Legalisation of drugs

[bighairyfaeleith]

Is this labour boy just playing at politics now that he doesn't actually matter or does he have a point?

For me, I think we need to get re-think our drugs policy, prohibition doesn't work so lets try something new, not saying we go for the Amsterdam model but surely as a progressive country we can come up with something better than it's all illegal and you all go to jail???

[sleeping giant]

Prohibition works for some and makes them lots of money.

My view on this whole thing is...

I'm all for the legalisation of all seed bearing plants if grown for your own consumption .

HTF can anyone argue with that ?:greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

Prohibition works for some and makes them lots of money.

My view on this whole thing is...

I'm all for the legalisation of all seed bearing plants if grown for your own consumption .

HTF can anyone argue with that ?:greengrin

I must admit I would love to be able to go into a coffee shop on leith walk and buy some weed. I gave up smoking weed basically because I got fed up buying it from the sort of people I was having to buy it from, it was not the sort of associations I wanted to keep going as I got older. However whenever I go to the Dam I love a good smoke so would love to be able to buy it legally here.

However thats just my own selfish viewpoint:greengrin

[Beefster]

Legalise everything and make it commercially available. Folk should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies. Portugal is proof that it doesn't necessarily lead to increased drug use.

I am fed up of politicians saying one thing when in power and then another when they're not though. If only they'd grow some balls and do something radical when they have they chance then the public might not be so cynical about them.

[Jack]

While it remains illegal every effort should be made to bring the full weight of the law on those who are profiting from drugs.

I saw last night that the drugs industry was worth an estimated £6.6 bn. How much of that is financed though addicts stealing to feed their habit, paid for by you and I through increased prices in the shops or higher insurance premiums? How much on top of this is the cost to society, socially and through the likes of the NHS and police costs?

I was of the opinion that drugs should never be legalised, now I think ways should be found to legalise them in an orderly way. I would not include drugs being available on the NHS, why should their under pressure budgets pay for it?

Maybe some sort of not for profit organisation funded by those using the service and the continued fight and confiscation of proceeds of crime.

[CropleyWasGod]

While it remains illegal every effort should be made to bring the full weight of the law on those who are profiting from drugs.

I saw last night that the drugs industry was worth an estimated £6.6 bn. How much of that is financed though addicts stealing to feed their habit, paid for by you and I through increased prices in the shops or higher insurance premiums? How much on top of this is the cost to society, socially and through the likes of the NHS and police costs?

I was of the opinion that drugs should never be legalised, now I think ways should be found to legalise them in an orderly way. I would not include drugs being available on the NHS, why should their under pressure budgets pay for it?

Maybe some sort of not for profit organisation funded by those using the service and the continued fight and confiscation of proceeds of crime.

The NHS would cost more, but the police less. That was one of the conclusions from an experiment in Switzerland some years ago. For every extra £3 that the health services spent, £5 was saved on police costs.

[heretoday]

In the case of heroin I would be in favour of trying to take it off the streets.

As for cannabis, aren't we supposed to be discouraging smoking?

Last time I looked, a spliff was full of tobacco!

Just a thought. :confused:

[bighairyfaeleith]

In the case of heroin I would be in favour of trying to take it off the streets.

As for cannabis, aren't we supposed to be discouraging smoking?

Last time I looked, a spliff was full of tobacco!

Just a thought. :confused:

Doesn't need to be:wink:

But yeah normally.

[RyeSloan]

While it remains illegal every effort should be made to bring the full weight of the law on those who are profiting from drugs.

I saw last night that the drugs industry was worth an estimated £6.6 bn. How much of that is financed though addicts stealing to feed their habit, paid for by you and I through increased prices in the shops or higher insurance premiums? How much on top of this is the cost to society, socially and through the likes of the NHS and police costs?

I was of the opinion that drugs should never be legalised, now I think ways should be found to legalise them in an orderly way. I would not include drugs being available on the NHS, why should their under pressure budgets pay for it?

Maybe some sort of not for profit organisation funded by those using the service and the continued fight and confiscation of proceeds of crime.

That's the point though isn't it that despite billions and billions of pounds being spent on the 'war on drugs' it simply isn't working.

Legalisation is one option and there is a few more I suppose but that aside I find it absolutely amaazing that anyone can support the status quo...vast sums being spent on policing a policy that has been proven over 30 years not to work. Crazy.

[Jack]

That's the point though isn't it that despite billions and billions of pounds being spent on the 'war on drugs' it simply isn't working.

Legalisation is one option and there is a few more I suppose but that aside I find it absolutely amaazing that anyone can support the status quo...vast sums being spent on policing a policy that has been proven over 30 years not to work. Crazy.

Buts its all we have at the moment. If we were to ‘ignore’ these laws or just do away with them without putting something in their place it would just be mayhem / anarchy.

Sort of > that’s what we’ve got and its not working > what would be the preferred outcome for society > how do we get there > change the law.

[CropleyWasGod]

In the case of heroin I would be in favour of trying to take it off the streets.

As for cannabis, aren't we supposed to be discouraging smoking?

Last time I looked, a spliff was full of tobacco!

Just a thought. :confused:

In the coffee shops in Amsterdam, tobacco in joints is discouraged, due to the smoking ban.

[CropleyWasGod]

Buts its all we have at the moment. If we were to ‘ignore’ these laws or just do away with them without putting something in their place it would just be mayhem / anarchy.

Sort of > that’s what we’ve got and its not working > what would be the preferred outcome for society > how do we get there > change the law.

I was talking to my 18 year old last night about this. We agreed that these things take a generation or more to work themselves through. It can't be done overnight; society's attitudes have to change gradually. Governments would be risking their political futures by suggesting such a fundamental change in the laws too soon.

However, a start has been made in the public debate. What has been proposed for years by academics and drugs workers is now being taken up by police and politicians. Sensible and rational debate is good. Bring it on.

[Bad Martini]

I'm sure someone will wheel out the "cost" to the NHS as they usually do with smokers (which I dinny dae now) and drinkers (which we most all do) therefore ma agenda is not that of the smoker and drinker...just the drinker.

