Drug deaths and pill testing.

[spacesailor]

" I can be confident that the whysky is not cut with industrial ethanol. It simply would be business and legal suicide for the company to provide a contaminated product. Product liability should apply as well as recalls etc.".

 

Just like the "Happy Hour" booze in Bali. And the Drunk tourist Still goes back for more tainted free shots.

 

Nothing bad there, they are all Happy, Death penalty for pushers But still open slather in the streets, with cops watching the action, not picking on the pushers but grabing tourist with money,

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

It is the fear of detection and penalty that is at the root of the success of RBT. Over your lifetime haven't you seen a switch away from a belly-full of grog and driving home to self-limiting so one can drive home? Until there is some way to prevent drug intoxicated persons using vehicles, then more intoxicants shouldn't be added to the present pool. It is unfortunate that the detection of drivers intoxicated by [name your poison] often occurs after the damage has been done in the form of injury or death.

 

I find your comment that 2.9 million use recreational drugs astonishing. Taking a population of 22 million, that's 12.5% - even higher if you deduct children under 12 years of age and adults over 75 years of age.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I find your comment that 2.9 million use recreational drugs astonishing. Taking a population of 22 million, that's 12.5% - even higher if you deduct children under 12 years of age and adults over 75 years of age.

Well, that was the figure quoted on the Minefield (RN) today, by their guest. The discussion was about exactly this - the ethics around recreational drugs, pill testing, the whole thing, which I thought was quite amusing given this topic here over the last few days.

 

Australia's population is 24.6 million, but your point is taken - it's quite high.

 

Illegal drug use — does ethics have anything to say?

 

 

[old man emu]

I think the dilemma lies between the Rights of an Individual and the Responsibilities of Society.

 

Australian Society has at its core the Right of the Individual to be free to whatever one chooses to do, but with the caveat that the Individual does not restrict the Rights of others at the same time.

 

At the same time our Society has developed and supported the cult of Mateship which involves the group taking care of the wellbeing of the individual.

 

At the moment there is no equilibrium between the two. Individuals don't want Society to inhibit their right to do whatever, and Society strains to prevent individuals from self-harm. The debate should revolve around finding the point of balance. Reaching neither utopia nor dystopia will solve the problem.

 

Utopia exists in Society agreeing that Individuals can do what they choose, as long as Individuals agree not to put members of Society in danger.

 

Dystopia exists in a Society severely restricting Individuals' freedom of choice.

 

 

[octave]

Just a few random points before I move on from this subject.

 

Just reading back through this thread (and I am not trying to have a go at anyone) it appears that those who are for pill testing are pragmatists and those against are principlists I say this because it seems clear from peoples posts that they have not evaluated or even looked at the evidence gathered from many years of these schemes overseas. I have always been a pragmatists, for me, outcomes are more important than rigid principles.

 

As an example, I loathe the idea of injecting all dubious substances. I accept that using these drugs is illegal, however, I believe needle exchange schemes have saved countless people from contracting aids and or Hep C. I believe that this benefits the wider community.

 

"Australian Governments began in the mid-1980s to pilot or support programs involving needle exchange for intravenous drug users. These remain occasionally controversial, but are reported to have been crucial in keeping the incidence of the disease low, as well as being extremely cost-effective.[24][25]"

 

HIV/AIDS in Australia - Wikipedia

 

My question would be, do people who oppose pill testing also oppose needle exchange programs?

 

I did not really know much about MDHA but what I have learned is that it is used (controversially) by some therapist in the treatment of PTSD. As a drug, it was rated in a study (UK 2007) as 18th in harmfulness from a list of 20 recreational drugs. The death rate is relatively low, deaths being caused by additives or unpredictable potency as well as mixing with other substances.

 

Now let me make it quite clear, I am not advocating its use. My advice to a young person who wants to experience ecstasy would be to take flying lessons!

 

This drug seems mainly attractive to younger people. I am a responsible adult and I have so far led a productive and happy life, in fact, the older I get the happier I get, but in my mid to late teens I did make the occasional poor decision (not involving drugs, alcohol perhaps) but luckily I survived these experiences and I was able to become a better person.

