Nanny state incoherence

There is something of a debate going on about “Pill Testing“.

Recreational drugs can be covertly cut with poisonous or “filler” substances. Uncertainty about strength and purity can lead to accidental overdoses. Pill testing exposes what a tablet really contains and how pure it is.

The basic aim is to enable recreational drug users to make informed decisions about what substances they take.

Now there are all manner of recreational drugs – alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine come to mind. These recreational drugs, however, are not what people have in mind.

The challenge for the nanny state is as follows: Nanny has determined that there is a category of recreational drug that should not be consumed at all.  To be fair – Nanny has done so because these drugs are harmful. The informed decision, according to Nanny, is to not consume them at all. It seems counter-intuitive then for Nanny to permit testing to determine whether these recreational drugs are “safe” to consume or not. Here Gladys Berejiklian is being entirely consistent.

Until this week, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian was strongly opposed to pill testing, holding a no-tolerance for substance use view in how to tackle the war on drugs.

But – there are unintended consequences to prohibition.  One of those unintended consequences is that harmful products become more harmful, and are often consumed in harmful ways. Herein lays the problem: Nanny advocates harm reduction through abstinence. Hence the ban. If harm reduction through improved quality, quality control and reduction of information asymmetry were the policy objective then legalisation should be the policy being advocated.

Condoning and licencing criminal behaviour is always poor policy. That is what pill testing amounts to. Government should rather legalise recreational drug use* and allow the (legal) private sector to handle quality control issues.

 

*The challenge being which drugs should be legalised? All? Some? I have no easy answer – but I would begin by considering legalising those recreational drugs that are in widespread consumption.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Innovation, Oppressive government, Tough on Crime, tough on criminals. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Nanny state incoherence

  1. Entropy

    I was at good old Byron Bay on the weekend and heard some moron from the “reason” party accuse Gladys of being “immoral” for not spending a bucket load of taxpayer money on offical Government testing of illegal drugs for people to use.
    I am with Sinclair here. Exactly the wrong policy solution. So you can bet the LNP will do it eventually.

  2. stackja

    I have no easy answer – but I would begin by considering legalising those recreational drugs that are in widespread consumption.

    Greens will be ecstatic.

  3. Rusty of Qld

    Why should the taxpayer support the illegal drug industry and their pushers by providing a free testing service for the products they sell to their clients? That is absolute lunacy, so I guess that the idiot liberals will fall into line with the ALP/Green filth and support it!!
    The world has gone mad.

  4. stevem

    You’ve got to love the position of the AMA on various things.

    Vaping:
    “Until we see comprehensive clinical reports from the National Health and Medical Research Council on the safety or non-safety of e-cigarettes, we must continue to treat these products with extreme caution,” Dr Gannon said.

    Pill testing:
    Dr Bartone called for pill testing trials after two young people died and three more were hospitalised following suspected drug overdoses at a recent Sydney music festival.

    One position wants to ban vaping because it’s not proven 100% safe the other wants pill testing because it might help. It seems their position is based on the fashionability of the cause rather than a consistent outlook on the various problems.

    For reference I don’t take illicit drugs, smoke or vape. I just have a nose for hypocrisy.

  5. Tel

    Why should the taxpayer support the illegal drug industry and their pushers by providing a free testing service for the products they sell to their clients?

    I agree, it’s more appropriate for a specific charity to ask for donations to use.

    However the least a government could do is hands off and allow such a private charity to exist.

  6. Hay Stockard

    No smoking at the open air cafes at Kings Cross but there is a “safe” injecting room. The premises apparently are owned by the Mayoress.

  7. Infidel Tiger

    Can’t wait for the State to be sued after someone does from ingesting and incorrectly tested pill.

    Would also love to see the testing device that can give an accurate chemical breakdown in a few seconds while the yoof wait in line.

  8. A Lurker

    I have no easy answer – but I would begin by considering legalising those recreational drugs that are in widespread consumption.

    Ice is widespread in regional and rural towns.
    Would you legalise Ice?

  9. Tel

    … their position is based on the fashionability of the cause rather than a consistent outlook on the various problems.

    Agree 100%, that statement should be repeated long and loud until the shame slowly seeps into them.

  10. Stimpson J. Cat

    The best pill testers are always humans in my experience.
    Don’t let the nerds and the robots win!

