Millie Elder in court on P supply charges

[Tank]

So here we have a pretty, rich white girl selling P.

IMHO - she's no better than the scum making the shit.

I believe that we need to get HARD AS FUCK on people like this - start punishing the sellers, REALLY HARD so that people are scared as fuck to sell it.

Try and dry up the market - make people so scared to be caught with it that they are not willing to take the chance. Less sellers on the streets and in our neighbourhoods = less drugs (my overly simplified view Im sure - but hey its an idea)

So - What do you all believe is an appropriate sentence for sellers of "P" - and do you think this girl will get it - because "Daddy has money"

[yod]

while I agree with the basis of your post, what has being pretty, rich and white got to do with anything?

[Tank]

while I agree with the basis of your post, what has being pretty, rich and white got to do with anything?

Sadly, because people who are pretty, rich and white often get away with more than people who are not white, ugly as fuck, and dont have the money for top lawyers.

[MSTRS]

while I agree with the basis of your post, what has being pretty, rich and white got to do with anything?

Nothing. Except does she think her 'status' gives her carte blanche to do as she pleases. This is, what, number 3? It's time to pull the rug...big time.

[R6_kid]

Why is this in the media at all? Im sure there are a number of P sellers that go through the docks at court each week, but because her daddie was/is rich she gets the media spotlight?

[slimjim]

O TANK :eek5: would have thought ya's not been remindered by another thread... Bad Taste...:shutup:

[mowgli]

Why is this in the media at all?

It's news cos she played the 'innocent victim' card and now appears to be anything but. She's disrespected her parents big time.

[Forest]

I met Millie briefly when she was at the Capri rehabilitation centre (my ex was an alcoholic).

I'm really not surprised to read that she's in trouble again. She comes across as an insincere little brat.

[fire eyes]

geez she looks like her mother though doesnt she! gorgeous wee thing she is .. but obviously not exempt from the lure of drugs. Hope she sees sense and gets herself together.

[Nasty]

I met Millie briefly when she was at the Capri rehabilitation centre (my ex was an alcoholic).

I'm really not surprised to read that she's in trouble again. She comes across as an insincere little brat.

Which is exactly as she is behaving .. did you notice that neither of her parents were there this time ... she should receive sentance like any other person .. do the crime do that time!

[Pussy]

Sadly, because people who are pretty, rich and white often get away with more than people who are not white, ugly as fuck, and dont have the money for top lawyers.

Jumped up little cow, got a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket last time. The pretty, rich, white card should mean squat this time.
Do the time, Millie, you spoilt little brat

[imdying]

IMHO - she's no better than the scum making the shit.Worse, at least the makers might blow themselves up.

[slimjim]

Yes Beauty Sells.... Too.. But a HOODiee in court.. Hummmmmm

[fire eyes]

she should be sentenced to the wrath of KB! that would sort her out .. giggling.

[imdying]

she should be sentenced to the wrath of KB! that would sort her out .. giggling.Naw, feed her to the mothers of some high school P users :chase:

[fire eyes]

Naw, feed her to the mothers of some high school P users :chase:

We want her to see the light imdying! not succumb to a torturess merciless death. dont we?

[imdying]

We want her to see the light imdying! not succumb to a torturess merciless death. dont we?I don't know... do we? There's a lot to be said for redemption, sure, but she's not just smoking a bit of waccy baccy in her own home doing nobody any harm.

[fire eyes]

I don't know... do we? There's a lot to be said for redemption, sure, but she's not just smoking a bit of waccy baccy in her own home doing nobody any harm.

true that imdying .. true that.

[98tls]

Give her 12 months in a cell with Mama Bubba.Feel for her old man really,if she were my kid it would be "thats it fuck off and grow up" with a kick up the arse as she went,time for some tough love.

[Headbanger]

Hey,Can we not just give the sexy bitches a break?

If she needs space from all you haters she can come stay down my way, I'll even chain her up so she doesn't touch the P.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So here we have a pretty, rich white girl selling P.

IMHO - she's no better than the scum making the shit.

I believe that we need to get HARD AS FUCK on people like this - start punishing the sellers, REALLY HARD so that people are scared as fuck to sell it.

Try and dry up the market - make people so scared to be caught with it that they are not willing to take the chance. Less sellers on the streets and in our neighbourhoods = less drugs (my overly simplified view Im sure - but hey its an idea)

So - What do you all believe is an appropriate sentence for sellers of "P" - and do you think this girl will get it - because "Daddy has money"

except that the "war on drugs" and "getting tough" demonstrably have failed utterly.

My view is that there shouldnt be "legal" or "illegal" drugs. If you've got the money to sustain a drug habit, spend it. Of course if you steal or whatever to feed it then that behaviour can be dealt with. But look at the states: get pinched in Alabama with three joints and go to jail for life: tell me how that is fair or reasonble. Plus it demonstrably does nothing to curb the trade.

[HenryDorsetCase]

If she is selling, she is using. Shes on the downward spiral. She will be 25, look 50, toothless, homeless and giving blowjobs in back alleys before the year is out.

She has chosen a hard road for herself.

[Headbanger]

Funny that, Out of all the P users I have known ( I keep my distance) only 2 or 3 are showing any (visible) signs of heavy use, and they are all still employed and functioning, Though noticeably stupider.

None of them have cut anyone's hands off yet, and the few that are capable of breaking and entering would have done so before the P.

[Forest]

Funny that, Out of all the P users I have known ( I keep my distance) only 2 or 3 are showing any (visible) signs of heavy use, and they are all still employed and functioning, Though noticeably stupider.

None of them have cut anyone's hands off yet, and the few that are capable of breaking and entering would have done so before the P.

Sounds like they have yet to run out of money to sustain their habits.

From what I've seen, that's when the shit starts to hit the fan.

[Indoo]

If she is selling, she is using. Shes on the downward spiral. She will be 25, look 50, toothless, homeless and giving blowjobs in back alleys before the year is out.

She has chosen a hard road for herself.

But how can it be dealt with if the only reason your committing crime is because your hopelessly addicted to an extremely addictive and harmful - yet legal and readily available drug?

The only way to address that offending is to take away what causes it. Get serious about it, anyone who commits any P related offending should be on probation for a couple of years including weekly drug tests. Any traces of P found in their system within that period would result in an instant recall to prison. But to do that you have to make the prisons squeaky clean, otherwise its just a farce.

[mazz1972]

On the Edge radio station this morning they took a call from a girl who was a recovering P user.

She had moved to Auckland and they asked why she took it the first time, and she said because someone offered it to her and she really didn't know what could happen, but she agreed you take it once and basically you are hooked. She remembers staying awake for up to ten days and not eating, the P kept her going, and once slept for three days. She kept working the whole time, and even though she thought her work colleagues knew she was on P, it didn't seem to cause any work problems for her. Think she said she took it for 2 years. Made the decision herself that enough was enough and called her family for help. She said the only way you can break the cycle is to start a new life, completely break away from everyone and everything associated with that life. She moved back to Chch and got help from some of the drug agencies. She's done really well and been P free for a year. Quite an amazing phone call to listen to.

Seems Millie has not made much effort to change her life and who she associates with. Ultimately she has to make the mental decision to get off P and be committed to it, and obviously she has not reached that point yet. The previous arrests and rehab obviously did not give enough of a wake up call. Wonder what will though....

[avgas]

ok i volunteer - i will be the one to punish her

[RantyDave]

Sadly, because people who are pretty, rich and white often get away with more than people who are not white, ugly as fuck, and dont have the money for top lawyers.
"You must spread some reputation around..." - it's not my fault that Tank's the only one talking sense these days.

So, what is the going rate for possession with intent to supply? She must be looking at a year, at least. Plus the record - try working overseas with *that* on your passport.

Dave

[imdying]

Though noticeably stupider.I don't personally know any users (at least none that I'm aware of hahahaha), but I'm keen to hear your thoughts... How do they appear noticeably stupider? Stupid decisions? Can't do math? One track minds?

[R6_kid]

How do they appear noticeably stupider? Stupid decisions? Can't do math? One track minds?

That would lead me to believe that most people I work with are on P...

[3L4NS1R]

So here we have a pretty, rich white girl selling P.

I believe that we need to get HARD AS FUCK on people like this - start punishing the sellers, REALLY HARD so that people are scared as fuck to sell it.


And here's where my Stewart Island draft proposal comes into play.

Convert Stewart Island into a convict colony. Any crime above petty status is punished by time on Stewart Island. And I mean serious time. Not 3 months.
White Collar criminals, P manufacturers, Gang members, and SUV drivers will all be sentenced to the same place. By the time their time is up, they'll be glad of civilization's comforts. Or dead.

Not convinced? Britain did it with Aussie. And became a super power.

Clearly this is the way forward.

[hellnback]

Convert Stewart Island into a convict colony. Any crime above petty status is punished by time on Stewart Island.....

Fuck off, where will I go fishing and boozin'?

[3L4NS1R]

Fuck off, where will I go fishing and boozin'?

on your boat! and hey... left to their own devices, I'm sure there will be plenty of moonshine around.

[HenryDorsetCase]

And here's where my Stewart Island draft proposal comes into play.

Convert Stewart Island into a convict colony. Any crime above petty status is punished by time on Stewart Island. And I mean serious time. Not 3 months.
White Collar criminals, P manufacturers, Gang members, and SUV drivers will all be sentenced to the same place. By the time their time is up, they'll be glad of civilization's comforts. Or dead.

Not convinced? Britain did it with Aussie. And became a super power.

Clearly this is the way forward.

They did it in the States too: not Alcatraz: you know the one where the President got shot down there: Uh, New York? Yeah, I saw the documentary they made about it, I remember: it was caled "Escape from New York"

[Tank]

But look at the states: get pinched in Alabama with three joints and go to jail for life: tell me how that is fair or reasonble. Plus it demonstrably does nothing to curb the trade.

I couldnt argue that life for 3 joints is either fair or reasonable.

But I could argue that anyone stupid enough to risk life in prison by carrying 3 joint knowing the penalties has to have a unhealthy obsession to the drug and is probably to stupid to be a member of society.

[Hinny]

except that the "war on drugs" and "getting tough" demonstrably have failed utterly.

My view is that there shouldnt be "legal" or "illegal" drugs. If you've got the money to sustain a drug habit, spend it. Of course if you steal or whatever to feed it then that behaviour can be dealt with. But look at the states: get pinched in Alabama with three joints and go to jail for life: tell me how that is fair or reasonable. Plus it demonstrably does nothing to curb the trade.

Finally some sense.!

I fear for the future of New Zealand if the people posting on KB are representative of the general population.
Where are clearly doomed if we can't learn from our mistakes let alone the mistakes of others.
Tougher laws equals bigger drug problems.
If more of the drugs that appeal to reckless users were available then the P trade may well disappear. It flourishes because customs and the Police are so effective at preventing access to preferred, and preferential drugs.
Making them legal, accessible and affordable has been demonstrated to have a beneficial effect to all. Less crime, fewer people in gaol, fewer addicts, fewer drug related deaths. It ain't rocket science.
It's like those turkeys in the States that concocted and introduced the pledge rings . Their young people pledging to abstain from sex until they were married and wearing a ring to signify such. No sex education at school or home etc.
Result...their town achieved the highest rate of illegitimate births in the US and STD's were rife.

[inlinefour]

So here we have a pretty, rich white girl selling P.

IMHO - she's no better than the scum making the shit.

I believe that we need to get HARD AS FUCK on people like this - start punishing the sellers, REALLY HARD so that people are scared as fuck to sell it.

Try and dry up the market - make people so scared to be caught with it that they are not willing to take the chance. Less sellers on the streets and in our neighbourhoods = less drugs (my overly simplified view Im sure - but hey its an idea)

So - What do you all believe is an appropriate sentence for sellers of "P" - and do you think this girl will get it - because "Daddy has money"

For a start they should be sterilising these type of people so the taxpayer does not have to look after sick messed up crack babies, nor those same children have to grow up in the environment that is likely to repeat the cycle of drug use. The justice system needs to give harsher penalties for doing this sort of crime. If you have a house and car then you should loose it as well as being put in goal for a good time along with Muma Bubba or Big Bob Bubba for regular loving company. The only way to stop people from doing it is to dish out effective penalties to stop them and others from doing it again and I think the above mentioned could go along way to achieving that goal.

Ive been told that I could greatly benefit from the use of medicinal cannabis. Which is the swallowing of a pill containing THC, the active ingrediant in cannabis. But because of the bullshit behaviour that goes on and the cry to legalise it completely from the stoners who want to smoke it, I have to take medicines that are harmfull to my liver etc, even though there is a better option thats currently illegal.

[Fatt Max]

Jumped up little slappa, agree with the abuse she has been copping.

As for punishment, a good 5 stretch is not long enough I reckon. She should be sentenced to wearing a pair of my riding pants over her face for a week, she will soon learn not to inhale then.

Daddy's been very quiet, mind you I'm happy about that because the sound of his voice gives me the screaming ghandi's at the best of times.

Serious though, imdying has the best idea, stick her in a room with some P user mums and see what happens....

[Patrick]

And here's where my Stewart Island draft proposal comes into play.

Britain did it with Aussie. And became a super power.

Clearly this is the way forward.

Stewart Island to become a super power????????:Pokey:

[Hinny]

For a start they should be sterilising these type of people so the taxpayer does not have to look after sick messed up crack babies, .

Don't you think your sig. is a little hypocritical?

[inlinefour]

Don't you think your sig. is a little hypocritical?

It all depends on what context its put into and as you dont know, then you would have no idea. Please explain how my sig has any relevance on any of what I have said or are you just a pro druggie clutching at straws? I dont know, so thats why Ive asked. Just for the record, I used to work in the secure locked up side of the inpatient psychiatric ward. I got to see the ugly side of drug use along with or without mental illness. If anyone thinks that P use is OK is just is plain ignorant. Along with that there is the physical health consequences along with psychological and psychiatrict. Then there is the family and socio-economic consequences to be considered. Any way you look at it, its a shyte substance, made by shyte people, turning others into shyte people. So why would we want them to breed?

[alanzs]

Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times. It has a very good argument for why drug prohibition doesn't work. PLEASE, before you respond, read the article.

This is the U.S. on drugs
Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.
By David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
July 5, 2008

The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400 million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.

The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.

The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.

The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.


Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.

Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.

The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.

And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.

Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially our children.

Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage. Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the marketing of that substance.

After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.

So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this, according to state budget figures, California alone would save more than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?

We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol.

We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a prescription), with the government regulating their production, overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.

The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.

Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.

[Hinny]

The punitive actions you were advocating are typically concocted to alter social behaviour. Dreamed up within the sin/punishment type of control exhibited by, for example, the Catholic Church. Methods of control designed to curb the actions of people that are outside of their social mores. Make life safer for those they control. Any person who dares to step outside their prescribed parameters of acceptable social behaviour are subjected to the pain side of the pain/pleasure dichotomy. Their willing victims are reminded that they are not free to do whatever they want. The must be protected from themselves. This is also the way our Justice system works.
Unfortunately, like the hypocritical turkeys that infest the Catholic Church, those that determine the parameters of acceptable social behaviour within the general population are not infallible.
To look at the history of prohibition of drugs one can see the parallel to the prohibition of alcohol. It is a policy that does not work. It is sold as a means of control of the scourge of drugs, as a protective measure for current and future citizens. Since the reality is that prohibition has the exact opposite effect of that which it is trying to attain indicates that those who have the right and ability to govern what is acceptable personal behaviour obviously have different agendas. It certainly finances a lot of wars around the world.
If, for example, NZ was to follow the example of those countries that have tried liberalisation of the drug laws then there is no reason to suspect that we would not experience the same benefits to society that they have.
Britain's experience with legalisation of Heroin led to fewer addicts, lower property crime and death rates.
The available evidence would suggest that we would not have a P problem if for example Heroin and Cocaine were more widely available and reasonably priced.
Controlled supply of known strength and safe drugs is certainly, in my opinion, far more preferable to the situation that exists when controlled by criminals.
The War on Drugs is a waste of time and money. Society as a whole suffers and it would appear the only people who like the current situation are those that profit from it.

[carver]

So here we have a pretty, rich white girl selling P.

IMHO - she's no better than the scum making the shit.

I believe that we need to get HARD AS FUCK on people like this - start punishing the sellers, REALLY HARD so that people are scared as fuck to sell it.

Try and dry up the market - make people so scared to be caught with it that they are not willing to take the chance. Less sellers on the streets and in our neighbourhoods = less drugs (my overly simplified view Im sure - but hey its an idea)

So - What do you all believe is an appropriate sentence for sellers of "P" - and do you think this girl will get it - because "Daddy has money"

i disagree...
the war on drugs aint working, and has never worked, end it.
the harder you get on it, the more money will be wasted on trying to police it.
get hard on E, Cannabis, meth, Acid, etc...and it will flourish cause you drive the price/profit up

[Jerry74]

Hahahaha silly little girl should of gone to jail the first time, serves her right for being a bloody junkie.

Who care that Paul Holmes is her dad at the end of the day she is just another crim.

[Jerry74]

Hahahaha silly little girl should of gone to jail the first time, serves her right for being a bloody junkie.

Who cares that Paul Holmes is her dad at the end of the day she is just another crim.

[Swoop]

Fuck off, where will I go fishing and boozin'?
Same place. I imagine the "chum" in the water will seriously improve the fishing...

Stewart Island to become a super power????????:Pokey:
You read it here on KB first!:first:

[Toaster]

She's disrespected her parents big time.

Needs a good old fashioned bare bottomed spanking.

[Max Preload]

She will be 25, look 50, toothless, homeless and giving blowjobs in back alleys before the year is out.

Not so sure I'm keen on her looking 50, but nonetheless do let me know when that happens and in which alley. :niceone:

[Skyryder]

I see in the Press today her mother made a 'no comment' through the spokesperson. Not too sure what that tells me but I'm guessing Hine paid others to be her daughters mother.


Skyryder

[young1]

P manufacturers and dealers are the scum of society!!!! Throw the fckin book at all of them. This IS a good reason for hard labour to be introduced into the prison system.

[Jerry74]

P manufacturers and dealers are the scum of society!!!! Throw the fckin book at all of them. This IS a good reason for hard labour to be introduced into the prison system.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::c lap::clap::clap:

Very good call there

[maybe]

I was a Corrections Officer in NZ for 15 years, I agree get tough on the dealers if you cut down on the dealers you cut down on the drugs.
If it was not for drugs and druggies the crime rate would be under half of what it is.

[Dave Lobster]

She's disrespected her parents big time.

Respect is a noun, not a verb.

[Forest]

Respect is a noun, not a verb.

Your dictionary is broken. Respect can be either a verb or a noun.

[inlinefour]

Your dictionary is broken. Respect can be either a verb or a noun.

She failed to respect her family, society and mostly herself. Now the justice system need not show her any respect and nail her every which way possible. This is a case being well covered by the media and its time someone made an example of her to put the message out to others that it wont be tolerated and the consequences of getting caught are extreme. :bash:

[mowgli]

Respect is a noun, not a verb.
Try this definition. (http://www.nzliteracyportal.org.nz/)

[Rodney007]

anyone got this chicks 021?

[Mom]

If she is selling, she is using. Shes on the downward spiral. She will be 25, look 50, toothless, homeless and giving blowjobs in back alleys before the year is out.

She has chosen a hard road for herself.

I have just finished reading a book called Loss of Innocence by Ron & Carren Clem. It tells the story of their daughters addiction to P and how they managed to rescue her and find treatment.

It is a very sobering read, and shows just how dangerous this drug is.


Millie Elder should be treated even harder than the no-names that face these type of charges. Tow reasons for this, one she has already been in front of the court on similar charges and got off lightly, the other reason is because of her high profile. Chuck the friggen book at her, make a real example of her! Wont change a thing mind you.

[carver]

I was a Corrections Officer in NZ for 15 years, I agree get tough on the dealers if you cut down on the dealers you cut down on the drugs.
If it was not for drugs and druggies the crime rate would be under half of what it is.

oh yeah?
throw em all in jail, that will solve ya problems!

people got to take responsibility for their own lives, that includes what your body ingests.

getting tough will get you nowhere

[discotex]

Chuck the friggen book at her, make a real example of her! Wont change a thing mind you.

WTF?

