Beats rat poison I guess

The drug that caused a mass overdose among nine backpackers who were taken to hospital in Perth has been identified as a common prescription drug called hyoscine, which is used to treat travel sickness.

The group of backpackers, aged 21 to 25, thought they were snorting cocaine on Tuesday night but suffered violent reactions, with three put in intensive care in induced comas.

The group reportedly included young people from France, Germany, Italy and Morocco.

Just another example of why legalisation is such a good idea. Tooting will happen – why not make sure it doesn’t kill people?

35 comments on “Beats rat poison I guess

  1. Safe Rape Rooms? Think how much better we would all be if victims could get immediate medical treatment and counseling?

    Perhaps, and I am just putting this out there, people should not break the law? Perhaps the law is wrong. Perhaps not. But as long as the law is there, the law needs to be obeyed. Short of some enormous moral objection. You know, like slavery or the Holocaust or perhaps Segregation. Not some puerile backpacker’s right to party.

    Also, of course, it does not follow that deaths will decrease. Instead of idiots snorting random chemicals, someone will accidentally use cocaine instead of casting sugar and the whole family will die from eating the Christmas pudding.

  2. I nearly choked to death on a 50p coin my gran sneaked into a Christmas pudding in lieu of a sixpence.

    We need better laws, perhaps a regulatory body called OffGran.

  3. SMFS

    “But as long as the law is there, the law needs to be obeyed.”

    Laws that create victimless crimes bring the law into disrepute and so chip away at the rule of law. [And, No, the stupid backpackers are not victims of their crime but of their own folly.]

    “Safe Rape Rooms? Think how much better we would all be if victims could get immediate medical treatment and counseling?”

    Rape is not a victimless crime.

  4. “We already have an organisation for offing grannies. The NHS.”

    You are firing on all cylinders today, Tim.

  5. The backpacking/cocaine connection seems strange in itself. Backpackers surely are more likely to be greenfreak weirdie ( white) beardies than the usual nose candy types. Unless it is some new fad among suits.

    Anyway it was their risk and their problem. Charge them the cost of their treatment for being dickheads. Although if some are foreign anyway their travel insurance should stump up and then ban them from any further policies in future.

  6. “Just another example of why legalisation is such a good idea. Tooting will happen – why not make sure it doesn’t kill people?”

    Or, as Citizen Smith was wont to exclaim: FREEDOM FOR TOOTING. 🙂

  7. Snort, snort (that is suppressed laughter, not the other kind)

    Quality thread today, lads and lass (for when Julia turns up).

  8. DocBud

    “Taking ice is not a victimless crime.”

    You can only support that bald assertion by equivocating on the meaning of the term ‘victim of crime’.

    The taking of illegal drugs has unpleasant but indirect consequences for some people in the supply chain, but that doesn’t make them victims of the crime of consuming illegal drugs.

    Claiming that those unpleasant but indirect consequences for some people in the supply chain for illegal drugs make them victims is like claiming that uranium and coal miners are victims of my switching on the lights in my home.

    Everything we consume – legally or illegally – has some unpleasant consequences for someone or something. We live in a messy world of trade-offs.

    And making the drugs legal would reduce the negative impacts of the existing trade-offs – ie reduce those unpleasant but indirect consequences for some people.

  9. “… why not make sure it doesn’t kill people?”

    Because you are forcibly going to take money from me to pay for their care.
    I’m with Squirrels of The Patriots, seems to be a novel method for culling backpackers.

  10. They must have been pretty stupid to backpack to Perth in the middle of the winter anyway. It’s a pleasant town but still; the Tay will still be there in the summer.

  11. The backpacking/cocaine connection seems strange in itself. Backpackers surely are more likely to be greenfreak weirdie ( white) beardies than the usual nose candy types. Unless it is some new fad among suits.

    Oh hell no. Backpackers are the middle and upper-middle class lefties who will go and work for the government or move back in with their parents when their “gap yah” is over. These types are all over cocaine.

  12. DocBud

    “I’m not talking about people in the supply chain, Theophrastus:…”

    But that makes no difference: delete “in the supply chain” and my point still stands.

