Drug deaths in Scotland highest in EU

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/alistairkgrant/status/1677282787613716480?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Rachel Reeves is against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

https://twitter.com/alistairkgrant/status/1677282787613716480?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Rachel Reeves is against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tory Lite indeed.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/humzayousaf/status/1677284234023542786?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Good to see Humza offering to work with UK govt to progress this. Will probably fall on deaf ears but we should alway try on issues like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

I support this, whatever country does it. Tragic that our drugs policy is beholden to the moral outrage of certain tabloids.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230707/e93a4764993ecffba130f09895865974.jpg

Lib Dems support.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I support this, whatever country does it. Tragic that our drugs policy is beholden to the moral outrage of certain tabloids.

It has always seemed a no brainer to me and I also don’t care how it happens. We are wasting a lot of money and lives with the ‘war on drugs’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

https://twitter.com/alistairkgrant/status/1677282787613716480?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Rachel Reeves is against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really disappointing response and extremely tone deaf to the issues facing Scotland.

Many of our allies in Europe and around the world have deemed this a priority - perhaps she could get in touch with some of her colleagues in Portugal and explain why they shouldn't have prioritised decriminalisation?

I'm unclear how trying to reduce drug deaths could be seen as anything other than urgent.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1677308487636746242?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour and Tories in tandem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

It has always seemed a no brainer to me and I also don’t care how it happens. We are wasting a lot of money and lives with the ‘war on drugs’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The “war on drugs” language doesn’t help serious debate really. The police already exercise a fair degree of tolerance at an individual level and given the choice the majority of senior officers would rather work from a public health approach than an enforcement approach, I’m in no doubt about that.

Where a lot of enforcement resource is deployed is in the distribution at serious weight level, which is not unreasonable given the related blight of criminality that accompanies it. Decriminalisation might reduce that but it raises a thorny question or two that tend to get overlooked.

Firstly, if there is a genuine health approach then it feels obvious that decriminalisation would be accompanied by regulation, ensuring product was relatively safe. That regulation comes at cost though. No government would introduce that without looking for cost recovery. That would be in the form of direct taxation on the consumer, or taxation on the supplier, which would then be passed on to the consumer. Would people be willing to start paying more for a product because it came with a stamp of official licensing? Arguably, drug consumption already follows the principles of a free market, whereby if supply is weaker or more expensive, then the market allows for someone else to step in. Decriminalisation doesn’t change that.

The other thorny issue is societal impact, from the actions of individuals. The debate about the impact of alcohol on our physiologies is well-rehearsed - “he can hud his drink”; “she’s mental with a drink in her” etc etc. What is the process for ensuring what constitutes a safe level of ‘stonedness’, a safe ‘high’; a safe level of ‘a bit melted’? For drivers? For train drivers? If you had a spark at your house doing some rewiring would you be happy if he was half-cut on the job? What if he was nipping outside every so often for a puff of some super strain 😀. So yes, it’s one of these areas where it is easy for some politicians to talk about in sound bites, much harder to legislate or design policy around.

As for Rachel Reeves, I think she is alive to those questions. I also think there is a need to try and understand where people do have concerns - parents especially. I doubt even the most liberal on here want it easier for their thirteen year old daughter or son to get their hands on the cornucopia of drugs that are currently prohibited.

I am not against decriminalisation but I think a lot of the arguments for it fail to explore the bigger issues. And the “decriminalise but regulate” always makes me think of the old constant argument about how if we re-signed Riordan the upsurge in STs would more than compensate for any fee paid 😀

And also very conscious, as you know, that I tread carefully for risk of being a hypocrite here 😂

[Ozyhibby]

The “war on drugs” language doesn’t help serious debate really. The police already exercise a fair degree of tolerance at an individual level and given the choice the majority of senior officers would rather work from a public health approach than an enforcement approach, I’m in no doubt about that.

Where a lot of enforcement resource is deployed is in the distribution at serious weight level, which is not unreasonable given the related blight of criminality that accompanies it. Decriminalisation might reduce that but it raises a thorny question or two that tend to get overlooked.

Firstly, if there is a genuine health approach then it feels obvious that decriminalisation would be accompanied by regulation, ensuring product was relatively safe. That regulation comes at cost though. No government would introduce that without looking for cost recovery. That would be in the form of direct taxation on the consumer, or taxation on the supplier, which would then be passed on to the consumer. Would people be willing to start paying more for a product because it came with a stamp of official licensing? Arguably, drug consumption already follows the principles of a free market, whereby if supply is weaker or more expensive, then the market allows for someone else to step in. Decriminalisation doesn’t change that.

The other thorny issue is societal impact, from the actions of individuals. The debate about the impact of alcohol on our physiologies is well-rehearsed - “he can hud his drink”; “she’s mental with a drink in her” etc etc. What is the process for ensuring what constitutes a safe level of ‘stonedness’, a safe ‘high’; a safe level of ‘a bit melted’? For drivers? For train drivers? If you had a spark at your house doing some rewiring would you be happy if he was half-cut on the job? What if he was nipping outside every so often for a puff of some super strain [emoji3]. So yes, it’s one of these areas where it is easy for some politicians to talk about in sound bites, much harder to legislate or design policy around.

As for Rachel Reeves, I think she is alive to those questions. I also think there is a need to try and understand where people do have concerns - parents especially. I doubt even the most liberal on here want it easier for their thirteen year old daughter or son to get their hands on the cornucopia of drugs that are currently prohibited.

I am not against decriminalisation but I think a lot of the arguments for it fail to explore the bigger issues. And the “decriminalise but regulate” always makes me think of the old constant argument about how if we re-signed Riordan the upsurge in STs would more than compensate for any fee paid [emoji3]

And also very conscious, as you know, that I tread carefully for risk of being a hypocrite here [emoji23]

I don’t think anyone is claiming it’s an easy fix and I think all drug would have to be treated differently.
Even taking some of the less harmful drugs profits away from the drug gangs could prove to be a significant disruption to their business though.
Price is always a factor in this. We have been doing that for years with tobacco. The govt is well aware of the price point they need to hit that puts people of smoking, raises revenue and at the same time discourages smuggling of tobacco. The same would need to be done with cannabis. For cannabis I would sell it in nationalised shops. That way there is no commercial imperative to increase sales.
Other drugs would need to be handled a lot more sensitively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

The “war on drugs” language doesn’t help serious debate really. The police already exercise a fair degree of tolerance at an individual level and given the choice the majority of senior officers would rather work from a public health approach than an enforcement approach, I’m in no doubt about that.

Where a lot of enforcement resource is deployed is in the distribution at serious weight level, which is not unreasonable given the related blight of criminality that accompanies it. Decriminalisation might reduce that but it raises a thorny question or two that tend to get overlooked.

Firstly, if there is a genuine health approach then it feels obvious that decriminalisation would be accompanied by regulation, ensuring product was relatively safe. That regulation comes at cost though. No government would introduce that without looking for cost recovery. That would be in the form of direct taxation on the consumer, or taxation on the supplier, which would then be passed on to the consumer. Would people be willing to start paying more for a product because it came with a stamp of official licensing? Arguably, drug consumption already follows the principles of a free market, whereby if supply is weaker or more expensive, then the market allows for someone else to step in. Decriminalisation doesn’t change that.

The other thorny issue is societal impact, from the actions of individuals. The debate about the impact of alcohol on our physiologies is well-rehearsed - “he can hud his drink”; “she’s mental with a drink in her” etc etc. What is the process for ensuring what constitutes a safe level of ‘stonedness’, a safe ‘high’; a safe level of ‘a bit melted’? For drivers? For train drivers? If you had a spark at your house doing some rewiring would you be happy if he was half-cut on the job? What if he was nipping outside every so often for a puff of some super strain 😀. So yes, it’s one of these areas where it is easy for some politicians to talk about in sound bites, much harder to legislate or design policy around.

As for Rachel Reeves, I think she is alive to those questions. I also think there is a need to try and understand where people do have concerns - parents especially. I doubt even the most liberal on here want it easier for their thirteen year old daughter or son to get their hands on the cornucopia of drugs that are currently prohibited.

I am not against decriminalisation but I think a lot of the arguments for it fail to explore the bigger issues. And the “decriminalise but regulate” always makes me think of the old constant argument about how if we re-signed Riordan the upsurge in STs would more than compensate for any fee paid 😀

And also very conscious, as you know, that I tread carefully for risk of being a hypocrite here 😂

"Firstly, if there is a genuine health approach then it feels obvious that decriminalisation would be accompanied by regulation, ensuring product was relatively safe".

