Coaching Staff Mark "Bomber" Thompson - Will present the Jock McHale Medal for 2023 - 4/9

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Well, I don't remember the 90s my friend. Mental health is real. I have nothing but regret for the scrambled mess I became, and I don't buy into the machismo myth that some people attach to drug use. It's bogus IMO, and misleading.

Like anything it depends. It depends on the drug and the person taking it. One thing is for sure, people taking backyard lab stuff is far worse.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

42% over a range of 16 million people.

With less than 30,000 respondents, so really it could be higher or lower not even taking into account those who weren't comfortable enough to respond honestly. In any case you really want to include kids under 14 in your number?

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

Well, I don't remember the 90s my friend. Mental health is real. I have nothing but regret for the scrambled mess I became, and I don't buy into the machismo myth that some people attach to drug use. It's bogus IMO, and misleading.

It's not a myth.. its fact. Some people, demographics, genetics makeups, family history (and dozens of other things) contribute to a person one, using drugs and two, developing dependence.

Some people use smack once and are instantly hooked. Some (a small percentage) are able to be casual users over a long period.

Plenty of people can use drugs casual and intelligently. In fact, the majority of people who have taken drugs do.

 

[ghostdog]

With less than 30,000 respondents, so really it could be higher or lower not even taking into account those who weren't comfortable enough to respond honestly. In any case you really want to include kids under 14 in your number?

My calculations were actually based on numbers at 15+.
I'd be interested to know where the sample was taken from as well.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

My calculations were actually based on numbers at 15+.
I'd be interested to know where the sample was taken from as well.

Me too as it would vastly change the percentage if it wasn't taken from a varied group.

 

[ghostdog]

It's not a myth.. its fact. Some people, demographics, genetics makeups, family history (and dozens of other things) contribute to a person one, using drugs and two, developing dependence.

Some people use smack once and are instantly hooked. Some (a small percentage) are able to be casual users over a long period.

Plenty of people can use drugs casual and intelligently. In fact, the majority of people who have taken drugs do.

Using drugs in an intelligent way.

There is a thing called machismo; delusions of ideal masculinity. This thing is cultural and our society and culture attaches it to all manner of behaviours and structures in our society to express patriarchy and define maleness. Drug culture doesn't escape this, and alcohol advertising is probably one of its most sophisticated forms of expression of it. In the sense of illicit drug use, it's when the number of hours or days you've been up or the number of cones you've had equates to a dick measuring contest. The machismo that is attached is mythical. It's a delusional construction of what it means to be a man.
There's nothing intelligent about its use at all. Clever ways to do drugs, maybe, but nothing intelligent.

You know, the human brain doesn't require drugs.

 

[ghostdog]

Me too as it would vastly change the percentage if it wasn't taken from a varied group.

I was wondering if it was an urban sample.

 

[Blind Turn]

Consciousness is our greatest mystery and for some mysterious reason drugs facilitate a broader, deeper consciousness. Yet, for some even more mysterious reason we stymie the possibilities of safely expanding our consciousness because of archaic taboos based on past political agendas in the US. I would love to be involved in sensible, researched exploration of consciousness. Yet as an adult I have no sovereignty over my own consciousness. We are truly strangely inhibited creatures in a very irrational way.

If Bomber is guilty he has done a morally reprehensible thing due to the fact that unregulated, and therefore life threatening, drugs are being drip fed via him to our most vulnerable citizens. It’s not the drug that is the problem. It is the lack of sensible, harm minimising stewardship from decision makers at the top and the subsequent enabling of a criminal market.

 

[DERO]

Thread needs more Timothy Leary.

 

[Blind Turn]

Thread needs more Timothy Leary.

Needs more Terrence McKenna...

 

[jmoo wan]

Using drugs in an intelligent way.

There is a thing called machismo; delusions of ideal masculinity. This thing is cultural and our society and culture attaches it to all manner of behaviours and structures in our society to express patriarchy and define maleness. Drug culture doesn't escape this, and alcohol advertising is probably one of its most sophisticated forms of expression of it. In the sense of illicit drug use, it's when the number of hours or days you've been up or the number of cones you've had equates to a dick measuring contest. The machismo that is attached is mythical. It's a delusional construction of what it means to be a man.
There's nothing intelligent about its use at all. Clever ways to do drugs, maybe, but nothing intelligent.

