Would you want sniffer dogs while you que....

PahMaLa · Post by **PahMaLa** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:36 pm

Saw on the news tonight, in Sydney they decided to do a project "Operation Walk The Line", I can't remember what night club it was.
Basically cops randomly with the sniffers nabbing those while they were waiting in the que. Heaps were busted one chick had 90 pills on her.
Will this drive away punters from going to their favourite night spots?
What are you thoughts on this?

mecka · Post by **mecka** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:42 pm

Sounds good to me. More dogs = less drugs.

cha_chaos · Post by **cha_chaos** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:45 pm

hrmm could make a little dint on the scene for a short while... but as soon as people get the idea theyll either choose between drugs and no party or party and no drugs... and i think the latter's more likely, or theyll just find other ways... good idea besides that...

Kilgore_Trout · Post by **Kilgore_Trout** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:52 pm

Most places you need to queue to get into are worth going to anyway. Cops'll probably spent most of their time busting people at the Metro and Bass Station anyway. While it's grotesque violation of liberty, can't help but not care in way - I'm not gonna be there.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:38 pm

Only if they got the dogs to maul the peeps with drugs right there and then. Would make the waiting in line more entertaining.

menace · Post by **menace** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:18 am

this is bullshit !!!

I have more to say on the matter , But i will leave it for tomoz . NOW:

universal sea · Post by **universal sea** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:23 am

pretty simple, don't bring drugs into clubs

do them before, or stick them up your ass until you need them

strategem · Post by **strategem** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:26 pm

there are ways around everything. Always will be, this will probably force things to go back to the 'house dealers' style where the dealers will kick a percentage back to the dudes who own/ mange the venue in return for being able to come and go through a back door, evading police.
Whilst less pills/speed/coke might happen things like ghb and lsd will increase. they have no smell. would you like to see an increase in ghb use? I wouldnt.
Drugs and music have always been inextricably linked and they always will be.

AJ · Post by AJ » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:26 pm

what Stratagem said.

Those who think that that drugs and music aren't linked, read Simon Reynolds' Generation Ecstasy.

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:32 pm

cha_chaos wrote:good idea besides that...

are you serious?

I have a problem with drugs illegality as it is. FFS if people want to take some shit while they're out then let them. If you wanna uphold your stinkin' laws then go get the big fish that are making all the money and connected with other forms of crime, not harmless little old Johnny and his 3 pills and a point of wizz queuing up to get into a club. This sort of thing makes clubbing not fun at all. I don't carry drugs into clubs (or anywhere for that matter) so it's no skin off my nose, but I don't wanna see that shit around while I'm out. I don't want to see some poor kid getting searched and treated like a crimminal in front of all his mates/peers. This law/procedure sucks the big one in every possible way.

Post by **system** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:42 pm

it's been around in Sydney for a while now. guess people will get used to it and the same old deal will keep on keeping on, like strategem said.

PahMaLa · Post by **PahMaLa** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:05 pm

I have mixed thoughts on this should be busting the fuckers who sell dodgy shit from their homes! Not at some club,
as deviant said,

I don't want to see some poor kid getting searched and treated like a crimminal in front of all his mates/peers. This law/procedure sucks the big one in every possible way.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:09 pm

AW MA GAWD IT'S A BLOODY OWTRAGE IT IS!!!

PahMaLa · Post by **PahMaLa** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:12 pm

mecka · Post by **mecka** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:20 pm

deviant wrote: I have a problem with drugs illegality as it is. FFS if people want to take some shit while they're out then let them.

Why?

If you wanna uphold your stinkin' laws then go get the big fish that are making all the money and connected with other forms of crime, not harmless little old Johnny and his 3 pills and a point of wizz queuing up to get into a club.

They are upholding the law. It's like saying "people will understand the road rules, lets go for organized crime instead of enforcing them".

This sort of thing makes clubbing not fun at all.

But getting harrassed by gurning fuckwits who can't see straight let alone act decently is?