The tax on fags and beer is far more than the cost to the NHS and the polis combined from drink and smoking related costs....no doubt about it. The bulk of people, the MAJORITY, do not ALL die of lung cancer/respiratory illness nor chronic heart/liver disease..but EVERY single smoker and drinker pays the price and the associated tax.....

So, the big myth is just that.

Legalise the lot. Tax the lot. Use the loot to pay for essential things for the country such as free prescriptions for all, free dentists for all, a few hundred squillion more doctors/nurses and teachers (nae mair polis :devil:) and whatever else we need. Note: the tuition fees tho, they stay :devil::devil::devil:

[RyeSloan]

Buts its all we have at the moment. If we were to ‘ignore’ these laws or just do away with them without putting something in their place it would just be mayhem / anarchy.

Sort of > that’s what we’ve got and its not working > what would be the preferred outcome for society > how do we get there > change the law.

No one is suggesting a free for all!!

Lets face it though the current set up simply funnels billions of pounds into criminal gangs and billions of pounds down the drain in trying to stop them.

The availability of drugs has continued to grow and the authorities simply cannot stop that happening.

To just bury your head in the sand and say it's the law it must be enforced is nonsense and totally ignores the fact that the law as it stands cannot be enforced effectively. A lot of people would go much further and say the law as it stands is causing signficant damage and should be changed but as I said before I defy anyone to look at the status quo and tell me that it is working and the reasons why it should be maintained.

I actually like your flow chart. At some point a clear decision has to be made that benefits society as a whole, removes vast profits from organised crime and allows people the freedom to choose. Of course any system will not be perfect and would need checks and balances built in but I seriously struggle to think of any 'new solution' that could in any way be worse than the current one.

[Ritchie]

I'm sure someone will wheel out the "cost" to the NHS as they usually do with smokers (which I dinny dae now) and drinkers (which we most all do) therefore ma agenda is not that of the smoker and drinker...just the drinker.

The tax on fags and beer is far more than the cost to the NHS and the polis combined from drink and smoking related costs....no doubt about it. The bulk of people, the MAJORITY, do not ALL die of lung cancer/respiratory illness nor chronic heart/liver disease..but EVERY single smoker and drinker pays the price and the associated tax.....

So, the big myth is just that.

Legalise the lot. Tax the lot. Use the loot to pay for essential things for the country such as free prescriptions for all, free dentists for all, a few hundred squillion more doctors/nurses and teachers (nae mair polis :devil:) and whatever else we need. Note: the tuition fees tho, they stay :devil::devil::devil:

:top marks(except the last bit :greengrin)

[Phil D. Rolls]

What never fails to draw my attention is the cack handed response of politicians who are in favour of the status quo. They display minimal knowledge of what drugs do and why people use them.

Inevitably they fall back on a scenario that seems to owe more to what is portrayed in films such as "Reefer Madness", rather than speak from any proper evidence base. No surprise then - although it is an apalling breech of democracy - that they then chose to ignore the advice of expert panels that they have set up themselves.

I would never encourage anyone to use drugs, there is no doubt in my mind that at best they are an entertaining diversion from day to day life, an entertainment. However, I feel that we really need to get away from ill informed policies which seem to have been the real route of the problems associated with drug taking.

Someone living in a stair where dealers operate would laugh at the war on drugs, if it wasn't causing them so much misery. The fact is that people want drugs, and criminals are the people who are meeting the demand. If politicians really care about the lives of the poor, one of the easiest things they could do is provide drugs to those who want them in a regulated and ethical way.

I am sometimes puzzled as to who they are really trying to protect with this moral stance. My belief is that the bulk of the population has no issue with drug taking, they are only interested in the social cost of the behaviour.

The "British System" and its demise are as clear an example of how allowing drug supply to fall into the hands of criminals has been disastrous to our social fabric. Up until the 1960s doctors could prescribe Heroin, there was a relative handful of addicts in the countries. Within 6 years of the system's collapse the number of addicts had mushroomed.

I believe policy should be founded on the principle of doing the least harm. Evidence suggests that with access to a clean, legally available supply, Heroin addicts have more chance of living productive and fulfilling lives. Instead due to additives and the pressures of predatory criminals, the majority are incapable of doing that.

Somebody said on another thread that the definition of madness is repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result. If that's the case then our politicians, and we as electors are mad. We keep handing over money which is being squandered on a solution that, far from fixing the problem is making it worse.

People aren't stupid, and when government loses credibility - for example by saying that drugs will kill you, when it's obvious they don't - then the people start to disregard the law.

As we focus on spending priorities it is maybe time to do a cost/benefit analysis on the war on drugs.

[heretoday]

In the coffee shops in Amsterdam, tobacco in joints is discouraged, due to the smoking ban.


I was in one earlier this year - purely in the interests of research.

You couldn't breathe in the place. there's no way a UK government are going to sanction that kind of set-up.

[CropleyWasGod]

I was in one earlier this year - purely in the interests of research.

You couldn't breathe in the place. there's no way a UK government are going to sanction that kind of set-up.

I was in one last week. For me, there was an honesty about the place that was very appealling.

However, on the same trip, I was speaking to an Amsterdam councillor. She was telling me that the new, right-wing, Dutch Government is demanding that all coffee shops become clubs. In other words, members-only. The Amsterdam council is arguing against this, on the grounds that (with only locals allowed to become members) much of its tourist trade would be lost. She doesn't expect to win.

So, FWIW, the coffee-shops as they are are likely to become a thing of the past very soon.

[sleeping giant]

I was in one last week. For me, there was an honesty about the place that was very appealling.

However, on the same trip, I was speaking to an Amsterdam councillor. She was telling me that the new, right-wing, Dutch Government is demanding that all coffee shops become clubs. In other words, members-only. The Amsterdam council is arguing against this, on the grounds that (with only locals allowed to become members) much of its tourist trade would be lost. She doesn't expect to win.

So, FWIW, the coffee-shops as they are are likely to become a thing of the past very soon.

I was speaking to a coffee shop owner and they were saying that the councillors were trying to go down the membership route to discourage tourist smokers from going there just for the dope. That was about 4 years ago.

