[Archived] Drugs

[blue phil]

I take your point , Bucky . My reply was aimed at Philipl who stupidly advocates the legalisation of all drugs without thinking for a moment of the consequences of such an action .

It does seem daft , though , to start legalising even the class C drugs when the government are (supposedly) clamping down on fags , junk food etc

[lockers]

Why when legalisation is mentioned are crack and heroin the first ones that are mentioned?

They are the worst ones, most people who enjoy recreational drugs are definately not using heroin and crack.

What about all the rest of them, the party drugs, the ones that people use every weekend, have a very good time and then go back into work on Monday morning like everybody else?

Why are these illegal, it makes no sense?

100% agreed

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

I meant to post this link last month, but didn't get round to it....

"Cannabis cash funds Islamic extremism"

Certain board members (no names mentioned) who like to indulge in a spot of marijuana, may unwittingly be helping to fund extremists responsible for appalling terror attacks across Spain, Morocco and Algeria. That's quite a sobering thought for those of you who like to roll the odd spliff or two - next time you could be helping to put money into the coffers of people who want to bomb our children and create carnage on the streets.

A sobering thought indeed. I think I'll have a vodka before bedtime...

[Eddie]

Are you sure your vodka isn't coming from the Russian mafia?

[philipl]

I take your point , Bucky . My reply was aimed at Philipl who stupidly advocates the legalisation of all drugs without thinking for a moment of the consequences of such an action .

It does seem daft , though , to start legalising even the class C drugs when the government are (supposedly) clamping down on fags , junk food etc

Because criminalisation is not working- simple as that.

Besides if you rank all substances by addictiveness, harm to the user, harm to society you will see there is no correlation between risk and whether you can obtain a substance legally or not.

Tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous than ecstasy.

Junk food is causing more deaths than cocaine. Why obesity is a matter of public concern.

What is legal and illegal are conditioned by society fashion and has virtually no basis in any science whatsoever.

My argument is that using the criminal law to regulate the user is the most ineffective and damaging way society can go about it. There are far more effective ways of discouraging people from abusing dangerous substances without turning over roughly 10% of global GDP to criminal gangs.

In the final analysis, altering state of consciousness seems to be a basic human need as old as humans themselves. Virtually every primitive society discovered in the last millenia has had its own wacky baccy equivalent or some trance/hallucenagenic inducing substance.

Edited June 14, 2007 by philipl

[blue phil]

Primitive societies didn't have the type of instantly addictive drugs to be found on the streets today ; a bit of cannabis is not in the same league as heroin or crack cocaine etc - however recent studies show that even the average spliff is far more dangerous than those used a few decades ago .

The bottome line is you still would like to see governments REPLACE the role of criminal gangs in producing and distributing ALL drugs (unless you have shifted your position recently ) . You might call it "regulating" or whatever but the result would be the same - the gov't dishing out substances that have proved to be harmful , addictive , and in many cases , lethal .

Please explain how this is in anyway a moral thing for a gov't to do ? And then tell me how the gov't wouldn't be wide open to law suits from the victims and relatives of victims ?

Perhaps you could also explain also who is going to pay for the hard drugs that renders the user unfit for anything other than a zombie like existence contributing nothing to society ...? It could only be successfully done if the tax payer picked up the bill .

In other words the working tax payer would be subsidising a life long habit of non working , hard drug users - the wasters wouldn't need to steal to get their drugs, but neither would they ever work or do anything constructive with their lives .

Maybe some tax payers would settle for the higher tax bills - others would be on the first plane to a Mediterranean hot spot were society doesn't have druggies littering up the place .......

Criminalisation hasn't worked in the past quite simply because we haven't had a government who have tried hard enough . Tougher sentences for users and dealers with a policy of cold turkey for addicts would do a hell of a lot more for our society than your silly idea of getting the gov't involved in the drug trade .

In reality the only sensible argument for legalisation of drugs is for those that are less addictive than alcohol - anything else is just ill thought through stupidity especially in these days when governments are trying to clean up the health of their citizens by clamping down on smoking ....

[American]

The bottome line is you still would like to see governments REPLACE the role of criminal gangs in producing and distributing ALL drugs (unless you have shifted your position recently ) . You might call it "regulating" or whatever but the result would be the same - the gov't dishing out substances that have proved to be harmful , addictive , and in many cases , lethal .