Why spend our tax dollars jailing someone if it's going to do nothing to solve the problem?

How about sending addicts to treatment instead of cutting off any hope of rejoining society with a criminal record? Same cost as jail yet gets results.

You're all forgetting P addicts are your friends and your family that make the simple mistake of underestimating their ability to control the drug. It's not like when they were 5 they decided to become the scum of the earth instead of a fireman.

Most addicts were raped, beaten or sexually abused as children and substance abuse is self treatment. How about we treat those offenders as the scum and get their victims the right help before they stumble upon drugs that make them feel better?

With a little help from the media it's all to easy to forget that alcohol still causes more crime, death and destruction than all of the other drugs put together.

[Patrick]

oh yeah?
throw em all in jail, that will solve ya problems!

people got to take responsibility for their own lives, that includes what your body ingests.

getting tough will get you nowhere

Make prison a shit hole no one wants to go to... like that guy with the tent prison in the Arazona desert, with the pink clothed prisoner chain gangs...

Crap food, crap lodgings, crap work (ie: hard, hard work...)

At the moment, its better than most homes, three square meals a day, free gym membership, free medical and dental, free "steps to freedom" money when they get out, no bills, no grocery costs, no insurance worries, nothing... feck...

Sounds more like a reward for bad behaviour. At the moment, sure beats working hard to make ends meet, dunnit?????

[Patrick]

WTF?

Why spend our tax dollars jailing someone if it's going to do nothing to solve the problem?

How about sending addicts to treatment instead of cutting off any hope of rejoining society with a criminal record? Same cost as jail yet gets results.

You're all forgetting ....


Sorry disco... YOU forget - they did that.... She went to rehab, breached her bail and still got off lightly....

Time for hardball...... or hard time.....

[carver]

WTF?

Why spend our tax dollars jailing someone if it's going to do nothing to solve the problem?

How about sending addicts to treatment instead of cutting off any hope of rejoining society with a criminal record? Same cost as jail yet gets results.

You're all forgetting P addicts are your friends and your family that make the simple mistake of underestimating their ability to control the drug. It's not like when they were 5 they decided to become the scum of the earth instead of a fireman.

Most addicts were raped, beaten or sexually abused as children and substance abuse is self treatment. How about we treat those offenders as the scum and get their victims the right help before they stumble upon drugs that make them feel better?

With a little help from the media it's all to easy to forget that alcohol still causes more crime, death and destruction than all of the other drugs put together.

i almost totally agree, just not with the "what to do with the tax money" part.

tax is theft.

it is a natural human instinct to see it as "us VS then"

the boy racers/P addicts/police/maori/mormon few are out to get us

lets fight back hard....
and so we loose perspective of what we really are.....
imperfect humans

[Shaun]

So here we have a pretty, rich white girl selling P.

IMHO - she's no better than the scum making the shit.

I believe that we need to get HARD AS FUCK on people like this - start punishing the sellers, REALLY HARD so that people are scared as fuck to sell it.

Try and dry up the market - make people so scared to be caught with it that they are not willing to take the chance. Less sellers on the streets and in our neighbourhoods = less drugs (my overly simplified view Im sure - but hey its an idea)

So - What do you all believe is an appropriate sentence for sellers of "P" - and do you think this girl will get it - because "Daddy has money"



P dealers, a $1-25 piece of lead between the eyes should be the go

[carver]

Make prison a shit hole no one wants to go to... like that guy with the tent prison in the Arazona desert, with the pink clothed prisoner chain gangs...

Crap food, crap lodgings, crap work (ie: hard, hard work...)

At the moment, its better than most homes, three square meals a day, free gym membership, free medical and dental, free "steps to freedom" money when they get out, no bills, no grocery costs, no insurance worries, nothing... feck...

Sounds more like a reward for bad behaviour. At the moment, sure beats working hard to make ends meet, dunnit?????

i agree with the m,ake prison less flash, but as many crims have said to me

prison?thats university for criminals!

[carver]

P dealers, a $1-25 piece of lead between the eyes should be the go

at $750-1100/gram i doubt it

drug dealers are people too.

[Patrick]

i agree with the m,ake prison less flash, but as many crims have said to me

prison?thats university for criminals!

True... but that is because they have too much spare time on their hands. Keep em busy...breaking rocks etc etc, knacker them out so they are too stuffed to even talk when they finish....

[carver]

True... but that is because they have too much spare time on their hands. Keep em busy...breaking rocks etc etc, knacker them out so they are too stuffed to even talk when they finish....

Drugs aint a crime.

Theft is a crime
Murder is a crime
Assault is a crime

all of which are caused by making substances illegal

[Littleman]

[QUOTE=carver;drug dealers are people too.[/QUOTE]

Brilliant. Best laugh I've had all week.

[Her_C4]

It's news cos she played the 'innocent victim' card and now appears to be anything but. She's disrespected her parents big time.

Yep absolutely - and obviously has no respect for herself etiher.


Which is exactly as she is behaving .. did you notice that neither of her parents were there this time ... she should receive sentance like any other person .. do the crime do that time!

In similar situation - neither would I. Its called 'tough love' .. By withdrawing front line support they are (IMO and without all the facts!) indicating that they have done all they can via the love and support route and its time she stood on her own and dealt with the repercussions of her actions. If this is the case good on them - its a bloody hard thing to do.:gob::bye:

She has consistently pleaded that she is innocent and has consistently has been offered help, rehab etc etc and consistently she has made the wrong choices, knowing what the resultant outcome will be.


Sorry disco... YOU forget - they did that.... She went to rehab, breached her bail and still got off lightly....

Time for hardball...... or hard time.....

Yep time to stop playing the poor wee rich girl and HTFU. This should come as no suprise to those that have worked with addicts.

[discotex]

Make prison a shit hole no one wants to go to... like that guy with the tent prison in the Arazona desert, with the pink clothed prisoner chain gangs...

You mean copy the US justice system and War on Drugs? Sure works for them.


Sorry disco... YOU forget - they did that.... She went to rehab, breached her bail and still got off lightly....

Time for hardball...... or hard time.....

I wasn't talking about Millie in particular. More the attitude that P users should be locked up on sight.

If she's committing other real crimes (other than possession of a substance she's addicted to) then sure book her.


Yep time to stop playing the poor wee rich girl and HTFU. This should come as no suprise to those that have worked with addicts.

Generally those who work with addicts expect relapse as part of the process to recovery. I agree she needs to HTFU but cutting her off and dumping her in jail isn't likely to solve the problem.

She tried the voluntary treatment for a month - hardly going to work.

Now it's time she was sentenced to 6 months in rehab. If she comes out and re-offends make it 12. Again, make it 18. Again, make it 24. Soon enough she'll get the message.

Do that with jail time and she'll give up on any hope for a normal life pretty quick.

[James Deuce]

Most addicts were raped, beaten or sexually abused as children and substance abuse is self treatment. How about we treat those offenders as the scum and get their victims the right help before they stumble upon drugs that make them feel better?



If you're trying to make a good point, NEVER make sweeping generalisations like that one up there.

Once you're in this little tart's position you've lost any right to lenient treatment. She's had more chances than she deserved. She didn't just lapse, which is understandable and expected as you pointed out.

She's a dealer. If she were "just" a user I would support your argument 100%. People are generally worth spending time, money, and energy on. Once you start dealing to support your habit your humanity is so far gone that you are no loss to society if you had a nasty accident in transit to prison.

Millie has a small hand in the death of a Police officer. You'll no doubt deny that and to a certain extent you are right in that she didn't pull the trigger. Repeatedly. However she is now part of the supply chain in an illicit industry that ruins lives and gets good people killed. She's not worth it.

[discotex]

If you're trying to make a good point, NEVER make sweeping generalisations like that one up there.

Fair point. Those same people require compassion and treatment over jail time as well.



She's a dealer. If she were "just" a user I would support your argument 100%. People are generally worth spending time, money, and energy on. Once you start dealing to support your habit your humanity is so far gone that you are no loss to society if you had a nasty accident in transit to prison.

So you're prefer she sold her body or stole to support her habit instead? Not saying it's good but there's a huge difference between selling to support a habit and selling to get rich (the gangs on the back of prohibition).

As for her humanity being gone that's total bullshit. Most substance abusers get out eventually. Usually in their mid-20's. About the same time bikers who ride like maniacs slow down. One would assume for the same reasons.

And the hand in the cop's death... You're kidding right?

Anyone else notice the problem got worse after they re-classified P from class B to class A and made it the sexy new gixxer thou of drugs for the risk takers out there?

[inlinefour]

P dealers, a $1-25 piece of lead between the eyes should be the go

I agree, right between the eyes, no need for a prison and the family can pay for the funeral.

On a side note I see that carver is spouting shyte when he clearly has no idea. Once people ingest P they do all sorts of stupid shyte that they would normally not do and the first dose usually has them hooked on the substance for life. Why the fark would society want to make it easier and legal to do??? But then again carver thinks that it should be legal to treat NZ roads as stunt/race tracks, putting everyone else on the roads in danger, maybe he does that while on P? :jerry:

[discotex]

Once people ride motorcycles they do all sorts of stupid shyte that they would normally not do and the first ride usually has them hooked on bikes for life. Why the fark would society want to make it easier and legal to do???

......do you not understand how hypocritical you sound?

[inlinefour]

......do you not understand how hypocritical you sound?

What a load of bollocks discotex, you clearly have no idea of how substance dependance works...:whistle:

[discotex]

What a load of bollocks discotex, you clearly have no idea of how substance dependance works...:whistle:

Because I'm making a sound rational argument I mustn't know what I'm talking about?

Interesting conclusion.

[inlinefour]

Because I'm making a sound rational argument I mustn't know what I'm talking about?

Interesting conclusion.

Your joking right? If you did understand substance dependance then you would know just how stupid this comment is. Thats the problem I guess when you dont research the topic, I can lend you an essay or text book or 3 so you can learn. Oh and be wary of what you read on the internet and make sure you get anything from a realiable source. You have just shown why illicit drugs wont be decrimilised/made legal. Too many of those supporting it are basing their comments on emotions and not on the facts. I would like to see cannabis decrimilised, but its unlikely to ever happen. Before you assume anything from my post, I dont want to smoke it, I want to ingest it as medicinal use. Then I can stop using the current pain relief thats bad for my liver. Medicinal use in the form of a pill does not have that side effect and is much more effective than what Im on. Just to give you an idea, on a bad day I get up for 2 hours, good day 10 hours until the pain forces me to lye down as immobilising myself is the only thing that works. Some ppl think they know pain but truely have no idea.

[geoffm]

If you want to ahve a wee toke of dak at home, I don't have to many issues with it.
P on the other hand is evil, evil shit, whcih makes the users paranoid and unstable. Look at the RSA murders, and plenty of others.
Time for the hard line and hard time, but it will never happen in this soft-cock country.

[RantyDave]

So you're prefer she sold her body ... to support her habit instead?
Now you mention it, yes. The thing is that P dealers make the situation worse. Paul Holmes' daughter selling her body to support her P habit will, at least, not make the situation any worse for the rest of us and may do us all a huge favour when it finally becomes public.

The whole thing makes the fucking "cheeky darky" comments seem all the more prescient.

Dave

[discotex]

Your joking right? If you did understand substance dependance then you would know just how stupid this comment is. Thats the problem I guess when you dont research the topic, I can lend you an essay or text book or 3 so you can learn.

You're making a lot of assumptions about my level of knowledge that are completely incorrect.



Oh and be wary of what you read on the internet and make sure you get anything from a realiable source. You have just shown why illicit drugs wont be decrimilised/made legal. Too many of those supporting it are basing their comments on emotions and not on the facts

I don't see facts in either of our posts. I think you'll find it's actually those opposing harm reduction and de-criminalisation that are basing their comments on emotion over the hard facts.

Here's some facts that while I've read the proof don't have the studies bookmarked and to hand. As such I'd expect you to consider it opinion. I'll do the same with any unsubstantiated claims you make.

Treatment reduces recidivism.
Treatment reduces secondary offending (such as shoplifting).
Jail time increases offending.
Treating the mental illness (such as depression) of addicts dramatically increases the changes of rehab working.




I would like to see cannabis decrimilised, but its unlikely to ever happen. Before you assume anything from my post, I dont want to smoke it, I want to ingest it as medicinal use. Then I can stop using the current pain relief thats bad for my liver. Medicinal use in the form of a pill does not have that side effect and is much more effective than what Im on. Just to give you an idea, on a bad day I get up for 2 hours, good day 10 hours until the pain forces me to lye down as immobilising myself is the only thing that works. Some ppl think they know pain but truely have no idea.

After decades of failed drug control policy even the US presidential candidate is beginning to question the value of the War on Drugs.

It's not a far stretch to imagine people eventually coming to the inevitable conclusion that making criminals out of sick people is a big fat fail.

[scumdog]

It's not a far stretch to imagine people eventually coming to the inevitable conclusion that making criminals out of sick people is a big fat fail.

OK, let individuals take the drugs if they feel they 'must', it's their choice.

But NO assistance for them when their life then goes tits-up eh?

And really stiff penalties if they are convicted of crimes related to their self-inflicted addiction, fair enough?

[Jerry74]

P has fucked the rest of the world and still NZ has done bugger all about it

[discotex]

OK, let individuals take the drugs if they feel they 'must', it's their choice.

But NO assistance for them when their life then goes tits-up eh?

And really stiff penalties if they are convicted of crimes related to their self-inflicted addiction, fair enough?

Sounds good to me. Not sure about the no assistance. We have ACC for other fuckups and we treat lung cancer for smokers or liver disease for drinkers.

But yeah in general if people commit real crime they should absolutely have the book thrown at them.

[Indoo]

Sounds good to me. Not sure about the no assistance. We have ACC for other fuckups and we treat lung cancer for smokers or liver disease for drinkers.

But yeah in general if people commit real crime they should absolutely have the book thrown at them.

So then Millie Holmes should have the book thrown at her, right?

[James Deuce]

As for her humanity being gone that's total bullshit. Most substance abusers get out eventually. Usually in their mid-20's. About the same time bikers who ride like maniacs slow down. One would assume for the same reasons.

I don't think it's BS at all. The fuse between her personal needs and wants and the consequences of her actions for people around her and the general public has tripped. Once you start selling that stuff to support your own habit you've announced that you no longer give a damn what happens to anyone else so long as your own addiction is fed. It may simply be addiction, it may be a fundamental shift in brain chemistry that in some cases is irreversible. It may well just be that spoilt brats MUST get what they want and the little people don't matter.


And the hand in the cop's death... You're kidding right?

I'm not. There wouldn't be P labs without users, distributors and sellers. There wouldn't be a need for an under cover cop (who actually was much more, was one of those rough men who do indescribable things so you can sleep comfortably in your bed) to skulk about in the dark and get killed by multiple shots from an air rifle. There's more money in the P economy than our manufacturing export businesses. There's schools and hospitals and decent pay for cops and nurses and doctors being shot up and smoked.

I have no quarrel with your argument for treating sick people. P user/dealers have gone beyond sick and into the realm of the irredeemable.

[oldrider]

It's not about Elder (or anyone else) using P, it's now about her "selling" P to other children/people!

What she does to her self is her own problem to deal with and if she gets help with it, fine by me...."BUT" I don't want to have to pay for it!

Destroying other kids lives for her own benefit and habit should get her a death penalty, or in (non PC) NZ, a "real life sentence".

Look here at Libertarianz policy on drugs: www.libertarianz.org.nz/?policy=drugs Perhaps it may even be more in keeping with your own opinion!

There but for the grace of god go I, she could have been selling "P" to my own grandchildren!

My thoughts on this prospect are not printable on this forum! :nono: John.

[Headbanger]

Drugs are cool.

[inlinefour]

I don't see facts in either of our posts.

Fact. Prior to my spinal cord injury I was a charge nurse on the secure side of the inpatient psychiatric unit.
Fact. Ive seen the results of P users within that setting. None of it I really want to repeat here.
Fact. P is a shyte substance.
Fact. Its produced by shyte people.
Fact. Its sold by shyte people, which...
Fact. ...turns users into addicts and increases the % of shyte within the population.
New fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise to the above is an idiot or has there head in the sand.

discotex, you understand now? If not please reread this post until you do. :yawn:

[scumdog]

Drugs are cool.

C'mon, if yer gonna troll try and be subtle eh??

[skidMark]

while I agree with the basis of your post, what has being pretty, rich and white got to do with anything?


It is everything to do with it, white people are the majority in this country over polynesians and maoris. probably about 50% are white and 20% or less or maori or polynesian ethnicity? (just guessing)

Yet its about 80% of inmates are maori or polynesian (once again guessing on percentage, i cant give anything precise)

so yes, the pretty little white rich girl doesnt exactly fit your typical drug seller/ crim.

[brendonjw]

So shes the only one being charged with supplying P right now?? I mean she is the only one in the papers about it. YES it is definitly wrong and she should get whatever the court dishes out to her (which will probably be less than what she deserves) but really, the only reason shes in the papers is cause she has some semblance to fame which is a rather lame excuse to be putting it in there if you ask me, if they are going to name and shame one person for it (because they are apparently famous) the should have a column in the paper each week for the charges for all people to do with P going through the courts that week, NAME and SHAME them ALL not just the famous

[Headbanger]

C'mon, if yer gonna troll try and be subtle eh??

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[discotex]

I don't think it's BS at all. The fuse between her personal needs and wants and the consequences of her actions for people around her and the general public has tripped.

The same could be said for those caught speeding. Hardly see the same vitriol.



I'm not. There wouldn't be P labs without users, distributors and sellers. There wouldn't be a need for an under cover cop (who actually was much more, was one of those rough men who do indescribable things so you can sleep comfortably in your bed) to skulk about in the dark and get killed by multiple shots from an air rifle.


There's no link there and you know it. It's equal to blaming Toyota for the carnage on our roads.

Or, you could blame prohibition. If the P users were getting their supply from a chemist the cops wouldn't be having to put trackers on their cars.



There's more money in the P economy than our manufacturing export businesses. There's schools and hospitals and decent pay for cops and nurses and doctors being shot up and smoked.


All the more reason to tax the industry.



I have no quarrel with your argument for treating sick people. P user/dealers have gone beyond sick and into the realm of the irredeemable.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that then.


It's not about Elder (or anyone else) using P, it's now about her "selling" P to other children/people!

What she does to her self is her own problem to deal with and if she gets help with it, fine by me...."BUT" I don't want to have to pay for it!

Just to clarify, are you ok with ACC and free medical treatment for drinkers/smokers/obese people instead?



Destroying other kids lives for her own benefit and habit should get her a death penalty, or in (non PC) NZ, a "real life sentence".


As I've said before, most of these kids lives were ruined long before they find drugs. Rape, abuse, violent families, etc are what largely cause kids to turn to drugs in the first place. Blaming the dealers does nothing to solve the issue.

If you do your research you'll find most users actively seek out the drugs. They're not sucked in by this imaginary pusher type dealer.


Fact. Prior to my spinal cord injury I was a charge nurse on the secure side of the inpatient psychiatric unit.
Fact. Ive seen the results of P users within that setting. None of it I really want to repeat here.
Fact. P is a shyte substance.
Fact. Its produced by shyte people.
Fact. Its sold by shyte people, which...
Fact. ...turns users into addicts and increases the % of shyte within the population.
New fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise to the above is an idiot or has there head in the sand.

discotex, you understand now? If not please reread this post until you do. :yawn:

I understand where your opinion comes from. It's the same place many hospital workers come from with bikers. They see a disproportionate picture of the worst carnage involved and a disproportionate number of no-hope situations and think that's a balanced view.

Go spend some time talking to your local health board drug and alcohol team and hear how positive they are (given the almost non-existent funding) and see some real stats on treatment outcomes for their patients over the 2-10 year range.

If you still feel the same way we can pick up the debate then eh? Clearly we're on opposite sides of the fence and no-one is moving.

[discotex]

So then Millie Holmes should have the book thrown at her, right?

What did she do other than possession for supply?

[scumdog]

What did she do other than possession for supply?

Yeah - and that's fugall innit???:rolleyes::shutup:

[Max Preload]

True... but that is because they have too much spare time on their hands. Keep em busy...breaking rocks etc etc, knacker them out so they are too stuffed to even talk when they finish....

