Jack Bobridge jailed for drug trafficking

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
But it isn't an intrinsic human right
Some old whitey famously proclaimed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be the most basic human rights. That pithy turn of phrase rings true for a lot of people. Does Jack's pursuit of happiness trample on your life or liberty?

Libertine Seguros said:
then he is a criminal.
No one in this thread said he wasn't a criminal by the definition of "found guilty in a court of law". Can we stop going back to this?

Libertine Seguros said:
wall of text drug dealer
First of all, yawn. Secondly, yes, he sold a drug. So does your pharmacist. We're debating the societal implications of that. Please do contribute to the discussion.
 
You're the one that said "you follow your own moral compass" and anything else is a dystopic police state. There's a LOT of middle ground between the outlying case you mention (Nuremberg) and the outlying case I mentioned (lynch mobs). You'll even find that in respect of the regulation etc. of drugs that we share a lot of common ground, actually. It's the "ever hear of civil disobedience?" part of the conversation that drew me into the discussion.

However, likening any state other than one where people are free to just do as they please and claim it's because they object to the morals of certain laws to a dystopic police state is way above the level I'm willing to go (don't try to pretend you didn't imply this, it's where you invoked Godwin's Law). As brownbobby says - not somebody I've found plenty of common ground with on the forum on several issues - civil disobedience extended to that suggests to me an uncomfortable grey area, even as it opens the door to the kind of extreme cases I mention. Among the terrible things that he did, there were a lot of people who could put food on the table that otherwise wouldn't because of growing, processing and contributing to the cocaine trade in Colombia in the 80s. Pablo Escobar set up societies, built villages, and provided a lot of people with jobs. But even if in his heart of hearts he held firm to the conviction that - especially bearing in mind that many people subsisted because of this trade - the illegality of global trading in cocaine was immoral and therefore he was under no obligation to treat it as such... that doesn't make all the other things he did in defence of his inalienable right to sell cocaine for profit any better.

You are effectively taking the line that because we can't prove Bobridge didn't deal ecstasy solely out of the goodness of his heart, to improve the lives of others, we can't make the assumption that he was motivated by profit. I am making the assumption that because he hasn't campaigned publicly for relaxation of drug laws or decriminalization of varying factors, that he isn't motivated by the societal benefits of MDMA, and therefore he does not have the best will of his clientele as sole motivation, and profit will to a large extent be the driver of other factors (I mean, at the barest minimum even the most altruistic dealer has to cover the costs, right?). And to continue to profit, one needs a stable clientele and/or new customers - and that's where the potential harm to third parties comes in, which is why you see a difference in public opinion between the decriminalization of personal use of drugs and the decriminalization of the retail of drugs. A lot of it would indeed, as you argue, be negated by proper regulation, which would require a much more liberal drugs policy than the majority of countries have at present.

In Australia, as with other countries which have nationalized, at least on-the-surface NFP health services, a doctor, or pharmacist, or other medical professional, has on-the-surface no motivation other than the wellbeing of his or her clientele. Introducing the profit motive corrupts this. In most progressive societies where health care is nationalized, this is not a problem at the individual doctor level most of the time. Maybe it's different in the US, where the relation between the cost to the end customer and the sale cost from the drug company is much more intertwined.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
And to continue to profit, one needs a stable clientele and/or new customers - and that's where the potential harm to third parties comes in, which is why you see a difference in public opinion between the decriminalization of personal use of drugs and the decriminalization of the retail of drugs. A lot of it would indeed, as you argue, be negated by proper regulation, which would require a much more liberal drugs policy than the majority of countries have at present.
Much of the thread evolved into discussion, of surprisingly high quality, of ethical ideals with respect to drug legalization. Beginning with the question "why such a severe sentence for MDMA, a drug with relatively low physical and social harm". Should this policy be changed in Australia, why or why not? To shift the topic to a practical formulation: will MDMA be legalized in Australia as a prescription drug, why or why not?
The answer is it won't be any time soon, and it's related to another important but overlooked part the thread
proffate said:
gregrowlerson said:
It's a very good point from the poster who listed the chart of dangerous drugs. Though why wasn't Ice on that list? Or is it called something else?
ice = crystal meth (on the chart, methamphetamine).
These molecules are structurally almost the same thing, methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) versus methamphetamine

