Cheaper to take drugs than drink (1 Viewer)

[Siddy123]

well it depends what drugs, some drugs don't really produce violent behaviour at all

420 blaze it

 

[funkshen]

the notion that people are taking drugs because alcohol is too expensive is ridiculous. most users are taking taking other drugs AND consuming alcohol, and are taking other drugs because they're way more fun.

the cop that was interviewed is obviously a stooge. of the drugs reported, only three (amphetamines, cocaine, GHB) have any dependence or toxicity potential, and are likely the least used drugs at such festivals. furthermore, the problem is not "that you don't know what's in the pill", the problem is that the drugs and their manufacture and sale are illegal, and as a result reliable access to quality ecstacy is rare. most people don't use testing kits either, nor do they have the chance to at a festival. when it comes to eating all your pills rather than being caught with them as Lolsmith mentioned, or overdose in general, the overdose is caused by additives such as caffeine, DXM, ketamine, and synephrine, rather than the MDMA you thought you were taking.

festivals are en excellent opportunity for ordinary people to safely use drugs. recreational party drug use (i.e. safe drugs with low toxicity and dependence e.g. MDMA, MDA, shrooms, weed, LSD, 2-Cx) in a controlled environment where medical attention is available should be encouraged.

 

[Garygaz]

I personally lol'd at the apparent lsd overdoses, do they know how much money you need to overdose on lsd?? Its hypothesised lethal dosage is something like 2000 hits at once. Good luck mortgaging your home for that mind blowing experience.

 

[funkshen]

I personally lol'd at the apparent lsd overdoses, do they know how much money you need to overdose on lsd?? Its hypothesised lethal dosage is something like 2000 hits at once. Good luck mortgaging your home for that mind blowing experience.

possible that the overdose was the result of high doses of LSD analogue like NBOM or DOx, which are often sold as LSD. of course, this only reinforces the point that prohibitionist drug laws cause avoidable deaths.

 

[Graney]

The high presence of police officers is to act as a deterrent for bringing drugs into the venue in the first place and it does serve that purpose well for the majority of the population because they don't want to risk the penalties.

According to the police their actions don't work as a deterrent:
‘‘People are quite inventive on how they defeat police and security methods so it doesn’t really matter [what we do],’’ Inspector Healy said on Sunday.

The majority of people who want to take drugs at festivals are taking them. This is very clear if you've been to any festival ever, after accounting for individual preferences (many people would not take drugs in a legalised environment simply out of preference), it's difficult to imagine a larger number of people taking recreational drugs in any possible situation.

Drugs can induce violent behaviour

Drugs can't induce violent behaviour. This is an equally true statement, since you're reducing the nuanced pharmacodynamics of millions of bioactive chemicals by making a blanket statement about some monolithic fictional entity called "drugs". My statement "drugs can't induce violent behaviour" while inaccurate misinformation, is relatively better and more accurate than to say "drugs can induce violent behaviour", since by number there are vastly more drugs that won't induce violent behaviour than those that will.

There were 100 officers for 18,000 people. I don't think it's overkill. You need a large amount of manpower to cover a large crowd.

That seems reasonable, but half that police presence is tied up outside the venue performing drug enforcement, the work of drug enforcement takes away from the visible police presence inside the venue, where violence is much more likely to take place.

Also, the idea of simply confiscating the drugs and stopping there without penalty has the moral hazard of everybody bringing in drugs without any impressionable consequences. It would not act as a strong deterrent if there was no penalty.

It's socially acceptable and desirable for people to use a range of drugs at festival events, the policies of law enforcement should reflect this.

The alternative option of having a lower police presence means a lower deterrent and less chance of drug detection for the greater majority of people which increases the risk overall. It is not worth trying to make the small number of people who choose to take the high level of risk to take a relatively 'lower' level of risk (which may not necessarily work at all), at the cost of 'encouraging' a larger number of people taking on more risks and dangerous behaviour than they otherwise would.

It's not a small number of people choosing to take illicit drugs at festivals. Many illicit drugs pose a lower risk of harm than activities that are currently legally permissible at festivals. You don't even need to take drugs at a festival (legal or otherwise) to be virtually guaranteed of harm, in various ways.

The very existence of festivals encourages, nay ensures people will engage in risk taking and dangerous behaviour, if you want to reduce risk you could try banning festivals altogether. However it is desireable in society for adults to have the free choice to engage in personally risky and dangerous behaviour.

 

[isildurrrr1]

war on drugs is the war on the poor. costing us billions of dollars for nothing really

 

[funkshen]

i should be allowed to smoke meth wherever and whenever i want and if you disagree with me you are a fascist