I dislike the concept of strong, fit criminals. :whistle:


What did she do other than possession for supply?

That's not enough? Do you know nothing about methamphetamine?

[oldrider]

(A) Just to clarify, are you ok with ACC and free medical treatment for drinkers/smokers/obese people instead?

(B) As I've said before, most of these kids lives were ruined long before they find drugs. Rape, abuse, violent families, etc are what largely cause kids to turn to drugs in the first place. Blaming the dealers does nothing to solve the issue.

If you do your research you'll find most users actively seek out the drugs. They're not sucked in by this imaginary pusher type dealer.

(A) If they have been paying their taxes, ACC premiums etc and if they qualify, why not, they are paying their way. (currently)

I believe ACC etc should be privatised and I don't mind if people want to drink, smoke or become obese, that is their prerogative.(it's a free world)

If they want/need help let them seek it from the people who provide that kind of help.

It's surely their own choice, they don't need the nanny state telling them when to wipe their own arse!

(B) Forget about the "Drugs" deal with the rape, abuse, violent families etc effectively and remove the cause for turning to the drugs.

Eliminate the "imaginary" pusher type dealers by removing the need for the "market".

Get the government back into doing the basics of governing and out of our bloody lives!

Today government "interference" in our freedoms is the biggest growth industry in New Zealand.

That is the root cause of most of this countries current ills. :doh: (IMHO)

Have another look at the policies here, www.libertarianz.org.nz they reflect quite a lot of "my" political views. :yes: John.

[discotex]

Yeah - and that's fugall innit???:rolleyes::shutup:



That's not enough? Do you know nothing about methamphetamine?

:girlfight:

[discotex]

Have another look at the policies here, www.libertarianz.org.nz they reflect quite a lot of "my" political views. :yes: John.

They look good. Where government should fit in is always an interesting line to place. Definitely agree with the personal accountability approach (as long as you're not directly hurting someone else).

[jrandom]

I don't personally know any users (at least none that I'm aware of hahahaha), but I'm keen to hear your thoughts... How do they appear noticeably stupider? Stupid decisions? Can't do math? One track minds?

Short attention spans, a general lowering of IQ, they're either 'up' (twitchy, happy, energetic, but oddly enough never really accomplishing anything of value, unless they happen to direct their mania into some form of manual labour) or 'down' (grumpy, sullen, silent, just wanting to curl up and face the wall and sleep).

After some years, they just become dumber. You'll send them a simple email and they'll misread it, you'll have to repeat things to them occasionally, basic arithmetic becomes a challenge, etc. It's worse for people who started out stupid, of course. Folk who start out intelligent seem to just kinda lose the edge off it.

People under the influence of methamphetamine appear to think that they're witty and charming and gorgeous, but in fact they just spout a lot of shit very noisily and disconnectedly - good luck ever getting them to follow a complex train of thought. I'd hate to try and get any work done under the influence of it. (No, I haven't ever tried it myself.)

Then again, everyone's different in how they respond to it.

I know a guy who pretty much lives on a cocktail of P and dak (it seems to add up to normalcy) and functions just fine. No issues. But his wife never had the good sense to realise that she shouldn't do the same, and now she's basically ready for the loony bin. Even when she's sober, she's obviously not the full quid - incapable of rational thought, emotionally unstable... she wasn't like that years ago.

Read up on the medical literature - methamphetamine does indeed cause measurable and irreversible CNS damage.

[marioc]

fucking typical drug experts everywhere that have never tried the stuff

[Max Preload]

I believe ACC etc should be privatised...

Now, I'm about as right wing as you can get on most issues, but I disagree with privatising ACC. I do however feel that opening the industry up to competition (again...) is the right thing to do so people can choose the cover that best suits them, compare premiums and value between providers and have it spelled out in black and white in their policy documents what they are actually entitled to BEFORE they need it. People who are too stupid and/or lazy to do that will probably get what they deserve and simply stay with ACC.


(B) Forget about the "Drugs" deal with the rape, abuse, violent families etc effectively and remove the cause for turning to the drugs.

I think you'll find it's largely the other way around - drugs are the precurser to much of the violence these days. It used to be just booze but now there's all sorts of mind altering substances people are abusing.

[inlinefour]

fucking typical drug experts everywhere that have never tried the stuff

Reading the literature makes you wise, trying the drug just makes you stupid. Did you not understand jrandoms post?

[ynot slow]

Funny thing is she is not Paul Holmes' daughter,just stolen his name cause mumsie married him.

For those who saw the episode on 20/20 or Sunday a few months ago on Leanne Isherwood,she was a jockey who amassed a few $,she won a few of NZ big races during her time in the saddle.She tried P was hooked,made a few "friends" who used her for the money she had to get their high.Pretty hard to be a jockey if ya can't enter a racecourse.She was/is trying to cure herself and get her life back.Her estimate is it cost her in excess of $100,000,she would not be your steriotype person either,white mid 30's,successful.

[Forest]

It is everything to do with it, white people are the majority in this country over polynesians and maoris. probably about 50% are white and 20% or less or maori or polynesian ethnicity? (just guessing)

Yet its about 80% of inmates are maori or polynesian (once again guessing on percentage, i cant give anything precise)

so yes, the pretty little white rich girl doesnt exactly fit your typical drug seller/ crim.

Depends on where you live. In 2006, the population of Auckland was

56.5% European
18.9% Asian
14.4% Pacific Islanders
11.1% Maori

Note: You can nominate membership of more than one ethnic group in the census. So the numbers don't add up to 100%.

Statistics NZ document is attached in case you want to do more reading.

[oldrider]

fucking typical drug experts everywhere that have never tried the stuff

Fair enough, you are entitled to have and to express your opinion.

but

I have been quoting "human behaviour" and I feel well enough versed and experienced in that field to comment. (68 years, getting things right or wrong)

and

I do not have to try drugs, touch electricity, drink petrol, walk in front of buses etc to know that they may be very bad for my health.

What "you" do is OK with me, as long as you don't "fuck anyone else about" by doing it! :shifty: John.

[slimjim]

It is everything to do with it, white people are the majority in this country over polynesians and maoris. probably about 50% are white and 20% or less or maori or polynesian ethnicity?

so yes, the pretty little white rich girl doesnt exactly fit your typical drug seller/ crim.

Fuck that's a spelling mistake....:bleh: the pretty little "WHITE" girl is The TYPICAL Drug Seller..... NowDays...cause the little brown girls are always getting seached..so its easy for the Pretty little white girls to sell.. unnoticed...:bleh:

[alanzs]

Anyone have any comments on this article? The logic is undeniable. ANYONE? Remember alcohol prohibition, it didn't work. Why would we think the prohibition of other DRUGS will? It doesn't work. PLEASE, READ THE ARTICLE...

Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times. It has a very good argument for why drug prohibition doesn't work. PLEASE, before you respond, read the article.

This is the U.S. on drugs
Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.
By David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
July 5, 2008

The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400 million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.

The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.

The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.

The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.


Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.

Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.

The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.

And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.

Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially our children.

Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage. Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the marketing of that substance.

After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.

So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this, according to state budget figures, California alone would save more than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?

We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol.

We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a prescription), with the government regulating their production, overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.

The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.

Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.

[Headbanger]

Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

.


where?, when?, how? who?

What about tobacco?, the reason its been so popular is due to it being readily available, addictive, and a means of profit, for the government and the industry. And you want to unleash P on the people?

Piss off.

[jrandom]

fucking typical drug experts everywhere that have never tried the stuff

See, thing is, I'm very well aware that if I tried methamphetamine, it'd feel fucking awesome and I'd love every minute of it. And I suspect that I'd end up rationalising another point, and then another one, and then I'd invest in a couple of grams, and then two years later my life would have fallen apart.

I'm no moralising prohibitionist (see my signature, fer chrissake!) but when it comes to 'P', I'm content to draw conclusions from what I've observed. The shit fucks people up. Even people who remain functional on it would do better without it.

[jrandom]

drug prohibition doesn't work...

Yes it does.

What doesn't work is tarring all psychoactive substances with the same brush.

Legalise caffeine, cannabis, mushrooms and cocaine.

Ban alcohol, methamphetamine, opiates and tobacco.

Sorted.

[marioc]

There is no doubt it is a drug with long claws..

What annoys me and that people buy in to the media hype.
At the end of the day more people end up dead/injured through alcohol abuse than any of the other drugs combined.
Yet this is seen as ok its part of " kiwi culture".

Meanwhile the weekend warrior who likes to pop back the odd pill or have a chuff on the good gear to maximise his weekend is seen as some sort of crazed potential killer and has to hide like a fugitive while pissed up rugby heads go out and beat people up.

[carver]

I agree, right between the eyes, no need for a prison and the family can pay for the funeral.

On a side note I see that carver is spouting shyte when he clearly has no idea. Once people ingest P they do all sorts of stupid shyte that they would normally not do and the first dose usually has them hooked on the substance for life. Why the fark would society want to make it easier and legal to do??? But then again carver thinks that it should be legal to treat NZ roads as stunt/race tracks, putting everyone else on the roads in danger, maybe he does that while on P? :jerry:

maybe i do have a idea.....
how do you know i have no idea.....
the "P" made here aint so pure, thats part of the problem.

i belive in personal responsibility.

[Headbanger]

rubbish, The country is awash in "pure" P, as well as cut stuff and crap from bad batches. Its easy to see what it is just by looking at it. and the same worldwide.

Carver, Get on a plane, fly to Sydney, walk down Kings Cross at 5am on any morning and see for yourself what a community infested with drugs looks like. For many there is no redemption. Its downhill to hell.

I believe you don't know shit about shit.

[scumdog]

There is no doubt it is a drug with long claws..

What annoys me and that people buy in to the media hype.
At the end of the day more people end up dead/injured through alcohol abuse than any of the other drugs combined.
Yet this is seen as ok its part of " kiwi culture".

Meanwhile the weekend warrior who likes to pop back the odd pill or have a chuff on the good gear to maximise his weekend is seen as some sort of crazed potential killer and has to hide like a fugitive while pissed up rugby heads go out and beat people up.

Well something had to be legally 'allowed' - and it was alcamahol!!:2thumbsup

Your comment could easily apply to alcohol if other drugs were legal and it was not.

