Jack Ginnivan admits drug use

[deejammin' 2,370]

43 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

LOL. You watch too much TV.

One might argue that it would actually be HARDER to buy drugs from shops since shops have to close at some point in the day, unlike your “seedy crims in back alleys” (lol again) who are open 24/7. 

I’m really enjoying the discussion on this thread. It’s respectful and informative despite opposing opinions. Very refreshing in the internet age. 
I would just point out that the internet and social media is facilitating far less “seedy back alley” deals. There are entire sites and delivery services that are far more formal, non contact and professional than the old school, it’s still illegal and not my thing but you’d be surprised how easy and professional some of this stuff is. The recent international police operation where they invented a social platform for selling dark web material was aimed at precisely this market, delivering hundreds of arrests and thousands of kilograms of product.

These operations are more akin to Uber eats than an 80s Scorcese film.

Edited February 20, 2023 by deejammin'
Autocorrect the bane of my existence

[daisycutter 29,616]

slightly off topic

cigarettes are legalised...but heavily taxed (qtrly increases)

currently they cost $2-3 per cigarette. chopchop supplied in cartons of 100 are about $30 ( or 30 cents each). HUGE difference 

I know quite a few people still smoking and they are ALL on the chopchops. They buy bulk (phone call) and goods are delivered to their door. No hanging around shady places or dark lanes. 

Now if all drugs are legalised they will presumably be taxed. If taxed prohibitively like cigarettes (and why wouldn't they be) the illegal black market will quickly reappear

just something to think about

[DeeMee 873]

Melbourne - Watts caught sniffing unknown substance from well endowed young lady

Collingwood - Ginnivan caught sniffing unknown substance in toilet cubicle.

Standards, one must have standards…

yeh, yeh, I know serious issue and all that.

Edited February 20, 2023 by DeeMee
Sense

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 minute ago, DeeMee said:

Melbourne - Watts caught sniffing unknown substance from well endowed young lady

Collingwood - Ginnivan caught sniffing unknown substance in toilet cubicle.

Standards, one must have standards…

yeh, yeh, I know serious issue and all that.

you forgot carey 🤣

[DeeMee 873]

Just now, daisycutter said:

you forgot carey 🤣

But surely Carey only makes use of carefully ground up nurofen. 
note … I may be gullible 

[kev martin 9,939]

3 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Do you know how much crime is committed by people who are high on drugs such as cocaine and meth? From my previous previous experience as a first-responder then a Detective, legalising these substances will only increase serious crime. People do hideous things on these drugs, things that unfortunately I can’t un-see. 

Our society spends far too much of the police's time and revenues with the war on drugs.

Those doing the crimes are usually the victims of the underworld, that make a mint out of the trade. 

Enforce the rules on the crime gangs. Most know who they are. Follow the money.

As for the addict committing crimes. Gee, if the society didn't criminalise them (illicit drug use is a gateway behaviour to further crime), but treated them as a medical disease!

An addict must be an easy arrest, and conviction for our resolving door penitentiary system. As they are usually poor, their housing is unstable, has to do crime (buy illegal substances) in the open, they are very vulnerable. 

Regulate their drug, make it affordable to the vulnerable, so crime is not an option. Give them a chance to be functional members of society. 

I believe the places that have decriminalised substances have reduced criminal activity from the addict.

The police could spend more time on enforcement of the bad, not the mad (addiction). 

Have specia emergency mental health police squad, similar to a SWAT squad.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by kev martin

[daisycutter 29,616]

Just now, DeeMee said:

But surely Carey only makes use of carefully ground up nurofen. 
note … I may be gullible 

you never sniffed nurofen powder?

i was surprised ginnivan didn't do a carey and claim it was powdered nurofen

[Demonsterative 3,020]

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you forgot carey 🤣

At least Carey learnt from previous toilet behaviours and didn’t get caught snorting anti inflames at Crown. And, Ibuprofen is legal, so nothing to see here. 🤣 

[kev martin 9,939]

28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

Now if all drugs are legalised they will presumably be taxed. If taxed prohibitively like cigarettes (and why wouldn't they be) the illegal black market will quickly reappear

Would assume the addicts are supported in a medical model of treatment (affordable and about harm minimisation), so only recreational use would be heavily taxed (deterrent).

Edited February 20, 2023 by kev martin

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

33 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

 So what is it about the use of recreational drugs that is intrinsically "bad" and deserving of being illegal? 

Interesting that we don't look twice at  people having a few social drinks, smoking a dart or popping a couple of painkillers yet recreational use of drugs is still a divisive topic.

We'd be better off having a balanced and reasonable conversation at state and federal govt level (which is unlikely) about the pros and cons of decriminalization and how it could be implemented in a controlled, transparent and medically supervised way.

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

slightly off topic

cigarettes are legalised...but heavily taxed (qtrly increases)

currently they cost $2-3 per cigarette. chopchop supplied in cartons of 100 are about $30 ( or 30 cents each). HUGE difference 

I know quite a few people still smoking and they are ALL on the chopchops. They buy bulk (phone call) and goods are delivered to their door. No hanging around shady places or dark lanes. 