I'm not sure why that would have to be the case - you are talking about legalisation surely? The decriminalisation poster boy is Portugal, where no such regulation exists. The state does not get involved in the product, and simply aims to avoid criminalising those who need help, but dealers are still prosecuted.

It may well evolve eventually into state regulation but it is certainly not necessary to begin with to develop an effective policy.

This also means that the hypothetical 13 year olds have no easier access to drugs than they do right now, and rules around things like drug driving require no amendments.

In terms of your other point about a sparky coming round being half cut - what would the difference be to our current situation where they could have been in the pub all morning? How do you know they haven't already been having an illegal puff under our current rules? I'm a bit perplexed by this argument if I'm honest.

[Mon Dieu4]

The “war on drugs” language doesn’t help serious debate really. The police already exercise a fair degree of tolerance at an individual level and given the choice the majority of senior officers would rather work from a public health approach than an enforcement approach, I’m in no doubt about that.

Where a lot of enforcement resource is deployed is in the distribution at serious weight level, which is not unreasonable given the related blight of criminality that accompanies it. Decriminalisation might reduce that but it raises a thorny question or two that tend to get overlooked.

Firstly, if there is a genuine health approach then it feels obvious that decriminalisation would be accompanied by regulation, ensuring product was relatively safe. That regulation comes at cost though. No government would introduce that without looking for cost recovery. That would be in the form of direct taxation on the consumer, or taxation on the supplier, which would then be passed on to the consumer. Would people be willing to start paying more for a product because it came with a stamp of official licensing? Arguably, drug consumption already follows the principles of a free market, whereby if supply is weaker or more expensive, then the market allows for someone else to step in. Decriminalisation doesn’t change that.

The other thorny issue is societal impact, from the actions of individuals. The debate about the impact of alcohol on our physiologies is well-rehearsed - “he can hud his drink”; “she’s mental with a drink in her” etc etc. What is the process for ensuring what constitutes a safe level of ‘stonedness’, a safe ‘high’; a safe level of ‘a bit melted’? For drivers? For train drivers? If you had a spark at your house doing some rewiring would you be happy if he was half-cut on the job? What if he was nipping outside every so often for a puff of some super strain 😀. So yes, it’s one of these areas where it is easy for some politicians to talk about in sound bites, much harder to legislate or design policy around.

As for Rachel Reeves, I think she is alive to those questions. I also think there is a need to try and understand where people do have concerns - parents especially. I doubt even the most liberal on here want it easier for their thirteen year old daughter or son to get their hands on the cornucopia of drugs that are currently prohibited.

I am not against decriminalisation but I think a lot of the arguments for it fail to explore the bigger issues. And the “decriminalise but regulate” always makes me think of the old constant argument about how if we re-signed Riordan the upsurge in STs would more than compensate for any fee paid 😀

And also very conscious, as you know, that I tread carefully for risk of being a hypocrite here 😂

Just because something is decriminalised it doesn't mean you can start doing it when you are working or driving, many trades already implement drugs testing due to the dangerous nature of the job, it would be no different to drink driving in that regard

As for making it easier for young teens to get their hands on drugs, think you are a bit behind on the times to be honest, my 14 nephew could score anything he wanted on WhatsApp or other apps and get it delivered within the hour if he wanted it

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/chrisgreennews/status/1677260055127773189?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Not seen the detail yet but great news if true. It’s a start.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/decriminalise-drugs-for-personal-use-scottish-government-urges-uk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brilliant start but buying has to be decriminalised and fully made a medical issue. Portugal should be a good starting point

[Ozyhibby]

Brilliant start but buying has to be decriminalised and fully made a medical issue. Portugal should be a good starting point

Yes, it’s not an easy process and should evolve over time but the important part is starting. First time a UK govt has admitted that things need to change. And on this policy I think they will find the public more receptive than they possibly think. They might get a lot of flack over next wee while from the media but I genuinely think the public are ready for something like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Just because something is decriminalised it doesn't mean you can start doing it when you are working or driving, many trades already implement drugs testing due to the dangerous nature of the job, it would be no different to drink driving in that regard

As for making it easier for young teens to get their hands on drugs, think you are a bit behind on the times to be honest, my 14 nephew could score anything he wanted on WhatsApp or other apps and get it delivered within the hour if he wanted it

As could mine, it doesn’t mean I want them doing that though, and I think if you are talking about a significant social change then you want to bring people with you. There is very little of that on this debate generally.

[Jack]

When thinking about this in the past I've always sort of thought high usage, deaths in the main cities while appreciating rural areas have their issues too.

I saw on the telly recently that drug deaths in Dumfries and Galloway had soared in the last few years. If they've soared there it suggests decent drops elsewhere.

So where's it falling? How?
Where else is it rising? Why?

[Ozyhibby]

As could mine, it doesn’t mean I want them doing that though, and I think if you are talking about a significant social change then you want to being people with you. There is very little of that on this debate generally.

I’m not so sure. I’ve always felt that people were ahead of the politicians on this debate? Mind you, maybe I just know a lot of people who want to buy drugs.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

When thinking about this in the past I've always sort of thought high usage, deaths in the main cities while appreciating rural areas have their issues too.

I saw on the telly recently that drug deaths in Dumfries and Galloway had soared in the last few years. If they've soared there it suggests decent drops elsewhere.

So where's it falling? How?
Where else is it rising? Why?

Rising everywhere, why diazepam mainly

[Ozyhibby]

When thinking about this in the past I've always sort of thought high usage, deaths in the main cities while appreciating rural areas have their issues too.

I saw on the telly recently that drug deaths in Dumfries and Galloway had soared in the last few years. If they've soared there it suggests decent drops elsewhere.

So where's it falling? How?
Where else is it rising? Why?

Always lived in the city but you do hear people saying it can be a worse problem in rural areas. The borders gets mentioned a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I don’t think anyone is claiming it’s an easy fix and I think all drug would have to be treated differently.
Even taking some of the less harmful drugs profits away from the drug gangs could prove to be a significant disruption to their business though.
Price is always a factor in this. We have been doing that for years with tobacco. The govt is well aware of the price point they need to hit that puts people of smoking, raises revenue and at the same time discourages smuggling of tobacco. The same would need to be done with cannabis. For cannabis I would sell it in nationalised shops. That way there is no commercial imperative to increase sales.
Other drugs would need to be handled a lot more sensitively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with tou, no quick fix, no pun intended.

I don’t have a rigid view on decriminalisation, legalisation or regulation. I do get exercised by what I see as the glibness of the debate on both sides.

[Stairway 2 7]

Yes, it’s not an easy process and should evolve over time but the important part is starting. First time a UK govt has admitted that things need to change. And on this policy I think they will find the public more receptive than they possibly think. They might get a lot of flack over next wee while from the media but I genuinely think the public are ready for something like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. Unfortunately old people vote and some maybe influenced by the papers. Young people I'd bet are heavily weighted to thinking the war on drugs is insane.

[Mibbes Aye]

Always lived in the city but you do hear people saying it can be a worse problem in rural areas. The borders gets mentioned a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fraserburgh was reputed to have the highest heroin addiction rate in Europe in the late 90s. It was a relatively affluent community in those days as well. I think there are a range of socio-economic factors that inform prevalence but they are not always straightforward.

[Kato]

The “war on drugs” language doesn’t help serious debate really. The police already exercise a fair degree of tolerance at an individual level and given the choice the majority of senior officers would rather work from a public health approach than an enforcement approach, I’m in no doubt about that.

Where a lot of enforcement resource is deployed is in the distribution at serious weight level, which is not unreasonable given the related blight of criminality that accompanies it. Decriminalisation might reduce that but it raises a thorny question or two that tend to get overlooked.

Firstly, if there is a genuine health approach then it feels obvious that decriminalisation would be accompanied by regulation, ensuring product was relatively safe. That regulation comes at cost though. No government would introduce that without looking for cost recovery. That would be in the form of direct taxation on the consumer, or taxation on the supplier, which would then be passed on to the consumer. Would people be willing to start paying more for a product because it came with a stamp of official licensing? Arguably, drug consumption already follows the principles of a free market, whereby if supply is weaker or more expensive, then the market allows for someone else to step in. Decriminalisation doesn’t change that.

