Cheaper to take drugs than drink (1 Viewer)

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,649
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/man-dies-at-defqon1-music-festival-20130915-2tsfv.html

Police said there was nothing more they could have done to prevent people taking illicit substances despite the presence of more than 100 officers. Sniffer dogs and officers stopped and searched 430 people.
Aside from the interpreting arguments about whether drink princes encourage drug taking I think it's interesting to look at the police response to such events.

I would argue that if police had instead just left people be this death would have been avoided. It certainly would prevent people from downing all their drugs at once to avoid detection.
As well, as weird as this sounds, it would have promoted competition between drug dealers, possibly leading them to enduring the highest quality (and therefore least adulterated) product was available for sale.

Thoughts?
 

brent012

Webmaster
Webmaster
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
5,075
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
As well, as weird as this sounds, it would have promoted competition between drug dealers, possibly leading them to enduring the highest quality (and therefore least adulterated) product was available for sale.
I'd say that's more an argument for legalisation and not turning a blind eye or decriminalisation.

There's always going to be shady characters looking for a quick buck in a black market and with precursors and what not being closely monitored even people with relatively good intentions may have to turn to less known and possibly more dangerous or undesirable active ingredients.

You do have a point with people taking all their drugs to prevent detection by police at the gate though. There's reports of ODs because of that all the time.
 
Last edited:

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
7,292
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
If police left people as they were then there would be tonnes more people bringing drugs into the venue which increases that risk of death whether it be from overdose or violent behaviour or some other means.

Also, it is really the responsibility of the person taking the drugs to not kill themselves, not the police. If a person decided to take all those drugs at once knowing the harm it could cause then they are responsible for taking that risk.
 
Last edited:

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
most drug dealers are poor and that's pretty funny.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
If police left people as they were then there would be tonnes more people bringing drugs into the venue which increases that risk of death whether it be from overdose or violent behaviour or some other means.

Also, it is really the responsibility of the person taking the drugs to not kill themselves, not the police. If a person decided to take all those drugs at once knowing the harm it could cause then they are responsible for taking that risk.
He never claimed it wasn't their responsibility, he just said that this particular incident (and similar ones) would not have happened if the event was less policed.

When you can't necessarily prevent things from happening, it is worth thinking about risk minimisation, no matter whose "responsibility" it is. E.g. things like those syringe dispensers in bathrooms.

I'm pretty sure that a less policed event would be less safe overall but he might well be right that OD's would become less frequent.
 

Riproot

#MedLyf
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
8,228
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2017
Mentioned in a lecture this morning.

Apparently there were ~14 other overdoses (???)
 
Last edited:

Lolsmith

kill all boomers
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
4,571
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
If police left people as they were then there would be tonnes more people bringing drugs into the venue which increases that risk of death whether it be from overdose or violent behaviour or some other means.

Also, it is really the responsibility of the person taking the drugs to not kill themselves, not the police. If a person decided to take all those drugs at once knowing the harm it could cause then they are responsible for taking that risk.
Yeah, nah, all of this is not really great. The majority of overdoses at events like this are at the door when people see dogs and cops. The high presence of police officers is not only overkill and completely unnecessary, it's encouraging dangerous behaviour to avoid detection/imprisonment for taking a drug that does no harm to anyone but the person using it. Most, if not all, 'party drugs' don't magically make people violent. Violent people do violent things.

It's up to the police to serve the interests of the public, which they scarcely do nowadays. Do you think it is within the public's interest to have young men dying due to police presence? This is of course more of an argument to change the absurd drug laws in this country more than anything.

If you're so worried about drug use and violence, instead of using heavy handed tactics and oversaturation of officers, why not simply confiscate the drugs and let the possessors go about their business? You'll still have people smuggling them in regardless, but you won't have people terrified of getting caught and overdosing to avoid a prison sentence. If violence happens (protip: it's not because of drugs) then officers can arrest them for that inside the venue.
 

Garygaz

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
1,828
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
good luck with that prohibition - with silkroad now becoming mainstream, super cheap drugs are starting to become available to anyone who understands how to use tor. my guess is that aus will start with marijuana decriminalization or legalization in the next 5-10 years with other drugs to follow.
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
7,292
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Yeah, nah, all of this is not really great. The majority of overdoses at events like this are at the door when people see dogs and cops. The high presence of police officers is not only overkill and completely unnecessary, it's encouraging dangerous behaviour to avoid detection/imprisonment for taking a drug that does no harm to anyone but the person using it. Most, if not all, 'party drugs' don't magically make people violent. Violent people do violent things.

It's up to the police to serve the interests of the public, which they scarcely do nowadays. Do you think it is within the public's interest to have young men dying due to police presence? This is of course more of an argument to change the absurd drug laws in this country more than anything.

If you're so worried about drug use and violence, instead of using heavy handed tactics and oversaturation of officers, why not simply confiscate the drugs and let the possessors go about their business? You'll still have people smuggling them in regardless, but you won't have people terrified of getting caught and overdosing to avoid a prison sentence. If violence happens (protip: it's not because of drugs) then officers can arrest them for that inside the venue.
The high presence of police officers is to act as a deterrent for bringing drugs into the venue in the first place and it does serve that purpose well for the majority of the population because they don't want to risk the penalties.

Also, I never said drugs magically make people violent. Drugs can induce violent behaviour and whether or not it does is dependent upon the individual, but that risk of drug induced violent behaviour certainly exists when you consider a crowd of thousands of people.

There were 100 officers for 18,000 people. I don't think it's overkill. You need a large amount of manpower to cover a large crowd.

You say police scarcely serve the interests of the public nowadays. I would like to see what real evidence you have to justify that generalisation.

Also, the idea of simply confiscating the drugs and stopping there without penalty has the moral hazard of everybody bringing in drugs without any impressionable consequences. It would not act as a strong deterrent if there was no penalty. These are supposed to be proactive/preventative measures because with reactive measures (e.g. to a violent incident) the damage has already been done.

The alternative option of having a lower police presence means a lower deterrent and less chance of drug detection for the greater majority of people which increases the risk overall. It is not worth trying to make the small number of people who choose to take the high level of risk to take a relatively 'lower' level of risk (which may not necessarily work at all), at the cost of 'encouraging' a larger number of people taking on more risks and dangerous behaviour than they otherwise would. I also think there is a greater chance of overdosing happening within the venue if police just 'let people be'.

Yes, police are supposed to serve in the public interest but they can't save everybody from themselves. In my view, having a greater police presence is more in the public interest (in saving the majority of patrons from themselves) than a lesser one.
 
Last edited:

nerdasdasd

Dont.msg.me.about.english
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
5,365
Location
A, A
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2017
The high presence of police officers is to act as a deterrent for bringing drugs into the venue in the first place and it does serve that purpose well for the majority of the population because they don't want to risk the penalties.

Also, I never said drugs magically make people violent. Drugs can induce violent behaviour and whether or not it does is dependent upon the individual, but that risk of drug induced violent behaviour certainly exists when you consider a crowd of thousands of people.

There were 100 officers for 18,000 people. I don't think it's overkill. You need a large amount of manpower to cover a large crowd.

You say police scarcely serve the interests of the public nowadays. I would like to see what real evidence you have to justify that generalisation.

Also, the idea of simply confiscating the drugs and stopping there without penalty has the moral hazard of everybody bringing in drugs without any impressionable consequences. It would not act as a strong deterrent if there was no penalty. These are supposed to be proactive/preventative measures because with reactive measures (e.g. to a violent incident) the damage has already been done.

The alternative option of having a lower police presence means a lower deterrent and less chance of drug detection for the greater majority of people which increases the risk overall. It is not worth trying to make the small number of people who choose to take the high level of risk to take a relatively 'lower' level of risk (which may not necessarily work at all), at the cost of 'encouraging' a larger number of people taking on more risks and dangerous behaviour than they otherwise would. I also think there is a greater chance of overdosing happening within the venue if police just 'let people be'.

Yes, police are supposed to serve in the public interest but they can't save everybody from themselves. In my view, having a greater police presence is more in the public interest (in saving the majority of patrons from themselves) than a lesser one.
+1.
 

Drongoski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
3,959
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I was given to understand that the Law of Natural Selection is the final arbiter.
 
Last edited:

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,322
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/man-dies-at-defqon1-music-festival-20130915-2tsfv.html



Aside from the interpreting arguments about whether drink princes encourage drug taking I think it's interesting to look at the police response to such events.

I would argue that if police had instead just left people be this death would have been avoided. It certainly would prevent people from downing all their drugs at once to avoid detection.
As well, as weird as this sounds, it would have promoted competition between drug dealers, possibly leading them to enduring the highest quality (and therefore least adulterated) product was available for sale.

Thoughts?
Your thread title makes sense. Everything in your post does not however. Were you high when you wrote it?

The man that died still had pills on him so he did not swallow them all to evade detection.
 

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,322
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
good luck with that prohibition - with silkroad now becoming mainstream, super cheap drugs are starting to become available to anyone who understands how to use tor. my guess is that aus will start with marijuana decriminalization or legalization in the next 5-10 years with other drugs to follow.
The problem with silkroad is that it is US dominated. There aren't that many businessmen operating from Australia. Only an idiot would buy from an overseas businessman.
 

Garygaz

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
1,828
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
The problem with silkroad is that it is US dominated. There aren't that many businessmen operating from Australia. Only an idiot would buy from an overseas businessman.
i'm guessing you haven't had a look at the site but i can guarantee you that the australian part of the site is massive relative to our population. an article on vice had 8% of the total items for sale from aus. its pretty funny actually, as places like ACA and news media pick up the story, the are really introducing new buyers and sellers to the concept. a guy they interviewed from that same article who was a seller said that they had initially heard about sr on a local news story. it's funny how ideas spread.
 

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,322
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
i'm guessing you haven't had a look at the site but i can guarantee you that the australian part of the site is massive relative to our population. an article on vice had 8% of the total items for sale from aus. its pretty funny actually, as places like ACA and news media pick up the story, the are really introducing new buyers and sellers to the concept. a guy they interviewed from that same article who was a seller said that they had initially heard about sr on a local news story. it's funny how ideas spread.
I last looked about 6 months ago,and then there were only maybe a dozen businessmen selling products from Australia. I'll check it out again at home tonight.
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
i'm guessing you haven't had a look at the site but i can guarantee you that the australian part of the site is massive relative to our population. an article on vice had 8% of the total items for sale from aus. its pretty funny actually, as places like ACA and news media pick up the story, the are really introducing new buyers and sellers to the concept. a guy they interviewed from that same article who was a seller said that they had initially heard about sr on a local news story. it's funny how ideas spread.
they should make another troll news report like the vodka soaked tampons in vaginas. see if the fucking retards try it.
 

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,649
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
Your thread title makes sense. Everything in your post does not however. Were you high when you wrote it?

The man that died still had pills on him so he did not swallow them all to evade detection.
Bad grammar/spelling is because I used my phone and I cbf to fix

I never said that he personally took all of his to avoid detection, but there are reports that others did, and I'm sure it's a common response.

It sounds like this batch was bad. I would argue that due to the high risk of drugs being confiscated, dealers are likely to be unwilling to bring their best product to events like these as if they get caught that's a lot of money down the drain. Instead the risk of detection likely means that dealers take in their worst (I.e. most tainted) product. That's merely a hypothesis of course but I think it's a logical one.
Feeding in to all this desire to take drugs is the high cost of alcohol.

My overall point is that until the focus of police and pollies swings firmly towards harm minimization rather than punishment then more deaths are going to happen than they otherwise would have.
 

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,322
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
I've no problem with harm minimsation although drug free for all's at festivals is not the answer either.

Definitely a bad batch I would say.
 

nerdasdasd

Dont.msg.me.about.english
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
5,365
Location
A, A
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2017
I've no problem with harm minimsation although drug free for all's at festivals is not the answer either.

Definitely a bad batch I would say.
Agreed, we don't want thousands of festival revellers on drugs lol.... soooo many things could go wrong!
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,911
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Agreed, we don't want thousands of festival revellers on drugs lol.... soooo many things could go wrong!
well it depends what drugs, some drugs don't really produce violent behaviour at all
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top