NationStates Jolt Archive

In Australia recently a girl died of "overdosing" on Ecstasy, the famous party drug.

POLICE are hunting the supplier of ecstasy to a 17-year-old girl who died of a suspected overdose after collapsing at the Big Day Out music festival in Perth.

The teenager died at a Perth hospital early today after attending yesterday's event at Claremont Showgrounds.

Friends of the family told Fairfax Radio the teenager took three ecstasy tablets after she saw police searching for drugs.

But police said the girl was dropped off at the showgrounds, which meant she would not have been subject to sniffer dog and police searches carried out at the Showgrounds train station.

tl;dr The police have sniffer dogs at the entrances to the Big Day Out music festival, causing the girl to take 3 pills of ecstasy she had bring along and intended to share with friends at once. What opinion do you have on this, NSG? Also, what do you think about their statement on hunting the girls dealer down? Is it his fault for giving her the pills, her fault for taking them, or the polices fault for using sniffer dogs?

Also, the police refuse to answer how she died, leading me to believe something more along the lines of dehydrationPOLICE are hunting the supplier of ecstasy to a 17-year-old girl who died of a suspected overdose after collapsing at the Big Day Out music festival in Perth.

The teenager died at a Perth hospital early today after attending yesterday's event at Claremont Showgrounds.

Friends of the family told Fairfax Radio the teenager took three ecstasy tablets after she saw police searching for drugs.

But police said the girl was dropped off at the showgrounds, which meant she would not have been subject to sniffer dog and police searches carried out at the Showgrounds train station..

Article (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24995799-661,00.html).

I fail to see how it is the fault of the police in this situation. Maybe if the girl hadn't been carrying (illegal in Australia I'm assuming) drugs she would have never felt the need to hide them from the police and the police dogs. You know that whole shtick, 'if you're not doing anything illegal, what's there to hide?'

Umm... the way I read it, she avoided all the police and sniffer dogs, She took the tablets of her own accord, and died.

Umm... the way I read it, she avoided all the police and sniffer dogs by took the tablets of her own accord, and died.

Yeah, but this wouldn't have happened if people weren't being sniffed by police, this leads the question of why the police were targeting drug users who just wanted to have a good time at a music festival?

Yeah, but this wouldn't have happened if people weren't being sniffed by police, this leads the question of why the police were targeting drug users who just wanted to have a good time at a music festival?

So people don't take illegal drugs which in large doses may be directly harmful to the user and indirectly harmful to people in the vicinity of the user.

Um....because it's illegal? And, being police, catching people doing illegal things is kinda their job?

If drugs werent illegal you wouldnt have this problem...

Because making them illegal is obviously not stopping people from taking it, and furthermore are making their effects worse, evidenced by this story...

So people don't take illegal drugs which in large doses may be directly harmful to the user and indirectly harmful to people in the vicinity of the user.

Aside from that large doses was apparently the reason this girl died, and the reason she felt she had to do this was because of police presence, evidentally, and that's not how people usually do it (you're probably not familiar with the concept of "responsible drug use") how can someone on ecstasy be harmful to people in the vicinity of the user?

Yeah, but this wouldn't have happened if people weren't being sniffed by police, this leads the question of why the police were targeting drug users who just wanted to have a good time at a music festival?

Drugs are illegal. She made a choice. She chose to attempt to hide her crime by taking 3 tablets at once. She died. It is completely and undeniably her own fault. And I don't feel the least bit sorry for the stupid little idiot.

I am not a big fan of the police in Australia; I think that much of what they do is revenue-making and bludge work. But in this case, the police were doing their job. She could have thrown the tablets on the ground, in the bin, or better yet, simply not taken them with her.

Based on the comment about sharing with her friends, sounds like she was the only pusher in the situation.

I actually feel sorrier for the poor girl who got 3 months jail for writing her name on a wall than this moron.

If drugs werent illegal you wouldnt have this problem...

Because making them illegal is obviously not stopping people from taking it, and furthermore are making their effects worse, evidenced by this story...

So we should make theft legal, since it being illegal sure isn't stopping anyone from doing it? And after all, if people pay their insurance, it's not really hurting anyone, right?

The idiot took something that was illegal and dangerous (we get told how bad drugs are from like, year 1 out here) and she made a choice which she knew was stupid and dangerous. Everyone who goes to the BDO or any other festival knows that there are sniffer dogs. Its great that she's taken herself out of the gene pool and made it that little bit smarter.

Um....because it's illegal? And, being police, catching people doing illegal things is kinda their job?

Is that why they give warnings? Should every person that greets someone who puts their thumb to their nose and wiggle their fingers go to prison (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-york)?

So we should make theft legal, since it being illegal sure isn't stopping anyone from doing it?

Well, you see, in order to in fact commit theft, you need to actually steal from Somebody else...

This girl taking Ecstasy does what to other people? Oh, right, Nothing...

Aside from that large doses was apparently the reason this girl died, and the reason she felt she had to do this was because of police presence, evidentally, and that's not how people usually do it (you're probably not familiar with the concept of "responsible drug use") how can someone on ecstasy be harmful to people in the vicinity of the user?

I didn't specify ecstasy, nor did the police presence at the festival. And just because folks like you and me are familiar with responsible drug use, that doesn't mean others, like this girl are (were).

She hadn't broken the law, she wouldn't be dead. I'm going to go ahead and reserve my sympathy for someone who deserves it. Or at least, who hasn't fucked themselves Darwin Awards-style.

I didn't specify ecstasy, nor did the police presence at the festival. And just because folks like you and me are familiar with responsible drug use, that doesn't mean others, like this girl are (were).

Which would be much easier to ensure, if it werent illegal...

Is that why they give warnings? Should every person that greets someone who puts their thumb to their nose and wiggle their fingers go to prison (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-york)?

How do you know they wouldn't have just "warned" this girl, anyway? You seemed to be objecting to them even being present.

And the fact that there are laws on the books that are no longer enforced or valid does not mean that the police as a whole should be able to just decide one day, "Eh, screw chasing down murderers and rapists, what's the big deal anyway? Those murderers and rapists were probably just trying to have a good time!" If you want to argue that drugs like ecstasy should be legalized, go for it, but the fact remains that that's a job for legislatures, not police.

causing the girl to take 3 pills of ecstasy she had bring along and intended to share with friends at once. What opinion do you have on this, NSG?If you don't want to get caught doing something illegal, don't do it.
But blaming the police, seriously?

If I drive too fast on a perfectly empty road, and see Police patrol roadside, and speed up to run away, and crash into a tree, and die in spectacular way, this is surely Police's fault, ain't it? If not for them checking the speed, I'd be alive and well, after all!
:soap:

So we should make theft legal, since it being illegal sure isn't stopping anyone from doing it? And after all, if people pay their insurance, it's not really hurting anyone, right?

The idiot took something that was illegal and dangerous (we get told how bad drugs are from like, year 1 out here) and she made a choice which she knew was stupid and dangerous. Everyone who goes to the BDO or any other festival knows that there are sniffer dogs. Its great that she's taken herself out of the gene pool and made it that little bit smarter.

I don't have to point out the fallacy of this example. Using Ecstasy is a consenual harm, and it doesn't lead to any harm to anyone else. It's called a consenual crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_crime).

The danger is a consquence of it being illegal, so middle men an cut it with dangerous substances. There is a chance of overheating, but it's managable. It can also be used to treat PTSD, fyi. You believe the misinformation they've been feeding you since Year 1? Okay, but it's well known that those things are little less than propoganda. Evidentally she didn't know there were cops, otherwise she may've reconsidered her taking of drugs.

If I drive too fast on a perfectly empty road, and see Police patrol roadside, and speed up to run away, and crash into a tree, and die in spectacular way, this is surely Police's fault, ain't it? If not for them checking the speed, I'd be alive and well, after all!
:soap:

Well, if you were driving on the Autobahn, it wouldnt have been a problem, lol

Well, you see, in order to in fact commit theft, you need to actually steal from Somebody else...

But if they are insured, they get it back, or a nice payout. No harm no foul.

This girl taking Ecstasy does what to other people? Oh, right, Nothing...

Well, if she was sharing it with her friends, then it does something to them. If she drops it in someone's drink for a laugh, it does something to that person. And not everything that doesn't affect other people is legal. Sometimes things are made illegal because they are dangerous. Taking ecstacy is dangerous to the user. Therefore, it is illegal.

Drugs are illegal. She made a choice. She chose to attempt to hide her crime by taking 3 tablets at once. She died. It is completely and undeniably her own fault. And I don't feel the least bit sorry for the stupid little idiot.

I disagree with two parts of this - especially given that she was a minor, I also blame the asshole who was selling her the drugs, and I do feel sorry for her, for all that she made a blitheringly stupid decision. I do not, however, see any discernible way in which the police were at fault.

If I drive too fast on a perfectly empty road, and see Police patrol roadside, and speed up to run away, and crash into a tree, and die in spectacular way, this is surely Police's fault, ain't it? If not for them checking the speed, I'd be alive and well, after all!
:soap:

Not fault, but that certainly could've caused it. Of course, you could just be a crap driver.

Well, if you were driving on the Autobahn, it wouldnt have been a problem, lol

Well, not every country has no limit on highways (and for that matter, not every one has German as official language). Also, clubs are not exempt from drug laws, at least usually.

But if they are insured, they get it back, or a nice payout. No harm no foul.
Ah, but you see, if you make theft legal it also effects those who are uninsured, therefore there is harm, and therefore foul...



Well, if she was sharing it with her friends, If those friends are consenting, then there is no problem...
If she drops it in someone's drink for a laugh, it does something to that person.

Then that would be a separate Issue, and she should therefore be arrested for drugging someone, rather than using the drug itself...


And as far as the dangerous bit, If you eat Redmeat, it is high in cholesterol, and therefore dangerous, do you want to make that illegal too?

Of course, you could just be a crap driver.Just like the girl could have been slightly stupid in deciding to take three pills at once?

Well, not every country has no limit on highways (and for that matter, not every one has German as official language). Also, clubs are not exempt from drug laws, at least usually.

lol, I was joking about that one...

No speed limit does cause harm to other people other than one's self....

Well, if she was sharing it with her friends, then it does something to them. If she drops it in someone's drink for a laugh, it does something to that person. And not everything that doesn't affect other people is legal. Sometimes things are made illegal because they are dangerous. Taking ecstacy is dangerous to the user. Therefore, it is illegal.

Taking Ecstasy isn't illegal because it's dangerous, it's illegal because it presented a chance for a politician to get votes. And it's a lot more dangerous now because of the illegality than it was when it was produced in proper laboratories. It can also be used to treat PTSD.

the girl is at fault and is dumb.
first if you have to ingest something to avoid being caught by the cops go find a place and make yourself throw it up.
If you cant do that, then go to the clinic at the show and ask them to pump your stomach. they will do it or arrange for it to be done with out the police, because they want you to come back and spend money again. and to do that you need to be :
1. alive
2. not in jail.
all those failing Call emergency medical services before you collapse.

to be honest this sounds more like the police were an excuse on the girls part to eat her friends share of the X anyways.

I don't have to point out the fallacy of this example. Using Ecstasy is a consenual harm, and it doesn't lead to any harm to anyone else. It's called a consenual crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_crime).

Not every crime is harmful to someone else. We don't allow people to do a lot of things that are perfectly harmless to anyone but themselves.

And the so called consensual crime of taking drugs is not harmless. It's my tax dollars that pay for rehab programs, my tax dollars that fund their treatment in public hospitals and my tax dollars that support crap like the time out zones they have at schoolies to protect these idiots.

The danger is a consquence of it being illegal, so middle men an cut it with dangerous substances. There is a chance of overheating, but it's managable. It can also be used to treat PTSD, fyi. You believe the misinformation they've been feeding you since Year 1? Okay, but it's well known that those things are little less than propoganda. Evidentally she didn't know there were cops, otherwise she may've reconsidered her taking of drugs.

Then by all means, campaign for it to be made legal. Sign the petitions, protest parliament, all those joyous steps. But if you take too much of an illegal substance to avoid getting caught and you die, you deserve what happens to you.

I tend to not be a conspiracy theorist. I happen to believe that introducing chemical substances, synthetic chemical substances has a harmful effect on me. I happen to believe that certain things are made illegal because they are harmful to us. I happen to believe the scientists who think its dangerous. I don't believe drug users who don't want to pay the price for breaking the law.

Just like the girl could have been slightly stupid in deciding to take three pills at once?

This is true, but in an (my) ideal world, this wouldn't happen because we wouldn't have the police wasting their time on arresting raver kids who are doing no harm to anyone.

Not fault, but that certainly could've caused it. Of course, you could just be a crap driver.

That's retarded. One might as well claim that it's the banks fault for having money, causing people to rob it.


And as far as the dangerous bit, If you eat Redmeat, it is high in cholesterol, and therefore dangerous, do you want to make that illegal too?

Nerve gas is illegal to privately own in most countries. It's not dangerous at all unless you come into contact with it, or make someone else come into contact with it. Will you argue for nerve gas to become legal next?

.

And the so called consensual crime of taking drugs is not harmless. It's my tax dollars that pay for rehab programs, my tax dollars that fund their treatment in public hospitals and my tax dollars that support crap like the time out zones they have at schoolies to protect these idiots.



And making drugs illegal is somehow keeping you from doing that?

Presumably since they currently are illegal, and you are currently paying taxes for those...Im gonna go ahead an answer no, lol...

Will you argue for nerve gas to become legal next?

Is it illegal? I know its against international conventions...But, are there laws within the country that says you cant?

Not to mention, Id say sure, if you want to use nerve gas on yourself, have at it, you might not make it out, but that was your decision...

Using it on someone else however, is another matter...

Ah, but you see, if you make theft legal it also effects those who are uninsured, therefore there is harm, and therefore foul...


If those friends are consenting, then there is no problem...


Then that would be a separate Issue, and she should therefore be arrested for drugging someone, rather than using the drug itself...


And as far as the dangerous bit, If you eat Redmeat, it is high in cholesterol, and therefore dangerous, do you want to make that illegal too?

I don't really care if people want to legalise drugs. It's a non-issue for me. If something is illegal and you do it, you deserve to pay the penalty for your crime. If you do something incredibly stupid and dangerous to cover up your crime, and you die, then too bad. If you choose to campaign for drug legalisation, or do research to show that its not dangerous in support of your claim, or lobby parliament, fine. I will support your right to do those things. If drugs get made legal, then I will simply choose not to take them as I do now. But if drugs are illegal, and you break the law, why shouldn't you have to accept the consequences?

lol, I was joking about that one...

No problemo. :)
Still, it was a point worth answering.

And making drugs illegal is somehow keeping you from doing that?

Presumably since they currently are illegal, and you are currently paying taxes for those...Im gonna go ahead an answer no, lol...

I happen to think that people who break the law should be punished, not handled with kid gloves. My tax dollars would be better spent imprisoning these people, if they have broken the law, rather than the airy fairy rehab crap. They would be better leaving these people at the door and freeing up hospital beds.

But if drugs are illegal, and you break the law, why shouldn't you have to accept the consequences?

Because the Law is useless and unfair...

Not to mention, is making the problem worse, that girl would be alive today if Ecstasy was Legal...

Whether you think she made a good decision or not(she didnt, lol) The fact remains she would be alive today...

The Law itself is causing people to do dangerous things to themselves...

Not every crime is harmful to someone else. We don't allow people to do a lot of things that are perfectly harmless to anyone but themselves.

And yet we still allow alcohol to stay, and obese people to eat until they die.

And the so called consensual crime of taking drugs is not harmless. It's my tax dollars that pay for rehab programs, my tax dollars that fund their treatment in public hospitals and my tax dollars that support crap like the time out zones they have at schoolies to protect these idiots.

And it's my tax dollars too. It's also my tax dollars that go to obese people being treated for heart disease. Could you tell me what a schoolie is? Like, an actual school? Because we sure as hell don't have one at mine. You seem to define helping out people who have got in a difficult as harm to you. I'm sorry you can't feel compassion.

Then by all means, campaign for it to be made legal. Sign the petitions, protest parliament, all those joyous steps. But if you take too much of an illegal substance to avoid getting caught and you die, you deserve what happens to you.

Cynical on the dying thing there, though I agree it is mostly her fault, but the police had a part in this in deciding to actively seek out people commiting consensual crimes.

I tend to not be a conspiracy theorist. I happen to believe that introducing chemical substances, synthetic chemical substances has a harmful effect on me. I happen to believe that certain things are made illegal because they are harmful to us. I happen to believe the scientists who think its dangerous. I don't believe drug users who don't want to pay the price for breaking the law.

I tend to avoid conspiracy theorist like heck too, but the voting thing has always been true to some degree, politicians overall seem to crave power.

Oh right, I don't want to go to prison for seven years because I smoked a little pot once, excuse me.

Cynical on the dying thing there, though I agree it is mostly her fault, but the police had a part in this in deciding to actively seek out people commiting consensual crimes.
It's not their responsibility to make the laws, it's theirs to enforce it. It doesn't even matter if they personally disagree with it. They still have to enforce it. (If they want to keep their jobs.)

Because the Law is useless and unfair...

Not to mention, is making the problem worse, that girl would be alive today if Ecstasy was Legal...

Whether you think she made a good decision or not(she didnt, lol) The fact remains she would be alive today...

The Law itself is causing people to do dangerous things to themselves...

So we should just break it? I think the law against jaywalking is useless and unfair, I'm not about to run out in front of a bus to stop myself getting booked if I happen to get caught by the police. I think the laws against decibel levels and certain engine modifications for P-Platers are stupid and unfair, I'm not about to run out and get a V8 with 15 inch subs and complain when I get pulled over by police and written up. I'm also not about to devastate my family and friends by doing something stupid and dangerous.

I happen to think that people who break the law should be punished, not handled with kid gloves. My tax dollars would be better spent imprisoning these people, if they have broken the law, rather than the airy fairy rehab crap. They would be better leaving these people at the door and freeing up hospital beds.

Okay. And when you have a heart attack I'll blame it on you for eating too much meat, and leave you at the door. Why prison, other than the "you broke the law, I don't care unjust it is, you broke it!" Argument, why should I go to prison for smoking some pot one time?

It's not their responsibility to make the laws, it's theirs to enforce it. It doesn't even matter if they personally disagree with it. They still have to enforce it. (If they want to keep their jobs.)

all she had to do to live was go throw up the pills, or go seek medical attention before she collapsed.
Hey I just took a possibly lethal dose of X should I 1 go to the concert and pray i am okay, or go seek medical AID NOW.

I think the law against jaywalking is useless and unfair, I'm not about to run out in front of a bus to stop myself getting booked

The difference here being that If youre standing on the side of the road...A cop isnt going to arrest you for having the muscles necessary for jaywalking...Therefore there is no imminent need to rip your muscles out so the cop doesnt get you for them...

It's not their responsibility to make the laws, it's theirs to enforce it. It doesn't even matter if they personally disagree with it. They still have to enforce it. (If they want to keep their jobs.)

Cops tend to take a dim view of laws which are nothing better than time wasting. Otherwise you'd see people arresting for eating ice cream on a Sunday (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/oregon).

why should I go to prison for smoking some pot one time?

Because you broke the law. Your argument's no different than those who refuse to pay taxes, or speed excessively, or bring in several thousand AK-47s for street distribution.

If you think it's unfair, campaign to have the laws revoked, or go found your own country. Don't expect to break the law and then whine about it when you get caught.

Okay. And when you have a heart attack I'll blame it on you for eating too much meat, and leave you at the door. Why prison, other than the "you broke the law, I don't care unjust it is, you broke it!" Argument, why should I go to prison for smoking some pot one time?

this girl didn't seek medical attention immediately after ingesting the pills. If i refuse medical attention for 2 or 3 hours after i have a heart attack yes i deserve to die.

It's not their responsibility to make the laws, it's theirs to enforce it. It doesn't even matter if they personally disagree with it. They still have to enforce it. (If they want to keep their jobs.)

Agreed. It's a moot point to argue the legality of certain drugs and activities people choose to participate in this thread. Regardless of how stupid a law the police have to enforce, that is still their job as law enforcement officers. They didn't cause this girl to OD, she did by choosing to down three pills of E in one shot. Plain and simple. What the fuck is the point of speculating and throwing out random examples that poorly reflect the situation?

Because you broke the law. Your argument's no different than those who refuse to pay taxes, or speed excessively, or bring in several thousand AK-47s for street distribution.

Yeah, except all those have real consequences.

this girl didn't seek medical attention immediately after ingesting the pills.

I think the Illegality of her act, as opposed to having a Heart Attack had a little bit to do with her decisions in this regard...

And it's my tax dollars too. It's also my tax dollars that go to obese people being treated for heart disease. Could you tell me what a schoolie is? Like, an actual school? Because we sure as hell don't have one at mine.

Schoolie's Week is an annual celebration held around Australia in the week after year 12's finish. It is basically an orgy and a drug fest at which many teenagers run riot, ruin mine and my friend's property, and get high/stoned/whatever. They have time-out zones run by government agencies for the little idiots who decide to do drugs and then can't handle it, zones where the cops can't go.

You seem to define helping out people who have got in a difficult as harm to you. I'm sorry you can't feel compassion.

I feel plenty of compassion for people who have got into difficulty through no fault of their own. I feel sorry for cancer victims, AIDS patients, people in car wrecks, people with serious diseases. I don't feel sorry for smokers who get cancer or other problems, drinkers with liver damage (and that includes myself if I ever get it), or drug users who get addicted.



Cynical on the dying thing there, though I agree it is mostly her fault, but the police had a part in this in deciding to actively seek out people commiting consensual crimes.

The cops had no part in this. The cops had a part in the death of TJ Hickey, Dumaji Mulrunji and a lot of other people, but not in this. They were doing their job.


Oh right, I don't want to go to prison for seven years because I smoked a little pot once, excuse me.

and I don't want to pay thousands of dollars in fines because I happen to have a blow-off valve thats a little too loud. But if I get caught, its my own fault.

Agreed. It's a moot point to argue the legality of certain drugs and activities people choose to participate in this thread. Regardless of how stupid a law the police have to enforce, that is still their job as law enforcement officers. They didn't cause this girl to OD, she did by choosing to down three pills of E in one shot. Plain and simple. What the fuck is the point of speculating and throwing out random examples that poorly reflect the situation?

The only way the girl can be fully responsible if the cops were removed from this situation, and she did exactly the same thing.

And yeah, Saint Jade IV's example of jaywalking was pretty dumb.

Yeah, except all those have real consequences.

If you think it's unfair, campaign to have the laws revoked, or go found your own country. Don't expect to break the law and then whine about it when you get caught.

:eek:

Yeah, except all those have real consequences.

So does the drug trade. Unless you're saying people dying from ODing isn't a real consequence. I also notice you can't be arsed to go found your own country either. Seems to me you're just fine whining about the law to justify breaking it.

Hang on a minute here. Weren't you one of the people who were all in an uproar and demanding war because some Australian ditz went to Indonesia and got caught with a brick of marijuana, despite the big signs saying there was the death penalty for drug possession?

So does the drug trade. Unless you're saying people dying from ODing isn't a real consequence.

Not for people other than the ones doing the ODing...

EDIT: Which could be lessened if drugs were legal, as it would prevent situations like this one...

Yeah, except all those have real consequences.

Not paying your money in taxes hurts who, exactly?
Speeding excessively if you're a good driver hurts who exactly?
Bringing in AK 47s hurts who exactly?

Not paying your money in taxes hurts who, exactly?
The people and organizations that require Tax Money

Speeding excessively if you're a good driver hurts who exactly?
The people you have a chance of hitting, and the people who may hurt other people because they had to get out of the way of your speeding vehicle

Bringing in AK 47s hurts who exactly?

Noone, I have no problem with you owning an AK...

If you decide to shoot it at someone, thats another matter...

Schoolie's Week is an annual celebration held around Australia in the week after year 12's finish. It is basically an orgy and a drug fest at which many teenagers run riot, ruin mine and my friend's property, and get high/stoned/whatever. They have time-out zones run by government agencies for the little idiots who decide to do drugs and then can't handle it, zones where the cops can't go.

Sort of like the Australian version of Spring Break, then?

I feel plenty of compassion for people who have got into difficulty through no fault of their own. I feel sorry for cancer victims, AIDS patients, people in car wrecks, people with serious diseases. I don't feel sorry for smokers who get cancer or other problems, drinkers with liver damage (and that includes myself if I ever get it), or drug users who get addicted.

Addiction has no place in this argument.

