One simple way to take ecstasy pills off the street

Bob says:

08:29am | 07/03/10

That is such a ridiculously naive statement to say that stopping importation of pill presses will stop amphetamine use.
As far as Im concerned its the stupid laws created by ignorant fearful people in this country that have made drugs the danger that they are today because it basically just hands the manufacturing process over to careless criminals who cut them with deadly adulterants. Not to mention the turf wars that are happening.
Why cant Australia wake up and take a leaf out of Portugal’s book. They have now decriminalised all drug use and instead of recklessly ruining young peoples lives with a criminal record they now implement prevention and treatment programmes for anyone with less than a 10 day supply on them.
It has been amazingly successful so far and drug deaths have dropped as well as new hiv infection rates.
And here we are claiming to be the one of the most progressive countries in the world yet we are so stuck in the dark ages in so many ways because of gutless politicians too afraid to stand up to a small but very loud minority of ignorant conservatives doing their best to keep us stuck in the 50’s.

Drug related deaths in Australia-
Tobacco approx 82%
Alcohol approx 16%
Other drugs approx 2%

As you can see by these statistics the hysteria surrounding drugs is so blown out of proportion and demonised by the media that people have lost touch with reality.
Surely if any one should busted it should be the tobacco companies. They are killing your kids more than anyone else!
Its the law that is killing people not drugs!

Joel says:

02:00am | 01/12/09

This is insanity. Do you honestly think that making something like a pill press illegal/illegal to import would destroy the ecstasy market?
Dealers would simply start using gel caps, or they would sell hits in powder form to eat or snuff.

And aside from all of that Ecstasy is one of the safest drugs around. Pure ecstasy that is, MDMA. The problems associated with its use only occur due to the unregulated status of the drug, therefore allowing people to lace ecstasy with other chemicals such as meth. This is what you get your over doses from.

Madison says:

01:13am | 23/08/09

Ecstasy is no where near as harmful to society as harder drugs any dramatic crack down is not called for when we should be addressing the meth and heroin epidemics. And David, I admire your noble and just intentions behind your call but I’m afraid you are wrong if you think banning pill presses will deter ecstasy production. MDMA can be administered in powder form and there are already “MDMA caps” readily available, so pill press or no pill press, ecstasy will still find a way to the end users.

Gimeny Cricket says:

05:05pm | 18/07/09

What’s illogical here, Dave, is your comparison. It’s actually more like the bottles the whisky is being drank out of, or the paper the marijuana is being smoked out of. Tablet Presses don’t produce MDMA. The lab equipment used to synthesis the active ingredient is probably a more accurate comparison.

So presses become scarce, then what..they use capsules. Ban them capsules, then what..they start selling it powdered, then what..ban the little baggies? Ban freezer bags? Ban cars because they’re used to transport drug dealers between deals? Ban everything because it makes you feel like you’re making progress in a situation you have absolutely no understanding of?

The only good that comes out of this is that it will cut out a lot of the back yard chemists selling dangerous concoctions of who knows what as MDMA - so the pill poppers actually get a win out of this. The people that import billions of dollars worth of the actual gear in question here probably won’t have too much trouble getting their hands on a press. And even if they can’t it isn’t actually an essential part of the trade as already mentioned.

This situation is at the ridiculous stage. The current leaders are just continuing on with a senseless “war” that was handed to them by the last generation of ignorance. When is someone going to stop and think? I’m not holding my breath for this bunch but am pretty sure the next generation of leaders already are.

The days of “just because” are finished, and so are the people that “think” that way. People will do what they want to do with their own lives, and who is anyone to tell them otherwise. They can keep throwing people in jail for selling drugs but it’s not making a difference, and never realistically will. There’s no doubt the over-use of drugs, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, prescription medication, or even..drumroll..food (binge eating) is bad for you. But if people want to do it they are going to, so let them, last time I checked we lived in a “democracy”.

Instead of the bad guys (sae hallo to tha bad guy!) making all the money selling dirty gear, legitimise the industry, clean it up and use the revenue to address the reasons why people over-do it in the first place, and the sale to get health information across to them - long term it will get out there. Keep doing what we’re doing and nothing’s going to change, as we will see.

