SA Footy

I heard Kris Hanna speak on 5AA in some detail about all this, will be interesting to see what happens!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... ion=justin

Jeez, he's complaining about Labor distributing those leaflets? The 'Kris Hanna opposes illicit drug laws' (or words to that effect) one actually swung my vote to him. I'm all for legalisation of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

fisho mcspaz wrote:Jeez, he's complaining about Labor distributing those leaflets? The 'Kris Hanna opposes illicit drug laws' (or words to that effect) one actually swung my vote to him. I'm all for legalisation of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

I'm for the legalisation of all currently illicit drugs, to be produced by pharmaceutical companies and taxed by the government like other dangerous drugs/substances like alcohol and cigarettes. This would result in less damage and death to users, less crime (burglaries/home invasions assaults and muggings) and more money in government coffers. Prohibition has failed and only delivers a lucrative income stream to criminals.

Dear Mr Hanna,

The election result is what's known as karma.

It may be hard for you to fathom but for one that has previously been elected by the foibles of the preferencial distribution system of the SA electoral act it's a bit rich to then try to force a by-election when you have come 3rd.

Please drink some iced coffee and get over it.

Have a nice political retirement, unless you want to represent another political party next time around which is entirely possible because you couldn't make up your mind in the past whether you were a Labor, Green or Independant.

Yours Sincerely,
Dedja

mick wrote: I'm for the legalisation of all currently illicit drugs, to be produced by pharmaceutical companies and taxed by the government like other dangerous drugs/substances like alcohol and cigarettes. This would result in less damage and death to users, less crime (burglaries/home invasions assaults and muggings) and more money in government coffers. Prohibition has failed and only delivers a lucrative income stream to criminals.

This would pose problems for both pharmaceutical companies and government with products like Ecstasy which can cause run away hyperthermia, and muscle and brain damage, or even death, as an after effect.
Legalisation implies government confirmed safety, and some of these things also can interact fatally with commonly used prescription medications.

Psyber wrote:

mick wrote: I'm for the legalisation of all currently illicit drugs, to be produced by pharmaceutical companies and taxed by the government like other dangerous drugs/substances like alcohol and cigarettes. This would result in less damage and death to users, less crime (burglaries/home invasions assaults and muggings) and more money in government coffers. Prohibition has failed and only delivers a lucrative income stream to criminals.

This would pose problems for both pharmaceutical companies and government with products like Ecstasy which can cause run away hyperthermia, and muscle and brain damage, or even death, as an after effect.
Legalisation implies government confirmed safety, and some of these things also can interact fatally with commonly used prescription medications.

Agreed, but are not most of these problems with ectasy a result of contamination and poor manufacturing processes? In any case the government allows sale of lethal products like cigarettes and alcohol and the problems you allude to could be covered by a health warning similar to cigarette packets. It is possible to kill youself in a very short time (similar time scale to ectasy) by consumption of a large amount of alcohol. I think there is an inconsistency that some drugs are OK. The current position with non "OK" drugs is that it simply favours the criminal, prohibition of grog in the US in the 1920s gave the mafia a huge leg up.

mick wrote:Agreed, but are not most of these problems with ectasy a result of contamination and poor manufacturing processes? In any case the government allows sale of lethal products like cigarettes and alcohol and the problems you allude to could be covered by a health warning similar to cigarette packets. It is possible to kill youself in a very short time (similar time scale to ectasy) by consumption of a large amount of alcohol. I think there is an inconsistency that some drugs are OK. The current position with non "OK" drugs is that it simply favours the criminal, prohibition of grog in the US in the 1920s gave the mafia a huge leg up.

No they are inherent in the way it works - it is a Serotonin enhancer and elevated Serotonin causes the syndrome I described. Obviously the risk is increased with higher doses.
There are other prescription medications that contain a milder risk of the same effect, but one this prone to it would never get past the animal trials to human ones, let alone reach the market.
Ecstasy interacts potentially fatally, with these, and also with some unregulated herbal products, like St John's Wort, which are less dangerous in themselves.

Alcohol and tobacco would not get approval today as new products, but they have been established in the community for a long time, and are now hard to ban, as the USA found out in the 1920s.
But both have a wider margin between the relatively safe level of usage and the potentially fatal one, which varies from individual to individual too.

Even Marijuana, which is generally harmless in low usage levels, can stir up psychosis in those predisposed to it.
There was also a study at the University of Qld, in about 2006, of kids under 17 using it regularly, that revealed an effect on the immature brain that does not show up in adult studies - a 25 times increase in the incidence of Schizophrenia over the next few years. [That illness tends to begin between 15 and 25 anyway, and usually affects just under 1% of the community.]

Case is currently being heard this week - will be interesting to see what happens!

http://www.independentweekly.com.au/new ... torypage=1