I wonder how many people visit there JUST for the relaxed laws regarding smoking weed ?

They are now allowed to smoke fags in small bars again also.

If you ask if you can use tobacco , they will let you.
The other option is the "burn" they have on the counter but nobody seems to know what it is:greengrin

If they do eventually go down the members only route , i would imagine you would get some type of hotel package including memebership card for a chosen CS

[CropleyWasGod]

I was speaking to a coffee shop owner and they were saying that the councillors were trying to go down the membership route to discourage tourist smokers from going there just for the dope. That was about 4 years ago.

I wonder how many people visit there JUST for the relaxed laws regarding smoking weed ?

They are now allowed to smoke fags in small bars again also.

If you ask if you can use tobacco , they will let you.
The other option is the "burn" they have on the counter but nobody seems to know what it is:greengrin

If they do eventually go down the members only route , i would imagine you would get some type of hotel package including memebership card for a chosen CS

As I understand it, it's the Government that want to do that, not the Council. The Council are more liberal.

[marinello59]

I'd legalise all drugs for personal use. Except cannabis. I'd introduce stiffer penalties for that just to annoy the chattering classes who wanted their own wee habit legalised so that their CV's didn't get messed up by having a drugs conviction on it. A heavy fine for possession, jail sentences if the offenders are lawyers or accountants. The death penalty would be an option for politicians.

[ChooseLife]

I saw a video on youtube not that long ago about the legalization of cannabis and what it would mean to the US/UK, according to the video, about 50% of all police costs are drugs related, 50% of that 50% is cannabis related, they gave out a figuire (IIRC just over a £1billion), that the government would save if it was legalized, that's not taking into account the money they would make from taxing it, makes to much sense though.

[Killiehibbie]

I saw a video on youtube not that long ago about the legalization of cannabis and what it would mean to the US/UK, according to the video, about 50% of all police costs are drugs related, 50% of that 50% is cannabis related, they gave out a figuire (IIRC just over a £1billion), that the government would save if it was legalized, that's not taking into account the money they would make from taxing it, makes to much sense though.
No chance of that happening as that would mean they had to admit being wrong and wasting BILLIONS on this war on drugs. Too many people making too much money, on both sides, for any change.

[CropleyWasGod]

on both sides[/B], for any change.

Sorry, don't get this bit. Surely the establishment is losing money?

[Woody1985]

I think they meant people making money from the war on drugs rather than the establishment.

The government can lose money but people will still make it.

[ChooseLife]

No chance of that happening as that would mean they had to admit being wrong and wasting BILLIONS on this war on drugs. Too many people making too much money, on both sides, for any change.
I keep refering to the video but apparently the only reason cannabis was criminalized originally was because hemp would have been a cheaper alternative to paper, and apparently they didn't want the cheaper alternative!

I must try and find this bloody video...

[--------]

I saw a video on youtube not that long ago about the legalization of cannabis and what it would mean to the US/UK, according to the video, about 50% of all police costs are drugs related, 50% of that 50% is cannabis related, they gave out a figuire (IIRC just over a £1billion), that the government would save if it was legalized, that's not taking into account the money they would make from taxing it, makes to much sense though.


As I understand it, cannabis is more carcinogenic than tobacco, and can cause quite serious mental problems in a minority of users.

So the question is whether that damage is serious enough for the law to interfere with people's personal choice to use the drug. Is spending 20-25% of the police budget on regulating its use worthwhile?

I can remember when GPs were allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts as part of their treatment. I don't remember drug-fiends roaming through the streets out of their skulls and a danger to the public.

If we were to see drug abuse as a medical problem (which I'd say it is) rather than a criminal one (which it is right now because the law says you mustn't do it) and change our approach accordingly, we might find that we've only moved the expense from one budget (the police one) to another (the NHS).

Or we MIGHT just remove some of the glamour from the business (OOOH, I'm doing something naughty), decriminalise the trade, and actually maybe help people who want to get off to do so?

The thing is, if a person's addicted to something, no law ever enacted is going to stop them going after their drug of choice. Effective control of supply and a lot of education and social control seems to me to be a better way.

[CropleyWasGod]

As I understand it, cannabis is more carcinogenic than tobacco, and can cause quite serious mental problems in a minority of users.

So the question is whether that damage is serious enough for the law to interfere with people's personal choice to use the drug. Is spending 20-25% of the police budget on regulating its use worthwhile?

I can remember when GPs were allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts as part of their treatment. I don't remember drug-fiends roaming through the streets out of their skulls and a danger to the public.

If we were to see drug abuse as a medical problem (which I'd say it is) rather than a criminal one (which it is right now because the law says you mustn't do it) and change our approach accordingly, we might find that we've only moved the expense from one budget (the police one) to another (the NHS).

Or we MIGHT just remove some of the glamour from the business (OOOH, I'm doing something naughty), decriminalise the trade, and actually maybe help people who want to get off to do so?

The thing is, if a person's addicted to something, no law ever enacted is going to stop them going after their drug of choice. Effective control of supply and a lot of education and social control seems to me to be a better way.

I agree with everything you say except the bit in bold. Whilst, on a local level, that would be true..... the cutting, at a stroke, of the "big business" aspect would surely save substantially more in police costs. (see my previous post about the Swiss experiment).

[Betty Boop]

I keep refering to the video but apparently the only reason cannabis was criminalized originally was because hemp would have been a cheaper alternative to paper, and apparently they didn't want the cheaper alternative!

I must try and find this bloody video...

Not to mention the cost to the massive pharmaceutical corporations. :rolleyes:

[Sir David Gray]

Totally ridiculous comment from an ex-Government minister.

I'm quite sure that if you spoke to any family from up and down the country, whose lives have been blighted by a loved one's drug habit, they would be telling Mr Ainsworth exactly what they thought of his plan.

The legalisation of drugs would send out completely the wrong message to youngsters that drugs aren't all that bad and saying that although they aren't the healthiest thing in the world to take, they're no worse than cigarettes.

