank.... from this and other threads that I have witnessed your participation you seem to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever had dealings with. You sit there dishing out personal attacks from the safety of your computer. Well can you please do me a favour and supply some EVIDENCE of all of these stats that you are quoting, just for the morons out there . Any FOOL can sit there and type numbers- lets see some reference to back it up!!!!!!! 
I think the way in which you totally dismissed the link supplied by Slim6y to the NZ site says alot about the kind of person you are.

If you would bother to get over your ego and read my post properly you would see that I never said that alcohol and tabacco were any less of a problem. I actually agree with you on several points. What I do have a problem with is someone who proclaims to be a chemist coming on to a family site saying that drugs are ok and don't listen to the governments propaganda. 

How can you honestly site there and say that E poses no long term effects? How can anyone make that sort of statement from the comparitively small amount of time it has become a recreational drug?
I'm sure they were once saying the same thing about tabacco. Totally harmless!!!!


----------



## buck (Apr 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> I agree - alcohol is very dangerous, and probably more commonly abused than drugs...
> 
> Just don't ignore the fact, that while it is a fine line, there is a difference between therapeutic drugs (and alcohol) and abuse which society picks up the pieces of.
> 
> ...


 
Very well said!!!!!


----------



## Earthling (Apr 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> But one thing that shouldn't be done is promotion of the drug - and this thread, the way i read it, stated a teacher, someone with a bit of authority, maybe even power, the ability to change young childrens' minds - someone in front of a class room of eager young children, may have been taking drugs, and promoted such use to the extent of bragging in front of general public when it is known she is a teacher...
> Can you see that this is not a perfect, not even a good situation?


 
cris's original post said 
" tonight i met a primary school teacher who would not accept my opinion that it was stupid for her to be using MDMA(Ecstasy) everyone i was with basically said i was an idiot and it was her choice what she does etc." 

the he goes on to say 
"The reason i started this thread was not out of concern for the teachers health, it was more concern about the increasingly common attitude that its OK to try such drugs thinking you wont end up having a problem with them."

Bragging.........eeeeeeeeong.....Wrong Slim. Her friends seem to do most of the talking by the looks of it. She was just having some MDMA and wanted to Loooooove everybody.

This thread looks like it was started as someone (no names cris:shock: ) didnt know that there is harm-minimisation ways of taking drugs and that drugs can actually be therapeutic in some cases...as with MDMA. Also that just because you try a drug does not mean your gutter trash 6 months later begging for $1 bus fares off passerbys.

I would imagine that now after reading this thread he is a bit more Educated on the matter.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

Just to add to me previous post tho... 

Legalisation...

Pros - Drug users can get higher quality drugs, taxes can be reaped... There's probably many many more....

Cons - It becomes more accessible and easier for younger people to take them. More people may become 'hooked'...

There's loads more there too...

Lets look at gun laws and see if it equates anything to this scenario:

1) In virginia it is legal to own one hand gun, carry it loaded without a license.

2) In order to prevent school shootings it is said 'Arm the teachers'

So the paradox of this of course is obvious... It's saying allowing people to carry guns will reduce the murder rate because people will be more scared to use their guns in case of retaliation... Ironically it has back fired...

So allowing people to get mindlessly blown away you say will actually CURB the effect of drugs on our society. I somehow doubt that very much regardless of purity.

And do you know why? 

Because it's too difficult to to make people take all the consequences of their own actions. Again it will fall on society to make it 'better'. And society is out of band aids for drugs because they've had enough!

One man's taking of drugs (unless he's on an island totally by himself) will effect many others no matter if it is legal or not... Their children, their spouse, their neghbours, their immediate family, their employers, and just society in general... You can't control the actions of the individual, and education won't help the majority to make an informed choice - as I said earlier... Only the informed will make informed choices.

Just remember - Junglist* you may not see the future easily - what stands to reason (legalisation) does not always occur...

Gun laws are just one of those... 

Just think, if you legalised car stealing would that solve the problem of car stealing? Why not legalise the problem of murder, that will solve it too... I think you look quite shallow into this legalising - although for the correct reasons, it will not allow control to such an extent that it makes it safe - and I can see no way through this.

Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe.

There will be a new breed of 'get rich quick' people to take on the new role of drug manufacturers - this doesn't solve a problem that already occurs without legalisation.

People who commit crimes to fund their drug addictions (needs/wants) will not vanish. Why would drugs become cheaper? You think by making it legal there will be some form of price establishment? Even if it was - those people will still commit crime to force feed their needs.

What about methadone clinics - or the like? You say we only legalise MDMA - rubbish i say - it hasn't helped in NZ with BZP fully legalised!

http://www.ergogenics.org/bzp.html (Tanczos is a famous NZ politician for the green party who once admitted openly to smoking marijuana and believes it should be on the free market)


----------



## Forensick (Apr 18, 2007)

buck said:


> Well if we are to be frank.... from this and other threads that I have witnessed your participation you seem to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever had dealings with. You sit there dishing out personal attacks from the safety of your computer. Well can you please do me a favour and supply some EVIDENCE of all of these stats that you are quoting, just for the morons out there . Any FOOL can sit there and type numbers- lets see some reference to back it up!!!!!!!
> I think the way in which you totally dismissed the link supplied by Slim6y to the NZ site says alot about the kind of person you are.
> 
> If you would bother to get over your ego and read my post properly you would see that I never said that alcohol and tabacco were any less of a problem. I actually agree with you on several points. What I do have a problem with is someone who proclaims to be a chemist coming on to a family site saying that drugs are ok and don't listen to the governments propaganda.
> ...



i am scanning my biochemistry books for reference for you.
also my biochemistry demonstrator is doing her phd in recreational drug use, i will be happy to forward it to you when she publishes....
she isn't being funded by any anti-drug agencies either


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

This appears to be the link I have been looking for http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/418325_7

It states, without bias, that MORE STUDIES NEED TO BE DONE before we go willie nillie into legalising MDMA... Studies, and more studies and more studies... if then, they prove to be sufficient and MDMA has therapeutic effects that outweigh the serious effects of 'downers' etc then... maybe then legalisation on prescription can be offered... what do you think of that then?


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

Earthling said:


> cris's original post said
> " tonight i met a primary school teacher who would not accept my opinion that it was stupid for her to be using MDMA(Ecstasy) everyone i was with basically said i was an idiot and it was her choice what she does etc."
> 
> the he goes on to say
> ...



OK Earthling, technicallity and really not wrong... I see what you're saying.. but the point is clear... and it appears in posts above about that scenario... Sorry if it was not put in such a way that it followed the posters' original post....