The other thorny issue is societal impact, from the actions of individuals. The debate about the impact of alcohol on our physiologies is well-rehearsed - “he can hud his drink”; “she’s mental with a drink in her” etc etc. What is the process for ensuring what constitutes a safe level of ‘stonedness’, a safe ‘high’; a safe level of ‘a bit melted’? For drivers? For train drivers? If you had a spark at your house doing some rewiring would you be happy if he was half-cut on the job? What if he was nipping outside every so often for a puff of some super strain [emoji3]. So yes, it’s one of these areas where it is easy for some politicians to talk about in sound bites, much harder to legislate or design policy around.

As for Rachel Reeves, I think she is alive to those questions. I also think there is a need to try and understand where people do have concerns - parents especially. I doubt even the most liberal on here want it easier for their thirteen year old daughter or son to get their hands on the cornucopia of drugs that are currently prohibited.

I am not against decriminalisation but I think a lot of the arguments for it fail to explore the bigger issues. And the “decriminalise but regulate” always makes me think of the old constant argument about how if we re-signed Riordan the upsurge in STs would more than compensate for any fee paid [emoji3]

And also very conscious, as you know, that I tread carefully for risk of being a hypocrite here [emoji23]"War on Drugs" is the policy no matter what you say at the start of your post.

Do you want to go along with that as that seems like Labour policy too?

Whatever the hard work and social education required the war on drugs just doesn't seem to work (after 40 odd years that can't be denied), something else required rather than the same old "buts" and tut-tutting.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

"War on Drugs" is the policy no matter what you say at the start of your post.

Do you want to go along with that as that seems like Labour policy too?

Whatever the hard work and social education required the war on drugs just doesn't seem to work (after 40 odd years that can't be denied), something else required rather than the same old "buts" and tut-tutting.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Would be nice if this wasn’t a party political issue. It’s a health issue. The current approach isn’t working and we need a new way forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

Would be nice if this wasn’t a party political issue. It’s a health issue. The current approach isn’t working and we need a new way forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed.

Unfortunately the Westminster parties won't touch it because they are worried it's not a vote winner.

[Mibbes Aye]

"War on Drugs" is the policy no matter what you say at the start of your post.

Do you want to go along with that as that seems like Labour policy too?

Whatever the hard work and social education required the war on drugs just doesn't seem to work (after 40 odd years that can't be denied), something else required rather than the same old "buts" and tut-tutting.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

‘War on drugs’ is empty rhetoric. It isn’t reflective of the reality of health, social work and third sector activity, nor is it that reflective of street policing or the criminal justice system when it comes to low-level use.

If something isn’t working it is not the straw man you have built.

[Mibbes Aye]

Would be nice if this wasn’t a party political issue. It’s a health issue. The current approach isn’t working and we need a new way forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it is only party political for people who like easy labels, or seek to turn a genuine social issue into a ‘your party is wrong’ issue.

For every decriminalisation/legalisation debate, you can find a Tory who will say “Disgrace, we are the party of law and order” and a Tory who will say “Quite right, the state shouldn’t be meddling in people’s lives”.

And I’m sure you will find a Labour supporter who will say “The state needs to protect people from harm, by outlawing drugs” and one who will say “ The state needs to protest people from harm, by regulating the supply and consumption of drugs”.

It is not a party lines thing, again no pun intended. Nor is it a ‘drugs’ thing - it’s not weed or coke that is causing the vast majority of deaths, it is opiates, benzos, the mixing and the sustained use.

There is an adult debate about harm reduction crying out to be heard in there.

[Ozyhibby]

I think it is only party political for people who like easy labels, or seek to turn a genuine social issue into a ‘your party is wrong’ issue.

For every decriminalisation/legalisation debate, you can find a Tory who will say “Disgrace, we are the party of law and order” and a Tory who will say “Quite right, the state shouldn’t be meddling in people’s lives”.

And I’m sure you will find a Labour supporter who will say “The state needs to protect people from harm, by outlawing drugs” and one who will say “ The state needs to protest people from harm, by regulating the supply and consumption of drugs”.

It is not a party lines thing, again no pun intended. Nor is it a ‘drugs’ thing - it’s not weed or coke that is causing the vast majority of deaths, it is opiates, benzos, the mixing and the sustained use.

There is an adult debate about harm reduction crying out to be heard in there.

Agree. All parties have been getting this wrong. Even today is just a start by the SNP. I think what’s most important though is an open mind to try something. They might get it wrong or go to far with a part of it but at least some acknowledgement that what we have now doesn’t work.
I think Scottish Labour are more in tune with this than UK Labour and there is still some scope for working together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#:~:text=The%20term%20was%20coined%20b y,%22public%20enemy%20number%20one%22.

[Kato]

‘War on drugs’ is empty rhetoric. It isn’t reflective of the reality of health, social work and third sector activity, nor is it that reflective of street policing or the criminal justice system when it comes to low-level use.

If something isn’t working it is not the straw man you have built.

It's not empty rhetoric at all.

The intermediaries in place you mention are mitigating factors in the social fall out, not the supply - that remains one hundred per cent in the hands of criminals. Street policing has its hands tied due to ubiquity on the streets, if they arrested and charged everyone, every weekend there would be little time for anything else.

It becomes party political as the party in govt are happy with the status quo and with the wasted lives and communities of people they don't care a jot about. The labour party more or less falls in line with this as the PR of actually doing something progressive would be a nightmare for them (rag red top rage works well). They and the SNP can set up all the groups and programs they want, none of that works either as has been shown as long as the product is the domain of criminals.

The answer remains education. Tell people what the actual health effects of drug misuse are. Inform the public of how the policies of the past 40 years have harmed and criminalised communities needlessly and continuing that way is futile. Taking supply away from criminals won't be easy but a way has to be found otherwise there is no way out.
A culture change sure but the political expediences are way behind the curve.

[Since90+2]

It's not empty rhetoric at all.

The intermediaries in place your mention are mitigating factors in the social fall out, not the supply - that remains one hundred per cent in the hands of criminals. Street policing has its hands tied due to ubiquity on the streets, if they arrested and charged everyone, every weekend there would be little time for anything else.

It becomes party political as the party in govt are happy with the status quo and with the wasted lives and communities of people they don't care a jot about. The labour party more or less falls in line with this as the PR of actually doing something progressive would be a nightmare for them (rag red top rage works well). They and the SNP can set up all the groups and programs they want, none of that works either as has been shown as long as the product is the domain of criminals.

The answer remains education. Tell people what the actual health effects of drug misuse are. Inform the public of how the policies of the past 40 years have harmed and criminalised communities needlessly and continuing that way is futile. Taking supply away from criminals won't be easy but a way has to be found otherwise there is no way out.
A culture change sure but the political expediences are way behind the curve.

Great post, totally agree.

[archie]

It's not empty rhetoric at all.

The intermediaries in place your mention are mitigating factors in the social fall out, not the supply - that remains one hundred per cent in the hands of criminals. Street policing has its hands tied due to ubiquity on the streets, if they arrested and charged everyone, every weekend there would be little time for anything else.

It becomes party political as the party in govt are happy with the status quo and with the wasted lives and communities of people they don't care a jot about. The labour party more or less falls in line with this as the PR of actually doing something progressive would be a nightmare for them (rag red top rage works well). They and the SNP can set up all the groups and programs they want, none of that works either as has been shown as long as the product is the domain of criminals.

The answer remains education. Tell people what the actual health effects of drug misuse are. Inform the public of how the policies of the past 40 years have harmed and criminalised communities needlessly and continuing that way is futile. Taking supply away from criminals won't be easy but a way has to be found otherwise there is no way out.
A culture change sure but the political expediences are way behind the curve.

I'm troubled by this issue. I take your point about criminalization, but in a country where proposals to address junk food were quietly ditched, it seems surprising that we are considering so liberal an approach. I think it's not as clear cut as you portray. These proposals are not no consequence options. I've posted before about the negative consequences of drug liberalisation Emerging evidence from the US suggests that licenced retail does not kill the illegal trade. And call me old fashioned, but I do worry about the impact of increased drug dependency that this could being. Look at the opioid epidemic in the US arising from prescription drugs.

On the political point, I really hope this is sincere and not another attempt to pick a fight. The previous noise about consumption rooms could be seen as cover for the impact of cutting funding for drugs services. This is too serious an issue to be a political football.