Who'll pay for all the extra people, who might try a sniff of cocaine, inject some heroin or swallow some ecstasy pills as a result of this irresponsible law, to be given life saving treatment? At a time when the NHS is already under great strain, this would just be absolutely disastrous for our health service.

It's OK to say, if it's for personal use then it should be legal and it's up to the individual what they put into their body but it's not that when it comes to treating people who have a bad reaction to a drug and then they become addicted.

I would be totally opposed to such a move and I'm glad that the Government has rejected any idea that they might adopt this as their drugs policy at some stage.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Totally ridiculous comment from an ex-Government minister.

I'm quite sure that if you spoke to any family from up and down the country, whose lives have been blighted by a loved one's drug habit, they would be telling Mr Ainsworth exactly what they thought of his plan.

The legalisation of drugs would send out completely the wrong message to youngsters that drugs aren't all that bad and saying that although they aren't the healthiest thing in the world to take, they're no worse than cigarettes.

Who'll pay for all the extra people, who might try a sniff of cocaine, inject some heroin or swallow some ecstasy pills as a result of this irresponsible law, to be given life saving treatment? At a time when the NHS is already under great strain, this would just be absolutely disastrous for our health service.

It's OK to say, if it's for personal use then it should be legal and it's up to the individual what they put into their body but it's not that when it comes to treating people who have a bad reaction to a drug and then they become addicted.

I would be totally opposed to such a move and I'm glad that the Government has rejected any idea that they might adopt this as their drugs policy at some stage.

Evidence would tend to contradict most of your arguments. Might be worthwhile reading more about the subject. For example, it has been said that the only real physical danger from Heroin is in the things criminals put in it, a clean supply could allow people to lead productive lives.

You get a wee bit emotive when talking about the harm drugs do. I think if you were to talk to addicts families, you'd probably get an informed, balanced story that centres on a solution that will do the least harm to their loved ones.

You talk about the strain on the NHS. I would suggest, backed up by evidence I have read, that the current system puts more strain on the NHS. A safe, regulated supply of drugs would actually reduce the costs, as so many of the problems stem from the fact criminals are involved.

Your arguments are very old fashioned, and it is because of fallacies like the ones you perpetuate, that people stopped listening to the official line years ago. You are, at best, ill informed.

[CropleyWasGod]

Evidence would tend to contradict most of your arguments. Might be worthwhile reading more about the subject. For example, it has been said that the only real physical danger from Heroin is in the things criminals put in it, a clean supply could allow people to lead productive lives.

You get a wee bit emotive when talking about the harm drugs do. I think if you were to talk to addicts families, you'd probably get an informed, balanced story that centres on a solution that will do the least harm to their loved ones.

You talk about the strain on the NHS. I would suggest, backed up by evidence I have read, that the current system puts more strain on the NHS. A safe, regulated supply of drugs would actually reduce the costs, as so many of the problems stem from the fact criminals are involved.

Your arguments are very old fashioned, and it is because of fallacies like the ones you perpetuate, that people stopped listening to the official line years ago. You are, at best, ill informed.

The same is said about Ecstacy. MDMA, of itself, is not lethal.

Harm reduction is the key phrase. As a supposedly caring society, protection of the vulnerable (in this case, addicts and potential addicts) has to be at the root of drugs policy.

[Greentinted]

Let's face it, one of the most toxic, nasty, and dangerous drugs around is freely available legally. And regardless of the devastation it continues to wreak, I don't hear the same bigotted, sanctimonious tubthumping that accompanies the high and mighty (and often pished) moral custodians who deem the use of tobacco as somehow worse than the misuse of alcohol.

At the end of the day, every time you get a wee bit steamin, you are in fact, enjoying the consequencies of a drug overdose.

Just a thought.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The same is said about Ecstacy. MDMA, of itself, is not lethal.

Harm reduction is the key phrase. As a supposedly caring society, protection of the vulnerable (in this case, addicts and potential addicts) has to be at the root of drugs policy.

I think the likes of Leah Bett's step father who campaigned on ill founded beliefs, rather than on people's real experiences, set back drugs education and harm reduction decades.

He seemed like a good bloke, with the right intentions, yet all he achieved was to fuel tabloid hysteria (like they care about anything) and turn off his potential audience.

You tell "kids" that something is harmful and then it becomes clear that it is not, the "kids" are less likely to believe you the next time. An example is Mephedrome, they had heard the same stories about other drugs so they didn't listen to the warnings over what it would do.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

With legalisation would the crims go legit? If they did would they not take their tactics of violence & intimidation with them?
and what of the binge drinking timebomb would the legalisation of drugs just not magnify that impact from a drugs perspective
I wonder what employers would do - introduce more random drugs testing?
What would this mean to the olympics if taken to it's logical conclusion ?

[Phil D. Rolls]

With legalisation would the crims go legit? If they did would they not take their tactics of violence & intimidation with them?
and what of the binge drinking timebomb would the legalisation of drugs just not magnify that impact from a drugs perspective
I wonder what employers would do - introduce more random drugs testing?
What would this mean to the olympics if taken to it's logical conclusion ?

Government could control supply, taking criminals out of the equation.

Drinking and drug taking are different things, legalisation of narcotics is unlikely to have any impact on binge drinking, IMO.

Employers might do more drugs testing, but they would also have to justify the stance that taking drugs impacts on their employees ability to do the job. Just now they can fire people because it is a criminal behaviour.

I don't think Olympic athletes use Heroin, Cannabis, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Amphetimines and co. as performance enhancing drugs. Anyway, the sporting authorities have robust procedures in place to catch cheats already.

[Killiehibbie]

Sorry, don't get this bit. Surely the establishment is losing money?Police, Prisons, Justices Sysytem employees and the like all have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal, all costing us plenty. How many less of them would be needed if an awful lot of their work disappeared?

[Dashing Bob S]

I would legalise anything and everything for and between consenting adults. It shouldn't be the business of the state to interfere in the private lives of its citizens.

[Sir David Gray]

I would legalise anything and everything for and between consenting adults. It shouldn't be the business of the state to interfere in the private lives of its citizens.

If it wasn't the "business of the state" to provide urgent medical care to people who have taken drugs, then I might agree with you.