You know, the human brain doesn't require drugs.

Pretty sexist to think that drug use is exclusively a male’s domain. Girls can smash cones too.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

Pretty sexist to think that drug use is exclusively a male’s domain. Girls can smash cones too.

Chalk those cones up to the patriarchy

 

[ghostdog]

Pretty sexist to think that drug use is exclusively a male’s domain. Girls can smash cones too.

I never said it was and I never said they couldn't.

 

[ghostdog]

Consciousness is our greatest mystery and for some mysterious reason drugs facilitate a broader, deeper consciousness. Yet, for some even more mysterious reason we stymie the possibilities of safely expanding our consciousness because of archaic taboos based on past political agendas in the US. I would love to be involved in sensible, researched exploration of consciousness. Yet as an adult I have no sovereignty over my own consciousness. We are truly strangely inhibited creatures in a very irrational way.

If Bomber is guilty he has done a morally reprehensible thing due to the fact that unregulated, and therefore life threatening, drugs are being drip fed via him to our most vulnerable citizens. It’s not the drug that is the problem. It is the lack of sensible, harm minimising stewardship from decision makers at the top and the subsequent enabling of a criminal market.

I have no issue with you having sovereignty over your own consciousness, as long as my tax dollars don't have to help you then retrieve your health.

 

[DERO]

I have no issue with you having sovereignty over your own consciousness, as long as my tax dollars don't have to help you then retrieve your health.

He may want to use his own tax dollars for that.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

Needs more Terrence McKenna...

Throw in some Paul Stamets

 

[Phone]

I have no issue with you having sovereignty over your own consciousness, as long as my tax dollars don't have to help you then retrieve your health.

your tax dollars have to help retrieve the health of smokers and drinkers and people who smash sugar filled drinks don't they

 

[CBombers17]

I'd like my tax dollars to go towards a 3rd replica oval at Tulla.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I have no issue with you having sovereignty over your own consciousness, as long as my tax dollars don't have to help you then retrieve your health.

So long as the same rule applies to alcohol, tobacco and sugar I'm good with that.

 

[Burzum]

your tax dollars have to help retrieve the health of smokers and drinkers and people who smash sugar filled drinks don't they

So long as the same rule applies to alcohol, tobacco and sugar I'm good with that.

Well smokers pay $8 billion in taxes per year and only take out $300 million from Medicare so I'd say they're paying your way.

 

[Tassieboy]

I have no issue with you having sovereignty over your own consciousness, as long as my tax dollars don't have to help you then retrieve your health.

But in reality, so long as you keep working and pay tax, you’ve got absolutely no say, regardless of what you want.

 

[Tassieboy]

Well smokers pay $8 billion in taxes per year and only take out $300 million from Medicare so I'd say they're paying your way.

And on average they’ll die maybe a decade earlier, an extremely expensive time healthwise.

 

[Phone]

Well smokers pay $8 billion in taxes per year and only take out $300 million from Medicare so I'd say they're paying your way.

i'm aware of that, which also suggests to me there's a whole heap of illicit drugs that could be similarly handled that way, instead of having their users targeted by cops and what not.

(obviously the smoking taxes have nothing to do with recouping medicare loses but cynical cash grabs from people whose demand to a product they're addicted to will hardly drop)

 

[Blind Turn]

I have no issue with you having sovereignty over your own consciousness, as long as my tax dollars don't have to help you then retrieve your health.

Which is exactly what harm minimisation is about.

The 5 rights (has expanded to about 8 now I think) of medication administration is how people who understand drugs ensure patient safety.

Right patient for prescribed drug.
Right dose to suit specific patient.
Right drug for desired effect.
Right route for type and dose being given.
Right time or frequency between doses.

How many of these responsible harm minimisers do you think we can ensure in a criminal market?

Your tax dollars are already being unnecessarily used to treat health problems that can be avoided if there were a health focus rather than a criminal focus.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

Your tax dollars are already being unnecessarily used to treat health problems that can be avoided if there were a health focus rather than a criminal focus.

This.

Criminalising it is far more expensive than treating it as a health issue. It is also far less effective at reducing harm and demand.