 

I find it hard to relate to the notion of "they knew what they were doing so let them die." The thing about this particular drug is that it tends to be taken irregularly. It seems pretty tragic to me that a 15-year-old may take 1 tablet because as we know 15-year-olds are not necessarily great at decision making and are desperate to fit in with their peers my die when testing could dissuade them from taking it. I note that in the statistic presented by "Know your stuff" in New Zealand show that when a test confirms that the pill is NOT contaminated around about 5% of people nevertheless chose not to take it and they disposed of it. A further 2% said they would probably not take it but did not dispose of it. These numbers are small but important When the drug was found to be not what the person expected half of them did not take the drug. As a pragmatist I say the outcome tends toward the positive. Unless there are negative or unintended consequences then I am supportive.

 

My position on this is pragmatic and supported the evidence from many years from overseas. As someone who is open-minded, I am always open to changing my but only by evidence. Harsher drug penalties may or may not work but the intelligent thing to do would be to analyse various ways of handling this problem. We can look at overseas schemes both lenient and harsh. We need to consider the unintended consequences, for example, does pill testing lead to more drug use, does it increase or decrease deaths and does a harsher drug policy mean the police are taken away from other duties, can we afford to jail large numbers of casual users, what is the long term effect when these people leave jail?

 

For me, it is pragmatism over principlism

 

 

[Yenn]

What did the pragmatists do in the lead up to WW2?

 

 

[octave]

What did the pragmatists do in the lead up to WW2?

That is rather a rather strange argument. You tell me since you have obviously constructed an argument around it.

 

pragmatistDictionary result for pragmatist

 

/ˈpraɡmətɪst/

 

noun

 

1. a person who is guided more by practical considerations than by ideals.
   "hardheaded pragmatists firmly rooted in the real world"
    
   
2. PHILOSOPHY
   an advocate of the approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.
    
   

 

I would imagine it would have been difficult to win the war without pragmatism.

 

If you don't like the word pragmatic perhaps I could rephrase it and say I believe in evidence-based decision making.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Australian Society has at its core the Right of the Individual to be free to whatever one chooses to do, but with the caveat that the Individual does not restrict the Rights of others at the same time."

 

WRONG

 

The LAW CHOOSES, what society Wants

 

If you Believe Making what is ILLEGAL, legal.

 

Then Make RAA 95-10- wing loading, disappear. So My ILLEGAL aircraft can be flown Legally !. (making a good design unsafe, WAS legal when building )

 

AND my $80 parking fine disappear also, Why should I be fined for parking, Perfectly safe, in a park space, Just because of a technicality.

 

Why should the bloke go to jail for smacking his wife up. It's his wife !. Make it LEGAL.

 

This could go on for many Laws that are curbing Society's OUTLAW element.

 

FREE Needles for ILLEGAL drug user's. CHARGE those that use them for RECREATION.

 

GIVE FREE Needles to DIABETICS !

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

What a strange post.

 

Things that were illegal in the past are now legal.

 

Examples: Abortion, blasphemy, homosexual sex.

 

Things that were legal in the past are now illegal.

 

Examples: Marital rape, child labour, domestic violence.

 

The law CHANGES because society's values and expectations change. If 1/3 of the population has at one time in their lives taken a substance that is against the law, then I say that society should have a conversation with itself about whether that law is still relevant, and if it's not, put pressure on the government and opposition to change it.

 

The saying "rule of thumb" originated when the LAW said that a man was entitled to beat his wife with a rod no thicker than his thumb. If you don't reckon the law should change, go ask your wife what she thinks of that one (and be prepared to duck!)

 

 

[old man emu]

After 60 posts on this topic, I've come to a conclusion.

 

There are people who are viewing pill testing as a whole-of-population point of view. They are looking at the forest, not the tree. Then there are those who are looking at the tree in isolation from the forest.

 

Those who hold Marty_d's point of view are looking at the forest. Perhaps they have never been face-to-face with the after-effects of illicit drug taking. Those who follow my point of view are looking at the tree, and perhaps, or in fact, have been face-to-face with drug taking.

 

My conclusion is that Marty_d's mob and mine will agree on many facts, but continue to disagree on an appropriate course of action that satisfies the preservation of freedom of action for the whole population, and the preservation of the life of the individual.