“The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something to change” Albert Einstein

Chris says:

09:35am | 19/06/09

Claire: Simon and Billy have already added responses that ably counter your argument, bit I’d like to enhance one of them slightly. You see Simon is not quite correct that ‘for every ex-raver you might know who has had an adverse effect with drugs…there are hundreds of others who don’t’. The fact is that it is not hundreds but hundreds of millions over the last twenty years. In Britain hundeds of thousands of ecstacy pills are swallowed every weekend (some reports put it as high as two million, but no matter). Extrapolate that across the entire world and you will appeciate how common the use of this drug is, and given these numbers, also appreciate that the actual harm caused by this drug is miniscule.
Why not have a closer look at alcohol? There are billions of users, parents, friends, psychiatrists and medical professionals who have to deal with the fallout caused by that drug, and I’d wager many of them would fervently oppose its continued legalisation.
Reckon they’ve got much of a chance to change that?

Steven says:

09:21am | 19/06/09

Remove the pill presses and there will still be MDMA for sale.  It will have NO effect.  It’ll just go back to the way it was a few years ago when lots of dealers used caps to contain the powder.  Since not everything will stick together in a pill and not everyone knows how to do that it’s currently limited.  Remove the pill presses and everyone will know how to empty the cap from a regular drug and put the MDMA or other power in it.

Removing the presses only changes the product, it’ll do totally nothing to stop it.  People are getting busted with Kg’s of power while trying to get a press.  So how does removing the press stop those same people from getting the powder in the first place?  This is a stupid policy, like whole war on human nature ...sorry i’m meant war on drugs.

Billy Pilgrim says:

10:51pm | 18/06/09

Claire: There are far many more people who would wake up in hospital after taking a pill that was *NOT* MDMA as expected. And no-one I’ve known has ended up in hospital after pills - but there were more than a few who have after drinking too much. All of your psychosocial affect ascribed to MDMA is equally if not far more applicable to alcohol.
I understand why you are personally opposed, but it is simply ludicrous to say that draconian drug laws are a better approach to harm reduction when the harms of legal drugs are far more widespread and apparent.

simon says:

09:47pm | 18/06/09

Claire,
Your argument that there are many parents, psychiatrists (no vested interests there much, by the way….no pushing of pharma’s on people by chance?) etc etc deal with the adverse effects of illicit drugs may well be true, but that’s no reason for any drug to be illegal.
For every ex-raver you might know who has had an adverse effect with drugs, the fact is there are hundreds of others who don’t. Face the facts, these drugs are not illegal because they are potentially harmful to people’s health.
They are illegal to ensure the vested interests of a few are maintained. In other words, because of $$$$$
As someone once said “it’s not a war on drugs. it’s a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times.”

jonathon says:

08:15pm | 18/06/09

So marijuana isn’t criminal in SA, now there’s a war against bikers. Decades of social acceptance of the use marijuana has brought about the decriminalisation of the psychotic dangerous drug, and now brought about the social acceptance of the use of illegal dangerous pills and powders. South Australian society is bringing on their own degradation; it’s not too late, go hard on all recreational drugs especially marijuana.

GS says:

06:48pm | 18/06/09

New Scientist had an interesting article a while ago - based on risk, should you give an unknown person a bowl of peanuts or an MDMA tablet.

Based on the stats of hosptial admissions, you are about 100 times less likely to cause that person harm by offering them the MDMA tabelet over the peanuts, due to the prevalance of nut allergies.

Not saying MDMA is good, just putting some perspective on the relative risks, if you know what are getting.

im says:

05:25pm | 18/06/09

Legalise these drugs and tax them. Stop wasting money on your unwinnable war.

Claire says:

05:20pm | 18/06/09

RT and Ben Payne - I live in Adelaide, SA. I have never seen a sniffer dog. Perhaps the drug culture in Adelaide is different to other cities. Possession of cannabis is not a criminal offence here, although possession of ecstasy is. However once you’ve swallowed it you cannot be arrested.

Claire says:

05:08pm | 18/06/09

Chris - you seem to presume that people either sit in two camps: those who choose to enjoy psychoactive drugs - and those who have never tried such drugs and therefore have no understanding.

May I suggest that there is a third group - there are plenty of ex-ravers out there who have battled with depression, who have woken up in hospital after one pill too many, who have had many friends experience pain and anguish (insomnia, weight loss, malnourishment, job loss etc) because of the abuse of party drugs.