  11. bollux

    So can I bring my illegally acquired Glock 9mm in somewhere for testing, just to make sure it doesn’t misfire if I want to shoot myself? So, we test the little darlings drugs, give them the o.k. and they get back in their car to drive home, and kill my family in yet another “tragic accident”. Good idea? There are some smart people out there, but unfortunately, our elected idiots don’t usually number amongst them.

  12. Tel

    Would you legalise Ice?

    Most of the ice kicked in during 2000 / 2001 when there was a world wide heroin drought caused by the Taliban in Afghanistan (before the US invasion, the religious zealots cracked down HARD on the growers).

    I would legalize people consuming what they produce, in non-commercial quantities, but make it illegal to stockpile large amounts or run a business. Starting point would be a few plants you can grow in your yard, and that in itself would greatly reduce the demand for ice. Some people will kill themselves, others will choose softer drugs, either way it settles out the way God (and his buddy Darwin) intended.

  13. So we should legalize the purchase, use and import of rapid fire 105mm artillery.
    We wouldn’t want someone hurting themselves from faulty usage or a faulty canon.

    Also the body count from prescribed and mis-prescribed drugs is not small. The difference being that the medical profession buries its mistakes.

  14. Probably the simplest thing to do would be allow the sale of Schedule 8 and 9 drugs (see Wikipedia link for a list).

    Change legislation so that the TGA can grant research and manufacturing licences and presumably Pharma companies, Unis etc will pretty quickly begin Phase I trials testing recreational doses. I guess the regulations would have to be such that some level of harm is allowed. That said, nicotine, iburprofen etc do damage people assuming longer term, regular use.

    The quantity and manner of distribution is another question. Probably from a pharmacy. Stuff like MDMA and Cannabis you probably can get large amounts with little oversight. Stuff like crystal meth it would be logical you have to legally pay a safe house to supervise you during consumption. The perceived risk of injury to others during a crystal meth high is still socially unacceptable.

    Lastly, I guess is the externalities (health damage etc). I think most here would have you pay more to your health insurer for the risk of damage incurred. However, failing that, a tax on various externalities levied by each State is most logical.

  15. Vagabond

    Pill testing is such a stupid idea that only ignorant politicians and insipid lefty virtue signallers (and by this I include the AMA) would advocate it. There are so many potentially harmful substances that can be present in these illegal poisons sold to gullible drug users by criminals that it’s impossible to guarantee any reliable result from pill testing. As has been observed here already, the first death of someone who has taken a tested pill will blow the whole sorry scam apart.

    OTOH the surest way to destroy any industry is to nationalise it and that is a powerful argument in favour of the government not only legalising many recreational drugs but monopolising the business of supplying them. They could supply the stuff cheaper than the crims but weigh the industry down so much with forms, permits, inspectors, committees, “innovation” and regulations that it would die a natural death.

  16. None

    Right so legalizar and then set up a whole sucking nanny state bureaucracy to monitor the production and test the purity of every f****** useless drug known to man. Get f****** serious. You call yourself a libertarian? Yeah just another full on the public teat he’s never had a real job.

    Just make sure that every entrant to every music festival automatically signs a disclaimer on purchase of a ticket that they will not receive any form of publicly funded medical attention for any medical episode they may have during the concert and for 24 hours afterwards. I’m all for natural attrition of the stupid gene pool. Also anyone caught with possession gets 3 years inside on the spot and all dealers get 10 years on the spot no ifs or buts. I know plenty of lifers would like a bit of young arse.

  17. thefrollickingmole

    Ill be the contrarian.

    Dope
    Morphine
    possibly eccies.

    Id avoid the stimulants (cocaine/speed etc) and go for the “nod off” drugs.

    Drug testing on minesites has helped fuel the boom in ice & sped because its out of the body in 24 hours whereas dope lasts up to a month.
    Prohibition is assuming the results of legalization are worse than the results of prohibition, Im of the opinion both are shit, but limited legalization is the least shit option.

  18. jock

    Ok why not look at this from an economic cost/ benefit viewpoint. I mean legalisation of all drugs. Benefits: more control and regulation. Cheaper thus doing the dealers out of money. Reducing crime. Reduces uncontrolled importation. Drugs taken in more controlled and safer environments. Less call on police and prisons therefore lower government cost. .
    On the cost side. There will still be overdoses and hospitals and clinics may see more patients. Children may become addicted sooner. The number of users may increase with legalisation.

    Overall it seems there are more benefits. Ethical problems yes but certainly more benefits.

    Added to this people would be able to make up their own minds and act like adults. So from a more conservative / libertarian viewpoint legalisation is attractive.