Now if all drugs are legalised they will presumably be taxed. If taxed prohibitively like cigarettes (and why wouldn't they be) the illegal black market will quickly reappear

just something to think about

Presumably one of the reasons that that ciggies and alcohol are taxed heavily is because of the high cost to society caused by their damage. Most hospitals would be half empty if there was no alcohol or tobacco in society. 

My understanding is that in countries where coke, heroin, meth etc are legal, their sales are controlled and monitored by govt, and they are available through pharmacies, not supermarkets, corner stores or the like. It's available, but more open and less attractive to do.

Personally I'd like to see vapes heavily restricted in Australia. Packaging and flavors aimed at young people, particularly teens. In my burb there's a shop specialising in confectionery and energy drinks that also sells vapes, full of teens after school. This will be a medical time bomb in the years to come.  But that's a side topic

[Demonsterative 3,020]

5 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Our society spends far too much of the police's time and revenues with the war on drugs.

Those doing the crimes are usually the victims of the underworld, that make a mint out of the trade. 

Enforce the rules on the crime gangs. Most know who they are. Follow the money.

As for the addict committing crimes. Gee, if the society didn't criminalise them (illicit drug use is a gateway behaviour to further crime), but treated them as a medical disease!

An addict must be an easy arrest, and conviction for our resolving door penitentiary system. As they are usually poor, their housing is unstable, has to do crime (buy illegal substances) in the open, they are very vulnerable. 

Regulate their drug, make it affordable to the vulnerable, so crime is not an option. Give them a chance to be functional members of society. 

I believe the places that have decriminalised substances have reduced criminal activity from the addict.

The police could spend more time on enforcement of the bad, not the mad (addiction). 

 

Well said Kev! Many doctors, lawyers, health professionals etc misuse drugs. The big difference is, they can afford their drug use therefore it’s the lower socioeconomic community who have a lens on them as they need to commit crimes to pay for their misuse. Regulate it for safety reason. It’s Harm Reduction policy and it works. 

Cannabis is not the only drug that has been trials . European countries have trialled opioid programs and research points this to being successful. It saves lives and reduces crime. 

Our courts are filled with very unwell people with multiple and complex needs. Our legal system is floundering under the pressure with this ‘War on Drugs’, and drug treatment services can’t keep up with demand. A different approach is needed. For positive change to occur we need to change the narrative on drug use and point it towards Harm Reduction. To do this we need to break down the judgement, stereotyping and fears people have. 
 

[kev martin 9,939]

An informed adult taking a legal but controlled substance has a much better chance of not stuffing up, as compared to someone consuming unknown substances, in a haphazard way, with all the associated adrenaline caused by doing something "bad".

Without that rebellious element are drugs fun anyway.

If the system forced you to take alcohol, you would call it torture and a conspiracy. 

The human condition, 7 degrees of separation and all that. If we could create a more utopian society there would be no reason to change our brain waves and neurological connections. I believe recreational drug use will just threaten a peaceful state of mind and we wouldn't partake. As it is, we need to escape, and I believe each to their own escape method. Just having alcohol, means people self medicating on some other substance, are forced to be criminals which places more problems into their world.  

More power to the individual, and less to the system, so we can be self-directed, and find our own experiential and learnings in this world.

Edited February 20, 2023 by kev martin

[daisycutter 29,616]

26 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Would assume the addicts are supported in a medical model of treatment (affordable and about harm minimisation), so only recreational use would be heavily taxed (deterrent).

would love to believe this kev, but we already have a chronic shortage of health professionals and waiting times are long. i can't see where all this support would come from.

however, great majority of users would probably fall under the heavily taxed category which i suspect would just open the doors to the black market hence the criminal aspect. alternatively they could tax less prohibitively. 

again, just thinking out aloud

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

 So what is it about the use of recreational drugs that is intrinsically "bad" and deserving of being illegal? 

Its a good question. In my view there are two reasons:

1. Most are innately addictive and so relying on a persons ability to 'control' their usage is often a very difficult proposition. Once the addiction starts its often a downward spiral - increasing costs (meaning taxes) on society to manage rehab and health system; not to mention the 'costs' to family and friends. 

2. There is also an increased risk to the safety of citizens: directly - through drug induced violence; and indirectly - through diminished capacity to act rationally whilst in a drug induced state. 

Alcohol and sugar are both an interesting use case. Both are examples of drugs that have profound social, health and financial impacts on society and yet are legal, but we are probably straying a bit too far off course to continue that debate. 

[kev martin 9,939]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

would love to believe this kev, but we already have a chronic shortage of health professionals and waiting times are long. i can't see where all this support would come from.

Absolutely agree. The health professionals are also struggling in a society that doesn't treat them well. The big consultant doctors who hold most of the cards are looked after, the other's, bit tough for them.

Some funds from what is spent on crime could be put into, housing and rehabs.

Stable housing goes along way to supporting the addict.

Edited February 20, 2023 by kev martin

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,396]

7 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

iirc, Smith got two weeks for being caught which was added to the two week suspension for some on field incident.

