How Drugs Policy Works

[Phil D. Rolls]

1) Ask for scientific opinion as to the dangerousness of a drug.
2) Ignore it.
3) Tell journos how worried you are about this drug which is a "killer".
4) Journos whip up hysteria about "killer" drug.
5) Ban drug.
6) er....
7) Drug deaths ***** all to do with drugs. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10184803.stm)
8) That's it.
You're fired - ed

[khib70]

1) Ask for scientific opinion as to the dangerousness of a drug.
2) Ignore it.
3) Tell journos how worried you are about this drug which is a "killer".
4) Journos whip up hysteria about "killer" drug.
5) Ban drug.
6) er....
7) Drug deaths ***** all to do with drugs. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10184803.stm)
8) That's it.
You're fired - ed

Regarding 2) - this quote from 7)

"But Professor Les Iverson, the current chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), said the decision to recommend a ban on mephedrone was based on "thorough research".

And in fact, the individuals concerned had been taking methadone - the addictive drug handed out by the gallon at public expense to keep addicts high, rather than do anything to deal with the drug problem properly.

[.Sean.]

:agree:


The media seemed to really overhype the 'new' drug mephedrone(sp?). Almost daily you'd open the paper and they would link a teenage death to the drug, which was legal at the time. It's since been banned and the media have gone quiet with regards to that specific drug.


The one thing that I never understood was why the papers got so worked up over this drug and reported on it almost daily, yet they fail to report on the hundreds of deaths per weekend which are linked to cocaine, ecstasy etc.

[Pretty Boy]

:agree:


The media seemed to really overhype the 'new' drug mephedrone(sp?). Almost daily you'd open the paper and they would link a teenage death to the drug, which was legal at the time. It's since been banned and the media have gone quiet with regards to that specific drug.


The one thing that I never understood was why the papers got so worked up over this drug and reported on it almost daily, yet they fail to report on the hundreds of deaths per weekend which are linked to cocaine, ecstasy etc.

Very few deaths are linked to ecstasy. About 20 last year i think although i don't have the exact figure to hand. Most of these are actually caused by either dehydration or water intoxication.

As for mephedrone, Mcat or whatever you want to call it. Lets just say from experience it's pretty nasty stuff. It's very closely linked chemically to Methamphetamine better known as crystal meth. I'm not a huge fan of drug legislation but anyone trying to dress Mcat up as a safe option is sadly mistaken.

[.Sean.]

Very few deaths are linked to ecstasy. About 20 last year i think although i don't have the exact figure to hand. Most of these are actually caused by either dehydration or water intoxication.

As for mephedrone, Mcat or whatever you want to call it. Lets just say from experience it's pretty nasty stuff. It's very closely linked chemically to Methamphetamine better known as crystal meth. I'm not a huge fan of drug legislation but anyone trying to dress Mcat up as a safe option is sadly mistaken.
In regards to ecstasy, there are only around 20 deaths per year you say. Fair point. However thousands die due to overworking their kidneys. They do this to rehydrate themselves as the ecstasy leaves them extremely dehydrated.

As for the mephedrone, I know a few folk who have tried it, and they don't seem to have suffered any nasty experiences from it.

[Disco Dave]

Mephedrone is evil - believe me :agree:

[Pretty Boy]

In regards to ecstasy, there are only around 20 deaths per year you say. Fair point. However thousands die due to overworking their kidneys. They do this to rehydrate themselves as the ecstasy leaves them extremely dehydrated.

As for the mephedrone, I know a few folk who have tried it, and they don't seem to have suffered any nasty experiences from it.

I'm sure it's like any drug in that it will affect everyone slightly differently. I took Mcat 4 or 5 times and everytime the experience was slightly different. I found it very 'aggressive' compared to something like ecstasy. I also found the comedown horrendous the last couple of times. Double vision, overheating, palpitations and panic attacks. I'm not particularly naive around drugs as you can probably gather but i just didn't like the whole experience. But as you say many people probably use it and have little or no problems with it whatsoever.

[SRHibs]

There's not enough known about Mephedrone to keep it legal.
Much wiser to make it illegal now and legalise it if it turns out to be perfectly safe, than let everyone endanger themselves by ingesting it when there's nothing known about it.

For the record, I also think it's very, very nasty stuff. Got one friend who's extremities turned blue after a night of use, and another who woke up with gashes all over his legs due to the amount he'd been scratching himself on it.

[Cropley10]

In regards to ecstasy, there are only around 20 deaths per year you say. Fair point. However thousands die due to overworking their kidneys. They do this to rehydrate themselves as the ecstasy leaves them extremely dehydrated.

As for the mephedrone, I know a few folk who have tried it, and they don't seem to have suffered any nasty experiences from it.

