Ben Cousins arrested on drug charges

[Tassie Devil 28]

How so? Are you suggesting Drugs for all, Government supplied?

What would you propose to do with the additional drug addicts that would be out on the streets? We could have crack rooms in the workplace and allow workers time to slip down to the Chemist to get a refill of their prescription at morning tea time?

Sorry I did say i wouldn't post on here anymore but this is becoming a bit ridiculous.

RF - you have outed yourself as an abstainer, and good on you for making that choice.

My question is: If the govt suddenly announced they would revoke legislation that made currently illicit drugs legal would you go out and try some? I know I wouldn't, nor would most people I choose to associate with. To think otherwise shows a lack of faith in our fellow citizens - even though neoliberals could argue that it is their right to choose.

All the evidence shows that prohibition has failed and is one of the most harmful social experiments of modern times. We need to try a more rational approach, one that places more emphasis on prevention and evidence-based treatments and less on the failed approach of interdiction.

Is that so radical?

[east gippsland demon 7]

It is well documented that he is an associate of big crims in WA and here .

I predict he will be dead in ten years unless he gains some perspective

He may gain some perspective in jail as i think thats where hes heading this time .

[Sir Why You Little 34,559]

Let us not forget an interesting fact...Ben Cousins was managed by Ricky Nixon....That would not have helped Benny at all.

[Tassie Devil 28]

He may gain some perspective in jail as i think thats where hes heading this time .

And all the evidence shows that is a really effective way of addressing harmful substance use.....

[Biffen 12,342]

Remember when Nixon was found asleep at the wheel (literally) in peak hour traffic one morning near the MCG?

That was a good five years before his implosion .

I'm not saying drugs are bad.

[censored] are bad .

Kay?

Edited March 29, 2012 by Biffen

[east gippsland demon 7]

Remember when Nixon was found asleep at the wheel (literally) in peak hour traffic one morning near the MCG?

That was a good five years before his implosion .

I'm not saying drugs are bad.

[censored] are bad .

Kay?

Well said Biff...

[east gippsland demon 7]

And all the evidence shows that is a really effective way of addressing harmful substance use.....

Thats where hes heading thats the law . I would have thought a baby would give him some perspective but that didnt seem to do the trick . Maybe some time in jail away from the privledged life might .

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

RF - you have outed yourself as an abstainer, and good on you for making that choice.

My question is: If the govt suddenly announced they would revoke legislation that made currently illicit drugs legal would you go out and try some? I know I wouldn't, nor would most people I choose to associate with. To think otherwise shows a lack of faith in our fellow citizens - even though neoliberals could argue that it is their right to choose.

All the evidence shows that prohibition has failed and is one of the most harmful social experiments of modern times. We need to try a more rational approach, one that places more emphasis on prevention and evidence-based treatments and less on the failed approach of interdiction.

Is that so radical?

No it isn't.

Imposing sanctions on drug users does not work. It forces drug users underground, isolates them to a life with no hope. Punishing drug users isn't the answer, as you say has it worked so far? No it hasn't.

I remember reading an article on the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal where they replace jail time with actual help through therapists, psychologists etc. The number of drug users went down instead of up and the number of people seeking help went up- as the stigma had been removed. I can't find it now.

[Biffen 12,342]

A dear girl I knew got hooked on antidepressants. Did anything she could to get them legally or illegally. She suffered from depression and once she got on the psychiatric therapy mill she became a total zombie. After she committed suicide two salad bowls full of tablets were found in her kitchen cupboard.

This topic is really getting deep .Which is wonderful. This forum in general has some fantastic minds that can see beyond surface description ,beyond words ,and look for meaning.We are definitely going places as a group,

[Tassie Devil 28]

Here you go Ms Sloonie - just a few of pieces on the effectiveness of more rational approaches. Many more can be found. Less so evidence to support the current approach taken by most countries.

http://www.cato.org/...l-drug-policies

http://blog.soros.or...lization-works/

http://www.guardian....al-drugs-debate

http://www.druglawre...icy-in-portugal

Then again these opinions could all be a CIA plot.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Tassie Devil

[Dr. Gonzo 22,485]

No it isn't.