That dioxy 'bridge' on the side of the benzene ring is the one feature that makes a huge difference in the effects profile between 'ice' (crystal MA) and 'ecstacy' (MDMA). That substituent increases a more contemplative euphoric effect while reducing the straight-up stimulant and addictive properties. Or, in that same table, another drug of increasing concern is MDPV ('bath salts'), and there is a cat-and-mouse game between law enforcement and renegade drug chemists producing variants on the same structure. Meanwhile amphetamine itself is legal as a prescription drug for attention-deficit disorder, and ephedrine / pseudoephedrine are legal as retail cold medications. So what it comes down to in this case is: there has to be very tight regulation based on very small structural differences in analogous molecules. With 'ice' epidemics being the huge bogeyman in Australia / New Zealand at the moment, the way the laws have been laid down on regulations of phenethylamines will be hard to get amended
In Australia, as with other countries which have nationalized, at least on-the-surface NFP health services, a doctor, or pharmacist, or other medical professional, has on-the-surface no motivation other than the wellbeing of his or her clientele. Introducing the profit motive corrupts this.
Amoral profiteers besiege Australia with vast amounts of increasingly pure (addictive per unit) and cheap (flooded global market) methamphetamine. The meth is just out there, on the horizon, coming from China, Philippines, and even Mexico more recently getting into the AUS / NZ action. And literal warfare in Philippines and Indonesia, with the death penalty for meth chemists / dealers. The way that Australian drug policy 'ought to be' versus the the way that it is, what should MDMA advocates do to change things, within the real-world context
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
The way that Australian drug policy 'ought to be' versus the the way that it is, what should MDMA advocates do to change things, within the real-world context
The path forward is science and empathy. People still trust science enough on this topic that when researchers give a substance the go-ahead, they will listen. When studies find a substance to be unharmful in the short and long term, unlikely to be abused, and helpful for real mental disorders, it crosses a boundary in many people's minds[1]. Empathy results from personally knowing someone who has benefited from the substance. In the US, that could mean knowing a veteran with PTSD who swears by MDMA, a sufferer of chronic depression who was cured by a couple rounds of Ketamine, etc. If the image of people who use a substance is "ravers" or "hippies" or "that guy under the bridge" then the prohibition will continue, because people don't empathize or identify with outsiders.

Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, and along with harm reduction efforts, it's widely been considered a successful move even though drug usage rates haven't budged. What allowed that legislation to pass? The drug (opiate) epidemic reached such proportions that most of the population knew someone who was affected. For real change, people need to actually care about the victims of the drug war. The blatantly obvious fact that it isn't working doesn't seem to persuade anyone, because those it hurts "had it coming" or some such.[2]

[1] Unfortunately the process of proving all this and receiving FDA approval is ridiculously expensive and to some extent counter-productive for the pharma industry, who would rather you stick to ineffective and expensive and long-term treatments like SSRIs.

[2] I've never been to Portugal and this is just what I've read online.
 
Aug 18, 2016
312
1
3,285
the delgados said:
brownbobby:
We all know that human beings create laws that can and have changed over time.
There is no need to remind about laws regarding sexual orientation, segregation, etc. etc. that have been abolished in most civilized countries throughout the world over the years.
To say you agree that laws regarding drug use should be changed but follow up by saying the law is the law is a bit confusing. You either think they should be changed or you don't. If you think they should be changed it is okay to say Bobridge is not a criminal. Sure, technically he is; we all get the point. But so is someone in some jurisdictions who sell pot.
Which brings me back to the fundamental arbitrary aspect about what drug is considered legal and what isn't.
I go back to the Manzano case. My opinion about this does not matter, but I wonder why those involved in plying him with drugs and/or tainted blood bags walk away scot-free while Bobridge is considered by some as a criminal.

Considered by some as a criminal? Holy Moly. Talk about taking liberty with the facts.

Maaaate Maaate Maaate , He is a criminal. He's in prison.
 
Craigee said:
the delgados said:
brownbobby:
We all know that human beings create laws that can and have changed over time.
There is no need to remind about laws regarding sexual orientation, segregation, etc. etc. that have been abolished in most civilized countries throughout the world over the years.
To say you agree that laws regarding drug use should be changed but follow up by saying the law is the law is a bit confusing. You either think they should be changed or you don't. If you think they should be changed it is okay to say Bobridge is not a criminal. Sure, technically he is; we all get the point. But so is someone in some jurisdictions who sell pot.
Which brings me back to the fundamental arbitrary aspect about what drug is considered legal and what isn't.
I go back to the Manzano case. My opinion about this does not matter, but I wonder why those involved in plying him with drugs and/or tainted blood bags walk away scot-free while Bobridge is considered by some as a criminal.

Considered by some as a criminal? Holy Moly. Talk about taking liberty with the facts.

Maaaate Maaate Maaate , He is a criminal. He's in prison.
Say what?!
He's in jail? Gosh, I had no idea. Maybe I should go back and read every response in this thread and consider nuances. Thanks for the heads up.
 
Craigee said:
Maaaate Maaate Maaate , He is a criminal. He's in prison.
You know, it's crazy, but I've heard it's possible to convict someone of a crime they didn't commit. Wild I know. But that's just speculation. I'm not sure I believe it's possible for the State to make mistakes. Democracy and capitalism have never let us down.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts