Matt Stevens banned

[Scarfman]

Ecstacy is winning. TYS official drug of choice? I should have added Cocaine. 0 as well, but that doesn't include my close personal friend John Belushi.

 

[Pfitzy]

Last time I'll get on my hobby horse for this one, I promise

It only ruins your life if it is already in ruins.

Zigackly. Drugs don't alter your personality, even if they temporarily alter your mind. There are many, MANY people in leading professional careers who are regular or casual users of marijuana, ectasy, heroin, and cocaine. I've got friends who do E regularly and they're perfectly "normal" on the street. There are other types who will find a way to fuck themselves up no matter what poison is available - watch the junkies trying to get clean on methadone (contradiction in terms if ever there was one) at your local clinic; my wife worked at Prince of Wales here in Sydney and there were a lot of very wound up people coming back regularly for methadone and some of them simply never want to recover. Some of them jones to the point of violence long before they get their regulated hit.

The most common type of addict is the one who wants to be a victim all their life and have something or someone else to blame except themselves (a trait also very common in alcoholics).

So for heron to not affect anyone, lets ask those whose homes are burgled in order for the junkie to maintain the habit, the petty crime that goes into fundig the whole thing.
...
I have however had 2 cars stolen by drugies, my son had an attempted car jackng by a druggie, my home was burgled twice by junkies so really I do NOT see the harmless face of it.

All those cases come back to the price of drugs - if the government flooded the market which cheap, clean drugs that put the criminals out of business, people could afford to get a reasonably priced high on a substance that is less likely to kill them or the people around them. We hear about the stories of 14yo girls collapsing at parties because they got some dirty E - if that girl had gotten a regulated dose of the drug, she'd be far less at risk.

Its the criminal supply chain that is the real damaging force here - they try to maximise profits and don't care whose life they put at risk. When I was working in health about 10 years ago, several trials in Europe (including moderate supply plans and shooting galleries) provided positive evidence that decriminalising certain hard drugs increased survival and decreased criminal activity associated with addiction. It also lowered the cost of social work associated with drugs and the huge cost of policing drugs. Other crimes got more police time and as a result the community was actually a better place to live.

Sometimes we just concentrate on the wrong things and lose sight of the big picture - people will find a way to do the shit they want so you might as well let them. As the Alcohol Prohibition in North America during the early 20th century showed, all you do is drive it underground, make it more expensive, and spend a shitload of money trying to stop it that could go elsewhere.

 

[Thomond78]

See your point, but the childish way in which Western Governments treat "hard" drugs just as a policy hobby horse. The costs involved in policing laws on heroin, marijuana and cocaine are a complete waste of money while we let the costs of managing alcohol and cigarettes skyrocket. The only reason they're legal is the government has an established pathway to tax and regulate these drugs, which BTW have a far higher social and healthcare cost due to their widespread use. If the government took control of growing clean heroin and cocaine, they could tax it to a lesser degree than tobacco and make a shitload more money off it. Less people would die too.

Some of the amphets like Ice are a different story though. But even eccies you could regulate and tax, and at least stop the backyard presses going into operation.

No...just no. Heroin would be a disaster. I suggest you do a bit of research about it - it's one of the most addictive things out there. It ruins lives completely - once someone is on heroin, they are, most of the time, as good as dead. Well gone from being anything even resembling a productive member of society.

On top of that, the cost to society would be huge. How could someone afford to buy the drug from the government when they could not hold down a working job? Oh wait - social security or crime...which costs the government and society.

Some drugs are banned for a very very good reason. Heroin is one of them.

Sorry for the off topic post - but had to correct that.

Agreed. I've seen it in Dublin, and fuckers are trying to push it here in Cork (alas, the initial point was through the E. European lads, who have a culture of it). The judges are, as a result, dropping the hammer big-time on anyone with heroin, as it's a fucking nightmare. Most other things don't impact on society at large - hell, marijuana is the cop's friend, as stoners don't start fights outside chippers - but heroin is a fucking nightmare for all concerned.

 

[PaarlBok]

Vokken shocking. We encourage kids to do sport just for the reason to keep them away from drugs and this case it did not worked. Ban him permanently from rugby. He just may end up in Slaapstad and doing tik like the Bergies.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I am wondering, bear with me.
How many (and remember I do not know your true identities here) have even or still are totaly professional (meaning top notch) sportspeople.
As any dedicated sports person fully knows, any drug, be it alcohol, nicotine or the harder varieties severely impacts your sporting performance so a serious sportsperson will by very necessity at the least avoid them - if they want to be at their best.
I would assume we want our business leaders to be making the best decisions and give us the best investment returns, direction for companies etc so do we really want them making decisions while spaced out on some mind altering substance no matter how legal it is.
Do we want the mother of our children to spend the day (even if it is legal) drunk, spaced out and mayne forgetting to kick the kiddies up in the afternoon.
Dugs(all except nicotine and alcohol) are banned for a very good reaon- no matter how legal or free you make them they are NOT BENEFICIAL TO THE HEALTH and will over time KILL.
Now if some jerk wad wants to destroy his life, that's his call but no matter by what means he or she gets posession, one day society will pay in some form.Heroine will still have the same effect if it is legal.
So here we have an international sportsman, I assume training very hard getting massive doses of natural endorphyns in the process and he needs an extra boost to his life.Give me a break.

Personally, I would support a life ban for any international sportsperson caught on recreational drugs.

Cutter - NTS = National Talent Squad

 

[Scarfman]

OK, this is my last go at this.

RW you say "if some jerks wants to destroy his life." Well, that's a good measure of it, but that's also why I made the destroyed-life tally. I am very surprised at the 2 guys who said that they knew of no-one who had fucked their life up with alcohol. I know quite a few people who mightn't be selling their arse in Kings Cross, but are definitely worse off for alcohol.