 

Marty_d says that one third of the population had used illicit drugs. That leaves two thirds who haven't. Of that two thirds, let's allow for half of them to be in the "don't care, not interested" group, and the other half to be militantly against illicit drug use. At the moment, the militants have the numbers (remember 11.75% of the population admits to illicit drug use - leaving 88.25% not using). Either side can only prevail if the majority of the "don't care, not interested" group is moved to make a decision.

 

That movement will not be aided by Australians' sense of a fair go for all as was the case in the Same Sex Marriage debate. I would say that the strongest persuader of the "don't care, not interested" group will be an appeal to anti-authoritarian sentiments.

 

 

[octave]

Well time to move on from this subject. The way I approach these dilemmas involves loads of research and I think I am ready to read something not drug-related. I do however feel the need to clarify a few points.

 

I suspect that people think I am motivated by wanting to give things to drug users to be nice or to encourage further drug use. They also think perhaps I am motivated by libertarianism. Although I suppose I tend towards personal liberty, this is not my motivation.

 

For example needle exchange programs. I am all for them, not to save an addict a few dollars but because of the harm reduction done to the addict but mostly to the wider community. Countries that have needle exchanges also have lower rates of HIV and Hep C. Because a needle becomes something that you trade in for a clean one makes it less likely I will stand on a discarded needle at the beach.

 

Needle exchange programs provide the following:

 

• Disposal of used needles.
   
  
• Referrals to treatment centers.
   
  
• Access to methadone clinics.
   
  
• Condoms.
   
  
• Peer education.
   
  
• Screening for AIDS and other diseases.
   
  
• Information about HIV prevention.
   
  
• Onsite counseling services.
   
  

 

The evidence for needle exchange is quite persuasive. https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/83AAED699516CE2DCA257BF0001E7255/$File/evid.pdf

 

But this is where the disagreements begin.

 

I have posted numerous links to hard evidence which I am quite sure no one looked at. There were plenty of opportunities to challenge me on the interpretation of evidence. I am supposing that those who disagree with me believe that whether or not these schemes are of benifit is secondary to a principle of zero tolerance.

 

In terms of illegality, the New Zealand testing service states that it is not breaking any law and operates with the blessing of the authorities. It is unfortunately not able to help anyone under 18 and in fact, they are not able to personally handle the drugs as this would be illegal. They provide the equipment and supervise the pill owner who performs the test themselves. The figures show that 5%-7% of users when the test shows that the drug is unadulterated never the less after the counselling that is part of the testing decides NOT to take it. Yes, a small number but to me, this can only be a good thing. What if this figure improved and became 60% would those against say so what it is the principle that matters.

 

As far as being around people who use drugs, hey I have been a musician all of my working life, of course, I have been around drug users although mostly at the lighter end.

 

In terms of a more rigid application of drug laws I would not rule that out but I ask myself where is an example that I can look at to see how it works. The US has tough drug laws and a very high prison population. I find it hard to see how this tougher system improves society. I guess we could go even tougher such as some Asian and middle eastern countries but of course, they still have their societal problems.

 

Next time there is a festival on the police could raid it and arrest hundreds of users and hold them in custody, have them appear in court perhaps jail some but I am not sure this technique has worked anywhere but I can be convinced of anything with solid evidence.

 

By the way, after a little bit of googling, I have found that pill testing kits are available for purchase (although I do not know how accurate they are) Also the price of infrared spectrometers continues to fall. I can see a time when a plugin device and a phone app may provide the same service. Perhaps then a pill testing service will become irrelevant.

 

Anyway, as I say I have other things to do. I do understand and respect other peoples opinions even when I don't agree with them.

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of people have certain views about homosexuality and drugs that changes once someone near them is affected.. Personal experience beats just making a decision bases on disconnected concepts of good and bad.. IF you don't have a God in your life you can't be moral etc. There are presumptions and assertions often based on very little but prejudice, intolerence, self righteousness and wishful thinking.. Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

It should also be noted that the police have a vested interest I. The status quo that many do not realise, they are paid to attend such festivals not by the government but by the festival organisers and often at overtime rates. This is often a demand by the police to allow events go ahead, don't pay our blokes and no event. So effectively extortion from the police to do the job we as society already pay them for.

