Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Gronk]

Probably not but right now there’s varying legalities around them so if you get caught with drugs or having partaken of drugs don’t get shirty if you are punished. Until the rules are changed, you play by the current rules

100% right. If you are a recreational drug user, you have to play what's in front of you.

Don't get me started on the draconian driver drug testing stops where a driver can get a court date because he showed positive to an illegal substance on Wednesday for a drug that he took on Sunday. Unlike alcohol RBT which tests for impairment levels, RDT is part of the zero tolerance big stick laws.

Why RDT (roadside drug testing) is failing

Why, you might ask yourself, is there roadside drug testing (RDT)? The answer on most people's lips – that it improves safety on the roads and reduces accidents – would be the logical answer; yet former magistrate David Heilpern recently made it abundantly clear that this is not the case.

www.echo.net.au

 

[84 Baby]

100% right. If you are a recreational drug user, you have to play what's in front of you.

Don't get me started on the draconian driver drug testing stops where a driver can get a court date because he showed positive to an illegal substance on Wednesday for a drug that he took on Sunday. Unlike alcohol RBT which tests for impairment levels, RDT is part of the zero tolerance big stick laws.

Why RDT (roadside drug testing) is failing

Why, you might ask yourself, is there roadside drug testing (RDT)? The answer on most people's lips – that it improves safety on the roads and reduces accidents – would be the logical answer; yet former magistrate David Heilpern recently made it abundantly clear that this is not the case.

www.echo.net.au

They could be draconian but if you use drugs knowing it is illegal for you to drive within X amount of days and you drive in X-1 days then f**ken cop it. I may have had some sympathy for the first couple of people caught like that but everyone knows that substances don’t magically disappear from your system overnight. This isn’t about rule fairness or equity, it’s about self-righteous bullshit that thinking because you disagree with the law, that you are above the law. And I’ve always found a link between that attitude, illegal drugs and Triple J listeners.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

@hindy111 I'm no expert but I was taught to always let my decks weather a bit to leach the tannins out before oiling them up. I have a large red ironbark deck which I left for 3 months, I now oil it every year and it always looks brand new. Not sure if you would treat merbau the same.

 

[Gronk]

This isn’t about rule fairness or equity

Well it is. Fair enough that you should not drive a car whilst impaired with alcohol. Is it fair enough however, that you get a court date because you had alcohol 3 days ago ?

Your argument is "you know the rules, so don't whinge when you get caught". Which is entirely missing my point.

Is random roadside drug testing about road safety or really something else, disguised as a road safety campaign ?

Wollongong University associate professor of law Julia Quilter and UNSW professor of law Luke McNamara wrote a paper on how Australian drug driving laws have developed over time, and their inconsistency with “the evidence-based impairment paradigm.”

International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

The International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy is an open access, blind peer reviewed journal that seeks to publish critical research about...

www.crimejusticejournal.com

 

[Poupou Escobar]

A toke on a joint is less harmful the 4 litres of alchol

One sip of beer is less harmful than four cones.

 

[84 Baby]

Well it is. Fair enough that you should not drive a car whilst impaired with alcohol. Is it fair enough however, that you get a court date because you had alcohol 3 days ago ?

Your argument is "you know the rules, so don't whinge when you get caught". Which is entirely missing my point.

Is random roadside drug testing about road safety or really something else, disguised as a road safety campaign ?

Wollongong University associate professor of law Julia Quilter and UNSW professor of law Luke McNamara wrote a paper on how Australian drug driving laws have developed over time, and their inconsistency with “the evidence-based impairment paradigm.”

International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

The International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy is an open access, blind peer reviewed journal that seeks to publish critical research about...

www.crimejusticejournal.com

Again nothing to do with the rule itself, enforcement of the rule or even someone breaking the rule (or law in this case). It is the attitude that because you don’t agree with the rule, that you haven’t broken the rule.
If I told you that every time you post here, the penalty is I get to punch you in the face, and then you post, you should rightly expect me to punch you in the face. You can complain about the harshness or actively tried to avoid it, but don’t try and say you didn’t break the law when in fact you’ve wantonly disobeyed it. Can swap you posting with you drink driving 3 days after the fact, or drug driving a month after the fact, or not complying with vaccine mandates

 

[Gary Gutful]

No shit. The point is saving lives and not just thumping them with a big stick. Hence why safe injection rooms work. They don't condone drug using, but acknowledge that people will use no matter what the cops do. So you might as well make sure that they are not injecting omo, give them clean needles and somewhere to dispose them. Much better than a Darlinghurst lane.

End of pipe solution. Target the underlying causes.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The recreational drug scene as been around since forever and my only 2 cents is that zero tolerance does not save lives.

It's not about saving lives, it's about punishing evil. Also, anything that impairs merkins' judgement and breaks the actions->consequences equation that underpins society, isn't good for society or the people in it. That includes large quantities of alcohol. It definitely includes illegal drugs.

 

[Twizzle]

Did you go to the Double J > Triple J festival in Parra Park in 1980? That was a fun day........I think.

think I was living in Darwin or Victoria back then, so nar

 

[Twizzle]

The recreational drug scene as been around since forever and my only 2 cents is that zero tolerance does not save lives.

prohibition did not work with alcohol when it was illegal and will never work with drugs, hence it needs to be risk managed

 

[Gronk]

It is the attitude that because you don’t agree with the rule, that you haven’t broken the rule.

