Here we are again. Two young people dead. Others critically ill. And politicians not merely vowing they won’t act, but seeming to think that’s a virtue.
Whether pill-testing would have prevented the deaths and illnesses at Defqon.1 at Penrith in Sydney’s west over the weekend can’t ever be known, but we certainly know it would have significantly increased the chances of people not taking toxic substances, because they would have binned dangerous or potentially dangerous pills after testing. We know that because that’s what happens as a result of pill-testing. That’s what happened at Groovin’ the Moo in Canberra earlier this year.
Yet major party politicians outside the ACT continue to reject pill testing. New South Wales premier Gladys Berejiklian said she would instead close down Defqon.1, a simply nonsensical statement. How will she do that? What if the organisers rename the same festival? Will she ban all derivations of Defqon? Is she going to ban all dance music festivals? Ban, ban, ban.
The reflexive opposition to pill-testing in favour of constant reiterations of the failed prohibitionist approach isn’t just profoundly stupid. It’s lethal. Every life lost should weigh on the consciences of major party politicians and the senior police who support them in rejecting pill-testing. And what drives it? Not merely, as Dr Alex Wodak has argued, the obsession with a law enforcement and supply control approach to drug policy, but, seemingly, an indifference to young peoples’ lives, a belief that being seen to be “tough on drugs” plays better with the electorate, or at least with tabloid newspapers and shockjocks, than doing whatever it takes to prevent young people dying.
The willingness of policymakers to let young people die rather than admit a reflexive prohibitionist approach isn’t working should be a major scandal, but in a society that readily engages in a constant war on its young people via climate policy, housing policy and education policy, it’s more like business as usual. And the death toll from this failure, and the grief of families and friends over lives cut so short, will continue to grow.
Banning is impractical – look at the US experience with Prohibition. The minute something is banned it becomes more attractive, especially to the young.
Our politicians seem rusted-on to the 20th century: no voluntary euthanasia, no pill testing, no climate change. Collectively, they think like old fogeys whereas the electorate is light years ahead. Young people over 18 should be aware they can vote fogeys out in favour of social progressives.
Perhaps they would, were they not so drug addled.
When will they admit that the “war on drugs” is a total failure, an extremely expensive one in lives and money, just like it was in the 1920s with alcohol. Some people either never learn, are just too pig-headed to admit they are wrong or just care about looking tough and getting votes.
Gladys’s arrogance and pig headedness on this deserves a Mark Knight cartoon. But wait- she’ s female, non anglo saxon, so this would trigger another crikey supported PC campaign?
Not if it actually looked like Gladys, WW.
The really pathetically sickening thing about the “War on Drugs” is that it was initiated by a racist criminal politician as a way to target those he identified as undermining his popularity, yet no-one in authority since then has had the imagination or courage to take a different approach. Here is the backstory:
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-shocking-and-sickening-story-behind-nixons-war-on-drugs-that-targeted-blacks-and-anti-war-activists/
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon
https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-nixon-used-america-s-war-on-drugs-as-excuse-to-target-anti-war-left-and-black-people-claims-a6948521.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/03/23/nixons-drug-war-an-excuse-to-lock-up-blacks-and-protesters-continues/#69c3512c42c8
Prohibition in Canada lasted for much less time than it did in the USA. It is not (and was not) a matter of alcohol becoming more “attractive” but an impediment for the majority of the population to indulge their “natural” desires. The equivalents of the bleeding heart SJWs along with the protestant religious nutters got the upper hand and the rest became history.
While work may well be the scourge of the drinking classes and despite the intuitive appeal as to a solution to the problem of poverty, absenteeism and domestic violence there is something to be said for “staying real” and accepting the consequences of alcohol (abuse) in a society.
There are people who are just prone, and some excessively prone, to alcohol. My old man, who maintained a professional occupation, was one. Similarly for drugs. The need to alter ones mental state exceeds all the rational argument relating to content in anti-drug literature. Similarly for the effects upon family and friends. Similarly for smoking. In Asia, among young people, it is not exaggerating to describe the incidence as an epidemic.
If the press gave a damn they could tread the matter differently. Similarly for the politicians. Rather then declare “oh – what a shame” and close a concert the retort could be “what would any rational person expect”(?) and declare that “the show must continue” – and let the event be a lesson to everyone – and NOT a punishment for most.
What is the point of so called pill-testing? Anyone over the age of 10 knows just what they are swallowing. Similarly, for that matter, for sniffing hydro-carbon products. Whether such acts are de facto suicides or unintended consequences is anyone’s guess and rather beside the point.
The alternative, of course, is to muddle along as we do now. Perhaps we could form a committee.
The point of testing is that they DON’T know what they are taking, most likely been lied to by the scum that sold it. Of course, the main point is that you just might save someone’s life, maybe even one of your own kids.
huh .. duh .. THEN destroy the material or better still take it to a police station. Only an idiot swallows something that could be injurious
This is not a situation where we can just tell them to do whats right or rational. We were all 15 to 20 year old idiots once. Its part of the human condition to be risk takers when we’re young. We now know its because our frontal lobes aren’t fully developed. I don’t see anything wrong with providing as much information as possible to make them safer.
More to agree with than to disagree with Bref. However, as I say some are just plan prone and remain so at any age. A week after exams at a fairly toffee school a guy, full of “fong”, jumped off the roof of a two-storied house in a prominent suburb. The entire class did not ingest much less jump off the roof.
The “pill testing” is de facto condoning the practice. Perhaps my mythical committee (above) could recommend a suite of “safe consciousness enhancing drugs” along with dope to packets of 5oz that are available at supermarkets with a monopoly owned by the CSIRO and a special GST of 25%.
As you can see I’m not anti dope. Nor am I sentimental in regard to drug overdoses whatever the age of the person concerned. On this matter some people are just (as Luther put it some time ago) “lost”.
Well done Jerry; some specific questions and hence a reply (and hence my ignoring your post of 18:31)
> So saving lives is just being sentimental?
Attempting to save the lives of the incorrigible : yes; quite so! For emphasis : a waste of time, effort and money.
“When you used drugs, as you mentioned previously, did you report to the authorities as you suggest or were you too prone and needy? ”
My pot use (of my youth) occurred more as a form or politeness to others (the hosts) than one of need or greed or dependence. Even then I never mixed pot and alcohol. It was either one or the other and only a few joints. As to reporting the matter to the authorities there were occasions (ex army etc) where the weed was consumed in the presence of the authorities (at parties and such like). Indeed, on one occasion, a
female cop had near enough to a handbag full of the stuff. I departed the scene at the timely hour of 2am (if memory serves).
“I hate to tell you the system in Portugal has worked as have safe injecting rooms and if they and pill testing save one kid’s life it’s worth it, or am I being too sentimental again?”
I am interested in this kind of stuff Jerry and for some years I’ve been feeding what I can find through a programming language known as Python (as in the snake) which has, among many other features, a reasonable stats library. As conveyed in one of my posts if such drug programmes can turn a drug user around then I have no objection – but (also as conveyed) I’m not convinced that the programme is not a revolving door.
Interesting (as conveyed previously) that the UK and the USA has a lower drug use death rate than Scandinavia in general given the latter’s greater tolerance. I also
went to the trouble to identify what would need to be in existence in order to make definitive judgments on the matter.
“Personally, I fail to see the relevance of shark attacks or plane crashes.”
It was in reference to car accidents mentioned by D.B. – whom, I’m fairly sure, got the point.
“but everybody should be reported to the police”
the “scum” as someone expressed the term ought to be reported to the police – and not remain a vendor.
“do you really believe throwing addicts in jail helps?”
Who mentioned imprisonment? I made it clear that “Darwinisn” would sort it all out in due course; no need for expensive confinement.
“How on earth are our laws sufficient to minimise harm? Our laws aren’t working!”
So you assert. We could try the Portugal approach. I went to some trouble to describe the ideological impediments to such an approach – which would have been obvious to any other reader of this page.
> As for price/ benefit, the facts don’t agree
Perfect Jerry! List the prices (imprisonment, lost days etc.) AND the facts. THEN we’ll have a discussion. Otherwise your’re just parroting the so called bleeding heart argument.
‘Anyone over the age of 10 knows just what they are swallowing.’
Only if the drug is commercially packaged, labelled according to TGA requirements & is supplied by a pharmacy or hospital.