Not true I'm afraid. There are very, very few deaths associated with taking Ecstasy, certainly not from overworking kidneys or from being dehydrated either.

The very few people who have died tend to have been under the mistaken impression that water will 'flush' the drug from their system, when in fact it causes their brain to swell, inducing a coma. Facts are horse-riding is more dangerous than ecstasy. A lesser known fact is being dehydrated from exercise won't kill you, whereas drinking too much water will. There's a big myth in sport, marathon running in particular, that you must drink tons of water.

As for MCAT - nasty business to be left well alone I would suggest...

[Elephant Stone]

There's not enough known about Mephedrone to keep it legal.[/B]
Much wiser to make it illegal now and legalise it if it turns out to be perfectly safe, than let everyone endanger themselves by ingesting it when there's nothing known about it.

For the record, I also think it's very, very nasty stuff. Got one friend who's extremities turned blue after a night of use, and another who woke up with gashes all over his legs due to the amount he'd been scratching himself on it.

Surely this is exactly why it shouldn't be illegal.

Mephedrone was banned because the media told us to be frightened of it, the drug advisory people whose job it is to advise on prospective bans weren't listened to- hence the resignations. I'd much rather our government banned substances based on facts, not media induced assumptions.

[Woody1985]

It should definitely be banned and remain that way.

[Sumner]

Ban them all, few less walking chemistry set zombies strolling the streets then.

[Woody1985]

Ban them all, few less walking chemistry set zombies strolling the streets then.

At the end of the day people will always do it no matter if it's banned (any drugs that is).

You're probably best to control it and limit their impact on other people. Saying that, it doesn't work for alcohol!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ban them all, few less walking chemistry set zombies strolling the streets then.

Hasn't really worked so far.

[.Sean.]

It should definitely be banned and remain that way.
:agree:


Spoke to a friend of mine who stupidly took it last night- Says when he was on it, it was exceptional, but he's feeling absolutely disgraceful now. Certainly not to be reccomended.

[Sumner]

Hasn't really worked so far.

oh well give in, legalise them all
- leave all your doors and windows unlocked,
after all legalising all the sherberts, pills,
and syringe skooshes will see the world
descend into a happy clappy love-in with
no crime, no over-doses, just good times...

yeah that will work, sure, uh-huh.

[Betty Boop]

oh well give in, legalise them all
- leave all your doors and windows unlocked,
after all legalising all the sherberts, pills,
and syringe skooshes will see the world
descend into a happy clappy love-in with
no crime, no over-doses, just good times...

yeah that will work, sure, uh-huh.

Not everybody who takes drugs, commits crime. Some people take drugs for recreation.

[Sumner]

Not everybody who takes drugs, commits crime. Some people take drugs for recreation.

Wow, and some do commit crime.
Decrimininalisation won't mean cut-price Poundland drugs
for the chemically dependent, but if it did they would of course
be able to handle a £2 a day double dip of course, no need
to keep going, no, they can handle it, uh-huh.

"Recreational" ... yes there are a few recreational chaps
hanging around chemists these days
getting their methadone, recreationally of course.

[CropleyWasGod]

oh well give in, legalise them all
- leave all your doors and windows unlocked,
after all legalising all the sherberts, pills,
and syringe skooshes will see the world
descend into a happy clappy love-in with
no crime, no over-doses, just good times...

yeah that will work, sure, uh-huh.

In a canton in Switzerland they experimented with bringing all drugs under State control.

Broad result... for every £3 it cost them in the health services, they saved £5 in police costs. Organised crime and petty crime were decimated at a stroke. More importantly, IMO, the addicts were sure of a consistent quality of supply.

[Sumner]

... and everyone used moderately and responsibly,
no one was addicted, no one chose to drive under the influence,
no one had any side effects, no families suffered, no one dropped out,
indeed they worked harder, contributed more and lived happily ever after,
only using tiny amounts recreationally - and their stuff was importantly, good quality stuff. Wow.

[CropleyWasGod]

... and everyone used moderately and responsibly,
no one was addicted, no one chose to drive under the influence,
no one had any side effects, no families suffered, no one dropped out,
indeed they worked harder, contributed more and lived happily ever after,
as their stuff was importantly, good quality.

So you read the findings too?

[Sumner]

So you read the findings too?

Naah, just hear it again & again from those who choose to use it...
they repeat the mantra - memory loss side effect perhaps?

[CropleyWasGod]

Naah, just hear it again & again from those who choose to use it...
they repeat the mantra - memory loss side effect perhaps?

So open your mind, maaaaaan, open your mind.

[Sumner]

So open your mind, maaaaaan, open your mind.

