//Taking a drug for getting high? Yeah that isn't near the same reason, and popping a few more is just as likely as a drunk not knowing when to quit drinking.//

MDMA and alcohol aren't the same thing, mate. The only real similarities are their vector (ingestion) and that people take them for their intoxicating properties. They're different categories of drug, they're metabolised differently, they have different effects on the brain, and they aren't taken in the same way. You come unstuck when you try to compare apples and oranges too closely.

//As for the last few replies Toni, the only one that I thought were worth while was about the costs. I didn't have much to add to it, so I didn't reply. It's something I'm trying out for a few posters. (Yourself included). Only reply if they say something worthwhile.//

Oh for God's sake, get over yourself, princess. If I only bothered to respond to 'worthwhile' posts we'd never be able to have our little chats, and where would the fun in it that be?

I do find it quite amusing though, the way you've gone on at length in the past about placing the most faith in people's first-hand experiences. And yet when faced with comments on the first-hand experience of somebody who a) has experience as analytical technician, b) has a better working knowledge of the Australian legal system than you, c) has experience of experimenting with various drugs in his youth - but you disagree with those comments - well, then you dismiss them out of hand because they're unworthy.

But I guess you're just a bit upset because I questioned your psychic abilities. Would you like a hanky?

TONY, the only way you can get the emphasis of your point across is by insulting other posters. Cut the insults and make your point clear and your ideas might be better accepted. We are here to discuss a problem and maybe expose a solution. By insulting others you intend to make them feel small, because in your mind you have the dominant answer. That is verbal bullying!

Josephus,

Do you actually read the gibberish put out by Toni Lavis? I don't.

Thank you Josephes. However I wouldn't put too much concern over what Toni says. If it changes where he says something of value, or tries to be clear instead of trying to get under people's skin, then great. Otherwise, just learn from my mistake, and don't pay him any concern.

To Toni. If you want to give your experiences popping pills, then go ahead. But unless it's insightful in some way, I'd recommend against it. Admitting that you take pills recreationally has only harmed your case, on just about any subject matter. Insightful in this case would be in clearing up why taking pills wouldn't have the same behavior with other drugs where taking too much is common.

People don't overdose for health benefits, or to be responsible with an illegal substance, they do it because they want the high, the low, or any other effect to last longer or be stronger. It doesn't take a psychic to know this.

I'm trying to think about where all this leads.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/colour-change-drug-tests-could-save-aussie-lives/news-story/c3a8a465066e527fc6ff03d439d051c1

http://www.harmreductionaustralia.org.au/

Everything these days is capitalist or evidence based.
And so once an organisation like harmreductionaustralia exists, like any business it needs successes and growth to remain viable.

http://www.harmreductionaustralia.org.au/what-is-harm-reduction/

"The International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) defines harm reduction as the ‘policies, programmes and practices that aim to reduce the harms associated with the use of psychoactive drugs in people unable or unwilling to stop. The defining features are the focus on the prevention of harm, rather than on the prevention of drug use itself, and the focus on people who continue to use drugs.’

Harm reduction has been a principle of Australian governments’ approach to drug use for several decades, beginning in the 1980s when the first needle syringe program was first introduced."

So it's an international organisation seeking results.
How would they measure results?

To my mind they want an increase on the 2.1% of the 1.7bn illicit drugs budget spent or harm reduction.

- But I look at the prior news article, it says the kits cost $25, so what is the government planning to do? spend $25 everytime someone wants to use illegal drugs?

"Cities like Vienna, Madrid and Zurich allow people to anonymously drop off their drugs for safe and accurate testing"

- This is obviously what they want -

This to me only pushes straight into the hands of governments selling and regulating the drugs.

If you spend $25 for testing every tablet, it would cost less to just produce safe drugs themselves than pay such a cost to test them all.

What else are you going to do?
Make the drug dealers pay a 'pill testing tax'?

On another slide (in the showcase area on the homepage) they say every $1 spend on needle programs saves $27 in health costs and lost productivity;

I wonder how they calculate that?

[Cont]

Where does it lead?

Lets say they identify 'bad drugs'?
Obviously then they would make more effort to identify the seller;
- above that of someone selling 'safe' drugs -

(I suppose that would promote cleaner drugs)

But if they keep detecting bad drugs then what?
Then the government decides it should sell it instead?

They could even flood these events with bad drugs themselves to make the legislation pass, though it does sound a little conspiratorial I'll admit.

And in all this, where's the personal responsibility factor?
The 'If you play stupid games' you win stupid prizes' clause?

It seems to me that this is a program that ultimately want the costs associated with some peoples stupid choices shared by everyone.

They try to justify it by saying if you don't pay for this program it only costs you more in the long run.

It feels like a stitch up...

- But once again, it is young peoples lives -
(And no I'm not buying into the narrative but I am aware of the issues)