----------



## buck (Apr 18, 2007)

Just found this link http://www.justthinktwice.com/factfiction/LegalizationWorks.cfm

Quote from the link "After allowing marijuana to be sold in certain cafes, the Government of the Netherlands reconsidered its legalization policy. Consumption of marijuana had nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds. "

Definately interesting to read and blows a huge hole in a certain argument


----------



## buck (Apr 18, 2007)

junglist* said:


> The netherlands legalised marijuana and decriminlaised many drugs. Their incidence of marijuana use is about 250% below the levels recorded within america and australia, two countries which prohibit the drugs. Thats a message which needs to be put out there.
> .


 

ABOUT 250%. Interesting fact - not!!!

In any case how can you compare these countries' use of a "social" drug when the countries have totally different social structures and cultures?? Surely these would have more bearing on the drugs use then any other factor you can provide???


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

Thanks buck... no offence to you, as I saw you have commented on the same side I am - but.. that site doesn't do much for me. Simple things as spelling and grammar (I know I am not the best there either) just lower its credibility... But I do agree with everything said there and I would suggest that legalising any drug is absolute nonsense without adequate research for its therapeutic benefits. And then, and only then, with doctors prescription only.


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 18, 2007)

cris said:


> Funny you should say that, i know someone who has been hit in the head with a bus and the damage it caused is insignificant next to the damage they have done to themselves through taking pills.
> They were well educated about the side effects of using and always used to say how stupid it was for ppl to take them etc. now they cant enjoy a night out without them and claim to have many problems caused by them.



How do you know the damage they have done to themselves has been through the use of pills?


----------



## Forensick (Apr 18, 2007)

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


----------



## Earthling (Apr 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Just to add to me previous post tho...
> 
> Legalisation...
> 
> ...


 
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.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

junglist* said:


> *Quite frankly, your post is moronic. *
> The netherlands legalised marijuana and decriminlaised many drugs. Their incidence of marijuana use is about 250% below the levels recorded within america and australia, two countries which prohibit the drugs. Thats a message which needs to be put out there.



Hmmmm.. a leaf out of your own book... Evidence - I accept you're fighting for the losing team, but now I see why... 

I would strongly suggest that your stat like 97% of other stats was pulled out of thin air. I would use harsher language, but as I hardly drink alcohol I am unlikely to be violent or agressive.

Junglist* I do admire some of your posts, but - Frankly - your post is moronic !


----------



## MrBredli (Apr 18, 2007)

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.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 18, 2007)

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


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

Earthling said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 18, 2007)

Earthling said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2007)

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 (Apr 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2007)

i love drugs. alot more then i love alcohol.


----------



## buck (Apr 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> an anti drug site quoting news papers, and politicians.
> right......
> 
> thats unbiased and well researched....
> ...


 
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 (Apr 18, 2007)

MrBredli said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2007)

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 (Apr 18, 2007)

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 (Apr 18, 2007)

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 (Apr 18, 2007)

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 (Apr 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Quick idea - The prescription idea...
> 
> Does this work?
> 
> ...


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


----------



## MrBredli (Apr 18, 2007)

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 (Apr 18, 2007)

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 (Apr 18, 2007)

MrBredli said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2007)

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 (Apr 18, 2007)

MrBredli said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2007)

fishbot said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2007)

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


----------



## Forensick (Apr 18, 2007)

funny that someone pointed out paracetemol....
one of the most dangerous drugs available in australia, legal and illicit.

and is illegal in many countries because its so dangerous.

and TEENAGERS!!!
do drugs if you want.
i find marajuana boring as hell.... take a nap, to me it felt the same.
party pill type drugs... you feel weird and fake....
tobacco... you do ACTUALY look and smell bad... so go for your life, but a non smoker wont go near you, and we are the majority these days.
alcohol, like most people, you act like a fool, and if everyone else wasn't acting like a fool too, you'd be embarassed, fortunately non drinkers wont want to go out with you often, so no one will remember you being a moron.
painkillers.... yes they can be fun, but usually means you will be desensitived, so if your appendix comes out it will HURT coz the doedine won't work.

oh and if you are on this stuff at school, while most of it wont have a direct long term effect on you physically/mentally. missing/not paying attention to classes WILL, believe it or not that math stuff helps, so does english when you try and write employment letters, and history and science help make you interesting and make it easier to understand the world at large.
and again trust me.... getting drunk on sunday night makes monday a write off


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 18, 2007)

cris said:


> Do you think it is acceptable for primary school teachers to experiment with hard illegal drugs?



Really good for the art teacher methinks


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 18, 2007)




----------



## cris (Apr 18, 2007)

Moosey, i wasnt sugesting it would apply for art teachers, who would be left :lol:

The teacher was not a friend i dont even know them.

Junglist, why do you(and others) keep comparing extremely restrained use of MDMA(in a form generally unavaible) to extreme alcohol use? Obviously drinking a carton a day is going to be worse than taking a small amount of MDMA every few months.
Also since you seem to know how much can be used without any long term effects why dont you tell us? If you dont know how can you say any is safe?
Ppl have been drinking alcohol for hundreds or thousands of years and it is well known what it can do in varying amounts. MDMA has only just started to be widely used very little is known about the seriousness of longterm effects.



waruikazi said:


> How do you know the damage they have done to themselves has been through the use of pills?



Cant be proven, its just what they say and in the case of at least one person who ended up in a mental institute the docters opinion too. Strangely though it exactly matches the side effects suspected(not proven in human experiments because they dont do them these days) to be caused.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

MrBredli said:


> 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.



There are several cases of death (but perhaps attributed to impurities) in NZ...


----------



## buck (Apr 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> funny that someone pointed out paracetemol....
> one of the most dangerous drugs available in australia, legal and illicit.
> 
> and is illegal in many countries because its so dangerous.


 

Funny I can remember my Doctor once telling me that "paracetemol is the safest drug in the world!!!". This was in reply to my asking about a srcipt that was written out for Paramax.


----------



## MrBredli (Apr 18, 2007)

MDMA has been around for quite some time. It has really exploded in Australia in the past 10 years, so much so that we are now the ecstacy capital of the world, with more Aussies per capita consuming ecstacy then anywhere else in the world. I can introduce you to people who have been using ecstacy every weekend for the past 5 years and they are as normal as you or i. I can introduce you to people who used to get on the pills when i was just a baby and they are just fine. It is really only the people who lose control and smoke 30 bongs a day, snort 10 lines of coke a day, drink from the minute the wake up to the moment the pass out, smoke ice for 5 days straight etc... These are the people who have major problems. But it is a very small minority of the drug-using population. The good thing about MDMA is that a) it is not physically addictive and b) it can't be taken 10 times a day, 7 days a week like alcohol or marajuana. After having a couple of pills your serontonin levels are depleted, thus taking another pill will have very little affect. To feel the full power of E again you really need to wait at least 2 weeks before consuming again which makes this drug so much harder to be abused, especially when compared to alcohol and marajuana.


----------



## MrBredli (Apr 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> There are several cases of death (but perhaps attributed to impurities) in NZ...


 
Yes most certainly due to either a) adulterants in the pills, b) exhaustion/dehydration (dancing too much and not rehydrating), c) water intoxification, d) using a cocktail of drugs or e) a pre-existing condition.

It has been stated that to overdose from MDMA you would need to consume something in the range of 30-50 pills.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> funny that someone pointed out paracetemol....
> one of the most dangerous drugs available in australia, legal and illicit.
> 
> and is illegal in many countries because its so dangerous.



Sorry - That statement seems very ill informed.

1) Paracetamol is not illegal, as far as i am aware in any country on this planet - unless for religious reasons. Please show me a link that tells us where paracetamol has been made illegal.

2) Paracetamol is harmless when taken at the stated dose. Irreversible liver damage can occur from the enzymes your liver uses to break down the paracetomol when used in conjuction with some other medicines or prlonged use.

3) Paracetomol is highly toxic to cats, their live can not break down paracetomol at all.

4) Asprin (acetyl sacyillic acid) was originally derived from willow bark many hundreds of years ago - it is now synthetically made and has numoerous therapeutic (proven) uses. It is similar to paracetomol in every way.

5) Illicit means: Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful.

So is paracetomol an illicit drug? Well, being legal and illicit would merely be a contradiction I would think 

Please, don't throw away your aspro clear tabs, nor your panadol packets. At least one of my two years studying toxicology was to study the effects of paracetomol. For an entire year...

I am not going into detail, but lets put it this way, in high doses it is deadly, the correct dose for short term there is no side effects at all.

Forensick - Please tell us what it is you study and where you get some of these proposturous claims (I am still getting over the one you said about politicians and rape...).

And finally - the promotion of the use of drugs is silly... There's no 'do it if you want' about it... That does not conform to a well informed choice... In fact that goes against everything that junglist*, earthling and myself have said abotu harm minimisation.

And finally - your appendix should be fairly safe from a whacking great dose of codine.. your liver may not be so well off... 

I look forward to a smartened reply with some answers to the questions. And I do apologise if I come across rude - i seriosuly don't mean to be - I do not mean any offence, but some of these claims just don't add up. I am one of these people who - if I can see the facts, can be turned to agree... 

Cheers 

PS - Stay at school and don't do drugs (not until you can make an informed choice and even then, be very weary about what you could be doing short and long term... see a lot of advice from people in the KNOW!)


----------



## Forensick (Apr 18, 2007)

er...
rape means to take by force.... there is no sexual connotation in the word itself.
they take money, opinions from you by force...
and footballers, well... the common kind of rape...
bit of a pun you know

i study dietetics, which is based heavily in biochemistry.

panadol is illegal in greece


----------



## Forensick (Apr 18, 2007)

oh, the appendix coedine thing...

if you remove the paracetamol from a coedine tab (i wont mention how) you can take enough coedine to give you a huge high.
but you build up a tollerance, so if you need it, re appendix, it won't work, and you will be in pain.


side not about asprin, scientists still not 100% sure how it works, just that it does.

and the amount of paracetamol required to start doing permanant liver damage is remarkably low, and paracetamol overdose is actually quite a "common" suicide method (or at least was.... it is quite painfull and slow)


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> er...
> rape means to take by force.... there is no sexual connotation in the word itself.
> they take money, opinions from you by force...
> and footballers, well... the common kind of rape...
> ...



Prove it!!!

Panadol, paracetomol and all it's closest relatives are freely available in Greece... in fact, as far as I am aware some leading studies on paracetomol and its therapeutic uses is studied widely in greece... look it up if you don't beleive me!

Where did you hear that tripe from? Who ever said it is ill informed, and if I was you I would have questioned it... Paracetomol, as far as I am aware, is not illegal ANYWHERE in the world and I would be suprised if you can find it is... But, I am open to suprises...

And thank you for clearing up the 'rape' statements, i now say ahhhhhh I get it!!!


----------



## Forensick (Apr 18, 2007)

hang on....
looking it up....
it was in the early 90's
i have it in an old high school text....

can't find anything new....
tell you in a few hours


----------



## Lozza (Apr 18, 2007)

What teachers do in their private life is their business -same as anyone else.

There are no regulations as to what goes into these pills -anything could be put in for all you know it could be ratsak and washing powder  this is what kills people, it definitely isnt pure MDMA
They should just legalise drugs that way people know what they're getting if the do choose to take them and it puts the crims out of business


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> oh, the appendix coedine thing...
> 
> if you remove the paracetamol from a coedine tab (i wont mention how) you can take enough coedine to give you a huge high.
> but you build up a tollerance, so if you need it, re appendix, it won't work, and you will be in pain.
> ...



the first comment is a little weird... but i think that deserves a what ever in the nicest possible way....

Scientists are pretty well sure about neuro receptors and where asprin works... in fact I seem to recall being taught the pathways - admitidely I am quite ready for bed - so tonight is not the night I go back through my uni notes looking for it - but hey, if Ravi Goonaratne was wrong... So be it... I doubt somehow he was... He was a leading toxicologist - so I was led to believe anyhow...

And finally - yes - paracetamol is used in over doses - but liver damage does not occur at low doses unless in conjuction with alcohol or some other medications... I think you will find that that is correct... By itself, with adequate diet and water intake, paracetomol is harmless - and yes, again, i have the studies to prove it... And it's late for me - so until tomorrow - thank you for clearing that up. It really is a bit off topic... but none the less, good discussion. Cheers.

Nun nite... (all you on MDMA are probably bouncing off the walls right now!)


----------



## fishbot (Apr 18, 2007)

Computer says no...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=46669

A quick google will tell you that Athens Uni conducts paracetamol research...it's unlikely that the product is illegal within a nation that researches it.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

lozza said:


> What teachers do in their private life is their business -same as anyone else.
> 
> There are no regulations as to what goes into these pills -anything could be put in for all you know it could be ratsak and washing powder  this is what kills people, it definitely isnt pure MDMA
> They should just legalise drugs that way people know what they're getting if the do choose to take them and it puts the crims out of business



Go back a few posts and look at the damage legalisation does... legalising isn't the answer...

Harm minimisation as suggested is... legalisation does more damage than good...


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2007)

fishbot said:


> Computer says no...
> 
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=46669
> 
> A quick google will tell you that Athens Uni conducts paracetamol research...it's unlikely that the product is illegal within a nation that researches it.



I was aware of these studies - I've followed them for a few years, which is why I questioned that very thread - paracetomol is not banned in greece!!! 

Thaks for backing it up tho... Good to have evidence sometimes!


