Sunday, August 9, 2009

THE NZ DRUG FOUNDATION IS PEDDLING A CANARD

I know I am not alone in expressing concern that the NZ Drug Foundation is peddling a canard with their 'harm minimalization' message.

You can see it here at the Foundation's website.

Sure the message is prettied up but the real bottom line is that 'P' is perhaps the most insidious drug around today. There is NO 'safe' way to use it.

And for the Foundation to pretend that their harm minimalization message is just an extension of the 'slip-slop-slap' campaign is pure sophistry. Controlled exposure to sunlight is not harmful. Any exposure to methamphetamine is life threatening.

I note the Foundation has a range of classes of membership. Perhaps they should offer a special class of membership to the importers and manufacturers of P. I'm sure they will be delighted to support an organisation peddling a 'safe way to use' message.

A far better message pure and simple is 'P Kills'.

31 comments:

KG said...

Who finances the NZ Drug Foundation? Is it just another taxpayer-funded lobby group?

James said...

Sure P kills....but its the "P" in the word Prohibition.We have that to thank for the ills this drug and others cause....legalised there would be nowhere near the issues we currently have with crime,addiction,corruption etc etc...

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

The most hideous aspect of this drug is that it destroys people's children right before their eyes.

It is like a criminally inflicted Altzheimer's Disease of the young.

There's nothing parents can do. Just ask Paul Holmes.

Richard Goode said...

Any exposure to methamphetamine is life threatening... There is NO 'safe' way to use it.

Of course methamphetamine can be used safely. In the U.S. methamphetamine, under the brand name Desoxyn®, is prescribed to children with attention deficit disorder.

Leave the sensationalising to the MSM.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Thanks for being the day's first pedant, Richard.

Richard Goode said...

'P' is a drug to stay away from, for sure, but it's just a stimulant, no different in kind from caffeine, BZP or Ritalin®.

To say that "it destroys people's children right before their eyes" is just ludicrous. (Or were you being facetious?)

Richard Goode said...

A far better message pure and simple is 'P Kills'.

How many people has P killed so far this year? Not many, if any.

mawm said...

RG - Are you being serious?

'P' is an horrific drug that causes profound physiological and psychological dependence even after 1 exposure, and it ravages the body as the only thing that matters to the victim is getting another hit. Have you seen the series of photos taken by an American prison warder of 'P' addicts returning to gaol for sequential offendings? - twenty-something year olds looking like fifty year olds.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Richard, now you really are pushng shit uphill.

Richard Goode said...

Of course I'm being serious.

Read this.

Richard Goode said...

How many people has P killed so far this year? Anyone?

Ruth said...

The thing with P is that if your kids get into the drug you don't know them anymore and are left dealing with a substance - all your good parenting goes out the window.

Dr Richard Goode is a true gentleman - one of the few on the internet who never resorts to profanity or emotionalism.

I don't agree with him all the time but he is certainly worth listening to.

WAKE UP said...

Well, Richard, I don't know if 'P' has directly killed anyone using it - but I'll bet you wouldn't want to be one of the many victims who have suffered at the hands of people who are on 'P'.

Indeed, aren't some lawyers citing addiction to 'P' as a defence these days (just as they used to use alcohol)? You can't have it both ways.

Richard Goode said...

"The many victims" - how many is that? How many people has P directly killed this year? How many people has P indirectly killed this year?

I'm asking you to quantify the harms you attribute to methamphetamine use. Try it, you might like it.

I sympathise with parents of children with drug problems. The War on Drugs™ (which includes the ill-informed hysteria about P rife on this blog) is NOT a solution to those problems.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Peter, probably about the same number who are directly killed by smoking or by alcohol abuse.

Now why don't you run along and stop being so silly?

mawm said...

RG - you quote your own article on drugs hmmmm.... and there is no rating given for 'P' in the scale of badness.

I would think that there is no way to ascertain the deaths related to 'P', but in the list of deaths where 'P' is causative I would include the following:-
- internecine struggle between gangs for the control of such an addictive substance
- collateral deaths such as vehicular accidents where drivers are under the influence of the drug or in the aftermath of a weekend of use and the resultant exhaustion leading to inattention.
- deaths as a result of violence perpetrated by addicts either when high or coming off the high (we have seen some kids killed where 'P' could quite likely have resulted in violent rages by the carers).
- direct deaths due to overdosage, cardiac arrythmias, disorientation resulting in fatal accidents, etc.
- 'cooks' blowing themselves up in preparing it.

There has also been very little interest in the MSM in following up blood levels of 'P' in the at fault drivers in our many horrific RTA's, and in related psychiatric problems in occasional or regular users.

But the worst is the destruction it causes to the lives of the users and the grief to the families that have to deal with the mental changes and de-personalisation of their loved ones.

Lou Taylor said...

I would be happy to try legalising drugs.
But only in say 10 years time.
In the mean time we shoot all people convicted of making, supplying and selling drugs.
You may find that in 10 years we don't have quite the same problem.

James said...

"I would be happy to try legalising drugs.
But only in say 10 years time.
In the mean time we shoot all people convicted of making, supplying and selling drugs.
You may find that in 10 years we don't have quite the same problem."

True.....the fascist police State you have created by then may concern us somewhat more....

