Trozzle

^^^ that's gonna get torn to shreds with a heap of valid, yet somewhat moot points regarding an increase in use etc etc. I'll just use cannabis in my example, though the effects would be somewhat different depending on the drug in question. IN MY OPINION: If one DESIRES trying weed, they'd likely try it even if it were still illegal (at least here in Aus, given how available it is and how minor the repercussions if caught). If this person has an addictive personality, they'd continue their use after their trial. If one doesn't desire trying weed but don't necessarily care for it, they may be more likely to trial it if it were decriminalised as the repercussions become negligible. There is no guarantee they'll go on to continue smoking it after they try it - they had no particular interest in the first place. It may not be their thing at all. What I'm getting at is that in my opinion, those who're likely to pick up smoking weed and contribute to the ongoing instance of its use will likely be someone who'd try it regardless of its legality. This same person may be more likely to continue with their use after they try it if there's less chance of getting in the shit, which is where I agree with those like Anthony who believe "encouraging" use through decriminalisation will increase the instance of users. Let's say I meet you guys halfway on it, as your logic is absolutely sound, I just don't believe it would be the real world outcome. Now, legalising cannabis for recreational use would yield a different result, likely more in line with the 'increase in users' prediction. I still feel a great many would jump on it to see what it's about (though again, many will already have done it before legalisation lol), but not all of those will continue use due to simply not being interested in the effects. While I personally enjoy the effects of cannabis, I can definitely see it is not for everyone. Similarly to alcohol intoxication, some people just hate it. Decriminalising the possession of other substances (in quantities for personal consumption, that is) won't necessarily increase their instance of use, again for much the same reasons above. I know I'm just one individual, and my feelings will be skewed as I've got a little more understanding than the average person, but heroin for example as I've said before is something I have zero interest in. Even if it were fully legalised and available from the pharmacy, I'd still not touch it. Decriminalising the possession however will allow addicts to gain assistance without fearing stigmatised and thrown in jail for what was potentially an escape from depression or mental disorder to begin with, and it would likely also result in more successful rehabilitation programs as that would be the preferred course of action for when someone is picked up by the authorities in a bad state. Definitely a case by case, drug by drug situation with legalisation, but decriminalisation of an amount for personal consumption is definitely needed before we can help the people we keep stigmatising.

The instance of 13 year olds playing FPS outside school hours would be fairly high I suppose hahaha Digressing, I wonder how many people sporting the X_whatever_X style username actually understand what they're joining in on (not that there's anything wrong with being straight edge, mind you...just not the way XGTRX is going about it)

Anyway, we agree to disagree. That's obviously as good as it's going to get here. You actually dug up some really old memories to be honest.....but something doesn't quite seem right - didn't angsty straight-edge teenagers die out with Myspace? I mean that's pretty well the only place I've seen such a username convention used, until it finally just clicked with yours here. You can be straight edge, that's fine. Nobody is forcing drugs on you. Just stop forcing that lifestyle on everyone else thanks. We're happy to stand by that ideal when it comes to religion, which is nothing more than a chosen belief. Believe what you wish to believe, that's your prerogative; just keep it to yourself if you're not trying to be constructive.

I'm just trying to take the same approach as yourself. You seem pretty certain it's how you conduct yourself in a mature debate, so perhaps I'm learning something from the master of sidestepping questions.

HOW'D THE RELOCATION KIT GO CHRIS? CAPS BECAUSE FKN WINDOWS IS IGNORING THE C, V, AND H KEYS UNLESS HOLDING SHIFT. EASIER TO JUST HOLD SHIFT THAN RAGE.

This is exactly the issue I have with not only those who continually quote these "professionals" without doing their own research to confirm what they've heard, but also those who are "professionals" themselves yet happily perpetuate the spread of misinformation. This is exactly why I'm still waiting for Terry to come back to the thread he started, and address his claims. He's a qualified pharmacist (or something pretty much equal to), yet in his first post he strayed from the facts I'd like to think he knows and decided to allow his emotions to dictate his words. That isn't professional, and neither is XGTRX's attitude.