 

A friend is a cop and such events often add 20k to his yearly income.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I have to admit, I am not sure of your analogy and what you mean by forest and tree; except asserting those or one view can't see the wood/trees for the forest. And if that is the case, it is very simplistic and, even based on this thread, we could argue the inverse. Prohibition - let's call it the war on drugs - is being lost. There are many reasons why it is being lost, but the big one is - you can't cut off demand. Humans have been recreationally using drugs for time immemorial. Alcohol is a legal drug and when abused yields similar problems to illicit drugs. Heinous crimes have been committed under the influence of drugs; and as I understand, people who trip out on LSD have hallucinated on what they can do, attempting to fly from balconies of very tall buildings. But heinous crimes have been committed under the influence of alcohol and people have also comer to their end attempting to do something they suddenly got Dutch courage to do. The long term effects of alcohol abuse are well documented and are asserted to be worse than the long term effects of lower class narcotics - such as marijuana, etc. Yet, it is legal and celebrated.

 

Look, I have never taken a banned substance (I didn't drink until I was around 26 - except for maybe 5 occasions at my final year at high school. As a younger adult, I was very straight down the line and opposed about all drugs illegal regardless of the facts. The facts are they aren't good for you - short or long term - and that includes alcohol. The facts are that they are abused by a small part of the population - just as alcohol is; and they are abused by people who usually have some mental condition or something in their life they are trying to forget about; or they are in high pressure jobs or some such reason.Same as for alcohol. But as I am only really starting to grow up, I have tended to take an objective viewpoint. A lot of my friends will have the occasional puff and at least one will snort occasionally in a reasonably safe and social environment. These are normally decent upstanding people enjoying what, in relative terms is harmless use of a recreational drug. They are still good people, they still contribute to society as a whole, but they get enjoyment from the occasional use of these substances. Why on earth do we want to stop that?

 

I also know a borderline addict - but definitely an abuser of drugs - and apparently he gets his hands on some nasty stuff. In and out hospital regularly, broken family (both the family he grew up in and the one he fathered), with the chain reaction on the next generation. But rather than spend resources to support these sorts of people and use the tax proceeds of a legitamised drug industry to fund it, we waste, what, billions on a fight we can never win.

 

Then you have the indisputable facts - where the drugs are legalised (or at least the law is not enforced) with the change in culture that doesn't demonise drug users at all, ad, like with AA or gamblers anonymous, there are support for those that are in a space where they have to abuse these sunstances, they are winning the war against drugs. The harmless recreational use probably continues but is isn't a sudden onslaught and importantly the drug abuse and its affects on the abuser as well as society have been lessened. It's an indisputable fact. The tree, to use your analogy, is right there. The forest is all of the conjecture and opinion - and a refusal to accept the facts.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"A lot of people have certain views about homosexuality and drugs that changes once someone near them is affected.. Personel experience beats just making a decision"

 

When a 5 year old in hospital, I was given a lot of OPIATES to stop my screaming. Having a four inch knitting needle stabbed into your arrsse, (penicillin)

 

three needles, three times a day & another if I ate anything. will make any skinny kid scream their lungs out.

 

I still had withdrawal symptoms at the age of fifteen, Cold turkey was all that was offered.

 

SO NO, repeat: NO sympathy from me for any-one taking Recreational Drugs.

 

That's First Hand experience !.

 

" The harmless recreational use"

 

IT's NOT Harmless, when people DIE.

 

(at these music shows).

 

If I hadn't had too much Drugs as a child Maybe I could get a pilots licence. (long lasting effects)

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

"A lot of people have certain views about homosexuality and drugs that changes once someone near them is affected.. Personel experience beats just making a decision"

When a 5 year old in hospital, I was given a lot of OPIATES to stop my screaming. Having a four inch knitting needle stabbed into your arrsse, (penicillin)

 

three needles, three times a day & another if I ate anything. will make any skinny kid scream their lungs out.

 

I still had withdrawal symptoms at the age of fifteen, Cold turkey was all that was offered.

 

SO NO, repeat: NO sympathy from me for any-one taking Recreational Drugs.

 

That's First Hand experience !.

That is my point - provide the support needed - Feel for you and the fact that as a result of medical treatment, you developed an addiction - presumably, it was legal - so you should have had the support - the medical profession would have known that the chances of you developing an addiction and the long term effects, etc etc so it sounds they were in dereliction of duty territory.