The cops had no part in this. The cops had a part in the death of TJ Hickey, Dumaji Mulrunji and a lot of other people, but not in this. They were doing their job.

The cops had no part in this, if, in this situation minus the cops, she did exactly the same thing.

and I don't want to pay thousands of dollars in fines because I happen to have a blow-off valve thats a little too loud. But if I get caught, its my own fault.

Apart from the fact that I'm not being a public nuisance by taking a hit. It should be noted for your state of mind, I'm actually against these laws.

I think the Illegality of her act, as opposed to having a Heart Attack had a little bit to do with her decisions in this regard...

Doctors in the states wont report that stuff to the police.
not to mention I doubt they can get her for anything if she threw up behind a dumpster. and even if the pills came up solid and the police found them and tried to arrest her rather then jsut get her to a hospital she could easily plead someone tried to drug her.

The only way the girl can be fully responsible if the cops were removed from this situation, and she did exactly the same thing.

I'm sorry but that was dumb.

Doctors in the states wont report that stuff to the police.
not to mention I doubt they can get her for anything if she threw up behind a dumpster. and even if the pills came up solid and the police found them and tried to arrest her rather then jsut get her to a hospital she could easily plead someone tried to drug her.

Its a possibillity...

However, She would never have had to do those things if Ecstasy was legal...

The only way the girl can be fully responsible if the cops were removed from this situation, and she did exactly the same thing.



I believe the active choice of the girl to break the law and then try to escape the consequences makes her pretty much totally fucking responsible. As I have said numerous times, if you want drugs to be legal, campaign for it. Don't just ignore it and then whine if you get caught. Or do something incredibly stupid because you're too much of a pissweak coward to accept the consequences.

I'm not entirely sure why every suggestion that a law is unjust is rapidly met with 'you're not above the law'. It should be fairly clear that, in a hypothetical debate on NSG, the statement 'I shouldn't be punished if I take drugs' is essentially saying 'drugs should be legal', not 'I don't like drug laws so they shouldn't apply to me'.

Not for people other than the ones doing the ODing...

Except, maybe, the ones who decide to smash your head in with a length of lead pipe so they can rob you and feed their habit.


EDIT: Which could be lessened if drugs were legal, as it would prevent situations like this one...

This is like the retarded argument that if guns were legal, there'd never be another mass shootout cause legal gun ownership turns you into John Woo who would be able to put down a crazed gunman in a heartbeat. It might turn out that way, it might not. It's never guaranteed.

So does the drug trade. Unless you're saying people dying from ODing isn't a real consequence. I also notice you can't be arsed to go found your own country either. Seems to me you're just fine whining about the law to justify breaking it.

ODing is pretty much inpossible with marijuana, which was my example.

Hang on a minute here. Weren't you one of the people who were all in an uproar and demanding war because some Australian ditz went to Indonesia and got caught with a brick of marijuana, despite the big signs saying there was the death penalty for drug possession?

No, I wasn't.

I'm sorry but that was dumb.

Please justify.

ODing is pretty much inpossible with marijuana, which was my example.


So what? It's still pretty much against the law, and you've got plenty of recourse to get that law changed if you can get enough people behind it. So either you can't be arsed to get the law changed, or not enough people think the same way you do about it.

And that means you either follow the law, or found your own country. If you want to stick in a country and break the law, don't come crying to me if you get punished for it.

so why do you care you don't live here and it not hurting you

Please justify.

What I gathered from that statement was that mere police presence caused people to commit acts of extreme stupidity.

Except, maybe, the ones who decide to smash your head in with a length of lead pipe so they can rob you and feed their habit.
Well then obviously they would be arrested for smashing your head with a pipe and robbing you...

How does the Illegality of drugs keep this from happening anyway?


It might turn out that way, it might not. It's never guaranteed.

I said it would be easier, not guaranteed, People would make more rational decisions while using drugs if you took away the fear of being caught...

It wouldnt be guaranteed to stop it, nothing will stop it, but it would be made easier to lessen it...


And with that, Im going to bed...I have to go to school in 5 hours...

Its a possibillity...

However, She would never have had to do those things if Ecstasy was legal...

not necessarily the Cops might have been her excuse to eat her friends X. Seems very likely since she went to the concert and likely partied for 2 or 3 hours before collapsing. Ample time to calm down and get medical attention with out involving the cops.

I believe the active choice of the girl to break the law and then try to escape the consequences makes her pretty much totally fucking responsible. As I have said numerous times, if you want drugs to be legal, campaign for it. Don't just ignore it and then whine if you get caught. Or do something incredibly stupid because you're too much of a pissweak coward to accept the consequences.

She pulled a dumb-shit. I understand. But she pulled a dumb-shit because she would rather risk overdosing (I don't imagine she thought she would die, and if she did, she would visit the ambulance, or at least self-induce vomiting) than going to prison. Que?

not necessarily the Cops might have been her excuse to eat her friends X. Seems very likely since she went to the concert and likely partied for 2 or 3 hours before collapsing. Ample time to calm down and get medical attention with out involving the cops.

Yes. All drug users are out to have a good time by themselves, because being the only drug person in a room full of sober people is soooo cool. She was just a fiend for the stuff, wasn't she?

Or maybe she just didn't think that triple the normal dosage could kill her.

Well then obviously they would be arrested for smashing your head with a pipe and robbing you...

How does the Illegality of drugs keep this from happening anyway?


Not to mention that prices on the black market are highly inflated, making it unnecessary to beat someones head in to obtain some cash for expensive junk.

What I gathered from that statement was that mere police presence caused people to commit acts of extreme stupidity.

Evidently it did.

She pulled a dumb-shit. I understand. But she pulled a dumb-shit because she would rather risk overdosing than going to prison.

And maybe that's the problem with drug legislation. People would rather risk their life than deal with the consequences of being 'caught'. That doesn't mean, however, that it was the police themselves that caused this girl to OD. It was more perhaps what they represented should she have gotten caught.

Yes. All drug users are out to have a good time by themselves, because being the only drug person in a room full of sober people is soooo cool. She was just a fiend for the stuff, wasn't she?
Its a concert plenty of people high there.
Maybe just maybe more along the lines of she was a noob took the X waited 15 minutes didn't think it was working and took the other 2.
Or she just decided she wanted to try a really extreme roll.
also question why if her friends were sober why didn't they drag her to get medical help when she mention i took 3 Rolls at once ?
Too many holes in the story of her friends from the perspective of someone who tripped and rolled like it was going out of style a long time ago.

Its a concert plenty of people high there.
Maybe just maybe more along the lines of she was a noob took the X waited 15 minutes didn't think it was working and took the other 2.
Or she just decided she wanted to try a really extreme roll.
also question why if her friends were sober why didn't they drag her to get medical help when she mention i took 3 Rolls at once ?
Too many holes in the story of her friends from the perspective of someone who tripped and rolled like it was going out of style a long time ago.

Maybe she was a noob, but we have no evidence pointing that way, and innocence is presumed.

I don't think you're going to drum up a lot of outrage over the heinous police brutality evidenced in your news story, given that A) there were plenty of other ways to dispose of a drug that B)she shouldn't have had in the first place.

And maybe that's the problem with drug legislation. People would rather risk their life than deal with the consequences of being 'caught'. That doesn't mean, however, that it was the police themselves that caused this girl to OD. It was more perhaps what they represented should she have gotten caught.

The problem is that there is a drug legislation focused on unnecessary punishment, not that people would rather risk their life than going to prison because of an inordinate knee-jerk reaction.

I don't think you're going to drum up a lot of outrage over the heinous police brutality evidenced in your news story, given that A) there were plenty of other ways to dispose of a drug that B)she shouldn't have had in the first place.

There was no heinous police brutality. They could've however had a causation effect in their overzealous enforcement of the law.

That is the argument.

so why do you care you don't live here and it not hurting you

No, but the laws that caused this are pretty standard across the world. Also, Australia and the way they do things has an influence across the Tasmin where I live. I actually came across this article on a local TV station, first.

Maybe she was a noob, but we have no evidence pointing that way, and innocence is presumed.

including the innocence of the cops ?

And still I wonder about her friends. could this story have come about because her friends were the one to give/sell her the X ? Things just aren't adding up supposedly she took it to hide it from police that weren't even at the gate she came it at ? (car drop off point versus train station )
My guess leans more toward the story was cooked up to cover said "friends" asses more then anything they were at least negligent(maybe not legally but most certainly morally) for not dragging her to the hospital before she collapsed. And they might have even been the ones to give/sell it to her.

I am of the opinion the best thing that could have happened to this girl was if she had gotten caught before she took the X.

There was no heinous police brutality. They could've however had a causation effect in their overzealous enforcement of the law.

No, maybe this is the problem. To you police presence at the entrance of a concert is overzealous enforcement. To the rest of the world, its just the cops doing their job. To the rest of the world overzealous enforcement would be the cops patting down and searching ever concert goer and organizer.

There was no heinous police brutality.
I was being sarcastic there, way to pick up on that.

They could've however had a causation effect in their overzealous enforcement of the law.

Yeah, Damn police, always doing their jobs and shit, man, why they gotta be hassling people who are breaking the law? (that was sarcasm, too, in case it slipped by)

so why do you care you don't live here and it not hurting you

I'm not telling him to live by my laws. I'm telling him to live by the laws of his country, have them changed, or make his own country.

Well then obviously they would be arrested for smashing your head with a pipe and robbing you...


And obviously they wouldn't have done that if they hadn't been addicted to drugs and needing to feed their habit in the first place.


How does the Illegality of drugs keep this from happening anyway?


Illegality by itself isn't worth much. Illegality and effective enforcement is much better. And it puts an dent in drug related crimes.


I said it would be easier, not guaranteed, People would make more rational decisions while using drugs if you took away the fear of being caught...


Or it could be that people make more rational decisions when not on drugs. It's not like drug induced crimes don't happen.

including the innocence of the cops ?

They clearly had an effect on her behaviour which caused this to happen. Innocence loses to evidence.

And still I wonder about her friends. could this story have come about because her friends were the one to give/sell her the X ?

Yes. Because if you sell someone some ecstasy, you want a news story made out of it.

Things just aren't adding up supposedly she took it to hide it from police that weren't even at the gate she came it at ? (car drop off point versus train station )

I think you misunderstand the article. There were ALSO police at the train station. That's why she was surprised when she came across them at the gate.


My guess leans more toward the story was cooked up to cover said "friends" asses more then anything they were at least negligent(maybe not legally but most certainly morally) for not dragging her to the hospital before she collapsed. And they might have even been the ones to give/sell it to her.

I am of the opinion the best thing that could have happened to this girl was if she had gotten caught before she took the X.

Yes, the friends have so much influence over the newspaper that they can have a story made and spun in their benefit. Not because it is a matter of public interest.

I was being sarcastic there, way to pick up on that.

Yes, how witty. I was under the impression you were flame baiting more than anything.

Yeah, Damn police, always doing their jobs and shit, man, why they gotta be hassling people who are breaking the law? (that was sarcasm, too, in case it slipped by)

You seem to have missed the word "overzealous" out in my post. It's when people (in this case the police) go above and beyond to harass generally innocent people who very likely pay their taxes.

Oh, in case it slipped by, the second sentence was sarcasm.

No, maybe this is the problem. To you police presence at the entrance of a concert is overzealous enforcement. To the rest of the world, its just the cops doing their job. To the rest of the world overzealous enforcement would be the cops patting down and searching ever concert goer and organizer.

In my book, using dogs is equivalent to searching. Excuse me for believing in freedom and restriction of oppression.

It's when people (in this case the police) go above and beyond to harass generally innocent people who very likely pay their taxes.

If she was in possession of illegal drugs, she's not generally or any other kind of 'innocent.' She would, in fact, by virtue of breaking the law, be the exact opposite of 'innocent.'

And obviously they wouldn't have done that if they hadn't been addicted to drugs and needing to feed their habit in the first place.

I never hear of crazed ecstasy users in this situation, please provide an example.

Illegality by itself isn't worth much. Illegality and effective enforcement is much better. And it puts an dent in drug related crimes.

The problem is you can't really effectively enforce drug laws, they've been trying to for the last forty years. What do you propose is effective enforcement? I'm sure the DEA would love to hear.

Or it could be that people make more rational decisions when not on drugs. It's not like drug induced crimes don't happen.

Or it could be that people make more rational decisions when not emotionally unstable. It's not like crimes of passion don't happen.

And?