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

buck said:


> Just found this link http://www.justthinktwice.com/factfiction/LegalizationWorks.cfm
> 
> Quote from the link "After allowing marijuana to be sold in certain cafes, the Government of the Netherlands reconsidered its legalization policy. Consumption of marijuana had nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds. "
> Definately interesting to read and blows a huge hole in a certain argument


 
One thing to remember about statistics is that they can prove whatever you want them to prove, They can be manipulated. 

"From 15% to 44% among 18-20 yearolds"....this would include people who have had one smoketo try it and never did again. It does not mean 44% are potheads who smoke all day long. Without those stats this stat is not helpfull but rather just another fear device. 
REMEMBER we are looking at reducing HARM, not USE.

The link also says"The number of Dutch marijuana coffeehouses dropped from 1179 in 1997 to 782 in 2002—decreasing 34% in five years." Ummmm........they one minute say an increase in use then they say coffehouses are closing........if the 'coffeehouse' was profitable as of extra consumers one would think they wouldnt close yeah?! Dribble is starting to gush from their pens.

They also wrote this: "Kids were getting mixed messages about the dangers of marijuana during the 1990's when the decriminalization discussion was going on. According to the November 24, 2004 Canada Addiction Survey, marijuana use among Canadians has doubled since 1994. A decade earlier, 7.4% of respondents indicated they had used marijuana; usage levels are currently 14%. The study also indicates that there has been an increase in the number of Canadians using an injectable drug: the number rose from 132,000 in 1994 to 269,000 in 2004." Two things, firstly same as I wrote before, it does not mean these people are potheads or everyday IV users. Harm-Minimisation is about reducing HARM not necesarilly USE.
Secondly whilst I was working in Canada I did not see anywhere advertisements or pamphlets or anything regarding SAFE DRUG USE. This is what should be happening in these countries if they adopt the full harm-minimisation approach. Its has to be an all or nothing approach...government policy of well we like that bit.. but oh not that bit so we will only do these few things does not work in this scenario. Also what can not be discounted is the fact that as drugs become more accepted by society (laws relaxed) IV users amongst others will be more willing to come forward when questioned about their use for statistics. it does not necesarilly mean there are MORE users.

Remember the main objective of harm reduction is to mitigate the potential dangers and health risks associated with the behaviours themselves. Not stop people using.

EDUCATE.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

buck said:


> Just found this link http://www.justthinktwice.com/factfiction/LegalizationWorks.cfm
> Definately interesting to read and blows a huge hole in a certain argument


 
regarding that link they also said this:
"*No country alone, (as the Dutch have found to their cost) can operate a policy which is substantially more liberal than neighbours, without suffering from “drug tourism” or, as in the Dutch situation, a larger pool of drugs-linked criminality than it would otherwise have.there is the big lie that legalising drugs will take the criminality out of supply. What nonsense. Illegal traders who pay no taxes of any sort can always undercut legitimate traders*.” 

Ummmm....duh..the first bit is a no brainer...who would have thought a drug user in another country wouldnt holiday in a neighbouring country will lax drug laws. Australia wont have that problem Im afraid. Bit isolated which makes that argument invalid.
As to the second bit mentioning illegal traders. Again no brainer....duh...as long as there are consumers there will always be businesses, dealers, individuals trying to sell cheaper products to make a buck. Economics my friend. Same gig with cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers.....should we ban them?
The important thing to remember that offering the consumer a legitamate place to buy their drug of choice means they do not have to associate in any form with the criminal eliment if they choose not to. Whilst today if you want to use a drug thats not legalised, criminals are the only people you can go to for a supply.

That website also had this dribble:" *The Swiss Experiment*: Tolerant drug policies in Switzerland have resulted in an influx of drug users. In 1987, the Swiss Government permitted drug use and sales in a part of Zurich called Platzspitz, or “Needle Park.” By 1992, over 20,000 drug users congregated in the park, and the surrounding areas were overrun with crime. The park has been shut down and the experiment has been terminated. "
Again.....Duh..hindsight is a wonderfull thing. 
New Law #1908/5: Lets say from now on in Brisbane you can only sell and use your bought alcohol in the waterfront park in Newfarm. What ...:shock: who woulda thought a huge influx of people and crime would result......thats just crazy! 

This site, as so far all sites, that I have found that are against harm-mininmisation lack valid argument and/or proof.

Slim I hope this wasnt the site that you mentioned proved Legalisation is not the way to go.........:shock: .


----------



## Hickson (Apr 19, 2007)

Forensick said:


> panadol is illegal in greece



From memory, it's codeine that's illegal in Greece. The instance in the 1990's you are referring to was a Qantas stewardess who went on holiday to Greece with Panadeine in her luggage, and Greek Customs found it.



Hix


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2007)

Earthling said:


> Slim I hope this wasnt the site that you mentioned proved Legalisation is not the way to go.........:shock: .



Nope - I did not - I just saw a site that recommened more research to be done before we jump to any conclusions - Nothing about that stuff.

And anyhow, even if I did, you bring a valid argument to that site to discredit it in some way or stance. As I suggested, if I am wrong, unlike some others on this site, I am free to admit it and change my outlook.

But I guess we all can't be perfect like me


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2007)

Hix said:


> From memory, it's codeine that's illegal in Greece. The instance in the 1990's you are referring to was a Qantas stewardess who went on holiday to Greece with Panadeine in her luggage, and Greek Customs found it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hix



Again, i don't think it is illegal, it's a 'prescription only' drug or restricted in some way. As it is available over the counter here in Australia and many other parts of the world (at around 8mg per tab, and up to 20mg apparently) in panadeine and other brand name pain killers, then people forget that you're not allowed to take it into Greece.

It is therefore a form of 'smuggling' just like bringing pseudoephedrine in your sinus tabs into our country - Highly illegal even if you bought it over the counter in your local South African store...


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

slim6y said:


> And anyhow, even if I did, you bring a valid argument to that site to discredit it in some way or stance. As I suggested, if I am wrong, unlike some others on this site, I am free to admit it and change my outlook.
> But I guess we all can't be perfect like me


 
hahaha...yes many humans are afraid of change. Im glad your not, you will grow...who knows where you will end up..thats the fun of life.
Psychologists and Psychoanalysts and many others have been making a lot of money out of people being afraid to change. Psychologist Scott Peck believes that its because of peoples laziness that they wont change...its easier to sit in your old belief system then question and change it. Any new ideas such as we are discussing in this thread are too big for lazy people to process, to many changes in their belief system, means too much work..easier to sit and be lazy. But NO I hear many people say, I work 12 hour days and then do the housework and look after 36 kids and 4 goats and.....mmm....thats just keeping busy, busy not working on the things most important for human growth. Some people wil go to extraordinary lengths to not face their true self and keep so busy they have no time to think about......life. 