I don't carry drugs into clubs (or anywhere for that matter) so it's no skin off my nose, but I don't wanna see that shit around while I'm out. I don't want to see some poor kid getting searched and treated like a crimminal in front of all his mates/peers. This law/procedure sucks the big one in every possible way.

Isn't that the way police do things anyway? They're not going to take you quietly in a corner to slap the cuffs on - they're going to make an example out of you. It happens with most crimes where the perp is arrested on the street.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:22 pm

I didn't realise you were so conservative Meckles.

PahMaLa · Post by **PahMaLa** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:26 pm

True @ gurners, I get embarrassed for them because they look so fucked!
But I get the same reaction for utter just drunken people, no offence to those who like their drink, but some people can get too overboard and are a stumbling mess and spilling their beer all over me shits me.

mecka · Post by **mecka** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:35 pm

Hardy wrote:I didn't realise you were so conservative Meckles.

meh, i've been over the whole drug thing for a while now.

All well and good to cry "omg my rights, my rights dammit!" when it simply comes down to the fact that most recreational drugs are illegal.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:42 pm

mecka wrote:
Hardy wrote:I didn't realise you were so conservative Meckles.
meh, i've been over the whole drug thing for a while now.

All well and good to cry "omg my rights, my rights dammit!" when it simply comes down to the fact that most recreational drugs are illegal.

...

...

Nah, I couldn't be arsed.

Lephrenic · Post by **Lephrenic** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:52 am

This is social control, pure and simple. It won't harm the drug trade one bit.

mrj · Post by **mrj** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:20 am

Its all bullshit posturing.

The reality is the cops could do this sort of thing all the time, and would have been doing so for a long time IF they wanted to.

But they don't want to. They do enough busts and the occasional blitz to keep up appearances, but the reality is that its tolerated and many different greases are lubing all sorts of wheels, if you know what I mean.

These people were just very unlucky.

Terry Tate · Post by **Terry Tate** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:25 am

wont somebody please think of the children!

Kilgore_Trout · Post by **Kilgore_Trout** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:52 am

mecka wrote:
Hardy wrote:I didn't realise you were so conservative Meckles.
meh, i've been over the whole drug thing for a while now.

All well and good to cry "omg my rights, my rights dammit!" when it simply comes down to the fact that most recreational drugs are illegal.

Just because they ARE illegal, doesn't meant that they SHOULD be.
If you support the illegal status of recreational drugs, you should logically also support the illegalisation of alcohol and tobacco, the two leading causes of preventable death in Australia.
Besides, is the guy with a couple of pills in his pocket a more worthy focus of police attention than Martin Beatwife drinking his own weight in bundy and beer at the local pub?
Research shows that criminalising recreational drugs does not reduce their use anyway. Instead, it diverts community resources into the policing of a criminal element created by their illegalisation.
And while we're in the process of assuming that human beings are incapable of making infomed choices about what they do, lets go on and ban voting, free speech and independent though as well.

sternumbreaks · Post by **sternumbreaks** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:10 pm

drugs are bad, mmkay

quiet roar · Post by **quiet roar** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:23 pm

mecka wrote:All well and good to cry "omg my rights, my rights dammit!" when it simply comes down to the fact that most recreational drugs are illegal.

It's illegal therefore we can't complain!? - Are you serious??? Something being illegal doesn't make it wrong: They could make listening to drum n bass illegal, would you stop listening to it?

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:02 pm

Kilgore_Trout wrote:Most places you need to queue to get into are worth going to anyway.

Miss Bee · Post by **Miss Bee** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:07 pm

who the hell que's to get into places now?

I dont think I have since underage jooce

...eep can't believe i just admitted that. EW.

PahMaLa · Post by **PahMaLa** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:41 pm

What would be funny is just act all fuct up and go "Ha, ha just joking!"

aspekt · Post by **aspekt** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:30 pm

Kilgore_Trout wrote:
mecka wrote:
Hardy wrote:I didn't realise you were so conservative Meckles.
meh, i've been over the whole drug thing for a while now.

