Sunday doco about the P gang

Anyone else see it?

Two things: In the end, the doco only served to confirm that the war on drugs is utterly futile. After months of work and millions of dollars spent, the cops got what result? Locked up five bad guys, and bumped the price of P. One month later, others have stepped into their shoes and the market is back to normal.

Secondly, I kind of knew that Waha Safiti dude. My bro was mates with his stepson. Back in the day, they had to watch where they sparked up, as Waha was fully, fully anti drugs. Even weed. Just goes to show the power of drug money.

I agree. The last words that the cop mentioned just showed how futile their fight is. But I guess since these guys are breaking the law the police have no choice but to waste their time pursuing them ...only to have someone else take their place.

yup. and as incomprehensible as it may be to the majority, the only answer is the full, unconditional legalisation of all drugs.

on a related note, i got burned by the herald this weekend. they asked if they could reprint a bit of overdose safety info from my site, but ended up doing a hatchet job. made me out to sound pro drugs. fucktards.

those guys did not look much like hard crims - just a bunch of old men...

They all had prior convictions but just cashing in on the P-craze.

Hardly Mr. Asia.

it's the Herald.

They want to freak people out that their kids can read pro-drug info on the internet.

I hope NZ First don't come knocking on your door.....

luciddreamer - being pro drugs and being anti drug laws is not the same thing.

Jakeyboy70 wrote:

on a related note, i got burned by the herald this weekend. they asked if they could reprint a bit of overdose safety info from my site, but ended up doing a hatchet job. made me out to sound pro drugs. fucktards

I tend to agree with them, i looked in detail at the first incarnation of your site and it was just a glorification of drug use and it would have been very easy to assume you were pro drugs, if you have changed it since then as you said you were then maybe they are using a bit poetic license, who knows i don't ahve time to go through your site again


Jakeyboy70 wrote:

the only answer is the full, unconditional legalisation of all drugs

LMFAO at this, unless you can give some pretty comprehensive justification on how this would reduce the problem rather than increase it.

Saw the documentary as well and I'm sure the bust helped encourage a number of other cooks to operate. As far as under cover cops go there is an interesting article in the herald.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3516242&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

I was amazed at how much the police knew before the scumbags had any idea at all they were being listened to.

go the cops.

It has been said it was a futile exercise.. perhaps there would be even more, cheaper, P around now if they hadn't been busted? While a drug is illegal, the police have to chase it.

I'm not sure what legalising P would do for us.. I think some drugs should be, but P is fairly antisocial.

jeez I thought true crims with half a banana in their heads would have had the music up before talking business like that

Maestro, 98% of criminals are bovinely stupid. The other 2% are knighted for services to New Zealand.

ha ha ha ha

lol

bad seed - you're entitled to your opinion about my site, but i have received almost 100% positive feedback from visitors. the site has also been recommended by health dept, healthaction and RADS drug educators.

as for legalisation making the situation worse - read 'high society' by ben elton. his point is 'how could the situation be any worse than it already is?'

also, legalising drugs might lead to a temporary increase in quantity of consumption, but would be qualitatively incomparable. i believe that strictly controlled, clean, safe drugs complete with dosage instructions partnered with a well funded support system for those who get in trouble would radically change society for the better.

for more on my legalisation views, go here:

http://www.fast-times.co.nz/info/legalise/index.html

At the start of the program they showed someone doing a line and someone cooking up something in a spoon. As most people smoke P, what was the relevance? Another example of shoddy/sensationalist documentary making.

Jakeyboy, that wasn't a negative coment it was just an observation from looking at your site that you were pro-drugs as well, something you havn't denied yet, if that is your opinion and belief then you may well get a lot of positive coment for it, especially from a lot of punters of this site.

You did as i remember cop a lot of flack on this site for some of the content just to put your positive praise into perspective.