Real work begins when you work on yourself and whats in your head. 

Thats work.


----------



## Lucas (Apr 19, 2007)

Since when has using recreational drugs not been an offence?


----------



## junglist* (Apr 19, 2007)

Julie-anne said:


> I never said anything about the affects people experience whilst on drugs, i just said that people working with children shouldnt be using it.
> 
> It is a known fact that 2 days after taking mdma or amphetamines your seratonin levels are so low that you experience what is known as 'Suicide Tuesday' or 'Suicide Monday' (depending on which day you took the drugs). From my experience i would not like to have these feelings while working with children as it would greatly affect my work and therefore have a negative outcome for the children.
> 
> Do not tell me that my opinion isn't valid (this is a public forum) and do not tell me that i'm not educated .



No, incorrect again julie ann, it can get that low if you have gone over the top, but its an absolute crock to say that everyone feels suicidal on a monday/tuesday after taking MDMA on a weekend. If you have a predisposition to htese sorts of conditions/feelings, you shouldnt be taking the substance, again exactly what the harm minimisation approach is about.

I will continue to tell you that on this matter your opinion is invalid, as is your obvious level of education this topic.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 19, 2007)

liasis said:


> oh and if you take any type of drug you should be shot i have no time for losers that take drugs



ever taken an asprin?? salycilic acid?? (same thing)

Ever consumed a single glass of alcoholic beverage??
Ever had a coffee or a tea??

This is the sort of stigma that is the problem with having acceptance of drug addiction as a crime, instead of a health issue


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2007)

junglist* said:


> No, incorrect again julie ann, it can get that low if you have gone over the top, but its an absolute crock to say that everyone feels suicidal on a monday/tuesday after taking MDMA on a weekend. If you have a predisposition to htese sorts of conditions/feelings, you shouldnt be taking the substance, again exactly what the harm minimisation approach is about.
> 
> I will continue to tell you that on this matter your opinion is invalid, as is your obvious level of education this topic.



I am not critical of your stance here - as it appears to be realistic (to a certain degree). But I am going tobe clear as a whistle - your arrogance does nothing for anyone here. it is more difficult for you to remove the stigma that we have perceived if you tell people that their level of education is bellow yours and that their opinion is invalid??? Not clever... Arguing a point can be done with minimal arrogance.

Let's see if you can apologise for those comments as they were uncalled for...


----------



## junglist* (Apr 19, 2007)

buck said:


> Well if we are to be frank.... from this and other threads that I have witnessed your participation you seem to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever had dealings with. You sit there dishing out personal attacks from the safety of your computer. Well can you please do me a favour and supply some EVIDENCE of all of these stats that you are quoting, just for the morons out there . Any FOOL can sit there and type numbers- lets see some reference to back it up!!!!!!!
> I think the way in which you totally dismissed the link supplied by Slim6y to the NZ site says alot about the kind of person you are.
> 
> If you would bother to get over your ego and read my post properly you would see that I never said that alcohol and tabacco were any less of a problem. I actually agree with you on several points. What I do have a problem with is someone who proclaims to be a chemist coming on to a family site saying that drugs are ok and don't listen to the governments propaganda.
> ...



Yes, i am arrogant on this issue, but thats because ive been studying the area for about 12 years now, objectvely. I did not say oncethat MDMA was good for you, but that it can have some positive uses, and to put a blanket ban on a substance just because someone might abuse it is moronic, especially when you consider the governments stance on far more dangerous drugs than this one.

The figures are out there, if you claim that my arrogance is unfounded, find the numbers to back it up. Do not try to get into an intellectual argument with me because - and i am being generally arrogant now, but not without due cause - you will lose.

All your argument consists of is the general hysteria drugs are bad nonsense, and we will stigmatise anyone who makes a stand against it.

I can think for myself, i question the validity of everything that authority figures tell me, while you seem content to have the wool taped firmly over your eyes, and the ear plugs put into your ears.
I have not once said that a drug is good, the simple fact of the matter is that to personify such an inanimate object is about as silly as believing that someone who is a virgin can give birth, or that once youa re dead, you can live again.


----------



## junglist* (Apr 19, 2007)

buck said:


> Just found this link http://www.justthinktwice.com/factfiction/LegalizationWorks.cfm
> 
> Quote from the link "After allowing marijuana to be sold in certain cafes, the Government of the Netherlands reconsidered its legalization policy. Consumption of marijuana had nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds. "
> 
> Definately interesting to read and blows a huge hole in a certain argument



Yes but as a whole arugument, and the total population of smokers, america and australia have approximately 250% more smokers per head of capita than the netherlands, irrespective of the specious statistics you just posted.


----------



## Lucas (Apr 19, 2007)

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


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

Lucas said:


> 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


 
Now if thats not proof that the current anti-drug outlook the Government has is NOT working I dont know what is!


----------



## junglist* (Apr 19, 2007)

slim6y said:


> 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!



Did you graduate from primary school slimy???

The legislation needs to be created to take money away fropm the police and customs aervices and put it to work where t is actually needed. A proactive approach needs to be taken, not a reactive approach as is being taken at the moment.

Have we as a species not learnt anything from the expriences of america with prohibition?? Or Manchurian china with opium??

These substances cannot be eradicated, and so we must stopp fighting the losing battle, but start managing the drugs so that people who do become addicted do not become deletorius to society as a whole.

Property crime is a big one that makes old conservative grey folk say we need more cops on the street.

However, if organised crime were not setting the prices, then the cost would be much lower, and the burglaries would not need to be performed to feed the kids, or the habit etc. Were there free counselling and addiction treatment facilities for ayone who felt they had a problem, or were locked in a vicious cycles of addiction and crime, then would it not be beneficial to have these people become productive members of society again??

An inanimate thing is not the problem here, but it is the pathetically inadequate measures being taken by the governemnts in relation to this nonsensical "war on drugs" which i might add is laughable considering especially with heroin, the americans allow afghans to grow poppy crops right outside the major firebase in kabul.

When will the majority of the populace see that we are being lied to, and that there are no facts behind the lies.

A simple example for everyone should be the case of marijuana. why is it banned??> Because the coton and chemical processing industries did not like people producing better fibre, twice a year for less than half the cost. Hence a smear campaign was run against a wonderfully useful herb, and now we have to put up with a crop that uses 10 times more water than hemp to grow (in the 2nd driest continent on earth, thats just stupid) and needs ridiculous amounts of chemical processing to enable the use of cotton as a commercial material.


----------



## Lucas (Apr 19, 2007)

it has nothing to do with the Gov't. Its through personal experiences that I've made my opinions


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

Lucas said:


> it has nothing to do with the Gov't. Its through personal experiences that I've made my opinions


For sure Lucas..totally understandable.
Im saying the current policies our Government has actually assisted:
"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."

If our current laws were solving and stopping the drug abuse and asssisting to solve the drug crimes, you would not have been subjected to such pain in your life.


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

Lucas said:


> 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


 
Your view on drugs is totally understandable.
You touch a hotplate when its hot and you get burned....your not in a hurry to touch it again.
You go and touch a hotplate right now that you know is cool...your body/mind will put up a 'NO DONT DO IT' reaction. 
I would suggest a similarity with your Drug views. You were burnt not once..not twice...but several times....your body/mind has a distinct aversion from drugs after being burnt that many times. Totally understandable.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Did you graduate from primary school slimy???
> 
> *ANSWER: No - When I went to school there was no such thing as graduation, it was for people who didn't want to do apprenticships. Are you just plain arrogant - cause you don't seem to have social skills that would suggest otherwise.*
> The legislation needs to be created to take money away fropm the police and customs aervices and put it to work where t is actually needed. A proactive approach needs to be taken, not a reactive approach as is being taken at the moment.
> ...



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 apoligies for your arogance and uncalled for comments... Lets move on and have a party now.


----------



## cris (Apr 19, 2007)

Lucas, did the ppl you mention set out to destroy themselves with drugs or did they just end up doing that after "experimenting" with them?



Earthling said:


> Now if thats not proof that the current anti-drug outlook the Government has is NOT working I dont know what is!



explain how this could have been solved by the government?
I personally think alot of ppl are encouraged to use drugs by our governments current approach, which is to allow ppl to use drugs and only use the pathetically soft hand of the law on big time dealers.


----------



## Lucas (Apr 19, 2007)

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


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

cris said:


> explain how this could have been solved by the government?
> I personally think alot of ppl are encouraged to use drugs by our governments current approach, which is to allow ppl to use drugs and only use the pathetically soft hand of the law on big time dealers.


yes cris I totally agree with you, not only does the Governments current approach allow people to use drugs but also to selfabuse to the point of death, including hurting and killing people around them.

cris i have to question have you read and understood peoples posts in this thread? If so my answer has already been written several times by myself and others. Harm-minimisation to say it once again. Please read this thread and responses and the links and even do some more research on the subject and answers will soon dawn.

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


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

Lucas said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2007)

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


----------



## Earthling (Apr 19, 2007)

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


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2007)

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 (Apr 19, 2007)

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 (Apr 19, 2007)

oohhhhh, an insult party. I'll invite myself


----------



## junglist* (Apr 19, 2007)

slim6y said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2007)

Earthling said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2007)

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* (Apr 19, 2007)

Lucas said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2007)

junglist* said:


> 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.
> ...


.


----------



## Mr feegle (Apr 19, 2007)

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* (Apr 19, 2007)

*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 (Apr 19, 2007)

Vat69 said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2007)

Tsidasa said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2007)

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 (Apr 19, 2007)

Tsidasa said:


> 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* (Apr 19, 2007)

Lucas said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 19, 2007)

cris said:


> 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 (Apr 19, 2007)

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. H**ow 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.*


----------



## Vat69 (Apr 19, 2007)

Tsidasa said:


> 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.



Please quote me where I even came close to promoting the use of ectasy or any drug like it and where I said it was fun. I think you'll find if you actually read any of my other posts on the topic I said that I *do not* advocate drug use.
I've never used it myself which you can also quote me as saying so how would I know whether or not it's fun?
And let me assert to you firmly I'm far from preaching


----------



## buck (Apr 19, 2007)

I still don't know why we can't increase awareness,more help for addicts, and have better education facilities available to help people make informed decisions and leave the legality of the drugs as they are. Why do they have to be legal for all of the above to work? Surely increased education etc. AND leaving the substance illegal and less accessable is a better option? Maybe I am missing something after all.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2007)

To Dear junglist*

Firstly I must apologise to you. I am not reading all of your threads entirely through tiredness and sore eyes. But I will answer this - and treat it how you do.

Secondly - I can't justify my self destructive path - It appears I am set to detonate. Good luck then... 

Thirdly - To me you seem socially inept so I will talk to you in as simple words as I possibly can so you can clearly see it and - if you're at all open minded, you might say that just a small possibility I might be right. But, I can't see you being open minded at all - you seem to set in your ways through what I have read. You certainly haven't changed my opinion of legalisation through arrogance, but you sure have made me think of how to treat your anti-social behaviour... I would suggest fighting fire with fire, but I can't lower myself to your level - it actually hurts my head to think down there. 

I would consider myself open minded. I have been persuaded in earthling's ways - and even some of yours. But legalisation is not the way to go - and here, for the second time, and hopefully this time you read it, are the reasons why legalisation does NOT work....

1: Because it's too difficult to make people take all the consequences of their own actions. Again it will fall on society to make it 'better'. And society is out of band aids for drugs because they've had enough!

In other words – people who take drugs will still take them irresponsibly, the only difference is you’ve armed them with information that they haven’t listened to and will still do themselves more harm that good.

This may be a temporary issue, but it is one that will remain somehow through time. 

When alcohol was made legal after prohibition, did you see people abusing alcohol? 

No one accepts responsibility for what they do – it’s always someone else’s fault…

One man's taking of drugs (unless he's on an island totally by himself) will affect many others no matter if it is legal or not... Their children, their spouse, their neighbours, their immediate family, their employers, and just society in general... You can't control the actions of the individual, and education won't help the majority to make an informed choice - as I said earlier... Only the informed will make informed choices.

2: Just remember - Junglist* you may not see the future easily - what stands to reason (legalisation) does not always occur...

You foresee big drug lords coming down because they can no longer make a quick buck – seriously, are you going to give up your multi billion dollar business because of legalization? I doubt it somehow… Crime never pays, but when the money is this big, they’ll make it pay!

Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe.

Drug users will do anything they can to get their hands on the drugs… Are you going to make it free? Because most drug users still won’t be able to afford the price of marketed drugs which will be well and truly elevated anyhow. They will still commit crime, and that stat of 90% you uttered will not drop, and you can’t see that???

Now instead there will be a new breed of 'get rich quick' people to take on the new role of drug manufacturers - this doesn't solve a problem that already occurs without legalisation.

People who commit crimes to fund their drug addictions (needs/wants) will not vanish. Why would drugs become cheaper? You think by making it legal there will be some form of price establishment? Even if it was - those people will still commit crime to force feed their needs.

Junglist* this is but a start of the terror you will unleash by legalizing drugs... And if you can't see that - then your ability at open mindeness is as numb as a person with novacaine injected in their veins!


----------



## IsK67 (Apr 19, 2007)

slim6y said:


> I am not reading all of your threads



They're posts. Not threads. The thread is the whole topic "Primary school teachers"

Just in case you wanted to know.


