End the Drugs War....

[Mikey09]

Just watched this on the i Player. A great film. Think this is Russell Brand at his best. The criminalisation of drugs is not working which Brand points out in his own way. Things need to change drastically in our country to help addicts into recovery and break the cycle of using, arrested, prison. The methadone programme is costing us millions and is pointless. I totally agree with Brand and many others that abstinence based recovery is the way forward. The system just now ain't working so why are we so opposed to trying something different??

[lord bunberry]

We can't have a grown up debate about drugs in this country. The tabloid press are all over anyone in power who appears to be soft on this issue and it's not looked at as a short term vote winner by the government of the day. The governments drug tsar said a few years ago that riding a horse was more dangerous than taking ecstacy, he was sacked. Certain drugs were downgraded after extensive consultation with experts, this was then reversed by the labour government to show they were tough on drugs.
I've no idea what the answer is to the drug problem, but I know that the current policy is failing miserably.

[Jack]

I think a lot of the problems lie around whose responsibility it is with those who are currently stuck with it, we'll erm, stuck with it.

I don't believe the issue lies in health i.e. the NHS, well not until there's a medical issue like an OD.

It's not a police issue (not really for the user) until a crime has been committed.

There's all sorts of agencies involved in their silos. What I believe the answer is is decriminalisation, the money saved from that would more than pay for a new agency that deals with the individual user at all levels from supply to weaning off. That's very simplistic. If you want a full report £650k should cover it.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think a lot of the problems lie around whose responsibility it is with those who are currently stuck with it, we'll erm, stuck with it.

I don't believe the issue lies in health i.e. the NHS, well not until there's a medical issue like an OD.

It's not a police issue (not really for the user) until a crime has been committed.

There's all sorts of agencies involved in their silos. What I believe the answer is is decriminalisation, the money saved from that would more than pay for a new agency that deals with the individual user at all levels from supply to weaning off. That's very simplistic. If you want a full report £650k should cover it.

Believed that for many, many years. Those at the sharp end, the drugs workers and addicts themselves, tend to agree.

Portugal's experience is interesting...

[Mikey09]

Believed that for many, many years. Those at the sharp end, the drugs workers and addicts themselves, tend to agree.

Portugal's experience is interesting...


Very interesting... My point being why can't we try something for a decent period of time and see where we are after that. If we're worse off then fair enough... BUT WE MUST TRY.

[CropleyWasGod]

Very interesting... My point being why can't we try something for a decent period of time and see where we are after that. If we're worse off then fair enough... BUT WE MUST TRY.

There was a region in Switzerland that experimented with state control of drugs, many years ago. For every additional £3 of health service costs, they saved £5 in police and justice costs. Not sure of the effects on addiction and recovery rates.

It wasn't extended, though, probably because (politically) it's unsellable.

[RyeSloan]

It's widely accepted the 'war on drugs' is a total nonsense but for some reason it's politically impossible to say that openly in the UK.

As a small aside I read this yesterday....the Public Health officials statement at the end is illuminating. It basically says that despite all the evidence to the contrary we will continue on with our blinkered approach and who cares what the evidence actually says.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30499020

Reminded me of the ongoing nonsense regarding the drugs policies of multiple administrations.

[Onceinawhile]

More people die every year from horse riding than taking ecstasy.

I just find that fascinating.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

They should leave the ketamine to the horses.

[over the line]

Just watched this on the i Player. A great film. Think this is Russell Brand at his best. The criminalisation of drugs is not working which Brand points out in his own way. Things need to change drastically in our country to help addicts into recovery and break the cycle of using, arrested, prison. The methadone programme is costing us millions and is pointless. I totally agree with Brand and many others that abstinence based recovery is the way forward. The system just now ain't working so why are we so opposed to trying something different??

But you can only help people who want and will accept help can't you. What happens with the rest?

[CropleyWasGod]

But you can only help people who want and will accept help can't you. What happens with the rest?
A drugs worker once told me that, if his agency could guarantee a decent purity of heroin, he would have a queue of every addict in the city.

My point is that there are different types of help. Those addicts who aren't ready to come off are as deserving of support as those who are.

[easty]

More people die every year from horse riding than taking ecstasy.

I just find that fascinating.

Really? Why?

Surely on its own it doesn't really mean anything. Like me saying more people die in cycling accidents than from tightrope walking.

[over the line]

More people die every year from horse riding than taking ecstasy.

I just find that fascinating.

But I think the important question is, how many of those unfortunate horse riders were on ecstasy at the time?

[CropleyWasGod]

Really? Why?

Surely on its own it doesn't really mean anything. Like me saying more people die in cycling accidents than from tightrope walking.

Without putting words in his mouth, it's about public perception. The Mail-led public would want us to "clamp down on the evil drug trade", whereas no such movement exists to restrict horse-riding.

I'd shoot the buggers at birth.

[over the line]

Really? Why?

Surely on its own it doesn't really mean anything. Like me saying more people die in cycling accidents than from tightrope walking.

Plus you can't judge somethings merits on whether if causes your death or not. Quite a lot of people have died from being electrocuted and not many people die from being burgled. Doesn't make electricity bad and burglary ok does it. Another pointless comparison.

[Colr]

Very interesting... My point being why can't we try something for a decent period of time and see where we are after that. If we're worse off then fair enough... BUT WE MUST TRY.

Because its difficult to put the genie back in the bottle (e.g. prohibition).

[lord bunberry]

Plus you can't judge somethings merits on whether if causes your death or not. Quite a lot of people have died from being electrocuted and not many people die from being burgled. Doesn't make electricity bad and burglary ok does it. Another pointless comparison.

Its not a pointless comparison, horse riding and using ecstacy are both classed as recreational activities by the people doing them. One is more dangerous than the other. Making the point that horse riding is more dangerous helps bring a bit of perspective to the debate.

[easty]

Its not a pointless comparison, horse riding and using ecstacy are both classed as recreational activities by the people doing them. One is more dangerous than the other. Making the point that horse riding is more dangerous helps bring a bit of perspective to the debate.

It is a pointless comparison. Bungee jumping is recreational activity, so is dominoes, how many people die doing them compared to taking ecstasy? Its apples and oranges.

[CropleyWasGod]

It is a pointless comparison. Bungee jumping is recreational activity, so is dominoes, how many people die doing them compared to taking ecstasy? Its apples and oranges.

The point is, as I clumsily tried to put earlier, is that there is a perception that taking ecstasy is a risky business. It is, of course, but that's due to the environment it's in, rather than the MDMA itself. As such, there's a public tendency to discourage it.

Bungee jumping and horse riding are also risky, yet there is no public pressure to discouarge them. (And neither should there be, IMO.)

[lord bunberry]

It is a pointless comparison. Bungee jumping is recreational activity, so is dominoes, how many people die doing them compared to taking ecstasy? Its apples and oranges.

Its not pointless though, a large % of the public view drugs as evil and dangerous, in fact lots of people when they think of drugs think of heroin addicts burgaling houses to feed their habit. To point out that using ecstacy is less dangerous than something like horse riding helps give some perspective.

[RyeSloan]

Its not pointless though, a large % of the public view drugs as evil and dangerous, in fact lots of people when they think of drugs think of heroin addicts burgaling houses to feed their habit. To point out that using ecstacy is less dangerous than something like horse riding helps give some perspective.

It's also a lot more fun than horse riding (allegedly).

I get your drift here and I agree to a point and that is a large part of why we still have the legislation we have.

[easty]

It's also a lot more fun than horse riding (allegedly).

I get your drift here and I agree to a point and that is a large part of why we still have the legislation we have.

It's definitly more fun!

[CropleyWasGod]

It's definitly more fun!

You missed the E :wink:

[easty]

Its not pointless though, a large % of the public view drugs as evil and dangerous, in fact lots of people when they think of drugs think of heroin addicts burgaling houses to feed their habit. To point out that using ecstacy is less dangerous than something like horse riding helps give some perspective.

It's not less dangerous than riding a horse, less people dying doesn't make it less dangerous. It has to be put into context. How many people get on a horse, how many people take ecstasy?

Besides, the 'danger' isn't as obvious with ecstasy. I could go horse riding today (I wouldn't, I don't see the appeal) and I'd know if I was riding a horse, rather than an *insert name of more dangerous animal*. If I take an e today, I have no idea what's in it. It could be just about anything in it, and you wouldn't know, and that's why it's clearly more dangerous.

[easty]

You missed the E :wink:

haha....missed it....took it.... who knows. :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

It's not less dangerous than riding a horse, less people dying doesn't make it less dangerous. It has to be put into context. How many people get on a horse, how many people take ecstasy?

Besides, the 'danger' isn't as obvious with ecstasy. I could go horse riding today (I wouldn't, I don't see the appeal) and I'd know if I was riding a horse, rather than an *insert name of more dangerous animal*. If I take an e today, I have no idea what's in it. It could be just about anything in it, and you wouldn't know, and that's why it's clearly more dangerous.

I don't really have an opinion on the safety of taking ecstasy or riding a horse, I was quoting the governments chief scientist.

[johnbc70]

How many people committed a crime to fuel their horse riding habit I wonder? If you made drugs legal would the number of crimes associated with its use come down as well, if so how? The junkie down the road still needs to pay for his fix, if its cheaper and more readily available then he is likely to buy more.

[CropleyWasGod]

How many people committed a crime to fuel their horse riding habit I wonder? If you made drugs legal would the number of crimes associated with its use come down as well, if so how? The junkie down the road still needs to pay for his fix, if its cheaper and more readily available then he is likely to buy more.

The suggestion is that the State takes over the supply of currently illegal drugs. That way, the purity is consistent, which protects the user. The level of petty crime goes down drastically, which makes society safer as a whole.

[johnbc70]

The suggestion is that the State takes over the supply of currently illegal drugs. That way, the purity is consistent, which protects the user. The level of petty crime goes down drastically, which makes society safer as a whole.

But why does the crime rate come down, they still need to buy the stuff surely? Where do they get the money from and surely if supply is better and potentially cheaper they buy more and thus end up needing more money and they can only get that by committing petty crimes.

[CropleyWasGod]

But why does the crime rate come down, they still need to buy the stuff surely? Where do they get the money from and surely if supply is better and potentially cheaper they buy more and thus end up needing more money and they can only get that by committing petty crimes.

You're missing the point. It's State supplied, on the NHS

Taking the evidence of the Swiss experience,the related costs are more than covered by the drop in the costs of the justice system.

[easty]

The suggestion is that the State takes over the supply of currently illegal drugs. That way, the purity is consistent, which protects the user. The level of petty crime goes down drastically, which makes society safer as a whole.

Basically a "we can't stop the junkies, so let's give them what they want, it'll be better for us non-junkies" stance. I don't like it. I can see it's merits, but I don't like it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Basically a "we can't stop the junkies, so let's give them what they want, it'll be better for us non-junkies" stance. I don't like it. I can see it's merits, but I don't like it.

It would be better for the addicts as well, though. Bringing them into the health service, rather than the criminal justice system, takes much of the marginalisation and stigma away. The thinking is that, by doing so, they will be more likely to come off in a controlled and appropriate way; until then, they would be supported by a regular and reliable supply of their drug.

[johnbc70]

You're missing the point. It's State supplied, on the NHS

Taking the evidence of the Swiss experience,the related costs are more than covered by the drop in the costs of the justice system.

Ok thanks I get it now.

Don't know what it is but something not right with taxpayers funding the junkie lifestyle that does not sit well with me.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ok thanks I get it now.

Don't know what it is but something not right with taxpayers funding the junkie lifestyle that does not sit well with me.

... which is a common issue. It's understandable.

However, think about the fact that we also help to fund the lifestyles of drinkers, smokers, unhealthy eaters, bad drivers.... to the extent that they rely on the NHS.

It is a big cultural shift, of course, and that's the reason why politicians ignore the advice of the experts. It's a vote-loser.

[lord bunberry]

How many people committed a crime to fuel their horse riding habit I wonder? If you made drugs legal would the number of crimes associated with its use come down as well, if so how? The junkie down the road still needs to pay for his fix, if its cheaper and more readily available then he is likely to buy more.

How many people commit crime to take ecstacy? Your post sums up the problem we have in this country when it comes to talking about drugs, that is in no way meant as a dig at you.

[easty]

It would be better for the addicts as well, though. Bringing them into the health service, rather than the criminal justice system, takes much of the marginalisation and stigma away. The thinking is that, by doing so, they will be more likely to come off in a controlled and appropriate way; until then, they would be supported by a regular and reliable supply of their drug.

I suppose it's because I don't really care what's better for the addicts, that's my bottom line for it.

Having never been a heroin addict, I don't know what help is out there, but I'd assume there is some kind of help available if an addict was to go to their GP. I'd rather they did that, than we just had a complete pandering to their needs. If they aren't willing to help themselves, then should society (and the law) change to suit them?

[johnbc70]

How many people commit crime to take ecstacy? Your post sums up the problem we have in this country when it comes to talking about drugs, that is in no way meant as a dig at you.

Maybe the average user in the club commits no crime to fund their purchase but I bet you the higher up the supply chain you go the crimes and the other activities these people will be involved in causes misery and heartache for many people.

[lord bunberry]

Maybe the average user in the club commits no crime to fund their purchase but I bet you the higher up the supply chain you go the crimes and the other activities these people will be involved in causes misery and heartache for many people.

I'm not disputing that, in fact I totally agree with it. That's the reason I think we need to look again at our policy on drugs. Taking ecstacy doesn't make people drug addicts so they don't need to commit crime to fund it, that was the point I was trying to make.

[easty]

... which is a common issue. It's understandable.

However, think about the fact that we also help to fund the lifestyles of drinkers, smokers, unhealthy eaters, bad drivers.... to the extent that they rely on the NHS.

It is a big cultural shift, of course, and that's the reason why politicians ignore the advice of the experts. It's a vote-loser.

Is it the same to compare, say, a heroin addict to someone who smokes, drinks and eats badly? The average person can do those things and still make a contribution to society/their community. I appreciate that there are people in those groups who don't contribute, but generally I'd assume they do, more than the average 'junkie'.

[johnbc70]

I'm not disputing that, in fact I totally agree with it. That's the reason I think we need to look again at our policy on drugs. Taking ecstacy doesn't make people drug addicts so they don't need to commit crime to fund it, that was the point I was trying to make.

Where does it stop though? Its one thing making herion available on the NHS and state controlled but do we really roll it out to include the likes of ecstacy and other similar drugs? I am just popping down to Boots to get 4 Es, some speed and acid and while I am there will I pick up a gram of coke for you? Is that what we really want?

I think there needs to be a balance but where do you draw the lines?

