[Archived] Drugs

[Jonnolad]

milkman

From a morale perspective what has this bloke actually done wrong? There are absolutely no victims in this. The pensioners got something which they enjoy - where are they going to get that from now?

IMO the bloke should be put forward to the Pride of Britain awards not prosecuted!

[Presty On Tour]

From a morale perspective what has this bloke actually done wrong? There are absolutely no victims in this. The pensioners got something which they enjoy - where are they going to get that from now?

IMO the bloke should be put forward to the Pride of Britain awards not prosecuted!

Exactly Jonnolad, all he's done is help a few people with aches and pains and enjoy their retirement rather than suffer.

If I was that and old, I wish he was my milkman. Though I imagine when I'm in my later years of life, weed will be legalized due to global warming and it growing like wild fire.

I bet when they've got the munchies, they do some great food! Most Grandma's know how to cook properly.

[tony gale's mic]

some more to talk about

Ecstasy certainly shouldn't be class A.

[BuckyRover]

It shows just how much influence the media has over the Government (or is it the other way around).

Making Ecstacy class A was purely for the middle classes, a guaranteed vote winner. You only need to read messageboards r.e. drugs as soon as anything about drugs is mentioned, people who have no idea about drugs, have quite a lot of say into their usage.

[tony gale's mic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7876425.stm

Very interesting article, especially considering who it's coming from.

I completely agree with him too, it's utterly ludicrous that E is a class A drug.

[rebelmswar]

Why weed is bad

You have to listen to the whole 911 call ROFL

Link

Edited February 7, 2009 by rebelmswar

[BuckyRover]

Can you imagine Labour downgrading Ecstasy so close to a general election?

As if! "Drugs are dangerous", and no amount of contrary medical evidence is going to change that!

Edited February 8, 2009 by BuckyRover

[waynerovers]

it would be interesting to see the result if as well as choosing a party at an election you also had the option of legalising drugs or not, i think it would be pretty tight

[BuckyRover]

I see Jackie "I'm banning weed because I didn't like it" Smith is up to her usual tricks. She has said the Professors comments are wholly unacceptable and that horse riding and Ecstacy are not comparable. I agree with her on that point, 100 deaths doesn't compare with 30, especially considering 500,000 (it could be 200,000) people take E every weekend (I guess that less people ride horses than take E). This also doesn't take into account serious injury or paralysis caused by horse riding.

She actually told him to apologize to the parents of those affected by ecstacy. This government is a joke.

If you try and deny man made climate change they talk about the scientific concensus. Yet whenever scientists talk about drugs, the government just ignore them and wheel out stupid, emotive arguments aimed at daily mail readers (they certainly have a lot of power).

Where is our great leader? We need one

Edited February 9, 2009 by BuckyRover

[tony gale's mic]

it would be interesting to see the result if as well as choosing a party at an election you also had the option of legalising drugs or not, i think it would be pretty tight

Nah, most of the general public would still vote to ban it IMO. Most people don't see alcohol as a drug...

[blue phil]

If you try and deny man made climate change they talk about the scientific concensus. Yet whenever scientists talk about drugs, the government just ignore them and wheel out stupid, emotive arguments aimed at daily mail readers

....as opposed to using a ridiculously stupid and emotive comparison with horse riding to back up their argument !

Aimed at , no doubt , the simpletons who believe that because one substance (or activity in this case ) is dangerous then every other - and more- dangerous substance should be made available to the ever increasingly dumbed down populace .

Oh - and for every scientist who backs your claims there's another who will refute them .

One thing we do probably agree on ; this schoolgirl Home Secretary is way out of her depth . It's either the 70's style uni' education she had ....or the drugs she experimented on

[BuckyRover]

Please explain why horse riding is not BANNED if it kills 100 people a year?

What about motorbikes? Paragliding? Skydiving?

Why are these fun yet risky activities not banned whilst ecstacy is? Why aren't they discussed in the same light? Why are drugs held on a totally different plain to everything else?

Also: "Aimed at , no doubt , the simpletons who believe that because one substance (or activity in this case ) is dangerous then every other - and more- dangerous substance should be made available to the ever increasingly dumbed down populace ."

Where is that claimed?

This recent discussion is about Ectasy (the 17th most dangerous drug; behind Tobacco, Alcohol, Steroids and all the rest)

[blue phil]

Please explain why horse riding is not BANNED if it kills 100 people a year?

What about motorbikes? Paragliding? Skydiving?

Come on , Bucky . You can't compare the legalisation of drugs with horseriding FFS .

If we went down that road the we'd have to ban cars , trains and planes and nobody would be allowed to get out of bed in the morning . These are NECESSITIES just as horses used to be - ie , they have never been illegal . Horseriding and paragliding don't have a wider social context in the manner that drugs do .

I see entirely your point about the relative dangers of "soft" drugs such as ecstacy but alcohol has always been legal and making previously banned substances legal would be the thin end of the wedge . You know as well as I do that it wouldn't stop there .

What would inevitably happen (as I've explained on numerous occasions on this thread) is that the harder stuff would go legal drip by drip and then the taxpayer would end up paying the bill for the hopeless addicts who use the stuff and are too incapable to work to pay for it . I for one am sick to death of paying for the self inflicted failings of others and don't want to see the streets further littered with dossers . The line has to be drawn and it makes no sense to keep re-drawing it just to cater for those who think the lowest common denominator is the ideal level for society to fall to .

And anyway it's all totally irrelevant . It's not going to happen because it's not politically expedient for any political party to legalise even the soft stuff . How the hell can any party have never ending campaigns against the dangers of alcohol , obesity , etc etc .....and then say it's OK for drugs to go into the market ? It's not going to happen however many scientists mouth off about it all . Who takes any notice of these so called "experts" anyway ? On this subject you can choose a boffin to suit any side of the argument ; they're ten a penny !

[LeChuck]

Come on , Bucky . You can't compare the legalisation of drugs with horseriding FFS .

If we went down that road the we'd have to ban cars , trains and planes and nobody would be allowed to get out of bed in the morning...

Phil, you got the completely wrong end of the stick on that one. Bucky isn't suggesting for a moment those things be banned, simply pointing out how ridiculous the law is on ecstasy - which it is.

[American]

What would inevitably happen (as I've explained on numerous occasions on this thread) is that the harder stuff would go legal drip by drip and then the taxpayer would end up paying the bill for the hopeless addicts who use the stuff and are too incapable to work to pay for it . I for one am sick to death of paying for the self inflicted failings of others and don't want to see the streets further littered with dossers . The line has to be drawn and it makes no sense to keep re-drawing it just to cater for those who think the lowest common denominator is the ideal level for society to fall to .

Read an article a month or 2 back (not sure if the link was from here or not) about how one of the Scandinavian countries has made heroin available from clinics. They were talking about how people are now able to get their daily fix and still hold a job. They've also shown that less people are taking it now, due to the stigma attached with going to the clinics.

I still don't see where what you are talking about as "inevitable" isn't already happening now.

[Flopsy]

more people die horse riding per year, than do taking Ectasy. Horse riding can lead to death, paralasis, broken bones, head injuries and being trampled on. Ectasy can lead to alergic reactions, death by exhaustion, death caused by an unknown heart complaint, being hugged to death and talking like a tit, the latter something that I've found the horse riding fraternity do to a degree as well

Its not hard to understand - Empirically, Ectasy is less dangerous than horse riding. Plus its cheaper.

[philipl]

From the Independent- a devastating critique on the failure of the "War on Drugs"

Mexico is becoming a failed state just as much as Afghanistan is.

The issue in Afghanistan is scraping a livelihood together far more than it has anything to do with Islam.

I personally abhor drugs and would never touch them. But since time immemorial humans have sought consciousness-altering substances and we now have a complete mash of random rules where one substance gets you a laugh with your mates if you get stoned and buy a round (alcohol) and another many years in prison as a drug pusher.

Inevitably, the West is going to have to go into the drugs business and contract to buy up the entire Afghan heroin poppy crop - cost about a billion a year.

That will be a far more humane and sensible approach than sending tens of thousands of young people over there to fight for something that is now grossly ill-defined. And cost less. And be more certain in its outcome.

[Napoleon]

What would inevitably happen (as I've explained on numerous occasions on this thread) is that the harder stuff would go legal drip by drip and then the taxpayer would end up paying the bill for the hopeless addicts who use the stuff and are too incapable to work to pay for it .

This is already the case. I would like the tax money to go on a different approach, viewing drugs as a social problem to be fixed rather than a legal problem to be chased down by police and largely ignored in the social context.

Countries that have become softer law-wise on drugs, such as the Netherlands with cannabis, have found the numbers of users go down. Indeed the cannabis usage in the UK went down when it was re-classified. It's not inevitable that numbers of users will rise.

[BuckyRover]

This is already the case. I would like the tax money to go on a different approach, viewing drugs as a social problem to be fixed rather than a legal problem to be chased down by police and largely ignored in the social context.

Countries that have become softer law-wise on drugs, such as the Netherlands with cannabis, have found the numbers of users go down. Indeed the cannabis usage in the UK went down when it was re-classified. It's not inevitable that numbers of users will rise.

Nail on head.

A social problem rather than a legal one.

It's a shame politicians are too scared to make big decisions. I am afraid it's the status quo for a while yet (forever?)

[philipl]

Seven Animal species getting high as kites. Only the bees have adapted a similar-ish legal code to humans though!

[blue phil]

Inevitably, the West is going to have to go into the drugs business and contract to buy up the entire Afghan heroin poppy crop - cost about a billion a year.

Probably the most simplistic and naive comment I have ever read on this messageboard .

Try for one minute to contemplate the logistical , military social and political (as well as a whole host of other problems) that would be necessary to make this happen . What then do you propose "the West" do with the crop once it has been meekly handed over for this risible sum of £1 billion ? Burn it ? Give it to the junkies for nowt ?

You make it sound like a transaction at Tesco ......get real

[Jonnolad]

Probably the most simplistic and naive comment I have ever read on this messageboard .

Try for one minute to contemplate the logistical , military social and political (as well as a whole host of other problems) that would be necessary to make this happen . What then do you propose "the West" do with the crop once it has been meekly handed over for this risible sum of £1 billion ? Burn it ? Give it to the junkies for nowt ?

Giving to "the junkies for nowt" in financial terms, would certainly be far, far cheaper than the current situation - which is the huge cost of crime that junkies currently commit to obtain their illegally sourced heroin.

If it's £1 billion for the entire Afghan crop - then let's say for argument's sake the UK take a huge proportion of that compared to their actual user base - say one tenth - that's still only £100m a year. That's a fraction of what businesses lose each year to junkies feeding their habit. I'm not talking a half or a third here either - £100m would probably be about a fiftieth (1/50!) of the current cost from crime that's purely to feed heroin habits. Factor in the benefits you would see from taking the drugs out of the hands of the criminals as well, and the financial gain to society would be huge. Monumentally huge.

Now also don't forget we already have a health service in place which happily gives out heroin substitute to junkies, which already costs the taxpayer in terms of drug production and then user management. To take that to the next stage of making heroin available for junkies instead of methadone would be tiny compared to the savings made elsewhere. And as someone has already pointed out - this approach has actually shown to make the demand for heroin drop in countries where this has been tried.

So why aren't we at least trialling this approach?

The answer of course is ignorant and naive people like you who either don't understand the situation or simply just believe all the nonsense they read in the Daily Mail. Any attempt to actually do something useful when it comes to drug policy is seen as a vote loser and therefore nothing gets done, and we continue in the current complete and utter mess we are in (drug production and distribution in the hands of criminals, funded by further crime, all at huge, huge costs to the taxpayer – madness!) . This situation has reached such a point that the government has now started to ignore it's own scientifically based advisory committee in favour of what they think the voter wants - a voter they believe to be the average Daily Mail reader presumably.

[tony gale's mic]

If I'm not mistaken countries have signed international treaties on drugs which they have to adhere to aswell. It's the reason why marijuana isn't technically legal in Holland.

[philipl]

Recent polling evidence in the USA shows that there has been a complete collapse in the majority in favour of keeping marijuana illegal and that those in favour of regulatng and taxing it hold the upper hand.

Taken from The Atlantic Magazine, Andrew Sullivan commented:

My guess is that criminal laws against marijuana use have become culturally untenable. At this point, if you want to maintain criminal laws against more dangerous drugs, you're better off conceding the legality of marijuana, lest the public lose respect for drug laws in general.

[philipl]

American law professor on the problem of marijuana prohibition drivng the drug gangs in Mexico.