As surprising as it was to see you fail to address pretty much the only outside content in this thread, provided by yours truly. Need I go back and dig up the articles I've shared? You know, particularly the one authored by someone smarter and more educated on this topic than both you and I? Surely you'll have something to say about their claims given the volume of inane shit you've spouted back at me. What on earth is XTC? Please, if you're going to speak from a position of assumed authority and knowledge, at least use the correct terms to refer to these substances. For the sake of educating the coming generations you care oh so much for. So much so you're happy to censor their life experience.

We have a population hooked on sugary shit food lol dopamine

Lol f**k responding to that, there's no point. You're still painting everything with one brush, and ignoring my comments that I don't believe in blanket legalisation, and I discount multiple substances in my opinions; notably the ones you have undoubtedly had many terrible experiences with the consequences of their abuse. There are problem drugs, I won't deny that in the slightest, however you're still placing things like LSD, cannabis, and MDMA in the same bucket as heroin, cocaine, and meth. They're very different in every aspect, bar their legality.

Oh, but my insightful articles [admittedly] lack sources!! That means his opinion holds more weight and is more correct, than say Professor David Nutt's, whom authored an article I've also linked in this thread. Funnily I actually got called out on that one, and upon clarifying whom David Nutt actually was and showing his qualifications to speak on the subject, nobody spoke of it again and just went back to their opinions. Yeah, most of this argument will ALWAYS be opinion based. Just be sure to include at least a little bit of, well, anything else.

You're not even worth replying to mate. I might get irate and up someone in my arguments, but I still try not to resort to insult beyond calling people ignorant (which I try not to use unless I honestly believe it). I truly hope you feel justified in your plight. I find it ironic is that I'm the one who (in actual fact RARELY) uses the drugs you're so strongly against, yet I strongly believe I have a firmer grasp on this 'reality' you keep quoting. Here's some of that reality for you: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/08/is-ecstasy-really-that-dangerous-all-your-questions-answered I'm actually in the process of confirming the claim regarding 'about a dozen ecstasy deaths per year in Australia' - whether it's related deaths including dehydration, exacerbating existing conditions, negative drug interactions, or worst of all deaths resulting from ingesting something undesired like PMA/PMMA. Hell, even if it's acute overdose of solely MDMA (which would be a f**king ludicrous dose mind you - it's speculated at 10-20mg/kg for humans, or roughly 1200mg for the average male. A 'normal dose' is 150-170mg), that's still roughly 10% of the acute alcohol poisoning deaths in this country each year. More people are literally drinking enough alcohol to kill themselves than people consuming MDMA and managing the same.

The dude under the influence of alcohol is more likely to get irate and aggressive, starting an altercation with me, as thanks to MDMA I'm too busy trying to be everyone's mate, which annoys him. So yeah maybe I could cause trouble when I'm rolling. Some people just don't want to harmonise.

A lot of my issue. I too am somewhat "against" the actual hard-drugs. Potent opiates like heroin (and the shit it's cut/laced with like Fentanyl). Stimulants like methylamphetamine (and its horribly WORSE replacements like a-PVP [Flakka]). We all know tobacco's impact on health. Alcohol related deaths are around 13-15 per day in Australia, and before you pick me up on the use of "related" deaths, the incidence of acute alcohol poisoning deaths is somewhere around the 140 per year mark which is significantly above MDMA overdoses (somewhat doubt anyone has actually died of an OD this year in Aus). There have been multiple deaths from drugs that when the user obtained and ingested, they were under the (ignorant) belief it was MDMA. The drug at play was not MDMA, yet you're happy to group all drugs together anyway. The only reason things like PMA were synthesised in the first place is to skirt prohibition laws. If the laws werent as they are now, there'd have been no reason to synthesise PMA, and it would be almost certain that we wouldn't be having deaths in festivals as a result of PMA's existence. But let's focus on the potential impact of these substances whilst users are under the influence...idiots will be idiots and do things they should very much NOT be doing whilst under the influence, however I sill believe the likelihood of this occurring is being blown way out of proportion. Weed, sure. It's already happening. Same with Meth. Not as frequent as alcohol, and I know that doesn't justify their legality just because something else worse is already legal; the opposite is also true, which is the argument I'm up against. So long as we have masses of people against something they don't want to partake in any way, we'll continue to see more PMA, more Flakka, more 25I-NBOMe, more deaths.