[lord bunberry]

Where does it stop though? Its one thing making herion available on the NHS and state controlled but do we really roll it out to include the likes of ecstacy and other similar drugs? I am just popping down to Boots to get 4 Es, some speed and acid and while I am there will I pick up a gram of coke for you? Is that what we really want?

I think there needs to be a balance but where do you draw the lines?

I really don't know what the answer is tbh, but the government needs to sit down with all the relevant experts and act on what they say rather than what is politically popular, until that happens we will never solve this problem.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is it the same to compare, say, a heroin addict to someone who smokes, drinks and eats badly? The average person can do those things and still make a contribution to society/their community. I appreciate that there are people in those groups who don't contribute, but generally I'd assume they do, more than the average 'junkie'.

So we should write them off, because they don't contribute?

Surely by supporting them through, and out of, their addiction, there is a better chance of their becoming contributors to society in the future.

[easty]

So we should write them off, because they don't contribute?

Surely by supporting them through, and out of, their addiction, there is a better chance of their becoming contributors to society in the future.

No, we should expect them to at least TRY to though. By looking for help for themselves. It's not always someone else's fault for the problems in your life, but too often people want someone else to fix them.

I don't want it to come across like a money thing, that's really not what I meant by "contribute to society". You can contribute to a healthy community without having lots of money.

[Mon Dieu4]

Where does it stop though? Its one thing making herion available on the NHS and state controlled but do we really roll it out to include the likes of ecstacy and other similar drugs? I am just popping down to Boots to get 4 Es, some speed and acid and while I am there will I pick up a gram of coke for you? Is that what we really want?

I think there needs to be a balance but where do you draw the lines?

I doubt many people commit crime to pay for E, speed and acid, decriminalise them and control it, make people pay for them, it would standardise quality etc and cut out dodgy dealer's, heroin would be simple enough since they already dish out methadone to people free of charge, coke would be the big one these days I would imagine, not sure how to sort that one out, the government like to say drug use is down, that's total nonsense, you only need to go up town to see that there are more folk coked out their nut than ever

[Jack]

Ok thanks I get it now.

Don't know what it is but something not right with taxpayers funding the junkie lifestyle that does not sit well with me.

Medicinal heroin for example is really cheap to produce, not in a paracetamol way but cheap all the same.

The only issue I have with much of this discussion is the reference to the NHS. As I've said before any answer to current drugs dilemma is a multi agency response and IMO bringing the expertise of these agencies together under the banner of a single [new] organisation is the way to go.

I'm sure I heard somewhere, a conference or some such event, that if the drugs that are currently illegal were made available 'officially' the price on the street would crash making it impractical for the criminal gangs continue supplying.

[RyeSloan]

Where does it stop though? Its one thing making herion available on the NHS and state controlled but do we really roll it out to include the likes of ecstacy and other similar drugs? I am just popping down to Boots to get 4 Es, some speed and acid and while I am there will I pick up a gram of coke for you? Is that what we really want? I think there needs to be a balance but where do you draw the lines?

But the reality is it's actually not that different to your scenario...only people pop down to their local dealer (or the dealer comes round at the drop of a text) to get their goods. Only currently the money goes into organised crime and the black market. Prohibition does not stop people who want to take this stuff from taking it.

Providing a legal vendor of these substances would remove billions from criminals, allow quality control and thus decrease health related issues and remove a lot of policing costs trying to stop the unstoppable. It might even provide a rather useful tax flow as well.

It's interesting that even the US has effectively legalised cannabis in a number of States yet the UK continues to cling to it's outdated and discredited approach.

[CropleyWasGod]

Medicinal heroin for example is really cheap to produce, not in a paracetamol way but cheap all the same.

The only issue I have with much of this discussion is the reference to the NHS. As I've said before any answer to current drugs dilemma is a multi agency response and IMO bringing the expertise of these agencies together under the banner of a single [new] organisation is the way to go.

I'm sure I heard somewhere, a conference or some such event, that if the drugs that are currently illegal were made available 'officially' the price on the street would crash making it impractical for the criminal gangs continue supplying.

You're right about the reference to the NHS. I used it , because it's something that's familiar to us. Multi-disciplinary is, of course, much more appropriate.

The last part of your post is what happened in the Swiss experience. Almost overnight, dealers went out of business.

[CropleyWasGod]

I suppose it's because I don't really care what's better for the addicts, that's my bottom line for it.

Having never been a heroin addict, I don't know what help is out there, but I'd assume there is some kind of help available if an addict was to go to their GP. I'd rather they did that, than we just had a complete pandering to their needs. If they aren't willing to help themselves, then should society (and the law) change to suit them?

Sorry, I just noticed this bit. :greengrin

For this post, I'm assuming you're a user of E. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

By bringing recreational drugs under State control, the quality is improved, and you are therefore safer. (see the Dutch experience on this). I have no problem in you making the choice to take the drug, but I would be more comfortable with your choice if you were safer. That's for 2 reasons. The first is societal, that we do or should care about the health of our society. The second is practical, in that I don't want you to be more of a burden on the State than you could be.

Extend that "safety-first" attitude to the users of harder drugs. I really don't see the difference between their situation and yours.

[Mikey09]

Is it the same to compare, say, a heroin addict to someone who smokes, drinks and eats badly? The average person can do those things and still make a contribution to society/their community. I appreciate that there are people in those groups who don't contribute, but generally I'd assume they do, more than the average 'junkie'.


But that's the point easty. Trying something different to get addicts off drugs so they CAN contribute to society and feel worthwhile. We support people with a whole host of addictions as you mention in your post so why draw the line there? There will always be falls in abstinence based recovery and it's frustrating, more so for the addict, but we can't just write them off at that point. It can take a few attempts to beat an addiction. I'm sure most of us agree that the system isn't working and needs a complete overhaul but as some say, it doesn't win votes which, just like the good ol' US of A and there need to change gun laws, it's easier for politicians to bury there head in the sand and ignore the issue.

[silverhibee]

They should leave the ketamine to the horses.

:greengrin

[silverhibee]

It's not less dangerous than riding a horse, less people dying doesn't make it less dangerous. It has to be put into context. How many people get on a horse, how many people take ecstasy?

Besides, the 'danger' isn't as obvious with ecstasy. I could go horse riding today (I wouldn't, I don't see the appeal) and I'd know if I was riding a horse, rather than an *insert name of more dangerous animal*. If I take an e today, I have no idea what's in it. It could be just about anything in it, and you wouldn't know, and that's why it's clearly more dangerous.

Not all horses are the same, one could take you for a trot, another could through you off.

Don't ride horses while taking E though. :greengrin

[easty]

Sorry, I just noticed this bit. :greengrin

For this post, I'm assuming you're a user of E. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

By bringing recreational drugs under State control, the quality is improved, and you are therefore safer. (see the Dutch experience on this). I have no problem in you making the choice to take the drug, but I would be more comfortable with your choice if you were safer. That's for 2 reasons. The first is societal, that we do or should care about the health of our society. The second is practical, in that I don't want you to be more of a burden on the State than you could be.

Extend that "safety-first" attitude to the users of harder drugs. I really don't see the difference between their situation and yours.

Nah, not really. Have previously, but not for a long time.

[silverhibee]

I suppose it's because I don't really care what's better for the addicts, that's my bottom line for it.

Having never been a heroin addict, I don't know what help is out there, but I'd assume there is some kind of help available if an addict was to go to their GP. I'd rather they did that, than we just had a complete pandering to their needs. If they aren't willing to help themselves, then should society (and the law) change to suit them?


They get prescribed Methadone to come of there heroin addiction, that's the help they get, but rather than them (doctors) weaning them of methadone and getting them clean they up the methadone dose.

[silverhibee]

Lets be honest, the State don't want to stop illegal drugs getting on to our streets.

[lord bunberry]

Nah, not really. Have previously, but not for a long time.

Same here but I didn't inhale :wink:

[Pretty Boy]

It's not less dangerous than riding a horse, less people dying doesn't make it less dangerous. It has to be put into context. How many people get on a horse, how many people take ecstasy?

Besides, the 'danger' isn't as obvious with ecstasy. I could go horse riding today (I wouldn't, I don't see the appeal) and I'd know if I was riding a horse, rather than an *insert name of more dangerous animal*. If I take an e today, I have no idea what's in it. It could be just about anything in it, and you wouldn't know, and that's why it's clearly more dangerous.

Is one of the major arguments for decriminalisation not that it would make drugs safer because you would know exactly what's in it?

I know that wasn't the point you were making but still.

[Pretty Boy]

Where does it stop though? Its one thing making herion available on the NHS and state controlled but do we really roll it out to include the likes of ecstacy and other similar drugs? I am just popping down to Boots to get 4 Es, some speed and acid and while I am there will I pick up a gram of coke for you? Is that what we really want?

I think there needs to be a balance but where do you draw the lines?

It wouldn't work like that.

I read an article a while back, I'll try and find it, that explained how decriminalised drugs would be regulated. It wouldn't be as simple as deciding you wanted to start on the smack and off to Boots I go. Drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine etc would still be as hard to obtain for the average joe as they are now.

I think what has to be remembered is very few people want to be a drug addict. People decide to try a drug and become addicted they then may not have the willpower or drive to beat their addiction (I'm trying to avoid the is addiction an illness debate). Ok they have made a poor lifestyle choice but people know the risk of smoking yet still choose to smoke, the risks of obesity are well known yet people still shovel McDonalds down their throat, alcohol causes more deaths and social problems than most, if not all, illegal drugs yet is advertised on TV, at sports venues etc and there is absolutely no implemeted policy managing how much we can consume. We don't give up on those groups, some even promote one of the above as an acceptable lifestyle, so why should drug addicts be written off? A decriminalised system might just remove the stigma that stops some seeking help, it removes the crime element which stops people being able to rebuild their lives at a later date and it provides a safe environment to take and source drugs for those still not ready to give up.

[ColintonHibs]

Its not pointless though, a large % of the public view drugs as evil and dangerous, in fact lots of people when they think of drugs think of heroin addicts burgaling houses to feed their habit. To point out that using ecstacy is less dangerous than something like horse riding helps give some perspective.

Its easy to say its less dangerous but thats IF you're getting the real stuff. People die all the time from taking other drugs and the media reports it as mdma/exstacy. People need to be safe. We dont need people saying either it is safe or it is dangerous we need people informing young people how to make sure they're being safe instead of leaving them to figure out for themselves and potentially taking too much or bad drugs.

[ColintonHibs]

But the reality is it's actually not that different to your scenario...only people pop down to their local dealer (or the dealer comes round at the drop of a text) to get their goods. Only currently the money goes into organised crime and the black market. Prohibition does not stop people who want to take this stuff from taking it.

Providing a legal vendor of these substances would remove billions from criminals, allow quality control and thus decrease health related issues and remove a lot of policing costs trying to stop the unstoppable. It might even provide a rather useful tax flow as well.

It's interesting that even the US has effectively legalised cannabis in a number of States yet the UK continues to cling to it's outdated and discredited approach.

Would you trust the government to produce cannabis safely after looking at the tobacco industry? They'll spray it with god knows what

[Stranraer]

There is no "war" on drugs. People take drugs because they enjoy it. I was on a drug that the doctors told me I was "hooked" on, a popular Benzo, people do drugs knowing they will get away with it.

Peter Hitchens is by no way my favourite person but his book "The War We Never Fought" is a good read.

[Stranraer]

*Note* they were legitimate prescription drugs. I did it, like most people, for enjoyment.

[Killiehibbie]

Lets be honest, the State don't want to stop illegal drugs getting on to our streets.
Some would say the state actively encourage ways of getting drugs onto the streets as a way of controlling users. If the junkies are busy looking after their habit they are less likely to cause political problems. Prison officers turn a blind eye to certain drugs as a mellowed out con is a lot less bother than rage filled psycho.

[Jack]

*Note* they were legitimate prescription drugs. I did it, like most people, for enjoyment.

Acquired by prescription?

*************

I got impression the war wasn't against the user, so to speak, rather the industry which is heavily involved in other serious organised crime.

[CropleyWasGod]

Acquired by prescription?

*************

I got impression the war wasn't against the user, so to speak, rather the industry which is heavily involved in other serious organised crime.
That's my understanding, although it's often perceived as also being against the user.

[snooky]

You missed the E :wink:

:top marks :applause:

One of the best spots ever. Well done CWG :greengrin

[snooky]

Obviously addiction is a big part of the drugs problem however, it's the criminal activity by the suppliers and users that presents the main problem to the non-taking populus.
If there were no illegal pushers & users were allowed to quietly fix themselves into oblivion, I think most of the general public would sadly turn a blind eye.

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting development.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30611157

Sounds to me like the Tories don't want to back anything too radical, this close to the General Election.

[Stranraer]

Acquired by prescription?

*************

I got impression the war wasn't against the user, so to speak, rather the industry which is heavily involved in other serious organised crime.

Acquired by prescription initially yes then a friends. Sorry I should have been clearer. We need a proper drug policy that punishes what is a crime. The "cannabis caution" didn't go through Parliament.

[CropleyWasGod]

Acquired by prescription initially yes then a friends. Sorry I should have been clearer. We need a proper drug policy that punishes what is a crime. The "cannabis caution" didn't go through Parliament.

What do you mean by the bit in bold?

[Haymaker]

Watched a good documentary called "narco cultra" on Netflix. Not about ending the drug war but about the culture around the cartels.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Acquired by prescription initially yes then a friends. Sorry I should have been clearer. We need a proper drug policy that punishes what is a crime. The "cannabis caution" didn't go through Parliament.

Is taking someone elses prescription drugs a crime?

[Stranraer]

What do you mean by the bit in bold?

Possession of an illegal substance is a crime and I feel like too many people are getting a slap on the wrist, they then know fine well they can get off with it. The "cannabis caution" is a joke.

[Stranraer]

Is taking someone elses prescription drugs a crime?

If you do not have an active prescription for say Valium or Xanax but it is prescription that a friend gave you I think it's illegal to have it in your possession.

[Jack]

Is taking someone elses prescription drugs a crime?

If nothing else it would be fraud I would imagine.

[Pretty Boy]

If nothing else it would be fraud I would imagine.

If you used a prescription in someones elses name to get drugs for yourself I would imagine there would be a case for fraud by false representation.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

If nothing else it would be fraud I would imagine.

I would assume so. Not the cleverest thing to be admitting to as far as I can see.

[RyeSloan]

Possession of an illegal substance is a crime and I feel like too many people are getting a slap on the wrist, they then know fine well they can get off with it. The "cannabis caution" is a joke.

