Thread: Outsourcing a job overseas

Haven't studied world economics, but have studied the justice system enough.

Heroin was legal in this country up until the gold rushes of the nineteenth century. Previously it was widely used by doctors as a pain reliever, and also by the "upper class" as a party favour. It was only when the influx of Chinese immigrants raised population numbers at gold digging sites, that the questions arose. The simple reason was that the Chinese used heroin and other poppy based drugs, and in an attempt to remove them from the dig sites the drug was declared illegal. As a result many Chinese were arrested for possession and use of something that was already being used widely elsewhere.

There's always a political reason behind the decisions made by governments. Who knows what the drug scene would be like today if racism and greed for gold hadn't pushed the governments of the time to make that change? It might be proposed that the problems we encounter today might not exist.

Originally Posted by Stylesy

an attempt to remove them from the dig sites the drug was declared illegal. As a result many Chinese were arrested for possession and use of something that was already being used widely elsewhere.

hmmmm?
So does this mean its the reason for it being illegal everywhere?
I don't think the Chinese caused a problem at gold fields worldwide did they, so why is it illegal in places with no gold field history?

I find it hard to believe that Heroin would be legal in Australia if it weren't for the Chinese gold diggers, it would have been made illegal for one reason or another by now anyway wouldn't it?

Heroin was prohibited in Australia in 1953:

"In May 1953, the Menzies government prohibited its importation after pressure from the World Health Organisation, in turn under pressure from the US, where a burgeoning drug problem was emerging. Yet in Australia there was no drug problem to speak of; instead heroin was used to manage serious pain, especially for the terminally ill.

"The ban went ahead despite objections from the director-general of health in NSW that 'heroin ... is quite effectively controlled in this state and ... I see no justification to enforce absolute prohibition'. And despite similar protests by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the predecessor to the Australian Medical Association, then the Australian Federal Council of the British Medical Association."

In fact, there is a case to answer that it was made it was made illegal due to pressure from religious groups who believe that addictive mind-altering substances are the work of the devil.

In fact, there is a case to answer that it was made it was made illegal due to pressure from religious groups who believe that addictive mind-altering substances are the work of the devil.

I thought Al was the work of the devil?


Something else we can blame the U.S. for.

Originally Posted by Grunt

I thought Al was the work of the devil?


Something else we can blame the U.S. for.

You mean the US are responsible for creating Al?:eek:

Richard

Originally Posted by Andrew from AWC

I don't think the Chinese caused a problem at gold fields worldwide did they, so why is it illegal in places with no gold field history?

There's no real evidence of them actually causing a problem here either.

Come to think of it, I don't think any other country adopted the White Australia Policy either.

P

You mean the US are responsible for creating Al?:eek:

No, Al is the work of the Devil. The U.S. are responsible for the Devil.

The yank prohibitionists tried to ban alcohol at the same time that they banned heroin. Unfortunately for them, drinking was already a well accepted social practice throughout society by the end of World War II, so it failed.

The reason they wanted to ban these substances was because they viewed any addiction as a moral weakness. This is the same reason that alcohol and any other drug is banned in Muslim countries. There's no medical basis for these laws, they simply don't think people should be allowed to indulge.

That doesn't mean to say that there aren't medical problems associated with them. Everyone knows what alcohol does to you. I don't completely buy the argument that heroin, even in it's pure form, has no harmful side affects. There's an item being read on the news as I type about a study recently concluded that claims heroin users have a higher instance of mental problems than the rest of the population.

Conservative people would consider legalisation of drugs like heroin and marijuana as a backwards step and, at the moment, they run the world and are getting more powerful by the day. So despite what a good idea it would probably be, I can't see it happening in the forseeable future.

Mental problems and their relation to 'recreational' drugs usage is a chicken and egg argument.

Are people with mental problems more attracted to/become addicted to these drugs at a higher percentage than the general population OR does use of/addiction to these drugs cause mental problems?

For each study pro there is another con

As with nearly all cases of psychotic illness you can demonstrate a clear genetic line back thru a few generations and the environmental argument regarding causation is generally discredited, I don't beleive drugs are a primary cause of severe mental illness (excepting organic illness and amphetamine type psychoses)

As far a neuroses and personality disorders who knows?

But as Silent says, with evangelical neo-cons on the ascendancy we've got Buckley's chance of a more rational approach.

Mental problems and their relation to 'recreational' drugs usage is a chicken and egg argument

True, however what the studies DO show at the very least is that, given a predisposition to this type of illness, there is evidence to suggest that drug use creates episodes that may not have occurred otherwise. Can you say that a heroin-addicted individual currently being treated for schizophrenia would have shown symptoms at all if they had never taken drugs? How many people are walking around now with a genetic disorder who will never know they have it because it is never triggered? I just think there is too much that is not well enough understood to be able to make definitive statements about it one way or the other.

I don't think we are in disagreement Silent.

I'm not arguing drugs do not precipitate an episode. As to whether a person would suffer an episode if they hadn't used drugs, no-one can say.

Equally can you say that some poor bugger with schizophrenia who does drugs, would have done so had they not had the illness? There is well documented research on 'self medication'

I guess all that I'm solid on is that (with aforesaid exclusions) illegal drugs are not the sole root cause of mental illness

Absolutely. So getting back to my original point, these drugs were banned not because of a perception that they are bad for our health, but because the yanks decided back in the 50's that they were immoral. And I bet that can be traced back to some form of religious fundamentalism.

In fact, you can probably trace the current push to discover that these drugs have serious long term physical side affects to a desire to provide a scientific rationale for a superstitious act. Well, I do love a good conspiracy theory

Don't mention the Relig.... word, we shall be immediately rusticated to Orange County.

If they want to say that ###### causes long term ill effects on the mind then they are going to have to replace morphine as the number 1 pain killer.