Since their care is the "business of the state", I am quite happy with the current status of illegality for such substances.


Let's face it, one of the most toxic, nasty, and dangerous drugs around is freely available legally. And regardless of the devastation it continues to wreak, I don't hear the same bigotted, sanctimonious tubthumping that accompanies the high and mighty (and often pished) moral custodians who deem the use of tobacco as somehow worse than the misuse of alcohol.

At the end of the day, every time you get a wee bit steamin, you are in fact, enjoying the consequencies of a drug overdose.

Just a thought.

Personally, I would tighten the laws around alcohol as well.

However, I don't know of many people who have died after drinking their first pint.

There are many examples of people who have died after having their first experience of class A drugs like heroin or ecstasy.

Most health experts will actually tell you that, in moderation, alcohol consumption is completely safe and actually has some health benefits as opposed to dangers.

I don't believe the same can be said for the aforementioned drugs.

[Beefster]

If it wasn't the "business of the state" to provide urgent medical care to people who have taken drugs, then I might agree with you.

Since their care is the "business of the state", I am quite happy with the current status of illegality for such substances.



Personally, I would tighten the laws around alcohol as well.

However, I don't know of many people who have died after drinking their first pint.

There are many examples of people who have died after having their first experience of class A drugs like heroin or ecstasy.

Most health experts will actually tell you that, in moderation, alcohol consumption is completely safe and actually has some health benefits as opposed to dangers.

I don't believe the same can be said for the aforementioned drugs.

I seem to recall that Professor Nutt, a past head of the government's drug advisory service, said that some drugs were safer than drinking, smoking or riding a horse.

And far more people die through drinking and smoking than those that do through drug use. Whether it's your first pint or your 10,000th doesn't really matter.

[RyeSloan]

If it wasn't the "business of the state" to provide urgent medical care to people who have taken drugs, then I might agree with you.

Since their care is the "business of the state", I am quite happy with the current status of illegality for such substances.



Personally, I would tighten the laws around alcohol as well.

However, I don't know of many people who have died after drinking their first pint.

There are many examples of people who have died after having their first experience of class A drugs like heroin or ecstasy.

Most health experts will actually tell you that, in moderation, alcohol consumption is completely safe and actually has some health benefits as opposed to dangers.

I don't believe the same can be said for the aforementioned drugs.

Really? Do you have any idea how many people have died after taking one ecstasy tablet? In fact do you have any idea how many people have died as the direct result of ecstasy at all?

Your comments are based on supposition and mis-information however that aside since you oppose any move towards legalisation how do you propose to deal with the drugs trade as prohibition has failed so far and is continuing to fail so what is your proposal?

[CropleyWasGod]

If it wasn't the "business of the state" to provide urgent medical care to people who have taken drugs, then I might agree with you.

Since their care is the "business of the state", I am quite happy with the current status of illegality for such substances.



It's also the business of the state to minimise harm to its citizens. In its drugs policy, ie the criminalisation of the addict, it is singularly failing in this duty.

[ballengeich]

The subject was being discussed on Radio Scotland this morning and one caller raised the question of the effect of drugs on producer countries. It's an aspect which is rarely considered during debate here.

Mexico and Columbia are among the countries with an appalling murder rate linked to drug-producing gangs. In Afghanistan the Taleban are involved. Legalisation in this country alone could lead to our government buying from organised crime or even people we are at war with, so I think a bilateral arrangement would have to be looked for. Governments in producer countries, generally much poorer than us, could then get any financial benefit from our social problems.

[CropleyWasGod]

The subject was being discussed on Radio Scotland this morning and one caller raised the question of the effect of drugs on producer countries. It's an aspect which is rarely considered during debate here.

Mexico and Columbia are among the countries with an appalling murder rate linked to drug-producing gangs. In Afghanistan the Taleban are involved. Legalisation in this country alone could lead to our government buying from organised crime or even people we are at war with, so I think a bilateral arrangement would have to be looked for. Governments in producer countries, generally much poorer than us, could then get any financial benefit from our social problems.

That's part of the deal, though. Legitimate opium farmers are organised, with our help, into proper commercial concerns. That way, the criminality aspect is minimised and, for the main part, cut out of the loop. The farmer wins, and the government in that country wins.

Sure, some criminals may find themselves going legit... but, wasn't it ever thus in capitalism?

[--------]

I agree with everything you say except the bit in bold. Whilst, on a local level, that would be true..... the cutting, at a stroke, of the "big business" aspect would surely save substantially more in police costs. (see my previous post about the Swiss experiment).


Well, I only said MIGHT....

I think you're very probably right here. If cuts in the order 0f 25% of police costs could be achieved by decriminalising certain presently illegal drugs?

I'm no economist, but that seems to be a reasonably desirable option.

Declaring "war" on things in the way the UK government finds so easy, while appointing a "czar" to figurehead the "war" doesn't seem to be working. In fact, it appears to be having a diametrically opposite effect to the one the authorities claim they're trying to achieve.

(We might bear in mind that most figureheads have nothing in their heads but solid wood, and that the last official czar was one of the stupidest and least effective individuals ever to be entrusted with political power by anybody in the whole history of the world. And that war tends to be pretty destructive of anything and everything that gets in its way...)

The "war on drugs" has been singularly unsuccessful in the US, though very good for the budgets of all sorts of federal and state police agencies. We (thanks I suppose, to our 'special relationship' with the US) seem fixated on following the US pattern.

I haven't come to any final conclusion yet, but it does seem to me that a bit of lateral thinking on this subject would do no harm, if only to consider the parallels between the "war on drugs" and the huge law-enforcement problems encountered in the USA after the passing of the Volstead Act...

[Bad Martini]

A heavy fine....jail sentences if the offenders are lawyers or accountants. The death penalty would be an option for politicians.

I think said penalties should be wheeled out for EVERYTHING these people get wrong, not just smoking the ganja :greengrin


I would legalise anything and everything for and between consenting adults. It shouldn't be the business of the state to interfere in the private lives of its citizens.