All well and good to cry "omg my rights, my rights dammit!" when it simply comes down to the fact that most recreational drugs are illegal.
Just because they ARE illegal, doesn't meant that they SHOULD be.
If you support the illegal status of recreational drugs, you should logically also support the illegalisation of alcohol and tobacco, the two leading causes of preventable death in Australia.
Besides, is the guy with a couple of pills in his pocket a more worthy focus of police attention than Martin Beatwife drinking his own weight in bundy and beer at the local pub?
Research shows that criminalising recreational drugs does not reduce their use anyway. Instead, it diverts community resources into the policing of a criminal element created by their illegalisation.
And while we're in the process of assuming that human beings are incapable of making infomed choices about what they do, lets go on and ban voting, free speech and independent though as well.

i totally disagree. Just because alcohol has a terrible social impact doesn't mean that other substances should be made legal. And the only way to make tobacco and alcohol illegal is through decades of work making them more and more socially unacceptable (as is being done with tobacco). When I take drugs I am fully aware of the legal risk. I think we would be far worse off if people could get hold of cheap, clean drugs from convenient retail outlets.

I think an approach of harm minimalisation is a good one (by and large what is being done at the moment). The cops aren't out to bust users. They want to nab a few from time to time to keep it in check and trying to minimise what is available for distribution to the public.

As much as anything if the drugs were legalised there would have to be some form of testing (like breathalizing for booze) to make sure that people were only driving when they were well and truly capable of it. Just like people shouldn't be diriving drunk, they shouldn't be driving high.

mrj · Post by **mrj** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:32 pm

D wrote:What would be funny is just act all fuct up and go "Ha, ha just joking!"

I don't think the dogs would get it

quiet roar · Post by **quiet roar** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:54 pm

aspekt wrote:I think an approach of harm minimalisation is a good one (by and large what is being done at the moment). The cops aren't out to bust users. They want to nab a few from time to time to keep it in check and trying to minimise what is available for distribution to the public.

They are not practising harm minimisation!

Where is the education? It's a simple "drugs are bad and we will punish anyone who has anything to do with them" approach. Zero tolerance is NOT harm minimisation.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:02 pm

aspekt wrote:
Kilgore_Trout wrote:
mecka wrote: meh, i've been over the whole drug thing for a while now.

All well and good to cry "omg my rights, my rights dammit!" when it simply comes down to the fact that most recreational drugs are illegal.
Just because they ARE illegal, doesn't meant that they SHOULD be.
If you support the illegal status of recreational drugs, you should logically also support the illegalisation of alcohol and tobacco, the two leading causes of preventable death in Australia.
Besides, is the guy with a couple of pills in his pocket a more worthy focus of police attention than Martin Beatwife drinking his own weight in bundy and beer at the local pub?
Research shows that criminalising recreational drugs does not reduce their use anyway. Instead, it diverts community resources into the policing of a criminal element created by their illegalisation.
And while we're in the process of assuming that human beings are incapable of making infomed choices about what they do, lets go on and ban voting, free speech and independent though as well.
i totally disagree. Just because alcohol has a terrible social impact doesn't mean that other substances should be made legal. And the only way to make tobacco and alcohol illegal is through decades of work making them more and more socially unacceptable (as is being done with tobacco).

My turn to totally disagree. Soz Rich. If the government decided tomorrow that they were hell bent on making tobacco and alcohol illegal and immoral, I reckon it would take all of two weeks before people would be snatching cigarettes out of total stranger's mouths and stamping them out on the street. If the government endorsed a total ban and created laws to comply (as they did with ecstasy in 1985), it wouldn't take long at all for everyone to fall into line.

And given the information on my packet of cigarettes this morning, cigarette related deaths beat alcohol, illegal drugs and murders combined! So tell me again why the government won't make cigarettes totally illegal???