... and welcome in dependency, reliance, financial drainage, paranoia, and health problems...
and in the end look forward to vegetation, lying zonked and forgeting
your name, maaaaan? Party on Cheech. :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

oh well give in, legalise them all
- leave all your doors and windows unlocked,
after all legalising all the sherberts, pills,
and syringe skooshes will see the world
descend into a happy clappy love-in with
no crime, no over-doses, just good times...

yeah that will work, sure, uh-huh.

That's just embarrassing. It's ignorance on that level that has led to the current mess of drugs legislation.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Shaun Ryder.

Kids watch and observe the before and after. Thats pretty much all you need to know.

As per the deaths thing - I see it like any addition its the wider longterm impact on others as well - family and relationships breakdown. To simplify it with death statistics is just as bad as doing the same with alcohol.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Shaun Ryder.

Kids watch and observe the before and after. Thats pretty much all you need to know.

As per the deaths thing - I see it like any addition its the wider longterm impact on others as well - family and relationships breakdown. To simplify it with death statistics is just as bad as doing the same with alcohol.

Was there ever a "before" in Shaun Ryder's case. I get the impression he was born taking drugs?

[Sumner]

Was there ever a "before" in Shaun Ryder's case. I get the impression he was born taking drugs?

"That's just embarrassing.
It's ignorance on that level that has led
to the current mess of drug"...ged up excuse-merchants, uh-huh. :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

... and welcome in dependency, reliance, financial drainage, paranoia, and health problems...
and in the end look forward to vegetation, lying zonked and forgeting
your name, maaaaan? Party on Cheech. :wink:

So.. what's your solution?

The status quo? Zero tolerance?

[Sumner]

So.. what's your solution?

Illegal.. let the "recreational" dreamers dream of legality.


status quo?

Status Quo, now there's an advert for abstaining from drugs...

[CropleyWasGod]

Illegal.. let the "recreational" dreamers dream of legality.



..

It's not just the recreational users that do. it's also those professionals who work with addicts whose minds are open to the advantages.

[Sumner]

It's not just the recreational users that do. it's also those professionals who work with addicts whose minds are open to the advantages.

... and other professionals who work with addicts, family breakdowns, mental illnesses, crime, social deprivation etc, whose minds are focused on the disadvantages.

[Phil D. Rolls]

... and other professionals who work with addicts, family breakdowns, mental illnesses, crime, social deprivation etc, whose minds are focused on the disadvantages.

With the greatest respect, I don't think you've looked into this in any depth. If you had you wouldn't make sweeping statements like that one.

From my own, very limited, experience I can tell you there are many shades of grey when it comes to attitudes amongst people working in these fields. Many people would advocate removing drugs from the criminal system altogether, and evidence from other countries would suggest this has a much more positive impact on the areas you mention.


"That's just embarrassing.
It's ignorance on that level that has led
to the current mess of drug"...ged up excuse-merchants, uh-huh. :wink:

Grow up son. If you care that much about the problem, try researching it, and come back with some positive answers instead of sarcastic responses.

[Sumner]

With the greatest respect, I don't think you've looked into this in any depth. If you had you wouldn't make sweeping statements like that one.

From my own, very limited, experience I can tell you there are many shades of grey when it comes to attitudes amongst people working in these fields. Many people would advocate removing drugs from the criminal system altogether, and evidence from other countries would suggest this has a much more positive impact on the areas you mention.
.

With the greatest respect, I don't think you've looked into this in any depth. If you had you wouldn't make sweeping statements like your opening ones, same old cliches from those wanting legalisation. Illegal, live with it, and if you must use, do so covertly...

bold type says a lot there...



"Grow up son" right back at ya... If you care that much about the problem, try researching it, and come back with some positive answers instead of sarcastic responses.

Grow up son. If you care that much about illegal drug-taking and choose to do so, do so, call it "recreational" if you will - still illegal. Graffiti artists call their crime "recreational" no doubt, joy-riders, you name the crime, the criminal will excuse it in their own mind.
As for sarcasm ("grow up son"?), read your own posts - can't take it, don't give it, yawn :yawn:

[Phil D. Rolls]

With the greatest respect, I don't think you've looked into this in any depth. If you had you wouldn't make sweeping statements like your opening ones, same old cliches from those wanting legalisation. Illegal, live with it, and if you must use, do so covertly...

bold type says a lot there...



Grow up son. If you care that much about illegal drug-taking and choose to do so, do so, call it "recreational" if you will - still illegal. Graffiti artists call their crime "recreational" no doubt, joy-riders, you name the crime, the criminal will excuse it in their own mind.
As for sarcasm ("grow up son"?), read your own posts - can't take it, don't give it, yawn :yawn:

You know nothing about me, so it would be respectful if you didn't make assumptions about me.

