What utter bullshit is this.
The sniffer dog shizzle, its a big show for sfa, a flex of tattooed up fascist cops profiling kids, part of the LWE circus.
Last edited:
The Jindabyne thread..
- Thread starter Donza
- Start date
-
Join the conversation with a better online community
What utter bullshit is this.
The sniffer dog shizzle, its a big show for sfa, a flex of tattooed up fascist cops profiling kids, part of the LWE circus.
A Rapist is a rapist with or without drugs, believing drugs is what drove them to it might help you sleep at night believing everyone is intrinsically good and respectful, but it’s just not the case. Plenty of people who have taken a whole lot of drugs that don’t rape.So, some of you think it is totally acceptable that some people will get raped and some people will die from overdose because of a little bit of drug consumption.
Meanwhile in America the war against guns is not justified with many daily deaths.
Okay, I'm effing outta here....
The problems exist with society and prohibition providing a business opportunity for - whatever you want to call them - gangsters, drug lords, opportunists.
If we make recreational weed legal and regulated, sold in dispensaries the vast majority of those looking for a high to help them with the boring cage they find themselves in Will stick to weed. Because it’s legal, it’s regulated, it’s easy to obtain, it does the job with no risk. So many are then removed from the meth, heroin and coke market because the risk is no longer similar in purchasing and using.
But our first focus should be on fixing the cage people are in. Provide opportunity, support and stimulation and the desire for drug abuse diminishes (that includes alcohol).
Is that the one that was doing doughnuts in the candy car up the back of the almost-deserted Perisher carpark the Tuesday after QBW 2018?
Nancy Reagan isn't dead. She just went and hid and started posting on ski.com.au
Drug detector dogs in airports and other points of entry may find dealers/trafficable quantities - but at Jindy it's more likely to be individual users, which is generally not going to have the outcome of preventing the flow.
We need to look at Portugal's approach to recreational drug use - decriminalisation for individual users & appropriate health treatment and pathways to recovery or use reduction.
It looks like this is going to be implemented in the ACT soon, which is pretty cool.
I doubt it would have been him, when this bloke puts his uniform on he is a stickler for the rules so I can see him doing that. Doesn't worry him too much when he gets on his bike though, speed limits aren't so important then. (He couldn't keep up with me though)
The return on investment on an exercise like this in a place like Jindy is minimal, compared to parking outside a rave at 8am on a Sunday morning and "randomly" drug testing every single car that leaves the car park. But hey, if it scares a few young 'uns into not driving to and from the snow under the influence of ice, it's a good thing. I probably don't want them crashing into me on the side of the mountain either. So I think it's more about the publicly exercise aka scare factor.
The amount of prescription drugs used in Australia to soften the cage is .... mind boggling as are the flow on addiction problems.
First sensible comment in this discussion.
There were a couple of young blokes bonging on in their car next to mine in the Peri Car Park yesty. I thought I cold get pinged if "randomly" tested on account of passive smoking; it was strong!!!
A little later I caught up to them driving down the hill - doing 60 in the 80 zone. Trying to remain inconspicuous no doubt!
And that 60 would have felt like a white-knuckled 160 at least. Allegedly.
As experienced by a friend.
Many, many years ago.
Can relate to that.And that 60 would have felt like a white-knuckled 160 at least. Allegedly.
As experienced by a friend.
Many, many years ago.Oh dear....
Rex expands frequency for 11 regional services, exits Sydney-Cooma
Rex Airlines has announced a
australianaviation.com.au
Problem with Cooma is almost no one wants to fly to Cooma. Can't make Hotham work and that is only 20 minutes from airport to skiing.Oh dear....
Rex expands frequency for 11 regional services, exits Sydney-Cooma
Rex Airlines has announced a
australianaviation.com.au
Well that and a statewide lockdown through the ski season.
However construction on Jindabyne international airport has started!
Nice evening up here in Moonbah, moving into a new home always takes longer than you think, still I think it was better than skiing in the rain
If they had two legal schooners it would have been 95
You can't really use of the words 'no risk' in a discussion about any form of drugs.
Regulating it doesn't take away the risk of the consumer getting hooked and being dependant on it.
I have a close mate who's bother ruined his life, including permanent brain damage from consistent cannabis use (which did lead to some intermittent use of other drugs as well.. cocaine, ice etc)
He no longer smokes or does any form of drugs, alcohol etc.
and has actually devoted the rest of his life to faith and helping those who are going through similar situations in life so they don't make the same mistake.
Don't think for 1 second that weed it's a 'good' or 'acceptable' drug'.
It ain't.
Tragic outcome for your friend, but how did the prohibition of cannabis help your friend or stop your friend consuming cannabis?
It didnt.
He stopped due to medical diagnosis / brain damage / mental state.
For lack of a better term, he was f'd up and fully dependant on it for daily life.
All stemmed from the addiction.
Whether or not it's legal or not, people will still abuse.
Some comments suggesting that regulating it just because.. don't sit well with me that's all.
Age old debate...
should government tip $ into preventing addiction abuse OR tip $ into legalising and regulating it to minimise the # of people who end up addicts ?
Legalising and regulating and TAXING it frees up cash for medical programmes, support programmes and improving the environments of those who would be harmed. It also reduces the number of people who turn incidentally to other more dangerous and unregulated drugs because the easy one yo get is weed. By no risk I mean no risk of prosecution. Life brings with it risk.
I’m sorry to hear about your friend.
I think you are misrepresenting the debate. The current plan is devoted to spending money to ensure that addicts cannot or do not seek treatment for fear of punishment. That money could be spent giving treatment in a regulated scheme of legal drugs.
Decriminalisation does not equal legalisation.
ACT has decriminalised, not legalised. The rest of us should be doing the same.
Why not both? Criminilisation achieves neither outcome.
If prohibition did nothing for your friend why do you support it?
he was extremely lucky (if that's the right term to use) to have unwavering support from family/friends.
many others who have addiction do to have that.... or the addiction drives the wedge of separation.
Just my opinion, but other than use for specific medicinal purposes, I see no place in the world for drugs.
What good comes from using them?
We'll start with pain free surgery. Before anaesthesia a good surgeon was a fast surgeon in the hope that he (they were all blokes) would finish the job before the patient died of shock,
Addiction is a big health problem, no disagreement there. What I don't understand is how does criminilisation help the addicted? It obviously didn't prevent their addiction.
Alcohol does more damage, and causes more death and illness, than the all the other drugs combined, which does kind of prove the argument perhaps.
My point I guess is that legalising something does not change the harm factor for people who abuse, aggressive marketing to the point where it is almost culturally unacceptable to not imbibe is also something to ponder.
However so too is what happens when you try prohibition, we love our drugs, it’s historical.
The hypocrisy is a problem for me.
The difference being that because it is a legal substance if you have a problem with the abuse of alcohol you can seek help without risk of prosecution. For an illegal drug user if they are abusing the drug, they’re usually hiding it and not talking about it, or seeking freely available help.
Tax it.
Regulate it.
Provide help for those that abuse substances.
Treatment programmes are rarely focussed on abstinence as the core of staying clean, they’re focused on finding a new path, a new passion, some other good habitual behaviour to replace the destructive one, and working on positive self image.
So illicit drugs should go the same way that alcohol has gone in terms of actually making it available...
but make it expensive (via taxing)
but somehow try to regulate it ? (whatever regulating it means...)
but have a plan to help those who abuse it ?
That will not end well ?
Your almost setting it up to fail are you not ?
Why is not having the drugs available to abuse in the first place not a better position ?
*** sorry in advance for my ongoing intrigue/questions/comments
I'm genuinely interested in this topic as there is some varying opinions.
It's a bit head in sand TBH. They're widely available, and absolutely no control over what is in them, from dosage of the actual desired drug, to what else is mixed in with it.