Then there is a fourth group - the parents, the psychiatrists and the psychologists who witness the aftermath of the party lifestyle, and are there to help their kids clean up the mess when things go wrong.

I agree that many journalists and legislators are relatively ignorant when it comes to drug use - but psychiatrists and other medical professionals are not. They deal with it every day. The best advice we can follow is that offered by the health sciences sector, and I would argue most medical professionals would fervently oppose the legalisation of ecstasy.

Ben Payne says:

04:38pm | 18/06/09

Claire - in order for me to get high, I need to buy my drugs from someone, and that someone does not have a shop I can go to - buying drugs involves furtive glances, whispered exchanges, secret code words, etc, not to mention the stigma associated with being a “drug user”, the shame that is inflicted on me.

it also means that the drugs I buy are of questionable origin and quality, and could prove life threatening if I get the wrong batch.

RT says:

04:37pm | 18/06/09

Claire@ 3:21pm - what state are you from? In NSW where I live it is an offence to merely possess these scheduled drugs as well as to supply them. Cops get around with sniffer dogs and are quite happy with possession busts. If you have more than a certain amount that can be deemed a ‘trafficable quantity’  regardless of a lack of any other evidence of intention to supply.

Chris says:

04:16pm | 18/06/09

Dave I thought I’d help you out a bit here, squire, as your argument suggests a slight lack of ‘social experience’ lol…

You can snort it, drink it, wrap it up in a ciggy paper and swallow it. You can even rub it on your gushy bits if you want to. Indeed apart from inject it (the pills tend to be a little too big to fit down the needle) you can do whatever you like with it - it certainly doesn’t have to be in pill form.

Funnily enough, it’s now twenty years since ecstacy became the fuel of the second Summer of Love, and while media coverage has moved on somewhat since Kelvin McKenzie’s ‘Ecstacy Airport’ headlines of that era, we still see a surprising lack of understanding in the reporting of why young (and middle aged) people choose to enjoy such drugs.

Maybe we’re still a generation away from that yet, but I suspect we’re not far from a time when we’ll see ex-raver’s legislating, governing and policing with more honesty and common sense.

Billy Pilgrim says:

03:24pm | 18/06/09

There is a good story about it from the BBC a while back, I’m sure some of you have seen this graph or something like it before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

Some things I have learned:
There is not a single death in history that can be directly attributed to cannabis use.
One reported death due to LSD (10,000 times the recreational dose, which sounds horrible).
The risk of death from MDMA is extremely minimal when dealing with an unadulterated substance and sensible precautions, yet anyone even casual to the scene knows how important yet completely unreliable that first point is when dealing with the street market for it.
There is a general scientific consensus that there is NO safe level for alcohol or tobacco consumption, and these cause FAR more hospital admission, permanent disability and death than every other illegal drug COMBINED. Some would tender that this is due to their legality and ease of access, but I think a good hard look at the above graph is in order if that is what you believe.

In short, the war on drugs is about as sensible as a war on premarital sex. You may be morally opposed and throw out that old chestnut of what about the children!?!, but people have been doing it since they first realised they could, and you’re not going to stop it happening.

And as a few above have noted, unless you ARE going to include alcohol and tobacco in this pointless war, then it’s pretty obvious it’s not about protecting people from harm and addiction.

Claire says:

03:21pm | 18/06/09

Ben Payne - Taking drugs is not a criminal offence. No one can be arrested ‘for being high’.  So you don’t need to argue that you “don’t want to be treated like a criminal for having a good time”.

It is the sale and supply of drugs that is a criminal offence, as it is an act which may cause harm to another.

Claire says:

03:10pm | 18/06/09

Darren - There are actually several lawsuits against brewing companies underway in the US as we speak - most of them are blaming alcoholic drinks for birth defects. But alcohol litigation is unlikely to become comparable to tobacco suits, primarily because if you do not abuse alcohol, nothing will happen to you.

The same cannot be said for ecstasy. Unfortunately the adverse effects of ecstasy such as overheating, are difficult to predict. The way the body reacts chemically to ecstasy in combination with variables such as surrounding temperature are unique and individual, hence its danger and illegality.

Ben Payne says:

02:56pm | 18/06/09

Maybe I missed something, but I followed all the links in the above stories (and comments), and while there is a lot of words about how bad these drugs are, there is very little actual data, or facts, or statistics, about the dangers of these drugs.

