More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by T_R » March 28, 2014, 7:01 am

Bard wrote:Dubby, can i genuinely ask, have you tried weed/mushrooms/speed/coke/ecstacy or any other illegal substance?

Bard, what is your opinion about sex with barnyard animals? Do you think it should be encouraged?

Or do you have to partake before you can form an opinion?
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Manbush » March 28, 2014, 7:24 am

Did he say you must partake in something to form an opinion?

Problem is Dubbys has come straight out of the drug propaganda handbook and is so ignorant of the actual facts it would be likely to encourage not discourage kids from taking drugs, kids aren't stupid if you lie to them enough they won't believe a word you say.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by T_R » March 28, 2014, 7:29 am

I don't have strong opinions on this debate, Manbush. I don't use drugs and never have.

But despite GEM's predictable and cliched blarney about US presidents, the fact that most colours my thoughts on this are simple: The common thread running through the most down-and-out miserable dregs of humanity in our society is drug abuse. There is clearly something amiss there.

Is it propaganda to say that there is clearly a negative impact of drug use, if not to all then to many? I don't think so, and my kids will most definitely get that message. It's not lying to say that there is a clear negative relationship between a positive lifestyle and drug use.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10385
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Toviii » March 28, 2014, 7:33 am

T_R wrote:I don't have strong opinions on this debate, Manbush. I don't use drugs and never have.

But despite GEM's predictable and cliched blarney about US presidents, the fact that most colours my thoughts on this are simple: The common thread running through the most down-and-out miserable dregs of humanity in our society is drug abuse. There is clearly something amiss there.

Is it propaganda to say that there is clearly a negative impact of drug use, if not to all then to many? I don't think so, and my kids will most definitely get that message. It's not lying to say that there is a clear negative relationship between a positive lifestyle and drug use.
Exactly. This particular ad campaign is showing what can happen, it's not telling people what will happen.
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Manbush » March 28, 2014, 7:43 am

T_R wrote:I don't have strong opinions on this debate, Manbush. I don't use drugs and never have.

But despite GEM's predictable and cliched blarney about US presidents, the fact that most colours my thoughts on this are simple: The common thread running through the most down-and-out miserable dregs of humanity in our society is drug abuse. There is clearly something amiss there.

Is it propaganda to say that there is clearly a negative impact of drug use, if not to all then to many? I don't think so, and my kids will most definitely get that message. It's not lying to say that there is a clear negative relationship between a positive lifestyle and drug use.
It is propaganda to say that it all ends the same which was Dubs view.

As for a clear negative relationship between a positive lifestyle and drug use that is BS, what you are ignoring is there's a difference between drug use and drug abuse, many happy successful people throughout history have used drugs, I'm guessing many of your kids idols do as well. It's a subject that should be approached carefully and honestly.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by T_R » March 28, 2014, 8:00 am

Manbush wrote:
As for a clear negative relationship between a positive lifestyle and drug use that is BS, what you are ignoring is there's a difference between drug use and drug abuse, many happy successful people throughout history have used drugs, I'm guessing many of your kids idols do as well. It's a subject that should be approached carefully and honestly.
Many 'happy and successful people' have indeed used drugs. I would argue that it's a predictor of either happiness or success, though. Drug use is far, far more prevalent among lower income earners, the unemployed and habitual criminals. There is a clear predictive relationship there.

You clearly have strong feelings on this, and that's fine. Subjective ideas of 'use' and 'abuse', however, help your argument not at all. The only common thread that every single drug 'abuser' has is that they were once a drug user.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Manbush » March 28, 2014, 8:09 am

Id argue drug use isn't far more prevalent among lower income earners just as alcohol use isn't, the type of drugs yes most certainly and the abuse of drugs but is that due to their situation rather than the drugs itself.

Now you're being a bit hypocritical about use and abuse, surely as someone who likes the occasional drink you differentiate between alcohol use and alcohol abuse or how about prescription medication, there is a huge difference between using something and abusing something, moderation is the key to anything in life.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Bard
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1308
Joined: March 31, 2010, 5:43 pm
Favourite Player: JD

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Bard » March 28, 2014, 8:28 am

T_R wrote:
Bard wrote:Dubby, can i genuinely ask, have you tried weed/mushrooms/speed/coke/ecstacy or any other illegal substance?

Bard, what is your opinion about sex with barnyard animals? Do you think it should be encouraged?

Or do you have to partake before you can form an opinion?

I would have thought it clear through my question, that i am happy for dubs to contribute his opinion and have a discussion about this. Just because i want to add context to an opinion does not mean i am dismissive. As a relatively young person, an overwhelming majority of people my age i know use drugs for recreation. All different degrees of use, substance and context. You ask each of them what they think about legalities, use and abuse or even general anecdotes, you will get a different answer. Of course Dubby doesnt have to answer, but it was a question i wanted to ask.