    Conservatives who baulk at the harm aspect ignore that the trade in drugs is uncontrolled and a badic feeding ground for crime. Yes we dont want overdoses and deaths and addiction. But we have them anyway. Perhaps we need to think about this more?

  19. bespoke

    I know plenty of lifers would like a bit of young arse.

    Really!!

  20. bespoke

    A bit of consistent theme with your ongoing rantings, None. Maybe you should come out and be done with it.

  21. yackman

    What is the opinion of the Analytical Chemists?

    Issues: eg. detectability threshold vs toxicity, sampling error, method error , synthetics being created ahead of analytical technique, skill of the analyst (Security personnel?), time response, sample homogeneity, is the sample representative of the batch?
    Good luck taking the responsibility for all that.

  22. Anthony

    @jock

    Added to this people would be able to make up their own minds and act like adults. So from a more conservative / libertarian viewpoint legalisation is attractive.

    Conservatives who baulk at the harm aspect ignore that the trade in drugs is uncontrolled and a badic feeding ground for crime. Yes we dont want overdoses and deaths and addiction. But we have them anyway. Perhaps we need to think about this more?

    I grew up in a rather conservative Christian family. We were all very gung-ho about banning various things. In my early 20s I came to realise you can’t practically enforce your prohibition based morality on everyone else via legislation. Also, it wasn’t like the church charities were turning away those law breaking druggies – they would help those people through to recovery and gave the a community with an abstinence based series of social mores. So, yeah no prohibition via legislation, social mores and community seem a better way.

  23. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Would also love to see the testing device that can give an accurate chemical breakdown in a few seconds while the yoof wait in line.

    There is also the issue of yoof who have spent their precious money on this illegal substance then on-selling the bad (for which read worse) stuff to recoup their investment. Persistent use of ANY sort of mind-altering substances, especially by very young people, is going to have deleterious effects immediately (death, or injury by stupid behavior), and in the long term for those individuals susceptible to ongoing mental illness via addictive cultural patterning. Best avoided altogether. Alcohol will do for teenage rebellion and socio-musical lubricant. It has a long history, a cultural system of controls, and known and treatable damages, as well as legal production and quality control of dosage.

    Stick with what we know.

  24. Bushkid

    No.
    No need for pill testing or legalisation.
    Just let the stupid little darlings find out for themselves.
    Let the gene pool be thinned a bit by the stupid being allowed to self-eliminate.

    Am I being a tad callous? Sure am! The little darlings wouldn’t give a flying fig about me, why should I care about the results of their self-destructive stupidity?
    I’ve made it over six decades without the need for any “recreational” drugs (apart from enjoying the occasional decent Scotch), despite the numerous opportunities to indulge. What’s their problem?

  25. TP

    The question is ,would anyone here allow their kids to use legal/illegal drugs, either supplied by mom/dad or someone else. Please don’t hesitate to answer truthfully.

  26. Elle

    Would you legalize ice … or any other illicit drug?

    No.
    Why?
    Because I would be out of a job.
    The criminal justice system is alive and well thanks to an industry that isn’t regulated.
    Sad.

  27. Iampeter

    *The challenge being which drugs should be legalised? All? Some? I have no easy answer – but I would begin by considering legalising those recreational drugs that are in widespread consumption.

    All.
    Drug use doesn’t violate anyone’s rights and so there’s no role for the government to play.

  28. Tim Neilson

    Alcohol will do for teenage rebellion and socio-musical lubricant.

    This is a key issue and not just for teenagers.

    Some young people have a psychological need to do something illegal. Pubs that break the licensing laws by serving a couple of beers to sub-18’s are providing a societal good, as are the police when they assiduously ignore someone smoking a joint.
    My vote would be to crack down harder on really dangerous stuff like ice, with serious jail time even for users, but continue the formal prohibition with soft touch/blind eye enforcement to things which let people have their sanctions busting thrill without creating danger to others.

  29. littledozer

    E’s and MDMA should be legal.

  30. Chris M

    One of those unintended consequences is that harmful products become more harmful, and are often consumed in harmful ways.

    A somewhat self correcting problem when they overdose and kark it.

    Nanny also intervenes when they overdose, should this be the case? At the very least they need to pay for the treatment.

  31. Elle

    E’s and MDMA should be legal.

    Ecstasy is MDMA – same thing.

    Es aren’t the same nowadays as they were back in the 1980s.
    One pill would get you through the whole night at a partaaay.
    Nowadays they need more.
    Heard that from a friend.