I had a look at the Courier-Mail’s “The Drugs Scourge”, and there are lots of skulls and crossbones, and wild beat-ups about the “cost” of drugs, but there is absolutely no actual information on the drugs themselves.

This is just irresponsible scare mongering.  “Pill taking rife among clubbers”, “drugs bigger risk than booze”, “school leavers at risk”, “parents reveal tragic struggle”

What an absolute load of shit. This kind of reporting should be illegal.  The only explanation for this total whitewash of fact is that you (directly or indirectly) profit from this “war on drugs”.  Saying something over and over again does not make it true. (“I do believe in fairies, I do believe in fairies”).

Our drug laws are based on those of the US, and while I don’t think our system is quite as bad as theirs, it definitely serves as a warning.  As I’m kinda lazy, I’m just going to quote author Sam Harris’s summary on the situation in America, just to show how ludicrous this whole thing is:
“Each year, over 1.5 million men and women are arrested in the United States because of our drug laws. At this moment, somewhere on the order of 400,000 men and women languish in U.S. prisons for nonviolent drug offences. One million others are currently on probation. More people are imprisoned for nonviolent drug offences in the United States than are incarcerated, for any reason, in all of Western Europe (which has a larger population). The cost of these efforts, at the federal level alone, is nearly $20 billion dollars annually. The total cost of our drug laws—when one factors in the expense to state and local governments and the tax revenue lost by our failure to regulate the sale of drugs—could easily be in excess of $100 billion dollars each year. Our war on drugs consumes an estimated 50 percent of the trial time of our courts and the full-time energies of over 400,000 police officers. These are resources that might otherwise be used to fight violent crime and terrorism.
The United Nations values the drug trade at $400 billion a year. This exceeds the annual budget for the U.S. Department of Defence. If this figure is correct, the trade in illegal drugs constitutes 8 percent of all international commerce (while the sale of textiles makes up 7.5 percent and motor vehicles just 5.3 percent).”

It really is no wonder we have organised crime, bribery, and violence.

It’s time to get real, and legalise, regulate, and tax these drugs like we do alcohol.  The few statistics that are quoted show that a large majority of people use (or have used) illegal drugs, so stop telling us what you think, and start listening to what we, the people, are saying:  “we want to take drugs, and we don’t want to be treated like criminals for having a good time.”

Darren says:

02:42pm | 18/06/09

Claire says: “And who would risk being sued in the civil court for selling a product which is known to cause brain damage and psychological dysfunction”

What does alcohol cause if it doesn’t cause brain damage and psychological dysfunction?

and as already stated by others no pill presses doesn’t = no drugs. Merely a different form of ingestion. No less convenient to consume, no more expensive to produce, no harder to distribute

Tony says:

02:30pm | 18/06/09

aah, yes. The war on *some* drugs. Which drugs? Caffeine? Well, that’s OK.  Penicillin? Wonderful. Ritalin? Brilliant. Tobacco? Hmmm - makes lots of money, so it’s OK, keep it legal. Alcohol? Moneymaker.

Illegal drugs? Evil, eeeeviiil.

Unfortunately drugs are not necessarily made legal or illegal based on their potential to harm the user or others, or their potential to be abused. To me, it seems more like decisions are made by whoever has the politicians/media’s ears. Usually the vested interests of the alcohol/tobacco/pharmaceutical lobbies.

Me? I think it’s time to end the war on *some* drugs. Just like the US’ experiment with Prohibition, the war has failed, is costing the community billions, is not helping those with problems get better, and is leading to an environment of criminality, corruption (at all levels) and violence.

I’d rather see drug use legalised. I’d rather see those buying drugs get what they expected, not cut with something *really* nasty, or something that’s many times their usual dose because the suopplier didn’t cut it as much. I’d rather see a society where it was easy and possible to get treatment for drug use that didn’t involve the risk of being labelled a criminal.

Sure, I’m happy to accept there’d be restrictions, and if caught, say DUI of any drug that impaired my driving ability, I’d expect to be punished. But if I was using a drug and not doing anything else illegal, not harming anyone (except possibly myself), I’d expect it would be my business, and not that of any wowser or government.