Bahahahahaha just as the smell was starting to fade, it announces its return. Fair call though man! What're your plans employment wise?

Certainly. I touch MDMA once every few months, which is the only time I go out. Otherwise my illicit drug consumption goes as far as weed, which is admittedly more frequent than one should. Otherwise I might take a psychedelic, most likely mushrooms, as infrequently as I take MDMA. I'd be disappointed if they just vanished, as many would be with alcohol etc beyond addiction. It's merely one of many ways I enjoy life. I can go out sober, though the atmosphere isn't the same so it's not really in my interests, hence I just go out on the occasion I'd like to take MDMA and spend the night dancing. Weed vanishing would land me with some more spare time of an evening/afternoon when I've got everything done and out of the way. Often I'll take this chance to have a smoke and zone out, simply to relax. It'd be disappointing if it vanished, but certainly wouldn't ruin my lifestyle.

A f**king huge chunk of your taxpayer money was pissed away on this issue, in a way that I am also strongly against. It's clear the hard line approach doesn't work and never will. It was proven with alcohol. So continuing to endorse this approach will continue to see OUR taxpayer dollar fruitlessly thrown at law enforcement and wasteful PR campaigns, which are not working. I mean we're paying law enforcement to stand against drugs whilst consuming them themselves. You place human life so highly you're prepared to step into someone else's life to prevent them from doing something that could potentially harm another person, but only if they do something irresponsible whilst undertaking that activity.... Start campaigning against motor vehicles. They claim more lives than the specific drugs I support decriminalisation of. You'd also be campaigning against something you have experience with, something you do yourself. Unlike your campaign against other people using drugs. Something you don't have the same experience on. Something you don't do yourself. I'm more concerned about this than any junkie or dole bludger: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-03/federal-politicians-claim-almost-48-million-in-expenses/6999498

I like a lot of the honest interviews with these guys regarding AAS use. Get to hear some things you otherwise wouldn't. Also realise just how stupidly some of these guys go about their dosages, like Rich Piana haha

f**k it. Terry, please come back into this thread and provide supporting information on your claims, regarding LSD at the least. I'd like to know the specifics of how it negatively affects one's health - don't be shy with detail either, I've picked up quite a decent understanding of basic pharmacology over the past few years of reading and dabbling. I'm more than happy to do further reading to clarify anything you may put forward in case its a little advanced as well. I have a hunger for knowledge on this subject, to a point where I wish I could go back in time to when I was in college and get my past-self to study biology, chemistry, and pharmacy. Alas, I'm stuck in IT...which at least allows me to sit behind a computer, connected to the internet, which is a wealth of factual information when you put the time in to find it.

The abortion isn't my point - it's me taking an opinion on what another person does with their body. What a person does under the influence is their reckless stupidity and I don't condone it in the slightest. They should be belted senseless with the book, and then some. That same idiot would probably get in their car and do something stupid when sober. And I absolutely do believe what I said regarding financial burden of these things. I have private healthcare as it is, and I still wouldn't expect that to cover my stupidity either. I've already donated to these organisations in the past, because people are going to take drugs, and I'd like to do my bit to ensure they aren't duped into consuming something dangerous. Unlike some, I care for the livelihood of others, even if they're doing something like taking drugs. Stop placing human life below your moral standards, because you know abstinence is a complete joke of a 'solution' to anything like this. Human nature.