  32. AH

    All drugs should be legalised. Tort law (eg. personal injury and product liability) will be sufficient for restricting the sale of harmful substances. What will occur is that recreational drug manufacturers will sell safer versions of the drugs (eg not cut with the harmful agents) and the drug dealers will be obliged to a duty of care in terms of who they sell to. Visiting a drug dealer would be like visiting a good GP who would assess your health and how responsible you are towards the substance before selling it to you. It could actually work quite well if GPs could prescript recreational drugs, however, these consultations should not be bulk billed

    I’m not saying drug use is a good thing that should be promoted, but laws can’t make people moral so we should not incur the expense of these nanny state laws.

  33. Destroyer D 69

    Make the promoters of the events responsible for the consequences.Drugs found,,,event shut down on the spot…..Nothing like a loss of revenue to have a solution surface. An OHS conviction will really energise their ability to ensure compliance with drug laws.

  34. bespoke

    Drug use doesn’t violate anyone’s rights and so there’s no role for the government to play.

    Go convince the users Imp. The first death and the MSM will be all over it saying why didn’t the government do some thing.

  35. I_am_not_a_robot

    In the case of minors at (ostensible) music festivals I guess Nanny would be loco parentis.
    Otherwise Mill says that Nanny has legitimate authority not only to prevent people harming others but also to prevent actions that risk harming others:

    … Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law … (On Liberty).

    Driving is a risky activity even so-called safe driving (you need a Nanny-issued licence), then there are legal offences of dangerous driving and dangerous driving causing injury or death to others.
    I’m not suggesting licensing drug sales but similar principle could apply to drug trafficking, whether an offence is committed or the level of offence depends on the level of risk to others.

  36. yarpos

    Why are drug takers a special class of risk takers that need supervision? What next? Do we send the counsellors and hand wringers out after the rock fishermen, motorcycle racers and skydivers.

    People take risks , sometime the result is injury or death. What are you going to choose to “fix”?

  37. Mique

    There was a letter in the Canberra Times the other day where, unusually for the rag, the writer seemed to make good sense about pill testing. Essentially, his argument was that it was not possible to properly test a pill without destroying it and that all that was being “tested” under existing protocols was a tiny surface sample. Toxic substances that may lurk within the bulk of the pill were unlikely to be found.

    The point made up-thread about a Government’s potential liability for damages should a pill tested by a government-authorised testing facility should be sufficient to discourage any official sanction of pill testing.

    Let thechips fall where they may and if the fools die a painful death, who cares? Nothing else will solve the problem so why waste resources?

  38. Wozzup

    Lefty lunatics are always in favour of policies that produce the most dysfunctional outcomes for society. With them, it is baked in the cake. They are perfectly happy to argue that smokers for example should be ostracized because smoking is no longer trendy. But to then argue that drugs that have equivalent if different social deficits should be in effect condoned because they are trendy is a parody of common sense.

    I propose a different approach. Adopting the principle of the Darwin Awards, I hereby strongly advocate for a position that says if idiots wish to take illegal and dangerous drugs, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. And what’s more let them do it young – before they reproduce. The gene pool will thank you.

  39. Tel

    Let thechips fall where they may and if the fools die a painful death, who cares? Nothing else will solve the problem so why waste resources?

    People who feel charitable and want to reduce harm in the world should have a right to do so without government interference. There’s no need for government to be involved at all, they less they do the better.

    All they need to achieve is sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Shit, even Turnbull can do that.

  40. Boambee John

    I suspect that many who call for testing or legalisation are from the same demographic that does everything possible to make tobacco use unpleasant.

    Propose their own policies be used for drugs. Legalise selected drugs, set and enforce purity standards, put a high excise on the products, require plain packaging complete with revolting illustrations, and treat the users like social lepers not romantic rebels against authority. Special druggie areas at all venues, much as for smokers.

    Wait for the cries “But this is different …”

  41. Tel

    I propose a different approach. Adopting the principle of the Darwin Awards, I hereby strongly advocate for a position that says if idiots wish to take illegal and dangerous drugs, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

    Which also means they get every right to gain whatever useful information they decide might improve their chances.

    If you want to take the risk of trusting the medical industry to know what’s best for you, that’s your look out. If you want to trust the government schools with your kids, well good luck!!

  42. There’s a heated debate on the legalising drugs issue going on at the moment on a couple of very good sites.

    Here is Aseop’s latest post on the matter. I have to say that he is rather convincing.