They clearly had an effect on her behaviour which caused this to happen. Innocence loses to evidence.

the only source mentioned in the news paper saying that was her friend. who witnesses said was carrying her around not taking her to get medical attention. the only evidence to that was an anonymous source the paper quoted. Police have the right to face their accusers as well ergo there is no evidence the police had an effect on her behavior.


Yes. Because if you sell someone some ecstasy, you want a news story made out of it.

unless you were seen carrying said person around an hour or so before they died. with out getting her proper medical attention. If that's the case passing the blame off on the cops in the news paper might be the way to avoid criminal prosecution.

I think you misunderstand the article. There were ALSO police at the train station. That's why she was surprised when she came across them at the gate.
Yes, the friends have so much influence over the newspaper that they can have a story made and spun in their benefit. Not because it is a matter of public interest.

They were quoted anonymously, Only really influence you need to get in the paper is the abilty to calla reporter and ask for an interview.

If she was in possession of illegal drugs, she's not generally or any other kind of 'innocent.' She would, in fact, by virtue of breaking the law, be the exact opposite of 'innocent.'

Innocent as in not hurting anyone with her actions.

Or was that sarcasm?

In my book, using dogs is equivalent to searching. Excuse me for believing in freedom and restriction of oppression.

Except the government doesn't go by your book, you know, you being the only reader. Or my book... or anyone else's book for that matter.

EDIT: They kinda go by all our books (well, the ones of us who vote anyways) and then water it down and squeeze out this little brown turd thing that sorta but not really resembles what we were after.

In my book, using dogs is equivalent to searching. Excuse me for believing in freedom and restriction of oppression.

And in the girl's case, clearly cops using their eyes was the equivalent of searching. Oh come on, stop being ridiculous.

I didn't know people could actually die from ecstacy... or am I thinking of LSD? Anyhow, not a smart move. Tragic. =\

I'm not telling him to live by my laws. I'm telling him to live by the laws of his country, have them changed, or make his own country.

what ??

I didn't know people could actually die from ecstacy... or am I thinking of LSD? Anyhow, not a smart move. Tragic. =\

Neither did the brownie bakers... (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZb5wi_jsU) :p

the only source mentioned in the news paper saying that was her friend. who witnesses said was carrying her around not taking her to get medical attention. the only evidence to that was an anonymous source the paper quoted. Police have the right to face their accusers as well ergo there is no evidence the police had an effect on her behavior.

This was after she collapsed, and it's entirely possible she didn't know taking 3 pills would cause her death.

unless you were seen carrying said person around an hour or so before they died. with out getting her proper medical attention. If that's the case passing the blame off on the cops in the news paper might be the way to avoid criminal prosecution.

Are you purposely reading it wrong? The anon said that she was "almost trying to catch her as she fell down". Not an hour before she died.

They were quoted anonymously, Only really influence you need to get in the paper is the abilty to calla reporter and ask for an interview.

Indeed, but the influence of one anon does not mean the article is spun in favour of anon. The anon's quote doesn't represent a view, it just states what anon thought was fact. I find it unlikely that anon had the callousness to approach a reporter after anon's friend died to spin an article in anon's favour.

It's always possible, of course.

Except the government doesn't go by your book, you know, you being the only reader. Or my book... or anyone else's book for that matter.

EDIT: They kinda go by all our books (well, the ones of us who vote anyways) and then water it down and squeeze out this little brown turd thing that sorta but not really resembles what we were after.

Government do highly unpopular stuff reasonably often. I understand what you mean, but I was just explaining from my point of view so you understand what I meant when I said it.

No, but the laws that caused this are pretty standard across the world. Also, Australia and the way they do things has an influence across the Tasmin where I live. I actually came across this article on a local TV station, first.
if your cops want to copy, then bitch about them and stop bitching about other nations cops doing their job

And in the girl's case, clearly cops using their eyes was the equivalent of searching. Oh come on, stop being ridiculous.

No. Stop twisting my arguments.

I didn't know people could actually die from ecstacy... or am I thinking of LSD? Anyhow, not a smart move. Tragic. =\

It's impossible to overdose on LSD, though you could fuck up your head royally. EDIT: Almost impossible, there is a case of one guy who snorted a ridiculous number many times higher than recommended dosage. Lemme know when you get a gram of LSD, and an IV connection/ :P

Ecstasy deaths usually come from drinking too little and overheating.

if your cops want to copy, then bitch about them and stop bitching about other nations cops doing their job

I fail to see the issue you have here. Is this some sort of "don't talk shit about my family, even when we abuse each other, cause it ain't none of your business" thing on a country level?

Government do highly unpopular stuff reasonably often. I understand what you mean, but I was just explaining from my point of view so you understand what I meant when I said it.

No worries. I got what you meant, just pointing out what you consider to be unreasonable differs from what the law considers unreasonable and vice versa in regards the reasonable.

Ecstasy deaths usually come from drinking too little and overheating.

Hmmm.... the article says the temperature had been 36C... could that not have been a contributing factor?

Hmmm.... the article says the temperature had been 36C... could that not have been a contributing factor?

Very well could've been a contributing factor.

Very well could've been a contributing factor.

Glad to see we agree then.

Innocent as in not hurting anyone with her actions.

'Not hurting anyone' does not equal 'innocent.' 'Innocent' means 'guiltless' which she was obviously not.

Hmmm.... the article says the temperature had been 36C... could that not have been a contributing factor?

Jesus, that's almost 557 degrees!

That's sweaty.

I never hear of crazed ecstasy users in this situation, please provide an example.

The crazed lone drug user tends to be more on cocaine or something just as hard rather than ecstasy. The killings dealing with ecstasy appear to be more prevalent in the trade itself than the end users.


The problem is you can't really effectively enforce drug laws, they've been trying to for the last forty years. What do you propose is effective enforcement? I'm sure the DEA would love to hear.

First and foremost, clean house. The drug trade is extremely lucrative, and it's damn near certain that at least even the DEA has a few people on the inside taking drug money. This will take a long time to do, since you want to be sure you've gotten all of them in one shot and you don't want to get rid of your clean cops.

Second. Stop budgeting police budgets using busts of drug dealers as an indicator of how much they get. All it does is encourage them to keep their 'cash crops' in low numbers, but not so low as to eradicate them.


Or it could be that people make more rational decisions when not emotionally unstable. It's not like crimes of passion don't happen.


Crimes of passion are near impossible to stop barring Orwellian presence. Drug induced crimes on the other hand, can be minimized.

Jesus, that's almost 557 degrees!

That's sweaty.

Good thing I was wearing my totally awesome Elvis shades.

Jesus, that's almost 557 degrees!

That's sweaty.

Damn you and your sigging skills!:(

Damn you and your sigging skills!:(

If it bothers you, I'll change it.

I'm trying to get permission to put up this picture I have of Neo Art porking the Cure at the Harvard Yard, which I was going to caption with "Pahk the cah in the Hahvahd Yahd".

The crazed lone drug user tends to be more on cocaine or something just as hard rather than ecstasy. The killings dealing with ecstasy appear to be more prevalent in the trade itself than the end users.

The only one I'm really familiar with crazed drug user style is meth, which is a terrifying one, at least to me.

First and foremost, clean house. The drug trade is extremely lucrative, and it's damn near certain that at least even the DEA has a few people on the inside taking drug money. This will take a long time to do, since you want to be sure you've gotten all of them in one shot and you don't want to get rid of your clean cops.

Second. Stop budgeting police budgets using busts of drug dealers as an indicator of how much they get. All it does is encourage them to keep their 'cash crops' in low numbers, but not so low as to eradicate them.

And this will eradicate drugs? Well done!

Crimes of passion are near impossible to stop barring Orwellian presence. Drug induced crimes on the other hand, can be minimized.

Drug induced? Or "actual" crimes such as possession. Honestly, I don't think you can get rid of either, but have fun with your day dreams.

If it bothers you, I'll change it.

I'm trying to get permission to put up this picture I have of Neo Art porking the Cure at the Harvard Yard, which I was going to caption with "Pahk the cah in the Hahvahd Yahd".

Naw, it's all G.

And, hahaha.

And this will eradicate drugs? Well done!

To be honest, where we're headed and all, it would be much simpler to just eradicate the human species.

The only one I'm really familiar with crazed drug user style is meth, which is a terrifying one, at least to me.

Cocaine and heroin are among the more common drug related crimes.


And this will eradicate drugs? Well done!


It's a step in the right direction and will help minimize it. Eradicating drugs would probably require hefty investment in long distance chemical sniffers installed in every city.


Drug induced? Or "actual" crimes such as possession. Honestly, I don't think you can get rid of either, but have fun with your day dreams.

Drug induced as in people who commit crimes to get the money for their next hit.

I also honestly don't think you can completely get rid of murder and rape either. Does that mean they should be legalized?

Good thing I was wearing my totally awesome Elvis shades.

Poor Elvis...a life of rock, drugs, and jumpsuit-staining sex, and what kills him? An assassin sent by RCA...

Did somebody tell me the other day that a few research groups in the US have recently gotten permission to start studying LSD on humans again?

To be honest, where we're headed and all, it would be much simpler to just eradicate the human species.

True that.

Another thing we can agree on!

Poor Elvis...a life of rock, drugs, and jumpsuit-staining sex, and what kills him? An assassin sent by RCA...

That wasn't Elvis, it was some impersonator he had traded places with. Elvis is currently sitting in the old folks home waiting to kick it with JFK who 'they' dyed black all while battling mummies with his karate.

Did somebody tell me the other day that a few research groups in the US have recently gotten permission to start studying LSD on humans again?

*Raises hand* Need any volunteers?

Cocaine and heroin are among the more common drug related crimes.

Maybe where you live. Cocaine is expensive here.

It's a step in the right direction and will help minimize it. Eradicating drugs would probably require hefty investment in long distance chemical sniffers installed in every city.

What did you say about Orwellian before? Because I'm fairly sure this fits into the criteria.

Drug induced as in people who commit crimes to get the money for their next hit.

I also honestly don't think you can completely get rid of murder and rape either. Does that mean they should be legalized?

Rape isn't usually considered a crime of passion, that I'm aware of. And no, no they shouldn't, but what does them being legal have to do with anything?

Poor Elvis...a life of rock, drugs, and jumpsuit-staining sex, and what kills him? An assassin sent by RCA...

Did somebody tell me the other day that a few research groups in the US have recently gotten permission to start studying LSD on humans again?

Apparently it's quite good in treating cluster headaches, same with 'shrooms.

True that.

Another thing we can agree on!

Sweet. I'm gonna keep using incandescent lightbulbs then.

Sweet. I'm gonna keep using incandescent lightbulbs then.

:tongue:

What did you say about Orwellian before? Because I'm fairly sure this fits into the criteria.


Well, you did mention eradicating drugs. It would be like eradicating any other crime. To prevent crime, you must have some level of surveillance and enforcement. But anyone entering the field of crime gets winnowed out early on, leaving behind only those smart or lucky enough not to get caught. Thereby, to prevent any sort of crime with 100% efficiency, Orwellian surveillance is needed.


And no, no they shouldn't, but what does them being legal have to do with anything?

Everything really. Crimes are acts the law deems unacceptable, much like drug possession and trade in them.

Well, you did mention eradicating drugs. It would be like eradicating any other crime. To prevent crime, you must have some level of surveillance and enforcement. But anyone entering the field of crime gets winnowed out early on, leaving behind only those smart or lucky enough not to get caught. Thereby, to prevent any sort of crime with 100% efficiency, Orwellian surveillance is needed.

So long as you don't see this as reasonable...

Everything really. Crimes are acts the law deems unacceptable, much like drug possession and trade in them.

I still don't see your point.

Yeah, except all those have real consequences.
It might just be me but I'd call a girl dying because of 3 pills of ecstasy a real consequence.

Its in no way shape or form the fault of the police. The police where there to keep things like that from happening, she took the drugs on her own accord, and bought them on her own accord, and died because she was stupid enough to do so. Isn't that known as Darwin's Law?

She pulled a dumb-shit. I understand. But she pulled a dumb-shit because she would rather risk overdosing (I don't imagine she thought she would die, and if she did, she would visit the ambulance, or at least self-induce vomiting) than going to prison. Que?

So she made a choice. An extremely stupid choice. In a difficult position that she chose to put herself in by taking illegal drugs out in public to an event. For Christ's sake, she could have taken them at home like my friend's do when they go to these things, thereby far reducing the risk of being caught.