What do you find so wrong with it? And has the past not proven that putting people into the criminal justice system for possession of relatively small amounts of cannabis is just am expensive and damaging waste of time?

Maybe it's the 'crime' that is the joke rather than the current treatment of it?

[Hibby Bairn]

Slightly off core topic but the minor drug use smell on the way up to the East on Saturday was honking.

[CropleyWasGod]

Possession of an illegal substance is a crime and I feel like too many people are getting a slap on the wrist, they then know fine well they can get off with it. The "cannabis caution" is a joke.

Isn't that the point of the thread, though? Should it be a crime?

[lord bunberry]

Isn't that the point of the thread, though? Should it be a crime?

Surely possession of an illegal substance should always be a crime :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely possession of an illegal substance should always be a crime :greengrin

V :greengrin

[Northernhibee]

Ultimately alcohol in excess is just as potentially harmful as many other drugs which are considered illegal. Like alcohol there are many drugs where you can control the risks to some extent with moderation. The classification of drugs in this country does not match up with the risks in taking them, nor does the rehabilitation process for those who become addicted to different substances.

What we need to see is a reevaluation of the classification of drugs in this country, education on the risks associated with each one and also for the addiction to drugs to be seen as an illness or a substance. Otherwise people will find their lives going down the pan for no other reason than the refusal to move from an outdated status quo which has been proven not to work.

[degenerated]

Slightly off core topic but the minor drug use smell on the way up to the East on Saturday was honking.

The pungent smell of the chronic was a constant in the east for as long as I can remember, till the smoking ban came in.

[Colr]

Ultimately alcohol in excess is just as potentially harmful as many other drugs which are considered illegal. Like alcohol there are many drugs where you can control the risks to some extent with moderation. The classification of drugs in this country does not match up with the risks in taking them, nor does the rehabilitation process for those who become addicted to different substances.

What we need to see is a reevaluation of the classification of drugs in this country, education on the risks associated with each one and also for the addiction to drugs to be seen as an illness or a substance. Otherwise people will find their lives going down the pan for no other reason than the refusal to move from an outdated status quo which has been proven not to work.

The alcohol comparison is a double edged sword of an argument. You're right in highlighting the damage it causes but surely, we could also say that if it was invented today it WOULD be banned in the same way drugs are. You will remember how they tried to ban it in the 1930s USA and it was a total disaster. This demonstrates that once a substance is being used generally and openly, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Therefore, if you legalised drugs you would have crossed the Rubicon and would not be able to go back should it be a social disaster in the way alcohol has been.

[Stranraer]

What do you find so wrong with it? And has the past not proven that putting people into the criminal justice system for possession of relatively small amounts of cannabis is just am expensive and damaging waste of time?

Maybe it's the 'crime' that is the joke rather than the current treatment of it?

I think it is a dangerous drug, backed up by documents by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Few enter into the "criminal justice system" with weed.

[Northernhibee]

The alcohol comparison is a double edged sword of an argument. You're right in highlighting the damage it causes but surely, we could also say that if it was invented today it WOULD be banned in the same way drugs are. You will remember how they tried to ban it in the 1930s USA and it was a total disaster. This demonstrates that once a substance is being used generally and openly, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Therefore, if you legalised drugs you would have crossed the Rubicon and would not be able to go back should it be a social disaster in the way alcohol has been.

Quite frankly I'd say that all drugs legislation has been a disaster. It certainly hasn't stopped people taking it but it has stopped some people from receiving sufficient treatment should they become addicted.

[over the line]

Quite frankly I'd say that all drugs legislation has been a disaster. It certainly hasn't stopped people taking it but it has stopped some people from receiving sufficient treatment should they become addicted.

I think some people are destined to become addicts, whether its drink, heroin, crack, prescription drugs, or whatever. If you legalise everything, or equally criminalise everything, they will still abuse substances and mess their lives up. People go into drugs with their eyes wide open, they know the risks and the likely impact on their lifestyle, but they still do it.

Help is available for addicts, but you can only help people who want help and consent to treatment.

[Northernhibee]

I think some people are destined to become addicts, whether its drink, heroin, crack, prescription drugs, or whatever. If you legalise everything, or equally criminalise everything, they will still abuse substances and mess their lives up. People go into drugs with their eyes wide open, they know the risks and the likely impact on their lifestyle, but they still do it.

Help is available for addicts, but you can only help people who want help and consent to treatment.

Rather than locking addicts up and creating a stigma about them there needs to be a far more compassionate outlook that is based on making seeking help far easier and not based on methodone/other alternatives but abstinence.

I agree with most of your first paragraph though, nobody ever takes their first drink or drug etc. looking to become an addict but only up to the point in regards to risks - there is far too little information about the effect of different drugs on the mind and body.

[lord bunberry]

I think some people are destined to become addicts, whether its drink, heroin, crack, prescription drugs, or whatever. If you legalise everything, or equally criminalise everything, they will still abuse substances and mess their lives up. People go into drugs with their eyes wide open, they know the risks and the likely impact on their lifestyle, but they still do it.

Help is available for addicts, but you can only help people who want help and consent to treatment.
I disagree with almost all of that

[over the line]

I disagree with almost all of that

In what way?

[lord bunberry]

In what way?

I don't think most people go into drugs with their eyes wide open, I very much doubt anyone wants to be a drug addict.
No one is destined to be anything, let alone an addict, certain people may be more likely to become an addict and they're the ones who should be identified and helped before they become addicts.

[over the line]

I don't think most people go into drugs with their eyes wide open, I very much doubt anyone wants to be a drug addict.
No one is destined to be anything, let alone an addict, certain people may be more likely to become an addict and they're the ones who should be identified and helped before they become addicts.

So you don't think people who start taking heroin and crack know what the likely outcome is? Everyone knows how addictive they are and what effect they have on your life - is that not having your eyes wide open? I also doubt many people want to be a drug addict, but the risks are obvious to everyone and yet people still get into it don't they.

Admittedly "destined" wasn't the best word to use, but my point was that some people will abuse themselves with damaging substances whatever they are, or whether they are illegal or not. I don't think legalising controlled drugs will make less people do them, or reduce addiction. Certain people are more likely to become addicts (for what ever reason) and for that to happen, they make a concious choice to take the substance they become addicted to. They take the drugs because they want to and they will also only stop when they want to.

There is already loads of help for addicts, its just a question of the individual wanting it and sticking to it.

[over the line]

Rather than locking addicts up and creating a stigma about them there needs to be a far more compassionate outlook that is based on making seeking help far easier and not based on methodone/other alternatives but abstinence.

I agree with most of your first paragraph though, nobody ever takes their first drink or drug etc. looking to become an addict but only up to the point in regards to risks - there is far too little information about the effect of different drugs on the mind and body.

I'm not sure how many addicts get prison sentences for just possessing drugs. They will go to jail for crimes they commit, such as burglary and IMO they should do.

I think treatment is widely available for addicts (if they want it), how effective I think is mainly down to how much the individual wants to quit. Some people do it, others don't.

I'm not sure that more information on drugs will necessarily stop many people becoming addicts. People know what drugs are all about, how addictive they are and what they can do to their lives. The majority of addicts see the effects of addiction all around them everyday and probably have done for most of their lives unfortunately.

I realise I'm not really coming up with any solutions here and I'm being quite negative and even a bit defeatist. I just think the responsibility falls to the individual who makes the choice to get involved in "hard" drugs. You choose that lifestyle, you have to accept the outcome and the pitfalls. They are the only ones that can choose to do something about their addiction as well, its down to them.

[lord bunberry]

So you don't think people who start taking heroin and crack know what the likely outcome is? Everyone knows how addictive they are and what effect they have on your life - is that not having your eyes wide open? I also doubt many people want to be a drug addict, but the risks are obvious to everyone and yet people still get into it don't they.

Admittedly "destined" wasn't the best word to use, but my point was that some people will abuse themselves with damaging substances whatever they are, or whether they are illegal or not. I don't think legalising controlled drugs will make less people do them, or reduce addiction. Certain people are more likely to become addicts (for what ever reason) and for that to happen, they make a concious choice to take the substance they become addicted to. They take the drugs because they want to and they will also only stop when they want to.

There is already loads of help for addicts, its just a question of the individual wanting it and sticking to it.

Lots of addicts started when they were kids or whilst with abusive and controlling partners. I also disagree that people will stop when they want to stop, for some it isn't that simple.

[over the line]

Lots of addicts started when they were kids or whilst with abusive and controlling partners. I also disagree that people will stop when they want to stop, for some it isn't that simple.

My point was that you can't make people stop, they have to want to for starters.

[CropleyWasGod]

My point was that you can't make people stop, they have to want to for starters.
...and until they do, you make things as safe as possible for them. That's the essence of Harm Reduction.

[over the line]

...and until they do, you make things as safe as possible for them. That's the essence of Harm Reduction.

What does that involve?

[CropleyWasGod]

What does that involve?
At its ultimate, state control over the supply. At the very least, needle exchanges and promotion of safer injecting techniques....and, of course, education.

[over the line]

At its ultimate, state control over the supply. At the very least, needle exchanges and promotion of safer injecting techniques....and, of course, education.

I think the latter already happens. Realistically I can't ever see the state supplying/controlling the likes of heroin and personally I don't think they should, or even could if they tried.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/05/superman-ecstasy-pill-death-result-uk-illogical-punitive-drugs-policy?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

[Stranraer]

Handing out free needles only encourages drug use. As much as I hate conservatism we need stricter drug laws to prevent people taking them in the first place - a policy which we haven't had. This talk of "a war on drugs" is completely false, we need to start fighting one!

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/05/superman-ecstasy-pill-death-result-uk-illogical-punitive-drugs-policy?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

To back that up:-

http://www.inpud.net/en/news/alert-avoidable-pma-deaths-6.1.15

[Haymaker]

Handing out free needles only encourages drug use. As much as I hate conservatism we need stricter drug laws to prevent people taking them in the first place - a policy which we haven't had. This talk of "a war on drugs" is completely false, we need to start fighting one!

A policy that has been tried in many countries to little or no effect? For example, the USA has some of the strictest drug laws and punishments available for possession AND dealing yet there is still a huge drug problem, particularly in the areas around the southern border.

You can attempt to lock up as many dealers and suppliers you like but eventually the £ bill will land with a heavy thump and when all is said and done when you lock up one drug crew another will takes its place.

What will work? I don't know but it is clear to me that aggressive police drug enforcement doesn't.

[CropleyWasGod]

Handing out free needles only encourages drug use. As much as I hate conservatism we need stricter drug laws to prevent people taking them in the first place - a policy which we haven't had. This talk of "a war on drugs" is completely false, we need to start fighting one!

So you're saying that we should get rid of needle exchanges, the single most effective measure in the reduction of HIV infection rates in Edinburgh in the last 25 years? Short sighted and bonkers IMO.

If there is a war on drugs, we are losing it. Strict laws, to deter the user and the supplier, have not worked. A lateral approach, such as suggested by many on here, has to be debated at the very least.

[Kato]

Handing out free needles only encourages drug use. As much as I hate conservatism we need stricter drug laws to prevent people taking them in the first place - a policy which we haven't had. This talk of "a war on drugs" is completely false, we need to start fighting one!

The "War On Drugs", started around 1971. Prohibition started in teh ealry part of the 20th Century. What has arisen is that prohibition of any substance which people want to take just does not work. If you can tell me of any substance which has been succesfully prohibited I'd be interested. What has also been shown is that prohibition merely puts the market for such substances into the hands of organised criminals and they cannot be stopped.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6n0wF6CYAEZuCr.jpg:large

[over the line]

[QUOTE=

I don't think the possibility of free needles encourages people to take drugs at all. I don't imagine it plays much part in the decision making, or sequence of events that leads to peoples drug dependencies. It's a bit like saying that the offer of a free ashtray would encourage people to smoke.

I do not agree with going "soft" on drugs, but I do think needle exchange is a good policy. The alternative would be a massive increase in hepatitis and HIV, and a return to the bad old days of masses of discarded dirty needles in certain areas.

[Kato]

I do not agree with going "soft" on drugs, .

The methods used today in the "War On Drugs" are already soft. Nothign changes, criminals get richer, gangs grow stronger, the poice arrest minor players and users.

Prohibition simply doesn't work.

[Pretty Boy]

[QUOTE=

I don't think the possibility of free needles encourages people to take drugs at all. I don't imagine it plays much part in the decision making, or sequence of events that leads to peoples drug dependencies. It's a bit like saying that the offer of a free ashtray would encourage people to smoke.

I do not agree with going "soft" on drugs, but I do think needle exchange is a good policy. The alternative would be a massive increase in hepatitis and HIV, and a return to the bad old days of masses of discarded dirty needles in certain areas.

Maybe a new HIV, hepatitis, septicaema etc outbreak is exactly the sort of tough justice some are looking for.....

[CropleyWasGod]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4268042]

Maybe a new HIV, hepatitis, septicaema etc outbreak is exactly the sort of tough justice some are looking for.....

... which would be seen as "collateral damage", both to the hard-liners, and the dealers. It wouldn't change anything.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4268042]

Maybe a new HIV, hepatitis, septicaema etc outbreak is exactly the sort of tough justice some are looking for.....

I would imagine only the very ill informed or particularly twisted would wish for that. I agree though, they will no doubt exist.

[Stranraer]

The "War On Drugs", started around 1971. Prohibition started in teh ealry part of the 20th Century. What has arisen is that prohibition of any substance which people want to take just does not work. If you can tell me of any substance which has been succesfully prohibited I'd be interested. What has also been shown is that prohibition merely puts the market for such substances into the hands of organised criminals and they cannot be stopped.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6n0wF6CYAEZuCr.jpg:large

In the US. We have had no strict anti-drugs law and a "cannabis caution" passed without parliament's consent. There is no "war on drugs" and it's about time we started one. I repeat, people do drugs knowing fine well they are going to get off with it.

If a deterrent was put in place (a proper deterrent) the number of people using drugs and going to prison would fall.

[CropleyWasGod]

In the US. We have had no strict anti-drugs law and a "cannabis caution" passed without parliament's consent. There is no "war on drugs" and it's about time we started one. I repeat, people do drugs knowing fine well they are going to get off with it.

If a deterrent was put in place (a proper deterrent) the number of people using drugs and going to prison would fall.

Do you think that the users of hard drugs actually care about deterrents? They're usually addicted because of their social circumstances; the last thing they think about is "oh dear, I might go to prison for this."

[over the line]

The methods used today in the "War On Drugs" are already soft. Nothign changes, criminals get richer, gangs grow stronger, the poice arrest minor players and users.