Justahalf, i guess the relevance is that if they only showed smoking it then it would not be an accurate portrayal, i think the fact during the hour program they refered verbally to 'smoking' rather than injecting or snorting would lead the average viewer to the assumption that that was the most common method.

here is my letter to the editor of the herald:

-

Dear Sir,

when will The Herald make a positive contribution to the New Zealand drug discussion? Once again you’ve run a pointless parent-scarer (A Deadly Diversion, August 2) devoid of constructive ideas or suggestions on how to avoid such tragic drug overdoses. I had reason to believe the newspaper might be interested in a more progressive approach when your journalist contacted me. Ms Garner’s initial request was to reprint a relevant section from my harm reduction website that, among other things, advises calling an Ambulance sooner rather than later in the event of a drug-induced collapse. None of the useful information ended up in the article. Instead I appear to have been presented as an advocate of GHB use. The Herald has shown itself to be very capable of raising public awareness of issues facing New Zealanders. I challenge the newspaper to become part of the drug education solution rather than a part of the drug education problem.

*name*
fast-times.co.nz

-

bad_seed/stalks27 (oops!)



how is that not negative?

i'd be willing to wager a fuckin shitload of people are now injecting it... i can't remember the figures, but the needle exchanges are handing out several 100X the amount of syringes than before the P epidemic started...

yes cactus, when i talked to adio they said they were freaked about how many young speeders were joining their 'normal' clientelle of needle users. i spend half an hour sitting in their reception area once, and the kinds of people who come in to get their 'works' and drop off 'useds' is amazing. much more 'normal' and diverse than you would imagine.

i'm sure you've all done the legalisation argument in here to death a million times, and i'm going to read your site jakeyboy to get the argument, but after a very personal family experience with a cousin on p (he tried to murder his mother) i just can't reach the point of agreeing to legalise...particularly not p which is a filthy despicable drug...

imo the police should focus all their drug attention on wiping it from the face of the earth...

the problem with the law trying to stop P is that while there is demand, there will be supply. particularly of this drug as it's very easy to manufacture.

the only way to quench demand is education that is not biased. this is the ONLY way people will decide for themselves that they don't want to take this drug.

The problem with the current state of the law is that unbiased information is VERY VERY SELDOM ever in mainstream media. they would prefer to sensationalise every story and make a big thing out of it.

untill the law is changed, this is the way it's going to be. unless the herald decided to actually print the truth for once (pffffft!!!)

that's why i'm pro-legalisation, i'm more pro-education, however i feel you need to be both otherwise the education will be biased.

if i was president of new zealand *pfffft, lol* i wouldn't just say 'okay everyone, drugs are legal - go nuts'. i would introduce it over a ten year period. i would borrow to massively invest in education and infrastructure then:

1) legalise weed. available only from licensed dealers, such as coffee shops and bottle stores. very strictly regulated, with massive fines for selling to under 18s. cheap, easy access to weed would break the link between buyers and dealers who often push harder drugs on their weed-buying customers. reduced demand for heavier drugs would become apparent. reduced property crimes.

2) 2-3 years later, legalise pharmeceutical grade g, ecstasy and psychotropics. available only from chemists. again, massive fines for selling to underage punters. again, breaking the links between everyday users and hard core dealers. demand for speed, coke etc reduced (when you have access to a cheap booze, weed, e and lsd buzzes, not many would be bothered dealing with dealers). massive reduction in property crimes.

3) in year 5-6, legalise speed, cocaine and heroin, available only on prescription from specialist clinics. buyers must return every month for health and welfare checkups.

4) after ten years, allow commercial production of branded drinks, foods, supplements etc containing strictly regulated amounts of various drugs. coca cola could once again become the real thing.

yes there would be increased consumption of drugs for the first few years and there would be social costs, but people learn and self regulate and even when they do go down the toilet, they have expert help readily available, paid for by a massive increase in tax revenues and reduction in crime. drug taking would also be qualitatively incomparable, with safe, clean drugs available with proper dosage instructions (and perhaps sold complete with OD antidote drugs). tourism would have to be managed, maybe with organised drug taking districts as in amsterdam. the bottom line is this - prohibition is stupid, it does not, and will not ever work. radical solutions are called for.