Taking ecstacy, cocaine or speed a few times a year is hardly a death-wish. In most cases, the mind-effects of those drugs is a much lower strength than getting hammered on beer when there's 4 Super14 games on in a row.

In conclusion, I just don't agree that demonising chemical drugs is helpful. My 2 cents, and then some, I suppose.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

OK, this is my last go at this.
RW you say "if some jerks wants to destroy his life." Well, that's a good measure of it, but that's also why I made the destroyed-life tally. I am very surprised at the 2 guys who said that they knew of no-one who had fucked their life up with alcohol. I know quite a few people who mightn't be selling their arse in Kings Cross, but are definitely worse off for alcohol.

Taking ecstacy, cocaine or speed a few times a year is hardly a death-wish. In most cases, the mind-effects of those drugs is a much lower strength than getting hammered on beer when there's 4 Super14 games on in a row.

In conclusion, I just don't agree that demonising chemical drugs is helpful. My 2 cents, and then some, I suppose.

Point taken and accepted but agree to disagee

 

[Pfitzy]

Dugs (all except nicotine and alcohol) are banned for a very good reaon- no matter how legal or free you make them they are NOT BENEFICIAL TO THE HEALTH and will over time KILL.

Your assumption is that illicit drugs will always kill is utterly without any basis in fact. That's like saying every smoker will die of lung cancer :


The thing we agree on is that its utterly inconceivable that a bloke who is playing rugby for his nation - something I could only dream of - would find a need to stuff a heap of gear up his nose or in fact do anything except make sure he's ready at any moment to walk onto a rugby field and start carving up. But, like a lot of professional sports these days, these are young men who have rarely, if ever, worked a regular 9-5 job while having to manage real responsibilities like family and a mortgage. In the NRL these days they're contracted as early as 16 or 17 and never have to think about their paycheque! Some people do it just for fun. Some think they're bulletproof and are looking for another high because they already own a fast car, shag hot chicks, already are at the top of their game in their own minds and therefore bulletproof. Its also a peer pressure thing.

 

[Cutter]

Gambling destroys lives too. Should that be made illegal? It will never happen because its a vital source of revenue for overweight governments, but its worth a thought. The Whitlams' song "Blow Up the Pokies" is pertinent.

I'm against drugs, but I'm more against nanny states.

The way to beat all of this stuff is to show people the damage they do. A good example would be for a young athlete to do fitness tests when "clean" and then after using certain drugs and compare the results. eg the day after for alcohol. Similarly, use tests requiring mental agility and judgment. Its only now that I am putting a true value on my health and its because I know now what I didnt know when I was young.

The peer pressure thing is interesting. Why is it "cooler" to get whacked or drunk or smoke than to be fit and healthy?

 

[PaarlBok]

look myself had teenagers kids or should I say older then that. I am not the pakslae type of parent but my son drive me to that as a teenager. It was actually shocking to see how easy kids can go the wrong druggy way these days. Parents want to do their own things and will stick a R200 note in the kids hands just to go their own way. Thats where all the evil starts. When my oldest one was on his skateboard days it took me to bliksem him with a electric wire to get him back on track after catching him on the pissed one night. He could not sit on his arse and myself hated myself doing that. Now he is a 22 year old and just before he left for the UK he thanks me for the first time for that hiding. He got hooked by his skateboard friends and one ended up as the most wanted criminal and the other one commited suiside. Consider myself lucky not blaming myself for not spending enough time with my kids. Thats where they end. No way you can agree with taking drugs, its like being a smoker and try to defend smoking. Myself smoke.

Drugs in SA is huge and a reality. Matt Stevens know this and should get help before forced to do so. So fuck him, ban him permanently from rugby.

 

[Pfitzy]

It will never happen because its a vital source of revenue for overweight governments, but its worth a thought.

Same as tobacco and alcohol, but like free healthcare: once given, very hard to take away.

I shudder to think what would happen to society if gambling, tobacco, and alcohol were driven underground! It'd be carnage! You'd end up with exactly the situation we have with hard drugs: people brewing who-knows-what in a backyard still with no quality control or regulation.

 

[Scarfman]

Do we revisit this issue in light of Michael "Cyprus Hill" Phelps?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/go...in-drug-scandal/2009/02/02/1233423046137.html

Or just refer to our posts above?

 

[Moses]

Hmm, depends how you define lives ruined.. I knew one girl who spent a few weeks in the psych ward for ecstacy induced psychosis, but she seemed good 5 years later.

Heroin - 0
Ecstacy - 1
Alcohol - 1
Marijuana - 0
Ice - 1

I agree with Peter Fitzsimons on drug testing for Athletes, if we're going to do it then we should also test Politicians.

 

[Moses]

It will never happen because its a vital source of revenue for overweight governments, but its worth a thought.

Same as tobacco and alcohol, but like free healthcare: once given, very hard to take away.

I shudder to think what would happen to society if gambling, tobacco, and alcohol were driven underground! It'd be carnage! You'd end up with exactly the situation we have with hard drugs: people brewing who-knows-what in a backyard still with no quality control or regulation.

I already brew my own beer in my backyard, but it's excellent O0

 

[fatprop]

They are all employment issues, these guys get paid to use their physical abilities and know the rules when they sign their agreement, as do pilots etc.

If they don't want the contract they can always stay at home, pull a few bongs and go on the dole.

If they want to be a professional sportsman, they can watch what they eat, smoke & snort.

 

[Moses]

But do the rules make sense? Why should one segment of our community be forced to undergo routine recreational drug testing when no-one else is prepared to go through this?

 

[Sully]

As a Sparky in the Mining industry I and all my work mates are regularly drug tested. What makes you think that sportsman are the only ones who are tested?