Please explain how this is in anyway a moral thing for a gov't to do ? And then tell me how the gov't wouldn't be wide open to law suits from the victims and relatives of victims ?

Perhaps you could also explain also who is going to pay for the hard drugs that renders the user unfit for anything other than a zombie like existence contributing nothing to society ...? It could only be successfully done if the tax payer picked up the bill .

In other words the working tax payer would be subsidising a life long habit of non working , hard drug users - the wasters wouldn't need to steal to get their drugs, but neither would they ever work or do anything constructive with their lives .

Does that mean we can sue the gov't for taxing fatty foods? How about the NHS for prescribing drugs that later prove dangerous?

And if drugs are taxed, they will be contributing more to society than they do now....

[blue phil]

Selling fatty foods isn't the business of the government ...producing laws and guidelines that minimise the amount of dangerous (in as far as that is possible) should be . Having the government actively selling and distributing even the most fatty of foods simply because the trade has gone on in the past wouldn't be a good idea , don't you think ?

Drugs provided by the NHS that have SUBSEQUENTLY been found to have been dangerous should - and are I trust - removed immediately . What the legalisation of all drugs would mean is simply that the government make known the risk to the public.......and then carry on selling and distributing . Personally I prefer the government not to get involved in such a trade .....(call me old fashioned !)

Taxation of drugs ? .......Mmmm , maybe many of the yuppie users might be OK with that - but round these parts they aren't the main problem . The average junkie cluttering up the streets of GB's cities don't have such scruples as bothering with tax - let alone taxation on the drugs they use . Maybe they would steal even more to pay the tax or maybe they'd stay with the illegal dealers who don't declare their income to the tax man !

Like I've said before , if the aim is to curb crime the government would literally have to dish the drugs out for nothing (which they're finding out in Holland ), which IMO is quite immoral because the government would be actively participating in promoting the ill health of its own citizens .

And then there's the question of whom should pay for it all - who would that be apart from those of us who are inclined to get up and work for a living ? An ever increasing number of kids would weigh up the options ....and bugger off down to the chemists ask for a prescription for a lifetime of oblivion .

[neekoy]

Tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous than ecstasy.

I will agree with whoever wants to legalise drugs if they can give me the daily dose limits for safety?

Ecstasy? Cocaine? Heroin? What is a safe amount to take on a daily dose without long term side effects?

There is a major difference between the responsible use of alcohol and ecstasy. There is no responsible use of ecstacy.

And as far as tobacco goes, still haven't anyone break into my house for money for a cigarette yet. I don't see young girls lining streets selling their bodies for a smoke.

Tobacco is a long term killer, highly addictive, but its gonna take some time to get you.

Phenethylamines, Inhalants, Alkaloids, Stimulants, Opioid etc can get you the first time

[OhmiBRFC]

Your unlikely to get anyone to brake into your house or see young girls lineing the streets for Ecstasy either

Edited June 18, 2007 by OhmiBRFC

[LeChuck]

Edit: Ignore, misread the post I quoted.

Edited June 18, 2007 by LeChuck

[neekoy]

Your unlikely to get anyone to brake into your house or see young girls lineing the streets for Ecstasy either

Ok, point taken (facetious as it is) however this still doesn't take away from the difference in time it could take to kill you and someone hyped up on the combinations of ice and ecstacy can cause much more anti-social behaviour compared to tobacco.

Tobacco doesn't make people suicidal, overtly aggressive or sexual.

[OhmiBRFC]

Theres a difference, a very big one at that between recreational drugs and hard drugs though.

We wont really know the side effects of long term ecstasy use for a good few years when the previous generation to me start to get older.

If everyone from that era starts going mental, then I shall start to worry

Not many people die from a direct result from taking ecstasy its mostly dehydration or drinking too much water.

Edited June 19, 2007 by OhmiBRFC

[neekoy]

Theres a difference, a very big one at that between recreational drugs and hard drugs though.

We wont really know the side effects of long term ecstasy use for a good few years when the previous generation to me start to get older.

If everyone from that era starts going mental, then I shall start to worry

Not many people die from a direct result from taking ecstasy its mostly dehydration or drinking too much water.

Right.....

Reducing the bodies Seretonin (the thing that helps your brain communicate )causes mood swings and depression, prolonged 'weekly' use doesn't let your body recover neurologically (MDMA changes the configuration of your brain) and will cause permanant fluctuation in moods, attention and memory loss. Guess what else, neurons control sexual functionality.