Why not legalise the less dangerous ones and keep the others illegal, eg. crack, heroin, P for starters, probably g as well.

That way the less dangerous drugs would be cheaper, better and safer and no-one would want to touch the illegal stuff.

yes i suppose jakeyboy a process like that is logical - way more so than just open slather.

i still struggle with something like P ever becoming legal...we have two killer legal drugs already (alcohol and nicotine), something that so changes people like P i would hate to see legal...

i would be all in favour of less dangerous drugs being cheaper so that people turned to them and away from the others...as jah has said.

oh and i'm going for world domination, so jb you can be my drug policy advisor if you like...

The policies of the Netherlands would be a good way to approach the whole legalisation issue, make soft drugs legal and clamp down hard on hard drugs, being one option

Informed choice and education is I believe much better than the current scenario, P is a huge problem here because its manufactured locally and thus relatively plentiful and cheap compared to the imports of better/less potentially harmful illegal substances, if people had a better choice I would wager very few would touch P as theres no positive P stories

Then again habitual long term users of virtually all drugs don't have many good things to say about their addictions, if they are being honest.

absolutely bob, this of course being the problem with any decriminalisation of an addictive substance...

the solutions are definitely not simple but it's hard to go wrong with good education, one would think...

and you can't provide a good education on something thats illegal and untested

No solution for this sort of thing is simple, except perhaps prohibition, which has been shown time and time again to not work

Its only made a large chunk of normally law abiding people criminals in the laws eyes

Better we work through the drug problems in a civil and rational way that reduces harm and helps those who will take drugs if legal or not

Ohhh for a perfect world

agree with justahalf. you might actually find that after legalising weed, e and other 'soft' drugs the consumption rates of harder drugs would drop right off the radar and you wouldn't even need to continue the legalisation process.

what gets me buzzing about the whole idea is that new zealand is the perfect country to start the legalisation process rolling. we'd have to withdraw from the appropriate UN agreements, and probably face trade embargoes from some countries, but i doubt any other nation is better placed to pull it off. unlike most, we have easily controllable borders to limit drug tourism, a half-decent health system, a populace with relatively liberal/progressive attitudes... i predict that if it happens, it will happen here first.

Interesting discussion.

Isn't one of the maxims of law that where there is no vicim there is no crime?

Way back further up the thread but has got me thinking..........

So if many of our top crims are gang connected and/or stupid, isnt that a good thing?

FFS some of the gangs you read about OS seem very organised and cunning, what would happen in terms of significant and consistant supply if they set up shop here?

with that in mind.................wouldnt the NZ filth WANT to get the NZ gangs controlling the NZ drug trade?

and how would they go about achieving that?

Funny how this was not posted earlier ?


From The Press & Dominion


Drug users test health budget
04 August 2003
By CHRIS MIRAMS

Wellington's mental health service is being stretched by young adult drug users who account for 60 per cent of all admissions and swallow up half of its $50 million budget.


Peter McGeorge, mental health clinical director for Capital and Coast Health, said the service was struggling to deal with a generation, now into their 20s, who had long-term psychiatric problems after becoming hooked on cannabis and other drugs.

And he warned that should P, or crystal methamphetamine, continue its rapid rise in popularity, mental health services might not be able to cope.

Those with cannabis and psychiatric problems were partly responsible for the big growth in individual contacts with Wellington's mental health services in recent years – 3591 in 1999 to 6775 in 2002.

"There is a small number of people who are quite high-risk, accounting for a huge demand on funding and the budget," Mr McGeorge said.

Staff shortages were aggravating the situation.

Four community teams – which can include a psychiatrist, registrar, social workers and psychologists – carry an average caseload of 500 to 600 patients. That load was similar for drug and alcohol and child and adolescent teams working in the community.