I also accept that there may be an increase in use of some drugs, but I don’t accept we’d suddenly all turn into wasted zombies, ever cranking up the strength of our chosen drug. We’d find something we enjoy, and stick with that. A bit like alcohol. I enjoy a beer, and also chocolatey/milky liquers, but I’m not interested in bourbon, whisky, absinthe, etc. I don’t get plastered at work, or drive drunk - I’m responsible enough to know when and where I can have my alcohol, my limits, and what agrees/disagrees with me.

As an adult, surely it’s my choice.

Terry Wright says:

02:25pm | 18/06/09

Claire, alcohol companies are excluded from these issues so why wouldn’t drug sales be the same?

The “think of the children” claim is purely an excuse as Marc points out. The “War on Drugs” and prohibition are in place for every reasons except the well being of people. They have roots in racism against Mexicans, diverting public attention away from the Vietnam war, right wing ideology, the Temperance movement, The US influence on the UN and more recently, support from an ignorant public for politicians who are “tough on drugs”. If the well being of the public, especially children was the main reason for the “War on Drugs”, then alcohol and tobacco would be prohibited as well. The fact is some drugs like ecstasy and cannabis are much safer than alcohol, not addictive and cause very few problems in moderation. Going on ratios of harm, cannabis and ecstasy should be legal if alcohol is.

Also, it is now known that kids are able to get cannabis easier than alcohol in the US. This is simply because drug dealers do not have age restrictions but a regulated alcohol market does. This is just one of many reasons why the outdated and failed “War on Drugs” does not work.

Marc says:

01:55pm | 18/06/09

It’s rather absurd to pull children into the argument.  Should adults have to increasingly give up their rights for the sake of children?  I see this as being the exact same argument used for internet filtering.  Why wont somebody think of the children?!  To me, it seems like a very rude excuse made by governments and special interest groups to maintain their control over what they think people should and shouldn’t do.

Green says:

01:47pm | 18/06/09

The government picks up the tab on hundred of hospital bills for people sick with diseases caused by smoking. Are they going to ban cigarettes?? Oops, of course not, they make millions from taxes on tobacco!!

Claire says:

01:46pm | 18/06/09

Bill - Do you really think the FDA would approve the sale of a psychoactive drug? And who would risk being sued in the civil court for selling a product which is known to cause brain damage and psychological dysfunction? Do you suppose we abolish the entire system of litigation in Australia and also the FDA? You must be joking.

Bill says:

01:27pm | 18/06/09

Claire, children have access to these drugs now, probably more so than adults because of their much larger network of friends.  Minimise the harm at least by making these drugs purer in labs with the appropriate controls.  In pure form, many of these drugs are no worse for humans than drinking alcohol.  No good ever comes from ANY type of war.

john says:

01:00pm | 18/06/09

CLAIRE…your concern for children is quite valid…however look at how many children are used by dealers as couriers for example…with proper education from day one upcoming generations will know all about the pros and cons of drugs….they are here now and will never go away…it is a fact that since education re the perils of tobacco fewer children smoke than before. .nothing is perfect and some children will always get hurt…usually from lack of good parenting. I don’t suggest these drugs be sold at every corner store rather much like alcohol and tobacco are sold today.  Proof of age plus harsh fines for selling to underage persons.

Claire says:

12:47pm | 18/06/09

The main reason we have a war on drugs is to protect our children - not the informed adults who take drugs recreationally and with caution. Drugs are especially harmful to children, and can cause significant harm to their physical and mental development after one use. If a chemical has this capacity, it should not be legal. If illicit drugs are legalised their avalibility will increase and price will decrease, leading to a rise in use amongst those most vulnerable -teenagers and children. For most adults, this would be unconsiconable, therfore we have a war on drugs.

josh says:

12:25pm | 18/06/09

Anthony have you ever read Orwell’s 1984?

John says:

12:22pm | 18/06/09

The world spends multiple billions of dollars on this unwinnable drug war. Tens of thousands of people are murdered by drug dealers every year.
Our jails are full to overflowing with drug offenders sucking yet more billions of dollars out of the system.
The solution is toal legalisation with all drugs produced in government controled labs…make them so cheap there will be no money to be made by black marketers…distibute them to anyone who wants them with clean, safe packaging, needles etc…spend a fraction of the current war chest on education and rehabilitation…like the war on tobacco make drug taking uncool and only for dummies..The number of deaths by drug use is very small compared to cigarrettes and alcohol….if legal there is no reason to believe any more people would use them than now..especially if done in conjunction with education programs.
Having a few drinks does not mean you will wind up an alcoholic any more than using many drugs currently available will either kill you or make you addicted.
Save money…save lives…legalise

Clem says:

12:22pm | 18/06/09

Ok, so they ban the importation of pill presses. What’s to stop the drug being distributed in liquid or powder form? Or from existing pill presses being obtained illegally? While there’s demand for drugs, there will always be supply - there’s too much to gain for both the drug users and drug pushers to let any roadblock stop them from finding the next detour. Not even the death penalty is enough. Bali 9 anyone?

You make the mistake of believing there’s some sort of silver bullet available to fight this “war” on drugs. That if you take out one link of the supply chain, then this nasty pattern will disappear and we can all go back to using safe and legal drugs like nicotine, alcohol and whipped cream bulbs.

But there’s the rub. If you’re going to take the paternalistic view that “Drugs are bad, m’kay?” because they damage one’s health, or much worse, one’s reputation (Andrew Johns, anyone?), and that people aren’t to be trusted in the choices that they make, you might have a reasonable argument if you included legal drugs like cigarettes and alcohol. But you don’t because, well, that’s simply preposterous, we’ve all seen how effective prohibition was in the 30s.

So you continue to peddle this line that the war on drugs can be won and pretend ciggies and alcohol are somehow beside the point. But until you acknowledge both in the same argument you can’t be taken seriously.

Maybe you should accept some people make choices and take risks, despite the evidence of potential harm. Have you ever wondered why?

TJ says:

12:06pm | 18/06/09

The truth is that tens of thousands of intelligent, productive and professional people occasionally use ecstacy in this country…and enjoy it. They don’t see it as a drug scourge or something to be ashamed of. There will always be a market for it in any of it forms.

albe says:

11:34am | 18/06/09

“too many massively inflated budgets for public servants who never have their crusades given a proper cost-benefit analysis.” you’re bang on there, Pat. The drug war continues as too many vested interests benefit from its existence. Politicians have an ‘other’ to demonise, the media can stir up a frenzy to get their ageing audience to keep buying, policing budgets unquestionably increased time and again… the list goes on.
You just can’t take any of the ‘drug scourge’ bleating seriously when u look at the harm non-illicit drugs like alcohol and tobacco do.

CJ of Chatswood says:

11:24am | 18/06/09

David, I think your “simple solution” is painfully simplistic and unrealistic.
1. History tells us nothing will ever interrupt people’ effforts to get high, nor others’ efforts to satisfy the demand.
2. “Regulatitng” pill presses? What, you think cashed up, resourceful drug manufacturers coulrn’t figure out how to make their own presses? Or pay some smart cookie to make one? Hey, have you ever heard of something called the black market? And what about the presses already operating? Also, let’s say by some miracle all pill presses in Australia disappeared overnight - don’t you think E-freaks could come up with another means on ingestion?
David, if there is indeed a war on drugs, then the people on drugs are clearly winning it (refer to point 1). Seriously mate, you might as well say we can rid the world of pot by banning Tally-Ho’s.

Lauren says:

11:21am | 18/06/09

Anthony - what planet did you come from? Seriously….?

pat says:

11:20am | 18/06/09

Hi craig, the study I’m pretty sure your quoting was retracted because the researcher accidently substituted the mdma for methamphetamine, but not before it was widely reported, and formed the basis for “this is your brain on drugs” advertisments, see:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/09/60328
In answer to your question, researches in the uk catagorised pot and mdma as less harmfull than speed, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/mar/23/constitution.drugsandalcohol
Drugs are all different from each other, and saying one is worse than the other is probably misleading anyway, as it really depends on who is using them.  For example most people can enjoy a drink without beating up their wife, but not everyone.  My point is merely that the drug war doesn’t work, has never worked, does more harm than good and costs a lot of money.

JT says:

11:14am | 18/06/09

Your article is very simplistic. Banning presses may help keep the drug off the street in pill form. What about as a powder or liquid?

Bruce says:

11:08am | 18/06/09

Anthony, good idea, lets make goverment have a bigger say in our lives, I rate that as the worst idea ever.
And to everone else, what ever happened to adults making their own decisions?  As long as I dont hurt anyone else…If I hurt myself, thats my own stupid fault, and no health or welfare system should pick up the tab.