Flash · Post by **Flash** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:08 pm

"Whilst less pills/speed/coke might happen things like ghb and lsd will increase"

Christ, imagine majority of ppl on lsd

I dunno but when i head out to gigs i never really see that many ppl "gurning" Maybe i just cant spot them or something, but there doesnt seem to really be a huge drug problem in Dnb/Breaks gigs. I doubt they would sniffer dog a Dnb/Breaks or even a hiphop gig, simply because there doesnt seem to be as many ppl doing them.
go the Beer + Hooch anydays

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:23 pm

mecka wrote:
deviant wrote: I have a problem with drugs illegality as it is. FFS if people want to take some shit while they're out then let them.
Why?

because there are more important issues to de3al with than a bunch of clubbers enjoying an altered state. It's a big deal made out of some thing very small IMO

mecka wrote:
deviant wrote:If you wanna uphold your stinkin' laws then go get the big fish that are making all the money and connected with other forms of crime, not harmless little old Johnny and his 3 pills and a point of wizz queuing up to get into a club.
They are upholding the law. It's like saying "people will understand the road rules, lets go for organized crime instead of enforcing them".

I'm sorry but just because something is law doesn't mean that I agree with it. I feel that alot of people never question law and doctrine enough. I think most people just follow it and believe it to be "right" by default. I don't think this is the case.

mecka wrote:
deviant wrote: This sort of thing makes clubbing not fun at all.
But getting harrassed by gurning fuckwits who can't see straight let alone act decently is?

that's you view, it has nothing to do with whether drugs are a valid form of recreation. Just because you are jaded and feel like you are "over" drugs doesn't mean that everyone else is. A gurning fuckwit would most likely be a drunk or even straight fuckwit any other time anyway, a fuckwit is a fuckwit in my book.

mecka wrote:
deviant wrote: I don't carry drugs into clubs (or anywhere for that matter) so it's no skin off my nose, but I don't wanna see that shit around while I'm out. I don't want to see some poor kid getting searched and treated like a crimminal in front of all his mates/peers. This law/procedure sucks the big one in every possible way.
Isn't that the way police do things anyway? They're not going to take you quietly in a corner to slap the cuffs on - they're going to make an example out of you. It happens with most crimes where the perp is arrested on the street.

Yes it is the way they do things and I think it sucks.

menace · Post by **menace** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:17 pm

deviant wrote:
mecka wrote:
deviant wrote: I have a problem with drugs illegality as it is. FFS if people want to take some shit while they're out then let them.
Why?

because there are more important issues to de3al with than a bunch of clubbers enjoying an altered state. It's a big deal made out of some thing very small IMO

mecka wrote:
deviant wrote:If you wanna uphold your stinkin' laws then go get the big fish that are making all the money and connected with other forms of crime, not harmless little old Johnny and his 3 pills and a point of wizz queuing up to get into a club.
They are upholding the law. It's like saying "people will understand the road rules, lets go for organized crime instead of enforcing them".
I'm sorry but just because something is law doesn't mean that I agree with it. I feel that alot of people never question law and doctrine enough. I think most people just follow it and believe it to be "right" by default. I don't think this is the case.

mecka wrote:
deviant wrote: This sort of thing makes clubbing not fun at all.
But getting harrassed by gurning fuckwits who can't see straight let alone act decently is?
that's you view, it has nothing to do with whether drugs are a valid form of recreation. Just because you are jaded and feel like you are "over" drugs doesn't mean that everyone else is. A gurning fuckwit would most likely be a drunk or even straight fuckwit any other time anyway, a fuckwit is a fuckwit in my book.

mecka wrote:
deviant wrote: I don't carry drugs into clubs (or anywhere for that matter) so it's no skin off my nose, but I don't wanna see that shit around while I'm out. I don't want to see some poor kid getting searched and treated like a crimminal in front of all his mates/peers. This law/procedure sucks the big one in every possible way.
Isn't that the way police do things anyway? They're not going to take you quietly in a corner to slap the cuffs on - they're going to make an example out of you. It happens with most crimes where the perp is arrested on the street.
Yes it is the way they do things and I think it sucks.