Prohibition simply doesn't work.

I'm not keen on the phrase "war on drugs" myself, because it implies there may be one potential winning side and one potential loosing side. This of course is nonsense, as drugs will never be eradicated, nor will they be universally accepted as the norm (by drugs I mean the likes of heroin, ecstasy etc etc). But this also applies to so many other thing that society tries to control. If we apply the "war on....." theory to almost any problem/crime, it would seem equally futile I'm sure. War on street violence, war on burglary, war on domestic violence, war on litter, war on dog muck on the pavement, etc. None of these problems will ever go away, but it dosn't therefore follow that society should just give up and allow everything does it?

I don't think a case can be made to support the argument that more drugs would improve society (and I don't think you are saying that), therefore society needs to try and control them. I certainly don't support the legalising of drugs at all, imagine a society where heroin was as available as alcohol, it certainly would not be an improvement IMO.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not keen on the phrase "war on drugs" myself, because it implies there may be one potential winning side and one potential loosing side. This of course is nonsense, as drugs will never be eradicated, nor will they be universally accepted as the norm (by drugs I mean the likes of heroin, ecstasy etc etc). But this also applies to so many other thing that society tries to control. If we apply the "war on....." theory to almost any problem/crime, it would seem equally futile I'm sure. War on street violence, war on burglary, war on domestic violence, war on litter, war on dog muck on the pavement, etc. None of these problems will ever go away, but it dosn't therefore follow that society should just give up and allow everything does it?

I don't think a case can be made to support the argument that more drugs would improve society (and I don't think you are saying that), therefore society needs to try and control them. I certainly don't support the legalising of drugs at all, imagine a society where heroin was as available as alcohol, it certainly would not be an improvement IMO.

That's not what campaigners for legalisation are advocating at all.

What they are advocating is a situation where the State controls the supply of hard drugs, where the needs of the addict can be attended to in a safe environment, until such times as they are ready to come off.

In the same way, as they currently do in the Netherlands, having safety controls over the purity of MDMA, thereby reducing the likelihood of the tragedy of the Superman pills.

[over the line]

Do you think that the users of hard drugs actually care about deterrents? They're usually addicted because of their social circumstances; the last thing they think about is "oh dear, I might go to prison for this."

Although I do think that really hefty centances for drug dealers would act as a deterrent, or at least it would put them out of circulation for a good while. When you think that some heroin dealers only get a couple of years behind bars, it dosnt really seem proportionate in comparison to the damage they cause to society as well as to the users themselves.

[Kato]

If a deterrent was put in place (a proper deterrent) the number of people using drugs and going to prison would fall.


Look at the graph. The US experience shows that the deterrents put in place just do not work.

I'll say again.

Prohibition doesn't work, has never worked and will never work.

[Kato]

I'm not keen on the phrase "war on drugs" myself, because it implies there may be one potential winning side and one potential loosing side. This of course is nonsense, as drugs will never be eradicated, nor will they be universally accepted as the norm (by drugs I mean the likes of heroin, ecstasy etc etc). But this also applies to so many other thing that society tries to control. If we apply the "war on....." theory to almost any problem/crime, it would seem equally futile I'm sure. War on street violence, war on burglary, war on domestic violence, war on litter, war on dog muck on the pavement, etc. None of these problems will ever go away, but it dosn't therefore follow that society should just give up and allow everything does it?

I don't think a case can be made to support the argument that more drugs would improve society (and I don't think you are saying that), therefore society needs to try and control them. I certainly don't support the legalising of drugs at all, imagine a society where heroin was as available as alcohol, it certainly would not be an improvement IMO.

Whether you like the phrase or not isn't the issue, it's the phrase that has been used by succesive givts world wide for knocking on 50 years. I'm not advocating more drug use but it's plain the current system in place is like pissing against the wind.

[over the line]

That's not what campaigners for legalisation are advocating at all.

What they are advocating is a situation where the State controls the supply of hard drugs, where the needs of the addict can be attended to in a safe environment, until such times as they are ready to come off.

In the same way, as they currently do in the Netherlands, having safety controls over the purity of MDMA, thereby reducing the likelihood of the tragedy of the Superman pills.

Supplying addicts with heroin as part of their treatment to rid them of their addiction may be a good idea, if it does work and could well benift the individual. I'm not against helping those who want it. But some on here are suggesting the legalisation of drugs would be a good thing. This would lead to the increased availability of drugs and the normalisation of them, which I am dead against.

I don't think anyone would want their kids to get into drugs, whether it be "soft" of "hard" drugs and I don't think it would be responsible for society to throw its hands up and say its ok to take them.

[CropleyWasGod]

Supplying addicts with heroin as part of their treatment to rid them of their addiction may be a good idea, if it does work and could well benift the individual. I'm not against helping those who want it. But some on here are suggesting the legalisation of drugs would be a good thing. This would lead to the increased availability of drugs and the normalisation of them, which I am dead against.

I don't think anyone would want their kids to get into drugs, whether it be "soft" of "hard" drugs and I don't think it would be responsible for society to throw its hands up and say its ok to take them.

As a parent, I would feel much happier knowing that, if any of my offspring were to take drugs, they were doing so in a safer environment than that which exists now.

In their purest forms, MDMA and cannabis are arguably less lethal than tobacco or alcohol. It is their very illegality, and the related profit motive, that leads to the horror stories.

[over the line]

As a parent, I would feel much happier knowing that, if any of my offspring were to take drugs, they were doing so in a safer environment than that which exists now.

In their purest forms, MDMA and cannabis are arguably less lethal than tobacco or alcohol. It is their very illegality, and the related profit motive, that leads to the horror stories.

I think it had already been discussed on here, but in an ideal world and with hindsight, neither alcohol or tobacco would have been legal, or encouraged, but too late now isn't it? I don't see that adding to the list is an improvement.

Undoubtedly it is very sad when anyone dies from drugs, but I just don't think legalising and normalising them is the way forward. The easiest way to avoid drug related tragedies is for the individual to make the choice not to take them.

[over the line]

Whether you like the phrase or not isn't the issue, it's the phrase that has been used by succesive givts world wide for knocking on 50 years. I'm not advocating more drug use but it's plain the current system in place is like pissing against the wind.

That was kind of my point about the phrase itself, it is nonsense. There is no war, just attempts to control drug use and supply, which I believe should continue. If all attempts to control drugs ceased, then there would be the potential for total saturation, like we have with alcohol.


Maybe sometimes it is better to piss into the wind and accept a few inevitable splash backs, than to just lie back and get soaked in it! ;)

[over the line]

The "War On Drugs", started around 1971. Prohibition started in teh ealry part of the 20th Century. What has arisen is that prohibition of any substance which people want to take just does not work. If you can tell me of any substance which has been succesfully prohibited I'd be interested. What has also been shown is that prohibition merely puts the market for such substances into the hands of organised criminals and they cannot be stopped.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6n0wF6CYAEZuCr.jpg:large

Does that mean that before 1971 there were no attempts to control the supply or possession of drugs?

[Mr White]

Does that mean that before 1971 there were no attempts to control the supply or possession of drugs?

There was of course but the term "war on drugs" was coined by nixon in 1971. It's featured in the documentary The House I Live In. It's on netflix.

[lord bunberry]

Does that mean that before 1971 there were no attempts to control the supply or possession of drugs?

In this country heroin was available on prescription. 1971 was the year of the misuse of drugs act and the year the president in the US announced the war on drugs. The control of drugs existed before 1971 but that's the year the world was seen to get tough on drugs

[HibsMax]

I think it had already been discussed on here, but in an ideal world and with hindsight, neither alcohol or tobacco would have been legal, or encouraged, but too late now isn't it? I don't see that adding to the list is an improvement.

Undoubtedly it is very sad when anyone dies from drugs, but I just don't think legalising and normalising them is the way forward. The easiest way to avoid drug related tragedies is for the individual to make the choice not to take them.
I suppose it depends on your idea of an ideal world. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with alcohol. That doesn't mean I think that alcohol abuse is OK, but I'm not talking about abuse of any kind. Abuse of many substances will get you into a lot of trouble. The key is moderation which addiction can certainly make more difficult, if not impossible, to control.

Legalising drugs doesn't make taking drugs any safer from a medical perspective. I understand that if they were controlled then people would have a clearer idea of what they are taking but what I mean is that legalising a drug doesn't make it less dangerous all of a sudden. It makes the whole "drug arena" safer because it's no longer underground which removes, to an extent, the seedier side of things and the criminal element will, eventually, dissipate. If people were allowed to grow their own pot for their own personal use, like they can grow vegetables for example, then you're further distancing yourself from the criminal element. I'm sure if /when the laws change there will be a transitional period when things don't go smoothly because at the end of the day there are people out there who are just bent on being criminals. Legalising marijuana WILL make crime go down, of that there is no doubt (because possession and use will no longer be a crime). Legalising it will also drive the price down since the price is largely controlled by risk rather than difficulty of production. It's a plant and it's really easy to grow. If it's cheaper that might make some people smoke more but I'm not sold on that. If beer all of a sudden was half the price it is now, that would just mean I have more money to spend on OTHER things, not beer.

I think the problem with this discussion is that it's very broad and not all drugs can be discussed at once without it starting to sound like nonsense. I know people who smoke weed and none of them are criminals. They all have jobs. However I don't know anyone who takes heroin. I am sure their lifestyle is not the same as your average pot smoker and they are definitely treading a more dangerous path. Another part of the problem is that these people are only criminals because we say they are, not because they've actually done something wrong. If a hard-working, honest, money-earning couple are sitting at home, watching TV having a couple of puffs, just whose rights or freedoms are they encroaching upon? What harm are they doing? Air pollution? Saying drugs are bad because they are more apt to lead to a person committing crime makes as much sense as saying that a person who drives is more likely to kill someone in an accident than someone who doesn't drive, therefor it's bad. That's a factual statement but it clearly sounds ridiculous. I think we should be punishing and locking up people who actually commit crimes rather than those people who pursue hobbies that sometimes lead others to crime.

[RyeSloan]

I suppose it depends on your idea of an ideal world. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with alcohol. That doesn't mean I think that alcohol abuse is OK, but I'm not talking about abuse of any kind. Abuse of many substances will get you into a lot of trouble. The key is moderation which addiction can certainly make more difficult, if not impossible, to control. Legalising drugs doesn't make taking drugs any safer from a medical perspective. I understand that if they were controlled then people would have a clearer idea of what they are taking but what I mean is that legalising a drug doesn't make it less dangerous all of a sudden. It makes the whole "drug arena" safer because it's no longer underground which removes, to an extent, the seedier side of things and the criminal element will, eventually, dissipate. If people were allowed to grow their own pot for their own personal use, like they can grow vegetables for example, then you're further distancing yourself from the criminal element. I'm sure if /when the laws change there will be a transitional period when things don't go smoothly because at the end of the day there are people out there who are just bent on being criminals. Legalising marijuana WILL make crime go down, of that there is no doubt (because possession and use will no longer be a crime). Legalising it will also drive the price down since the price is largely controlled by risk rather than difficulty of production. It's a plant and it's really easy to grow. If it's cheaper that might make some people smoke more but I'm not sold on that. If beer all of a sudden was half the price it is now, that would just mean I have more money to spend on OTHER things, not beer. I think the problem with this discussion is that it's very broad and not all drugs can be discussed at once without it starting to sound like nonsense. I know people who smoke weed and none of them are criminals. They all have jobs. However I don't know anyone who takes heroin. I am sure their lifestyle is not the same as your average pot smoker and they are definitely treading a more dangerous path. Another part of the problem is that these people are only criminals because we say they are, not because they've actually done something wrong. If a hard-working, honest, money-earning couple are sitting at home, watching TV having a couple of puffs, just whose rights or freedoms are they encroaching upon? What harm are they doing? Air pollution? Saying drugs are bad because they are more apt to lead to a person committing crime makes as much sense as saying that a person who drives is more likely to kill someone in an accident than someone who doesn't drive, therefor it's bad. That's a factual statement but it clearly sounds ridiculous. I think we should be punishing and locking up people who actually commit crimes rather than those people who pursue hobbies that sometimes lead others to crime.

Good post.

I honestly think the prohibition of weed is just silly but I suppose I'm much more in the let people decide for themselves camp so probably would think that.

I'm not convinced legalisation of most drugs would lead to any significant increase in usage. If you want to take drugs now you can and will...the legal status makes no difference as most of the more familiar drugs are relatively freely available anyway.

I'm not a fan of the state deciding how people should live their lives so if they fancy a spliff after a hard days graft or want to take a pill when out clubbing then let them do so I say, I honestly don't see the problem with it...maybe a slightly simplistic view point and not one I would expect everyone to share but there you go.

[over the line]

There was of course but the term "war on drugs" was coined by nixon in 1971. It's featured in the documentary The House I Live In. It's on netflix.

I've not seen it, will give it a look, cheers.

[over the line]

I suppose it depends on your idea of an ideal world. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with alcohol. That doesn't mean I think that alcohol abuse is OK, but I'm not talking about abuse of any kind. Abuse of many substances will get you into a lot of trouble. The key is moderation which addiction can certainly make more difficult, if not impossible, to control.

Legalising drugs doesn't make taking drugs any safer from a medical perspective. I understand that if they were controlled then people would have a clearer idea of what they are taking but what I mean is that legalising a drug doesn't make it less dangerous all of a sudden. It makes the whole "drug arena" safer because it's no longer underground which removes, to an extent, the seedier side of things and the criminal element will, eventually, dissipate. If people were allowed to grow their own pot for their own personal use, like they can grow vegetables for example, then you're further distancing yourself from the criminal element. I'm sure if /when the laws change there will be a transitional period when things don't go smoothly because at the end of the day there are people out there who are just bent on being criminals. Legalising marijuana WILL make crime go down, of that there is no doubt (because possession and use will no longer be a crime). Legalising it will also drive the price down since the price is largely controlled by risk rather than difficulty of production. It's a plant and it's really easy to grow. If it's cheaper that might make some people smoke more but I'm not sold on that. If beer all of a sudden was half the price it is now, that would just mean I have more money to spend on OTHER things, not beer.

I think the problem with this discussion is that it's very broad and not all drugs can be discussed at once without it starting to sound like nonsense. I know people who smoke weed and none of them are criminals. They all have jobs. However I don't know anyone who takes heroin. I am sure their lifestyle is not the same as your average pot smoker and they are definitely treading a more dangerous path. Another part of the problem is that these people are only criminals because we say they are, not because they've actually done something wrong. If a hard-working, honest, money-earning couple are sitting at home, watching TV having a couple of puffs, just whose rights or freedoms are they encroaching upon? What harm are they doing? Air pollution? Saying drugs are bad because they are more apt to lead to a person committing crime makes as much sense as saying that a person who drives is more likely to kill someone in an accident than someone who doesn't drive, therefor it's bad. That's a factual statement but it clearly sounds ridiculous. I think we should be punishing and locking up people who actually commit crimes rather than those people who pursue hobbies that sometimes lead others to crime.

