Drug deaths in Scotland highest in EU

[G B Young]

This makes for very depressing reading:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48938509

What can be done to better address what is a devastating issue for so many people?

[makaveli1875]

This makes for very depressing reading:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48938509

What can be done to better address what is a devastating issue for so many people?

Getting to root of why so many people in Scotland feel the need to take drugs would be a good start

[Curried]

This makes for very depressing reading:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48938509

What can be done to better address what is a devastating issue for so many people?

Independence for Scotland.

[makaveli1875]

Independence for Scotland.

I forgot independence will fix all of Scotlands problems. The junkies are just waiting for independence day so they can throw down their needles and bin the bacofoil

[RyeSloan]

The spike in the last 4 years or so must be a clue as to what’s going on. It’s almost doubled in that time.

It was on a gradual rise but that spike is something else.

I do wonder about the stars though from other EU countries and wonder if the standard ‘better reporting’ line is responsible for the unwanted top of the charts billing.

[James310]

Independence for Scotland.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-government-accused-cutting-crucial-18206845

[Ozyhibby]

Decriminalise all drugs. Take supply away from criminal gangs and start treating it like a health issue. Look to countries like Portugal and Switzerland for solutions.
The money saved on policing drug gangs, smuggling, violent crime etc can be put to proper rehab programmes.
Tax weed to help the public finances as well.
Let’s be grown up and admit prohibition does not work and enriches gangsters.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stokesmessiah]

Decriminalise all drugs. Take supply away from criminal gangs and start treating it like a health issue. Look to countries like Portugal and Switzerland for solutions.
The money saved on policing drug gangs, smuggling, violent crime etc can be put to proper rehab programmes.
Tax weed to help the public finances as well.
Let’s be grown up and admit prohibition does not work and enriches gangsters.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. It is an absolute no brainer.

[Pretty Boy]

Regulate recreational drugs and educate people on how they can be taken safely. There is no reason why a drug like ecstasy in it's proper form has to kill anyone if there is some very simple advice given. It's when you get impure crap that all kinds of problems start. For drugs such as heroin and crack offer safe areas for people to do what they need to do, provide alcohol wipes, clean injecting equipment, other items required and make it clear that whenever they want to stop there is help available.

The 'war on drugs' is unwinnable in it's current form. You can't strip away people's consumer choice simply by making a product illegal. There is blatant hypocrisy as well when you see the health and social issues associated with alcohol and tobacco but both of those remain legal. Like many issues in this country we seem scared to have grown up conversations and consider alternatives. 'Tougher laws and tougher sentences' isn't the answer. If people want or need to take drugs they will do so regardless of the potential consequences. Why not accept that, take away as much of the power as possible from drug dealers and regulate and tax it as an industry like any other?

[SHODAN]

Decriminalise all drugs. Take supply away from criminal gangs and start treating it like a health issue. Look to countries like Portugal and Switzerland for solutions.
The money saved on policing drug gangs, smuggling, violent crime etc can be put to proper rehab programmes.
Tax weed to help the public finances as well.
Let’s be grown up and admit prohibition does not work and enriches gangsters.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup - unfortunately this will not happen for a long time.

[JeMeSouviens]

Yup - unfortunately this will not happen for a long time.

It might if the power to do it lay in Scotland. There's next to no chance of UK gov run by Tories doing it though.

[Fife-Hibee]

In a country where opportunities are systematically kept to a bare minimum for young people, is it any surprise to anyone that there is such a major drug issue here?

Young people are not invested in. We're not given the budget that allows us to invest in young people. We have a UK Government that only takes care of their own (the OAPs that vote for them).

So it's either turn away and leave this country, or stay here and have no real prospects in life and turn to whatever is available to pass the time.

[Sylar]

The article highlights a key part of the problem being aging trouble users (primarily between the ages of 35-54). It also emphasises a "desensitisizing" and the clamour for something stronger than what addicts have been taking for years (leading to experimentation with unknown drugs or cocktails).