But, with an international shortage in some specialist fields, it was difficult to add services to improve the caregiver-to-patient ratios. Setting up a new unit could require up to 40 new staff.

Coroner Garry Evans recommended this year that the Government take caution in decriminalising cannabis and called for a public education programme to discourage use of the drug, similar to anti-smoking campaigns.

Not to mention A&E admissions from zealous glutonous losers who overdo it !

Legalise you say ??? Never !!!

Evain this is the ambulence at the bottom of the cliff approach that prohibition guarantees. And the article is very leading, I would question most of it

bob: agreed, ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.....

Yeah you're right evain, keep it illegal as that approach is working so well at the moment.

It always makes me laugh when people talk about all the problems we are having with marijuana while its illegal, and then use that as an argument to keep it llegal, dumbarses.

Does anyone actually have problem getting marijuana now? If they want to have a smoke does the legal status affect their decision? The answer to both questions I suspect is no for almost all of the population.

i couldn't agree more. given that we have just decriminalised prostitution without seemingly a whole lot of public outrage, i think it's only a matter of time before at least decriminalisation of marijuana is fairly and squarely on the agenda...

and if that happens and goes generally well then the B class substances are up for grabs i would think...

one of our advantages of being small, and having a forward-thinking population generally is the rapidity with which change can occur...

What a stupid argument about not having the resources to cope in the health sector. If everything was legalised fuckloads of revenue would be earnt that could be poured back into the health sector and into drug education ...have a read of Ben Elton's High Society, some good arguments are made in there.

it is totally true that our wards are full of p addicts (and in my extended family's case, 1 jail cell) and also true that decriminalisation would create tax revenue.

but wouldn't there be a time though between these two events occuring where the health services would potentially be stretched even more? it would have to be planned so carefully...and lots of the revenue would have to go into education so it couldn't all be used for health....

If the wards are currently fill of P addicts surely this shows that prohibition once again isn't working

These addicts may never have fallen foul of this shitty drug if they'd had choices and could make open and honest decisions about what they put into their bodies

Instead we have a society where addicts usually only ask for or get put into treament when they fall apart, many people currently are lossing their personal battles with P and this will further add to any problerms the health system is having

To ask for help currently one has to also admit to being a criminal and the associated percieved and real problems that admission adds to the drug addiction/problems the person faces

Yes the cannabis debate got a shot in the arm in the article,as mindnumbing as it was. I suspect that more than 50% of mental health patients admit they smoke pot, but not everything else ( P, meth, mdma )etc which has proven damaging effects.
Drugs are a choice or habit, to legalise cannabis alone would not deter users of thier choice from wanting and persuing thier habit.
Cannabis is by far the least harmful and most assessible.

yes absolutely bob. in my cousin's case we only found out about his p use at his sentencing - which suddenly made sense of a bizarre and incomprehensible situation - but a bit dang late to do anything about it!

even if 50% of mental health consumers don't smoke cannabis, those who do certainly use a higher percentage of the services as cannabis will make their condition worse.

Just as some people in society shouldn't drink alcohol, there are those who shouldn't smoke pot.

By treating pot as a health issue rather than a crime, maybe better treatment will be undertaken and understood by both the patient and the health professional.

jeepers whats that boy up to now ?

Yes your right SB this is a forum for subjective and misleading opinions and only serve for the minority. I think the educated majority would come down on your perceptions a lot harder but thats not the issue here.
Wasn't meaning to get personal, and see you have detached from the group. The popularity of P has spawned many evils and sharlatans but don't be fooled by its effects, but be aware of the intent from whomever distributes it and what are they concocting next, including the copycats.

evain: look buddy, no one here in the pro-legalisation camp is saying that everyone should to P, it's okay, it won't fuck u up.