I also like a drink, if anything I like it a bit too much. Obviously it can and is very destructive when abused and I imagine it is very difficult for alcoholics to get and stay sober when they are bombarded with adverts and confronted with thousands of bottles every time they go into a supermarket. Availability and acceptability undoubtedly increase usage, which will in turn increase the problems associated with any substance. Now I accept it is highly unlikely that the likes of heroin would ever be normalised to the degree that alcohol is, but I feel that any steps that are taken that make "hard" drugs more available or acceptable, would make things worse for society. For instance, heroin addicts are on the decline in most areas of the country and have been for a good while. This is down to the younger generations seeing how destructive the drug is to the users lifestyle and then making a concious decision not to follow that path. It's basically like bad publicity is putting people off getting into heroin and that is obviously a good thing. People may well be choosing other drugs in the place of heroin, but at least its not heroin. Crack cocaine almost always goes hand in hand with heroin as well, and I think the same bad publicity is true of that as well.

I was talking to an ex heroin and crack addict only two days ago. He is in his 40's now and has been clean for 3 years. He went to Holland for treatment and says the treatment is far better there. He does not think that these drugs should be legalised or more readily available, due to the destructive nature. He still has terrible health issues due to years of abuse and massively regrets the bad choices he made.

Now it would be undoubtedly a lot easier to make a case for a change in the law with regards to cannabis. This is of course in a whole different realm to the likes of heroin. Nevertheless it does still have its health risks and isn't quite as harmless as some would have you think. It is still complex issue with regards to legalising it and to totally remove the criminal factor would I think involve total normalisation and saturation, like we have with alcohol and that would undoubtedly lead to increased usage. I am however open to the argument that criminalising people for cannabis possession is questionable and probably a waste of time ultimately.

[over the line]

In this country heroin was available on prescription. 1971 was the year of the misuse of drugs act and the year the president in the US announced the war on drugs. The control of drugs existed before 1971 but that's the year the world was seen to get tough on drugs

I assume the change in attitude/tactic was down to an increase in the usage and availability of drugs was it?

[lord bunberry]

I assume the change in attitude/tactic was down to an increase in the usage and availability of drugs was it?

I'm not really sure it was before my time, but as with most things I would imagine it was due to public perception of drug use or the crime associated with it.. Politicians rarely do anything unless it's a vote winner.

[over the line]

Good post.

I honestly think the prohibition of weed is just silly but I suppose I'm much more in the let people decide for themselves camp so probably would think that.

I'm not convinced legalisation of most drugs would lead to any significant increase in usage. If you want to take drugs now you can and will...the legal status makes no difference as most of the more familiar drugs are relatively freely available anyway.

I'm not a fan of the state deciding how people should live their lives so if they fancy a spliff after a hard days graft or want to take a pill when out clubbing then let them do so I say, I honestly don't see the problem with it...maybe a slightly simplistic view point and not one I would expect everyone to share but there you go.

I think the increased availability and normalisation of cannabis would undoubtedly increase its usage. As it stands there are several hurdles when it comes to its use. You need to know a dealer and then be willing to interact with criminals in order to buy it. You have to be willing to commit a criminal offence yourself as well. You also have to get your head round the fact that it is bad for your health and that is the main reason the government frown upon it. If you remove all these hurdles, sell it in shops and say that it is ok to use, uptake and consumption is bound to increase isn't it?

[Kato]

If you remove all these hurdles, sell it in shops and say that it is ok to use, uptake and consumption is bound to increase isn't it?


That's not been the case in places where it has been decriminalised. Consumption levels stay about the same.

[RyeSloan]

I think the increased availability and normalisation of cannabis would undoubtedly increase its usage. As it stands there are several hurdles when it comes to its use. You need to know a dealer and then be willing to interact with criminals in order to buy it. You have to be willing to commit a criminal offence yourself as well. You also have to get your head round the fact that it is bad for your health and that is the main reason the government frown upon it. If you remove all these hurdles, sell it in shops and say that it is ok to use, uptake and consumption is bound to increase isn't it?

Hmm I'm not sure.

You don't need to smoke weed, it can be consumed in cakes or even vapourised these days....sure long term use and abuse can cause health issues but you could say that for most things I suppose.

I honestly don't think people buying weed consider themselves criminals or give a second thought as to the legal status of the person supplying it therefore removing that official criminal status would do little.

As I've said before if you want to get weed then it's pretty damn easy to find it....the supply is not really restricted at all currently so I doubt we would see a huge upsurge in use if it was decriminalised, specifically if you were allowed to grow your own. All it would do would be to stop the funds ultimately flowing to organised crime and allow the police to focus on more impacting crimes both of which the benefits of would be substantial.

Finally decriminalisation does not automatically mean that the state will proactively sponsor it's use and say it's all OK. I see no reason why it could not be licensed and controlled like alcohol, the consumption of which is steadily going down without any prohibition.

[Mr White]

I've not seen it, will give it a look, cheers.

It's worth a look. It'll put that graph and it's figures in perspective for you I think.

[over the line]

Hmm I'm not sure.

You don't need to smoke weed, it can be consumed in cakes or even vapourised these days....sure long term use and abuse can cause health issues but you could say that for most things I suppose.

I honestly don't think people buying weed consider themselves criminals or give a second thought as to the legal status of the person supplying it therefore removing that official criminal status would do little.

As I've said before if you want to get weed then it's pretty damn easy to find it....the supply is not really restricted at all currently so I doubt we would see a huge upsurge in use if it was decriminalised, specifically if you were allowed to grow your own. All it would do would be to stop the funds ultimately flowing to organised crime and allow the police to focus on more impacting crimes both of which the benefits of would be substantial.

Finally decriminalisation does not automatically mean that the state will proactively sponsor it's use and say it's all OK. I see no reason why it could not be licensed and controlled like alcohol, the consumption of which is steadily going down without any prohibition.

Undoubtedly it is a complex debate really and to a degree we are all guessing about the ifs and buts. It's not so much the people that already smoke it that concern me, that is their business to a certain degree (although we will all pay for their potential medical treatments at some point). It is the chance that more people might be tempted to have a go if it was easier to get, that concerns me. There is no getting away from the fact that it is bad for you and I just don't think that it is very aspirational as a society, to be looking to allow and passively promote the use of another poison. The current users and any future legal producers and retailers would undoubtedly benift from totally legalising it, but would society as a whole be better off? I'm not so sure.

It would be a bit of a perverse process if you think about it anyway. So let's say the government legalise cannabis and it is sold in shops. There would undoubtedly be an age limit for it and also there would be a massive add campaign and education programmes to stop people from doing it (because its bad for you), as there is with tobacco. So what would be the point in saying "yes its ok to do it" and then spend loads of time, energy and money, trying to persuade people not to do it?

[over the line]

That's not been the case in places where it has been decriminalised. Consumption levels stay about the same.

Where can I find that information, it would be interesting to see that?

I just think that if something is easier to get and more socially acceptable, more people would be tempted to try it. I mean I stopped smoking 13 years ago, so I am well over my nicotine addiction, but the more I see those vapour things around, the more I think I wouldn't mind a go. That doesn't immediately mean I will like them and become addicted to nicotine again, but do you see my point? A big reason people get into drugs is because its available to them and the people around them do it.

[HibsMax]

Good post.

I honestly think the prohibition of weed is just silly but I suppose I'm much more in the let people decide for themselves camp so probably would think that.

I'm not convinced legalisation of most drugs would lead to any significant increase in usage. If you want to take drugs now you can and will...the legal status makes no difference as most of the more familiar drugs are relatively freely available anyway.

I'm not a fan of the state deciding how people should live their lives so if they fancy a spliff after a hard days graft or want to take a pill when out clubbing then let them do so I say, I honestly don't see the problem with it...maybe a slightly simplistic view point and not one I would expect everyone to share but there you go.

I don't think it's a simplistic view but it does demonstrate the massive gulf between the different types of drug users, or people's opinions of them. The list is practically endless but you have:
1. people who take prescription meds (and we all know that they don't cause harm...),
2. people who have a drink of wine in an evening,
3. people who party on weekends,
4. people who drink every day,
5. people who enjoy a toke once in a while,
6. people who can't get through the day without a fix of some kind,
7. people whose habit has outgrown their means,
8. people who commit crime either to fuel their habit or because of their habit.

That's a tiny cross-section of "people who use drugs", there's no way we can talk about them all in the same discussion and there's no way that we should even try. Addiction is addiction so there is some commonality but not everyone who takes a drug is addicted or has a problem. If a person who smokes pot is going to be categorized with people who inject heroin then you have to include those people who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, take prescription meds, etc. because they're drugs too. Some prescription drugs have horrible side effects, but they're deemed to be OK; the side-effects are offset by the benefits they provide (funny how the same doesn't apply to weed which has a much cleaner track record that some legal drugs). Fundamentally the only difference is what the government says is OK and what is not, and that decision is not always based on current / updated information and doesn't necessarily reflect public opinion.

I really despise the hypocrisy. Everyone knows that smoking cigarettes is a one-way street to poor health. There are no redeeming qualities about smoking (clearly if there were those would be forced down our throats every two seconds). But the government gets so much from taxation and pressure from lobbyists that nothing happens. The same cannot be said about alcohol which reportedly does have some benefits in moderation - "I drink red wine for the antioxidants!". Smoking cigarettes might have a psychological affect but as far as physical health is concerned, there are no benefits. Still legal. Still thousands of people dying every year. No outrage. Why are prisons not full of people who peddle drugs that actually kill people? Riddle me that.

Side note. When I moved over here in 1998 you could get a carton of butts for about $30. Now it's twice that and if you buy them as single packs you can find yourself paying about $10 / pack. Don't tell me someone isn't getting very rich off of making people sick. On the other hand, weed, while not the fountain of life, has not been proven to be as damaging but is still viewed as a terrible drug and so the government has to step in and protect us from it. We're filling our prisons with the wrong people (nothing new there).


Where this discussion takes a tangent for me is when we start talking about heroin and the likes. Maybe you can take those drugs in moderation and not get addicted, etc. but unlike weed, there are many documented cases of where using these sorts of drugs is deadly. Addiction is a very real threat. However, if I don't want people telling me what I can do, how can I tell others what they can do without being a hypocrite? I can't. I think I draw the line with what I am going to call "hard" drugs because the dangers are very real and people can get themselves into a lot of trouble. I just don't see the same thing happening with a doobie.

[HibsMax]

I also like a drink, if anything I like it a bit too much. Obviously it can and is very destructive when abused and I imagine it is very difficult for alcoholics to get and stay sober when they are bombarded with adverts and confronted with thousands of bottles every time they go into a supermarket. Availability and acceptability undoubtedly increase usage, which will in turn increase the problems associated with any substance. Now I accept it is highly unlikely that the likes of heroin would ever be normalised to the degree that alcohol is, but I feel that any steps that are taken that make "hard" drugs more available or acceptable, would make things worse for society. For instance, heroin addicts are on the decline in most areas of the country and have been for a good while. This is down to the younger generations seeing how destructive the drug is to the users lifestyle and then making a concious decision not to follow that path. It's basically like bad publicity is putting people off getting into heroin and that is obviously a good thing. People may well be choosing other drugs in the place of heroin, but at least its not heroin. Crack cocaine almost always goes hand in hand with heroin as well, and I think the same bad publicity is true of that as well.
Sorry that I don't have any facts to hand but I understand that now, or at least in recent history, heroin has been on the INCREASE over here in the US because of its cheapness. I don't know too much about that though as I don't want anything to do with the harder stuff.


I was talking to an ex heroin and crack addict only two days ago. He is in his 40's now and has been clean for 3 years. He went to Holland for treatment and says the treatment is far better there. He does not think that these drugs should be legalised or more readily available, due to the destructive nature. He still has terrible health issues due to years of abuse and massively regrets the bad choices he made.
I agree with him, I don't think they should be made more readily available either. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or not but I personally don't think so because I consider heroin / crack to be in a league of their own.


Now it would be undoubtedly a lot easier to make a case for a change in the law with regards to cannabis. This is of course in a whole different realm to the likes of heroin. Nevertheless it does still have its health risks and isn't quite as harmless as some would have you think. It is still complex issue with regards to legalising it and to totally remove the criminal factor would I think involve total normalisation and saturation, like we have with alcohol and that would undoubtedly lead to increased usage. I am however open to the argument that criminalising people for cannabis possession is questionable and probably a waste of time ultimately.
You're right. Anyone who says weed is totally harmless is a fool. The reason that smoking marijuana typically causes less damage than smoking cigarettes is down to volume. If you're smoking the equivalent of 20 joints a day, you're probably doing yourself a little damage. ;-) I will say that cigarettes are at the very least as bad as marijuana but probably moreso because of all the additives they add.

I think the best solution is letting people grow it for themselves. You can brew your own beer (up to 100 gallons per person per year) but most people don't do it because it's an involved process. I would say that growing pot is a lot easier than brewing beer. You are not allowed to distill your own alcohol by the way - hence moonshine being highly illegal.

[HibsMax]

I think the increased availability and normalisation of cannabis would undoubtedly increase its usage. As it stands there are several hurdles when it comes to its use. You need to know a dealer and then be willing to interact with criminals in order to buy it. You have to be willing to commit a criminal offence yourself as well. You also have to get your head round the fact that it is bad for your health and that is the main reason the government frown upon it. If you remove all these hurdles, sell it in shops and say that it is ok to use, uptake and consumption is bound to increase isn't it?

I kinda get what you're saying. There are bound to be people who want to give it a try but don't want to be a criminal. Legalisation gets past that. I think a lot of people would try it and some might enjoy it. I think that's more likely to be people who already have a smoking background though because inhaling smoke is not a pleasant experience at first. Some people don't even get high, they just fall asleep. So I agree that usage would probably go up. But that might lead to other things like a reduction in drinking.

Gotta fly, leaving time!

[Pickle]

Interesting thread. What if you're a young teenager in edinburgh,wanting too experiment, however the only guy you know of to get a smoke is in a rough part of town. You run the gauntlet, get your smoke, then as time goes by, the same guy may offer something stronger, which happens regularly. You started of wanting a teenage smoke, you then get offered acid, eccys and am sure stronger stuff. If that young teenager (for example) ain't strong enough to refuse it can easily, via peer pressure, escalate to something more from what started out as a smoke.

There's no easy fixes, but kids will and always will experiment, it needs to be a safer environment for that to happen, to stop the escalation to hard drugs.

[over the line]

Interesting thread. What if you're a young teenager in edinburgh,wanting too experiment, however the only guy you know of to get a smoke is in a rough part of town. You run the gauntlet, get your smoke, then as time goes by, the same guy may offer something stronger, which happens regularly. You started of wanting a teenage smoke, you then get offered acid, eccys and am sure stronger stuff. If that young teenager (for example) ain't strong enough to refuse it can easily, via peer pressure, escalate to something more from what started out as a smoke.

There's no easy fixes, but kids will and always will experiment, it needs to be a safer environment for that to happen, to stop the escalation to hard drugs.

Yes thats a fair point. If cannabis was no longer a taboo, maybe kids wouldn't be as tempted by it, but would they then be tempted to experiment with other stuff? I think kids that get into weed would always be tempted to try other stuff even if cannabis was legal. I think ecstasy and cocaine are the normal progression nowadays, the likes of heroin and crack are a huge leap from cannabis. I can't really see the general public buying into the idea that it is a good thing to make it easier for teenagers to get hold of cannabis, can you?

[lord bunberry]

Interesting thread. What if you're a young teenager in edinburgh,wanting too experiment, however the only guy you know of to get a smoke is in a rough part of town. You run the gauntlet, get your smoke, then as time goes by, the same guy may offer something stronger, which happens regularly. You started of wanting a teenage smoke, you then get offered acid, eccys and am sure stronger stuff. If that young teenager (for example) ain't strong enough to refuse it can easily, via peer pressure, escalate to something more from what started out as a smoke.

There's no easy fixes, but kids will and always will experiment, it needs to be a safer environment for that to happen, to stop the escalation to hard drugs.

From my experience of taking recreational drugs in my youth the reality isn't anything like you think it is. For starters the notion that anyone would have to go to a rougher part of town to get any form of drugs is wrong. A guy dealing drugs to the person taking them is the bottom rung of the ladder, he is unlikely to be selling a whole range of drugs, usually only one. It wouldn't be in his interest for you to start taking other stronger drugs.
People who take things like ecstasy and cocaine in general do so as a recreational activity the same as having a drink and are highly unlikely to move on to something like heroin as there's absolutely no link between the 2 other than the fact they're both illegal.

[silverhibee]

I think the increased availability and normalisation of cannabis would undoubtedly increase its usage. As it stands there are several hurdles when it comes to its use. You need to know a dealer and then be willing to interact with criminals in order to buy it. You have to be willing to commit a criminal offence yourself as well. You also have to get your head round the fact that it is bad for your health and that is the main reason the government frown upon it. If you remove all these hurdles, sell it in shops and say that it is ok to use, uptake and consumption is bound to increase isn't it?

How many folk die due to cannabis use compared to people who drink alcohol.

[silverhibee]

It's worth a look. It'll put that graph and it's figures in perspective for you I think.

:agree:

Well worth a watch.

[CropleyWasGod]

How many folk die due to cannabis use compared to people who drink alcohol.

If there are deaths associated with cannabis, it's often down to the strength, or what its mixed with. Psychotic episodes, erratic behaviour and the likes can follow, with the obvious dangers.

That ties in what I said earlier. State control leads to consistent and reliable strengths.... such as in the cafes in Amsterdam..... which reduces the chances of the above.

And then there's the potential tax take.... :cb

[Mon Dieu4]

If there are deaths associated with cannabis, it's often down to the strength, or what its mixed with. Psychotic episodes, erratic behaviour and the likes can follow, with the obvious dangers.

That ties in what I said earlier. State control leads to consistent and reliable strengths.... such as in the cafes in Amsterdam..... which reduces the chances of the above.

And then there's the potential tax take.... :cb

There can be severe side effects with reliable strengths though such as tunnel vision, the ability to not find the toilet, passing out, waking up looking at the ceiling, having a huge Dutch guy rubbing your back telling you not to toke too hard, all in the space of 1 minute

I loved my first trip to Amsterdam haha

[over the line]

How many folk die due to cannabis use compared to people who drink alcohol.

I'm not sure that just because you don't die from it necessarily means it is a healthy option. There is
still the potential for an emphysema or lung cancer time bomb with the huge amount of super strong weed that is being smoked nowadays. Cannabis may be virtually impossible to OD on, but it still comes with huge health (and mental health) risks.

[silverhibee]

If there are deaths associated with cannabis, it's often down to the strength, or what its mixed with. Psychotic episodes, erratic behaviour and the likes can follow, with the obvious dangers.

That ties in what I said earlier. State control leads to consistent and reliable strengths.... such as in the cafes in Amsterdam..... which reduces the chances of the above.

And then there's the potential tax take.... :cb

And that's it, i don't think anyone has died of cannabis use.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/causes_of_death#sthash.uj92LgME.dpbs

Rick Simpson story is a good watch as well, it does have it's uses. :aok:

[snooky]

Headlines today saying there's a rush to buy Charlie.
That's nothing new in some places, I would think. :wink:

[silverhibee]

Interesting thread. What if you're a young teenager in edinburgh,wanting too experiment, however the only guy you know of to get a smoke is in a rough part of town. You run the gauntlet, get your smoke, then as time goes by, the same guy may offer something stronger, which happens regularly. You started of wanting a teenage smoke, you then get offered acid, eccys and am sure stronger stuff. If that young teenager (for example) ain't strong enough to refuse it can easily, via peer pressure, escalate to something more from what started out as a smoke.

There's no easy fixes, but kids will and always will experiment, it needs to be a safer environment for that to happen, to stop the escalation to hard drugs.

Cannabis, the gateway to harder drugs nonsense, peddled by the USA on the the war on drugs.

[speedy_gonzales]

And that's it, i don't think anyone has died of cannabis use.


There's always one! (ALLEGEDLY) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548669/Devout-Christian-mother-three-31-woman-Britain-DIE-cannabis-poisoning-smoking-joint-bed.html)

[silverhibee]

There's always one! (ALLEGEDLY) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548669/Devout-Christian-mother-three-31-woman-Britain-DIE-cannabis-poisoning-smoking-joint-bed.html)

I think she just had a heart attack, can't see how smoking a joint could have been the cause of that, her passing is sad but caused by cannabis "poisioning" highly doubt it.

Mind you it's came from the Daily Mail. :greengrin

[Stranraer]

Because nobody has died of Cannabis doesn't make it okay to go ahead and legalise it. It causes Psychosis which is horrific. Never mind the Royal College of Psychiatrists however :rolleyes:

[silverhibee]

Because nobody has died of Cannabis doesn't make it okay to go ahead and legalise it. It causes Psychosis which is horrific. Never mind the Royal College of Psychiatrists however :rolleyes:

To every cannabis smoker, i doubt that very much.

Why the :rolleyes: :aok:

Pretty sure alcohol does more damage to a person who drinks all the time compared to a habitual cannabis smoker, but everything is okay because it is legal, how many folk do you read about committing serious crime while chilled out on hash, compared to a drinker who often commit serious crime while pished out there heads.

[Mr White]

Because nobody has died of Cannabis doesn't make it okay to go ahead and legalise it. It causes Psychosis which is horrific. Never mind the Royal College of Psychiatrists however :rolleyes:

Causes psychosis or brings it out early in those predisposed to it? Difficult question to answer of course but speaking from experience of those I've known who've lost the plot through taking drugs there have always been underlying mental issues present. Anecdotal of course but people with those kind of issues are often sensitive to any mind altering substance, not just cannabis.

[degenerated]

There's always one! (ALLEGEDLY) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548669/Devout-Christian-mother-three-31-woman-Britain-DIE-cannabis-poisoning-smoking-joint-bed.html)
Actually there's two.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442411/Brazilian-man-crushed-death-weed-cannabis-trafficking-chase.html

[HibsMax]

Interesting thread. What if you're a young teenager in edinburgh,wanting too experiment, however the only guy you know of to get a smoke is in a rough part of town. You run the gauntlet, get your smoke, then as time goes by, the same guy may offer something stronger, which happens regularly. You started of wanting a teenage smoke, you then get offered acid, eccys and am sure stronger stuff. If that young teenager (for example) ain't strong enough to refuse it can easily, via peer pressure, escalate to something more from what started out as a smoke.

There's no easy fixes, but kids will and always will experiment, it needs to be a safer environment for that to happen, to stop the escalation to hard drugs.
I'm not sure if you're talking about weed being a gateway drug but that is a term used a lot over here, without much evidence from what I can tell. I mentioned before that I know people who smoke, but I don't know anyone who has graduated to harder drugs (which I am sure DOES happen, I'm just not sold on it being a gateway drug). I would say that weed is as much a gateway drug as alcohol. If being a gateway drug is deemed a valid reason to keep weed illegal then the same should be applied to alcohol. I do know people who have tried other drugs in the past but not anyone with a habit.

[HibsMax]

Yes thats a fair point. If cannabis was no longer a taboo, maybe kids wouldn't be as tempted by it, but would they then be tempted to experiment with other stuff? I think kids that get into weed would always be tempted to try other stuff even if cannabis was legal. I think ecstasy and cocaine are the normal progression nowadays, the likes of heroin and crack are a huge leap from cannabis. I can't really see the general public buying into the idea that it is a good thing to make it easier for teenagers to get hold of cannabis, can you?

Agreed, if it was legal then it obviously needs to be controlled (which is one of the reasons many people don't want it to be legalised). The public (in general) already thinks it's a good idea to let teenagers (18 and 19) get hold of alcohol in the UK, not over here though.

[HibsMax]

If there are deaths associated with cannabis, it's often down to the strength, or what its mixed with. Psychotic episodes, erratic behaviour and the likes can follow, with the obvious dangers.

That ties in what I said earlier. State control leads to consistent and reliable strengths.... such as in the cafes in Amsterdam..... which reduces the chances of the above.

And then there's the potential tax take.... :cb
Are there deaths associated with cannabis? One of the strongest arguments about legalising weed is that it doesn't kill you, not like alcohol and tobacco can.

[CropleyWasGod]

Talking of deaths, which might have been avoidable with a more sensible and cohesive policy:-

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/16/superman-pill-deaths-dangerous-drugs-alert-system

[HibsMax]

I'm not sure that just because you don't die from it necessarily means it is a healthy option. There is
still the potential for an emphysema or lung cancer time bomb with the huge amount of super strong weed that is being smoked nowadays. Cannabis may be virtually impossible to OD on, but it still comes with huge health (and mental health) risks.
I don't think anyone is saying that smoking cannabis is healthy, although there is more and more evidence coming from studies to suggest that people with certain conditions benefit from ingesting cannabis products - most of these people don't smoke, they eat baked goods, etc.

The lung cancer time bomb you're talking about is over-stated, I believe. People get lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, in part because they smoke so much. Take a regular smoker and a regular toker and you will notice a huge difference in the amount of smoke being inhaled. Also, cigarettes are not as "clean" as cannabis. Here is a quick blurb but I fully expect you to do your own research:
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins.

Please note that I am not talking about marijuana cigarettes that are mixed with tobacco - obviously that's a double whammy. There are MANY studies out there, for and against, so it's really up to you to digest and make up your own mind.

Personally speaking, I know there are health risks; let me worry about them the same way as a mountain climber knows s/he is risking their life every time they scale a difficult peak.

[HibsMax]

Because nobody has died of Cannabis doesn't make it okay to go ahead and legalise it. It causes Psychosis which is horrific. Never mind the Royal College of Psychiatrists however :rolleyes:
True but it demonstrates how it is safer than both alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs.

[HibsMax]

Talking of deaths, which might have been avoidable with a more sensible and cohesive policy:-

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/16/superman-pill-deaths-dangerous-drugs-alert-system

There is so much outrage against weed when there are real drugs to be afraid of. Like the guy who ate someone's face while on bath salts in Miami a couple of years ago. Yeah, pot smokers get hungry but not for human flesh.

There are always exceptions and I don't have any personal studies to back up any claims I might make. However, I have never seen anything bad happen to anyone from smoking weed. I haven't personally seen anything bad happen to a regular smoker either, but alcohol.......how many lives are ruined through abuse of that drug?

EDIT: the guy in Miami apparently wasn't on bath salts....but they did find...from the article....
"The much-anticipated toxicology report released by Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Dr. Bruce Hyma found marijuana in Eugene’s system, something CBS4 News had previously reported, but no evidence of any other street drugs, alcohol or prescription drugs, or any adulterants found in street drugs."

I don't know if that means he was just cray cray or if the pot made him do it? Maybe he was just hungry.

[over the line]

There is so much outrage against weed when there are real drugs to be afraid of. Like the guy who ate someone's face while on bath salts in Miami a couple of years ago. Yeah, pot smokers get hungry but not for human flesh.

There are always exceptions and I don't have any personal studies to back up any claims I might make. However, I have never seen anything bad happen to anyone from smoking weed. I haven't personally seen anything bad happen to a regular smoker either, but alcohol.......how many lives are ruined through abuse of that drug?

EDIT: the guy in Miami apparently wasn't on bath salts....but they did find...from the article....
"The much-anticipated toxicology report released by Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Dr. Bruce Hyma found marijuana in Eugene’s system, something CBS4 News had previously reported, but no evidence of any other street drugs, alcohol or prescription drugs, or any adulterants found in street drugs."

I don't know if that means he was just cray cray or if the pot made him do it? Maybe he was just hungry.


It gives a new meaning to "off your face" doesn't it!!! Not heard that one before, but I do remember the story of the fella who cut his own face off and fed it to his dog. I think he was on angel dust, or something similar.

I think the big problems with cannabis are less extreme than these examples and therefore less likely to make a headline. I mean "chronic weed smoker suffers with emphysema in later life", or "pot heads paranoia nightmare", just aren't particularly news worthy are they?

[Mikey09]

There is so much outrage against weed when there are real drugs to be afraid of. Like the guy who ate someone's face while on bath salts in Miami a couple of years ago. Yeah, pot smokers get hungry but not for human flesh.

There are always exceptions and I don't have any personal studies to back up any claims I might make. However, I have never seen anything bad happen to anyone from smoking weed. I haven't personally seen anything bad happen to a regular smoker either, but alcohol.......how many lives are ruined through abuse of that drug?

EDIT: the guy in Miami apparently wasn't on bath salts....but they did find...from the article....
"The much-anticipated toxicology report released by Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Dr. Bruce Hyma found marijuana in Eugene’s system, something CBS4 News had previously reported, but no evidence of any other street drugs, alcohol or prescription drugs, or any adulterants found in street drugs."