Well spoken dan !!

I am sure the police could do better thing , like look after people safety e:g public transport . drink drivers .ect

Which i find way more important that busting a few dudes heading out for a bit of boogie few pingers and a couple of beers .Where is the harm in that .

I know this has nothing to do with the subject but in the uk for major festival the police have a " safety place " for people to deal and for people to buy rugs with out getting rolled , what i am saying they are looking out for peoples well being .

where is the love ! In stead of trying to make people feel like shite .

aspekt · Post by **aspekt** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:10 am

The Mixtress wrote: My turn to totally disagree. Soz Rich. If the government decided tomorrow that they were hell bent on making tobacco and alcohol illegal and immoral, I reckon it would take all of two weeks before people would be snatching cigarettes out of total stranger's mouths and stamping them out on the street. If the government endorsed a total ban and created laws to comply (as they did with ecstasy in 1985), it wouldn't take long at all for everyone to fall into line.

And given the information on my packet of cigarettes this morning, cigarette related deaths beat alcohol, illegal drugs and murders combined! So tell me again why the government won't make cigarettes totally illegal???

yeah they COULD make it illegal but it wouldn't be effective. Prohibition didn't work back then, why would it work now? besides, the govt can't afford to ban smokes or tobacco.

quotient · Post by **quotient** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:56 am

the nsw rum corps are a bunch of bastard whores.

drug squad are aggro as fuck, and right cunts to boot. not that i care who they arrest, as that shit is illegal and all that jazz, but man, you should see the way these pricks barrel into clubs and basically rough everyone in their way up. god forbid you step in their way, lest you go down for assaulting a police officer.

MJ · Post by MJ » Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:51 am

Considering my position, I so shouldnt comment on this (got in trouble before)... BUT... Alcohol and Tobacco have major taxes on them, which means Ca$h money for zee government... And as others have said, they kill more people than 'illicit' drugs... Anyways from what Ive seen, sniffer dogs are a visual deterent.. IE, look at this shit on the news, we ARE doing something... Even if that means busting Joe average for having 1 pill on him... They are seen to be making a difference, and it keeps the greater society happy and content that the cops are doing something to stop the 'epidemic'... But in all serious, your average adult is going to make his choice, informed or not...

The venue I work at has had 2 dog patrols in just over 6 months..... They pull 10 people out of line, do the dearch, and on average 1 has something on them... I had a dog go mental at me, I looked at the cop and I was like "I work in clubs for a living, god knows where the residue has come from".... Which seems to be what the other 9 out of 10 have on them aswell...

It is a front to show police are being proactive imo... But in reality, it has minimal impact....

(Ive just got back from Pappa at F4, should I hit the submit button?)

(edit: horrid spelling while drunk)

MJ · Post by MJ » Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:53 am

How many times can I mispel 'the'? This has got to be some sort of record.....

Lephrenic · Post by **Lephrenic** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:32 am

I can't believe we're still having the same arguments. I thought people understood this stuff by now. If you ban it, you merely drive it underground. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it won't work with anything else.

Always keep the big picture in mind. Drug profits are pretty much the backbone of organised crime, thus the most important thing society needs to do is to remove drugs from the criminal sphere. I am far less worried about the effects of drug use on a person than I am worried about that person becoming involved in crime or prostitution.

strategem · Post by **strategem** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:08 pm

remember folks- illegal and immoral are not the same thing.

quick · Post by **quick** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:17 pm

I completely agree with aspekt and also what mecka has said...

Whether you agree with this approach or not, the fact is that recreational drugs have negative impacts on society. Peoples health and well being are comprimised with these so obviously the government is going to want to interveen. It may not seem true, but the government does care about our health to some degree, and a society with less redily available recreational drugs would be better off in reference to health and well being... especially over the course of years and years (long term affects aren't even known yet for a lot of drugs, especially the impact it will have on society).