Imposing sanctions on drug users does not work. It forces drug users underground, isolates them to a life with no hope. Punishing drug users isn't the answer, as you say has it worked so far? No it hasn't.

I remember reading an article on the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal where they replace jail time with actual help through therapists, psychologists etc. The number of drug users went down instead of up and the number of people seeking help went up- as the stigma had been removed. I can't find it now.

It also reduces the amount of violent crime, by the users to fund their habit and by the pushers to maintain their turf.

The problem is while certain governments are able to fund their covert wars through black budgets funded in part by the illicit drug trade there is no hope of decriminalisation on a large scale. It is also an extremely convenient method of depriving people of their civil rights on the basis of labelling them a "suspected drug user".

The thing with keeping all "recreational" drugs prohibited is that humanity is also deprived of the many benefits that some of these substances could provide. Marijuana has so many benefits that are well documented that it is a crime to keep it illegal. The fact that research into other drugs such as psilocybin, LSD & MDMA is halted by the criminalisation of them has probably put psychiatry back decades. I am convinced that the guided and educated use of hallucinogens can help people with addictions or other minor mental "illnesses" (for lack of a better word) far better than current psychology/psychiatry and the drugs they peddle on behalf of companies like Pfizer which are far more dangerous and addictive than many prohibited substances.

[Tassie Devil 28]

The thing with keeping all "recreational" drugs prohibited is that humanity is also deprived of the many benefits that some of these substances could provide. Marijuana has so many benefits that are well documented that it is a crime to keep it illegal. The fact that research into other drugs such as psilocybin, LSD & MDMA is halted by the criminalisation of them has probably put psychiatry back decades. I am convinced that the guided and educated use of hallucinogens can help people with addictions or other minor mental "illnesses" (for lack of a better word) far better than current psychology/psychiatry and the drugs they peddle on behalf of companies like Pfizer which are far more dangerous and addictive than many prohibited substances.

Don't forget that it protects the markets of these sanctioned drug cartels - something that should be anathema to true free market liberals.

[daisycutter 28,572]

Here you go Ms Sloonie - just a few of pieces on the effectiveness of more rational approaches. Many more can be found. Less so evidence to support the current approach taken by most countries.

http://www.cato.org/...l-drug-policies

http://blog.soros.or...lization-works/

http://www.guardian....al-drugs-debate

http://www.druglawre...icy-in-portugal

Then again these opinions could all be a CIA plot.

TD your views on drug legalisation are well known from previous threads

Do you have to hijack every thread related to drugs into your personal crusade?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,485]

TD didn't hijack the thread, the thread had already evolved into a general discussion on drugs, their impact on society and how society deals with the drug question. The thread is about a former champion player addicted to drugs who has now been arrested. TD's post is well within those parameters.

[Tassie Devil 28]

TD your views on drug legalisation are well known from previous threads

There is an important difference between legalisation and regulation. There is also a difference between crusades and evidence-based approaches.

[daisycutter 28,572]

There is an important difference between legalisation and regulation. There is also a difference between crusades and evidence-based approaches.

So start a thread on legalisation/decriminalisation/regulation of illicit drugs on the General Board and all those interested can debate it

This is a thread on Cousin's latest bust and last time I looked illicit drugs are illegal so Cousins faces the status quo not the what-if you propose

As I said thread-hijacked

[Tassie Devil 28]

So start a thread on legalisation/decriminalisation/regulation of illicit drugs on the General Board and all those interested can debate it

This is a thread on Cousin's latest bust and last time I looked illicit drugs are illegal so Cousins faces the status quo not the what-if you propose

As I said thread-hijacked

More like rational debate hijacked!

Go Dees.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

There is an important difference between legalisation and regulation. There is also a difference between crusades and evidence-based approaches.

Evidence based approach:

I don't take drugs, I am not a drug addict.

Ben Cousins takes drugs, bad things happen.

I think the CIA are about to close this thread.

[Tassie Devil 28]

Evidence based approach:

I don't take drugs, I am not a drug addict.

Ben Cousins takes drugs, bad things happen.

I think the CIA are about to close this thread.