Ginnivan gets 4 matches:  2 practice games and 2 H & A and can't train with the club during that time.  He loses match payments and conditioning making it harder to get back into the team.

If there was to be a 'double standard' debate out of this it should be club/AFL treatment of a 'star' player vs a 'junior' player for almost identical incidents.

Ginnivan is getting a raw deal.

I wasn’t aware of this. Should be H & A games.

[layzie 33,814]

A drug is a drug. Or is it?

[kev martin 9,939]

42 minutes ago, layzie said:

A drug is a drug. Or is it?

Some prefer up, some down, others that cause disinhibitions, I hope many like peace makers, utopias or intelligence improvers, my favourite, au natural (brain does the best action).

Each to their own.

But why are the disinhibiters (alcohol),  the only legal recreational drugs we can access.

Are those who partake of grog really that wound up, oppressed and have difficulties expressing themselves. Our world is sit down, shut up, do your job. The plight of the lower and middle classes.

Our do they take grog just to be socially acceptable. So it isn't drug use, merely peer pressures. Not a smart move to risk mental and physical health, with detrimental social consequences, just to belong.

Edited February 20, 2023 by kev martin

[Fork 'em 6,984]

We all know drugs are a scourge on society.
So lets make them more accessible.
Giddy up.


 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Fork 'em

[BW511 2,669]

Interesting to hear the different takes on this one and I sense you can see the different generations coming through.

I’ve been around recreational drugs for 20 years through friends, family, work colleagues - almost every group in my life. Those seriously affected, among a sample size of hundreds of people, probably amounts to 2-5 people.

Had one teammate commit suicide as a 16 year old who was a big cannabis user, another schoolmate did time for getting caught up selling Coke among other things. One more who’s teenage cannabis use triggered schizophrenia. After that, I’d struggle to list any more.

This is people from all walks of life and every opposing living situation you could imagine.

I can and have certainly seen the bad in what drugs do, but I’ve also seen far more people become alcoholics or gambling addicts and now with kids of my own, seeing what phones/tablets do to them.

There isn’t a one size fits all answer to the issues in society but I don’t think the ‘drugs are bad’ argument is no longer valid these days because it’s happening whether you like it or not.

As for Ginnivan, he was the one caught but you can guarantee at least half his teammates were doing the same, they just didn’t get filmed.

Edited February 20, 2023 by BW511

[layzie 33,814]

Drug lifestyle at Collingwood, some things don't change.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

14 hours ago, daisycutter said:

slightly off topic

cigarettes are legalised...but heavily taxed (qtrly increases)

currently they cost $2-3 per cigarette. chopchop supplied in cartons of 100 are about $30 ( or 30 cents each). HUGE difference 

I know quite a few people still smoking and they are ALL on the chopchops. They buy bulk (phone call) and goods are delivered to their door. No hanging around shady places or dark lanes. 

Now if all drugs are legalised they will presumably be taxed. If taxed prohibitively like cigarettes (and why wouldn't they be) the illegal black market will quickly reappear

just something to think about

💯 

If I only brought cigarettes from the supermarket, I'd be out on the street in a year. It's a well known fact smoking is addictive, there isn't a lot of options that work to help you with quitting and those of us who know they should quit but lack the positive will power it's never going to happen. Raising the prices will only limit the amount of shopping for food some will do and others like myself, will go to places that sell cheap tobacco like chopchop or imported cigarettes.

I would think the tax on legalised drugs would be massive and only drive most to find a cheaper option. Not saying they shouldn't do it just stating the it is inevitable.

[layzie 33,814]

33 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

💯

If I only brought cigarettes from the supermarket, I'd be out on the street in a year. It's a well known fact smoking is addictive, there isn't a lot of options that work to help you with quitting and those of us who know they should quit but lack the positive will power it's never going to happen. Raising the prices will only limit the amount of shopping for food some will do and others like myself, will go to places that sell cheap tobacco like chopchop or imported cigarettes.

I would think the tax on legalised drugs would be massive and only drive most to find a cheaper option. Not saying they shouldn't do it just stating the it is inevitable.

I'm not a smoker but I definitely agree with you. Raising prices for these things isn't the fix. 

[Demonstone 22,567]

5 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

So lets make them more accessible.

They wouldn't be any more or less accessible than they are now.

It just means you wouldn't be breaking the law if you choose to consume that product.

[Roger Mellie 4,033]

22 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

iirc, Smith got two weeks for being caught which was added to the two week suspension for some on field incident.

Ginnivan gets 4 matches:  2 practice games and 2 H & A and can't train with the club during that time.  He loses match payments and conditioning making it harder to get back into the team.

If there was to be a 'double standard' debate out of this it should be club/AFL treatment of a 'star' player vs a 'junior' player for almost identical incidents.

Ginnivan is getting a raw deal.

IIRC, Smith got two weeks (added to his onfield suspension - IMO rightly as concurrently would translate to no penalty) because he claimed to be having mental health issues. Ginnivan pulled no such card. I expected him to get way longer than Smith in terms of H&A games. Practice games don't really count IMO. Listening to the radio, they said JG was back training with the club yesterday.