Network Against Prohibition

[white_cluster]

Australian Activist, you believe all drugs should be regualated etc...

 

what about prescription medications?? should they be available without script to whoever wants to have a go?? heavy sleeping pills bought in bulk, as long as your 18, its not fair if they are not allowed when people may be addicted to them but unable to get a script due to addiction, but heroin addicts can buy heroin when ever they want.

Or people can buy heroin to kill themselves with anyway, not as easy as sleeping pills, but still easier than most other methods of suicide, Harmful drugs are illegal because they are harmful, the laws are designed to protect people from being stupid.

Some people love guns, some people love heroin, some people think little girls like it when they get raped.

Doesnt mean we should change the laws for them.

[sols]

g'day;

Australian Activist, you believe all drugs should be regualated etc...

 

what about prescription medications?? should they be available without script to whoever wants to have a go??

 

prescription drugs are 'regulated'....how bad is the black market prescription drugs in your area?

 

i understand wc's dislike of syringes, i have seen them too.

the problem with syringes (besides un-thinking individuals who dont dispose of correctly) is the 'sharing' .

 

guns dont kill people, people kill people.

syringes don't kill people but the residue can severely harm and/or lead to early death.

the pic that NAP should have had is a mj leaf and a mirror with a line of powder on it and pills, a lot more subtle and to the point.

 

imo, every current illicit drug should be legalized and regulated.only thru regulation will all the drugs remain pure as possible, same regulations that pharmaceutical co's must adhere to.

[Guest niall]

How is it a disease festival? It sounds like your own bias on injecting drug users is affecting your interpretation of their views. Syringes don't cause disease any more than drug users do, free availability of syringes actually reduces the spread of disease.

 

well the last time I heard blood to blood contact was a big way that dieseases were spread, maybe I'm wrong but I always had the idea that using syringes involved blood.

 

Sure, but the syringe doesn't cause the disease. The Syringe Festival is not a disease festival as you claim. Restricting access to syringes increases the spread of disease. I agree that it's disgusting to come across discarded syringes, just yesterday we found and disposed of about half a dozen at my bus stop - a meth dealer and a bunch of users just moved into our area.

 

We don't want intravenous drug users shooting up in public, in the streets, carparks, bus stops and at the beach. Keeping these drugs illegal, and turning users into desperate criminals, is why these syringes are being discarded like this. If they were shooting up at home, or under medical supervision, we wouldn't have this problem. This can only be achieved if they have good access to pure, cheap drugs - they won't be out on the streets and they'll be able to afford rent, food etc. like normal people.

 

Thankfully a retractable syringe has been in development here in Australia, when it's been used the needle retracts and you can't stick yourself or easily re-use them. I think they're due in a year or so.

 

we were jumping off this bridge and all landed amongst syringes floating towards us with there container floating next to them, my friend caught himself hepatitus C.

 

I wonder if they we're these free syringes that solve diesease problems you speak of.

 

I didn't say they solve the disease problem, I said they reduce the spread of disease. I believe significantly less people get stuck by discarded syringes each year than intravenous drug users get infected with disease. Research has shown repeatedly that providing clean needles reduces disease. We want to reduce disease and harm to everyone, not just you. Having freely available needles is far better than not having them at all.

 

What they're trying to do is demonstrate the opposing forces involved in the Drug War - simple users vs. the cops. They're actively fighting the police on several fronts, and we all know this is a health and social issue.

 

so why are they using a big syringe as a weapon, Im still lost here???? I understand the picture is of simple users vs the cops, Im not blind, what I dont understand is why they need to direct a big syringe at the cop car???

 

I dont understand your confusion - they're not using it as a weapon, it's a symbol to show that the battle in the NT is between simple users and violent cops out of control. Standing there just facing each other doesn't explain their position very well, when you add the big needle it becomes very clear what they're representing and who they're opposing.

 

Anyway, so the symbolism of pot leaves and syringes next to each other is ok?? to me its like pictures of marijuana next to toxic waste, why a syringe and why not opium pods or flowers?? a syringe is not a drug.

 

I don't like being associated with hard drug users either, and no I'm not saying it's ok, all I'm saying is that it's understandable. They're clearly recognised symbols, that is the point. Opium pods and flowers are not easily recognised, a syringe and a pot leaf are instantly recognisable symbols of illicit drugs.

 

to put a cannabis leaf next to a weapon that has caused millions of deaths (regardless of what was in it) is wrong.

 

Sure, but this doesn't make NAP a bunch of junkies or dickheads. I still don't understand why you refer to syringes as weapons, hypodermic needles have saved many more lives than they've destroyed.