    Au contraire: Drug legalisation is The Titanic times the Hindenburg, part 1.

  43. Tezza

    “I would begin by considering legalising those recreational drugs that are in widespread consumption.”

    So that would be cocaine, heroin and ice, among others.

    What could possibly go wrong? I quite accept that the results would be Darwinian, and totally in accord with the libertarian beliefs I held as a 16 year old. But I’ve now got 50 more years’ experience, and think the collateral damage to third parties would be a bit much.

  44. Entropy

    On the bright side, getting the people doing illegal acts to turn up in the one handy location and produce the evidence of their criminal activity is a pretty sweet scam. One camera would reduce the burden on the plod.

  45. Whalehunt Fun

    Forget pill testing. Blood test suspects and execute any returning positive results. You cannot use the drug and not have it in your blood. Stop persecuting the entrepeneur responding to market demand and simply exterminate the market. Once young people have a friend or relative executed, they will withdraw from the market. Problem solved.

  46. Since people can no longer buy stronger pain killers over the counter, but must get a doctor’s prescription, why not prescribe ‘illicit’ drugs in the same way? Or why are some wishing to give illicit drugs and drug takers preferential treatment?

  47. Gavin R Putland

    We’ve been here before, but…

    Bringing the war on drugs into conformity with the rule of law would be a good start.

  48. Bela Bartok

    For God’s sake… the Stupid.Fucking.Liberals need to be kicked out and some adults put in charge (ruling out the Filth and the Liars).
    This is in a country where legal smoking is forbidden in nearly every public space?
    Where we can’t see cigarette adverts for fear of turning us into 3-packs a day smokers?
    Where our legal vehicle ads on TV can’t show a car going over 60km/h because it will ‘encourage speeding’, and where the cartels ban legal shopping bags because dolphins?
    But hey, wanna break the law with illegal drugs the same government that hikes up legal alcohol via huge taxes to limit the usage will test the pill for you to make sure your illegal activity is safe?
    Is this insane?
    The risk of ‘doing drugs’ is that they may kill you. To save the drug-users (and who cares?) the government either provides legal drug kits to test your illegal drugs complete with warranty backed by the taxpayer (yay) for every known substance (otherwise unfair and racist) or creates an accreditation policy (a bit like the French AOC) where illegal bikers create their illegal drugs and some Health and Safety inspector gives them a health certificate – because all criminals would love that.
    Of course the test would have to be conducted on every pill or substance about to be used as there’s no quality control in the manufacture of illegal drugs so the test must leave your illegal drug intact.
    It’s insanity – and the fact people are even arguing for it means we need to be destroyed- bring on the end of days.

  49. Baldrick

    Keep the government out of recreational drugs. They only want an excuse to tax it.

  50. JC

    Apple’s cash hoard works out to around 56 bucks a share. The stock price closed at ~142 bucks last night, which obviously means the valuation for the business is 86 bucks.

  51. EvilElvis

    Australia today.

    Ban plastic shopping bags and be enabled by the government to dob in ‘users’.

    Take a banned, illegal substance that can kill you and be enabled by the government to safely go about your business without fear or prejudice.

    What a fucking country. Academics, politicians and the media all need to take the bad pills.

  52. JC

    Adam
    We know prohibition doesn’t work, so peddling the opposite argument gets us nowhere. It doesn’t work. Period.

    The link makes the specious argument that corporate America wouldn’t enter the market because they don’t want to offend a flea. The example it gave was porn asking why Disney isn’t in the porn business if there is a profit to be made in that segment of film business.

    But have a look at the dope market and the new entrants there. Users didn’t need large US corps to enter the legal dope business as new players began to contest the market.

    Perhaps the best thing to do is to gradually allow drug categories to be legalized over time. Lots of drugs like crack wouldn’t exist if coke was legal. That was Friedman’s argument. Still holds.

    Adults need to experience consequences for their actions too.

  53. JC

    But I’ve now got 50 more years’ experience, and think the collateral damage to third parties would be a bit much.

    So you’ve morphed into a nanny. You’re older so it’s not surprising.

    How many potential users of hard illicit drugs have been swayed because they are illegal in all the western world? Do you think the stat goes as high as three people in total?

  54. Iva Right

    And then some goose will have his pills tested, take something a mate gives him and die and then the gooses parents will sue the state government with the pro bono help of a greenie lawyer. Far better let these clowns overdose or poison themselves without our assisrtance and do us all a favour. Also far better to consider appropriate penalties for suppliers and pushers – capital punishment would shut down the drug trade in an instant!