[OhmiBRFC]

It doesnt take the body all that long though after the user of ecstasy to get back to normal, couple of months maybe.

I know quite a few people that used to take it on a regular basis until about 7-8 months, all those people are fine now. At the time they had mood swings and all that other malarky. You do get back to normal after a few months rest.

It might come back to haunt them in later life though but they all seem fine now....

[blue phil]

It doesnt take the body all that long though after the user of ecstasy to get back to normal, couple of months maybe.

A couple of months....!! ?

I'll stick to the traditional hangover , I reckon......

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

"Newcastle footballers supplied with cocaine"

Newcastle have had their fair share of problems in recent years - with allegations of gang rape, players sent home from a training camp in Spain for getting drunk, punch-ups on the field involving Dyer and Bowyer, Craig Bellamy throwing a chair at assistant manager John Carver and being convicted of assaulting a female student in Newcastle city centre. It wouldn't be the biggest surprise in the world if one or two Newcastle players were indeed supplied with cocaine.

[Billy Castell]

No wonder why Bellamy and Dyer are/were so quick, they're probably as high as a kite. (only joking lawyers, don't sue). I can imagine the flash players like Dyer, or people like Bowyer trying that sort of stuff at some trendy nightclub. Maybe it fueled all the aggro AESF mentioned. Who knows if any of this speculation is true?

[Dr Gonzo]

edit: talking out my ass

Edited June 25, 2007 by Dr Gonzo

[cletus]

JUST SAY NO KIDS!!!

[neekoy]

You will have to explain that one Cletus......

[cletus]

You will have to explain that one Cletus......

Zammo ^^^ (the guy above) was once a child tv star on Grange Hill during the 80s. One storyline involved him taking drugs & it prompted a campaign for kids to "Just say no!" to drugs.

I guess you had to be there at the time to appreciate it. lol!

[neekoy]

OK, by the look of that guy I thought he was the result of some form of drug abuse.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Those board members who believe in legalising drugs may be interested in a programme on Friday evening on Channel 4, where a guy called Clive Froggatt will put forward his views that heroin should be prescribed on the NHS - so that the supply of drugs in his opinion will be taken out of the control of criminals.

I don't agree with Mr Froggatt's views on legalisation. I don't believe that the state should be prescribing dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin which in some cases can lead to death.

The British Medical Association says of cocaine: "It can have a variety of adverse effects on the body, with complications involving the cardiovascular system and strokes. It also raises the body's temperature and adrenaline levels, and can cause convulsions, seizures and respiratory arrest. Overdose can lead to death: it can cause heart attacks in otherwise fit, healthy young people, and the number of individuals dying from cocaine-induced heart failure has increased in recent years."

The BMA says of heroin: "It can cause comas and respiratory failure, and there is a danger of inhaling vomit as the cough reflex stops working. Injecting can cause damage to veins and lead to gangrene. There is also a high risk of infection with bloodborne viruses including HIV and hepatitis from sharing needles."

I know that the argument from drug liberals tends to be "Alcohol is legal and can lead to deaths too" - but that doesn't mean in my view that drugs like heroin and cocaine should automatically become legal too. I feel that alcohol is a seperate issue.

As the BMA also says: "If heroin and cocaine were legal in the UK there is likely to be an additional burden on the health service resulting from an increase in the number of drug-related illnesses."

Do we really want our young people to become state-sponsored junkies, as well as placing an additional financial burden on the NHS from treating their drug-related illnesses ?

For anyone interested - "The Insider - Heroin on the NHS" is on Channel 4 at 7.30pm on Friday.

[dave birch]

AESF, whilst I'd agree with the overall sentiments in your post, it's wrong to blame all deaths on the drugs. Many are caused by the circumstances in which they are taken and the varying strengths of the doses.

Here, in Sydney, there is a drug injecting room. At this stage it is experimental (and has been for 3 or 4 years). It sole aim is to give a safe place for these unfortunates to indulge in their addiction. It ddoen't supply any drugs, it doesn't question how they obtained the drugs, it just provides medical and nursing care in the event of an overdose, and clean equipment.

It's estimated that some 2000 deaths have been avoided by the provision of these premises. Additionally, none of the syringes get onto the streets, there are less ambulance call outs and fewer unsightly bodies lying around.