Yes the government can do more, plus they could focus on other things, but they also need to keep in check recreational drug use so it doesn't become something that 90% of the teenagers do on a regular basis because their mate down the road always has it, so does the guy accross the street, also joe blow 5mins away...

I'm not saying this will fix any of these problems, but if it stops one person from being a dealer today, and then that in turn limits the chances of others dealing for them and so on (dealing is a hierachy, and I'm sure they all start at the bottom) then this will acheive what they want. It is harm minimisation if it works, and there is definitly logic to support some potential success.

I can easilly see recreational drug use being very detrimental to our society, especially if left unchecked.... and the government are shit at doing a good job a keeping it in check, but they need to try, and this is an attempt that may have a positive impact in reference drug use and hence lessen drug related problems.

and no I'm not a hypocrite, I'm not saying drug users/sellers are the scum of society, but you're blind if you can't see that they could easilly damage society and the health of those in it if drug use was to always increase. I certainly would hate to get done just cos i had a small baggy of stuff, but I beleive that some people need to get done in this instance so that drug enforcment is felt on all levels and use is minimilised.

PahMaLa · Post by **PahMaLa** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:08 pm

Hmmm...some very interesting points from everyone in here.

(sorry I'm still half asleep, can't be bothered inputting at the mo)

Terry Tate · Post by **Terry Tate** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:25 pm

sorry quick that isnt harm minimisation at all.
harm minimisation is acknowledging the fact people use drugs and implementing various methods to reduce the amount of harm they will do to themselves. eg. needle exchange programs/shooting galleries, free testing kits for pills etc.

throwing people in jail or at the least giving kids a criminal record and fucking up their chances of getting a decent job is not harm minimisation in any way, shape or form.

if drugs were legalised they would be better quality, cost less and would destroy a huge criminal enterprise. and it would also take away alot of the stigma surrounding drug use as well as the notion of drug-taking being cool amongst younger kids.

holland has a much lower percentage of marijuana use amongst their teenagers than say, america or here, simply because its so widely available most kids try it a few times and get over it.

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:11 pm

strategem wrote:remember folks- illegal and immoral are not the same thing.

I think people get these two things confused WAY too much....

Quick: I gotta say I agree with Terry and Heggsy, people will take drugs no matter how hard you come down on them with laws and regulations. The USA has a zero tollerence approach to drugs on an extreme scale. A guy I knew travels the world chefing in different cities. He was deported from the USA after being taken to prison for having LESS THAN 1 GRAM of weed on him. He was cuffed, thrown in the clink and was eventually deported.

The USA has some of the worst drug related crime and health issues of any country in the world. I don't think their approach has worked at all. I think you need to give people education, and by that I mean true unbiased education. This way people can decide for themselves whether they want to do it or not rather than doing it because it's "cool" to be rebellious etc etc.

All the education I recieved about drugs was negative and largely falsified information or grossly exaggerated. Any half intelligent person can see the bullshit, and that feeds a total lack of trust in the law, education and authority.

PahMaLa · Post by **PahMaLa** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:41 pm

deviant wrote: All the education I recieved about drugs was negative and largely falsified information or grossly exaggerated. Any half intelligent person can see the bullshit, and that feeds a total lack of trust in the law, education and authority.

All scare tatics.

quick · Post by **quick** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:26 pm

isn't the point of this thread, sniffer dogs in lines at clubs? This will scare potential dealers and takers,, plus it will divert dealers from dealing to some degree... this has the potential to reduce the amount of drugs available to people when out in clubs, also reduces the likely hood of someone getting into dealing drugs. That IS harm minimalisation through deterence. Harm minimalisation is not only through rehabilitation and assistance, you can scare likely offenders away to reduce harm to them. If a cop gives you a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, its harm minimalisation... you are detering them from not wearing it next time.

All these opinions against this, yet no one has explained why they should be alowed, and you can't just say, "what would it matter if I had 1 pill".. . because if you're alowed, then so is the next person, and so on, and drugs such as ice, mdma, ghb, DO do harm, and over a long period of use, it will have a negative effect on your health.