I don't know if that means he was just cray cray or if the pot made him do it? Maybe he was just hungry.


Spot on my friend.... Ask the Police, Doctors and nurses in A&E and Paramedics what the Scourge of our country is. Cannabis or Alcohol? They are sick to death of the binge drinking culture and the **** wits who frequent the hot spots in Edinburgh etc smashing each other's faces in, stabbing each other for them to pick up the pieces. Draining much needed funds from the NHS....

[over the line]

Spot on my friend.... Ask the Police, Doctors and nurses in A&E and Paramedics what the Scourge of our country is. Cannabis or Alcohol? They are sick to death of the binge drinking culture and the **** wits who frequent the hot spots in Edinburgh etc smashing each other's faces in, stabbing each other for them to pick up the pieces. Draining much needed funds from the NHS....

But will legalising cannabis stop drunken £uckwits from being drunken £uckwits........... I don't think so!

Bottom line is, we are stuck with alcohol and all the problems it brings, it is never going away. I don't see how legalising another substance that is detremental to your health and society, for the convenience of a few hundred thousand people, would be an improvement?

As I said in an earlier post, it is counter aspirational for society to legalise/normalise/passively promote cannabis. It may well not be as bad for you as tobacco, or alcohol, but it is still bad for you. It would be a perverse act for a government to allow the taking, production and sale of an unhealthy substance and then spend valuable time, energy and money on discouraging people from doing it because its bad for you. It just doesn't make sense.

[over the line]

Duplicate post.

[Stranraer]

To every cannabis smoker, i doubt that very much.

Why the :rolleyes: :aok:

Pretty sure alcohol does more damage to a person who drinks all the time compared to a habitual cannabis smoker, but everything is okay because it is legal, how many folk do you read about committing serious crime while chilled out on hash, compared to a drinker who often commit serious crime while pished out there heads.

There's always a comparison to alcohol and people are usually surprised that I'd have tighter regulations on that poison but I wouldn't like to see pot heads walking around stoned and the :rolleyes: is because I posted a link from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the best you can come up with is "i doubt that very much".

Stoners must know better than them. That's the impression I'm getting.

[Mikey09]

But will legalising cannabis stop drunken £uckwits from being drunken £uckwits........... I don't think so!

Bottom line is, we are stuck with alcohol and all the problems it brings, it is never going away. I don't see how legalising another substance that is detremental to your health and society, for the convenience of a few hundred thousand people, would be an improvement?

As I said in an earlier post, it is counter aspirational for society to legalise/normalise/passively promote cannabis. It may well not be as bad for you as tobacco, or alcohol, but it is still bad for you. It would be a perverse act for a government to allow the taking, production and sale of an unhealthy substance and then spend valuable time, energy and money on discouraging people from doing it because its bad for you. It just doesn't make sense.


Sorry. My post was lazy.... Was a bit tired. Of course it wouldn't stop the drunken twats from causing mayhem. But if you compare the 2 substances only one causes the kind of carnage we could do without. This seems to be justified, not saying by you, as alcohol is accepted as a social past time and not a drug where cannabis is the opposite.

[over the line]

Sorry. My post was lazy.... Was a bit tired. Of course it wouldn't stop the drunken twats from causing mayhem. But if you compare the 2 substances only one causes the kind of carnage we could do without. This seems to be justified, not saying by you, as alcohol is accepted as a social past time and not a drug where cannabis is the opposite.


No its a fair point, alcohol does cause chaos and ruins loads of lives. If we could turn back time and replace alcohol with cannabis, then I accept that there would probably be less problems, certainly less fighting and thuggish behavior etc, and maybe we would even be healthier. But we are stuck with booze (says the man who is about to crack open a bottle of famous grouse!) and legalised cannabis won't change that.

[lord bunberry]

There's always a comparison to alcohol and people are usually surprised that I'd have tighter regulations on that poison but I wouldn't like to see pot heads walking around stoned and the :rolleyes: is because I posted a link from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the best you can come up with is "i doubt that very much".

Stoners must know better than them. That's the impression I'm getting.

What is your answer to the drugs problem? The current system doesn't work and the police don't have the resources to increase the powers they already have( not to mention the fact that they don't want to) imo adults should be able to make there own choice about what they want to do with their life. Governments aren't fit to be the moral voice anymore, and probably never were.
Do I need to be protected against my own desires by someone who can't control their own, I don't think so.

[silverhibee]

There's always a comparison to alcohol and people are usually surprised that I'd have tighter regulations on that poison but I wouldn't like to see pot heads walking around stoned and the :rolleyes: is because I posted a link from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the best you can come up with is "i doubt that very much".

Stoners must know better than them. That's the impression I'm getting.

Let me think about this, it's Saturday night, how many folk will be arrested due to drink related incidents, how many folk will cram up A&E tonight due to either being assaulted glassed through drink related incidents ( victims might i add) and then you have the idiots who can't handle the drink and take up the time of the ambulance service who have to take these idiots to A & E to cause havoc in the place.

Now how many folk will be arrested tonight due to cannabis related incidents, a few I'm sure but nothing compared to the folk having a bevvy tonight, how many of these stoners will commit violence or get in to bother, not many, to busy dialing up for a takeaway, how many stoners will clogg up A & E tonight because they have had a few joints, i would say none.

So who would i rather be mixing with tonight, a group of folk having a few joints or a group of folk out on the bevvy, easy choice for me.

You can quote all you want but it is pretty clear who needs the more help and takes up more valuable resources, ie Police Ambulance Hospital staff and security, and it ain't the stoners.

As you say about alcohol "Poision", something you cant say about cannabis, you should read "The Rick Simpson Story".

And yes " i doubt that very much". :aok:

[Mikey09]

Let me think about this, it's Saturday night, how many folk will be arrested due to drink related incidents, how many folk will cram up A&E tonight due to either being assaulted glassed through drink related incidents ( victims might i add) and then you have the idiots who can't handle the drink and take up the time of the ambulance service who have to take these idiots to A & E to cause havoc in the place.

Now how many folk will be arrested tonight due to cannabis related incidents, a few I'm sure but nothing compared to the folk having a bevvy tonight, how many of these stoners will commit violence or get in to bother, not many, to busy dialing up for a takeaway, how many stoners will clogg up A & E tonight because they have had a few joints, i would say none.

So who would i rather be mixing with tonight, a group of folk having a few joints or a group of folk out on the bevvy, easy choice for me.

You can quote all you want but it is pretty clear who needs the more help and takes up more valuable resources, ie Police Ambulance Hospital staff and security, and it ain't the stoners.

As you say about alcohol "Poision", something you cant say about cannabis, you should read "The Rick Simpson Story".

And yes " i doubt that very much". :aok:


And this brings us back to the point.... These cannabis related incidents you mention will be for possession, or maybe intent to supply. Not for getting stoned and going out on George street, Lothian road etc picking fights. I think we're all focusing on cannabis and my original point was really about harder stuff.... Mainly heroin. I tell you this... Not one heroin addict will give a flying **** how criminalised these drugs are and will continue regardless as there is very little help and compassion for addiction to smack from our wonderful government. Well... Except the jail. Is that working? No. Surely if it's not working we try something else. Government funded abstinence based recovery. 5 words that in my opinion could make a real difference.

[over the line]

And this brings us back to the point.... These cannabis related incidents you mention will be for possession, or maybe intent to supply. Not for getting stoned and going out on George street, Lothian road etc picking fights. I think we're all focusing on cannabis and my original point was really about harder stuff.... Mainly heroin. I tell you this... Not one heroin addict will give a flying **** how criminalised these drugs are and will continue regardless as there is very little help and compassion for addiction to smack from our wonderful government. Well... Except the jail. Is that working? No. Surely if it's not working we try something else. Government funded abstinence based recovery. 5 words that in my opinion could make a real difference.

What does government funded abstinence based recovery involve, its not a phrase/method I'm familiar with?

[over the line]

Let me think about this, it's Saturday night, how many folk will be arrested due to drink related incidents, how many folk will cram up A&E tonight due to either being assaulted glassed through drink related incidents ( victims might i add) and then you have the idiots who can't handle the drink and take up the time of the ambulance service who have to take these idiots to A & E to cause havoc in the place.

Now how many folk will be arrested tonight due to cannabis related incidents, a few I'm sure but nothing compared to the folk having a bevvy tonight, how many of these stoners will commit violence or get in to bother, not many, to busy dialing up for a takeaway, how many stoners will clogg up A & E tonight because they have had a few joints, i would say none.

So who would i rather be mixing with tonight, a group of folk having a few joints or a group of folk out on the bevvy, easy choice for me.

You can quote all you want but it is pretty clear who needs the more help and takes up more valuable resources, ie Police Ambulance Hospital staff and security, and it ain't the stoners.

As you say about alcohol "Poision", something you cant say about cannabis, you should read "The Rick Simpson Story".

And yes " i doubt that very much". :aok:

But you are talking like cannabis could/would be a replacement or straight swap for alcohol, when obviously it wouldn't. You could apply the same theory to heroin, how many heroin addicts will be clogging up A&E, or glassing people tonight, not many. You could invent/introduce a thousand new drugs and people would still be getting pissed and glassing each other, its an irrelevant argument. I know pot heads pretty much mind their own business and make Cadburys and KFC richer, but I just don't see it as a step in the right direction to make it legal. Surely the government should be trying to promote a healthier lifestyle for society shouldn't they, not facilitating the consumption of more poison?

[Mikey09]

What does government funded abstinence based recovery involve, its not a phrase/method I'm familiar with?


Sorry E/Port... Heading off to work. They kids don't learn to swim themselves you know!! Google Focus 12 and have a wee read of it. Will be back to read yer thoughts at 5pm.... Jesus that sounds like I've given you homework!! :wink:

[over the line]

Sorry E/Port... Heading off to work. They kids don't learn to swim themselves you know!! Google Focus 12 and have a wee read of it. Will be back to read yer thoughts at 5pm.... Jesus that sounds like I've given you homework!! :wink:

Sorry M09, I've had a mad busy week, I will have a look at it now, cheers. Hope the swimming kids all behaved themselves? ;):)
Edit: does this mean I have got detention for giving my homework in late? Mind you I like swimming, so I don't mind doing extra. :)

[Kato]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/03/war-on-drugs-british-politicians-nick-clegg-richard-branson

[HibsMax]

I think for cannabis to be illegal there has to be some research into the dangers of smoking it. The results of that research have to be unbiased and have to be peer-reviewed before being presented to the public. The public needs to be shown just how deadly this drug is, if it is in fact deadly at all. Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that it's not deadly at all.

How is smoking cannabis dangerous to society? It isn't. The danger is introduced by making it illegal and forcing everyone who wants to use it into being a criminal.

There are many things I can do in my everyday life that puts me in some danger but do I deserve to be prosecuted for that? Here are a list of dangerous activities:
smoking
drinking
driving
standing on the top rung of a ladder
hiking
skiing
etc

Only one of those is going to get me a citation but I guarantee you that standing on the top rung of a ladder is far more dangerous than smoking a joint.

Thankfully the US seems to be on the right track with three states + DC making it legal for recreational use. It's still a federal crime but that's hardly surprising. There are people who are financially motivated to keep cannabis illegal e.g., prison owners, the DEA, etc. The thing is, if weed was legalized then a few things happen:
1. You instantly make millions of people who were perceived as being criminals regular people again,
2. You gather tax revenue from the sales (not such a big boost if many people decide to grow their own, unless you tax seed sales too),
3. You remove a massive burden from the justice system as many "criminals" are released (less prison over-crowding), the police are freed up (to focus on real crimes). The courts are less bogged down with all of these cases. In other words, you save money. Add that to the tax revenue and it seems like quite a cash cow, potentially.
4. You actually create employment. All these people who were once criminals, now they can ply their trade - legally.

How does any of this affect the general public in a negative way?

[over the line]

I think for cannabis to be illegal there has to be some research into the dangers of smoking it. The results of that research have to be unbiased and have to be peer-reviewed before being presented to the public. The public needs to be shown just how deadly this drug is, if it is in fact deadly at all. Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that it's not deadly at all.

How is smoking cannabis dangerous to society? It isn't. The danger is introduced by making it illegal and forcing everyone who wants to use it into being a criminal.

There are many things I can do in my everyday life that puts me in some danger but do I deserve to be prosecuted for that? Here are a list of dangerous activities:
smoking
drinking
driving
standing on the top rung of a ladder
hiking
skiing
etc

Only one of those is going to get me a citation but I guarantee you that standing on the top rung of a ladder is far more dangerous than smoking a joint.

Thankfully the US seems to be on the right track with three states + DC making it legal for recreational use. It's still a federal crime but that's hardly surprising. There are people who are financially motivated to keep cannabis illegal e.g., prison owners, the DEA, etc. The thing is, if weed was legalized then a few things happen:
1. You instantly make millions of people who were perceived as being criminals regular people again,
2. You gather tax revenue from the sales (not such a big boost if many people decide to grow their own, unless you tax seed sales too),
3. You remove a massive burden from the justice system as many "criminals" are released (less prison over-crowding), the police are freed up (to focus on real crimes). The courts are less bogged down with all of these cases. In other words, you save money. Add that to the tax revenue and it seems like quite a cash cow, potentially.
4. You actually create employment. All these people who were once criminals, now they can ply their trade - legally.

How does any of this affect the general public in a negative way?

Just because cannabis isn't deadly doesn't mean it should not be illegal though does it? Almost all crimes aren't deadly but they are are still illegal aren't they? Theft, burglary, robbery, flashing, fraud, stalking, etc etc, not deadlt but still illegal and rightly so. Simply the fact that an activity isn't deadly, doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

I'm not sure many (if any) people go to prison for straight possession of cannabis, or even low level supply, but if you deem a substance to be bad for society and ban it, then suppliers of it have to have at least a fear of a custodial sentence don't they?

I think I've said it before but what would be the point of the government legalising cannabis and then spending millions on discouraging people from doing it, as ultimately it is bad for peoples health isn't it?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Just because cannabis isn't deadly doesn't mean it should not be illegal though does it? Almost all crimes aren't deadly but they are are still illegal aren't they? Theft, burglary, robbery, flashing, fraud, stalking, etc etc, not deadlt but still illegal and rightly so. Simply the fact that an activity isn't deadly, doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

I'm not sure many (if any) people go to prison for straight possession of cannabis, or even low level supply, but if you deem a substance to be bad for society and ban it, then suppliers of it have to have at least a fear of a custodial sentence don't they?