  55. Tel

    Once young people have a friend or relative executed, they will withdraw from the market. Problem solved.

    That approach worked great in Mexico where people are now too shit-scared to put on a police uniform and the most recently elected Mayor had a political career of one day… terminated with extreme prejudice.

    What we discovered is that once those in office had a friend or relative executed, they withdrew from further attempts to do their job.

  56. Squirrel

    Many of the financial costs which arise from drug-abuse are socialised, and the very effective Medi-Scare campaign in the 2016 election is a powerful reminder that those costs will continue to be borne collectively.

    The financial self-reliance for health etc. costs which should be a concomitant of legalising currently prohibited drugs (and for many other forms of self-abuse and neglect) is simply not going to happen in a welfare-entitled nation such as this.

  57. Dr Fred Lenin

    All drugs should be legalised and under government control so they can tax it to death like tobbacco ,I suggest a tax of 9065 per centadjusted annually by 60 per cent . That’ll larn em .I can hear] the aparatchiks drooling now .

  58. Adam
    We know prohibition doesn’t work

    JC,

    Singapore would dispute that.

  59. Buccaneer

    Pill testing removes any conscience issue for drug dealers to cut their product with substances that are not harmful. Sure users might not go back to a dealer who sells them drugs cut with floor cleaner, but that is only an issue for regular customers, at a music festival is anyone a regular customer?

  60. Jannie

    Prohibition has always proved to be more harmful than the original social problem. More crime, death and social control. More Big Government.

    The state has no role in testing recreational drugs. But drug users should have the option of having them safely and reliably tested and paying for the test. If they can pay for drugs they can pay for testing. But they cant get them safely tested because its illegal. Sure its an inherently risky business, that is their choice, and but its just spiteful for the control freaks to make it even more dangerous.

    What about the children, the mantra goes. If you teach your children well, they probably wont do drugs. I have seen stats showing that Dutch kids have the lowest dope smoking rate in northern Europe. But if you rely on State prohibition you expose your kids to more danger and you have less influence on them.

    It always amazes me how the mention of drugs brings out the inner control freak around here.

  61. Hay Stockard

    Ok. On Philosophical grounds I’ll accept the offer to go on medical marijuana.
    Makes me randier than an old goat, gives me the munchies and tends to make me ride a motorbike like I stole it.
    What could possibly go wrong?

  62. Crossie

    Destroyer D 69
    #2898551, posted on January 4, 2019 at 4:29 pm
    Make the promoters of the events responsible for the consequences.Drugs found,,,event shut down on the spot…..Nothing like a loss of revenue to have a solution surface. An OHS conviction will really energise their ability to ensure compliance with drug laws.

    As you say, no need for politicians to do anything new, we already have relevant legislation. Enforce it.

    I have to make sure my workplace is clear of all hazards and that staff and members of the public are safe at all times yet dance venues operators and music festival organisers are exempt. Why is that?

  63. Tel

    Make the promoters of the events responsible for the consequences.Drugs found,,,event shut down on the spot…..

    Go one better and make the electricity provider responsible. Drugs found the city gets blacked out on the spot.

    Rule of law buddy!

  64. John Barr

    I recommend; No pill Testing, No Police at events, No Medical Staff at events.
    Emergency Personnel only to come to the Gate (Police, Emergency Personnel)
    Any Cost (Police, Emergency Services, Hospital Care, etc.) to be paid for by the person overdosing. No Insurance Cover or Government Rebate for any costs incurred.
    This Warning is to be advertised after every song played. & displayed on the TV Wall & on selected sites all over the Venue. Warning: You take Drugs you are on your own. Your choice.

  65. None

    When some f****** drug-addled shit ransacks your home, carjacks you or f****** kills your father in law on the road then you can come and talk to me about legalization.

    Like I said just deny them any medical care whatsoever and let them die like the stupid dogs they are. If caught, 3 years for possession, 10 years for trafficking minimum, on the spot no ifs and buts, no parole, and bunk them in with the nearest lifer. With a bit of luck they’ll be dead before they serve their term.

  66. None

    Good idea tell. If I have to f****** pay for other fuckwits pill testing I can f****** then turn the fucking lights off.

  67. Rockdoctor

    Am already on record as saying make the promoters pay for pill testing if we have to go down this path, which we will soon because of relentless media campaigns to do so. 2 fold advantage Government isn’t liable as there will be lawyers drooling at another guaranteed pot of gold & the little doped up darling get their security blanket but they pay for through the ticket price.