Yes, no shit,, people are going to have them any way... is that a good thing for society??? There needs to be preventitive measures put in place to stop it becoming more of a problem then it is... and leagalising ICE, MDMA and GHB are so not what this government is capable of handling... that has the large potential for a disastrous result to the health and well being of society.

This society in which we live, has survived well enough for us to LOVE this city, and also for it to be number 2 livible place in the world... this is with all the organised crime in it. I'm not saying its cool, and we should accept it, but keep it in check, as well as the recreational drug use. They're both things that society will need to deal with and live with, but you still need to deter, prevent, and assist in lessening the harm they have on society and everyone in it.

Remember we're talking about lines at a club, so heroin is not really the focus, so you can count out needle exchange programs/shooting galleries, plus free testing kits for pills will only show if the pills are good... which still means harmful, so this doesn't help at all.

deviant wrote:Quick: I gotta say I agree with Terry and Heggsy, people will take drugs no matter how hard you come down on them with laws and regulations. The USA has a zero tollerence approach to drugs on an extreme scale. A guy I knew travels the world chefing in different cities. He was deported from the USA after being taken to prison for having LESS THAN 1 GRAM of weed on him. He was cuffed, thrown in the clink and was eventually deported.

The USA has some of the worst drug related crime and health issues of any country in the world. I don't think their approach has worked at all. I think you need to give people education, and by that I mean true unbiased education. This way people can decide for themselves whether they want to do it or not rather than doing it because it's "cool" to be rebellious etc etc.

All the education I recieved about drugs was negative and largely falsified information or grossly exaggerated. Any half intelligent person can see the bullshit, and that feeds a total lack of trust in the law, education and authority.

Ok, so the USA has bad drug problems... do you think that this is the reason as to why they enforce zero tolerance? Or do you think, that because zero tolerance, people take drugs? And no one knows what their drug problems would be if they didn't enforce zero tolerance.

Shit... sniffer dogs at clubs, I don't like it, but how can you say it isn't fair. This is the society in which you CHOOSE to live, whilst here, obide by the rules, if not, accept the consequences, unless you can justify why you belive what you did isn't wrong on any level. And taking a pill once, may not seem so bad, and having a crim record for that would suck, but if it deters a few peeps from doing them, then its achieve the desired goal... and also that very unlucky (also very unlikely) to happen.

flippo · Post by **flippo** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:57 pm

never argue with Quick, when he is right he knows it, and if he isnt he will bend the laws of the universe to make what was previously wrong right.

. Just joking, I'm all for debate and discusion

I have no strong opinion one way or the other on this really, not something I've really looked into alot. I do think drugs do alot more damage than most young people let off. The amount of kids regularly hammering the shit out of their brain chemistry every weekend in melbourne these days is kinda frightening. You get the feeling that a whole generation of kids is going to have a huge comedown, somethings gotta give.

As for sniffer dogs in lines, yeh I guess nabbing the odd random person, who might be trying their first pill, is not going to make a difference to the big picture imo. but then again its not something I've really done my research on.

flippo · Post by **flippo** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:01 pm

quick wrote: This is the society in which you CHOOSE to live, whilst here, obide by the rules,

the socioty should not be something one subscribes/conforms to. we ARE the socioty. I didnt chose to be in this sociioty, I am this socioty.

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:07 pm

quick wrote:All these opinions against this, yet no one has explained why they should be alowed, and you can't just say, "what would it matter if I had 1 pill".. . because if you're alowed, then so is the next person, and so on, and drugs such as ice, mdma, ghb, DO do harm, and over a long period of use, it will have a negative effect on your health.