Apart from being a follower of rasellick or the yams. This, should be outlawed. Nae questions. Sorted :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I haven't come to any final conclusion yet, but it does seem to me that a bit of lateral thinking on this subject would do no harm, if only to consider the parallels between the "war on drugs" and the huge law-enforcement problems encountered in the USA after the passing of the Volstead Act...

I don't think final conclusions are really what is expected just now, Doddie. The debate is going to last for a generation.

What I would expect of our politicians, though, is a grown up debate, based on facts and evidence, without the emotional baggage that these issues bring.

Did I just say politicians and grown-up in the same sentence? :rolleyes:

[Bad Martini]

What I would expect of our politicians, though, is a grown up debate, based on facts and evidence, without the emotional baggage that these issues bring.

Based on the key parts of your post in bold, I think there is nae issue here....it's clearly all been legalised already or you have some really good cider in the fridge :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Based on the key parts of your post in bold, I think there is nae issue here....it's clearly all been legalised already or you have some really good cider in the fridge :greengrin

:greengrin

Maybe we should get our law makers to have a joint now and again, or drop an E, during debates. Protected by Parliamentary privilege, imagine the results....:devil:

[Bad Martini]

imagine the results....:devil:

Never mind the results, can ye imagine the expenses claims? :greengrin :devil:

[--------]

I don't think final conclusions are really what is expected just now, Doddie. The debate is going to last for a generation.

What I would expect of our politicians, though, is a grown up debate, based on facts and evidence, without the emotional baggage that these issues bring.

Did I just say politicians and grown-up in the same sentence? :rolleyes:


You did. Silly boy! :rolleyes:

One thing's for sure - the Libatories (or should that be the Conserverals?) ain't about to open up a mature or honest debate about this, IMHO. :bitchy:

[Phil D. Rolls]

You did. Silly boy! :rolleyes:

One thing's for sure - the Libatories (or should that be the Conserverals?) ain't about to open up a mature or honest debate about this, IMHO. :bitchy:

In the spirit of fair play (well it is Christmas), can I just point out that the most shameful political decision was Jacqui Smith's? To ignore expert advice, and get next to no political gain seems like a really stupid thing to do.

[--------]

In the spirit of fair play (well it is Christmas), can I just point out that the most shameful political decision was Jacqui Smith's? To ignore expert advice, and get next to no political gain seems like a really stupid thing to do.


You very well may, FR. The Labatories are just as hypocritical as the others in this matter.

Experts CAN get it wrong, I know, but not as consistently or wilfully or cravenly as out poly-tickal masters.

(Definition of 'politics'. 'Poly' is Greek for 'lots and lots and lots of'. 'Ticks'? Everyone knows they're loathsome disease-ridden blood-sucking insects.)

[ballengeich]

That's part of the deal, though. Legitimate opium farmers are organised, with our help, into proper commercial concerns. That way, the criminality aspect is minimised and, for the main part, cut out of the loop. The farmer wins, and the government in that country wins.

Sure, some criminals may find themselves going legit... but, wasn't it ever thus in capitalism?

We're mainly in agreement. I was just making the point, which I would like other contributors to consider, that we should not approach drugs legislation from a parochial viewpoint without considering how it affects other countries and our international relationships.

[CropleyWasGod]

We're mainly in agreement. I was just making the point, which I would like other contributors to consider, that we should not approach drugs legislation from a parochial viewpoint without considering how it affects other countries and our international relationships.

Absolutely. One just needs to look at the Dutch authorities' system of checking Ecstasy for purity, which minimises harm in that country.... but has a knock on detrimental effect on the UK in that a lot of the impure stuff gets dumped here.

That said, if we want an international approach, agreed by all consumer countries, I fear we will have a long, long wait.

[Sir David Gray]

Really? Do you have any idea how many people have died after taking one ecstasy tablet? In fact do you have any idea how many people have died as the direct result of ecstasy at all?

Your comments are based on supposition and mis-information however that aside since you oppose any move towards legalisation how do you propose to deal with the drugs trade as prohibition has failed so far and is continuing to fail so what is your proposal?

I just don't understand the argument that says, drugs prohibition has failed as a policy so we should admit defeat and legalise drugs.

People continue to commit all sorts of crimes, despite them being illegal acts. Should we legalise those as well, just because we can't eradicate them completely?

It doesn't make sense, to me, to legalise something just because people don't adhere to the current law.

I hope that it is always illegal to possess and/or supply class A drugs.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I just don't understand the argument that says, drugs prohibition has failed as a policy so we should admit defeat and legalise drugs.

People continue to commit all sorts of crimes, despite them being illegal acts. Should we legalise those as well, just because we can't eradicate them completely?

It doesn't make sense, to me, to legalise something just because people don't adhere to the current law.

I hope that it is always illegal to possess and/or supply class A drugs.

Are laws passed to protect people, or protect the status quo? If they are passed to protect people, what are the drugs laws protecting them from? The fact is the current laws are doing more harm than good.

Surely the law doesn't make sense if, far from protecting people, it makes the situation worse. If you were to read research on the subject, or even listen to what some of the posts on this thread are saying, you would learn that it is the very fact that drugs are illegal that makes them dangerous.

Why do you hope that it is always illegal to supply and take Class A drugs? Classifications are arbitary, did Cannabis potency change because of its reclassification?

One last thought, if we didn't have the ability to change laws, women would still be their husband's property, we'd still flog gays, and we'd still hang people for stealing a loaf of bread.

Your arguments seem to centre on the rule of law being upheld at all costs. The drugs legislation makes a mockery of the rule of law. Relaxing the legislation would not decrease people's respect for the law, it would stop them viewing it as an ass.

[Killiehibbie]

I just don't understand the argument that says, drugs prohibition has failed as a policy so we should admit defeat and legalise drugs.

People continue to commit all sorts of crimes, despite them being illegal acts. Should we legalise those as well, just because we can't eradicate them completely?

It doesn't make sense, to me, to legalise something just because people don't adhere to the current law.

I hope that it is always illegal to possess and/or supply class A drugs.

All drugs have their uses from medicinal purposes all the way through to getting out your nut. Give someone a consistent clean supply of Diamorphine and you don't get the zombie lookalikes that blight every town in the country.