WE ALL KNOW IT'S BAD FOR YOU! what we want to see if INTELLIGENT help for those who need it.

the current legal state of the said chemicals (be it P, E, whatever) is NOT HELPING THINGS, in fact IT IS MAKING THINGS WORSE BY ALIENATING PEOPLE and creating taboo topics that are "not to be discussed."

you tell me how prohibition has helped people with drug problems, and i'll call you a lier.

the facts are out there for all to see. i believe it was smiley that had a link to an article that illustrated the biggest detrimental element of taking illegal drugs was their legal status.

no go back to your television.

*breaths deeply and lights a spliff*

cg you've got more chance of seeing me on tv , I'm the one wearing night vision googles ( makes for great tv from my perspective ) and in my spare time I arouse the weaklings of our society that prey on the ill-informed.

evain, i've come to the conclusion that not only you the ill-informed one, but you are also a idiot that types crap that makes no sense....

i fail to see what relevance what you've said has, or am i the idiot?

*gives up getting trolled*

Way more kids drink booze and smoke cigarettes than smoke P. Why? The answer is simple. Because booze and cigarettes are legal, as a result they are very easy to obtain.

Prohibition has the effect of vastly less people taking up a given drug.

Btw: Before you bring it up; obviously this doesn’t apply to drugs that were already in very common use and then subsequently banned are (ie prohibition of Alcohol in the states, which was a disaster)

but trapper, when i was 14 i could get hold of pot, meth, and lsd quite easily... in fact i could get all those things far easier than getting alcohol.

wheres your logic again?

Agree with cg, that argument is bollocks. Look at marijuana and your argument completely goes out the window.

define kids

if you talking 14-18 then price is an issue and booze, fags and pot are the entry point for most, P isn't cheap so out of most teenagers price bracket unless they are being given the stuff

Its as they grow older that other drugs become a more viable option

Legality is an issue when considering availability primarily - ie taking booze from the parents booze cabinet etc.

Oh you must be kidding me guys (jah and cg). Vastly more kids drink booze and/or smoke ciggies than smoke weed.

btw: 'have tried weed' doesn't mean 'smokes weed'

I would disagree with you on that one trapper and I have far wider experience in dealing with kids from that age group that you do.

trapper: you aren't from around here are you? i grew up in west auckland and EVERYONE i knew smoked pot... do you even remember what country we are in? this is the dope smoking country of the worrrrrrrld!

ha ha evain you messn with the natives again

must be a lot of "spliffn" going on today, logic has left the room

evain !!! vee haft to talk ya

But this is storm in a tea cup stuff
Ya Volt Mein Heir

Yes, well in the areas where weed is pretty much defacto-legal we do see a large increase of use by kids.

Kind of proves my point doesn’t it…

Ah, the old trapper 'redefining his argument when hes wrong again' trick.

JAH, what he meant to say was,

"weed is defacto-legal in new zealand, therefore you are correct cactus_genie and Justahalf, lots of kids do smoke pot. why don't we just come out of the closet, stop lying to each other and legalise it, not critisize it?"

And the old justahalf ignoring the original argument creating a new one then trying to say I changed the topic by putting words in my mouth trick.

Note we were originally talking about all drugs and I specifically mentioned only P, it was you two who redefined the argument and changed it to weed. (easier to argue against?)

My point is the same as it was at the start; the illegal status of drugs makes them harder to obtain. Of course there are exceptions as the pedantic justahalf is always quick to point out (and then focus on pretending that they are the rule)

Let me state them for jah:
1. If something is already in common use and then subsequently banned then it is unlikely to make it harder to obtain. (ie, alcohol prohibition)
2. If something is defacto-legal then the law is pretty much irrelevant and the substance is going to be fairly easy to obtain. (ie, weed in some areas)
3. There’s got to be more, come on jah, get that thinking cap on.

paraphrased from my website:

btw: cactus_genie, I have said many times that I think weed should be legal. I just don't agree with the idea that all drugs should be made legal.

trapper: the only thing stopping people getting illegal drugs is the price.


i direct you to my earlier comments about being able to get speed and LSD, as well as pot, easily when i was young.

so now are you gonna tell me that LSD is defacto legal? uh huh...

speed is just as easy... but a bit more expensive. come on... all drugs be them illegal or legal are easy to get. it's all about who you know. i would personnally rather kids took the odd tab of acid rather than drunk alcohol every week. i have quite strong feelings that alcohol is actually really fucken bad for you.

what we need is EDUCATION! no ALIENATION.

and you don't think that this makes them harder to obtain???

for gods sake!!! please leave the kids out of this !!! do you have any cg ?