As for sex with barnyard animals, i suggest you ask a Broncos fan.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Green eyed Mick » March 28, 2014, 8:46 am

T_R wrote:I don't have strong opinions on this debate, Manbush. I don't use drugs and never have.

But despite GEM's predictable and cliched blarney about US presidents, the fact that most colours my thoughts on this are simple: The common thread running through the most down-and-out miserable dregs of humanity in our society is drug abuse. There is clearly something amiss there.

Is it propaganda to say that there is clearly a negative impact of drug use, if not to all then to many? I don't think so, and my kids will most definitely get that message. It's not lying to say that there is a clear negative relationship between a positive lifestyle and drug use.
You have it backwards. Drugs don't cause social breakdown. They are a symptom of it. You only have to follow the numbers and look at the studies. The biggest predictor of drug addiction, incarceration, poor educational and employment outcomes is socio-economic status.

People need to be informed of the potential harm drugs can do. IMO this is best done by looking at the individual substances in question rather than implementing a 1 size fits all campaign or a campaign based on exagerration and fear.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Stuat » March 28, 2014, 9:13 am

T_R wrote:I don't have strong opinions on this debate, Manbush. I don't use drugs and never have.

But despite GEM's predictable and cliched blarney about US presidents, the fact that most colours my thoughts on this are simple: The common thread running through the most down-and-out miserable dregs of humanity in our society is drug abuse. There is clearly something amiss there.

Is it propaganda to say that there is clearly a negative impact of drug use, if not to all then to many? I don't think so, and my kids will most definitely get that message. It's not lying to say that there is a clear negative relationship between a positive lifestyle and drug use.
Like TR, I don't really have a strong opinion on a campaign like this. Tbh I don't have a problem with it. I think everybody can agree that people taking less drugs is a good thing. Where I probably differ is how best to achieve that. The current Prohibitionist policies have generally failed to achieve those aims and vastly increase the risks of drug use due to poor/widely changing purity, dangerous additives etc etc etc. Fact is people will use drugs, you want to discourage that, but you also want to minimise the harm drugs can do if people do decide to use them.

Part of the issue I see with the current policies is that once drugs are illegal, a lot of the controls you may have are drastically reduced and you leave all that up to the black market, which is less than scrupulous. As controversial as this will be, I'd be pro decriminalising or heck even legalising most drugs as long as you had a sensible regulatory framework in place (ie age limits, buying limits etc- so the market I very tightly controlled with safeguards and ready access to help a lot of drug addicts need- mandatory drug counselling if you want to buy over a set amount for example, access to mental health services etc etc etc). The black market itself and the fact people who decide to take drugs have to interact with it, the money that it funnels to organised crime (bikie gangs etc etc), the fact people often delay getting OD patients help that could save their lives due to illegality and "fear" of being caught and all the other unsavoury stuff that comes along with such a large black market are unquestionable bad things, arguable as bad or worse than the drugs themselves in some cases. So I think it's high time we looked at other options to minimise not just drug use, but drug harms as well, because the current system hasn't worked all that well.

In terms of drug use among different socioeconomic groups, most studies show there are bugger all differences in terms of "use". There are huge differences in terms of outcomes- both from drugs and how those groups are treated within the policing/legal framework we have.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by T_R » March 28, 2014, 12:39 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote:
You have it backwards. Drugs don't cause social breakdown. They are a symptom of it. You only have to follow the numbers and look at the studies. The biggest predictor of drug addiction, incarceration, poor educational and employment outcomes is socio-economic status..
And the best predictor of incarceration, poor educational and employment outcomes and low socio-enconomic status is a family history of drug abuse (legal and illegal).

At best, this is a circular argument, as you well know.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Stuat » March 28, 2014, 1:21 pm

In terms of drug use, there aren't really a whole load of big differences across socioeconomic classes. Smoking is pretty strongly linked with low SES and poor family environments in some studies, socioeconomic factors don't seem to play much of a role in others. When you get to other drugs you can again find whatever result you want in the literature. Cannabis use is associated with low SES and high SES in different studies. Completely contradictory results. Coke use, high SES in some studies, low SES others etc etc. While it's generally assumed drug use and abuse is concentrated in low SES, there is actually a paucity of data supporting that assumption (or invalidating it for that matter) and what does exist when reviewed as a whole doesn't support any big consistent differences between SES classes. There are some difference is use, but they aren't huge. Drug use doesn't appear to concentrate massively in one class, be it alcohol, meth or coke.

If drug use is pretty "stable" ;) across the board, but poor outcomes (addiction, incarceration, drug abuse) are concentrated in low SES classes, surely low SES is at least playing a role in a lot of those bad outcomes in that group, that it's not just the drugs themselves...

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by T_R » March 28, 2014, 2:13 pm

You know what? I genuinely don't know enough about it - I am sure you guys are right.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Stuat » March 28, 2014, 2:52 pm

It gets pretty complicated and given the lack of data, it's really hard to draw strong conclusions either way a lot of the time. There are a load of factors that influence (or may influence) poor outcomes, mental illness, family situation, social factors, genetics etc etc etc.

Most people who use/have used drugs, be it meth, coke, heroin or alcohol don't become addicted or abuse them and don't suffer many if any negative outcomes from their use. Those drugs are incredibly harmful for a percentage of users and tear lives and families apart. What ends up influencing the % that do develop problems with those drugs (addiction, abuse etc etc) is pretty poorly understood tbh, but it's likely to be a pretty complex mix of social, environmental, genetic and other factors. How those factors interplay with things such as public policy, policing, access to healthcare, SES etc is also important given a lot of poor outcomes associated with drugs aren't "drugs" per se, but issues associated with drugs due to other factors. Drugs don't cause the damage they do in a vacuum, the regulatory and policy framework surrounding them plays a factor as well. I suppose the thing I think we should debate is whether the current settings are the best possible way to reduce harms/poor outcomes or whether there are any practical alternatives which may be better. On that question I honestly don't know, but do think it's a debate worth having.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Green eyed Mick » March 28, 2014, 3:31 pm

True. It is complex, kind of like obesity where genetics, family, social environment, diet and lifestyle all play a part. But when you look at all the data obesity and addiction (gambling, drugs, alcohol) are diseases that afflict the poor in far greater numbers than the middle classes.

Also, clinical trials on rats show that environmental stress makes rats far more susceptible to addiction.

In other drug related news

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/2 ... 44397.html

User avatar
Thombre
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5141
Joined: March 10, 2013, 7:13 pm
Favourite Player: Jeff "Shakas" Lima!!!!

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Thombre » March 31, 2016, 2:51 am

Absolutely fascinating interview with a bloke about the impact the war on drugs has had on the evolution of drugs. Starts at 2:13:00 really worth the listen, truely fascinating.
https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pe ... ?play=true
Pick the round we will get more than #oneinarow Winner - Round 8 (Wests + Bunnies)

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Manbush » March 31, 2016, 8:34 am

Didn't have time to listen to it all only about 15minutes but so far so good and he's on the money, listen to the rest tonight.

Side note though the war could soon be over if the UNs experts have their way.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43041
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by The Rickman » March 31, 2016, 1:33 pm

Manbush wrote:Didn't have time to listen to it all only about 15minutes but so far so good and he's on the money, listen to the rest tonight.

Side note though the war could soon be over if the UNs experts have their way.
What?? Why??

Honestly, what's the **** point of throwing out broad statements like that without even elaborating slightly??
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Manbush » March 31, 2016, 1:40 pm

The UNs experts/advisors have been pushing for the end to the war on drugs recommending legalisation or decriminalisation for their members, even their former head Kofi Anan wrote an article about how it's been a failure and is impossible to win nor should they have tried.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43041
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by The Rickman » March 31, 2016, 1:40 pm

Oh, that's fantastic if it ever happens
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
pickles
Jason Croker
Posts: 4690
Joined: November 18, 2007, 2:04 pm
Location: Callala Bay

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by pickles » March 31, 2016, 9:25 pm

The biggest driver of change in drug policy will be revenue. Eventually politicians will realize that most people don't give a **** what other people do to themselves as long as they aren't impacted by it.

People are already impacted by drug use and it is unlikely that legalization would have a significant impact on rates of use. What it would so is put billions of dollars into governments pockets for schools, hospitals and drug rehab centers.

It gets more complicated when you privatize the penal system and powerful lobbies are against the legalization of anything because it will impact their bottom line but the tide is beginning to turn.

Marijuana will be legal in Australia sooner rather than later and other drugs that are perceived as soft will follow. It's inevitable.

User avatar
Thombre
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5141
Joined: March 10, 2013, 7:13 pm
Favourite Player: Jeff "Shakas" Lima!!!!

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Thombre » March 31, 2016, 10:05 pm

Those are great points pickles. In the interview I put up the man touches on the precursors to addiction and treatment options to this. An example he brings up is that in Switzerland, a typically conservative country, had a bad heroin issue. After decriminalisation and their rehab overhaul the rate of overdose reduced to zero. Heroin users were encouraged to re-enter/stay in the workforce and were administered heroin by a nurse in specific amounts at a clinic. You needed a doctors referral to gain access to the clinic but after a nurse injects you, you are sent on your way to work.

He spends a portion of time talking about the extent of drug use in the world and the portion of actual addicts. This lead into how people become addicts also. This podcast http://www.radiolab.org/story/addiction/ did an episode on the process of addiction and the evidence based pharmaceutical techniques to combating them. I found it fascinating and relateable after using champix from the doctor to cease smoking. I never had the severity of social/financial issues from my nicotine addiction that the people in the stories had from their respective addictions however the sense of release from incredible cravings and uncontrolable urges resonated so deep within me. I had no belief i could quit smoking. These things made it possible for me.
Pick the round we will get more than #oneinarow Winner - Round 8 (Wests + Bunnies)

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6131
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by papabear » April 1, 2016, 3:14 pm

The Phantom wrote:From experience, people who take drugs usually do so in a social scene.....other people they know do it so they join in. There is also family issues, the socio economic conditions etc

There are numerous reasons people take drugs and its usually for the experience. People also believe they can only try it once and not get addicted, and that is why we have education campaigns informing people of the risks involved.

I too take issue with the boozy culture of Australia. It's ridicules. BUT, many nations have social issues relating to alcohol abuse as well as drug abuse. Education does work, but until we get it into our core beliefs as a society that getting smashed is unacceptable then nothing will change.

This is where I think Green Eyed Mike has frustrations. Society frowns upon illicit drug use but willingly accepts getting drunk as freely as a public holiday.
If someone chooses to get smashed? shouldnt they be allowed too? Why is it unacceptable? and by unacceptable do you mean there should be legal consequences, or that there should be reputational / moral consequences? What type of consequences are you suggesting.

IMO people are far to quick to judge others.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by T_R » April 1, 2016, 3:41 pm

papabear wrote:
IMO people are far to quick to judge others.
:doubt:
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Shadow Boxer
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9176
Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Shadow Boxer » April 1, 2016, 5:02 pm

Stuat wrote:It gets pretty complicated and given the lack of data, it's really hard to draw strong conclusions either way a lot of the time. There are a load of factors that influence (or may influence) poor outcomes, mental illness, family situation, social factors, genetics etc etc etc.

Most people who use/have used drugs, be it meth, coke, heroin or alcohol don't become addicted or abuse them and don't suffer many if any negative outcomes from their use. Those drugs are incredibly harmful for a percentage of users and tear lives and families apart. What ends up influencing the % that do develop problems with those drugs (addiction, abuse etc etc) is pretty poorly understood tbh, but it's likely to be a pretty complex mix of social, environmental, genetic and other factors. How those factors interplay with things such as public policy, policing, access to healthcare, SES etc is also important given a lot of poor outcomes associated with drugs aren't "drugs" per se, but issues associated with drugs due to other factors. Drugs don't cause the damage they do in a vacuum, the regulatory and policy framework surrounding them plays a factor as well. I suppose the thing I think we should debate is whether the current settings are the best possible way to reduce harms/poor outcomes or whether there are any practical alternatives which may be better. On that question I honestly don't know, but do think it's a debate worth having.
Nice post mate, it would be hypocritical of me to criticise drug use but I could also explain to you the back story of three friends who died largely as a result of marijuana induced psychosis.
Image

User avatar
pickles
Jason Croker
Posts: 4690
Joined: November 18, 2007, 2:04 pm
Location: Callala Bay

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by pickles » April 1, 2016, 7:51 pm

Good points on the process of addiction hbomb. I will listen to those thinks if I get the time.

I've worked in mental health and drug and alcohol related fields for around 15 years now and it is rare that people with significant addiction get to that point without a significant history of trauma.

The relationship with mental illness isn't clearly causal either. There are some clear links between heavy cannabis use, starting at a young age and the development of psychosis but it is also possible that there are a range of social and biological factors that mean people with a predisposition to psychosis are more likely to use drugs from a younger age.

It's also clear cut that amphetamines can produce a psychosis but in most cases this resolves when a person has withdrawn from the drug.

In the early 1900's psychosis was treated with dia-morphine, basically heroin, and this is incredibly effective but only when it is in the system so it was not viewed as an effective long term option.

The body doesn't really distinguish between physical and emotional/psychological pain so opioids treat both effectively and it isn't uncommon to see people who have a serious addiction but have no idea because their dealer is a doctor.

It's a very complex picture but the pragmatist in me thinks that almost anyone who wants drugs can get them so a form of regulation that enables the revenue to be directed into prevention, early intervention and treatment rather than organized crime would be a good move.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: More than meth, the faces of drug arrests

Post by Green eyed Mick » April 12, 2016, 10:17 am


Post Reply