BUT BRO SPEEDBALLS ARE THE SHIT. JUST ASK ELVIS. THAT DUDE KNEW HOW TO LIVE. I've consumed more illicit substances that everyone in this thread who's against drugs combined. I've been told more complete bullshit by those "in the know" about what I'm doing than I could ever have imagined. We look to those with extensive education in these fields for factual information - thus far, I've read blatant lies put forth by qualified professionals. Blatant lies that are so simple to disprove you merely need wikipedia. This thread is no exception. If I believed everything I've been told about the drugs I've consumed, I should be dead. Obviously I'm not, so perhaps I should be a complete vegetable after burning so many holes in my brain....nope, doesn't fit either. I'm in pretty damn good health actually. Somehow, my Saturday night didn't see me die, despite consuming such a deadly substance as MDMA.

I should elaborate that I don't expect any proposed systems such as testing booths at festivals be paid by the taxpayer. Most of the organisations keen on drug testing (like Dancesafe) would do it voluntarily, landing minimal cost on the event organisers or taxpayers. I'd also happily donate to these organisations out of my own pocket, even though I will never utilise their services myself. I also agree that health issues that arise as a result of drug use shouldn't fall on the public healthcare system. This includes alcohol and tobacco. If you wish to dabble, you accept responsibility. Obviously if you're a f**king moron and are in a life threatening situation, you'd get help - but you'd also be forced into rehab or counselling imo. With the above in mind, I do admit I'm self-serving here. Obviously I'm not working towards YOUR interests (those against drug use), since you don't want to use drugs. That's cool, don't use drugs. Just stop working so hard against me using them, because my drug use has absolutely nothing to do with you. That's my main issue here - the number of people hell-bent on ensuring somebody else can't do something that doesn't directly affect them (yes I acknowledge it can, but any action another person undertakes can inadvertently affect strangers, somehow). It's exactly like me as a male taking a hard stance against abortion - it has absolutely nothing to do with me. Abortion is concerning the woman's body and her choices; drug use concerns mine. Telling people not to take drugs is the height of ignorance. Human nature says that ideal will not work. Knowing this, yet standing against something that will possibly save an idiot's life, is selfish and self-serving. And finally, I wouldn't call your mother an idiot if she were hit by a bus while jaywalking, despite her being irresponsible and doing something against the law at the time.

Eh? What damage, besides anyone stupid enough to drive under the influence? Or are you implying if one 'does drugs' they're inherently stupid? Self serving? Yeah, spoken by he who's hell-bent on ensuring somebody isn't allowed to do something that doesn't affect him. K.

If you've got nothing illegal on you, there's nothing to be afraid of by going to the police/EMS if you're in trouble. That's one thing Australia has right in their drug laws - consumption/being under the influence isn't a crime in itself (unless you go and do something stupid as a result). If you think you're having a bad reaction or were silly enough to consume something unknown, the only thing you have to worry about by going to the medical tent is that your parents might find out. Unless you copped PMA/PMMA as old mate did over the weekend. There's a good chance that once you realise shit's going south, it may be too late. Exactly why we need relaxed legislation on possession of an amount for personal consumption (decriminalise it), and why we need to allow the presence of drug testing stalls at these events. Had he been able to have his pills tested prior to ingestion, he'd have discovered they contained something he REALLY does not want to ingest under any circumstances.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/30268810/failed-drug-test-cops-hit-after-tip-off/ Three officers - two males and one female - have tested positive to MDMA and/or methylamphetamine after a tip off led to random testing the day following Stereosonic in Sydney, which they are believe to have attended. "This has to be fictitious" mode: one of the male officers was none other than the infamous flamin mongrel who saw fit to fatally shoot that dog in the street after it sat. I know this doesn't help my angle of attack on this issue, but I find it f**king hilarious they can't even adhere to the standards they uphold, potentially unjustly ruining lives in the process. I sincerely hope they receive the full brunt of any applicable charges and punishments for this, however I fear dismissal is all they'll face thanks to our actually somewhat smart approach to illicit drug USE. I tried to resuscitate the thread at least.

Exchange any paint with the flamin mongrel who did it? Not that it's much, but I'm over Jamison way most weekdays around lunchtime. I'll keep an eye out for anything sporting some nice metallic green where it shouldn't be.