Principal finds 94 ecstasy tablets in 15-year-old's bag

[AppleThief]

Maybe the reason for refusing bail is that they'll think he'll just go and supply more drugs, which is dangerous to society?

no supplying drugs ain't dangerous to society, it's dangerous for the police.

Why is supplying drugs illegal if it is not dangerous?

[ninwa]

Maybe the reason for refusing bail is that they'll think he'll just go and supply more drugs, which is dangerous to society (well, a tiny portion of it anyway)?

Yeah AppleThief that's what I thought. Where could he have gotten all those drugs from?

Of course it's dangerous to society, especially if he's supplying it to 14 year olds etc. who might not have a clue how much an overdose is etc.

[hard]

Maybe the reason for refusing bail is that they'll think he'll just go and supply more drugs, which is dangerous to society?

no supplying drugs ain't dangerous to society, it's dangerous for the police.

Why is supplying drugs illegal if it is not dangerous?

well it's not like you go on the street and feel threatened cause there's drugs lying everywhere. Drug laundering/dealing is a  predominant area in organized crime which is all about making money. It's illegal because the way they are dealt with and the money they make using these drugs goes against the law. Let me ask you, why is supplying cigarettes legal if they're dangerous? because the gvt has a stake in this, it's a business that is regulated by the law. Drugs hide from the law so they a deemed dangerous.
Note: I am not saying they're not dangerous to the human body.

[costargh]

The effect on the body and the way that people react when on amphetamines (as opposed to cigarettes) is differnt and thus they pose a threat to society when they are under those substances.  People on drugs aren't rational when they are under the influence of those substances.

[hard]

The effect on the body and the way that people react when on amphetamines (as opposed to cigarettes) is differnt and thus they pose a threat to society when they are under those substances.  People on drugs aren't rational when they are under the influence of those substances.

but my mate seemed very rational when he was on weed? he even drove to work and went to work as usual.

[costargh]

amphetamines...

Weed is a depressant; differnt effect on the body.

Weed shouldn't even be called a drug, its so main-stream lol

[AppleThief]

but my mate seemed very rational when he was on weed? he even drove to work and went to work as usual.

Weed has other effects and like other illegal drugs should not be taken before hitting the road. As far as I know, it impairs motor skills and reflexes (i.e. takes longer to respond to situations, increasing risk of crash)

[AppleXY]

people who take narcotics are weirdos.

[hard]

amphetamines...

Weed is a depressant; differnt effect on the body.

Weed shouldn't even be called a drug, its so main-stream lol

but it's a drug under Australian law.

[ninwa]

Let me ask you, why is supplying cigarettes legal if they're dangerous? because the gvt has a stake in this, it's a business that is regulated by the law. Drugs hide from the law so they a deemed dangerous.

Well of course. The law (at least the statutory part of it) has always been a political tool considering it is determined by Parliament. It is a reflection of the policies and desires of whichever party is in power at the time.

[Flaming_Arrow]

lol they were going to legalise weed to try bring the economy up

[hard]

Let me ask you, why is supplying cigarettes legal if they're dangerous? because the gvt has a stake in this, it's a business that is regulated by the law. Drugs hide from the law so they a deemed dangerous.

Well of course. The law (at least the statutory part of it) has always been a political tool considering it is determined by Parliament. It is a reflection of the policies and desires of whichever party is in power at the time.

exactly, it's not whether what's more dangerous for society, it's how the people in power can best benefit.

[costargh]

It's quite ironic that legalised drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes (are they classified as a drug?) actually kill more people in the long term than other illegal drugs such as weed and amphetamines.

In my opinion, the above outcome is a reflection of human shortsightedness. If you offered someone $1000 now or $2000 in 20 years (indexed at CPI) the majority would take the $1000 now.

In the same way, due to the violent and sudden deaths of people taking amphetamines, people view them to be more harmful than cigarretes and alcohol which would account for a great percentage of liver and lung related deaths.

[costargh]

lol they were going to legalise weed to try bring the economy up

Sauce?

[ninwa]

Let me ask you, why is supplying cigarettes legal if they're dangerous? because the gvt has a stake in this, it's a business that is regulated by the law. Drugs hide from the law so they a deemed dangerous.

Well of course. The law (at least the statutory part of it) has always been a political tool considering it is determined by Parliament. It is a reflection of the policies and desires of whichever party is in power at the time.

exactly, it's not whether what's more dangerous for society, it's how the people in power can best benefit.

The "danger to society" bit, while still true, is probably more of an excuse for Parliament to legislate against it. They can't very well say "we're gonna make it illegal cos it doesn't bring us moneyz"