 

Anyway if you cant see the differance between a pot leaf and a syringe I'm sorry for you

 

WTF? (?)

[Guest niall]

This "well-known" risk (is already tiny but) would be significantly reduced if they could purchase their drugs in pure, medical grade...

 

They [opiates/amphetamines] are addictive and potent in medical grade form.

 

That's the point, 100% pure is far safer than having an unreliable supply of varying potency, contaminated with other drugs and cut with god knows what. The more pure drugs are, the safer they are.

 

Marijuana is many things but it is not addictive and isnt very potent.

 

Cannabis does cause dependency, while we don't regard it as addictive in the traditional, physical sense, some people have trouble giving it up and experience withdrawal symptoms. Hash and oil are relatively potent and therefore significantly safer than herbal cannabis.

Edited November 19, 2003 by australian_activist

[Guest niall]

Australian Activist, you believe all drugs should be regualated etc...

 

Sure do.

 

what about prescription medications??

 

Of course, they are regulated.

 

should they be available without script to whoever wants to have a go??

 

No, that would be un-regulated.

 

heavy sleeping pills bought in bulk, as long as your 18, its not fair if they are not allowed when people may be addicted to them but unable to get a script due to addiction, but heroin addicts can buy heroin when ever they want.

 

I'm not saying drugs should be freely available, I'm saying they should be regulated. At the very least, they need to be made available to addicts at a very low cost and high purity. As to supplying Joe Public off the street, I would rather he bought it from a licenced distributor and can get medical advice and clean equipment than from the black market, but I don't know if we should be giving out every drug to any adult that wants it. I'd tend towards "yes", but I'm not suggesting we just go and legalise everything right away - we need to do it slowly and carefully. The addicts need a supply immediately however.

 

Harmful drugs are illegal because they are harmful

 

And the drugs that aren't harmful? We've been in contact with these harmful drugs for millenia, but we didn't have anywhere near the problem we suddenly had when they were all made illegal. The best of intentions can have the opposite effect.

 

the laws are designed to protect people from being stupid

 

Why don't we ban alcohol then? I see stupid drunken people every Friday, but that's their choice. This is what a free society is about - people are informed and if they want to make a stupid decision it's their choice, as long as they don't go around harming other people. These laws aren't protecting people one iota, we have more harm with them than we ever did before they were illegal. Drug use is not affected by the legal regime, this has been proven time and again. The laws aren't just not working, they're actually increasing the harm.

 

Some people love guns, some people love heroin, some people think little girls like it when they get raped.  Doesnt mean we should change the laws for them.

 

Guns cause harm to others, rapists cause harm to others. Drug users, given a pure and cheap supply, only cause harm to themselves. Why should we punish them above and beyond their own self-destructive behaviour?

[Guest niall]

So anyway, you may disagree with NAP and their tactics (and I certainly do to some of them), but a difference of opinion doesn't make them all junkies and dickheads

[Guest Wilderbud]

So anyway, you may disagree with NAP and their tactics (and I certainly do to some of them), but a difference of opinion doesn't make them all junkies and dickheads 

They have a logo where there is a marijuana leaf and syringes in it.

[Guest niall]

So anyway, you may disagree with NAP and their tactics (and I certainly do to some of them), but a difference of opinion doesn't make them all junkies and dickheads 

They have a logo where there is a marijuana leaf and syringes in it.

They're trying to represent all illicit drug users, not just cannabis smokers.

[Guest Wilderbud]

So anyway, you may disagree with NAP and their tactics (and I certainly do to some of them), but a difference of opinion doesn't make them all junkies and dickheads 

They have a logo where there is a marijuana leaf and syringes in it.

They're trying to represent all illicit drug users, not just cannabis smokers.

This is not a appropriate logo IMHO - they should seperate them into blue background and red to show ones non-harmful and one isnt.

 

I cant think of an analogy but there has to be one to explain this.

[Guest niall]

They're trying to represent all illicit drug users, not just cannabis smokers.

This is not a appropriate logo IMHO - they should seperate them into blue background and red to show ones non-harmful and one isnt.

 

I cant think of an analogy but there has to be one to explain this.

I know what you're saying, but they're not making a statement on the harm of either - they're representing users of both. Their logo alone makes this pretty clear. We may not like being lumped in with intravenous drug users, but as they're both illicit, we are - every single day in the media. As users of illicit drugs, we are all part of the same group.

 

As users of cannabis, we're the major subset of the illicit drug using population, but NAP aren't just representing cannabis users. Of course they can tell the difference between them, but they're trying to unite them for a common cause - ending prohibition of all illicit drugs.

 

Oh and smoking cannabis is harmful, the harm is just very, very low