drug use and altered states of conciousness have been part of human civilisation for millions of years. It's only been in the last hundred years or so that these things have become illegal, and therefore immoral. The law would have you beleive otherwise. Like I said the information given about drugs and their use in the mainstream media/education system is largely negative. They never explained that south american tribes have been using DMT for thousands of years as a rite of passage and a huge spiritual centre of their society. They never explained that GHB is actually part of your nervous system already and that it is 100% non-toxic, it's only a lack of education about it's proper use that has lead to the problems that exsist (EI people passing out in clubs and what-not). They never mentioned that the harmful effects of MDMA can be reduced to virtually nothing with the right pre-loading of vitamins exclusion of certain other drugs (like alcohol) and post-loading of vitamins.

quick wrote: Yes, no shit,, people are going to have them any way... is that a good thing for society??? There needs to be preventitive measures put in place to stop it becoming more of a problem then it is... and leagalising ICE, MDMA and GHB are so not what this government is capable of handling... that has the large potential for a disastrous result to the health and well being of society.

I beleive that responsible use of drugs can in fact be a benefit to society. Not a popular opinion, even amonst drug users, but If durgs are used in a responsible manner then I beleive there is a lot to be learned about oneself and the people around oneself. I think the majority of "problems" associated with drug use stem from it's prohibition.

quick wrote: This society in which we live, has survived well enough for us to LOVE this city, and also for it to be number 2 livible place in the world... this is with all the organised crime in it. I'm not saying its cool, and we should accept it, but keep it in check, as well as the recreational drug use. They're both things that society will need to deal with and live with, but you still need to deter, prevent, and assist in lessening the harm they have on society and everyone in it.

Remember we're talking about lines at a club, so heroin is not really the focus, so you can count out needle exchange programs/shooting galleries, plus free testing kits for pills will only show if the pills are good... which still means harmful, so this doesn't help at all.

Pill testing kits help minimise harm. MDMA when used responsibly is largely harm-free (although not totally). PMA, just one of the possible adulterants/substitutes for MDMA in pills is potetially deadly in reletively small doses. Only one person in Australia has ever died of a direct MDMA related cause. A whole bunch of people (in South Australia particularly) have died or nearly died from ingesting PMA that they thought was MDMA. The argument that testing kits are only used to find out which pills are "good" but they're are still very harmful is not valid I'm afraid. There is a miriad of evidence to support the use of safe drug testing, through the use of home kits or on site testing booths.

quick wrote:
deviant wrote:Quick: I gotta say I agree with Terry and Heggsy, people will take drugs no matter how hard you come down on them with laws and regulations. The USA has a zero tollerence approach to drugs on an extreme scale. A guy I knew travels the world chefing in different cities. He was deported from the USA after being taken to prison for having LESS THAN 1 GRAM of weed on him. He was cuffed, thrown in the clink and was eventually deported.

The USA has some of the worst drug related crime and health issues of any country in the world. I don't think their approach has worked at all. I think you need to give people education, and by that I mean true unbiased education. This way people can decide for themselves whether they want to do it or not rather than doing it because it's "cool" to be rebellious etc etc.

All the education I recieved about drugs was negative and largely falsified information or grossly exaggerated. Any half intelligent person can see the bullshit, and that feeds a total lack of trust in the law, education and authority.
Ok, so the USA has bad drug problems... do you think that this is the reason as to why they enforce zero tolerance? Or do you think, that because zero tolerance, people take drugs? And no one knows what their drug problems would be if they didn't enforce zero tolerance.

The entertainment industry glamourises drugs in the US. It wouldn't be so glamourous if it was not so cooly "taboo". It's the whole "big deal out of nothing" theorem, If you make a big deal out of something then more people are going to be interested in what that something is all about. Leave it be and people wont care anymore.

quick wrote: Shit... sniffer dogs at clubs, I don't like it, but how can you say it isn't fair. This is the society in which you CHOOSE to live, whilst here, obide by the rules, if not, accept the consequences, unless you can justify why you belive what you did isn't wrong on any level. And taking a pill once, may not seem so bad, and having a crim record for that would suck, but if it deters a few peeps from doing them, then its achieve the desired goal... and also that very unlucky (also very unlikely) to happen.

I never chose to live in this society.

I beleive that what I do isn't wrong on any level because I do it.