    They want it, they own it.

  68. C.L.

    The major libertarian objection to legalisation is that the state would tax the products (massively), making the now legal drugs far more expensive than the black market versions. We would then see two things: 1) weak price elasticity of demand (the expensive legal products may not even win consumer support or, if they do, only prior to the state going crazy with taxes); and 2) deaths from shoddy drugs would predominate in poorer demographics.

  69. Robber Baron

    There are votes in pill testing.

    Any politician that advocates for this needs to feel the cold sharp blade 1789 style.

    The sooner the revolution begins, the better.

  70. Infidel Tiger

    The most ludicrous aspect of pill testing is that anyone would actually use it.

    It’s just a Trojan horse to advance drug legalisation by the left.

  71. C.L.

    Another radical thing we could do is stop the candles n’ teddies routine when this happens.
    These people were warned. They took the risk and they died.
    Nobody’s fault but their own.

  72. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    How many potential users of hard illicit drugs have been swayed because they are illegal in all the western world? Do you think the stat goes as high as three people in total?

    I know two of them: two fifteen year olds found with MDMA in their wallets who are now very, very swayed by the illegality argument when a family gathering pointed out to them that killing their friends with supply was not approved of by law and also that doing themselves in with a bad pill drop would stop them getting their driving license (this is how fifteen year olds think of death). One family member who has seen the inside of prisons on the wrong side of the law reinforced the point that illegality has consequences and that two snowflake fifteen year olds would not much enjoy being a guest of Her Majesty.

    Sudden desire to have nothing to do with rave concerts has emerged the victor. Keep things illegal.

  73. John Constantine

    We don’t have to argue or guess what happens when marijuana products are legalised, just watch Canada and learn.

    South Australia and marijuana decriminalisation is no big deal in that state now.

    The purity and replicability and reliability argument is met by the new range of marijuana products and delivery methods.

    Buying a zero calorie commercial stubby of tincture of marijuana that has an intoxicating effect the same as a stubby of beer is pill testing of sorts.

    Open slather taking home grown joints down the pub for a smoke in the beer garden not so much.

  74. max

    there should be a legalization of drugs. I mean all drugs. I mean the drugs that create massive profits for the legalized drug cartel. I mean the abolition of patents. I mean the abolition of all restrictions on imported legal drugs. Along with this, I would also favor the legalization of the sale of addictive drugs — just as we do with cigarettes.

    Why is this? Because I think freedom is better than the state’s control of drugs. I think that freedom is a moral issue.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/11879.cfm

  75. Jannie

    Keep things illegal.

    Wow. Reminds me of the bitter faced Nanny State Temperance goons who started the war on drugs, criminalize entire classes of people and made generations lose respect for law and authority.

    Wake up Grannies, you lost. But you have badly weakened the entire western world anyway.

  76. A Lurker

    What could possibly go wrong? I quite accept that the results would be Darwinian, and totally in accord with the libertarian beliefs I held as a 16 year old. But I’ve now got 50 more years’ experience, and think the collateral damage to third parties would be a bit much.

    Agreed. I don’t care if users off themselves in chasing the next high, but the collateral damage is the concerning aspect – to their family and friends, or to the innocent driver or pedestrian they take out because they can’t control a motor vehicle, or to the innocent person or home owner who was robbed because the user needed cash for drugs, or the innocent young child who picked up or stood on a dirty needle that a user discarded in a local park.

    That collateral damage is simply unacceptable.

  77. Michael

    I find it extraordinary that, on the one hand, we make taking drugs illegal and then on the other hand we debate how to help children break the law. There is surely a moral conflict here.

  78. Deplorable

    Bushkid
    #2898495, posted on January 4, 2019 at 3:19 pm
    No.
    No need for pill testing or legalisation.
    Just let the stupid little darlings find out for themselves.
    Let the gene pool be thinned a bit by the stupid being allowed to self-eliminate.</em

    Agree entirely but with an extra rider, NO rescucitation or taking up hospital beds or use of paramedics. For each drug death the IQ of the nation rises.

  79. bespoke

    C.L.
    #2898850, posted on January 4, 2019 at 11:06 pm
    Another radical thing we could do is stop the candles n’ teddies routine when this happens.
    These people were warned. They took the risk and they died.
    Nobody’s fault but their own.

    Yep, That kind of symbolism led my oldest surviving step son to put himself in legal jeopardy recently by visiting the site of his brothers murder. These personal monuments only enable not deter.

  80. Seza

    C.L. is right about legalisation of drugs. The State would tax them highly, and the market for backyard drugs would still exist and maybe expand. Look at the rise in “chop-chop” tobacco with the huge increase in cigarette prices.

  81. Tim Neilson

    I mean the abolition of patents.

    If patents were abolished no private enterprise would ever do any medical research ever again.
    The system no doubt has its faults but your idea would destroy it.
    Do you want to rely on the State Science Institute to find the cure for the disease you’re going to get in a few years time?

  82. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Wow. Reminds me of the bitter faced Nanny State Temperance goons who started the war on drugs, criminalize entire classes of people and made generations lose respect for law and authority.

    Who is the Grannie, Jannie? The above reminds me of the letting it all hang out anything goes stupidities of the drug-addled sixties and seventies generation of hippy loons. Respect for law and authority was never an issue with that crowd anyway. It is also lost anyway when the law gives in and lets worse things than drug control step in. It’s already been pointed out above what happens to legal cigarettes when prices rise due to greedy taxing governments and chop-chop is the result. Legalizing a hideous range of damaging drugs would be no different, except these drugs are far worse than nicotine ever is or was.

    Bah. Humbug. A little illegality is a far less dangerous thing. Take care with your supplier, Jannie.

  83. Mark A

    Tim Neilson
    #2899095, posted on January 5, 2019 at 10:52 am

    I mean the abolition of patents.

    If patents were abolished no private enterprise would ever do any medical research ever again.
    The system no doubt has its faults but your idea would destroy it.
    Do you want to rely on the State Science Institute to find the cure for the disease you’re going to get in a few years time?

    WD-40 was never patented.
    Don’t see too many substitutes around that works with the same efficiency.

  84. Mark A

    WD-40 was never patented.
    Don’t see too many substitutes around that works with the same efficiency.

    Hasten to add, the active ingredients in medications are probably, not sure, have to be disclosed before approved?

    Glad to be advised.

  85. I remember the quote from the bloke in charge of the coppers in England stating in 1950, that the amount of gaol cells would have to be doubled if they made narcotics illegal.
    Prescient words.

  86. Cynic of Ayr

    So, lemme get this straight!
    My Daughter (I don’t have one, but let’s say…) is convinced by peer pressure to buy some dope that is illegal.
    She turns up at a Rock Concert, and hands the bloke at the door her illegal dope. The bloke runs it through his wizzo, finds that yes, it’s definitely illegal dope, but it’s “legal” illegal. i.e. it’s as potent and dangerous as the label says it is. No more, no less.
    Then – wait for it… he hands it back!
    Now, I want to know if my “daughter” suffers harm from this illegal dangerous dope, which has just been handed to her by a bloke at the door of a Rock Concert, is the bloke on the door liable?
    He gave her the dope, that was in his possession, knowing full well that the stuff was dangerous, as his employer, the Government, told him so.

  87. Jannie

    Nanny State Incoherence.

  88. Snoopy

    Legalise the growing and sale of natural drugs. Opium, marijuana, hashish, mushrooms, coca leaves, tobacco.

  89. tgs

    I love watching the cat shit itself over these threads.

    Saaah gud.

  90. tgs

    C.L. is right about legalisation of drugs. The State would tax them highly, and the market for backyard drugs would still exist and maybe expand. Look at the rise in “chop-chop” tobacco with the huge increase in cigarette prices.

    Yeah, thats why Cali is raking in 2-3bn per year…

  91. tgs

    I mean the black market still exists to an order of magnitude less but it’s emasculated and fucking hell, why not take the tax $..? Divert the law and order $… Surely it’s a no brainer?

  92. Terry

    The only role of the state is to ensure that what the “maker” says is in the drug is what is in the drug.

    So, if the “maker” claims it is mdma and it contains battery acid, baby powder and paint thinner then…consequence.

    Other than that it is buyer beware. You know the risk (or you should) and if you don’t or choose to risk it then…Darwin.

  93. Stimpson J. Cat

    is convinced by peer pressure

    Let me stop you there.
    No such thing.
    She’s a junkie.

  94. I mean the abolition of patents.

    For a blockbuster pharma drug it can be several Billion US$ to go from bench to bedside (a lot of that is due to regulation). Yet manufacture might only cost a few cents or dollars per pill (or dose whatever). If a competitor can simply buy a few pills and reverse engineer the drug and make it themselves for a few cents, like there is really zero incentive to do new drug R&D.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.