Do you still stand by these comments then?

If so how do you explain an illegal drug, one that is prohibited, being as easy to obtain as legal ones?

Also in response to your last point. Above you say its harder to get because they are illegal, now you think the fact they are expensive proves your point.

1. Yes of course I stand by my original comment.

2. Weed is not as easy to obtain as legal drugs.

3. The fact that they are expensive does prove my point.

Now a question for you;
Why do you think more kids drink booze and/or smoke ciggies than smoke P? Surely P feels better and is more adictive, yet strangely it is used much less... why could this be.

Best quote ive seen for a while

http://publicaddress.net/default,hardnews.sm#post588 (about a 1/3 of the way down)

"It's understandable that media reports will focus on the handful of P-heads who become homicidal, but the broader reality is, again, more mundane: P just turns you into a freaking idiot."



Why are you guys arguing about whether its easy to get or not? if it was legal it would be easier to get.

I'd guess the higher price actally makes them easier to obtain, the dealers will go to the effort of delivering, like the cocaine delivery service in NY a few years ago.

Affordability is of course another matter.

(this is being discussed in #biggie)


If theres a high price it actually increases the availibility of it as more people are willing to risk supplying it and or go to the trouble of making it. its worth their time.

Don't forget that paying for it is an important part of obtaining it.

Where things are called "CONTROLLED" they are ironically out of control.

As a schoolkid I found alcohol hard to get hold of, it was legal, but you had to pay some adult to go and buy it for you, and it had to be outside of school hours and all the rest of it.

We chose cannabis instead because there was no age restriction, and being illegal, it was out of control, hence easier to obtain a tinny at lunch time than a pie from the tuck shop.

Where there is demand, supply follows, this is a LAW.

I found alcohol very very easy to obtain, in fact it was free!

at trapper never admitting he can get anything even slightly wrong.

I think your question to me has been answered by others.

at justahalf refusing to answer a question when backed into a corner.

I think I've made my point.

Trapper - where do you get free booze, come on man let us into your secret world, I for one would prefer not to pay

hmmmm free booze

Stolen off the olds of course Rocket fuel!

i didn't get stuck into my parents booze, i got stuck into their weed. dad never changed his stash spot even tho he knew we were into it. lol. poor bugger had a pretty hard time telling us not to smoke it when he was a fairly regular puffer.

You too Trapper. I used to score booze off the olds all the time and used to be into rocket fuel until I barfed up in front of them one new years eve. Probably the worst hang over of my life.

Cause it is more expensive. I thought the question so obvious it didn't need answering.

And why do you think it is more expensive justahalf? Could it possibly have something to do with its illegal status...

And if it were legal it would still be expensive. The govt could tax the shit out of it.

One other thing, when kids try to purchase alcohol they are meant to get asked for ID ...I don't think dodgy drug dealers associated with gangs currently worry about the age of those they sell to.

it would still be pricey if it was legal bro. it just would be available without fueling gangs with millions.

Like how cigarettes and alcohol are?

Its expensive for a variety of reasons traper, cost of manufacture for starters. Legality is a difficult one to determine as its hard to know the amount they would tax something like that.

caviar is expensive and that is legal.

If they taxed it too high then people (well gangs etc) would just make their own and we would be in the same situation we are in now anyway.

No, because other drugs would be priced lower and people would take them instead. P is not a problem in other countries where better drugs are cheaper, eg. UK, USA.

Thursaday 7.30 on police 10/7 they are featuring the out break of P in NZ & the up hill battle the police are facing