    Taking ice is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of committing murder. The link is tenuous and indirect, at best.

    Those who were murdered were victims of murderers, not ‘victims’ of drugs.

    And legalizing and regulating drugs would mean more opportunities to identify those on whom drugs might have adverse psychological effects….

  13. It is an entirely consistent moral position to decry the use of drugs while advocating their legalisation. It is not even necessary that there be any harm reduction as a consequence, unless harm reduction to third parties.

  14. “I’m astounded this hasn’t got to 45+ comments yet!”

    I’m outraged by your statement.

    (maybe that’ll get things going)

  15. BiCR +1
    However, legalizing drugs prudently will require a lot of state involvement, at least initially….

    “I’m astounded this hasn’t got to 45+ comments yet!”

    That’s because SMFS has gone away with his tail between his legs – his equivocations and non sequiturs exposed and refuted.

  16. The drug that caused a mass overdose among nine backpackers who were taken to hospital in Perth
    …The group reportedly included young people from France, Germany, Italy and Morocco.

    Despite Brexit EUers still holidaying in Scotland, UK

    Oh wait, looked at article: Despite Aus not being in EU, EUers still holidaying in Aus.

    Shoot the journo – country matters.

  17. The problem with legalizing drugs is how do you impliment it to have the desired effect of reducing illigal consumption. Take dope. A 14 year old can get completely smashed on skunk for far less than the cost of supermarket booze. Legalise it and the alcohol and hospitality industry will insist it will be taxed to equivalent rates as alcohol, sold to over 18 only by specialty trained staff. Only middle aged Pink Floyd fans will buy 20 pound joints and the dealers will carry on selling skunk to kids. I am in favour of legalising drugs like I am a republican, in theory not practice.

  18. Theophrastus – “Laws that create victimless crimes bring the law into disrepute and so chip away at the rule of law. [And, No, the stupid backpackers are not victims of their crime but of their own folly.]”

    Their folly is, obviously, their insistence on breaking the law. The two are not separate. We could debate all day what brings the law into disrepute. I think refusing to enforce the laws we have does that. I think having august institutions like the Times mock law enforcement does that. But a law against, say, littering does not bring the law into disrepute even if it is victimless.

    “Rape is not a victimless crime.”

    No one said it was. You want to ride into town on your own pony, by all means ride into town on your own pony. But you cannot insist that if a bunch of us over here are talking about our horses we must talk about your pony.

    Theophrastus – “You can only support that bald assertion by equivocating on the meaning of the term ‘victim of crime’.”

    All evidence to the contrary. Heroin may be mostly harmless but Ice definitely is not. It does drive people insane. Which is why it rapidly went from legal to illegal. Insane, sexually predatory and violent as it happens.

    “The taking of illegal drugs has unpleasant but indirect consequences for some people in the supply chain, but that doesn’t make them victims of the crime of consuming illegal drugs.”

    Well yes it does. If I buy ivory that is more or less predicated on the shooting of elephants. I can’t say that I am only interested in the harmless viewing of an ivory back scratcher when in fact its production has involved the shooting of elephants.

    “Everything we consume – legally or illegally – has some unpleasant consequences for someone or something. We live in a messy world of trade-offs.”

    I am not sure that is true. If I turn on my lights, there are mostly good consequences. It may be that some number of mining deaths are related to the electricity in which case I am directly contributing to those deaths. So what? Those coal mining deaths are unwanted, unintended and people try to avoid them as far as possible. Deaths in the drug trade are inevitable, known and pretty much necessary. So it is a much more direct relationship.

    Theophrastus – “Taking ice is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of committing murder. The link is tenuous and indirect, at best.”

    Sorry but that is not true. Taking ice requires murder. There is no two ways about it. If ice was legal perhaps not but it isn’t. Which means if you consume it you are directly and knowingly funding murder.

    “Those who were murdered were victims of murderers, not ‘victims’ of drugs.”

    And yet when I say people involved in the drug trade are sociopaths I get flamed. Yet you seem to think they are people who kill for fun with no connection to the drugs they sell at all.

    “And legalizing and regulating drugs would mean more opportunities to identify those on whom drugs might have adverse psychological effects….”

    Sure. Once they run amok with an AK-47. We can’t do a damn thing about them before they harm others.

    Theophrastus – “BiCR +1”

    BiCR defends my point and you give a plus one? So you have neither read or understood what you are criticising.

    “That’s because SMFS has gone away with his tail between his legs – his equivocations and non sequiturs exposed and refuted.”

    Theo, grow the f**k up. What are you – twelve? Even I have a life. Which does not involve sitting on my computer waiting to see if some tool has bothered to reply to my comment. You have failed to read much less understand what I wrote and you continue to strike specious moral poses based on that ignorance. Ritchie-esque in fact. So grow the f**k up. And try posting a relevant reply.

  19. “Deaths in the drug trade are inevitable, known and pretty much necessary. So it is a much more direct relationship.”

    Created by illegality. If legal, they’d be cheap as okra. Incentives for the underworld disappear.

  20. Gamecock – “Created by illegality. If legal, they’d be cheap as okra. Incentives for the underworld disappear.”

    Well no. Not really. But let’s assume that is true. Fine. So what? That is not the issue at this particular point in the argument. The point is that the law is whatever the law is and we should follow it. Even if it is stupid. These backpackers did not.

    That is the point of being a country of laws and not a country of men. The law is not whatever we feel like it is at any given time. Even if it appears to be whatever Hillary Clinton feels it is when it is convenient to her. That is what the rule of law means. The law is there, we can change it peacefully if we like, but until that time, we should obey the law as it is writ.

    Theo and Mr Ecks are quite happy to throw that tradition away and replace the rule of law by the rule of whatever whim takes us because …. well I don’t know really. Coz drugs are cool or something.

    Your claim is also incorrect. Even if drugs were legal there would still be deaths. When drugs were legal people put them in things like patent medicines and people died. People put them in coke although I don’t know of anyone dying. So lots of people would ingesting unknown levels of opiates – along with 37 other different types of medication most old people deem necessary. With God knows what side effects. And, as I said, people would be putting heroin in their cookies by mistake.

    Also the end of prohibition did not see the Mafia go away. It may or may not have caused them to kill fewer people but it did not cause them to cease killing. Just as drug gangs won’t stop today.

  21. Theo, grow the f**k up.

    Lighten up, SMFS: it was a j.o.k.e. – in the form of a wind-up.
    Though I note you are still shamelessly equivocating, making bald assertions and peddling non sequiturs.

  22. Theophrastus – “Lighten up, SMFS: it was a j.o.k.e. – in the form of a wind-up.”

    Look, you want to be rude, fine. I can probably cope with the trauma. But have the guts to stand by your cowardly little sneer. Don’t try to pass it off as humour. That is just gutless and rude.

    “Though I note you are still shamelessly equivocating, making bald assertions and peddling non sequiturs.”

    Which you continue to be utterly unable to refute. Mostly because there is still zero evidence that you have read a word.

  23. SMFS

    Look, you want to be rude, fine. I can probably cope with the trauma.

    You can give it, but you can’t take it! You are often very rude on here – e.g. to Ironman – yet now you are being over-sensitive.

    I was teasing you and winding you up, after JuliaM remarked that the thread was short.

    I have read your arguments carefully, but I’m afraid they don’t stack up.

  24. “The point is that the law is whatever the law is and we should follow it. Even if it is stupid. These backpackers did not.”

    Pay attention: the backpackers snorted hyoscine, a legal drug.

    “Your claim is also incorrect. Even if drugs were legal there would still be deaths.”

    I stand by my assertion: Deaths in the drug trade would go away. There are no deaths in the okra trade.

    Yes, there would still be deaths, for the users. But that is a different subject. For which I’m not inclined to give a shit. A dumbass killing himself with drugs doesn’t affect me; a dumbass breaking into my house to steal stuff to pay for his government inflated drugs does.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.