I don't really care about the sarcasm, it's all fair play - if it is based on fact. It's just that you don't seem to be prepared to make proper arguments about the subject. I'm really confused as to what your points are.

You just continue to make empty, meaningless statements. Do you want to debate on the best way to tackle the drugs problem, or do you just want to voice your personal dislike of drug taking.

You refuse to respond to anybody's points about evidence from the UK and other countries, instead you attack the person making them with stupid remarks.

What's it all about? I'm beginning to suspect you are on the wind up. One of those silly people who gets off on the attention in an argument - and then turns round and says you couldn't have cared anyway, and it was all a joke.

[Sumner]

You know nothing about me, so it would be respectful if you didn't make assumptions about me..

You know nothing about me, so it would be respectful if you didn't make assumptions about me ... either.



I don't really care about the sarcasm, it's all fair play - if it is based on fact. It's just that you don't seem to be prepared to make proper arguments about the subject. I'm really confused as to what your points are.

You just continue to make empty, meaningless statements. Do you want to debate on the best way to tackle the drugs problem, or do you just want to voice your personal dislike of drug taking.

That's good that you now don't care about sarcasm, because you did before, well done getting over that one - all fair play indeed.

You say you are really confused (but of course accused me of that - sarcasm again?). Anyway clearly stating the obvious again - drugs should stay illegal, as stated before.

Tackle the drugs problem by keeping them illegal, stop the spread of misery, crime, mental illness, deprevation etc - as listed before... as for "debate" is this a "debate"?


You attack the person making them with stupid remarks..

Pot & Kettle indeed... :yawn:
(you are the one posting "grow up son" - against the poster not nodding & saying "you're right")
Funny that other "funny" remarks from other posters are OK as long as they agree with yours...



What's it all about? I'm beginning to suspect you are on the wind up. One of those silly people who gets off on the attention in an argument - and then turns round and says you couldn't have cared anyway, and it was all a joke.

I'm beginning to suspect you only wanted to hear your wish to legalise drugs echoed back at you from your like minded friends, that you call this a "debate", that is a joke.

[CropleyWasGod]

You know nothing about me, so it would be respectful if you didn't make assumptions about me ... either.



That's good that you now don't care about sarcasm, because you did before, well done getting over that one - all fair play indeed.

You say you are really confused (but of course accused me of that - sarcasm again?). Anyway clearly stating the obvious again - drugs should stay illegal, as stated before.

Tackle the drugs problem by keeping them illegal, stop the spread of misery, crime, mental illness, deprevation etc - as listed before... as for "debate" is this a "debate"?


Pot & Kettle indeed... :yawn:
Funny that other "funny" remarks from other posters are OK as long as they agree with yours...



I'm beginning top suspect you only wanted to hear your wish to legalise drugs echoed back at you from your like minded friends, that you call this a "debate", that is a joke.

So can you set out your arguments against the Swiss experiment? To my knowledge, it's the only one of its type thus far, hence the only empirical evidence there is of the effects of a blanket legalisation.

[Sumner]

So can you set out your arguments against the Swiss experiment? To my knowledge, it's the only one of its type thus far, hence the only empirical evidence there is of the effects of a blanket legalisation.

OK, this will do...

Having addicts shoot up in dirty back alleys
or have addicts shoot up in clean, medically-supervised rooms?
There is a third option: not shooting up at all - that would help.
Shooting galleries do nothing to encourage addicts to get off drugs.

No one has died in a European safe-injecting room? wow...
That is completely misleading. If an addict shoots up in a "safe" injecting room,
steps outside and falls over dead, this is not counted in the figures because only deaths
within the facilities, not anywhere else, are recorded.

The overwhelming majority of heroin deaths take place in the home, not in the streets.
According to figures from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, 74 per cent of over-dose deaths
occurred in homes between 1996 and 1998. And of 410 cases, only 30 were due solely
to heroin. Most were due to drug-cocktails: mixes of various drugs and alcohol along with the heroin.

Many addicts do not want treatment - as I stated before criminals JUSTIFY their activity.
Many murderers do not want to stop killing. Many pedophiles do not want treatment
to get them to stop molesting children. Whenever someone engages in dangerous behaviour
which affects themselves and the rest of society, then society has a right to step
in and intervene.

Setting up injecting rooms as it is seen as compassionate?
Pro-injecting room & pro-drug advocates go on
about compassion. They speak of saving lives and being concerned about the addict.
But the pro-injectors do not have a monopoly on compassion. Their claim to occupy
the high moral ground needs to be challenged. What is really most compassionate:
to keep someone enslaved to a dangerous illegal drug the rest of their life,
or to get them free of addictive and deadly drugs?

What is compassionate about keeping people in chains to drugs -
wished for legalised drugs... yet still potentially lethal, life-wrecking drugs ?

[Darth Hibbie]

I tend to agree with Sumner on this one that drugs should not be legalised. A base this on my own personal experiences. It has been argued that professionals in the field are of the opinion that that drugs should be legalised, there are of course just as many that argue against it. Does not make either opinion right.

How does the legalisation work. Those who use drugs "recreationally" at the moment are unlikely to come to the attention of the police so would the legalisation have a dramatic effect there?

What about those who at the moment use crime to fund their habits. Will the legalisation suddenly make them be able to afford it? I very much doubt it. If it is handed out on prescription I can guarantee it will not be enough for the junkies.

This leaves a second black market for drugs therefore not eliminating the drug gangs.

Then what drugs should be legalised? All? Anybody who has dealt with someone who is addicted to crystal meth would not argue for the legalisation of crystal meth.

Not saying I am right but its my opinion. I have not studied the Swiss experiment but it is something I will be doing in the near future.


So can you set out your arguments against the Swiss experiment? To my knowledge, it's the only one of its type thus far, hence the only empirical evidence there is of the effects of a blanket legalisation.

Out of interest what was the drug situation like their before the experiment was it on a par with Scotland? I would suspect probably not.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm beginning to suspect you only wanted to hear your wish to legalise drugs echoed back at you from your like minded friends, that you call this a "debate", that is a joke.

I want to minimise the harm done by drugs. Earlier I said that your idea has been tried but it doesn't work. You have failed to convince me that it does.

I strongly suspect you have another agenda altogether on this thread, but that's your business. I will listen to anyone who makes a mature reasoned argument, and they may convince me that there is a better approach.

So, setting aside all that. Do you agree that the Netherlands has a lower rate of drug uptake than the UK?

[CropleyWasGod]

Out of interest what was the drug situation like their before the experiment was it on a par with Scotland? I would suspect probably not.

I have no idea. All I have is the broad findings. That's why I am looking for someone to argue against it.

So far no-one has.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Out of interest what was the drug situation like their before the experiment was it on a par with Scotland? I would suspect probably not.

Can I turn that on its head with a simple statistic? Before 1969 Heroin could be prescribed to addicts. The result was there less than 10,000 registered addicts in the UK.

Since prescription was banned, the number has soared. There is strong evidence that this was linked to the underworld becoming involved in supply.

[CropleyWasGod]

Can I turn that on its head with a simple statistic? Before 1969 Heroin could be prescribed to addicts. The result was there less than 10,000 registered addicts in the UK.

Since prescription was banned, the number has soared. There is strong evidence that this was linked to the underworld becoming involved in supply.

... which, of course, is one of the arguments in favour of State control. Eradicate, as far as possible, the criminality associated with drug use ... and concentrate on the needs of the user/society.

[Sumner]

I want to minimise the harm done by drugs. Earlier I said that your idea has been tried but it doesn't work. You have failed to convince me that it does.


You have failed to convince me on any count - other than you want drugs legalised and will dismiss the opinions of anyone who doesn't just nod in agreement to you.



I strongly suspect you have another agenda altogether on this thread, but that's your business. I will listen to anyone who makes a mature reasoned argument, and they may convince me that there is a better approach.

I strongly suspect you just wish to be faithfully agreed with altogether on this thread, but that's your business. Mature reasoned argument in my 7:00pm post, no response...



So, setting aside all that. Do you agree that the Netherlands has a lower rate of drug uptake than the UK?

So setting that aside - the way crime and death (as stated before) will be different in a country which records these things differently, that's an easy one you see?...


Despite the high priority given by the Dutch government to fighting illegal drug trafficking, the Netherlands continue to be an important transit point for drugs entering Europe, a major producer and leading distributor of cannabis, heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and other synthetic drugs, and a medium consumer of illicit drugs.

The country has also become a major exporter of illicit temazepam of the "jelly" variety, trafficking it to the United Kingdom and other European nations. The Netherlands' special synthetic drug unit, set up in 1997 to coordinate the fight against designer drugs has intensified cooperation with neighbouring countries and stepped up border controls.

Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.

So they have more relaxed laws, yet still criminal activity is growing - that is just what actually IS recorded...

No problems there then... :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

You have failed to convince me on any count - other than you want drugs legalised and will dismiss the opinions of anyone who doesn't just nod in agreement to you.



I strongly suspect you just wish to be faithfully agreed with altogether on this thread, but that's your business. Mature reasoned argument in my 7:00pm post, no response...



So setting that aside - the way crime and death (as stated before) will be different in a country which records these things differently, that's an easy one you see?...


Despite the high priority given by the Dutch government to fighting illegal drug trafficking, the Netherlands continue to be an important transit point for drugs entering Europe, a major producer and leading distributor of cannabis, heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and other synthetic drugs, and a medium consumer of illicit drugs.