I don't understand how it is the presence of police that caused this situation, and not the person who chose to break the law. You have yet to explain this adequately. You have explained that you think the law is bad, and as I and others have said, go change it. You have not explained why the police or anyone but the person who made this extremely stupid choice is responsible.

And you clearly know SFA about our legal system if you think she would have had the slightest chance of going to prison anyway. She wouldn't even have got a criminal record for a first offence.

She pulled a dumb-shit. I understand. But she pulled a dumb-shit because she would rather risk overdosing (I don't imagine she thought she would die, and if she did, she would visit the ambulance, or at least self-induce vomiting) than going to prison. Que?

I severely doubt that. She probably wanted to be high during the concert, so she thought that if she took waaaaay tooooooo fuuuuucking muuuuuch of one of what is one of the most dangerous readily available drugs out there she'd stay up for the entire concert. She probably did not plan to purge or get a hospital visit.

As it stands, any consumer should know the risks of the product they purchase when they misuse it (Boohoo! I cut my hand off with a chainsaw! I was only trying to juggle it drunk!). She should have known better (she should have known better than to take x. Goddamit--go with something comparatively safe like shrooms, weed or acid--or maybe the adrenaline high from playing Russian roulette twelve times in a row with a six shooter).

I fail to see how it is the fault of the police in this situation. Maybe if the girl hadn't been carrying (illegal in Australia I'm assuming) drugs she would have never felt the need to hide them from the police and the police dogs. You know that whole shtick, 'if you're not doing anything illegal, what's there to hide?'

Ever the basis of tyranny I fear.

Frankly, most drugs would be better legalised, with their content and quality regulated; pure E, much like pure weed, poses precious little medical risk, and their prohibition is little more than a circumscription of the rights of the individual.

The argument blaming this on the police is idiotic. If you've got a kilogram of C4 on you do you detonate it so the police dogs won't sniff it out?

The girl was doing something illegal in the first place and through her own lack of foresight and stupidity she took 3 ecstasy pills at once (something that almost every teenager knows is a stupid idea) and died for her mistakes.

'Not hurting anyone' does not equal 'innocent.' 'Innocent' means 'guiltless' which she was obviously not.

There are many quotes before and after this to the same effect, but I want to address the basic point: it is important to distinguish between moral innocence and legal innocence. Taking drugs is not, by any reasonable standard, morally wrong. The law is no basis for morality; indeed, it quite often opposes it. It seems to me that many here are saying that she was wrong to break the law, but that assumes that there is an inherent goodness in following the law. The law is not sacred. Sometimes, the law is just, and in those cases I am glad that the state will enforce it. But sometimes the law is pointless, and should be changed.

That said, I think it's insane to try to say the cops are to blame for her death. Her death was not a foreseeable outcome of their presence; they had no reason to think that showing up would be likely to cause death. And the girl was stupid to take so much.

This incident is, however, a fairly good example of why drug laws are senseless. The vast majority of drugs should be legalized and regulated, just like alcohol and tobacco. Prohibition has been shown time and time again not to work, and indeed to increase crime. I mean, there's a reason that the prohibition of alcohol was repealed. Further, at least in the US, our drug laws are probably unconstitutional -- if it required an amendment to the US Constitution to ban alcohol, then that should apply to non-alcohol drugs too.

There are many quotes before and after this to the same effect, but I want to address the basic point: it is important to distinguish between moral innocence and legal innocence. Taking drugs is not, by any reasonable standard, morally wrong. The law is no basis for morality; indeed, it quite often opposes it. It seems to me that many here are saying that she was wrong to break the law, but that assumes that there is an inherent goodness in following the law. The law is not sacred. Sometimes, the law is just, and in those cases I am glad that the state will enforce it. But sometimes the law is pointless, and should be changed.

That said, I think it's insane to try to say the cops are to blame for her death. Her death was not a foreseeable outcome of their presence; they had no reason to think that showing up would be likely to cause death. And the girl was stupid to take so much.

This incident is, however, a fairly good example of why drug laws are senseless. The vast majority of drugs should be legalized and regulated, just like alcohol and tobacco. Prohibition has been shown time and time again not to work, and indeed to increase crime. I mean, there's a reason that the prohibition of alcohol was repealed. Further, at least in the US, our drug laws are probably unconstitutional -- if it required an amendment to the US Constitution to ban alcohol, then that should apply to non-alcohol drugs too.
The Congress shall have the power...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The Congress shall have the power...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Yes, and how is banning drugs necessary and proper for executing the constitutional powers of the government?

I know that clause is often used to justify just about anything, but provide reasoning for how it can be applied here, and why that would not have applied to the prohibition of alcohol.

Yes, and how is banning drugs necessary and proper for executing the constitutional powers of the government?

I know that clause is often used to justify just about anything, but provide reasoning for how it can be applied here, and why that would not have applied to the prohibition of alcohol.

Drugs are most likely banned under the interstate commerce clause. I don't know what the necessary and proper clause is doing.

Ever the basis of tyranny I fear.

Unfortunately so.

Frankly, most drugs would be better legalised, with their content and quality regulated; pure E, much like pure weed, poses precious little medical risk, and their prohibition is little more than a circumscription of the rights of the individual.

The question here isn't the legality of the ecstasy or any other drugs present at the festival. They are illegal. It's that simple. It's also beside the point.

That said, I think it's insane to try to say the cops are to blame for her death. Her death was not a foreseeable outcome of their presence; they had no reason to think that showing up would be likely to cause death. And the girl was stupid to take so much.

Pretty much what I've been trying to get at though out this thread.

The only way the girl can be fully responsible if the cops were removed from this situation, and she did exactly the same thing.


That's an incoherent, utterly illogical argument, and I think you know it. The cops in no way forced ecstasy down this girl's throat by being physically present. Heck, maybe cops shouldn't patrol the streets, either - there might be people looking to get high there, and that just wouldn't be fair to them! :rolleyes:

Again, if you want to argue for the legalization of ecstasy, go for it, but in the meantime, it is still unambiguously NOT the job of the police to make sure not to be present anywhere someone might be using it in order to make sure they have a comfortable, cop-free illegal-drug-taking experience.

Blaming the dealer, the drugs, or the cops are all out of the question.

Blaming her for "being stupid" is also, well, stupid. I mean what's the idea with that - she deserved it? Anyone who does E is knowingly signing their own death warrant and so its OK cuz its in the contract?

Blaming the dealer, the drugs, or the cops are all out of the question.

Blaming her for "being stupid" is also, well, stupid. I mean what's the idea with that - she deserved it? Anyone who does E is knowingly signing their own death warrant and so its OK cuz its in the contract?

Well, sure, it was her fault she died; she did something very stupid. But that doesn't mean she deserved it. Sometimes, unfortunately, people do stupid things and bad things that they don't deserve happen to them.

Well, sure, it was her fault she died; she did something very stupid. But that doesn't mean she deserved it. Sometimes, unfortunately, people do stupid things and bad things that they don't deserve happen to them.

I guess my problem is that people are essentially going, "Three tabs of E? Oh, no shit she died! That's normally fatal!" in response to this. There is no reason to assume that taking three hits is a death sentence.

The Congress shall have the power...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

that clause can't be used to justify police action in and of itself, I hope you realize. it's the "the foregoing powers" part that's sticky.

Well, sure, it was her fault she died; she did something very stupid. But that doesn't mean she deserved it. Sometimes, unfortunately, people do stupid things and bad things that they don't deserve happen to them.

When doing something as stupid as that, it is implied that the person deserves the consequences of their poor choice. I wouldn't say that many people deserve death, and likely she didn't specifically deserve to die...but she does deserve the consequences of swallowing so much E. Unfortunately for her, etc, etc.

Drugs are most likely banned under the interstate commerce clause. I don't know what the necessary and proper clause is doing.That's correct. Drug prosecutions are almost entirely by the states: it only becomes a federal matter when there is importation from overseas or across state lines etc.

Is that why they give warnings? Should every person that greets someone who puts their thumb to their nose and wiggle their fingers go to prison (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-york)?

That article is blatantly a joke.

Also, the stupid bitch could've just ditched the drugs, it's her own fault.

Also, the stupid bitch could've just ditched the drugs, it's her own fault.

Yeah, she was asking for it, leadin the E on with that slutty, slutty skirt.

Yeah, she was asking for it, leadin the E on with that slutty, slutty skirt.

Don't be silly, everyone knows that E is a she.

Don't be silly, everyone knows that E is a she.

This would explain why it's so socially accepted. Not like hard, gay heroin.

Just gonna put this out there...I used to hang with people who would pop three pills at once. It's not a combo that automatically=death.

It's not a combo that automatically=death.

No, but X-X-Triangle-up-up-down-left-square is.

No, but X-X-Triangle-up-up-down-left-square is.

That's why you press up up down down left right left right A B start before the party...

Yeah, she was asking for it, leadin the E on with that slutty, slutty skirt.

What I said has nothing to do with Wilgrove's rape thread, bit pointless to bring it up really.

In Australia recently a girl died of "overdosing" on Ecstasy, the famous party drug.



tl;dr The police have sniffer dogs at the entrances to the Big Day Out music festival, causing the girl to take 3 pills of ecstasy she had bring along and intended to share with friends at once. What opinion do you have on this, NSG? Also, what do you think about their statement on hunting the girls dealer down? Is it his fault for giving her the pills, her fault for taking them, or the polices fault for using sniffer dogs?

Also, the police refuse to answer how she died, leading me to believe something more along the lines of dehydrationPOLICE are hunting the supplier of ecstasy to a 17-year-old girl who died of a suspected overdose after collapsing at the Big Day Out music festival in Perth.

The teenager died at a Perth hospital early today after attending yesterday's event at Claremont Showgrounds.

Friends of the family told Fairfax Radio the teenager took three ecstasy tablets after she saw police searching for drugs.

But police said the girl was dropped off at the showgrounds, which meant she would not have been subject to sniffer dog and police searches carried out at the Showgrounds train station..

Article (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24995799-661,00.html).
They forced her?

Or she was a dumbass, panicked, and ingested them rather than, you know, dropping them, throwing them away, or not buying them in the first place?

Her stupidity caused her death: the cops did not force her to take it. She took it because she was afraid they'd find it on her.

The end.

It's bad enough when the cops actually fuck up -- don't blame them for her being an idiot.

Just gonna put this out there...I used to hang with people who would pop three pills at once. It's not a combo that automatically=death.

Well, if the pills were big enough...

Well, you see, in order to in fact commit theft, you need to actually steal from Somebody else...

This girl taking Ecstasy does what to other people? Oh, right, Nothing...
Her friends stated she intended to supply her friends with illegal drugs. I'd say that's something.

I don't have to point out the fallacy of this example. Using Ecstasy is a consenual harm, and it doesn't lead to any harm to anyone else. It's called a consenual crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_crime).

The danger is a consquence of it being illegal, so middle men an cut it with dangerous substances. There is a chance of overheating, but it's managable. It can also be used to treat PTSD, fyi. You believe the misinformation they've been feeding you since Year 1? Okay, but it's well known that those things are little less than propoganda. Evidentally she didn't know there were cops, otherwise she may've reconsidered her taking of drugs.
Obviously not, as the young lady TOOK THREE TABLETS in very warm weather -- or did you not read the article?

Oh, forgot -- tl;dr.

Maybe you should have.

Taking Ecstasy isn't illegal because it's dangerous, it's illegal because it presented a chance for a politician to get votes. And it's a lot more dangerous now because of the illegality than it was when it was produced in proper laboratories. It can also be used to treat PTSD.
And yet, she's dead. Very not dangerous.

Because the Law is useless and unfair...

Not to mention, is making the problem worse, that girl would be alive today if Ecstasy was Legal...

Whether you think she made a good decision or not(she didnt, lol) The fact remains she would be alive today...

The Law itself is causing people to do dangerous things to themselves...
She could have gone home.
She could have thrown it up.
She could have dropped it.
She could have not bought it.
She could have just faced the possibility of being arrested.
But she decided it was better to OD than to face the possibility -- not even the certainty -- of being arrested.

But please, do go on blaming everyone else. It shows a great deal of maturity and responsibility to say it's someone else's fault when someone screws up.

Taking Ecstasy isn't illegal because it's dangerous, it's illegal because it presented a chance for a politician to get votes. And it's a lot more dangerous now because of the illegality than it was when it was produced in proper laboratories. It can also be used to treat PTSD.