Unsure why you are insisting on this angle. I never said this.

My premise is that the law in inequitable and a ruse. The test should be for roadside driver impairment. Not for lifestyle choices of what a merkin did last week.

Outside of the driving a a vehicle or if you under a court order (bail or bond), nobody has the right to test or charge anyone for what they took last week. That's my beef.

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 2013 - SCHEDULE 3

www5.austlii.edu.au

 

[Bandwagon]

That's an amazing job. I have oil underneath but wanted to lightly sand tops before oil. What wood is that? I used merbeau for floors and yellow belau for fence. This looks nicer imo. But I am yet to oil my merbeau.

Spotted gum.

 

[Gronk]

End of pipe solution. Target the underlying causes.

Which is what ? Drug trafficking and risk taking teenagers ? The narcs know how to deal with drugs at borders and distribution, but how do you protect kids whilst you're hunting the bad guys ?

 

[hindy111]

One sip of beer is less harmful than four cones.

The point is no matter how many tokes one has they won't die or decide to king hit someone.
They at worse case will sit down and become paranoid.
Alcohol is far worse but promoted by everyone as being social.

 

[hindy111]

Spotted gum.

I was going to go spotted gum. Wish I did now.

 

[Twizzle]

It's not about saving lives, it's about punishing evil. Also, anything that impairs merkins' judgement and breaks the actions->consequences equation that underpins society, isn't good for society or the people in it. That includes large quantities of alcohol. It definitely includes illegal drugs.

when the rbt thing included drug testing TripleJ Hack ran a campaign for ages on just how many false positives were found and encouraged listeners to ring in and tell their stories, there were a lot of false positives from people being in the same room as dope smokers and having it on their record but they were not users and completely innocent and it affected their job opportunities

one issue they failed to address, is that alcohol is risk managed (.05%) but drugs are zero tolerance and are illegal. When this was raised they just accused the cops of revenue raising.

What they did not, or could not address, was did a small amount of drugs, like a bong or two, actually impair driving skills as there were no studies at the time. This was about 10-15 years ago I think.

I think Triple J is necessary as they give the younger generation a voice, much like the ABC adds balance to our MSM by having an opposing view to the Murdoch media

 

[84 Baby]

Unsure why you are insisting on this angle. I never said this.

My premise is that the law in inequitable and a ruse. The test should be for roadside driver impairment. Not for lifestyle choices of what a merkin did last week.

Outside of the driving a a vehicle or if you under a court order (bail or bond), nobody has the right to test or charge anyone for what they took last week. That's my beef.

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 2013 - SCHEDULE 3

www5.austlii.edu.au

That angle is the original angle you responded to?
Is there a law that allows someone to be tested for something they took last week? If someone is tested under that law and found to have taken something a week ago, are you suggesting they haven’t broken that law if they are then doing something that law prohibits?
Is there a law that enforces me to be vaccinated before entering a premise? What if I am unvaccinated yet have mitigating circumstances to enter that premise? Are you suggesting I haven’t broken the law that I shouldn’t enter the premise unvaccinated?

 

[Gronk]

That angle is the original angle you responded to?
Is there a law that allows someone to be tested for something they took last week? If someone is tested under that law and found to have taken something a week ago, are you suggesting they haven’t broken that law if they are then doing something that law prohibits?
Is there a law that enforces me to be vaccinated before entering a premise? What if I am unvaccinated yet have mitigating circumstances to enter that premise? Are you suggesting I haven’t broken the law that I shouldn’t enter the premise unvaccinated?

Sorry, you still don't get it.

All good.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The point is no matter how many tokes one has they won't die or decide to king hit someone.
They at worse case will sit down and become paranoid.
Alcohol is far worse but promoted by everyone as being social.

There is a strong correlation between cannabis use and the risk of developing a psychotic disorder.

2008 paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2424288/

2020 paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32839678/

From the current data, we can conclude that the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) component of cannabis can be the main culprit causing psychosis and schizophrenia in the at-risk population. THC can also be the one exacerbating symptoms and causing an adverse prognosis in already diagnosed patients. Even though CBD shows therapeutic effects and THC opposing effects, the data is minimal and low safety and efficacy warrants more research. The relation between cannabis and schizophrenia needs further investigation. We need more case-control studies and clinical trials with a larger population to get conclusive data.

Causality is inconclusive, which is a good reason to avoid the shit. And yes I used to smoke pot. I know a couple of people who are cooked because of it. Would they have been f**ked if they had never smoked cannabis? The answer is we can't know for sure. But it's not a risk people should be encouraged to take.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

when the rbt thing included drug testing TripleJ Hack ran a campaign for ages on just how many false positives were found and encouraged listeners to ring in and tell their stories, there were a lot of false positives from people being in the same room as dope smokers and having it on their record but they were not users and completely innocent and it affected their job opportunities

one issue they failed to address, is that alcohol is risk managed (.05%) but drugs are zero tolerance and are illegal. When this was raised they just accused the cops of revenue raising.

What they did not, or could not address, was did a small amount of drugs, like a bong or two, actually impair driving skills as there were no studies at the time. This was about 10-15 years ago I think.

I think Triple J is necessary as they give the younger generation a voice, much like the ABC adds balance to our MSM by having an opposing view to the Murdoch media

You think Murdoch controls the entirety of the MSM?