Recreational drugs (often purchased as single pills) can be cut with any substance or chemical including strychnine.
No – children have been acquainted with “stranger danger” for decades. Even retirees were told at junior primary school not to enter cars of people unknown to them.
Yes – swallowing a recreational drug is fraught with risk and therefore an excellent reason not to consume the drug. However, as I pointed out (I hope) some just need the buzz so no amount of advocacy is of any benefit to them. Untimately Darwinism will take care of it.
Replying to Jerry – the “scum” might come to the attention of the authorities if the advice, that I provided, was adopted.
Kyle, Stop being so self- righteous and judgmental. As for stranger danger, the great majority of kids are abused by relatives and close friends.
Be so good as to provide an example of my “self righteousness”. Secondly, whether children are abused by those known to them is irrelevant to their awareness of ‘stranger-danger’.
If one ingests a substance of doubtful origin or that has indeterminable effects the responsibility remains with the idiot who is to ingest the item. Such is not a matter of self righteousness but of Socratic (or Descartes-rationalistic) logic.
The claim that cigarette manufactures are de facto drug pushers has been made for decades. Jayboy, below, overlooks the market for “new-entrants” and with the continual decline of effective parenting (just go for a stroll about a shopping mall and witness the manipulation by near infants) the market in this regard is rather healthy – if that is the word. I’ll accept “optimistic”.
Its not a matter of running about with a damp cloth and a box of tissues. The users know what they are doing in the same way that the smokers and the alcoholics know what they are doing.
Holey moley Kyle, could you be more out of touch?
500 dead on the roads last year, and yet I continue to drive, I must be an idiot!
Seriously, condescension, much!
Thanks for the opportunity of replying DB. Just how many licensed drivers are there in Oz and just how many die in automobile collisions (as a percentage) ? Any insurance group has very accurate data on this kind of stuff.
Similarly for airlines and evens such as major incidents compared with either total air miles flown or passengers carried with out incident – take your pick.
Similarly for shark attacks. Given the number of people who visit a beach annually one is at greater risk (as you infer) driving to the beach than being bitten on the butt by a shark.
Now : drugs. As pointed out : used ONLY by the prone and the needy. Alcohol and fags : less so but more or less in the same direction.
A reply to Bref (no reply tag beneath is post). The argument against approaches in Portugal and Italy etc. is fundamentally a neo-lib argument from school book economics; viz., any reduction in price increases the quantity demanded – and more so if the good is “attractive” in some sense.
Some of the defenses against policies implemented by Italy (etc.) become more elaborate by attempting to assert that quantities purchased will continue until the (Additional Benefit)/Price is a constant across all other goods. Lower the price (i.e. make it easy to obtain) and one increases the benefit and hence the quantity.
It takes a lot of energy to dislodge this mentality and this mentality is maintained all through government. Its not going too far to claim that the mentality close enough to pure Milton Friedman – Chicago School.
As for increases drug use a counter example such as for Italy or Portugal or Spain is required. The actual consumption isn’t reported (that I am aware of) so its difficult to measure but policy does dispense with the FUD courtesy of the Chicago School.
As for death by drugs it is reported as lower. Having written that the statistical comparative controls are not easy to establish across cultures or other aspects of lifestyle and parenting (for example). Norway, Sweden and Estonia top the list (i.e. exceed UK and USA stats)! Interesting huh? More research : yep!
Kyle, thousands every week get drunk and do ridiculous things including killing either themselves or others, shall we ban alcohol? Just today a family was wiped out by a driver texting (while drunk). Drug addicts hurt mainly themselves, drunks usually hurt others. Testing is not condoning, and I don’t condone drug use, it’s simply about saving lives. We heard arguments like yours about safe injecting rooms, and guess what, they worked.
My reply to you comment of 15:52 today has been embargoed; dunno why; it is not at all provocative. Having made that point I still have embargoed comments from the weekend on various matters.
I’m not a prohibitionist of any persuasion. In fact I take the opposite view. I recommend accepting the ills of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. I think our laws are sufficient to ensure that the damage is minimised and I am pro dope but I ‘m well above the stuff now (and have been so for decades).