IsK


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2007)

IsK67 said:


> They're posts. Not threads. The thread is the whole topic "Primary school teachers"
> 
> Just in case you wanted to know.
> 
> ...



Thanks... I re-correct the first sentence of the previous said post - I am not reading all of your posts....

I am tired 

But none the less - it's been a fantastic week and I can assure junglist* he's not right about this one... Waiting patiently for his return...


----------



## little_angel (Apr 20, 2007)

Stupid!
It could have killed the fool!
One of my friends died of an OD and found him! Its not good for every one and I would want to know what school this person works at so my kids stay away from people using drugs like that!


----------



## horsenz (Apr 20, 2007)

may be a few people like jungist need to go out withe the paramedics and police who end up having to deal with these people who as they or when they cant talk there mates tell you they only took the amount they normally take and its never made them like this befor.i am sick of dealing with them laying in there own vomit,spitting at me when iam called there to help them the abuse they give us,i cannot count how many times this has happened as its a weekly thing infact its getting worse,also so is the amount of deaths starting to rise and all by these people who keep saying i always take it and never been like this


----------



## Earthling (Apr 20, 2007)

horsenz said:


> may be a few people like jungist need to go out withe the paramedics and police who end up having to deal with these people who as they or when they cant talk there mates tell you they only took the amount they normally take and its never made them like this befor.i am sick of dealing with them laying in there own vomit,spitting at me when iam called there to help them the abuse they give us,i cannot count how many times this has happened as its a weekly thing infact its getting worse,also so is the amount of deaths starting to rise and all by these people who keep saying i always take it and never been like this


 
Sounds like a lot of impurities are finding their way into their drug of choice. 
Illegal drugs purity cannot be controlled. 
Prescription drugs purity can be controlled.


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 20, 2007)

I'm gonna make one comment and then i'll try to stay out of this thread. 

You can not compare two different drugs.

The effect heroin has on a person and their mind and body is completely to the effect ecstacy or cigarettes or ice has. There is NO COMPARISON. 

I have had both good and bad experiences with drugs, the worse one probably being waking up in some strange girls bed not knowing where i was lol. Seriously though i have had experiences from having the time of my life right through to having a psychosis that lasted two weeks and would you beleive that drug was administered by a doctor. 

The point i am making is that all drugs have some kind of negative effect, nothing comes for free. My personal beleif is that an individual should be given enough information to make an informed choice on what they want to do with their own body. That means being told about the good aspects and the bad aspects and why these things are good or bad.


----------



## horsenz (Apr 20, 2007)

think some of them get that used to taking it they have to take more to get there high. most of them are that far off there heads they dont know what they are doing,but once they spit its off to court for assault,i dont care who it is i have a family i go home to and dont need that or the risk of getting some diseases


----------



## junglist* (Apr 20, 2007)

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.

This part buck, this is where you argument is fallacious. If the current approach is not working, then something else needs to be done. It may not work, but if it diminishes the harm to the community as a whole, ie lower b/e rates, assaults muggings etc, then we as a society will be better off. Not to mention the increased funding levels for hospitals etc, which i dare say would actually increase the standard of living for the community as a whole.
* 
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? YOU CRIPPLE YOUR ARGUMENT FOOL. It is no concern of the government, and the very fct that doctors are refusing to operate on these people is direct evidence of that. Were it their concern, the operations would be performed.*
*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.  
Noone commits crime to feed an alcohol addiction. I have never met one person who would rob, steal or violate for the next drink. If you're that hard up, i guarantee that someone will buy you a drink in a pub if you ask politely. It is not me who has missed the point, you are willfully looking the other way in an intentional attempt to evade the real crux of the issue.

* 
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. H**ow 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 accessible more people will become addicted? You have just crippled your own argument!!!

Actually no, the evidence does not support your argument here. Making something more accessible (correct spelling observe) does not necessarily make it more desirable, nor more of a challenge to obtain. In fact, looking at the issue with teen angst in mind, the ability to obtain something without being perceived as a rebel, and cool, makes something far less desirable to obtain. If something no longer has the stigma of being illicit, open and frank discussion can be held about it, and i dont believe you have to be a neurosurgeon to understand this point, it is really the lies and mis truths provided to kids, and the low level of information provided in schools and by governmental organisations about illicit drugs that creates curiosity about them. Curiosity, and the fact that there are so many people in society who use drugs with no deleterious effects that if information A is provided by the government, and the child knows person B who provides conflicting information about the substance, even a kid with a mild distrust of authority will be leaning towards ignoring everything the government and authority figure says about the drug in question. This is ultimately harmful to the health of that individual because they do not listen to the harm minimisation messages that are provided by the drug education organisations.

Removing something to which people are addicted only serves to create a black market driven by free market supply and demand. If people want it, then people will get it, this is the major part of the whole situation you refuse to admit.

* 
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 ify our 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.*[/quote]


No, people continue to try smoking because it is a learnt habit. They see people they know doing it, they feel rebellious for doing something they are told not to do. I think you ignore the fact that for anyone under the age of eighteen, smoking is still illegal, so you have just shot your argument in the foot. Its not because its legal, and the fact the smoking rates have dropped, while the substance is still legal shows that you argument about people taking up the habit merely because its legal is ludicrous. Actually the evidence from Amsterdam points towards less people being inclined to try something just because it is legal/decriminalised, but even if they do choose to try something, the have less chance of being a habitual user, because life continues outside of the drugs. The fact that it can be obtained with little hassle, and no interaction with criminal elements means that there is generally less chance of becoming involved in a lifestyle which is soley revolving around drugs.

You point about people addicted to legal drugs/illegal drugs is spurious simply because you cannot compare the addiction levels of legal drugs to illegal drugs, because not all are addictive, and not all act in the same fashion.

Take alcohol for example, the vast majority of society is behaviourally addicted to this substance. Nicotine is one of the MOST ADDICTIVE drugs that our species has ever discovered, and to attempt to compare a nicotine addiction to MDMA (WHICH IS NOT ADDICTIVE AT ALL) on that basis is about as smart as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, but it can be habit forming. Heroin is phenomenally addictive, yet pales in comparison to nicotine.

Alcohol is the only drug that we know of that if you are addicted, and try to go cold turkey will kill you long before you ever break the addiction.

Drug use is not a problem, IT IS ADDICTION OF ALL KINDS WHICH ARE THE PROBLEM. Alcohol, Tobacco, Poker machines, Horses, Dogs, Cards, Driving too fast, Risk taking behaviour, Unprotected sex, there are many sorts of addictions which we as a species seem to be prone to, yet it is not those activities themselves which are wholly detrimental to our health and well being, but an addiction to any one of those activities is that which causes damage to the individual, yet the individual will not stop.