[carver]

rubbish, The country is awash in "pure" P, as well as cut stuff and crap from bad batches. Its easy to see what it is just by looking at it. and the same worldwide.

Carver, Get on a plane, fly to Sydney, walk down Kings Cross at 5am on any morning and see for yourself what a community infested with drugs looks like. For many there is no redemption. Its downhill to hell.

I believe you don't know shit about shit.

kings cross...drugs are illegal there too eh?

it made all the difference eh...

people got to make choices....

[alanzs]

Yes it does.

What doesn't work is tarring all psychoactive substances with the same brush.

Legalise caffeine, cannabis, mushrooms and cocaine.

Ban alcohol, methamphetamine, opiates and tobacco.

Sorted.

That would be a start. I guess it would depend on what you mean by prohibition works. If it is the reduction in use, cost, and availability, it doesn't work. The DEA, the largest Drug Enforcement Agency in the world, has said this. There are more drugs available now than ever before.

Freedom is the issue. Just because some headbanging idiot can't take responsibility for their actions, doesn't mean others can't.

[Headbanger]

.

Freedom is the issue. Just because some headbanging idiot can't take responsibility for their actions, doesn't mean others can't.

The issue is what sort of society we wish to live in, Its why the majority support drug laws, and the idiotic delusional fringe and clever bastards doing drugs think otherwise.

Some people love drugs, No doubt about it, But the piper must be paid.

[alanzs]

kings cross...drugs are illegal there too eh?

it made all the difference eh...

people got to make choices....

Exactly. Freedom isn't for everyone. It takes an educated populace, something most governments do the least they can to support. Many cultures aggressively attack those who attempt to better themselves or think freely (Tall Poppies?). Questioning authority is not allowed in many places. It's vehemently discouraged by the media. The headbanging idiots find this kind of freedom extremely threatening. It would make them take responsibility for their actions, a very, very scary thought for the uninformed, uneducated and unintelligent. Without the external controls all the personal freedom laws exert, they inevitably feel very out of control and threatened. :eek:

[jrandom]

That would be a start. I guess it would depend on what you mean by prohibition works. If it is the reduction in use, cost, and availability, it doesn't work. The DEA, the largest Drug Enforcement Agency in the world, has said this. There are more drugs available now than ever before.

That's true.

I read a fascinating article (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mexico_road_failed_state) today which touched to a significant extent on the issues posed by prohibition. Well worth reading by anyone in this thread, I'd say.

Perhaps I should have said that prohibition works, but often at a prohibitive cost, and to counterproductive ends.

The key is probably an intelligent and measured case-by-case approach. Unfortunately, history tells us that humanity isn't very good at that.

[Headbanger]

Thread has taken a remarkably stupid direction, Society can't handle itself when drugs are banned, Imagine the mayhem if we legalise it and then just talk the addicts about their issues.

LMFAO.

Dumb dumb dumb and dumb, With is of course why it will never happen.

As it is anyone can already exorcise their personal choice and take drugs, Thats no reason for society to condone it.


Still waiting to hear about these countries that have legalised drugs with a positive outcome.

[alanzs]

That's true.

I read a fascinating article (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mexico_road_failed_state) today which touched to a significant extent on the issues posed by prohibition. Well worth reading by anyone in this thread, I'd say.

Perhaps I should have said that prohibition works, but often at a prohibitive cost, and to counterproductive ends.

The key is probably an intelligent and measured case-by-case approach. Unfortunately, history tells us that humanity isn't very good at that.

Great article. Just another example of the terrible costs the "drug war" is taking on many societies. It's the prohibitive and counterproductive part that needs to be recognized. Who really profits and benefits from the "drug war?" Certainly not the populace at large. Living in fear is a great way to control people. Look at the US as a perfect example.

I thought the article I had posted earlier in the thread was pretty well thought out. I especially liked how it said the criminal justice system is there to protect us from other, not ourselves. Right on.

And, you are right about history... :niceone:

[jrandom]

Still waiting to hear about these countries that have legalised drugs with a positive outcome.

United States of America. The repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

:niceone:

And alcohol is one of the more socially destructive drugs.

[Patrick]

I read somewhere that China has a good policy on drugs - convict, take out the back and shoot em - then forward the bill for the bullet to the family.

As a direct result of a "harsh sentence / penalty" they don't have too much of a problem with drugs..... Might make a bit and ship it off shore, but not much of a problem locally......

BUt then again, the bourbon is kicking in.....

[Hinny]

Yes it does.

What doesn't work is tarring all psychoactive substances with the same brush.

Legalise caffeine, cannabis, mushrooms and cocaine.

Ban alcohol, methamphetamine, opiates and tobacco.

Sorted.

I'm interested to know why you would ban opiates.

Heroin for instance is not physiologically harmful whereas alcohol and tobacco attack every organ in your body.

[alanzs]

United States of America. The repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

:niceone:

And alcohol is one of the more socially destructive drugs.

And they have 42,000+ alcohol related deaths a year. I guess it could be worse. :beer:
Nobody has ever died from cannabis use, but that's illegal. The DEA has said in their own report that the "Gateway Theory" isn't valid, but the war goes on, and on, and on. At least in 12 states in the US, cannabis is available for medicinal use. I guess the people have realized that denying someone with a terminal illness some relief is called compassion. Some sanity may be starting to appear on the horizon.

Here's an interesting link for more information about the drug war: http://www.csdp.org/

[Patrick]

Nobody has ever died from cannabis use,

Thats interesting... :no:

So a guy off his face on dak who crashed his car didn't die from cannabis use? Two cases here in the last couple of years....

Suppose so, depends on how ya look at it.....:shutup:

[Hinny]

As it is anyone can already exorcise their personal choice and take drugs, Thats no reason for society to condone it.


Still waiting to hear about these countries that have legalised drugs with a positive outcome.

People are not allowed to exercise their personal choice to take drugs in this country.
I think the call to have society condone drugs is entirely rational.
Treating the use of drugs as acceptable, forgivable or harmless would perhaps return us to the state that we were in before. Before that American dickhead preached that smoking marijuana would turn you in to an axe wielding homicidal maniac and got drugs banned. That man who started the whole downward spiral.
When the use of drugs was legal we didn't have the problems that we have today and making them legal in the future is not likely to either given the results of the British trial on legalising Heroin.

There is one country along with Holland where the use of drugs is or has been either legalised or overlooked, with positive outcomes.
Oregon in the US legalised the use of canabis with positive outcomes.

[jrandom]

I'm interested to know why you would ban opiates.

Physiological dependency. Addiction forms fast and hard and users lose their ability to choose whether they take it or not - they need it.

And I don't think that substances like that should be used without medical supervision.

Ever been in a room full of junkies freebasing morphine and chewing their fingernails with impatience to IV it? It's mildly disturbing.

And bear in mind that even alcohol, which is quite poisonous, doesn't have the fine line between fun and fatality that heroin does. There is not an order of magnitude difference between a recreational and a lethal dose.

[jrandom]

... in 12 states in the US, cannabis is available for medicinal use. I guess the people have realized that denying someone with a terminal illness some relief is called compassion.

Well... here's (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2008/9/1/203051/8251) a first-person perspective on that subject. Make of it what you will.

[jrandom]

So a guy off his face on dak who crashed his car didn't die from cannabis use?

Uh, no, he died from injuries sustained in a car crash.

Of course, driving a car while under the influence of any psychoactive substance is a dreadful idea.

However, no, cannabis isn't toxic (particularly if taken via non-smoking means). There are no recorded instances of death through overdose.

[McJim]

I thought this was a repost...then I saw the news....Silly Millie.:rofl:

[Headbanger]

There is one country along with Holland where the use of drugs is or has been either legalised or overlooked, with positive outcomes.


If your going to make these claims can we have a bit of detail/data to back them up?

Not particularly interested in cannabis use though, Lets discuss the good hard stuff that ruins lives.

I got a friend or two from way back enslaved to heroin, charming folk, Totally mind-fucked and living in hell, they are probably open to your preaching of drugs as acceptable, forgiveable or harmless, Though I bet like fuck they wouldn't want you preaching to their kids.

[Forest]

Funny thing is she is not Paul Holmes' daughter,just stolen his name cause mumsie married him.

For those who saw the episode on 20/20 or Sunday a few months ago on Leanne Isherwood,she was a jockey who amassed a few $,she won a few of NZ big races during her time in the saddle.She tried P was hooked,made a few "friends" who used her for the money she had to get their high.Pretty hard to be a jockey if ya can't enter a racecourse.She was/is trying to cure herself and get her life back.Her estimate is it cost her in excess of $100,000,she would not be your steriotype person either,white mid 30's,successful.

Leanne Isherwood isn't a great example.

She deliberately started taking P so that she could contest a greater number of races than other jockeys. There was a good write up in North & South magazine about it.

[The Stranger]

And alcohol is one of the more socially destructive drugs.


Is there a scientific or sociological basis to this statement or is based on statistics?

[Forest]

Is there a scientific or sociological basis to this statement or is based on statistics?

It is based on Science. Take a look at the attached graph.


A new paper published in The Lancet has looked at this issue and has put together a more rational scale to assess the relative levels of harm from drugs, both legal and illegal. The work was carried out by a cross-disciplinary group of rather eminent scientists, including Prof. Colin Blakemore, the head of the Medical Research Council (equivalent to the NIH). The study involved surveying two groups; a national group of leading psychiatrists, and a more general group made up of experts from a range of disciplines including forensics, pharmacology, the police and legal services, chemistry, and epidemiology.

The surveys were designed to rate drugs for harm for three different categories, on a scale of 0-3, with 3 being most harmful. Then an overall mean was taken. The categories were physical harm, dependence, and social harm. The first group of psychiatrists assessed the following drugs; heroin, cocaine, alcohol, barbiturates, amphetamine, methadone, benzodiazepines, solvents, buprenorphine, tobacco, ecstasy, cannabis, LSD, and steroids. You'll note both tobacco and alcohol on that list. In the words of the authors' "Tobacco and alcohol were included because their extensive use has provided reliable data on their risks and harms, providing familiar benchmarks against which the absolute harms of other drugs can be judged. However, direct comparison of the scores for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other drugs is not possible since the fact that they are legal could affect their harms in various ways, especially through easier availability."