I think I've said it before but what would be the point of the government legalising cannabis and then spending millions on discouraging people from doing it, as ultimately it is bad for peoples health isn't it?

I think the "evidence" that it causes damage to health is pretty flimsy - as flimsy as the evidence that it is a universal panacea for every condition. So the legal basis for banning it is already flawed.

I don't understand what gives any government the right to prevent people making their own choices. We are human beings with a free will, so if we want to accept the danger of taking a substance let us.

Nobody would dream of stopping dangerous sports like mountaineering, or sailing, or scuba diving. We broadcast contests where there is a clear and present risk of death, such as boxing and formula 1. We let people drive cars which can go at speeds of over 120 mph with nothing more than a cursory glance at the results of a 30 minute driving test.

But somehow, if somebody wants to run the risk of death or insanity from taking substances which don't usually cause this, then society has the right to prohibit it. What hypocrisy.

Drugs are banned for political reasons, and always have been. Opium was banned in the US because it was giving immigrant Chinese workers the ability to work more productively than the white workers, whose drug of choice was alcohol.

When I was young, you could buy Kaolin and Morphine in chemists if you had a dodgy stomach. It was banned to prevent opiate addicts abusing it - because junkies were using it. Not because the vast majority of people were becoming addicted, but because a small portion of the population were using it as a substitute for drugs they couldn't buy.

The drugs laws are a moral judgement on people who chose to follow a different path. Punishments are there to punish them for their devious thoughts. We should be no more judgemental of someone for wanting to take Heroin, as we would be of a father of two who goes ice climbing in the winter.

[over the line]

I think the "evidence" that it causes damage to health is pretty flimsy - as flimsy as the evidence that it is a universal panacea for every condition. So the legal basis for banning it is already flawed.

I don't understand what gives any government the right to prevent people making their own choices. We are human beings with a free will, so if we want to accept the danger of taking a substance let us.

Nobody would dream of stopping dangerous sports like mountaineering, or sailing, or scuba diving. We broadcast contests where there is a clear and present risk of death, such as boxing and formula 1. We let people drive cars which can go at speeds of over 120 mph with nothing more than a cursory glance at the results of a 30 minute driving test.

But somehow, if somebody wants to run the risk of death or insanity from taking substances which don't usually cause this, then society has the right to prohibit it. What hypocrisy.

Drugs are banned for political reasons, and always have been. Opium was banned in the US because it was giving immigrant Chinese workers the ability to work more productively than the white workers, whose drug of choice was alcohol.

When I was young, you could buy Kaolin and Morphine in chemists if you had a dodgy stomach. It was banned to prevent opiate addicts abusing it - because junkies were using it. Not because the vast majority of people were becoming addicted, but because a small portion of the population were using it as a substitute for drugs they couldn't buy.

The drugs laws are a moral judgement on people who chose to follow a different path. Punishments are there to punish them for their devious thoughts. We should be no more judgemental of someone for wanting to take Heroin, as we would be of a father of two who goes ice climbing in the winter.

I'm not into ice climbing or heroin, but I know who's lifestyle I would rather have. I do see your point to a degree, but comparing hobbies to drugs doesn't really work for me. Ice climbing is very good for your health and mental state, as most physical activities are. These kind of hobbies have a real positive affect on peoples lives and yes very occasionally someone dies doing it. Heroin on the other hand, I'm struggling to find a positive really, and occasionally someone dies doing it. I think in certain circumstances, people need a bit of help and guidance from the law and legalising heroin would be a pointless act of free choice for the sake of it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not into ice climbing or heroin, but I know who's lifestyle I would rather have. I do see your point to a degree, but comparing hobbies to drugs doesn't really work for me. Ice climbing is very good for your health and mental state, as most physical activities are. These kind of hobbies have a real positive affect on peoples lives and yes very occasionally someone dies doing it. Heroin on the other hand, I'm struggling to find a positive really, and occasionally someone dies doing it. I think in certain circumstances, people need a bit of help and guidance from the law and legalising heroin would be a pointless act of free choice for the sake of it.

But so are drugs, or Boots the Chemists are working under false pretences.

I think both are pretty stupid things to do, and the physical benefits of ice climbing, the adrenaline rush of it, can surely be obtained in safer ways. I'd actually say that it is the danger of death in ice climbing that gives the person that rush. If it was a safe activity it wouldn't be as attractive.

Heroin, on the other hand, can be given to people in a safe way. The intellectual insights and the physical benefits of opiates have been recognised for millennia. The danger in taking opiates doesn't come from the drug, they tend to come from products added to it or from the social consequences of engaging in a criminal act.

So, a clean, legal supply of Heroin is probably as beneficial to some (and less dangerous) than the benefits of ice climbing. But the arbiter seems to be what people consider to be a "morally healthier" life style.

However, even if Heroin is bad for people's health - what gives anybody the right to stop a person determining the conditions on which they will live their life? I would say that everyone is responsible for their own life and as long as they don't harm others then nobody can tell them what to do.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not into ice climbing or heroin, but I know who's lifestyle I would rather have. I do see your point to a degree, but comparing hobbies to drugs doesn't really work for me. Ice climbing is very good for your health and mental state, as most physical activities are. These kind of hobbies have a real positive affect on peoples lives and yes very occasionally someone dies doing it. Heroin on the other hand, I'm struggling to find a positive really, and occasionally someone dies doing it. I think in certain circumstances, people need a bit of help and guidance from the law and legalising heroin would be a pointless act of free choice for the sake of it.

For Heroin, substitute nicotine, alcohol or eating badly. Very little or no positives, yet society tolerates them.

Again, though, you're conflating all illegal drugs. There's plenty evidence out there to support the use of cannabis as a health aid, for example.

[scoopyboy]

For Heroin, substitute nicotine, alcohol or eating badly. Very little or no positives, yet society tolerates them.

Again, though, you're conflating all illegal drugs. There's plenty evidence out there to support the use of cannabis as a health aid, for example.

Heroin or diamorphine hydrochloride is actually a very good drug when used correctly.

It is used for pain killing when other drugs aren't able to give the relief.

For example a terminally ill patient can be treated for a long time with morphine sulphate but towards the end when the pain gets much worse diamorphine hydrochloride is used.

[Phil D. Rolls]

For Heroin, substitute nicotine, alcohol or eating badly. Very little or no positives, yet society tolerates them.

Again, though, you're conflating all illegal drugs. There's plenty evidence out there to support the use of cannabis as a health aid, for example.

In fairness, it was me who adopted the position that all drugs should be treated the same.

I think the evidence for cannabis use is a bit dodgy tbh - not to say its harmful but the science is no more reliable than the science used to impose a ban in the first place.

Anyway Opium is a better example. What is the difference between an Opiate legally prescribed and an Opiate that somebody has bought for themselves. The difference is one is supervised by the state and the other is not.

I wager most Heroin users know far more about how to use it safely than pharmacists or GPs. But in the present situation we are supposed to bow to their "superior" knowledge.

Make all drugs legal, make sure that people have all of the facts, and let them learn from their own experiences. People will die, but not as many people as the number of drivers who die in their first year of driving, or climbers who fall off hills.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Heroin or diamorphine hydrochloride is actually a very good drug when used correctly.

It is used for pain killing when other drugs aren't able to give the relief.

For example a terminally ill patient can be treated for a long time with morphine sulphate but towards the end when the pain gets much worse diamorphine hydrochloride is used.

A survey of American doctors asked 100 years ago, "if you were only ever allowed to use one drug, what would it be". The overwhelming answer was "opium" - it can be used to treat a vast number of conditions, with relatively little harm.

As for becoming addicted, the vast majority of people who use opiates (this includes things like Co Codamol) don't get addicted.

The knock on effect of this ill thought out war on drugs is that it becomes harder and harder for people to make the choices they want in respect of treating themselves.

I used to find that Benylin was an excellent way to deal with a chest infection. Then the authorities decided that - because a handful of junkies were abusing it, that the recipe had to be changed. The one you get over the counter now doesn't have the Codeine anymore, and it doesn't work as well.

The war on drugs is really about whether the market regulates demand, or the pushers (doctors, psychiatrists, pharmacists, drug companies) control demand.

[Haymaker]

Watched a documentary called The Culture High the other day on Netflix. Very interesting.

[over the line]

But so are drugs, or Boots the Chemists are working under false pretences.

I think both are pretty stupid things to do, and the physical benefits of ice climbing, the adrenaline rush of it, can surely be obtained in safer ways. I'd actually say that it is the danger of death in ice climbing that gives the person that rush. If it was a safe activity it wouldn't be as attractive.

Heroin, on the other hand, can be given to people in a safe way. The intellectual insights and the physical benefits of opiates have been recognised for millennia. The danger in taking opiates doesn't come from the drug, they tend to come from products added to it or from the social consequences of engaging in a criminal act.

So, a clean, legal supply of Heroin is probably as beneficial to some (and less dangerous) than the benefits of ice climbing. But the arbiter seems to be what people consider to be a "morally healthier" life style.

However, even if Heroin is bad for people's health - what gives anybody the right to stop a person determining the conditions on which they will live their life? I would say that everyone is responsible for their own life and as long as they don't harm others then nobody can tell them what to do.

No sorry, I'm never going to see heroin as an acceptable hobby and even a legal and regulated version of it would still be a negative force for its users and also society. I have no problem with legislation that prevents me and others from taking an addictive and life sapping substance as a recreational activity. Whether you agree with restrictions on drugs or not, they are put in place for all the right reasons and with good intent. There are such obvious reasons why society accepts ice climbing and doesn't accept heroin use.

[over the line]

For Heroin, substitute nicotine, alcohol or eating badly. Very little or no positives, yet society tolerates them.

Again, though, you're conflating all illegal drugs. There's plenty evidence out there to support the use of cannabis as a health aid, for example.

I just can't picture heroin ever being accepted by society in the same way alcohol and nicotine are and for me that is a good thing. I've seen lives destroyed by alcohol and heroin, both nasty substances in their own way. I don't see the point in legalising heroin and then putting loads of effort into discouraging people from using it. I just don't see how it would work anyway, who would manufacture and sell the legal heroin? Surely the gangsters would still control it all wouldn't they?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

[CropleyWasGod]

I just can't picture heroin ever being accepted by society in the same way alcohol and nicotine are and for me that is a good thing. I've seen lives destroyed by alcohol and heroin, both nasty substances in their own way. I don't see the point in legalising heroin and then putting loads of effort into discouraging people from using it. I just don't see how it would work anyway, who would manufacture and sell the legal heroin? Surely the gangsters would still control it all wouldn't they?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Why would the gangsters control it in a legalised and regulated environment?

I would expect that Big Pharma would be the suppliers, in the same way that they currently produce the legal equivalents.

One might suggest, of course, that they are the biggest gangsters of all, but that's another debate entirely [emoji6]

[over the line]

Why would the gangsters control it in a legalised and regulated environment?

I would expect that Big Pharma would be the suppliers, in the same way that they currently produce the legal equivalents.

One might suggest, of course, that they are the biggest gangsters of all, but that's another debate entirely [emoji6]

My thinking is that a legal heroin would be priced/taxed to discourage its usage and therefore the gangsters would just undercut it. The illegal set up is so huge and well organised that it would likely just adjust and continue. But anyway I can't really imagine such a change in attitude toward heroin that its legalisation and mainstream manufacture and retailing would ever occur. IMO the less heroin that is available then the better for society and individuals. Making heroin more accessible is not really an aspirational goal for a society is it?

[CropleyWasGod]

My thinking is that a legal heroin would be priced/taxed to discourage its usage and therefore the gangsters would just undercut it. The illegal set up is so huge and well organised that it would likely just adjust and continue. But anyway I can't really imagine such a change in attitude toward heroin that its legalisation and mainstream manufacture and retailing would ever occur. IMO the less heroin that is available then the better for society and individuals. Making heroin more accessible is not really an aspirational goal for a society is it?
That's not the goal though. The goals are:-

Protection of the user

Cutting out the majority of petty crime

Eliminating almost all major drug trafficking

Now that is aspirational IMO

[Phil D. Rolls]

No sorry, I'm never going to see heroin as an acceptable hobby and even a legal and regulated version of it would still be a negative force for its users and also society. I have no problem with legislation that prevents me and others from taking an addictive and life sapping substance as a recreational activity. Whether you agree with restrictions on drugs or not, they are put in place for all the right reasons and with good intent. There are such obvious reasons why society accepts ice climbing and doesn't accept heroin use.

I accept that you don't, but who are you to decide what other people should do?

"Addictive and life sapping substance" comes straight from the war on drugs propaganda department by the way. Evidence shows that people can live full and meaningful lives with a supply of medicinal quality Heroin. It is the fact that it is illegal that causes most of the physical and social problems.

Again, I accept your view of ice climbing - but who decides what is healthy, dangerous, or sinful? I believe in modern society, that is the individual. If it does no-one else harm, then it is their business.


My thinking is that a legal heroin would be priced/taxed to discourage its usage and therefore the gangsters would just undercut it. The illegal set up is so huge and well organised that it would likely just adjust and continue. But anyway I can't really imagine such a change in attitude toward heroin that its legalisation and mainstream manufacture and retailing would ever occur. IMO the less heroin that is available then the better for society and individuals. Making heroin more accessible is not really an aspirational goal for a society is it?

When was the last time you bought alcohol, or petrol from a back door salesman?

You are displaying a lot of prejudices towards drugs which would be best described as moral judgements. There was a time when homosexuality was illegal, yet now society sees gay marriage as evidence of a progressive culture.

Heroin isn't something I would want to do, but I acknowledge that drugs have played their part in many of society's greatest achievements. Churchill liked his speed, the guys that discovered DNA had been taking acid, great musicians have used cocaine etc.

It's no longer good enough to rely on tired cliches spouted by the worst of the anti drugs machine. The debate has to be informed by a)what does the individual want and b) what is the harm that it can do.

Edit: I'd like to stress that my criticisms aren't aimed at you personally, but at the arguments you are using. I realise my post might read like I was beating you with a stick.

[Kato]

My thinking is that a legal heroin would be priced/taxed to discourage its usage and therefore the gangsters would just undercut it. The illegal set up is so huge and well organised that it would likely just adjust and continue. But anyway I can't really imagine such a change in attitude toward heroin that its legalisation and mainstream manufacture and retailing would ever occur. IMO the less heroin that is available then the better for society and individuals. Making heroin more accessible is not really an aspirational goal for a society is it?

I reckon there are more deaths caused by the substance being illegal.

Take the supply out of the hands of the gangsters and so many problems are solved.

[Killiehibbie]

Crack, Cocaine, Corruption & Conspiracy on Netflix shows why the phoney war on drugs goes on.