[Since90+2]

I'm troubled by this issue. I take your point about criminalization, but in a country where proposals to address junk food were quietly ditched, it seems surprising that we are considering so liberal an approach. I think it's not as clear cut as you portray. These proposals are not no consequence options. I've posted before about the negative consequences of drug liberalisation Emerging evidence from the US suggests that licenced retail does not kill the illegal trade. And call me old fashioned, but I do worry about the impact of increased drug dependency that this could being. Look at the opioid epidemic in the US arising from prescription drugs.

On the political point, I really hope this is sincere and not another attempt to pick a fight. The previous noise about consumption rooms could be seen as cover for the impact of cutting funding for drugs services. This is too serious an issue to be a political football.

The SNP have said they want to work with the Westminster government to try and make this work. As far as I can see both major parties at Westminster have ruled that out today, without so much as even an initial consultation on what could be feasible.

I'm sure some people will find a way to spin that against the SNP though.

[Kato]

I'm troubled by this issue. I take your point about criminalization, but in a country where proposals to address junk food were quietly ditched, it seems surprising that we are considering so liberal an approach. I think it's not as clear cut as you portray. These proposals are not no consequence options. I've posted before about the negative consequences of drug liberalisation Emerging evidence from the US suggests that licenced retail does not kill the illegal trade. And call me old fashioned, but I do worry about the impact of increased drug dependency that this could being. Look at the opioid epidemic in the US arising from prescription drugs.

On the political point, I really hope this is sincere and not another attempt to pick a fight. The previous noise about consumption rooms could be seen as cover for the impact of cutting funding for drugs services. This is too serious an issue to be a political football.

You might not have noticed archie but on a party political front I'm not exactly Mr SNP. I am however in favour of a different, scaled, phased in policy to take drug supply away from criminals and the moral straight jacket which has led to the state of play as we have it, when looked at logically, is just daft (unless the deterioration and dissipation of a class of people is the aim, which to the tories, it is.)

I'm not trying to be abrasive in the face of your sense of propriety but in the real world people like to get sh*t faced, with all sorts of concoctions. Always have, always will. Finding a way to inform, control and allow as healthy a way to approach drugs as possible has to be the aim.

I'm talking about a clear aim, I don't see how I'm using it as political football. Ive merely stated where the main parties are. The conversation can continue while bearing that in mind.

[archie]

You might not have noticed archie but on a party political front I'm not exactly Mr SNP. I am however in favour of a different, scaled, phased in policy to take drug supply away from criminals and the moral straight jacket which has led to the state of play as we have it, when looked at logically, is just daft (unless the deterioration and dissipation of a class of people is the aim, which to the tories, it is.)

I'm not trying to be abrasive in the face of your sense of propriety but in the real world people like to get sh*t faced, with all sorts of concoctions. Always have, always will. Finding a way to inform, control and allow as healthy a way to approach drugs as possible has to be the aim.

I'm talking about a clear aim, I don't see how I'm using it as political football. Ive merely stated where the main parties are. The conversation can continue while bearing that in mind.

OK. And I'm really not trying to dig here, but if I understand correctly your position is that people are going to get out of their heads, so we should accept this, legalize supply and put in place education to inform people of risks and possible outcomes? This will take some criminality out of stressed areas. I know that's pretty broad brush, but have I got this right.

BTW the political football point was a general one rather than specifically at you

[Ozyhibby]

Outside of politics it seems to be being welcome by groups that work in drug and alcohol support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Outside of politics it seems to be being welcome by groups that work in drug and alcohol support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most of the perofessionals who have day-to-day contact with people in this group, whether they are social work, health board or third sector are focused on harm reduction, practical issues like support for people to maintain tenancies, and supporting people to access and maintain involvement in various therapies.

I have more trust in their perspective than any politician or self-appointed experts in the social media world.

Also as importantly, there is a real lack of voice for people with lived experience of substance misuse, whether coming through it or remaining in it.

That sort of expertise and understanding is held at a local level but rarely seems to feature in any debate. Yet that is where any answers are most likely to be found.

[Hibrandenburg]

The SNP have said they want to work with the Westminster government to try and make this work. As far as I can see both major parties at Westminster have ruled that out today, without so much as even an initial consultation on what could be feasible.

I'm sure some people will find a way to spin that against the SNP though.

The SNP are looking for a fight :dunno:

[Glory Lurker]

The SNP are looking for a fight :dunno:

Cause they're oot their nuts on fandabidozie.

[archie]

The SNP are looking for a fight :dunno:

Some critics argued that the focus on consumption rooms was a distraction from rising drug deaths and SG funding cuts to drug services.

[archie]

Cause they're oot their nuts on fandabidozie.

Are you allowed to make Krankies references here?!

[Ozyhibby]

Some critics argued that the focus on consumption rooms was a distraction from rising drug deaths and SG funding cuts to drug services.

That’s a fair point to make bit when you bring in experts and ask them to take a holistic approach then surely that’s fair enough?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

Are you allowed to make Krankies references here?!

You know where I'm going.

[Kato]

OK. And I'm really not trying to dig here, but if I understand correctly your position is that people are going to get out of their heads, so we should accept this, legalize supply and put in place education to inform people of risks and possible outcomes? This will take some criminality out of stressed areas. I know that's pretty broad brush, but have I got this right.

BTW the political football point was a general one rather than specifically at you

All good then. I would broaden it out and ask why do certain groups want to get out of their head on certain volatile substances to such a large degree, look at the social circumstances which usually come with that aspect and attempt to fix that. Despair and a lack of a stable social structure has a lot to answer for in those non-recreational users.

[Bristolhibby]

All good then. I would broaden it out and ask why do certain groups want to get out of their head on certain volatile substances to such a large degree, look at the social circumstances which usually come with that aspect and attempt to fix that. Despair and a lack of a stable social structure has a lot to answer for in those non-recreational users.

The million dollar question. Frankly I’d like to solve social deprivation, just to solve social deprivation. A downturn in hard drugs, impact on the NHS, etc will be a positive impact.

I think cannabis should be legalised. Completely remove it from the criminals. And if someone wants to grow a greenhouse of the stuff, then let them.

J

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230708/2e95f7c8d6e7ebff3ebdefb976f6bdd9.jpg

This is unexpected. Although to be fair to the Record, when it comes to reporting what is going on with Scotlands drug gangs etc it’s second to none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230708/2e95f7c8d6e7ebff3ebdefb976f6bdd9.jpg

This is unexpected. Although to be fair to the Record, when it comes to reporting what is going on with Scotlands drug gangs etc it’s second to none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if the article has a pop at Labour as well.

[Hibrandenburg]

I wonder if the article has a pop at Labour as well.

To be fair, who knows what Labour's policy will be next week never mind when they're actually in government.

[archie]

All good then. I would broaden it out and ask why do certain groups want to get out of their head on certain volatile substances to such a large degree, look at the social circumstances which usually come with that aspect and attempt to fix that. Despair and a lack of a stable social structure has a lot to answer for in those non-recreational users.
I don't disagree with any of this. I also know that most young people grow out of drug use. But with proposals for liberalisation, we do need to consider the downsides and have a clear understanding about what we are trying to achieve. For me the key questions are:

- What drugs are we decriminalising?
- Do we envisage a role for the state in providing drugs?
- Is the state's role in providing drugs simply as supplier or as part of a rehabilitation programme?
- If it's the latter it implies that the state will only supply drugs if people sign up to programmes, which will mean the black market continues. If it's the former then the state is simply taking over from dealers.
- What if addiction rates increase - is that just an acceptable side effect of the policy?
- There is emerging evidence from the US that legalisation doesn't kill the black market - they just undercut official channels. That means there would still need to be enforcement.
- What about the long term health implications of drug use, with the related human and financial costs?
- Are we sacrificing the future young and disadvantaged so that the middle classes can get easier access to their recreational drugs?

I don't expect snappy answers to these questions and I don't hold you responsible for the policy! But it is a really complicated issue that doesn't lend itself to trite soundbites. It needs full engagement and debate.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't disagree with any of this. I also know that most young people grow out of drug use. But with proposals for liberalisation, we do need to consider the downsides and have a clear understanding about what we are trying to achieve. For me the key questions are:

- What drugs are we decriminalising?
- Do we envisage a role for the state in providing drugs?
- Is the state's role in providing drugs simply as supplier or as part of a rehabilitation programme?
- If it's the latter it implies that the state will only supply drugs if people sign up to programmes, which will mean the black market continues. If it's the former then the state is simply taking over from dealers.
- What if addiction rates increase - is that just an acceptable side effect of the policy?
- There is emerging evidence from the US that legalisation doesn't kill the black market - they just undercut official channels. That means there would still need to be enforcement.
- What about the long term health implications of drug use, with the related human and financial costs?
- Are we sacrificing the future young and disadvantaged so that the middle classes can get easier access to their recreational drugs?