And if currently illicit substances were subjected to a more regulated regime than the present prohibition fosters would you suddenly start using them?

I think that knock at the door might be the CIA - I'm out of here.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Tassie Devil

[Biffen 12,342]

The CIA just came over to my place to talk about burning coal and how to stop it .Part of their plan is to use The Greens as a front for American activities in the face of Chinas control of our mining industry .I told them I really cant be bothered to think about it all ."Just give me some good acid and that killer weed you've been working on"I said .

They told me it had already been distributed liberally around the Demonland forum .

And Clve Palmer ate a lot of it .

Edited March 29, 2012 by Biffen

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

There is an important difference between legalisation and regulation. There is also a difference between crusades and evidence-based approaches.

Having read this thread, it is clear to me that a lot of people have very strong views on the issue of drug regulation (as does most of the community). Unfortunately it also seems to me that many of those views appear not to be based on any detailed knowledge/understanding of the underlying facts/evidence in relation to the issue.

The whole issue is neatly summarised by this week's Rear Vision. The attached podcast is not related to Ben Cousins, but I recommend that anyone who is interested in this issue should listen to this podcast: http://www.abc.net.a...l-drugs/3894358

The program does not express a view in itself, rather it interrogates the issues from different perspectives and covers the various approaches to the issue adopted by different countries, to varying degrees of success.

As an aside, for those of you who are not aware of Rear Vision, it is essentially a history program that is produced by ABC's Radio National each week. It is one of the most intelligent radio programs that this country produces. And that's saying something, given that the overall quality of Australian media is simply astonishingly bad.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Ron Burgundy

[rjay 23,922]

Having read this thread, it is clear to me that a lot of people have very strong views on the issue of drug regulation (as does most of the community). Unfortunately it also seems to me that many of those views appear not to be based on any detailed knowledge/understanding of the underlying facts/evidence in relation to the issue.

The whole issue is neatly summarised by this week's Rear Vision. The attached podcast is not related to Ben Cousins, but I recommend that anyone who is interested in this issue should listen to this podcast: http://www.abc.net.a...l-drugs/3894358

The program does not express a view in itself, rather it interrogates the issues from different perspectives and covers the various approaches to the issue adopted by different countries, to varying degrees of success.

As an aside, for those of you who are not aware of Rear Vision, it is essentially a history program that is produced by ABC's Radio National each week. It is one of the most intelligent radio programs that this country produces. And that's saying something, given that the overall quality of Australian media is simply astonishingly bad.

Thanks for the link Ron, I found it very interesting listening. With this issue and the issue surrounding Liam recently there have been some fantastic and educational posts on this site. Who would have thought?

[Arrow 1,257]

With topics like drug regulation people need to be very careful what they say. It is one thing to disagree with another's opinion however with topics like this where people feel strongly towards suggesting one way or the other is THE right way is not satisfactory. To put it short a topic like drug regulation doesn't belong on a footy board. Let's get back to the real stuff.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Demon Land 7

[hardtack 10,127]

With topics like drug regulation people need to be very careful what they say. It is one thing to disagree with another's opinion however with topics like this where people feel strongly towards suggesting one way or the other is THE right way is not satisfactory. To put it short a topic like drug regulation doesn't belong on a footy board. Let's get back to the real stuff.

Just because you have a picture of Neeld for your avatar, it doesn't mean you have to take charge you know ;-) Anyway, there's just one more sleep to go until the real action starts for us, after which this topic will no doubt be consigned to the "Display more topics" portion of the screen.

[Biffen 12,342]

With topics like drug regulation people need to be very careful what they say. It is one thing to disagree with another's opinion however with topics like this where people feel strongly towards suggesting one way or the other is THE right way is not satisfactory. To put it short a topic like drug regulation doesn't belong on a footy board. Let's get back to the real stuff.

We'll talk about whatever takes our fancy on here as long as we don't slander /libel people intentionally .

I really hate being censored or told to keep on topic when this is after all ,a diversion ,and a fairly harmless one .

If you really dont like the topic or the comments then go back and talk about Jack Watts or something that goes in circles .

I for one feel there are some interesting and varied viewpoints on here and besides that ,you are not a moderator .