So then, what could be the benefit in some controls and taxes being added do you think?
There are two schools of thought here. The first is decriminalisation, where you make the possession of non-trafficable quantities (i.e. personal use amounts) legal, but still continue to prosecute dealers and producers/manufacturers. This removes the stigma around usage and increases the prospects for rehabilitation and harm reduction. We have seen this in things like safe injecting rooms, where the risks associated with usage are minimised (clean needles, rapid response available for overdoses, etc).
Regulation and taxation, however, means that manufacturing would be legal and licensed. This has some benefits (you would have a known concentration for each drug, rather than just whatever the maker/dealer gives) and tax revenue could be put to good uses. This, just like the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, is what's referred to as a "vice tax" - you set it quite high to discourage the use (or excessive use) of something, but still make it legal.
I am more for the former scenario, as it recognises that these drugs are more often than not used as a form of self medicating against some other (often emotional/mental) trauma or pain. Where the substances are genuinely ones of addiction (as in, there is a physiological response to the removal of the substance) then having safe usage spaces allows people to seek help in a safe manner.
Any attempts to completely remove illicit substances is going to be difficult at best, so approaching it from a harm reduction perspective has been shown to be more effective as a whole.
^this.
It’s about harm reduction.
Let’s take the example of a group of teenaged girls heading into a music festival with a few pills in their pockets - they don’t know the exact contents of those pills because some person who has zero interest in their safety has cooked them up in his garage. They’re already taking a risk in taking them. Now, they have a few for friends who are inside already… and just as they get near the entrance who do they spy but the sniffer dogs. What do these girls do? History tells us that many of them pop the pills (all of them) immediately so they aren’t caught with them. Further endangering themselves. Because being caught with drugs is scarier to them than considering the consequences of taking those drugs. Disaster.
If they instead have counselling facilities, first aid facilities, testing facilities and bins to relinquish the drugs without questions lives will be saved.
Prohibition of alcohol meant dodgy booze with no consistency of alcohol content, and gangs running the production and distribution. Same goes for drugs.
Stop penalising the individual, go after the big distribution rings.
Sad analogy, the January after my youngest daughter left school, she and a bunch of friends went to the concert in Hyde Park. Sydney.
One of the girls, probably the most conservative of the lot took a pill from a guy known to the group. Fifteen minutes later she collapsed writhing on the ground in spasms. Ambulance dragged her out and up to St Vincent’s. She died that night.
Just a complete tragedy. The boy got charged with numerous offences.
Shoot the fing dealers. Cascade the penalty the higher up it goes. Lock up the king pins for life and throw away the key.
Time to sit back and pack the pipe
Last edited:
Agreed.
Tragic.
But back onto Jindy now.
If we want to continue the “war on drugs” debate probs should do it in its own thread.
The whole country has a drug problem
Alcohol
Gambling
Domestic Violence
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Now back to Jindabyne where the air is clear, the lake deep and the potholes broad and plentiful.
Out of interest did anything ever come of the English ski instructor in terms of reviewing the employment process? I know he was jailed but I recall at the time many people suggested their were hints he had issues that had been covered up .Last edited:
re: "hints he had issues" I think many people suggested that without much foundation.
What he did was in my eyes extraordinarily out of character, and I suspect/know extremely drug related. I knew him very well, dinners at my house / coached my daughter a couple of years etc, so my comments are based on my personal experience with him, not second hand via a childs eyes.
The reality possibly is, that when he was first employed several years prior, there may not have been a problem, but in the ensuing years, a drug problem manifested itself.
I'm not sure how you catch what was probably a spiral out of control as opposed to, he came to Perisher with significant existing problems.
Probably would never have picked it up as part of the initial onboarding process, but may have exposed it as part of ongoing drug testing of staff. I don't personally have an issue with drug testing of staff, but some people do.
PWSC was pretty much cleaned out from the top down following that incident, and doubt that the current senior leadership will have a similar problem. But hey you never know.