WAKE UP said...

Richard, as you ducked this, I'm posting it again in its entirety - with a tagline: I just hope you get what you wish for (if you get my meaning). Theory's a wonderful thing but nowhere near as bracing as a burglary or an assault from a P head.

WAKE UP said...
Well, Richard, I don't know if 'P' has DIRECTLY killed anyone using it - but I'll bet you wouldn't want to be one of the many victims who have suffered at the hands of people who are on 'P'.

Indeed, aren't some lawyers citing addiction to 'P' as a defence these days (just as they used to use alcohol)? You can't have it both ways.

MikeE said...

Bollicks,

I know plenty of people who have used meth recreationally and responsibly without addiction.

I'd never reccomend it to anyone, I think its horrible stuff - BUT any claim that its going to always end in disaster is disengenious.

Also, no where does harm min claim drugs are safe. Its "safer" i.e. less harm than before, and for the people I know, their use is much safer than them being in jail for a drug that has harmed noone but themselves - and was by choice.

Prohibition Kills far more than P does.

MikeE said...

Further to that - would your preference bet that users consumed if in more harmful ways?

I.e. would you prefer more deaths/injuries from use?

Would that be a better outcome for society.

We all know that the safest drug use is no drug use, but that is never going to happen. People are going to experiment...

I'd much rather a world with less drug harm than more drug harm, and that includes harm caused by busybodies such as yourself. ... and this is coming from someone who has watched their cousin ruin their live with Heroin, and friends turn into absolute wrecks with GBH and other substances...

WAKE UP said...

Mike E: you can tapdance all you like, but my point was not a comparison of legal/illegal drugs; nor am I advocating they be banned. I DON"T CARE.

What I want you and Richard Goode to acknowledge is that INNOCENT, non-drug taking people are damaged fdaily by the actions of people on drugs (any drug of your choicer; I DON'T CARE).

Which is obviously a point you can't concede - because then you'd have to admit the risks, you selfish bastards. I don't care if you drug yourselves to death - just do it SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Anonymous said...

Methamphetamine has been around, and used, for years and years and to my knowledge hasn't killed anyone. 'P' is Pure Methamphetamine which is obviously a pure version of Methamphetamine. The two must be distinguished.

Gooner

WAKE UP said...

"Methamphetamine has been around, and used, for years and years and to my knowledge hasn't killed anyone. 'P' is Pure Methamphetamine which is obviously a pure version of Methamphetamine. The two must be distinguished. "

yes yes words words words...when will someone address the fact that P heads damage OTHER people's lives?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Gooner, perhaps you can look out some figures on the number of human hands which have been chopped off by P addled dopeheads; the number of people who have taken their own lives as a result of impaired mental capacity directly attributable to use of P; the number of permanently damaged babies born of P addicted mothers; the number of people killed in home invasions by P fueled addicts; the number of youngsters who have been taken from their families by addiction to P.

And yes I will concede that I'm not aware of any person who has been directly killed by P. When I hear of some poor bastard who died because a pallet of the stuff fell on his head on Auckland wharf, I'll let you and the other fool know.

Richard Goode said...

What I want you and Richard Goode to acknowledge is that INNOCENT, non-drug taking people are damaged fdaily by the actions of people on drugs (any drug of your choicer; I DON'T CARE).

Of course they are.

What do you propose doing about it? I propose ending the War on Drugs™. If nothing else, ending the War on Drugs™ would put a stop to

home invasions by P fueled addicts

Anonymous said...

90% of all drug related harm is a direct result of Prohibition. Prohibition puts supply into the hands of organized crime and lowers the quality of the drug.
The government needs to start selling P in a liquid form that can be drunk, in a similar way they do now with Methadone. This would remove the problems of supply running out and hence stop the robberies and home invasions.
Lying to teenagers with comments such as "one taste causes addiction" have always failed. We tried it with Cannabis, the kids tried it anyway and realized they had been lied to. They then refused to listen when we said the same about Heroin. Many of them died because of our lies. Honesty is always the best policy.

Ruth said...

I propose ending the War on Drugs™. If nothing else, ending the War on Drugs™ would put a stop to home invasions by P fueled addicts

No it wouldn't Richard. Ending the War on Drugs would reduce the price, but most of the crime would continue.

People prostitute themselves and rob to buy alcohol and cigarettes - both of which are cheap and legal.

Sus said...

I don't think so, Ruth.

While it's true that some folk will always resort to crime for anything, (legal or not), surely an open, legal market for anything is always preferable to an illegal one operated by criminals.

I believe our drug laws give birth to substances such as 'P'.

I also believe that in a free market, BigPharma would be only too pleased to fill that void ...

Sus said...

.. with something safer and better-priced, for those who take that sort of thing.

Richard Goode said...

Ending the War on Drugs would reduce the price, but most of the crime would continue.

You can support a $30/week P habit on a benefit. You can't support a $3000/week P habit unless you turn to crime (or you're on a very good salary).

People prostitute themselves and rob to buy alcohol and cigarettes - both of which are cheap and legal.

Legal, but not cheap. We already have a thriving black market in tobacco and alcohol, and increased crime (e.g., dairy and bottle store robberies) thanks to over-zealous taxation of these products.