[CropleyWasGod]

Give someone a consistent clean supply of Diamorphine and you don't get the zombie lookalikes that blight every town in the country.

:agree: A drugs worker in Edinburgh once told me that, if he could guarantee that, there would be a queue of every addict in the town at his door. And, by extension, an end to the majority of petty crime.

[RyeSloan]

I just don't understand the argument that says, drugs prohibition has failed as a policy so we should admit defeat and legalise drugs.

People continue to commit all sorts of crimes, despite them being illegal acts. Should we legalise those as well, just because we can't eradicate them completely?

It doesn't make sense, to me, to legalise something just because people don't adhere to the current law.

I hope that it is always illegal to possess and/or supply class A drugs.

I understand that but what is your proposal to correct these situations:

Huge expenditure on preventing and prosecuting drug crimes yet absolutely zero impact on supply..in fact supply continues to increase.

Massive 'low level' crime caused by addicts needing to beg, borrow and steal to buy tainted drugs from criminal gangs.

Absolutely massive profits going to organsied crime.


Not being obtuse here and fully respect your desire for it "always [be] illegal to possess and/or supply class A drugs." butif this is to remain the case you must be able to put forward some proposals to change the above no? Or are you happy for the current situation to continue indefinately?

[CropleyWasGod]

I hope that it is always illegal to possess and/or supply class A drugs.

This is the part that I have a real problem with. How can we, as an inclusive and caring society, justify the criminalisation of some of the most marginalised members of the community? Their reasons for addiction may be varied, and one can argue that their situation may be self-inflicted, but our current policy merely marginalises them even further and puts them at the mercy of real criminal interests.

[bighairyfaeleith]

This is the part that I have a real problem with. How can we, as an inclusive and caring society, justify the criminalisation of some of the most marginalised members of the community? Their reasons for addiction may be varied, and one can argue that their situation may be self-inflicted, but our current policy merely marginalises them even further and puts them at the mercy of real criminal interests.

Yep, what about the ME sufferer that finds cannabis a pain reliever, should this person have to go to an illegal dealer to get it?

[Bad Martini]

Yep, what about the ME sufferer that finds cannabis a pain reliever, should this person have to go to an illegal dealer to get it?

Allegedly, the state of California was prescribing 1 ounce of good quality grass per week to ME (and other such) sufferers. This, whilst potentially untested for the long term mental impact given the potency of skunk, is surely a justifiable risk when one considers the alternative......and I doubt, given the alternative made by pharma giants has been tested for the long term effects either........who knows what'll come out in 20-30 years from long term use of x, y or z drugs?

The point the hairyman makes is valid, IMHO.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yep, what about the ME sufferer that finds cannabis a pain reliever, should this person have to go to an illegal dealer to get it?


Allegedly, the state of California was prescribing 1 ounce of good quality grass per week to ME (and other such) sufferers. This, whilst potentially untested for the long term mental impact given the potency of skunk, is surely a justifiable risk when one considers the alternative......and I doubt, given the alternative made by pharma giants has been tested for the long term effects either........who knows what'll come out in 20-30 years from long term use of x, y or z drugs?

The point the hairyman makes is valid, IMHO.

Sorry if Im wrong, but I think it is MS sufferers who benefit from using cannabis.

[Woody1985]

And do they not ingest it rather than smoke it?

[Phil D. Rolls]

And do they not ingest it rather than smoke it?

Most of the ones I know smoke it.

[HibsMax]

I am all in favour of people being allowed to cultivate their own plants for their own consumption. It's not illegal for me to grow my own tomatoes or peppers. This is just another plant IMO.

There are fuzzy areas. How much is enough? I would argue that, depending on varietal, yield, etc. that for one person 5 plants should be enough. I think if you're growing more than that then you are smoking an awful lot or you're selling it. What's wrong with selling it? That's another battle for another day. Let's just give people the right to grow it in the first place and deal with what comes next after that.

[Woody1985]

Most of the ones I know smoke it.

Fair enough, but does it work equally well ingesting it?

I know lots of people who smoke it, some are the type that will tell you the same story 5 times in one night because their memories are melted or others who can smoke it during 5's or 11's games and be completely normal. Weird! Sorry, that's digressing a bit.


I am all in favour of people being allowed to cultivate their own plants for their own consumption. It's not illegal for me to grow my own tomatoes or peppers. This is just another plant IMO.

There are fuzzy areas. How much is enough? I would argue that, depending on varietal, yield, etc. that for one person 5 plants should be enough. I think if you're growing more than that then you are smoking an awful lot or you're selling it. What's wrong with selling it? That's another battle for another day. Let's just give people the right to grow it in the first place and deal with what comes next after that.

If I'm correct in saying, on average 5 plants would be a hell of a lot to have on the go at once for your own consumption.

Averaging around 5 ounce a plant, some yielding up to 8/9 (and less than 5 of course), you'd be looking at a return of around £3,000+ on five plants IF you chose to sell it. I don't smoke it or get involved with it but as I say I know people who do smoke it.

I think a restriction of one or two would be easily enough but then it would be hard to regulate.

[HibsMax]

If I'm correct in saying, on average 5 plants would be a hell of a lot to have on the go at once for your own consumption.

Averaging around 5 ounce a plant, some yielding up to 8/9 (and less than 5 of course), you'd be looking at a return of around £3,000+ on five plants IF you chose to sell it. I don't smoke it or get involved with it but as I say I know people who do smoke it.

I think a restriction of one or two would be easily enough but then it would be hard to regulate.

I didn't mean to suggest that someone constantly has 5 plants on the go but I wasn't clear on that. I was meaning 5 plants from seed to harvest. Once you harvest it, it's done. No more. In other words you produce your tomatoes all at once and then use them up over the following year.

EDIT : price also varies dramatically.
EDIT2 : you might also want variety.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Sorry if Im wrong, but I think it is MS sufferers who benefit from using cannabis.

You are probably right. I know people claim it helps something like that.

[HibsMax]

You are probably right. I know people claim it helps something like that.

It's supposed to help with many ailments. It's legal in the State of California (still a Federal crime though - I think). It's legal in Canada, too. Legal in this context means legal for medical use.