The second group looked at the same drugs, and also khat, 4-methylthio- amphetamine (4-MTA), gamma 4-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), ketamine, methyl phenidate, and alkyl nitrites, some of which are not illegal in the UK but are still misused. As you can see from the graph, in the opinion of these experts, some of the drug classifications are spot on, such as cocaine and heroin, but others are a surprise. Alchohol ranks number 5, despite being perfectly legal, whereas ecstasy, currently a class A drug, is one of the least harmful.

The paper highlights the failings of the current Misuse of Drugs Act, and although they do not suggest that alcohol or tobacco ought to be criminalized, from a scientific perspective they "saw no clear distinction between socially acceptable and illicit substances. The fact that the two most widely used legal drugs lie in the upper half of the ranking of harm is surely important information that should be taken into account in public debate on illegal drug use."

[The Stranger]

It is based on Science. Take a look at the attached graph.

Yeah, it was this issue

- However, direct comparison of the scores for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other drugs is not possible since the fact that they are legal could affect their harms in various ways, especially through easier availability. -
that concerned me in the earlier statement and your quote does not in my view adequately address the situation.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for or against legalising one drug or another, fuck that shit, everyone's an expert (except me), I simply wonder at the accuracy of the science in this instance.

[Hinny]

Physiological dependency. Addiction forms fast and hard and users lose their ability to choose whether they take it or not - they need it.

And I don't think that substances like that should be used without medical supervision.

Ever been in a room full of junkies freebasing morphine and chewing their fingernails with impatience to IV it? It's mildly disturbing.

And bear in mind that even alcohol, which is quite poisonous, doesn't have the fine line between fun and fatality that heroin does. There is not an order of magnitude difference between a recreational and a lethal dose.

The Australian documentary 'The Devil you know' interviewed several heroin users who all said they could give up Heroin any time but not their cigarettes.

Britain's foray into legalisation had addicts register and collect their stuff (18p a dose) from chemists the same way that addicts here collect their substitute drug, methadone, which is apparently a lot more harmful and addictive drug.

Only morphine use I've ever seen was personal. Given to me as pain relief. Worked fantastically. Nothing else I was given worked anywhere near as well.

Your last line I believe is a popular misconception.
Their is plenty of research which shows that taking of even ten times a normal dose of Heroin is not going to kill you.
Try drinking ten bottles of wine at a sitting and see how you fare.
Bear in mind that the effects of overuse of either of these can be be readily reversed only in the case of heroin. Naloxone (widely marketed under the name Narcan ) can revive overusers even as they spiral toward death.
The problem with illegal heroin use is that most users have no way of knowing what strength their dose is nor what substances it has been cut with. Added to that is the risk of HIV and hepatitis from tainted needles.
In Britain none of the registered users died from its use, the number of users decreased and the crime figures showed a drop in illegal activities undertaken by people trying to finance drug habits.
One of these ways is by selling drugs, creating more users and so begins the spiral.
The other is pinching stuff and selling it. Who bears the pain of that?
Answer: us, Joe public, that's who.
18 pence a day versus the thousands of pounds a week that illegal drugs cost. Pretty hard to finance that sort of a habit and have any sort of normal or socially acceptable lifestyle.
With illegal drugs there is no way of knowing what sort of strength drug you are getting. Could be like the difference between being given a handle of beer or a handle of 'the green faerie' In one case you are OK in the other you are dead.
Apparently a person could take pure heroin for forty years and show no deleterious physiological effects.
It is certainly easy to see the effect of forty years of use of tobacco in the organs of a deceased person. It attacks everyone of them. And with nicotine 'Addiction forms fast and hard and users lose their ability to choose whether they take it or not - they need it.'

[Bikernereid]

Sadly, because people who are pretty, rich and white often get away with more than people who are not white, ugly as fuck, and dont have the money for top lawyers.

You are right and they have dome numerous forensic studies proving it!!

[The Stranger]

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for or against legalising one drug or another, fuck that shit, everyone's an expert (except me)

Fuck what was I thinking?
This is KB, of course I am an expert - I had an apsrin once, it fixed my head ache so drugs are good.
Legalise the lot.

[jrandom]

Is there a scientific or sociological basis to this statement or is based on statistics?

Bit of all of it, really. Ta to Forest for doing the googling for me. I agree that the fact that alcohol is legal has to be skewing the results one way or another.


Only morphine use I've ever seen was personal. Given to me as pain relief. Worked fantastically. Nothing else I was given worked anywhere near as well.

I had an identical experience last year when I smashed my hand up in a highside. Nothing I was prescribed did jack shit, but 80mg/day oral morphine sulphate (which I got through 'other channels') was fucking marvellous.

Never tried opiates for fun, though.


Your last line I believe is a popular misconception.
Their is plenty of research which shows that taking of even ten times a normal dose of Heroin is not going to kill you.

Is the issue not also complicated by the fact that new opiate users have an order of magnitude greater sensitivity to the drug than regular users do?

The internet speaks tales of 500mg IV heroin doses at the extreme end of junkie-dom. I'm pretty sure that'd have a decent chance of killing you or me.

Still, I'd rather see people taking heroin than methamphetamine.

[marioc]

Hell no heroin is many times more addictive than meth and far more dangerous imo,it is not possible to be a "casual" heroin user
I lived in Cabramatta for a while,a real eye opener.

[Headbanger]

God damn some people are naive as hell, all the studies in the world aint going to tell ya shit. And what moron would believe the dribble that junkies talk?

[Quasievil]

I say let her off , but only if she shows us her tits

[KiwiRat]

I say let her off , but only if she shows us her tits

At last, a sensible post.

I think you all need to get a drug habit, a really good one. Then try recovering from it, and rebuilding your life. That pretty much means starting from scratch again socially, ditching your your old friends, as they are probably all users. See how much fun it really is. That means trying to rebuild relationships with your loved ones. That's on top of the mind games you will be playing with your self every time a situation arises where you are all stressed about something, and sub-consciously start thinking "toot" of this, or a "blast" of that will "make everything OK".

Until then you guys don't really know what you are talking about. You are all stone throwers living in glass houses.

I address this to both the "drugs are OK" gang, and the lynch mob members who want to lock up, execute or banish any weakling with a substance abuse issue.

If you haven't walked the walk, then you are really only quoting shit second hand from studies or even worse, the media.

How would you feel about the situation that Millie and countless others find themselves in, if that was you daughter or son?

Be honest now. I would like to hear how you would take the news.

I'm not trying to make excuses for anybody, don't get me wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that drugs are in our communities, and they are here to stay. There's no arguing that point is there now.

The question is, who do you want to be responsible for managing the distribution of those drugs?

[Patrick]

Uh, no, he died from injuries sustained in a car crash.

Of course, driving a car while under the influence of any psychoactive substance is a dreadful idea.

However, no, cannabis isn't toxic (particularly if taken via non-smoking means). There are no recorded instances of death through overdose.

As I said, depends on how you look at it.....

No overdoses maybe, but the same can be said about cigarettes....:msn-wink:

[Headbanger]

I address this to both the "drugs are OK" gang, and the lynch mob members who want to lock up, execute or banish any weakling with a substance abuse issue.

I'm in neither camp, I don't care who does what until it impacts on others



The question is, who do you want to be responsible for managing the distribution of those drugs?

No, The question is how do people want the drug menace handled, the current model is condemning it and policing the problem (no shit it won't ever be solved, People love drugs) and others have advocated Government sponsored drugs for junkies, I'm sure there must be more ideas then just those two.

Bizarre to think people would advocate the Government turns a profit by selling hard drugs to the populace, great way to encourage and normalise hard drug use,But hey, If the world goes mad then sign me and a few hundred thousand others up for some of that crazy shit, can't beat high quality cheap drugs.

[scumdog]

Is there a scientific or sociological basis to this statement or is based on statistics?


You had to ASK that????:rolleyes:

[imdying]

As I said, depends on how you look at it.....No it doesn't.

From what I've seen, pussy is worse at impairing a man's judgment than booze or weed... should we blame crashes involving driving after fighting with the missus or looking at school girls in short skirts as you drive down the road on women then?

[Hinny]

Is the issue not also complicated by the fact that new opiate users have an order of magnitude greater sensitivity to the drug than regular users do?

The internet speaks tales of 500mg IV heroin doses at the extreme end of junkie-dom. I'm pretty sure that'd have a decent chance of killing you or me.

Still, I'd rather see people taking heroin than methamphetamine.

Use of the drug brings a tolerance to the euphoric effects but not to the suppression of breathing. An extreme user, you and I would all have the same chance of dying from an excessive dose.
Naloxone / Narcan can be administered by nasal spray and almost instantly reverse the effects of the drug.

I certainly believe that P or Crystal Meth is far worse than Heroin. I also believe that we would not have a P problem if Heroin was legally available.
I believe that Sydney would not have the Heroin problem it has if it was possible for people to access it legally.
Legal access to Heroin has been tried; it worked. It was suspended at the request of the DEA. Apparently people were not taking the drug themselves but selling it on the US black market.
Who would buy from the black market if you could buy pharmaceutical quality from the Chemist at very reasonable prices?
The chemist aren't going to encourage the use of the drug as opposed to the black marketeer. Result... opiate use declines. Problem solved.
Keep those freakin' junkies from stealing my stuff to feed their habits.
Let them have respectable jobs and be valuable members of society.

The misinformation and rubbish spouted about Marijuana is in my opinion a major contributor to the drug problem People were told that for instance there was a strong chance you would turn into a homicidal axe-wielding psychopath if you tried the drug. That you would become addicted etc. etc. When Joe Public found out that this was not the case then they simply mistrusted and disbelieved all the other anti-drug information.

The fear that by offering people greater control over their lives -- the essence of harm reduction -- leads to greater risk taking, is fallacious, as we have learned through years of experience.

[McJim]

She was allegedly supplementing her income with prostitution and was charging people for golden showers. So people were paying her for pee and it all got confused in the media :slap::rofl:

[Hinny]

From what I've seen, pussy is worse at impairing a man's judgment than booze or weed...

Totally agree.

[marioc]

There is no way a heroin user could possibly hold down any kind of job.
Thats crazy talk,I have worked with these people.
You guys need to do a little more research on heroin addiction.
In saying that it would be very hard even for a heavy meth user.
Perhaps at first for a few months but eventually you just ending up needing more and more till something gives.

Both these drugs are too damaging to totally legalise imo.
Its the less dangerous,such as E and maybe even Coke that should be decriminalised to some extent.

[Patrick]

No it doesn't.

From what I've seen, pussy is worse at impairing a man's judgment than booze or weed... should we blame crashes involving driving after fighting with the missus or looking at school girls in short skirts as you drive down the road on women then?

Yes... it still "depends on how you look at it"...

Take your eyes off the road, it is called Careless Use...:whocares:

[scumdog]

At the risk of sounding insensitive:
Why do the silly cunts try the drugs in the first place?

Given the not-so-nice evidence of what the use of them may result in.

[Patrick]

At the risk of sounding insensitive:
Why do the silly cunts try the drugs in the first place?

Given the not-so-nice evidence of what the use of them may result in.

And the pictures from "before" and "after"

[imdying]

Yes... it still "depends on how you look at it"... I'm still not on the same page :( Booze doesn't kill drunk drivers, being a retarded moron is what killed them.

[The Stranger]

At the risk of sounding insensitive:
Why do the silly cunts try the drugs in the first place?

Given the not-so-nice evidence of what the use of them may result in.

Soo obvious aye scummy.

Why does anyone drink?
Why does anyone speed?
Why does a huge portion of the population over eat?
Why does anyone start smoking cigarettes?

Why oh why?

If you could answer that sir I am sure you would be guaranteed a place in history.

[Headbanger]

Why?

because they enjoy it.

Until they find they don't enjoy it so much, But not having it is even less joyful, even miserable and painful.

fire burns.

[Big Dave]

She would have be getting off on the risk of it all too Scummy.

Hard not to feel for the parents.

[Hinny]

There is no way a heroin user could possibly hold down any kind of job.
Thats crazy talk,I have worked with these people.
You guys need to do a little more research on heroin addiction.

I also have worked with Heroin users and they have held down very good jobs.
I also know of another former user who is on a methadone program. He's totally hopeless.
It depends I believe on the person and their associates. Hang out with hopeless deadbeats and after a while I'm sure you would become one too.

If you did a little more research you too may change your opinions as I have.
I don't advocate legalisation as a way of promoting the use of Heroin.
I advocate its legalisation for the exact opposite outcome.
Fewer addicts, fewer deaths and lower crime.
This outcome has been shown to be the reality of legalisation.

Of interest is the mission statement of LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
The mission of LEAP is to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ultimately ending drug prohibition.

[Hinny]

Test to see if you could handle drugs.

Scenario:
You are driving in a car at a constant speed. On your left side is a valley
and on your right side is a fire engine travelling at the same speed as
you.
In front of you is a galloping pig which is the same size as your car and
you cannot overtake it.
Behind you is a helicopter flying at ground level. Both the giant pig and
the helicopter are also travelling at the same speed as you.
What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?





Get off the children's "Merry-Go-Round", you're high.

[Headbanger]

This outcome has been shown to be the reality of legalisation.


Again, where?,details?,data?

You know,...proof

I saw it fail miserably in Aussie, The Junkies weren't given enough to keep them at the level they wanted so they just used it to supplement their habit rather then control it, and they weren't interested in the rehab, They were there for the drugs.

And of course the public weren't happy about paying these people to be scumbag junkies in the first place, never mind paying for their smack as well.

The real world, kicks arses at every opportunity.

[alanzs]

There is no way a heroin user could possibly hold down any kind of job.
Thats crazy talk,I have worked with these people.
You guys need to do a little more research on heroin addiction.
In saying that it would be very hard even for a heavy meth user.
Perhaps at first for a few months but eventually you just ending up needing more and more till something gives.

Both these drugs are too damaging to totally legalise imo.
Its the less dangerous,such as E and maybe even Coke that should be decriminalised to some extent.

In regards to researching addiction, I have worked in a rehab facility for numerous years. Many heroin addicts held down high paying, responsible jobs. They had so much money that they didn't spend their lives breaking into people houses to get money to support their habits. The legal issues associated with acquiring the drug was often the problem, not the drug use itself. Methadone maintenance programs have been around for years. Heroin was given to addicts in the UK for years as well.

I worked with a lady who was literally worth billions of dollars. She had pure heroin made for her and flown to her in private jets from Italy. She used clean needles, pure smack and never had any health issues. She was an addict for over 15 years. She was a top fashion designer and a name known very well throughout the fashion industry. She chose to get clean because she wanted to have a child. She suffered no ill health effects at all, other than constipation, and the physical dependence to the heroin, which took a few weeks to overcome. Keith Richards is famously quoted as saying he's never had a problem with drugs, just the police.

Taking away the financial issues and the legal issues of prohibition makes addiction, which is a disease, like alcohol addiction (alcoholism) treatable as a health issue, not a criminal issue. Even in the LAPD's DARE Program (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), they teach kids that using cannabis can get you arrested. Not that you will die, or use harder drugs, but that you can get arrested. They talk about making smart choices and have given up on trying to scare kids with nonsense about drug use.

Take the morality out of it; drugs are bad, the people that use them are bad etc., and what you are left with is a huge amount of money spent on a failed system. How will we know the drug war is won? When people stop using them? It will never happen. There must be a better way to deal realistically with drug use. The article I had posted earlier in the thread says what is becoming a much more widely accepted, though politically untenable solution. No politician wants to be seen as soft on crime, which is generally fueled by the need to get money for drugs.

Keeping people scared keeps people in line. Look at the US for a great example of that.

Facts: LSD was legal in the US until 1968. Cannabis use was legal until 1937. Richard Nixon made the plant itself illegal in 1971. MDMA or "E" was legal and used for couples therapy until 1985. The DEA's own experts recommended that it should be legal for medicinal use and objected to its reclassification. Drugs that have been classified as illegal are done so due to their potential for abuse, not that they are bad for you physically.

Again, the criminal justice system should be there to protect us from others, not ourselves.

[marioc]

Ok point taken but I think that is more the exception than the rule.
Some great discussion here keep it coming.
Makes a change from the usual drivel

[MidnightMike]

Jeez all this serious shit.

Shes hot. :eek:

Thread done and dusted.

[alanzs]

Ok point taken but I think that is more the exception than the rule.
Some great discussion here keep it coming.
Makes a change from the usual drivel

It is a good thread. Rational thought and discussion is something very uncommon in our world these days.

I agree that is the exception, but it wouldn't be if drugs were treated just like the legal drugs in our society; tobacco and alcohol. Taxed, regulated and educate people on the real facts on their use. 50+ years ago, Dr's recommended smoking for asthma. We all realize that is not a truth any more. Just like the debunked gateway theory; smoke pot and you'll end up doing harder drugs. If that was true, there would be many more addicts than there are now.

I would rather have an addict be able to get their medicine for a reasonable price and not have to resort to crime, e.g robbing houses, ripping off liquor stores, etc., than the way it is now. Too much morality gets involved in the drug issue. Alcohol, the culturally acceptable and legal drug of choice here, has an enormous detrimental effect on our society, but people long ago realized prohibiting didn't work. Alcohol addiction is treated as a medical/health issue. Driving drunk is treated as a criminal issue. As it should be. One is harming the person, the other is potentially harming others. That's where the line should be drawn.

I, personally, don't want to be addicted to drugs, as it's not the way I want to live. But, I don't believe I have the right to tell others what to do to themselves. Just like I don't think people shouldn't be allowed to ride motorcycles, which we all know are dangerous. Unfortunately, some people take the morally superior attitude that they do know what is right for me and you to do and how we should live. Who gave them that fucking right over all of us? There was a time when the Church was in control. It was called the Dark Ages.

Take it a step further and they'll say riding motorcycles should be made illegal. It's a slippery slope that gets slipperier all the time.

[Patrick]

I'm still not on the same page :( Booze doesn't kill drunk drivers, being a retarded moron is what killed them.

Clearly not on the same page...

Depends how it is looked at... if it wasn't for the booze, then the crash wouldn't have happened (ie: the booze was the cause).... Being a retarded moron is also spot on...:laugh:

[98tls]

Clearly not on the same page...

Depends how it is looked at... if it wasn't for the booze, then the crash wouldn't have happened (ie: the booze was the cause).... Being a retarded moron is also spot on...:laugh: Typical heartless ferkin copper,cmon some of these peoples parents split up when they were young,cant ya see the big picture...........

[Patrick]

Don't forget the "I wasn't breast fed as a baby" one too.....

[98tls]

Don't forget the "I wasn't breast fed as a baby" one too..... Was saving that for when ya got real hard arse..........:shit:Thank fuck i dont live on your patch as ive run out of excuses for behaving like a toe rag......if things got real tough i suppose i could remember my old man pulling down my undies.

[Patrick]

Was saving that for when ya got real hard arse..........:shit:

Millies arse looks hard... firm and taught...:cool:

Nothin to hang on to though......

[98tls]

Millies arse looks hard... firm and taught...:cool:

Nothin to hang on to though...... Taught a few things Paul would be aghast at methinks.

[scumdog]

Was saving that for when ya got real hard arse..........:shit:Thank fuck i dont live on your patch as ive run out of excuses for behaving like a toe rag......if things got real tough i suppose i could remember my old man pulling down my undies.

Aw c'mon, that will never work - we all know ya never had any undies!!!:crazy:

[98tls]

Aw c'mon, that will never work - we all know ya never had any undies!!!:crazy:
Mate that is fine coming from you........still you where on the job,respect.:shutup:

[kiwifruit]

Tonight 9:30, tv1.
Broadcaster Paul Holmes investigates the P issue through the eyes of people whose lives have been damaged by the drug, and some of those trying to fight its effects.

[Owl]

I may just record that for later watching!

[jrandom]

Broadcaster Paul Holmes investigates the P issue through the eyes of people whose lives have been damaged by the drug

I wonder if that includes all the guys who had to take antibiotics after shagging his daughter?

:lol:

[The Stranger]

I wonder if that includes all the guys who had to take antibiotics after shagging his daughter?

:lol:

Sorry for ya dude.

[SPman]

I wonder if that includes all the guys who had to take antibiotics after shagging his daughter?

You had a bit of trouble there Dan, did ya...........

that'll teach you to take the bag of their head next time......