I don't expect snappy answers to these questions and I don't hold you responsible for the policy! But it is a really complicated issue that doesn't lend itself to trite soundbites. It needs full engagement and debate.

If I could take these on point by point with my opinion of what could happen, not what the SNP or anyone else plans.
Which drugs to decriminalise? For me, all drugs should be decriminalised for personal use. I would still prosecute people selling harmful products. Probably more harshly.
State provision? That’s a yes for me but only on some drugs. Cannabis would be a yes. Sell to make large profits that fund healthcare for drug users including rehab programmes. For opiates, I would provide free for addicts in clinics administered by professionals. This has a number of benefits, it is safer for people than illegal drugs as they will be medical grade with proper dosing etc, it takes away the black market for those drugs which is beneficial for the rest of society not dealing with criminals and also imo there will be less people who become addicted to opiates in future as there is no incentive for any future drug dealers. The Scottish market for drugs won’t be as profitable for drug dealers when the govt monopolises the supply cannabis and opiates. That leaves recreational drugs. This is the most difficult part and where it may be difficult for the state to be involved in supply. However the state could offer free testing for purity and could also provide advice to consumers. More knowledgable consumers can only be a good thing.
I would not make supply of opiates dependent on signing up for any programmes but I would make sure people always had access to such programmes.
If addiction rates increase? The evidence from around the world suggests the opposite but if it does then you look at what changes need made to improve. Constantly.
Long term drug use implications? We are dealing with that anyway with the added complication of people self administering their own cocktails of drugs which are poorly produced that are cut with very dangerous substances.
The last point doesn’t make sense. This is a healthcare issue. It remains about harm reduction everywhere for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

If I could take these on point by point with my opinion of what could happen, not what the SNP or anyone else plans.
Which drugs to decriminalise? For me, all drugs should be decriminalised for personal use. I would still prosecute people selling harmful products. Probably more harshly.
State provision? That’s a yes for me but only on some drugs. Cannabis would be a yes. Sell to make large profits that fund healthcare for drug users including rehab programmes. For opiates, I would provide free for addicts in clinics administered by professionals. This has a number of benefits, it is safer for people than illegal drugs as they will be medical grade with proper dosing etc, it takes away the black market for those drugs which is beneficial for the rest of society not dealing with criminals and also imo there will be less people who become addicted to opiates in future as there is no incentive for any future drug dealers. The Scottish market for drugs won’t be as profitable for drug dealers when the govt monopolises the supply cannabis and opiates. That leaves recreational drugs. This is the most difficult part and where it may be difficult for the state to be involved in supply. However the state could offer free testing for purity and could also provide advice to consumers. More knowledgable consumers can only be a good thing.
I would not make supply of opiates dependent on signing up for any programmes but I would make sure people always had access to such programmes.
If addiction rates increase? The evidence from around the world suggests the opposite but if it does then you look at what changes need made to improve. Constantly.
Long term drug use implications? We are dealing with that anyway with the added complication of people self administering their own cocktails of drugs which are poorly produced that are cut with very dangerous substances.
The last point doesn’t make sense. This is a healthcare issue. It remains about harm reduction everywhere for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for taking the time to address the points.

You say this point doesn't make sense:

Are we sacrificing the future young and disadvantaged so that the middle classes can get easier access to their recreational drugs?


It isn't just a healthcare issue if we focus on recreational drugs. I think much of the driver around drug law relaxation is about middle class recreational use. But the broad brush legalise all approach sweeps up the vulnerable too.

There are also long term harm potentials. This is from Harvard https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cognitive-effects-of-long-term-cannabis-use-in-midlife-202206142760 Here's a web MD piece on the long term effect of heroin use https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/heroin-use (I accept that AIDS and Hep C risks decline if there is a controlled injection environment).

It sometimes reads like people want liberalisation, but don't want to deal with the consequences. If we make drugs freely available (I know you could argue that they are now) and prolonged use leads to early onset dementia, who picks up the pieces?

[Ozyhibby]

Thanks for taking the time to address the points.

You say this point doesn't make sense:

Are we sacrificing the future young and disadvantaged so that the middle classes can get easier access to their recreational drugs?


It isn't just a healthcare issue if we focus on recreational drugs. I think much of the driver around drug law relaxation is about middle class recreational use. But the broad brush legalise all approach sweeps up the vulnerable too.

There are also long term harm potentials. This is from Harvard https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cognitive-effects-of-long-term-cannabis-use-in-midlife-202206142760 Here's a web MD piece on the long term effect of heroin use https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/heroin-use (I accept that AIDS and Hep C risks decline if there is a controlled injection environment).

It sometimes reads like people want liberalisation, but don't want to deal with the consequences. If we make drugs freely available (I know you could argue that they are now) and prolonged use leads to early onset dementia, who picks up the pieces?

If you legalise and supply cannabis through the state you can nudge user back to lower THC contents. These have risen over the years largely due to prohibition. More drug in smaller quantities is easier to smuggle and transport. Same happened in America with alcohol. Spirit use went up compared to beers.
Cannabis consumers don’t have a death wish and with education and proper choice will gravitate to safer options I think.
With heroin users, you still have to encourage them to come off it asap. At least though, they are in the health system rather than drug dealers.
And drug dealing just becomes a whole lot less profitable for organised crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

If you legalise and supply cannabis through the state you can nudge user back to lower THC contents. These have risen over the years largely due to prohibition. More drug in smaller quantities is easier to smuggle and transport. Same happened in America with alcohol. Spirit use went up compared to beers.
Cannabis consumers don’t have a death wish and with education and proper choice will gravitate to safer options I think.
With heroin users, you still have to encourage them to come off it asap. At least though, they are in the health system rather than drug dealers.
And drug dealing just becomes a whole lot less profitable for organised crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some early issues from New York https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/weed-is-legal-in-new-york-but-the-illegal-market-is-still-booming-heres-why

What about the long term health impacts. I assume you would say these should be dealt with by the NHS?

[Pretty Boy]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230708/2e95f7c8d6e7ebff3ebdefb976f6bdd9.jpg

This is unexpected. Although to be fair to the Record, when it comes to reporting what is going on with Scotlands drug gangs etc it’s second to none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not a popular thing to say but as far as tabloids go the Record has been pretty good in the last 2-3 years. They actually have a degree of balance in the sense that all parties are fair game for criticism. As you say their investigative journalism into the drug wars in Scotland is exceptionally good and puts much of the rest of the media, who seem intent on pretending it isn't happening, to shame.

It's also nice to see a red top appear open to a new approach. The screeching from the likes of the Mail and Sun about 'soft touch Scotland' is always predictable. The war on drugs has failed and as long as we persist with the status quo then we will get the same results. People take drugs whether they are illegal or not. For most it's a weekend pastime (or in the case of weed an evening treat similar to a glass of wine) and has minimal impact on their contribution to society on a day to day basis. We need a fresh approach to the shockingly high number of people who are dying as a result of heroin and related products. It's heartening to see a mainstream party bring the issue to the fore. Whether this is the right approach is open to debate but for all I have criticised the SNP in recent years, on this they deserve a lot of praise for a brave and progressive step.

[Jack]

Would be nice if this wasn’t a party political issue. It’s a health issue. The current approach isn’t working and we need a new way forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would suggest it only becomes a health issue when things go wrong. There's a whole raft of things that have to be addressed. Health services only come in when they fail.

[Ozyhibby]

Some early issues from New York https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/weed-is-legal-in-new-york-but-the-illegal-market-is-still-booming-heres-why

What about the long term health impacts. I assume you would say these should be dealt with by the NHS?

I think all the answers are in that article in some respects. It describe an illegal market that seems very different to what we have anyway but also maybe the legal market is not being priced properly? Then there is the pandemic factor. The article finishes by saying that slowly but surely the legal market is taking over the illegal one.