And people used lead powder as a seasoning on food. Does that mean lead is harmless? That you aren't allowed to sell food with lead in it because some politician wanted votes?

Yeah, except all those have real consequences.
Dying of an overdose is not a real consequence?
I have to disagree; she's really dead.

Ecstasy deaths usually come from drinking too little and overheating.
Which is what happened, and was entirely preventable if she weren't a dumbass.


Temperatures of up to 36Cmay have affected people, the commissioner said.

"The weather conditions that we endured yesterday were difficult to say the least and it can have varying impacts on people," he said.

Your article.

Well, if the pills were big enough...

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/UNM/UNM196/u23828934.jpg

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/UNM/UNM196/u23828934.jpg

I like the cut of your jib. :)

I like the cut of your jib. :)

:eek:

Stop staring at my jib.

But... it's such a manly jib.

:eek:

Stop staring at my jib.

Then maybe you shouldn't wear such a revealing topsail. ;)

But... it's such a manly jib.

That's what the poopdeck said...

This thread is raising my mast.

This thread is raising my mast.

Might want to cover it before you get arrested for indecent exposure.

I'm looking up sailing terms and I am laughing myself silly....okay sillier. There's a sail called a spanker. Sailors have filthy minds. :p

I'm looking up sailing terms and I am laughing myself silly....okay sillier. There's a sail called a spanker. Sailors have filthy minds. :p

...you didn't know?

just 3 pills? >.>

...you didn't know?

I was a sailor. ;)

I'm looking up sailing terms and I am laughing myself silly....okay sillier. There's a sail called a spanker. Sailors have filthy minds. :p

Engineers are even worse. Never heard of a "wankel engine"? Sounds suspiciously like wanker.

I was a sailor. ;)

How did you cope with mud withdrawal?

Engineers are even worse. Never heard of a "wankel engine"? Sounds suspiciously like wanker.

Invented by a German and popularized by the Japanese, dirty is just part of the equation there.

How did you cope with mud withdrawal?

The first couple months were rough, but eventually I found other outlets for my irreverent tendencies. Around the time I was onboard ship, someone would paint people's faces with facepaint while they slept. The Facepaint Bandit they called him. Oddly enough, these attacks stopped around the same time I left.

There's lots of blame to go around here, and it's hardly restricted to the people One O One listed. The girl? She should've known better than to bring an illegal drug to a public place in the first place, but it's worth considering that she might not have expected to be likely to get caught. The police? They shouldn't have been focusing on victimless crimes, but it's worth considering that they're just doing their jobs. The dealer? Maybe he/she shouldn't have sold it to young people, but how would we know whether or not the dealer knew how young the girl was in the first place?

If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that much of what society attributes to use of certain drugs probably has more to do with society's response to it. It's like when some people claim that they demonize cannabis because its use supposedly leads to use of harder drugs; they clearly have cause and effect reversed. It might be also worth considering that when society lies to people about drugs, they are less inclined to listen to what society has to say about them. How was the girl supposed to realize what ecstacy could do, when the same system warning her against such drugs was also, if it is at all similar to the one I grew up in, saying such absurd things about cannabis as that smoking a single joint is like smoking 500 cigarettes at once. I think it's more logical to blame the "educators" who exaggerate the dangers of drugs than to blame the police. The irony is, a couple of years ago I was such a teacher-worshipper I wouldn't have dared suggest this, but the point seems more appealing to me as time goes on.

As for the idea that we should obey the law even when the law is wrong, would you obey a law telling you to gas Jews? That's not completely unrealistic; that's what Nazi soldiers had to do during the holocaust. Ironically, those who obeyed the Nazis were disobeying the international laws, so they would've been breaking the law either way. Now I'm not comparing the prohibition of a recreational drug to the holocaust in itself; the analogy is only about the legality-centric mentality. Some laws simply shouldn't be obeyed, even if they are the law, and so long as people will respect even the most ridiculous law, then governments themselves can get away with acting criminal.

As for the idea that we should obey the law even when the law is wrong, would you obey a law telling you to gas Jews? That's not completely unrealistic; that's what Nazi soldiers had to do during the holocaust. Ironically, those who obeyed the Nazis were disobeying the international laws, so they would've been breaking the law either way. Now I'm not comparing the prohibition of a recreational drug to the holocaust in itself; the analogy is only about the legality-centric mentality. Some laws simply shouldn't be obeyed, even if they are the law, and so long as people will respect even the most ridiculous law, then governments themselves can get away with acting criminal.

There's a significant moral difference, of course, between violating laws that involve actions against another human being, and self-actions.

Her friends stated she intended to supply her friends with illegal drugs. I'd say that's something.




What is really bothersome to me is her friend was dragging her around the show rather then getting her medical help. does Australia have shield laws ? because if not the source of friend who just happened to know she took the drugs because of the cops needs to be investigated. whoever was dragging her around sounds negligent in her death.

There's a significant moral difference, of course, between violating laws that involve actions against another human being, and self-actions.
That's why I specified that I wasn't comparing laws against ecstacy use to the holocaust in and of themselves, but in terms of legality-centric thinking. o.o

They forced her?

No. I suggested that they in some way caused events that preceded the event of her death..

Or she was a dumbass, panicked, and ingested them rather than, you know, dropping them, throwing them away, or not buying them in the first place?

Indeed, she made a stupid move. I was trying to make the point that if the police were actually doing their job rather than fishing for drug users at a big concert, this would not have happened.

Her stupidity caused her death: the cops did not force her to take it. She took it because she was afraid they'd find it on her.

Indeed her stupidity did, and I know they didn't force her to take it. She shouldn't have been in that position in the first place; see above.

The end.

It's bad enough when the cops actually fuck up -- don't blame them for her being an idiot.

If you say so.

Its in no way shape or form the fault of the police. The police where there to keep things like that from happening, she took the drugs on her own accord, and bought them on her own accord, and died because she was stupid enough to do so. Isn't that known as Darwin's Law?

I didn't say it was their fault, that would imply that it only happened because of what they did.

So she made a choice. An extremely stupid choice. In a difficult position that she chose to put herself in by taking illegal drugs out in public to an event. For Christ's sake, she could have taken them at home like my friend's do when they go to these things, thereby far reducing the risk of being caught.

I agree.

I don't understand how it is the presence of police that caused this situation, and not the person who chose to break the law. You have yet to explain this adequately. You have explained that you think the law is bad, and as I and others have said, go change it. You have not explained why the police or anyone but the person who made this extremely stupid choice is responsible.

Have I not made it clear? I didn't say it was the police's fault.

And you clearly know SFA about our legal system if you think she would have had the slightest chance of going to prison anyway. She wouldn't even have got a criminal record for a first offence.

As far as I'm aware, our criminal systems are fairly similiar, and the same is likely to happen here. That doesn't mean it's not unjust.

I didn't say it was their fault, that would imply that it only happened because of what they did.

And what did they do exactly? Stand at a train station searching passengers for illicit substances? Because that is all they were doing. Which in essence is their job. That doesn't mean they caused her to take the tabs. She saw the police searching people (at the entrance to a festival of which she was already in) and reacted in a poor manner. To say she died because of police presence is really stretching things I'm afraid.

I severely doubt that. She probably wanted to be high during the concert, so she thought that if she took waaaaay tooooooo fuuuuucking muuuuuch of one of what is one of the most dangerous readily available drugs out there she'd stay up for the entire concert. She probably did not plan to purge or get a hospital visit.

Well, it was made clear in the article it was all for her. Of course, we don't know all her motives since she's dead and all, but it's still pretty irrelevant to the whole police/cause thing.

As it stands, any consumer should know the risks of the product they purchase when they misuse it (Boohoo! I cut my hand off with a chainsaw! I was only trying to juggle it drunk!). She should have known better (she should have known better than to take x. Goddamit--go with something comparatively safe like shrooms, weed or acid--or maybe the adrenaline high from playing Russian roulette twelve times in a row with a six shooter).

It's not really misuse if you're using it as it was intended by the suppliers. She should've know better yes. Most of the harm from X comes because of the legality. Taking X is not liking playing Russian Roulette. It's not nearly as dangerous as you intend to make it, TheDEA.org puts ecstasy deaths at 63 in 2000. I can't find any hard statistics on the number of users (fyi, the 63 deaths were in the US) but the ratio would have to be amazingly low. The rates of people going into hospital is high, but most of these people just need to talk and maybe be hydrated.

The argument blaming this on the police is idiotic. If you've got a kilogram of C4 on you do you detonate it so the police dogs won't sniff it out?

I'm not going to rehash the harm to others/victimless thing again, it should be clear.

The girl was doing something illegal in the first place and through her own lack of foresight and stupidity she took 3 ecstasy pills at once (something that almost every teenager knows is a stupid idea) and died for her mistakes.

Correct, but you're missing the point.

That's an incoherent, utterly illogical argument, and I think you know it. The cops in no way forced ecstasy down this girl's throat by being physically present. Heck, maybe cops shouldn't patrol the streets, either - there might be people looking to get high there, and that just wouldn't be fair to them! :rolleyes:

The cops did not force it down her throat. I am aware of this. I'm not saying the cops should patrol the streets, and hell I support them being at the concert in case violence breaks out, but actively looking for drugs is something completely different.

Again, if you want to argue for the legalization of ecstasy, go for it, but in the meantime, it is still unambiguously NOT the job of the police to make sure not to be present anywhere someone might be using it in order to make sure they have a comfortable, cop-free illegal-drug-taking experience.

See above.

Her friends stated she intended to supply her friends with illegal drugs. I'd say that's something.

I meant with her actions after taking Ecstasy.

Obviously not, as the young lady TOOK THREE TABLETS in very warm weather -- or did you not read the article?

Oh, forgot -- tl;dr.

Maybe you should have.

Uh, the tl;dr was provided for people that couldn't be bothered reading the article. I read the article twice, and I watched the news article on television.


And yet, she's dead. Very not dangerous.


She could have gone home.
She could have thrown it up.
She could have dropped it.
She could have not bought it.
She could have just faced the possibility of being arrested.
But she decided it was better to OD than to face the possibility -- not even the certainty -- of being arrested.

Cannont think of a name's quote about knowing people who popped three pills fine fits in here.

But please, do go on blaming everyone else. It shows a great deal of maturity and responsibility to say it's someone else's fault when someone screws up.

I'm not blaming the cops.

And people used lead powder as a seasoning on food. Does that mean lead is harmless? That you aren't allowed to sell food with lead in it because some politician wanted votes?

That has an obvious basis for law-making. Drug laws tend to be in the "think of the children!" place, more than actual risk management.

Dying of an overdose is not a real consequence?
I have to disagree; she's really dead.

That was out of context. The original example was about pot.


Which is what happened, and was entirely preventable if she weren't a dumbass.

Your article.

True.

That has an obvious basis for law-making. Drug laws tend to be in the "think of the children!" place, more than actual risk management.

And this story and the countless others like it, are testimony to the fact that that management has gone very badly, failing even...

And this story and the countless others like it, are testimony to the fact that that management has gone very badly, failing even...

Yeah, alcohol prohibition in the twenties is a testament to that. I just wish the drug hysteria went away as fast.

No. I suggested that they in some way caused events that preceded the event of her death..

The police are incidental to her death. Her own actions are the ones most directly responsible for her death. She is solely responsible for her death because she undertook the action of taking an excessive quantity of ecstasy.

Indeed, she made a stupid move. I was trying to make the point that if the police were actually doing their job rather than fishing for drug users at a big concert, this would not have happened.

Au contraire, the police were doing their job. They were faithfully enforcing the laws enacted by a duly constituted legislative body. What, praytell, is the job of the police besides that?

Indeed her stupidity did, and I know they didn't force her to take it. She shouldn't have been in that position in the first place; see above.

She wouldn't have been in this position if the dealer hadn't sold her the ecstasy. See, I can play this game too :)

Well, it was made clear in the article it was all for her. Of course, we don't know all her motives since she's dead and all, but it's still pretty irrelevant to the whole police/cause thing.

Her motives are very easily inferred. If she simply wished to avoid being arrested, she would have just dropped the pills the moment she saw the police. Instead, she took them. That is not the police's fault in any way, shape or form.



It's not really misuse if you're using it as it was intended by the suppliers. She should've know better yes. Most of the harm from X comes because of the legality. Taking X is not liking playing Russian Roulette. It's not nearly as dangerous as you intend to make it, TheDEA.org puts ecstasy deaths at 63 in 2000. I can't find any hard statistics on the number of users (fyi, the 63 deaths were in the US) but the ratio would have to be amazingly low. The rates of people going into hospital is high, but most of these people just need to talk and maybe be hydrated.

The legality has nothing to do with it. The harm in this case was derived from the fact that she took too much Ecstasy, with the predictable results.

It's treatable because doctors know how to treat it, but it is quite clearly, potentially lethal.

The police are incidental to her death. Her own actions are the ones most directly responsible for her death. She is solely responsible for her death because she undertook the action of taking an excessive quantity of ecstasy.

Her own actions are the ones most directly responsible, but her actions wouldn't have occured had the police not been searching for drugs.

Au contraire, the police were doing their job. They were faithfully enforcing the laws enacted by a duly constituted legislative body. What, praytell, is the job of the police besides that?

I meant in the "protect and serve" sense.

She wouldn't have been in this position if the dealer hadn't sold her the ecstasy. See, I can play this game too :)

Yes you can, but of course she could've well as gotten them otherwise.

Her own actions are the ones most directly responsible, but her actions wouldn't have occured had the police not been searching for drugs.


While true, it is meaningless to say. Police do search for drugs. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?

While true, it is meaningless to say. Police do search for drugs. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?

I believe me and him said that a while back, youre late friend...

Her own actions are the ones most directly responsible, but her actions wouldn't have occured had the police not been searching for drugs.

We don't know that. The only authority that specified that this girl had taken three tabs of E meant for three people were the friends with her at the time of ingestion. The average 17 year old girl aren't exactly the pinnacle of achievement for sound mind.

Her motives are very easily inferred. If she simply wished to avoid being arrested, she would have just dropped the pills the moment she saw the police. Instead, she took them. That is not the police's fault in any way, shape or form.

Eh, many things could've gone through her head, and anxiety/paranoia doesn't usually lead to rational thinking.

The legality has nothing to do with it. The harm in this case was derived from the fact that she took too much Ecstasy, with the predictable results.

It's treatable because doctors know how to treat it, but it is quite clearly, potentially lethal.

The legality has everything to do with it, the harm wasn't that she took too much. "Most of the cases of serious toxicity or fatality have involved blood levels ranging from 0.5 mg/L to 10 mg/L, that is, up to 40 times higher than the usual recreational range. " She took three times as much, at most. I am however cherry picking that from the article (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/7/917) as the next sentence is "However, some have had levels as low as 0.11–0.55 mg/L, that is, overlapping the "normal" range and a little above it. " So it's entirely possible, though unlikely she died through overdose.

While true, it is meaningless to say. Police do search for drugs. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?

I am suggesting it's they're not doing anything but making the statistics look good for the department. It's counter-productive for them to search for people who are in possession.

We don't know that. The only authority that specified that this girl had taken three tabs of E meant for three people were the friends with her at the time of ingestion. The average 17 year old girl aren't exactly the pinnacle of achievement for sound mind.

I haven't been given a reason to doubt them, it's probably worse for them to admit she had been going to supply it than to say she intended them all for herself.

I am suggesting it's they're not doing anything but making the statistics look good for the department. It's counter-productive for them to search for people who are in possession.

Then how do you propose they find it in places where drugs are known to be taken? Employ telepaths? Magic?

Then how do you propose they find it in places where drugs are known to be taken? Employ telepaths? Magic?

Um I dont think it requires much, Is there Alcohol in Bars? Idk, but Ill investigate to find out...

Then how do you propose they find it in places where drugs are known to be taken? Employ telepaths? Magic?

I don't propose they try and find them at all. However, like Skallvia above, I suggest bars, and alternatively I hear lots of grocery stores sell cigarettes.

Her own actions are the ones most directly responsible, but her actions wouldn't have occured had the police not been searching for drugs.

First, the police were not searching at the entrance to the Big Day Out Festival, they were searching at the trains station, which the girl didn't go through.

But, disregarding that...

If she had taken ecstasy, as she clearly planned to do, without the police present, would the outcome have been different? The evidence indicates that the outcome would not have changed. Combining temperatures well over 35 degrees, and insufficient water intake with the amount of ecstasy she was planning on taking that day, the outcome would probably have been similar.

I meant in the "protect and serve" sense.

Then you haven't the slightest clue of what the job of the police is. The job of the police is to enforce the laws of the legislature. Anything else is you putting your views of what police should be doing ahead of elected representatives views of what the police should be doing.

Yes you can, but of course she could've well as gotten them otherwise.

My point is that she bears responsibility for what happened to her. Not the police, not the dealer. Her, alone, is responsible for what happened to her, because all of her actions, from start to finish, were determined by her own choices.

Eh, many things could've gone through her head, and anxiety/paranoia doesn't usually lead to rational thinking.

The evidence indicates, though, is that she took the ecstasy for the purpose of getting high--not to avoid getting in trouble with the police.

Why do I infer this?

She was in possession of ecstasy, with intent to use. (Meaning, she would have taken the pills with or without police being present).
She had alternatives to taking the all of the ecstasy, and not being detected by the police. (Dropping one or two pills on the ground)
According to the police, she would likely not have been searched to begin with, as she was not riding the train.

I don't see how, given these facts, the police change the situation.

The legality has everything to do with it, the harm wasn't that she took too much. "Most of the cases of serious toxicity or fatality have involved blood levels ranging from 0.5 mg/L to 10 mg/L, that is, up to 40 times higher than the usual recreational range. " She took three times as much, at most. I am however cherry picking that from the article (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/7/917) as the next sentence is "However, some have had levels as low as 0.11–0.55 mg/L, that is, overlapping the "normal" range and a little above it. " So it's entirely possible, though unlikely she died through overdose.

It need not be the result of toxicity for overdose to kill. In this case, it was likely the hyperthermia and dehydration that killed her as a result of taking too much ecstasy. It remains an overdose.

Um I dont think it requires much, Is there Alcohol in Bars? Idk, but Ill investigate to find out...

I don't propose they try and find them at all. However, like Skallvia above, I suggest bars, and alternatively I hear lots of grocery stores sell cigarettes.

Illicit drugs, not legal ones.

And I see the both of you are avoiding the question of how the police are supposed to do their job if they're not allowed to search for illicit items.

Maybe next you'll propose they not do a thing when someone is robbed or killed, because they might have to search someone.

Illicit drugs, not legal ones.

And I see the both of you are avoiding the question of how the police are supposed to do their job if they're not allowed to search for illicit items.

Maybe next you'll propose they not do a thing when someone is robbed or killed, because you might have to search someone.

Ive already done the theft thing, See Posts 1-however many, of my posts in this thread, lol...

Ive already done the theft thing, See Posts 1-however many, of my posts in this thread, lol...

You're avoiding the point. The point is that the police are supposed to enforce the law. The police cannot enforce the law unless they got out and actually enforce it. You are blaming the police for someone breaking the law and committing accidental suicide.

You're avoiding the point. The point is that the police are supposed to enforce the law. The police cannot enforce the law unless they got out and actually enforce it. You are blaming the police for someone breaking the law and committing accidental suicide.

Im not blaming the police for anything, They were just doing their job...

Im blaming an Archaic Law for forcing the Police to do something that caused a human being to commit Accidental Suicide...

The evidence indicates, though, is that she took the ecstasy for the purpose of getting high--not to avoid getting in trouble with the police.

Why do I infer this?

She was in possession of ecstasy, with intent to use. (Meaning, she would have taken the pills with or without police being present).
She had alternatives to taking the all of the ecstasy, and not being detected by the police. (Dropping one or two pills on the ground)
According to the police, she would likely not have been searched to begin with, as she was not riding the train.

I don't see how, given these facts, the police change the situation.

She was, according to the friends quoted in the article, going to take one pill. Three times the dosage is a lot.

It need not be the result of toxicity for overdose to kill. In this case, it was likely the hyperthermia and dehydration that killed her as a result of taking too much ecstasy. It remains an overdose.

Effects are compounded by extra dosages, so it's possible it wouldn't have happened.

Illicit drugs, not legal ones.

And I see the both of you are avoiding the question of how the police are supposed to do their job if they're not allowed to search for illicit items.

Maybe next you'll propose they not do a thing when someone is robbed or killed, because they might have to search someone.

Yes, because if I smoke some pot, no one is getting harmed. That example is a fallacy.

You're avoiding the point. The point is that the police are supposed to enforce the law. The police cannot enforce the law unless they got out and actually enforce it. You are blaming the police for someone breaking the law and committing accidental suicide.

There are many unenforced laws on the books.

There are many unenforced laws on the books.

So what? This one is. You don't like the law, fine, get the law changed. But if the police are enforcing laws, they're doing their job. What people do to out of fear of being caught breaking the law is not the fault of the police but the person who acted.

So what? This one is. You don't like the law, fine, get the law changed. But if the police are enforcing laws, they're doing their job. What people do to out of fear of being caught breaking the law is not the fault of the police but the person who acted.

Well, the problem here is, its not the fault of this girl, Its the fault of a Stupid and Pointless Law that turned her into a Criminal...

Well, the problem here is, its not the fault of this girl, Its the fault of a Stupid and Pointless Law that turned her into a Criminal...

Why do you keep excusing people for committing crimes? The law is clear here, it's not a hidden one. The ditz chose to break the law and became a criminal. The law did not make her a criminal. She CHOSE to break the law, and she CHOSE become a criminal and she chose to avoid being caught, and ended up dying for it.

She broke the law, she became a criminal of her own accord, and it is her own damned fault. Period.

Did you toss out all sense of personal responsibility?

If there had been an electric fence, clearly labeled, and she jumped into it, is it the fault of the fence or the person who put it up that she did the electric tango? No, it's the ditz's fault.

Why do you keep excusing people for committing crimes? The law is clear here,

It might be very clear, but it is punishing an Innocent Act, therefore the Law is the Problem in this situation...

I excuse her for the same reason I excuse those who broke the Jim Crow Laws...

It might be very clear, but it is punishing an Innocent Act, therefore the Law is the Problem in this situation...

I excuse her for the same reason I excuse those who broke the Jim Crow Laws...

You're equating laws punishing conscious acts with laws that punish people for their state of birth? Are you that desperate? It's downright pathetic.

But then again, you didn't have any problems with the idea of people making and keeping nerve gas either.

You're equating laws punishing conscious acts with laws that punish people for their state of birth? Are you that desperate?

Its a Conscious Act as much as Going to Vote was...And, If you want to Use Nerve Gas on yourself, dont let me stop you...

Its a Conscious Act as much as Going to Vote was...


What the hell does that have to do with conscious criminal acts being equated with being punished for a state of being?

You're on drugs now aren't you?


And, If you want to Use Nerve Gas on yourself, dont let me stop you...

No. I'm going to go into a crowded place, with a lot of people, then I'm going to have an accident with it, and then it'll really be "just an accident". But hey, everyone should be able to make and keep highly toxic chemical weapons right?

What the hell does that have to do with conscious criminal acts being equated with being punished for a state of being?

You're on drugs now aren't you?

Its more about Innocent Acts being Equated with Innocent Acts...

In this case, going to Vote and doing a Drug...



*snip*

The Nerve Gas is a Grossly exaggerated Example anyway, and one that I didnt come up with...

Its more about Innocent Acts being Equated with Innocent Acts...

In this case, going to Vote and doing a Drug...

Drug possession is not an innocent act, no matter how you try to twist it. As long as the law determines that drug possession is a criminal act, it is under no circumstances, innocent.


The Nerve Gas is a Grossly exaggerated Example anyway, and one that I didnt come up with...

It was meant as an exaggerated example, yet you approved of it, which tells me quite a bit.

Drug possession is not an innocent act, no matter how you try to twist it. As long as the law determines that drug possession is a criminal act, it is under no circumstances, innocent.

Yeah, I agree. Everyone with a bud is out there prowling the streets, ready to sneak up on young children and forcing them to smoke it.

FLEE!:rolleyes:

Yeah, I agree. Everyone with a bud is out there prowling the streets, ready to sneak up on young children and forcing them to smoke it.

FLEE!:rolleyes:

How many times must I say it? If you dislike the law, go and get it changed. Don't take your dislike as an excuse to break it.

How many times must I say it? If you dislike the law, go and get it changed. Don't take your dislike as an excuse to break it.

My dislike it not an excuse to break it. I don't need an excuse to break it, because it's unjust.

My dislike it not an excuse to break it. I don't need an excuse to break it, because it's unjust.

So you break it anyway? Well, don't come crying to me if you get punished for it.

So you break it anyway? Well, don't come crying to me if you get punished for it.

No, don't worry, I know you're an unsympathetic ass-hat. If I ever do get caught and charged with doing something relatively innocuous I will fight it. I hope you don't complain about tax dollars being wasted.

No, don't worry, I know you're an unsympathetic ass-hat. If I ever do get caught and charged with doing something relatively innocuous I will fight it. I hope you don't complain about tax dollars being wasted.

You see, this is what makes your sort so amusing. You'll sit around and whine about unjust laws, never lifting the slightest finger to have them changed, go ahead and break the laws, and complain about unjust laws all the same.

You see, this is what makes your sort so amusing. You'll sit around and whine about unjust laws, never lifting the slightest finger to have them changed, go ahead and break the laws, and complain about unjust laws all the same.

Fatalism, man. What can I do as a person? I have made policy submissions to stuff going through parliment actually, (actually on Intellectual Property laws, but when the opportunity comes up, I shall take action. And the party I intend to vote for next election pretty much shares the same values.

Fatalism, man. What can I do as a person?


That's just a cop out. This is only just one man too.

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/barack_obama.jpg

What can he do? A lot I imagine. It takes smarts and luck, but above all, it takes drive. If you say you can't do anything without making the effort, then you'll never be able to do a thing.

That's just a cop out. This is only just one man too.

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/barack_obama.jpg

What can he do? A lot I imagine. It takes smarts and luck, but above all, it takes drive. If you say you can't do anything without making the effort, then you'll never be able to do a thing.

Whoosh I guess? That was a reference to the Simpsons.

Dropping 3 at once if you're 17 - bad idea. Even 2 at once is a bit much.

She was, according to the friends quoted in the article, going to take one pill. Three times the dosage is a lot.

The same friends who failed to stop her from taking all three pills. I already laid out the circumstantial evidence--very strong circumstantial evidence--that she would likely have taken more than one pill. These unnamed friends cannot truly know what her plans were, but we do know what she did: She took all three pills at a point in time where it was not necessary to take all three pills.

This girl clearly used poor judgment in relation to drugs at least once, so why should I expect anything different from her at any other point in time?


Effects are compounded by extra dosages, so it's possible it wouldn't have happened.

Contingent on her only planning to take one pill without the presence of police, but the circumstantial evidence points otherwise.

Her own actions are the ones most directly responsible, but her actions wouldn't have occured had the police not been searching for drugs.

Her actions also wouldn't have occured if there wasn't that festival that day. Perhaps we should cry out about having music festivals.

Umm... the way I read it, she avoided all the police and sniffer dogs, She took the tablets of her own accord, and died.

I have no sympathy. She was a fool, and died for it. Thats her problem.

What is it with Perth and the BDO?

It was only a few years ago that another girl died from being trampled at a Perth BDO.

Drug possession is not an innocent act, no matter how you try to twist it. As long as the law determines that drug possession is a criminal act, it is under no circumstances, innocent.


As I mentioned earlier, I feel it is necessary to distinguish between legal innocence and moral innocence. I can't think of a reasonable moral principle that is violated by the taking of drugs.

How many times must I say it? If you dislike the law, go and get it changed. Don't take your dislike as an excuse to break it.

You act as if there is some inherent property in the law that makes breaking it wrong. But I think it's silly to assume that breaking a law is automatically a bad thing to do, unless you believe the law is somehow sacred. Such state worship is not for me, though, nor do I think it is for any rational person.

You act as if there is some inherent property in the law that makes breaking it wrong. But I think it's silly to assume that breaking a law is automatically a bad thing to do, unless you believe the law is somehow sacred. Such state worship is not for me, though, nor do I think it is for any rational person.

It's called accepting the consequences of your actions. The act of living in a country constitutes an implicit agreement to accept its laws or work within the framework to have them changed. If the framework does not allow for change, then your choice is either to cut all ties, rebel and overthrow the framework, accepting the risk of imprisonment or worse, or leave.

Complaining about the law, doing nothing to change it, and then breaking them anyway, is the cop out for those who are unwilling to make the effort to try and change things.

1. I get the impression the OP believes that police are making up the laws. This is not the case - they only enforce the law.
2. Voters make the laws. Obviously, a majority of voters believe that ecstasy and other drugs are a bad thing. So the OP is in the minority.
3. Most ecstasy purchased in the US is not MDMA, or only partially MDMA. Most of it is meth. Anyone stupid enough to take meth gets what they deserve, and I mean death.

It's entirely her fault for taking the pills, and three pills of supposed MDMA doesn't sound like it would be lethal - it sounds like the pills were something else - probably meth.

It's entirely her fault for taking the pills, and three pills of supposed MDMA doesn't sound like it would be lethal - it sounds like the pills were something else - probably meth.
I dunno, three strong mandies, plus getting pissed as because you're a stupid 17-year-old when you're in the club = possible fatality.

It's called accepting the consequences of your actions. The act of living in a country constitutes an implicit agreement to accept its laws or work within the framework to have them changed. If the framework does not allow for change, then your choice is either to cut all ties, rebel and overthrow the framework, accepting the risk of imprisonment or worse, or leave.

Complaining about the law, doing nothing to change it, and then breaking them anyway, is the cop out for those who are unwilling to make the effort to try and change things.

Sure, you have to accept the possibility of negative consequences. But that's entirely separate from moral innocence. It's quite possible to do something that has negative consequences for yourself, even legal consequences, and still not have committed some sort of wrong.

Complaining about the law, doing nothing to change it, and then breaking them anyway, is the cop out for those who are unwilling to make the effort to try and change things.
How can you expect one person to change it, when the apparent majority is against them? What makes you think they're doing nothing to change it?

And how the HELL do you expect someone to form their own country? How the hell is someone even supposed to do that in the first place?

No, don't worry, I know you're an unsympathetic ass-hat. If I ever do get caught and charged with doing something relatively innocuous I will fight it. I hope you don't complain about tax dollars being wasted.

Slipping in that side remark is not going to win you any favours, but it will get moderator attention. Don't flame.

Dropping 3 at once if you're 17 - bad idea. Even 2 at once is a bit much.

Darwin in action.

No. I suggested that they in some way caused events that preceded the event of her death..
Why? Because they were present and she was breaking the law and thought it was a better idea to swallow all three than get rid of them?


Indeed, she made a stupid move. I was trying to make the point that if the police were actually doing their job rather than fishing for drug users at a big concert, this would not have happened.Silly reasoning. They WERE doing their job -- which was using sniffer dogs to discourage people from bringing illegal drugs to the event. That she did it, and then panicked and inadvertently caused her own death, is not their fault.


Indeed her stupidity did, and I know they didn't force her to take it. She shouldn't have been in that position in the first place; see above.Something we agree on.



If you say so.
I do. For them to CAUSE her death, as you suggest, they had to have a more active role in her taking the drugs than simply BEING there.
Bad cops are bad. Cops who were completely unaware of her presence but at the music festival did not CAUSE anything.

Uh, the tl;dr was provided for people that couldn't be bothered reading the article. I read the article twice, and I watched the news article on television.
Perhaps you didn't know then that tl;dr stands for "too long, didn't read (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr)" and therefore added to the impression that you didn't understand what was clearly stated in the article -- especially given that you seemed to breeze over overheating being a possible cause of her death.

If you meant tl;dr to mean 'don't read the article', that's ridiculous. You actually want people start debating without a full understanding of what happened? At best it seems to encourage arguing from a position of ignorance; at worst, it suggests that other posters are too dumb or lazy to read it for themselves.

Im not blaming the police for anything, They were just doing their job...

Im blaming an Archaic Law for forcing the Police to do something that caused a human being to commit Accidental Suicide...
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

archaic
2 entries found.

1. archaic
2. archaic smile


Main Entry:
ar·cha·ic Listen to the pronunciation of archaic
Pronunciation:
\är-ˈkā-ik\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
French or Greek; French archaïque, from Greek archaïkos, from archaios
Date:
1832

1: having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses <an archaic word>
2: of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : antiquated <archaic legal traditions>
3capitalized : of or belonging to the early or formative phases of a culture or a period of artistic development ; especially : of or belonging to the period leading up to the classical period of Greek culture
4: surviving from an earlier period ; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage
5capitalized : of or relating to the period from about 8000 b.c. to 1000 b.c. and the North American cultures of that time

Some of you guys are ridiculous in your arguments. Hayteria lays it out perfect.

As I mentioned earlier, I feel it is necessary to distinguish between legal innocence and moral innocence. I can't think of a reasonable moral principle that is violated by the taking of drugs.



You act as if there is some inherent property in the law that makes breaking it wrong. But I think it's silly to assume that breaking a law is automatically a bad thing to do, unless you believe the law is somehow sacred. Such state worship is not for me, though, nor do I think it is for any rational person.
Saying the police are not doing their jobs when enforcing the law as your cohorts have stated is rational?

Really, this thread's argument is an embarrassment. The original title of the thread was that police forced a girl to take drugs and die when that clearly is not the case, that they caused her death when stupidity, hyper-thermia and dehydration were the cause, and that it's better to break the law than to work to change them.

Is it not clear yet why there isn't more support for that side of it? There's been only a grudging acceptance that she was at all responsible for a position she placed herself in and a state that she induced, blame being placed on society, the police, and the laws, and a statement that there's not even intention of trying to change the laws because it's impossible.

Honestly, the people who DO use responsibly must be embarrassed by what's being posted here.

How can you expect one person to change it, when the apparent majority is against them? What makes you think they're doing nothing to change it?

And how the HELL do you expect someone to form their own country? How the hell is someone even supposed to do that in the first place?

Well all these people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation) did. Its remarkably common in Australia.

How can you expect one person to change it, when the apparent majority is against them? What makes you think they're doing nothing to change it?


One man, in the right place, in the right time, and most importantly, the right mindset can bring a lot of change. Ghandi, Obama, heck, even Hitler. Did they do it alone? No. But they began alone. If you tell yourself you can't do it without even trying, then you'll never be able to do anything.


And how the HELL do you expect someone to form their own country? How the hell is someone even supposed to do that in the first place?

Sealand.

Saying the police are not doing their jobs when enforcing the law as your cohorts have stated is rational?

No, not at all. But many people here seem (and this is just my impression) to think that violating the law is inherently wrong in some sense, as if there is some sacred quality about the law that makes it infallible. Certainly, breaking the law is sometimes stupid, particularly if there are police officers nearby, but that doesn't mean that breaking the law is somehow wrong.


Really, this thread's argument is an embarrassment. The original title of the thread was that police forced a girl to take drugs and die when that clearly is not the case, that they caused her death when stupidity, hyper-thermia and dehydration were the cause, and that it's better to break the law than to work to change them.

Yes, the original title was, quite frankly, stupid. I never said the police caused her death. It wasn't a foreseeable consequence of their actions; they are blameless. I noted this, but then went on to say that I think the law is wrong. I think it should be changed, but until it is, I'm not going to respect it for the sake of it being law. I will continue to act in a manner within the bounds of ethical and intelligent behavior (which does not include what this girl did-- while there was nothing wrong with what she did, there was certainly something unintelligent about it.)


Is it not clear yet why there isn't more support for that side of it? There's been only a grudging acceptance that she was at all responsible for a position she placed herself in and a state that she induced, blame being placed on society, the police, and the laws, and a statement that there's not even intention of trying to change the laws because it's impossible.

Honestly, the people who DO use responsibly must be embarrassed by what's being posted here.

Quite honestly, I think that the stupidity of the girl's actions are essentially too obvious and uninteresting to really be worth discussing. It's like somebody posting "Murder isn't nice." I'm not going to bother discussing that, though interesting discussion might evolve out of a thread that starts on that subject, as I feel it did in this thread.

The girl made a misjudgement. Being a teenage girl, that is kinda to be expected.

Making a misjudgment does not make you "stupid." I'm tired of people blurting that out as if that's a real answer, or as if you know anything at all about her enough to make that judgment. People aren't perfect, least of all teenagers, and when they prove tragically fallible, instead of sympathizing or something you just go "LOL, DARWIN IN ACTION." Great, really constructive - people who make mistakes must be unintelligent. Good thing you or I don't make mistakes, especially not when we were fucking teenagers! Or else that might sorta seem hypocritical now might it not?