Funding injecting rooms is condoning. If that approach can be measured as a mitigating feature of acknowledge drug use than I have no objection. Ditto for pill testing” – although, as I see it, its just a revolving door.
Being an addict for statistical data I would be grateful for some useful data but I haven’t encountered any; just a lot of affirmation about saving Harry’s life who may well have toped himself the following month.
The data needs to be comprehensive with “controls” and follow-ups over at least 18 months – which is a psychological stage for trauma or bereavement or marriage break up or smoking or whatever.
Facts : not sentimentality Jerry.
Personally I’m in favour of complete decriminalisation similar to the Portuguese model. Plenty of stats after 10 years as well, Kyle. Of course Australia will be the second last country in the world to adopt something like this.
Kyle, It seems to me you have no idea what you are talking about and I don’t think anyone else has any idea what you are talking about. You are contradicting yourself and talking nonsense.
So saving lives is just being sentimental? When you used drugs, as you mentioned previously, did you report to the authorities as you suggest or were you too prone and needy? I hate to tell you the system in Portugal has worked as have safe injecting rooms and if they and pill testing save one kid’s life it’s worth it, or am I being too sentimental again? Personally, I fail to see the relevance of shark attacks or plane crashes. Your not a prohibitionist but everybody should be reported to the police, do you really believe throwing addicts in jail helps? How on earth are our laws sufficient to minimise harm? Our laws aren’t working! As for price/ benefit, the facts don’t agree.
Hey Kyle. Your “some people are just lost” line is both inaccurate and insensitive. These were someone’s baby. Frequently carefully raised and worried over who just made a stupid choice. Or, if like my brother,, someone who had it tough their whole life and deserved a government that gave a shit. But I suspect they are rarely as you seem to suggest, worth losing.
‘Your “some people are just lost” line is both inaccurate and insensitive.’
Firstly, its not (strictly) my quote but Luther’s and it isn’t inaccurate but you might consider it insensitive. It would take some space to recount Luther’s path to salvation (as it were) but ultimately it was based upon faith and upon the Gospel of Matthew in particular and not via obedience per se; much less by indulgences.
For some number of decades politicians, bureaucrats and the rest have been making excuses for every aspect of aberrant behaviour as if the behaviour was independent of the individual performing the behaviour. For any given instance of poor parenting or a life tragedy (i.e a Thomas Hardy plot) or the result of malfeasance by another (third party) there are individuals that survive the event.
In other words the same instances of bad luck applying to different people do not make “everyone” antisocial or a needy drug addict. Indeed some become addicts in one form or another without any apparent cause that might explain or justify the dependence or addiction.
It has almost become fashionable NOT to take responsibility for ones behaviour nowadays. Jordan Peterson, of late, has devoted a dozen chapters to this very theme. While I”m typing I can well imagine a few on this list deeming Peterson as insensitive but prior to doing so, for ones own sake, read the twelve chapters (or at lest six of them). Having made that point Peterson had to deal with some family issues and medical issues pertaining to children.
It has just occurred to me, having read a biography of the matter some years ago, that a brother of Ivan Milat appraised the family scene and decided to move to Queensland and to have no contact with the family. Needless to say the brother was a “survivor”. Someone on the list is going to whine : “what does the proceedings of a serial killer have to do with drug dependence” and the answer is about taking responsibility for ones self or rather NOT taking responsibility for ones self.
Every alcoholic or drug user knows that what they are doing, if is having a detrimental effect on their life and the lives of others (and it always does have such an effect), is wrong. It is the epitome of self-deception to take a contrary view.
With all due respect to your loss I’m not sure what you mean by a “government giving a shit”. I accept that extended family relations have broken down altogether since WW2 and the nuclear family has been the norm since the early 60s (or possibly the early 50s) necessitating interstate travel for jobs and such like but as the caption reads in the cartoon about changing a light globe – the globe has to want to change.
There is an entire psychological field known as aberrant behaviour that concerns drug dependence, alcoholism, gambling (all somewhat related incidentally) along with arson, pyromania and child-molestation (again, some apparent relation) extending to psychopathic disorders. Simple behaviourism, in this regard, has been discredited (studies of twins and family relations etc.) with the alternative “explanation” that some people are just prone.