On long term health impacts, we deal with it the same as we deal with alcohol (better would be good).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Most Scots die from legal drugs is one thing that has to be mentioned. Most are due to methadone and valium. So decriminalisation is not going to stop all the death, although I agree with it

Funding needs to come to help stop the deaths

[Ozyhibby]

Most Scots die from legal drugs is one thing that has to be mentioned. Most are due to methadone and valium. So decriminalisation is not going to stop all the death, although I agree with it

Funding needs to come to help stop the deaths

Agree. It’s just about minimising harm as much as possible.
With the added benefit of reducing crime and costs in the judicial system.
Part of any reform should be funding put in place for the sort of residential top notch care programmes needed to get people of drugs when they are ready.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Agree. It’s just about minimising harm as much as possible.
With the added benefit of reducing crime and costs in the judicial system.
Part of any reform should be funding put in place for the sort of residential top notch care programmes needed to get people of drugs when they are ready.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep 46k a year to keep someone in prison, you could give them a council job for half that. People criminalised for getting drugs is daft, as if it's a deterrent

[archie]

Thought provoking piece https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/

[Ozyhibby]

Thought provoking piece https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/

It’s a good article but all the answers are in there. Portugal isn’t implementing its own policies properly or they have some gaps in it. It should never be legal to consume drugs in public. The article also explains that they have cut funding by about 75% for drug programmes. Also, Portugal only went for decriminalisation rather than state supply. That’s only a partial solution imo.
Even reading that article it still looks like they have a better system than us. Just looks like they have taken their eye off the ball a bit, to borrow a phrase.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230708/3198b7f6ce4e436810a559bbdc9a46cf.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/petekry****_opc/status/1677467952973479937?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Interesting thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/ukleap/status/1677276090216202241?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1677762063811190785?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230709/e76d0d37aa5369bfe221e3ce548f39b9.jpg

Portugal might be under funding their policy just now but you can’t argue with those numbers. I don’t think Portugals policy goes far enough though as it still funds organised crime when it could be funding healthcare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/10/westminster-scotland-proposal-decriminalise-drugs-brave-enough?CMP=share_btn_tw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/ronniecowan/status/1678692680811814913?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

A fair point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/10/westminster-scotland-proposal-decriminalise-drugs-brave-enough?CMP=share_btn_tw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It has a devolved solution to a devolved problem. At the very least, it should be allowed to pilot its proposal. We might have hoped that Keir Starmer would agree. But he too lacks the guts.

Starmers Labour is just the other cheek of the Tory erse, he's no friend whatsoever to our country.

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-drug-decriminalisation-would-do-untold-damage-says-home-secretary-suella-braverman

Suella comes out against. Shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/bobhuntermd/status/1678738166176440322?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

UK govt suppressing drug report.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/stone_skynews/status/1678994818725212160?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

This is horrific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://twitter.com/bobhuntermd/status/1678738166176440322?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

UK govt suppressing drug report.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkShows the current policy and its fallout is exactly what the govt wants.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/stevetransform/status/1678761805299224576?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Interesting thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/bobhuntermd/status/1678738166176440322?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

UK govt suppressing drug report.
The sooner these corrupt Tories are out of office the better.

[Ozyhibby]

I see Anas Sarwar has just ruled out devolution of drug laws. Must have took him a while to get an answer from head office. London knows best I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/petekry****_opc/status/1680868180338569219?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://twitter.com/petekry****_opc/status/1680868180338569219?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat headline is sure to cause "fury".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/janderson_news/status/1693907685249306929?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Great news, long way to go. [emoji1696]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Encouraging recommendation from the Home Affairs Committee

Disappointing, although predictable, response from the Home Office.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66662829

[Kato]

Encouraging recommendation from the Home Affairs Committee

Disappointing, although predictable, response from the Home Office.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66662829

It might actually help people so understandable that the Home Office is against this.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/1697254039455781003?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Shameful from Scottish Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/stvnews/status/1699059328584679734?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

At last. It’s about time someone thought of prohibition as a solution.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

https://x.com/stvnews/status/1699059328584679734?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

At last. It’s about time someone thought of prohibition as a solution.[emoji23]


She should just pass a single law making crime itself a crime, and that would solve all law and order and justice issues at a stroke. No need for her 20,000 extra polis and no need to repair crumbling courthouses.

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1701168791084843375?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Wow, excellent news. Still big hurdle to clear as I doubt staff could be insured unless it was fully legal but it’s a step.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Consumption rooms a step closer in Edinburgh

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-drug-consumption-room-plans-27725133?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

I wonder where it will be placed, will be a minefield. I wouldn’t bother with public consultation it's too important just get it done. Good news though

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/30/britain-is-on-the-brink-of-an-opioid-crisis-punishing-addicts-wont-work?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1719737318

When synthetic drugs hit the UK properly it’s going to be carnage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

And here we go again. Heartbreaking. Cue more blame shifting and vague promises from our politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/20/scotland-drug-deaths-remain-worst-europe-increase

[Stairway 2 7]

And here we go again. Heartbreaking. Cue more blame shifting and vague promises from our politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/20/scotland-drug-deaths-remain-worst-europe-increase

We've been repeating the same thing for years every time these numbers are released, it's a complete disgrace. Notice more cases involved legal methadone than heroin, so decriminalisation isn't the only problem

[Ozyhibby]

We've been repeating the same thing for years every time these numbers are released, it's a complete disgrace. Notice more cases involved legal methadone than heroin, so decriminalisation isn't the only problem

What’s frustrating is nobody seems to know why? On either side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

What’s frustrating is nobody seems to know why? On either side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From personal experience I believe substance abuse and mental health run hand in hand, I don’t know the answer but criminalisation for users is not working.

[J-C]

There's been a huge drug problem in Scotland since the 80's, no matter who's been in power no one can get it under control, I really don't know what the answer is to this conundrum.

[silverhibee]

What’s frustrating is nobody seems to know why? On either side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Scot’s are greedy, not just with drugs but drink food etc compared to other countries.

Methadone is the big problem, it is handed out to easily and once you start the program then your on it for life, this was meant to be a drug to wean you off herion, but folk just take both now, it should only be a year program where you are weaned of all drugs and hope to see the people getting back to a normal life, just giving folk methadone for 20-30 years is not helping one bit.

[Ozyhibby]

I think Scot’s are greedy, not just with drugs but drink food etc compared to other countries.

Methadone is the big problem, it is handed out to easily and once you start the program then your on it for life, this was meant to be a drug to wean you off herion, but folk just take both now, it should only be a year program where you are weaned of all drugs and hope to see the people getting back to a normal life, just giving folk methadone for 20-30 years is not helping one bit.

And are we doing it differently from England? What’s causing this to be so far different from everywhere else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

And are we doing it differently from England? What’s causing this to be so far different from everywhere else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was a woman involved in looking after the recovery of addicts on the radio this morning (didn't catch her name or who she represented ) but she reckoned we should be looking to England where there is much more third sector involvement than in Scotland. Her take was that whilst the nurses and health professionals were well meaning having more lay people involved who have experienced drug addiction themselves led to more successful outcomes. I have no idea if that is true or not but we should be looking at the other UK nations to find out why we are doing less well in Scotland.

[Moulin Yarns]

Something the BBC in Scotland hasn't realised but more serious is that Labour in Westminster hasn't either.

Drug Abuse in Scotland is actually Labour's responsibility. So less of the lies about the SNP and our Scottish Government please.


Reserved matters to Westminster....


Drug abuse.

[marinello59]

Something the BBC in Scotland hasn't realised but more serious is that Labour in Westminster hasn't either.

Drug Abuse in Scotland is actually Labour's responsibility. So less of the lies about the SNP and our Scottish Government please.


Reserved matters to Westminster....


Drug abuse.

Really? Petty party political point scoring as people die?

It’s down to both Governments. People at the front end of this are frustrated at the inactivity of ALL politicians. I’m hoping for a cross party talks on this at Holyrood.

[Moulin Yarns]

Really? Petty party political point scoring as people die?

It’s down to both Governments. People at the front end of this are frustrated at the inactivity of ALL politicians. I’m hoping for a cross party talks on this at Holyrood.

Sorry, didn't get a chance to elaborate. The consumption room debacle, stopped by Westminster, could be a game changer for a lot of addicts.

The guy leading this deserves a medal.

It needs former addicts to be involved on the front line.

[jamie_1875]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to elaborate. The consumption room debacle, stopped by Westminster, could be a game changer for a lot of addicts.

The guy leading this deserves a medal.

It needs former addicts to be involved on the front line.

A drugs consumption room is opening in Glasgow in October, it will house up to 30 addicts at a time to take illegal drugs like heroin. (Although I think the last set of data showed more people died from methadone which is already legal than illegal drugs)

[Moulin Yarns]

A drugs consumption room is opening in Glasgow in October, it will house up to 30 addicts at a time to take illegal drugs like heroin. (Although I think the last set of data showed more people died from methadone which is already legal than illegal drugs)

A few years late.