IF there were adequate addiction treatment facilities for addictions of all kinds, with the addictions being treated as the medical problems they are, then that would be beneficial to our society. A tthe moment, we send drug users away whose lives can still be turned around to become productive and valuable members of our society, yet we choose to lock the away in prisons with hardened criminals to become institutionalised and indictrinated into a life of crime.

Surely even someone as closed minded as you buck, can see that the current approach is doing more harm than good, and even if - and using a blanket statement like - it works to reduce even a quarter of the harm being done to the communtiy as a whole, THIS IS STILL FAR BETTER THAN THE STATUS QUO, whereby we see addictions and violence related to addiction continuing to rise.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 20, 2007)

I make specialnote that asof yet juglist* you'venotbeen able to answer my above post.

Junglist* many of us agree that at the moment we're doing more harm than good - that doesn't seem to be the main issue - the main issue here is changing our current approach to SAVE hundreds if not thousands of lives. And the best place to start is at home, then at schools, then in public.

My above post references some of the dangers of legalisation - Although not infallible - I don't think legalisation is the way - I seriously doubt that you can assume crime will drop.

The biggest stat to drop will be from drug users not being arrested for possession! 

Anyhow...No need to repeat eveything - Cause I know you're wrong


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Apr 20, 2007)

junglist* said:


> How many of these people who are addicted to cigerettes would still be addicted if it were not so readily available?


I just wanted to mention that cigarettes used to be a LOT cheaper.. but that doesn't stop people from smoking, they just pay more to get it. 
Whether they get their money from getting a better job, or by taking it from others.. :? 

*walks away*
-penny


----------



## junglist* (Apr 20, 2007)

slim6y said:


> I make specialnote that asof yet juglist* you'venotbeen able to answer my above post.
> 
> Junglist* many of us agree that at the moment we're doing more harm than good - that doesn't seem to be the main issue - the main issue here is changing our current approach to SAVE hundreds if not thousands of lives. And the best place to start is at home, then at schools, then in public.
> 
> ...




Slimy, you've sufficiently shown how neolithic you are in your approach to this. The issue is nNOT about saving lives, but reducing the harm done to the community as a whole, if this has a roll on effect to saving lives then so be it, but again, just because you are so inept at comprehension - YOUR APPROACH IS ALL CUDDLY FURRY ANIMALS AND NO SUBSTANCE.

The ONLY place to start is the removal of the legislation which governs the illegality of the substances because prohibition has ALWAYS done more harm than good in the long term.

You make concrete statement about what will be the result, but quite frankly have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT THE REAL WORLD. I dont know if there is an organisation like the wayside chapel in NZ, but if you're ever in australia take a visit and see just how bad the situation is, and how it can be made better. The necessary response is NOT to shove it under the carpet and act like the status quo is working.

You've got no idea, and to just say that there are dangers in legislation is moronic at best. Legislation does not mean one thing, with the total disregard of others, it merely means that a better way can and should be found, and the archaic laws (also known as legislation funnily enough) which are in effect today would be rescinded.

*Junglist* many of us agree that at the moment we're doing more harm than good - that doesn't seem to be the main issue - the main issue here is changing our current approach to SAVE hundreds if not thousands of lives. And the best place to start is at home, then at schools, then in public.
*What on earth do you mean. The current approach has been at home in schools and in public to make statments trying to imply that DRUGS ARE BAD OK. IT HAS NOT WORKED, and your statement shows that you are devoid of original or valid ideas about the best way to tackle the situation. I assure you that deluding yourself that everything is happy and smiley and that things can be changed simply by happy smiley approaches.

You cement my point that i have been making here, as you use it foolishly to back up your own point of view *the main issue here is changing our current approach.
*
Yes, what you fail to understand though is that the major issues with illicit drug deaths on the streets or in homes etc, have nothing to do with the drug itself, BUT THE IMPURITIES IN THE SAMPLES. The only way to combat this is to regulate the manufacture and quality of these drugs - and to provide treatment and counseling at the point of sale.


* My above post references some of the dangers of legalisation - Although not infallible - I don't think legalisation is the way - I seriously doubt that you can assume crime will drop.
*
How on earth can you think this. If artificially high prices are a function of the black market sale then to remove the black market factor, the consequential drop in price can have no effect other than to reduce the amount of money needed to support a habit - THIS MEANS THAT LESS CRIME WILL NEED TO BE COMMITTED BY THE SAME SMALL POPULATION OF HEAVILY ADDICTED DRUG ABUSERS.

Add to this the corruption of police factor in the whole argument, and the only solution becomes so much clearer. The last 4 police royal commissions have highlighted that drug prohibition has been the driving force behind, and the major cause of police corruption. Surely although the health tolls of prohibition, and the general cost to the community (taxes going to support police targeting users - an un-winnable battle; but also the cost of insurance premiums due to higher claim rates because of B/E; the cost of health care due to impurities in the smaples) of keeping these substances illegal are massive, most of you refuse to admit that the "war on drugs" is fallacious and unwinnable; The corruption of what should be the shining beacon of honesty and ethical behaviour - the police force - is the straw which breaks the camel's back on the issue of prohibition.

As to the people who claim that legalising the substances wont stop people becoming addicted, and that when alcohol was legalised many people abused it - this disregards the fact that people were already abusing them even when they were illegal, and the the act of prohibiting them is for appearances only, because it is unpolicable. Yes people will continue to abuse them, but people were already abusing them, and if the abuse can be mitigated, then use is no problem, for it is not drug use which is the problem, but irresponsible drug abuse.

Slimy, you may think that you're correct, but if you could sell me tickets to whatever trip you've been on that has led you to think this way, i'll buy one, your version of reality is so twisted, it'd be funny to see just how you actually perceive the world..

The worst part of this whole scenario is that i have had far better arguments, with far more substantive support with mentally retarded donkeys than i have with you slimy.


----------



## cris (Apr 20, 2007)

junglist* said:


> The worst part of this whole scenario is that i have had far better arguments, with far more substantive support with mentally retarded donkeys than i have with you slimy.



If you are argueing with such animals with such detailed ranting perhaps you should lay off the gear mate


----------



## junglist* (Apr 20, 2007)

cris said:


> If you are argueing with such animals with such detailed ranting perhaps you should lay off the gear mate



lol.

funny thing is i dont take drugs on a regular basis at all. I have done in the past, and if an opportunity arises again i may.

But i love the implications made in every argument on this topic, that if i feel that way i must be a drug fiend to think the way i do.

So far, the funiest thing of all i slimy calling me closed minded (i can see you're joking here cris)


----------



## Hickson (Apr 20, 2007)

I think, after 18 pages, everybody has had a chance to express their views. Discussion has left the original topic.

This thread is now closed.



Hix


----------