I have watched a number of programs on Mary Jane and from what I saw there was a mix of people who smoked and ate. Don't get too caught up in the medical issues caused by tobacco because over here nobody mixes in tobacco so it's not an issue to start with (I'm sure it happens but I've never seen it). I've heard that MJ has more carcinogens than tobacco so that's obviously a concern but people typically don't smoke as much. I can't imagine the state someone would perpetually be in if they smoked two packs of joints a day!

One show I watched showed this multi-million dollar facility in Canada and the guy basically made butter and he then used that butter for baking. That's how he got his medication. Other programs I have seen show people going into a shop with their prescription and just getting a bag of weed. What they do with it, I don't know.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Fair enough, but does it work equally well ingesting it?

I know lots of people who smoke it, some are the type that will tell you the same story 5 times in one night because their memories are melted or others who can smoke it during 5's or 11's games and be completely normal. Weird! Sorry, that's digressing a bit.



It is usually more potent, but longer acting if eaten. I think the main benefits are as a muscle relaxant, or stress remover. A guy with MS told me once his greatest enemy was stress.

[--------]

It's supposed to help with many ailments. It's legal in the State of California (still a Federal crime though - I think). It's legal in Canada, too. Legal in this context means legal for medical use.

I have watched a number of programs on Mary Jane and from what I saw there was a mix of people who smoked and ate. Don't get too caught up in the medical issues caused by tobacco because over here nobody mixes in tobacco so it's not an issue to start with (I'm sure it happens but I've never seen it). I've heard that MJ has more carcinogens than tobacco so that's obviously a concern but people typically don't smoke as much. I can't imagine the state someone would perpetually be in if they smoked two packs of joints a day!

One show I watched showed this multi-million dollar facility in Canada and the guy basically made butter and he then used that butter for baking. That's how he got his medication. Other programs I have seen show people going into a shop with their prescription and just getting a bag of weed. What they do with it, I don't know.


I had heard about MJ having a higher level of carcinogens than tobacco, but I hadn't thought it right through, Max. Obviously you don't smoke 20-40 joints a day (unless you're already totally brain-fried?), so the cancer aspect would more than even out.

Personally I don't use alcohol or drugs apart from those prescribed by my doctor, and then only in the dosages specified (not that I haven't in my disreputable and unregenerate past), but it does seem to me that in the UK we would benefit greatly if we shifted our perspective on drugs from seeing the problem as a legal one to looking on it as a medical and social one.

The mixture we apply here seems to be something along the lines of methadone, police and prison, and if that doesn't cure you, we try police prison and methadone. And if THAT doesn't work, we try police, methadone, and prison...

Whenever anyone, regardless of who he/she is or what his/her qualifications may be, proposes an alternative approach, we have a huge outcry in the media from politicians, police, and a varied selection of Outraged Citizens yelling "IRRESPONSIBLE!" or "YOU'RE SOFT ON CRIME!" or "LEFT-WING DO-GOODER!" at them.

But then, the way we're dealing with the problems already seems to working SO WELL...

[HibsMax]

I haven't read through all the posts in this thread but I will when I get a little more time but has anyone suggested what the actual crime is in smoking marijuana? What law is getting broken other than the law that simply states you are not allowed to?

I have seen a few commercials / ads over here speaking out against the use of marijuana and they have all been aimed at kids and none of them have been close to convincing. Two I recall are:
1. A poster ad - a girl athlete sitting apart from her friends. Apparently she had let them down because rather than train she got high. I see the point but she could just as easily have skipped training to eat McDonalds, play video games, bang her boyfriend, etc. The Ad was not specific to marijuana usage so lacked impact (IMO).
2. TV ad - A group of kids are in a car going through a drive-thru. They've ordered their food and get to the window to pay. They don't have any money so they get outta Dodge quickly and (not shown) they drive over a little girl. Really? Personally speaking, from MY experience, I think that sort of behaviour is more likely to come from a driver who has been DRINKING, not smoking. Your mileage might vary.

So what's the big f'ing deal? Why are alcohol and cigarettes legal but marijuana is not? You would think that if there was a dearth of evidence proving that marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettes and booze that this would be all over the media. But it's not. Hmmmmmm.

[sleeping giant]

If I'm correct in saying, on average 5 plants would be a hell of a lot to have on the go at once for your own consumption.

Averaging around 5 ounce a plant, some yielding up to 8/9 (and less than 5 of course), you'd be looking at a return of around £3,000+ on five plants IF you chose to sell it. I don't smoke it or get involved with it but as I say I know people who do smoke it.

I think a restriction of one or two would be easily enough but then it would be hard to regulate.

I know folk who would love a 5 ounce average:greengrin Struggling to imagine a home grower getting 8-9 ounce per plant !!

Most folk would be happy with a 3 ounce average per plant. 5 plants sounds about right for a home grower.
Seed to harvest about 4 months if no cuttings are being done.

Anymore than 5 plants and you would be needing more light.


I also think that 1 ounce per week on prescription in the US is a very large amount considering the quality that gear will be :greengrin

[Woody1985]

I know folk who would love a 5 ounce average:greengrin Struggling to imagine a home grower getting 8-9 ounce per plant !!

Most folk would be happy with a 3 ounce average per plant. 5 plants sounds about right for a home grower.
Seed to harvest about 4 months if no cuttings are being done.

Anymore than 5 plants and you would be needing more light.


I also think that 1 ounce per week on prescription in the US is a very large amount considering the quality that gear will be :greengrin

Yeah, the 8/9 was mostly the rare occasion but what some dafties think they're getting from every plant when they first start but you might get the odd time.

A boy I know makes his financial projections based on 5!

That last part made me :LOL:

[The Green Goblin]

It is usually more potent, but longer acting if eaten. I think the main benefits are as a muscle relaxant, or stress remover. A guy with MS told me once his greatest enemy was stress.

I can verify this (not me, but someone very close to me). Pain, poor co-ordination (frequent tripping up, dropping things and not being able to manage simple tasks) and resulting stress and frustration is one of the most difficult things about the illness.

GG