[jamie_1875]

A few years late.

It will be interesting to see if it makes a difference though. It likely could have been a few years ago as the reason it came about was the Lord Advocate (who is part of the SG) decided it would not be in the public interest to prosecute users of the facility. Both Governments should be able to work together, that's all everyone wants.

[Ozyhibby]

Really? Petty party political point scoring as people die?

It’s down to both Governments. People at the front end of this are frustrated at the inactivity of ALL politicians. I’m hoping for a cross party talks on this at Holyrood.

Party political point scoring is all we hear on this issue. And it’s not just the SNP.
We have heard nothing on this issue from Westminster since it began. No offers of help. Nothing. Despite it being a reserved issue. They don’t care because it serves as weapon to be used against Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Bee]

It's interesting when you look at this from a slightly different angle and focus on the cause not the cure. The average age of people who die from drug abuse were 32 in 2000 and is now 45 in 2022. The average age is rising which suggests there was some kind of pandemic of drug abuse back in around the 80s That shows these are people on average born from 1968 -1977, the deaths are predominantly heroin based allbeit some are methadone and some opioids it's all leading back to heroin or heroin based at 80% of the deaths. I'm sure there's a few posters here who can remember the 80s, early 90s and how bad it was with the death of mining and heavy industry, the mass privatisation of public infrastructure and the mass unemployment especially in Scotland all created by a certain Mrs Thatcher. If anyone is looking to score political points with this then use that old dead boot. These people were born into deprivation and desperation in the main and obviously found drugs to be a way of dealing with it IMO. They're all as good as dead using the current system but there's plenty other countries with proven track records of mitigating some of it so copy them.

[Ozyhibby]

It's interesting when you look at this from a slightly different angle and focus on the cause not the cure. The average age of people who die from drug abuse were 32 in 2000 and is now 45 in 2022. The average age is rising which suggests there was some kind of pandemic of drug abuse back in around the 80s That shows these are people on average born from 1968 -1977, the deaths are predominantly heroin based allbeit some are methadone and some opioids it's all leading back to heroin or heroin based at 80% of the deaths. I'm sure there's a few posters here who can remember the 80s, early 90s and how bad it was with the death of mining and heavy industry, the mass privatisation of public infrastructure and the mass unemployment especially in Scotland all created by a certain Mrs Thatcher. If anyone is looking to score political points with this then use that old dead boot. These people were born into deprivation and desperation in the main and obviously found drugs to be a way of dealing with it IMO. They're all as good as dead using the current system but there's plenty other countries with proven track records of mitigating some of it so copy them.

Doesn’t explain why we are worse hit than places in North of England or Wales? I haven’t heard yet a reason why it’s happening in Scotland? There seems to be a real lack of curiosity from all politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Bee]

Doesn’t explain why we are worse hit than places in North of England or Wales? I haven’t heard yet a reason why it’s happening in Scotland? There seems to be a real lack of curiosity from all politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deaths are predominantly happening in Glasgow and Dundee, two cities which were rife with poverty in the 80s and 90s both up there with the highest in the UK.

You're a teenager in Glasgow in the 80s, chances are your dad was a shipbuilder, a miner or a steelworker in the Craig or work in a business linked to it.

Shipbuilding finished in the 70s, mining finished in the 80s early 90s and Ravenscraig closed in 82 with the loss of around 800 jobs and an estimated 10,000 linked to it so you're prospects look pretty grim in Glasgow then you've got this old boot demanding that everyone over eighteen pays her a fortune in the form of a poll tax but only if you're in Scotland and you'll go to jail if you don't. Glasgow was hit far worse during that time than any other city in the UK and it wasn't in a good place before all that in terms of housing.

[Kato]

Doesn’t explain why we are worse hit than places in North of England or Wales? I haven’t heard yet a reason why it’s happening in Scotland? There seems to be a real lack of curiosity from all politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYou'd have to compare decades of local drugs policy over decades. Maybe junkies in Scotland have persevered.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

Party political point scoring is all we hear on this issue. And it’s not just the SNP.
We have heard nothing on this issue from Westminster since it began. No offers of help. Nothing. Despite it being a reserved issue. They don’t care because it serves as weapon to be used against Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Families dealing with the fallout from their loved ones addictions and those grieving the loss of family members aren't interested in what we can't do, they want us to be better at what we actually can do. They don't care who is to blame for the late delivery of long promised support facilities, they just want whatever is causing the delay removed. They don't want lectures pointing the blame at PM's who left office a quarter of a century ago or to be used as weapons by those obsessed by the constitution, they want listened to. Consumption rooms couldn't happen until relentless pressure from those in the front line caused politicians to actually concede that they could. They shouldn't have had to fight so long to be listened to.
If outcomes are much better in England where drug laws are the same and similar levels of poverty and inequality exist then our politicians should be beating a path down there to find out what they are doing differently. I would like to think many already are.

[Ozyhibby]

Families dealing with the fallout from their loved ones addictions and those grieving the loss of family members aren't interested in what we can't do, they want us to be better at what we actually can do. They don't care who is to blame for the late delivery of long promised support facilities, they just want whatever is causing the delay removed. They don't want lectures pointing the blame at PM's who left office a quarter of a century ago or to be used as weapons by those obsessed by the constitution, they want listened to. Consumption rooms couldn't happen until relentless pressure from those in the front line caused politicians to actually concede that they could. They shouldn't have had to fight so long to be listened to.
If outcomes are much better in England where drug laws are the same and similar levels of poverty and inequality exist then our politicians should be beating a path down there to find out what they are doing differently. I would like to think many already are.

Nobody is interested in finding out the cause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Really? Petty party political point scoring as people die?
This is rich.

[marinello59]

This is rich.

You haven’t quoted my whole post. :greengrin

Any views on the actual issue?

[Stairway 2 7]

Drugs policy and legality is the same in all 4 nations yet it's us that has had the explosion of deaths. Drug rooms are great but Benzos and legal methadone cause more deaths than heroin and doesn't explain the much lower deaths in other UK nations.

In 2015 the deaths were less than half what they are now UK and Europe stayed steady we flew up. The only major shift I can see is funding for rehabilitation, there was a “real terms” cut in budgets for alcohol and drug services, from £114million to £53million between 2007 and 2019.

[Andy Bee]

Families dealing with the fallout from their loved ones addictions and those grieving the loss of family members aren't interested in what we can't do, they want us to be better at what we actually can do. They don't care who is to blame for the late delivery of long promised support facilities, they just want whatever is causing the delay removed. They don't want lectures pointing the blame at PM's who left office a quarter of a century ago or to be used as weapons by those obsessed by the constitution, they want listened to. Consumption rooms couldn't happen until relentless pressure from those in the front line caused politicians to actually concede that they could. They shouldn't have had to fight so long to be listened to.
If outcomes are much better in England where drug laws are the same and similar levels of poverty and inequality exist then our politicians should be beating a path down there to find out what they are doing differently. I would like to think many already are.

Drug deaths are at their highest level on record in England and Wales and have risen every year for the last eleven years, why should we look at them?

Signed.. A constitutional obsessionist lecturer with an interest in past UK PMs who created high levels of poverty and deprivation in Scotland and the links to drug addiction that may have caused.

Methadone is the highest killer and the shameful fact is that the vast majority of Methadone users have sought help previously for their heroin addiction to be prescribed Methadone in the first place, they're then forgotten about it seems. If they've approached a doctor with their addiction problems then that should be the start of their road to recovery using whatever means possible. Whether that's rehab or regular drug tests to determine they've stayed off Heroin then rehab if not. Can the SG afford that kind of level of rehab centres needed? The cuts in all forms of drug rehabilitation methods in Scotland says they can't.

[grunt]

You haven’t quoted my whole post. :greengrin
I quoted the bit that was relevant to my post.


Any views on the actual issue?I think it's far more complicated than "let's look at England to see how they do it". I don't know why our numbers are stubbornly high, and nor it seems do the politicians or those responsible on the ground for managing the issue. Or if they do, I haven't heard it reported. But then I'm no expert in these things. I don't think BBC's James Cook is helping by screaming uncontrollably at MSPs on TV.

[Stairway 2 7]

I quoted the bit that was relevant to my post.

I think it's far more complicated than "let's look at England to see how they do it". I don't know why our numbers are stubbornly high, and nor it seems do the politicians or those responsible on the ground for managing the issue. Or if they do, I haven't heard it reported. But then I'm no expert in these things. I don't think BBC's James Cook is helping by screaming uncontrollably at MSPs on TV.