RT says:

10:30am | 18/06/09

Claire, you say that Adelaide has the highest per capita death rate in the world. What is that rate? Craig, what don’t you understand about ‘not so harmful’. For example, would you agree that drinking alcoholic beverages, while potentially harmful, is not so harmful as drinking, say, sulphuric acid?

Anthony says:

10:28am | 18/06/09

I think an easier way than education, and expensive inquiries, would be to start phasing out cash in every day life. If we were to abolish cash, which is becomming rarer anyway, we would set up a paper trail of all transactions. Im sure crims will eventually find a way around things, but i think the recreational and everyday users would not run the risk..
The technology to switch everything to computer based systems is here, whether its throw away re-charge ‘cash’ cards or via eftpos type facilities, i think it could work.

Adam says:

10:27am | 18/06/09

Heaven forbid users of these drugs should take any responsibility for what they put into their bodies! Why don’t all you wowsers give up booze for a while to show us how serious you are in your dislike of substance abuse?

Shari says:

10:25am | 18/06/09

Until the term ‘drugs’ is expanded to include alcohol, and consenting adults are allowed to decide for themselves what kind of ‘drug’ they wish to indulge in recreationally , how can these ad-hoc decisions by governments be taken seriously by anyone?

Craig says:

10:10am | 18/06/09

At Pat…...  Quick question….. Where is your evidence to prove that Speed is a very dangerous drug while pot and MDMA are not so harmful?  How can you have a ‘not so harmful’ drug?  There is no evidence to prove the long term effects of drug use - that is of any drug.  There has been studies completed in the USA that shows the effects on the brain from regular ecstasy usage.  These studies were completed by using a CAT scan of the brain which show significant lesions/holes within the cerebrum.  Once again, how can you categorise these as ‘not so harmful’??????

Claire says:

10:02am | 18/06/09

RT, Adelaide has the highest per-capita death rate from ecstasy in Australia and maybe even the world. Because of this, The University of Adelaide conducts research into the effects of ecstasy. Researchers have found that ecstasy taken on a few occasions could cause severe damage to brain cells, with the potential to cause future memory loss and psychological problems. For more information go to http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news321.html

RT says:

08:47am | 18/06/09

David, where is the evidence that ecstacy is so harmful that it must continue to be decriminalised and efforts increased to ‘take it off the streets’? It seems a relatively harmless drug. I can only recall one well-publicised death from ecstacy more than 10 years ago. Plenty of prescription drugs are much more harmful. Secondly, where do you get your confidence that it is possible to control the harm from drugs by ‘taking it off the streets’ when plenty of evidence shows that if you make someone’s drug of choice harder to get, they find another drug to replace it with? People want to self-medicate and the criminalisation of drugs in an attempt to stop them doing so is an expensive, harmful failure.

pat says:

07:50am | 18/06/09

This will be good for people who like MDMA in the long run - too many amatures have these cheap presses and can press up anything.  The effect on actual ecstacy production will come to nothing, in fact removing some of the idiots selling cheap counterfit ecstacy will likely improve the margins of ‘legit’ mdma producers.  The fact that an inquirey cost over $100,000 to come up with this garbage really highlights the real problem with the drugs “scurge” - too many massively inflated budgets for public servants who never have their crusades given a proper cost-benefit analysis.  If the average tax payer knew of the costs involved fighting the drug war and the total absence of the ‘deterrent effect’ they would no longer support it.  Far from holding back the masses from an uncontrolled drug orgy, the drug war actually increases the drugs available, decreases the cost of some very dangerous drugs (speed) while inflating the cost of not so harmfull ones (pot and MDMA) and exponentially increases the risks of doing drugs.  All while spending billions of dollars every year and locking up people for nothing.

Peter Thornton says:

06:19am | 18/06/09

Perhaps in years to come waxing nostalgic about our great chemical miscalculations of old may strike listeners as a bit weird, but I guess by then we will have to come expect this from Y-Gen alumni. And while compared to, say, opiates pills are relatively safe as drugs go, that of course isn’t saying much. In my opinion what is important to say , however, is that a rather simple mistake in the drug synthesizing process could quite easily produce a far nastier and much more toxic drug, which would makes deadly poisoning a serious possibility. As far as long-term effects go, well let’s just say I’ve has never been one to get too sentimental about youthful vices.