 

" The harmless recreational use"

 

IT's NOT Harmless, when people DIE.

 

(at these music shows).

I think that is the point we are making. If it were legalised and regulated, you wouldn't get these deaths due to impurities and over-concentrations. The recreational use is not entirely harmless, of course. but, like alcohol, where people occasionally die from binge-drinking, you can't make it entirely harmless. But I would wager if they were legal and regulated (or at least pill testing was provided), there would be a lot fewer deaths. As well as a lot of other ills - like the violent criminal underworld that feeds off it all at the moment - won't be anything for them to do in a new world. Portugal and to a lesser extent, Amsterdam are evidence. A lot of the real wider societal/community ills are lessened dramatically or removed.

 

If I hadn't had too much Drugs as a child Maybe I could get a pilots licence. (long lasting effects)

 

spacesailor

 

Again - sorry to hear that - sounds like the medical profession were derelict in their duty,.

 

 

[spacesailor]

" you wouldn't get these deaths due to impurities "

 

The young woman at Parramatta, HAD PURE pill's.

 

Not tainted or over-concentrated.

 

Pop a pill ,Russian roulette !.

 

Don.t legalise Russian Roulette.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

As I mentioned, you can't entirely eliminate the risk...

 

There was a woman, I think in Aus, but may have been in the UK that had an allergic reaction to something like a hair dye used at the hairdresser and died..

 

Do we ban hair dye?

 

Do we ban peanuts?

 

Do we ban dairy foods?

 

Do we ban pennicilin (If I am administered it, I will almost certainly die - found out the hard way I am allergic to it).

 

All these can kill!!!

 

Was she an addict? In which case why was she an addict and would resources be better spend resolving the root cause of her addiction rather than a futile war against Or while there may not have been dangerous impurities , was their on overconcentration or some other issue?

 

 

[Litespeed]

A pure pill can easily kill, just like any drug that is given even legal ones. The drugs we are prescribed only have a tiny amount of the active ingredient.

 

I take blood thinners aka rat poison, if I bought a street version it would have a unknown mg of warfarin and most likely kill me as any amount over prescribed can be deadly. The tolerance is quite small between therapeutic and death.

 

The party drugs are much less lethal than this, but a excessively large dose either too many pills or high a purity or nasty shite it is blended with can be fatal. That is why testing is so important and the willingness of friends to seek medical attention ASAP. Many do not from fear of police trouble and hope for the best. Many die when seeking help would have meant a minor hospital stay.

 

If we had a legal regulated supply then deaths would be extremely rare and people would choose safer drugs than things like ICE, which people take as it is cheap and easily available. Also keep in mind a lot of dance party deaths are actually not directly from the drug but from excessive alcohol as they just keep drinking or hyperthermia as the keep dancing and overheat. Others are from excessive drinking of water. Yes too much can kill, and has many times, the blood dilutes and the brain actually drowns. This was the case of a famous drug death years ago, it was her drinking 6 litres of water in approx a hour- her body could not process that much in such a short time.

 

It is the fact such drugs are illegal that leads to the vast harm, injury and deaths.

 

 

[Bruce]

I reckon space honestly sees prohibition as being better protection than legalization , and while I reckon this is wrong, it is an intuitive thing to think and certainly it is the way most voters and most politicians think too. So thanks space for making the argument.

 

It is sad that other countries don't seem to be interested in learning from Portugal. Not much demand for scientific thinking about harm minimization huh.

 

On the prohibition side of the argument, there are countries like the islamic ones where penalties are much worse and include beheading. I wonder how they rate in the harm minimization stakes. I think they would be horrific countries to live in for other reasons, but as far as illegal drugs go, they may actually be better, in that the kids would be very unlikely to ever be tempted to try, on account of the pushers being dead. I can't see how that would help people like space though, who was hurt by legal drugs not illegal ones.

 

 

[old man emu]

Litespeed said," A pure pill can easily kill, just like any drug that is given even legal ones. The drugs we are prescribed only have a tiny amount of the active ingredient. .......The tolerance is quite small between therapeutic and death."

 

In the case of one death, the pill contained 77% MDMA Drug deaths at music festivals: one overdose victim 'took up to nine MDMA pills'

 

The advised maximum dose per session in 120 mg, but dosage of any drug, legal or not, is dependent on body weight. But the problem is knowing the purity of the tablet.

 

What about the effects of long term use? Does recreational ecstasy use cause long-term cognitive problems?

 

"Indeed, many users and social commentators believe that with better management, the negative consequences of MDMA use can be avoided. This belief is based on the false premise that the danger associated with MDMA lies exclusively with poor control of environmental temperature and“bad” or adulterated drug. The latter risk, it is believed, would be eliminated by better quality control as a result of legalizing the drug. A review of the scientific literature, however, paints a very different picture of this drug, which is far from benign."

 

 

[spacesailor]

The way your thinking !,

 

Let All Car thieves OFF,

 

No chasing, NO penalty,

 

They will not kill innocent people, and it's ONLY a car.

 

Leave the HOONS alone, NO chasing, No penalty, It's only their fun.

 

If your in a Hurry, Don't worry, we've, decriminalised speeding. slow down when ready.

 

KILLED a CYCLIST, NO problem, It's decriminalised !.

 

Robbed your neighbor, Wait for the cops, we don't consider it a crime anymore. only a misdemeanor.

 

were do YOU draw the line ?.

 

If it's unlawful, Someone has gone to the trouble of making that law !

 

I think the RAA / CASA, wing load LAW is bad, contributes to flimsy airframes,, AND stops me getting rego for the aircraft I chose (with 16 other builder's).

 

PUT your TEN CENTS worth were it will do 16 fellow flyer people some good.

 

HOW many hummel Birds Have been registered since that LAW came into effect ?. (should be a few of the 16 )

 

The hummel facebook site has 16 THOUSAND member's.

 

( If that law was NOT deemed significant before CASA's TANTRUM, WHY is it so important now ?, that it can't be REMOVED ).

 

spacesailo

 

 

[Litespeed]

So what you are arguing about the Hummelbird is that the law is arse in this case and should be changed.

 

We are constantly creating new laws and often they are shortsighted. You are defeating your own argument. laws should never be set in stone but reviewed to ensure they actually meet the needs of society as we develop and so must the law.

 

By your logic we should never have allowed cars on the road without the previously mandated man with flag in front. Oh except when the law changes to your dismay with the Hummelbird.

 

You can't have it both ways, you can't be absolutist about the law except when it suits you.

 

If we followed every law and never changed as needed, never ignored any and enforced absolutely all laws, we would all be in Goal.

 

I agree the rules with the Hummel are self defeating and stupid. But your anger over that should not mean you are happy for all society to suffer from the laws and rules just because you have.

 

 

[octave]

The notion that we can't have pill testing because it is breaking the law is ridiculous. The reason is that the systems in New Zealand, Portugal etc. as well as being successful are also legal. You see the law was changed to accommodate it. No "thin of the wedge" and "what if we all decide to break the law." It is legal. In New Zealand the drug testing body does not break the law, it may sail close to the wind but does not break the law. The police have no desire to stop it because it works.

 

Apparently, there is much evidence that cannabis oil can prevent epileptic seizures. I have not personally evaluated the actual evidence so I am not idiotic enough to have an opinion WITHOUT EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE. I understand that it is quite likely that cannabis oil MAY have a positive effect. If this is true then we should change the law to allow it. Some objections I have read are that, whilst it may work it could be "sending the wrong message" The problem is that some people tend to be both ignorant and hysterical. Cannabis usage is reasonably high throughout all areas of society. Why is it that the extract from cannabis sativa plant is so taboo but the extract of willow bark is used by most people.

 

I was highly amused by a video posted on another thread about growing hemp. One of the reasons for resistance is that according to the crusty old conservatives growing hemp will send the wrong message about drug use even though hemp crops do not contain THC to the level that is psychoactive. It is as foolish as saying we must ban bagels or muffins because of poppy seeds (which contain opium)

 

I think the problem with this thread is that we are not debating the same thing. I say that the evidence gathered from numerous schemes overseas demonstrates that the death rate is reduced as well as well as crime and violence. The anti crowd on this thread have not read and then challenged that proposition. in fact, they have made it clear that any benefits are overruled by principles of the law is right and unchangeable.