We should be screaming about this over a thousand Scots dying every year, 2.7x the number in England who have the same laws. As I say the only major change I can see in the 10 years when our numbers exploded is the huge amount of real terms cuts in rehabilitation and support spending

[Ozyhibby]

We should be screaming about this over a thousand Scots dying every year, 2.7x the number in England who have the same laws. As I say the only major change I can see in the 10 years when our numbers exploded is the huge amount of real terms cuts in rehabilitation and support spending

Were there real terms cuts in England on rehab and support or was it only Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Were there real terms cuts in England on rehab and support or was it only Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

28% cut compared to our 55%. We did increase ours two years ago so I'm hopefully the numbers will fall after a lag perhaps

The other thing is charities were saying alcohol being dearer in Scotland has drove a lot of addicts to buying benzos. Price rises are laughable to stop addictions and deaths, it has to be treated as a medical problem. I'm glad the consumption rooms are opening as at least we can start showing some dignity to people with problems

https://12ft.io/proxy
Drug death rate: Minimum alcohol pricing has driven people to street drugs in Scotland

[Andy Bee]

More worryingly is that deaths by Cocaine are rising rapidly in all 4 nations. With that being the drug of choice these days the depressing thing is the average age of deaths will drop dramatically in the future and these are being caused in the main by Cocaine being cut with other substances. There's a whole new pandemic on the horizon.

[grunt]

I don't think BBC's James Cook is helping by screaming uncontrollably at MSPs on TV.


We should be screaming about this over a thousand Scots dying every year, 2.7x the number in England who have the same laws.
You think screaming at our politicians when you're supposed to be providing a news service helps, do you?

[Stairway 2 7]

You think screaming at our politicians when you're supposed to be providing a news service helps, do you?

Yeah that's why I wouldn't last in the profession more than a week, I'd boot Lee Anderson in the Echo Falls first chance I got too.

[Bristolhibby]

Doesn’t explain why we are worse hit than places in North of England or Wales? I haven’t heard yet a reason why it’s happening in Scotland? There seems to be a real lack of curiosity from all politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**** weather. Dark half of the year. Rain that cuts you in half. That and the poverty and hopelessness that is common in other communities.

I think there’s also a point that we are greedy buggers. I’m your quintessential binge drinker. Happily go a couple of weeks no booze then go and get totalled. No off switch.

J

[Ozyhibby]

**** weather. Dark half of the year. Rain that cuts you in half. That and the poverty and hopelessness that is common in other communities.

I think there’s also a point that we are greedy buggers. I’m your quintessential binge drinker. Happily go a couple of weeks no booze then go and get totalled. No off switch.

J

I don’t really believe in Scottish exceptionalism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

I don’t really believe in Scottish exceptionalism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The drug stats say otherwise.

J

[Paul1642]

The drug stats say otherwise.

J

Unfortunately so. I can’t find the stats but I would not be surprised whatsoever to find that we also drink more per person, smoke more per person and have on average a worse diet than the rest of the UK.

Dammed if I know the reason though.

[Paul1642]

More worryingly is that deaths by Cocaine are rising rapidly in all 4 nations. With that being the drug of choice these days the depressing thing is the average age of deaths will drop dramatically in the future and these are being caused in the main by Cocaine being cut with other substances. There's a whole new pandemic on the horizon.

It is worrying but I don’t think it will continue that way, for the simple reason of cost.

[Bristolhibby]

Unfortunately so. I can’t find the stats but I would not be surprised whatsoever to find that we also drink more per person, smoke more per person and have on average a worse diet than the rest of the UK.

Dammed if I know the reason though.

This might be an old trope, but did Scotland not have the worst cases of heart disease in Europe at some point?

Does give some credence to the thinking we eat, smoke, drink, consume drugs and ****ty food on a massive level.

Likewise we do have to think there is something up with us a a people that might just skew the stats.

Is it some brutal combination of factors? If so, does that get taken into account or is it just nonsense?

J

[Ozyhibby]

This might be an old trope, but did Scotland not have the worst cases of heart disease in Europe at some point?

Does give some credence to the thinking we eat, smoke, drink, consume drugs and ****ty food on a massive level.

Likewise we do have to think there is something up with us a a people that might just skew the stats.

Is it some brutal combination of factors? If so, does that get taken into account or is it just nonsense?

J

The fact we can’t identify the problem means we won’t be fixing it anytime soon. Unless the SNP govt come up with some proposals soon then they will be punished for it and will deserve it. Although it’s reserved the SNP seem keen to accept responsibility for it so need to get on with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

The fact we can’t identify the problem means we won’t be fixing it anytime soon. Unless the SNP govt come up with some proposals soon then they will be punished for it and will deserve it. Although it’s reserved the SNP seem keen to accept responsibility for it so need to get on with it.
So according to you we dont know the cause of the problem but it's the SNP's fault we haven't sorted it? Righto.

[Andy Bee]

I'd doubt there would be any reliable figures but is there any information on number of drug users per capita in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK. It would be interesting to see if there's double the amount of drug use in comparison to the UK which might explain the extra deaths or whether it's roughly the same which would mean we're basically crap at keeping these people alive.


Edit...Approx 26000 methadone users in Scotland but it seems that's estimated because the SG doesn't record the numbers :rolleyes: and around 147500 in England. Seems were **** at keeping people alive.

[Ozyhibby]

So according to you we dont know the cause of the problem but it's the SNP's fault we haven't sorted it? Righto.

Do we know the fault of the problem?
I’m not saying it’s the SNP’s fault, I’m saying they will pay for it not being solved. They appear not even able to defend themselves these days. Not just on this issue either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I'd doubt there would be any reliable figures but is there any information on number of drug users per capita in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK. It would be interesting to see if there's double the amount of drug use in comparison to the UK which might explain the extra deaths or whether it's roughly the same which would mean we're basically crap at keeping these people alive.


Edit...Approx 26000 methadone users in Scotland but it seems that's estimated because the SG doesn't record the numbers :rolleyes: and around 147500 in England. Seems were **** at keeping people alive.

Looks like we are prescribing methadone at double the rate of England?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

I was laughed at earlier, but does absolutely shan weather for most of the year, and obviously higher levels of depravation not have something to do with it? Take Norway, just as cold, but less access to hard liquor, presumably lower drug deaths and nothing like the poverty.

If it’s poverty related then that’s a macro issue. Not just a Scottish government issue. We know the SNP response would be independence = more prosperity = less reasons to take drugs = less deaths. To not even have control over your own drug policy is insane. Guess England couldn’t have Scotland legalising cannabis or other drugs as that would be too much for Westminster to cope with.

I admit not much can be done about it being freezing and hooning with rain.

J

[Andy Bee]

Looks like we are prescribing methadone at double the rate of England?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

England prescribe 5.67 times more than Scotland with 8 times the population so Scotland is more but not by that much. In the article I found the figures it stated that in England 207000 people sought help in 2009 with 147500 being prescribed Methadone so that would put both countries on par with each other. It makes some sad reading around rehab though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/10/addicted_to_methadone.html

[Stairway 2 7]

So according to you we dont know the cause of the problem but it's the SNP's fault we haven't sorted it? Righto.

Only sensible difference I can see from professionals is a larger cut in rehabilitation spending and minimal alcohol pricing pushing people to benzos.

Scotland and the EU/UK were on a similar trajectories for drug deaths we then saw it shoot up in around 2013 then steeper in 2018.

The weather didn't suddenly become colder so that can be dismissed, we didn't become that much relatively poorer in fact the opposite, drug policy didn't change so it can't be that.

If Scotland was always so much worse it could be dismissed as they way it always has been or cultural differences. The fact is our numbers shot up twice in the last decade so only changes in that time are relevant

[grunt]

Scotland and the EU/UK were on a similar trajectories for drug deaths we then saw it shoot up in around 2013 then steeper in 2018.
:confused:

[Keith_M]

'Rural communities in the Highlands, Aberdeenshire and Perthshire are being targeted by gangs using school children to sell class A drugs.

Dealers based mainly in London and Merseyside use youngsters to move heroin and crack cocaine from major cities to smaller locations.

Police Scotland say there are more than 20 active routes north of the border known as "county lines". '

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50090140


'County Lines' is such a major problem and has increased both the level of drug taking, and often the associated violence, in the last decade or so but doesn't appear to get the media coverage it deserves.