The country has also become a major exporter of illicit temazepam of the "jelly" variety, trafficking it to the United Kingdom and other European nations. The Netherlands' special synthetic drug unit, set up in 1997 to coordinate the fight against designer drugs has intensified cooperation with neighbouring countries and stepped up border controls.

Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.

So they have more relaxed laws, yet still criminal activity is growing - that is just what actually IS recorded...

No problems there then... :confused:

It also has a reasonably enlightened approach to the use of ecstacy. Dealers are allowed to deal, as long as their stuff meets certain standards of purity. Those who deal without official sanction are dealt with severely, so it makes sense to toe the line.

Of course, what happens to the impure stock? It gets dumped in the UK.

[Sumner]

Can I turn that on its head with a simple statistic? Before 1969 Heroin could be prescribed to addicts. The result was there less than 10,000 registered addicts in the UK.

Since prescription was banned, the number has soared. There is strong evidence that this was linked to the underworld becoming involved in supply.

So it has spread, wow - everything does given time, publicity, perceived ability to handle drugs, and resultingly addiction...

"Strong evidence" we can see or is that just a phrase?

What if it were prescribed then and had risen?
Who's fault then without this "underworld" to blame?

[Sumner]

It also has a reasonably enlightened approach to the use of ecstacy. Dealers are allowed to deal, as long as their stuff meets certain standards of purity. Those who deal without official sanction are dealt with severely, so it makes sense to toe the line.

Of course, what happens to the impure stock? It gets dumped in the UK.

"Enlightened" if you want to partake of the chemical.
"Certain standards of purity" that don't meet a user's clean-living habits?
Not better to abstain then? ... oh wait... :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

"Enlightened" if you want to partake of the chemical, certain standards of purity
that don't meet a user's clean-living habits? Not better to abstain then... oh wait... :rolleyes:

By "enlightened" I mean accepting that people take drugs, no matter what the consequences or the desires of society..... and acting on that accordingly. That attitude is at the heart of the harm reduction approach, not only to drugs, but also sex-work and HIV.

[Sumner]

By "enlightened" I mean accepting that people take drugs, no matter what the consequences or the desires of society..... and acting on that accordingly. That attitude is at the heart of the harm reduction approach, not only to drugs, but also sex-work and HIV.

"Enlightened" if you mean the problems will escalate regardless of the desire to portray otherwise.

The desires of society (note - certain sections of society only) do not necessarily dictate law, otherwise given the vote tomorrow many issues may revert (death penalty? "Life meaning "life")

The desire of a (certain section of) society for illegal drugs, sex work, human trafficking, child abuse, theft, fraud, spray-painting swears on Mrs Higgins fence after school... doesn't make it "right"
... but to the perpetrator it can no doubt be justified, wrapped in excuses, called an "enlightened" approach, and looked at as their right to be above the rules of "society", no doubt.

[Sergio sledge]

So, setting aside all that. Do you agree that the Netherlands has a lower rate of drug uptake than the UK?

I dont know, can you post some figures on it? What exactly is meant by "drug uptake"?

If you are trying to say that because the Netherlands has more relaxed drug laws than over here then it doesnt have so many problems with drugs, the I think this is an oversimplification of the issues. I dont think that the legality or illegality of certain substances is the largest factor in it although i can accept that it may play some part. For me the largest factor is the attitude of the users. You only have to look at our attitudes to alcohol - social acceptance and encouragement and glorification of over indulgences and excesses, whereas on mainland europe, binge drinking and anti social drunken behaviour dont seem to be such a problem because they dont tend to over indulge, and dont glorify people being "wasted." If the same attitudes exist to drug use, then you can see why problems are less prevalent. European (certainly France, Spain, Germany, The Netherlands) people take alcohol for pleasure, in moderation and sensibly, British just get as wasted as they can.

With regards to legalisation of drugs, as someone else mentioned, alcohol is legal, and yet we still have major problems with alcoholism and alcohol driven anti-social behaviour. Legalising drugs will not solve the problem unlesd the attitudes of people in this country are changed first, IMHO.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I dont know, can you post some figures on it? What exactly is meant by "drug uptake"?

If you are trying to say that because the Netherlands has more relaxed drug laws than over here then it doesnt have so many problems with drugs, the I think this is an oversimplification of the issues. I dont think that the legality or illegality of certain substances is the largest factor in it although i can accept that it may play some part. For me the largest factor is the attitude of the users. You only have to look at our attitudes to alcohol - social acceptance and encouragement and glorification of over indulgences and excesses, whereas on mainland europe, binge drinking and anti social drunken behaviour dont seem to be such a problem because they dont tend to over indulge, and dont glorify people being "wasted." If the same attitudes exist to drug use, then you can see why problems are less prevalent. European (certainly France, Spain, Germany, The Netherlands) people take alcohol for pleasure, in moderation and sensibly, British just get as wasted as they can.

