by Magellan » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:38 am
by Booney » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:42 am
shoe boy wrote:heater31 wrote:carey wrote:Computer Crashed wrote:DRUGS.
Agreed. But it also shits me all the stories of he was such a nice guy, so kind and now his gone. blah blah blah.
Stiff shit. Play with fire get burnt. You know the risks and still take the chance. It's the family's I feel sorry for
I'm ******* so over these numptys calling for testing drugs so you know what is in them. Basically that means these organised gangs win you spastics.
Simple answer is DON'T DO DRUGS!
Very naïve post guys.
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:09 am
Booney wrote:
The lad was a friend of my son and the pain this has caused many people, many young adults is immeasurable.Having broken the news to my lad over the phone I can tell you he's hurting.
It also gave us as parents and some friends with their kids present on Saturday night the opportunity to speak openly and candidly about drug use, the results of this discussion were comforting and reassuring. I have a great relationship with my son and some of his mates and I truly believe them when they say "Why, why touch that shit?". They are against the use of these drugs. They don't "get it". That's from this lads direct peers.
I won't be coming on here beating my chest saying I've got the answer to drug use, none of us do, it's bullshit to think you've got the answer. Since the first batch of yeast and sugar turned water into wine people have experimented with mind altering substances and it wont ever be any different. Education, fear and uncertainty, they didn't work at any time in history and they don't work now. So what will? I don't know.
I just hope the people affected by this loss and by any drug related death find some comfort, somewhere.
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:09 am
helicopterking wrote:Blokes who withdraw from cricket on the morning of a match without any warning.
by Pseudo » Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:31 am
Booney wrote:Since the first batch of yeast and sugar turned water into wine people have experimented with mind altering substances and it wont ever be any different.
by Spangas » Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:33 am
by Booney » Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:34 am
Pseudo wrote:Booney wrote:Since the first batch of yeast and sugar turned water into wine people have experimented with mind altering substances and it wont ever be any different.
Nah, yeast and sugar turns grapes into wine. To do it with plain ol' water requires a filial relationship with the Creator.
by Q. » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:36 am
Magellan wrote:I'm not convinced of drug testing stations inside venues. There's a tension between prohibiting substances on one hand and then providing personal advice on them on the other. If they're going to happen, then the prohibition should end. I'm not sure they'd be thoroughly used at any rate, since people who are confident they have safe drugs wouldn't bother wasting time getting them tested, particularly if it means they're going to kiss goodbye their investment in a high. The testing station argument also assumes people take drugs after they enter the concert; if they are illegal and are searched at the gate then they risk confiscation prior to testing. For this reason I assume that a lot of substances are ingested prior to entry.
by heater31 » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:39 am
Booney wrote:shoe boy wrote:heater31 wrote:carey wrote:[quote="Computer Crashed"]DRUGS.
Agreed. But it also shits me all the stories of he was such a nice guy, so kind and now his gone. blah blah blah.
Stiff shit. Play with fire get burnt. You know the risks and still take the chance. It's the family's I feel sorry for
I'm ******* so over these numptys calling for testing drugs so you know what is in them. Basically that means these organised gangs win you spastics.
Simple answer is DON'T DO DRUGS!
Very naïve post guys.
by woodublieve12 » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:23 pm
Q. wrote:Magellan wrote:I'm not convinced of drug testing stations inside venues. There's a tension between prohibiting substances on one hand and then providing personal advice on them on the other. If they're going to happen, then the prohibition should end. I'm not sure they'd be thoroughly used at any rate, since people who are confident they have safe drugs wouldn't bother wasting time getting them tested, particularly if it means they're going to kiss goodbye their investment in a high. The testing station argument also assumes people take drugs after they enter the concert; if they are illegal and are searched at the gate then they risk confiscation prior to testing. For this reason I assume that a lot of substances are ingested prior to entry.
The concept works well in Europe. It may have saved the lad's life it it were in place. Doesn't take long for word to spread that [insert brand] pills contain something deadly like PMA.
by Q. » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:33 pm
woodublieve12 wrote:Q. wrote:Magellan wrote:I'm not convinced of drug testing stations inside venues. There's a tension between prohibiting substances on one hand and then providing personal advice on them on the other. If they're going to happen, then the prohibition should end. I'm not sure they'd be thoroughly used at any rate, since people who are confident they have safe drugs wouldn't bother wasting time getting them tested, particularly if it means they're going to kiss goodbye their investment in a high. The testing station argument also assumes people take drugs after they enter the concert; if they are illegal and are searched at the gate then they risk confiscation prior to testing. For this reason I assume that a lot of substances are ingested prior to entry.
The concept works well in Europe. It may have saved the lad's life it it were in place. Doesn't take long for word to spread that [insert brand] pills contain something deadly like PMA.
with all due respect..
Not taking it would have done that...
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:53 pm
by Q. » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:09 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:The fatality rate vs the buzz created.
It's a ratio that the youth over today are willing to risk with, there's too much "it wont happen to me" mentality.
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:10 pm
Q. wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:The fatality rate vs the buzz created.
It's a ratio that the youth over today are willing to risk with, there's too much "it wont happen to me" mentality.
You're statistically more likely to die from eating a peanut.
by Booney » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:13 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:The fatality rate vs the buzz created.
It's a ratio that the youth over today are willing to risk with, there's too much "it wont happen to me" mentality.
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:32 pm
by Ronnie » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:44 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:Q. wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:The fatality rate vs the buzz created.
It's a ratio that the youth over today are willing to risk with, there's too much "it wont happen to me" mentality.
You're statistically more likely to die from eating a peanut.
Exactly.
by Q. » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:49 pm
Booney wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:The fatality rate vs the buzz created.
It's a ratio that the youth over today are willing to risk with, there's too much "it wont happen to me" mentality.
Many of them use the drugs that often, perhaps weekly, that the "it won't happen to me" attitude doesn't even exist. "Been doing pingers from *name names here* for months mate, they're all good".
by Q. » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:51 pm
by JK » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:53 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |