Meth War inevitable? What d'ya reckon?

**Banditbandit** · 20th April 2016, 12:02

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Do we have one of the highest drug abuse rates in the world?

Go here ... http://www.anewzealand.com/statistics-bad.php

And I don't believe you're anywhere near the first person to link drugs with suicide. In fact you might be almost the slowest cab off that rank.

I'm not linking drugs and suicide in any cause and effect relationship - I'm suggesting that drug abuse and suicide are BOTH symptoms of a society with major issues ..

And yes, removing the focus of the problem from gangs and health providers and blaming "society" is an excellent way to redistribute the blame. More: it means it's down to "society" to "fix" the "problem".

Whereas in fact the problem, as defined by that "society" you're blaming for it can and should be laid squarely at the feet of the illegal distribution and use. Criminals. The ones who invariably blame "society" for pretty much everything.

What a typically knee-jerk reaction from you ...

No, I am not shifting the blame from the dealers and crims. However, they do not create the conditions under which they can sell their products. They do not create the demand.

On your same basis, we can blame the pubs, hotels, clubs and liquor stores for alcoholism ...

What I am suggesting is that there are major social problems in this country which lead people to commit suicide and to use drugs .. if those social problems are recognized and solutions put in place, then the market for illicit drugs (and legal ones) will dry up ...

Simply locking up the dealers will not reduce the demand for their product - and the gap in the supply chain will be filled by others (until they too are locked up .. and so on). Sure - lock up the crims, but don't expect the demand to dry up because of that action.

Deal with the demand issues as well as dealing with the supply issues ...

**Jin** · 20th April 2016, 16:53

Originally Posted by jonbuoy

The war on drugs seems to be about as successful and logical as the war on terror. Decriminalise it the price will drop through the floor - good chance it will self regulate through education like tobacco has. It's not like if they decriminalised tommorrow millions of people are going to rush out and try it. It's still going to be a shit drug and would fall out of favour for better alternatives.

Yup its not an accident that alcohol and tobacco has become weaker and safer over time and illegal drugs have become stronger and more dangerous. Make nothing illegal and big pharma will step in and make them safe(r). And people who wanted to take drugs would at least have a choice to take something less dangerous. Synthetics became popular because they were legal but i bet those users would have preferred to take the natural safe version. Crack is far more dangerous than cocaine and it was invented because cocaine and heroin were becoming harder and more expensive to get at the time. Same goes for P. Easy and cheap to make.

**bogan** · 20th April 2016, 17:14

Originally Posted by Laava

I totally agree if you are talking about weed, but we are talking about P and decriminalising it is going to make fuck all difference. It is a much more antisocial drug than weed, much more dangerous to the individual and not easy to make or produce at home, unike weed which will essentially grow wild. So there will always be a criminal element to control the manufacture and supply.

Which raises an excellent point, would legalising weed, lower useage of drugs which are actually harmful? They say it's a gateway drug, and I guess it is, but not for the chemically addicting nature (which is fuck all for weed, lets be honest) but simply because it's an illegal substance whose use promotes the same mindset and distribution channels as meth.

**jonbuoy** · 20th April 2016, 17:30

A lot of Arabic countries look at Alchohol no differently than we do cocaine or meth. And to some degree I can see where they are coming from.

Black market and moonshine alchohol is far more dangerous than a pint at the local. So maybe we should "approve" and regulate some drugs - for people that don't/can't drink alchohol but still want something to take the edge off on a weekend? I have easy access to tobacco and alchohol - I like a drink and really suffered living in a dry country. By like a drink I mean a couple of beers or a few glasses of wine socially - not getting body bagged every night. So am I an addict - yup probably. But the thing that stops me drinking heavily all the time are the side effects - not the level of access.

**Edbear** · 20th April 2016, 17:42

Originally Posted by Jin

Yup its not an accident that alcohol and tobacco has become weaker and safer over time and illegal drugs have become stronger and more dangerous. Make nothing illegal and big pharma will step in and make them safe(r). And people who wanted to take drugs would at least have a choice to take something less dangerous. Synthetics became popular because they were legal but i bet those users would have preferred to take the natural safe version. Crack is far more dangerous than cocaine and it was invented because cocaine and heroin were becoming harder and more expensive to get at the time. Same goes for P. Easy and cheap to make.

Are you serious????

**Madness** · 20th April 2016, 17:44

Originally Posted by bogan

Which raises an excellent point, would legalising weed, lower usage of drugs which are actually harmful?

I believe it would have a positive effect on reducing the use of P, providing we also saw a significant reduction in the price of Maltesers.

**jonbuoy** · 20th April 2016, 17:55

Originally Posted by Edbear

Are you serious????

He's got a point - if the government banned spirits tommorrow we would see more of this. At the moment we see nothing wrong with someone sitting down with a Cuban cigar and a single malt whisky. Ingesting and inhaling toxic substances for pleasure - what's the difference?

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/20...13/3781104.htm

**bogan** · 20th April 2016, 18:07

Originally Posted by Madness

I believe it would have a positive effect on reducing the use of P, providing we also saw a significant reduction in the price of Maltesers.

But, Maltesers are gateway chocolate; you only move on to heavier stuff after that...

...until your arse get's so big you can't fit through the gateway and Unstuck takes you back to his lair...

**nodrog:Me** · 20th April 2016, 18:11

Apparently the highest meth use is by unemployed people.

What do they need to take speed for?

So they can sit around and do fuckall faster?

**Jin** · 20th April 2016, 18:17

Originally Posted by Edbear

Are you serious????

Yes. There is a huge range of low content alcohol beers and wines available. And total alcohol consumption in NZ has been falling for a long time. Same goes for cigarettes. You dont see it much here but there are low tar options available.

Edit. You wont ever see this happen in the black market because it pays a pusher to make someone an addict. They then have a captive buyer.

**Paul in NZ** · 20th April 2016, 18:17

Originally Posted by Jin

Crack is far more dangerous than cocaine and it was invented because cocaine and heroin were becoming harder and more expensive to get at the time. Same goes for P. Easy and cheap to make.

Nope - Japanese guy made it in 1893 or something... They gave it to german armed forces in ww2..

**Madness** · 20th April 2016, 18:23

Originally Posted by Jin

You dont see it much here but there are low tar options available.

Even the tobacco companies concede that low tar cigarettes are no less harmful than full strength variants. It's accepted that smokers of low tar cigarettes tend to compensate by smoking a shitload more than their red-packet cousins.