With regards to legalisation of drugs, as someone else mentioned, alcohol is legal, and yet we still have major problems with alcoholism and alcohol driven anti-social behaviour. Legalising drugs will not solve the problem unlesd the attitudes of people in this country are changed first, IMHO.

Yes, my point about the Netherlands was that there is a much smaller proportion of the population take drugs, despite a higher degree of tolerance. I accept your point though, it could well be down to other, cultural factors.

I'd rather not go trawling libraries for references and such, but I thought it was generally accepted that Britain has the highest drug use rate (including alcohol) in Europe. What I am concerned with is reducing harm - so I would want drug supply to be taken away from criminals. That way a clean supply would be possible.

I believe there is evidence - and again I can search for it if anybody wants - that the biggest danger to users is not the drugs themselves, but the dangerous products many are cut with.

However, my main reason for starting this thread was to question the way that governments have legislated on drugs over the years. It seems to me that it has always been based on some moral aspect, rather than objective analysis of what harm drug taking does. They are aided and abetted by the press, who regularly print shock stories - which later are shown to have no substance whatsoever.

The second thing I wanted to bring out is that people are going to take drugs. They always have and always will. I feel that far from keeping people safe from the effects of drugs, government policy puts them in danger.

Finally, I feel that if governments had based decisions on facts, rather than uninformed hysteria, they would have more credibility when it comes to telling people what is good for them. How else do we explain people snorting plant food?

[Phil D. Rolls]

So it has spread, wow - everything does given time, publicity, perceived ability to handle drugs, and resultingly addiction...

"Strong evidence" we can see or is that just a phrase?

What if it were prescribed then and had risen?
Who's fault then without this "underworld" to blame?

It was prescribed for something like a century, but the number of addicts had remained more or less static. Then it spread within two years of the system being changed, it could just be coincidence, but I think there is an argument that criminals with a profit motive encouraged more and more people to use it.

Strong evidence is based on what I have read on books on the subject, and heard people who work with drug addicts say. I can search some references if you want, but I'd rather not - this is an internet forum, not a university paper.

I'm really sorry, but I don't understand what your last paragraph means.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You have failed to convince me on any count - other than you want drugs legalised and will dismiss the opinions of anyone who doesn't just nod in agreement to you.

That's unfortunate, I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with you.

I strongly suspect you just wish to be faithfully agreed with altogether on this thread, but that's your business. Mature reasoned argument in my 7:00pm post, no response...

I didn't respond at 7.00 pm because it wasn't addressed to me.

So setting that aside - the way crime and death (as stated before) will be different in a country which records these things differently, that's an easy one you see?...

Says who?

Despite the high priority given by the Dutch government to fighting illegal drug trafficking, the Netherlands continue to be an important transit point for drugs entering Europe, a major producer and leading distributor of cannabis, heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and other synthetic drugs, and a medium consumer of illicit drugs.

The country has also become a major exporter of illicit temazepam of the "jelly" variety, trafficking it to the United Kingdom and other European nations. The Netherlands' special synthetic drug unit, set up in 1997 to coordinate the fight against designer drugs has intensified cooperation with neighbouring countries and stepped up border controls.

Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.

So they have more relaxed laws, yet still criminal activity is growing - that is just what actually IS recorded...

Less people take drugs in Holland than in the UK.

No problems there then... :confused:

The drugs don't stay in Holland, they go overseas - mainly here. My point is that drugs are freely available in Holland, yet less people take them. I think that might be a lesson for us.



I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I realise that I have been sarcastic in previous posts, but it would really help the discussion if you wouldn't mind cutting down on the sarcasm as well. Despite what you think, I genuinely am concerned about the harm drugs do, I get the impression you are as well.

I think we all have to agree, that there has been a large increase in drug taking (legal and illegal) in the UK in the last 40 years. I honestly feel that if we all put our heads together, we can arrive at a solution that will work, as current policy just isn't working.

[Sergio sledge]

Yes, my point about the Netherlands was that there is a much smaller proportion of the population take drugs, despite a higher degree of tolerance. I accept your point though, it could well be down to other, cultural factors.

I'd rather not go trawling libraries for references and such, but I thought it was generally accepted that Britain has the highest drug use rate (including alcohol) in Europe. What I am concerned with is reducing harm - so I would want drug supply to be taken away from criminals. That way a clean supply would be possible.

I would like to see some figures, but the impression I get is the same as you. I do wonder how accurate our impressions can be when we don't live in the countries, and don't see the news, and only have to work on possible infrequent visits and hearsay. Perhaps there is an underculture in these countries which we just don't see. I know that my first visits to Inverness gave me a totally different impression of the city than I have now after having lived here 3.5 years. I didn't see the rough housing estates, or the substance abusers, or the homeless people.