 

The only way to change my mind is to prove that the testing regimes in as I understand it around 20 countries cause more harm than good. That is the bottom line for me. This is why I am not religious. Don't tell me why behaviour A is not allowed, tell me why and what harms are caused and you need evidence that is stronger than "I heard that"

 

In this thread, I asked some questions which no one answered. Australia's early realization that one of the vectors HIV infection was from the injecting drug using community. They realized that swapping dirty needles for clean would reduce the transmission of HIV eventually into the non-injecting drug using community.

 

It has also been suggested that MDMA is inherently dangerous if unadulterated and at a known dose. As I pointed out it is being used in a medical research setting right at this moment for the treatment of PTSD.

 

'Ecstasy' Study Results Promising for PTSD

 

This is from WebMD, well respected and hardly a bunch of hippy druggies.

 

"Oct. 30, 2018 -- The long-banned “club drug” MDMA showed strong results as a treatment against posttraumatic stress disorder in its largest and longest study to date, researchers reported Monday.

 

The phase II clinical trial followed 28 patients with chronic PTSD, including military veterans and crime victims, who took the drug during three daylong psychotherapy sessions over 3 months. After two sessions, 43% of the group that received active doses of MDMA no longer met the definition of PTSD, compared to 33% who got a low dose of the drug as a placebo. And a year after the first session, 76% of the active-dose group no longer had PTSD, according to results published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology."

 

Yes, of course, people die from taking homemade drugs. They die because it may be adulterated, the dose is uncertain, it is taken with other drugs etc. Testing can reduce this. If people think this is untrue then please demonstrate that by quoting figures of increased deaths from the many countries that have LEGALISED pill testing.

 

These countries currently have some form of testing. If as some people claim that it would be such a disaster then surely the record of increased deaths would be a powerful argument.

 

Service from 20 countries representing 31 different checking services (run by 29 separate organisations2 ). Twenty-three of the 31 services were operating within European countries: France (4)3 , Spain (4), Switzerland (3)4 , Austria (2), Slovenia (2), Belgium (1), Hungary (1), Italy (1), Luxembourg (1), Netherlands (1), Poland (1), Portugal (1), and the United Kingdom (1). Six of the 31 services were operating in the Americas, including United States (2), Canada (1), Colombia (1), Mexico (1) and Uruguay (1). Two of 31 services were operating in Australasia, including in Australia (1) and New Zealand (1).

 

Effectiveness of drug checking

 

Drug checking has been shown to be an effective way to reduce the harm from drug use through informing safer use, limiting use, and helping users avoid the most dangerous substances. The services also provide monitoring and detection of new psychoactive substances to inform public health interventions. The Loop have stated that 20% of samples are handed in for disposal and 40% of service users reduce intake.[17] KnowYourStuffNZ have found that, when substances are not as expected, half of service users state they will not take that substance and a quarter say they will take a smaller quantity.[18] Drug checking services also reach drug users who are not reached by existing services. Evidence from research conducted by Austrian pill testing service CheckIt! found 58% of people who use the service would not otherwise seek out harm reduction information, and about 75% are more likely to access harm reduction services if pill testing is included[19].

 

No one has provided any evidence that drug or pill testing causes more harm than good they have only demonstrated that for them it is philosophically unacceptable, and that is fine as long as people understand their motives. Also please try hard to understand that my view is not about free drugs for all but about harm minimisation. Sometimes a pilot breaks the law or perhaps runs out of fuel over tiger country, even if these people have broken the law we still send a helicopter to rescue them, it is just what civilized people do.

 

I have no problem with people who come to a different decision to me but please do not misrepresent what I am saying.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"So what you are arguing about the Hummelbird is that the law is arse in this case and should be changed."

 

Well at least it's an Aviation topic, also stopping a substantial number of Potential Aircraft Owner's & pilots from getting a foot hold.

 

Before the storey about going GA or GA-Experimental, 95-19 RAA. IT'S originally 95-10, and was flying under that category.

 

Until CASA's TANTRUM.

 

I can Beat CASA's rule, but would ruin a good aircraft, and make an UGLY / unsafe but compliant thing.

 

spacesailor