I believe there is evidence - and again I can search for it if anybody wants - that the biggest danger to users is not the drugs themselves, but the dangerous products many are cut with.

However, my main reason for starting this thread was to question the way that governments have legislated on drugs over the years. It seems to me that it has always been based on some moral aspect, rather than objective analysis of what harm drug taking does. They are aided and abetted by the press, who regularly print shock stories - which later are shown to have no substance whatsoever.

I tend to agree with you on this, but as I said earlier I don't think the answer is to provide a stable legal trade in the drugs. As evidenced with the legal drug that is alcohol, those who want to overindulge will still over indulge, and those who are on prescription heroin for example, will always want more, that's what a lot of addicts are like. The legal supply will not stop the illegal trade, because people will always want more than they are allowed.

I think it is more about changing peoples attitudes rather than changing the drug laws.

I can fully accept your point about the press, they often indulge in scaremongering, although in the case of recreational drugs (as opposed to pharmaceutical drugs) I don't believe that a bit of scaremongering is necessarily a bad thing......


The second thing I wanted to bring out is that people are going to take drugs. They always have and always will. I feel that far from keeping people safe from the effects of drugs, government policy puts them in danger.

Finally, I feel that if governments had based decisions on facts, rather than uninformed hysteria, they would have more credibility when it comes to telling people what is good for them. How else do we explain people snorting plant food?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I would like to see some figures, but the impression I get is the same as you. I do wonder how accurate our impressions can be when we don't live in the countries, and don't see the news, and only have to work on possible infrequent visits and hearsay. Perhaps there is an underculture in these countries which we just don't see. I know that my first visits to Inverness gave me a totally different impression of the city than I have now after having lived here 3.5 years. I didn't see the rough housing estates, or the substance abusers, or the homeless people.



I tend to agree with you on this, but as I said earlier I don't think the answer is to provide a stable legal trade in the drugs. As evidenced with the legal drug that is alcohol, those who want to overindulge will still over indulge, and those who are on prescription heroin for example, will always want more, that's what a lot of addicts are like. The legal supply will not stop the illegal trade, because people will always want more than they are allowed.

I think it is more about changing peoples attitudes rather than changing the drug laws.

I can fully accept your point about the press, they often indulge in scaremongering, although in the case of recreational drugs (as opposed to pharmaceutical drugs) I don't believe that a bit of scaremongering is necessarily a bad thing......

One of the things they say in Holland is that "legalising" the soft drugs keeps people away from hard drugs. I don't think that is necessarily the case from what I have been told. However, a "do least harm" approach means that ecstasy can be taken to the local police station, and they will test it for you to see if it is safe.

I also know that in Amsterdam they operate " the British system" of giving pure heroin to registered addicts. This has resulted in a declining population amongst junkies. Significantly though, it is declining because they are reaching their 60s and ageing, rather than drugs is taking its toll.

I agree about changing attitudes. One of the things would be to demystify drug taking, take away the "rock n roll" image associated with it, and say to people if they want drugs they will have to queue up in Boots, in the same way they queue up for their state sponsored drugs like Prozac, Ritalin and Dihydrocodeine.

The other thing, is to focus on getting as many people into a state of well being as possible, make their lives contented and fulfilled rather than vacuums that have to be filled with drink or drugs.

I wonder what the comparible rates for deaths from drug takng are between here and Holland.

[RyeSloan]

... and everyone used moderately and responsibly,
no one was addicted, no one chose to drive under the influence,
no one had any side effects, no families suffered, no one dropped out,
indeed they worked harder, contributed more and lived happily ever after,
only using tiny amounts recreationally - and their stuff was importantly, good quality stuff. Wow.

And the current 'war' on drugs prevents all this of course!!! NOT.

As someone has already stated making drugs legal or non legal does little to prevent consumption so for your rather limited posts to pretend that criminalisation of a vast amount of drugs has somehow prevented all the ills you indicate would happen after legalisation is patently false and do absolutely zero to propose an alternative to the massive failings and costs of the current system.

[Phil D. Rolls]

And the current 'war' on drugs prevents all this of course!!! NOT.

As someone has already stated making drugs legal or non legal does little to prevent consumption so for your rather limited posts to pretend that criminalisation of a vast amount of drugs has somehow prevented all the ills you indicate would happen after legalisation is patently false and do absolutely zero to propose an alternative to the massive failings and costs of the current system.

I think, unless politicians can face up to the fact that the current system doesn't work, we will never reach a solution. That has to be annoying to everyone, money is being sunk into this and it is going nowhere.