This is very much in the territory of a "wicked problem". It's not just policy, it's not just finances, it's not just access, it's not just socioeconomic conditions and it's not just regulation and criminal status of particular drugs - it's a combination of all of the above with variance in each addict.

Legalisation and taxation won't solve the problem on its own - since legalisation of marijuana in California, counts of other drug abuse have grown almost exponentially. Just like the problem, the solution is far from simple.

But sure, Westmonster...:rolleyes:

[Fife-Hibee]

The article highlights a key part of the problem being aging trouble users (primarily between the ages of 35-54). It also emphasises a "desensitisizing" and the clamour for something stronger than what addicts have been taking for years (leading to experimentation with unknown drugs or cocktails).

This is very much in the territory of a "wicked problem". It's not just policy, it's not just finances, it's not just access, it's not just socioeconomic conditions and it's not just regulation and criminal status of particular drugs - it's a combination of all of the above with variance in each addict.

Legalisation and taxation won't solve the problem on its own - since legalisation of marijuana in California, counts of other drug abuse have grown almost exponentially. Just like the problem, the solution is far from simple.

But sure, Westmonster...:rolleyes:

So you don't think the devolution of drug laws to Scotland could help us to manage things better compared to the current arrangement where we have no control over it at all?

Seeing as drug laws are reserved to the UK government. Shouldn't the headline be "UK region has highest drug related deaths in the EU". :confused:

[Mibbes Aye]

In a country where opportunities are systematically kept to a bare minimum for young people, is it any surprise to anyone that there is such a major drug issue here?

Young people are not invested in. We're not given the budget that allows us to invest in young people. We have a UK Government that only takes care of their own (the OAPs that vote for them).

So it's either turn away and leave this country, or stay here and have no real prospects in life and turn to whatever is available to pass the time.

Interestingly, part of the continuous rise in deaths is the increasing number of older fatalities who have been using drugs for decades.

Another factor appears to be the rise of poly drug use, where people are taking combinations that wasn’t the case in the past, This is partly linked to accessibility through the internet. Crazy as it sounds but before the rise of online purchasing there was a relatively stable quality control in that product got diluted. Online makes it a roll of the dice as to the strength and toxicity.

I think turning it into a Westminater/Holyrood thing is missing the point. Legislation is reserved but approaches to treatment are devolved and actually sit beyond Holyrood, with Alcohol and Drug Partnerships that tend to be based around local authority areas or sometimes, local authorities working in partnership with one another where there are economies of scale. They are generally made up of council staff, health board staff, third sector agencies and the police.

I actually wonder about the role of Police Scotland in all this. Generally speaking, the police have tended to opt for pragmatism when it comes to the interface between public health and criminality. I think that’s the right approach. When the service became a national body however, we did see some shifts - they adopted a much harder line in relation to the saunas and the women working there than Lothian and Borders did. Adopting a harder line in drug addiction won’t solve anything IMO.

There was a good article in today’s Guardian that critiques all sides of the debate, I will post a link to it later.

[JeMeSouviens]

The article highlights a key part of the problem being aging trouble users (primarily between the ages of 35-54). It also emphasises a "desensitisizing" and the clamour for something stronger than what addicts have been taking for years (leading to experimentation with unknown drugs or cocktails).

This is very much in the territory of a "wicked problem". It's not just policy, it's not just finances, it's not just access, it's not just socioeconomic conditions and it's not just regulation and criminal status of particular drugs - it's a combination of all of the above with variance in each addict.

Legalisation and taxation won't solve the problem on its own - since legalisation of marijuana in California, counts of other drug abuse have grown almost exponentially. Just like the problem, the solution is far from simple.

But sure, Westmonster...:rolleyes:

No, but treating drug use as primarily a health problem rather than a crime problem, as in Portugal, has worked.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it
https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

The problem is not Westminster government per se, it's reactionary Tories.

[Mibbes Aye]

So you don't think the devolution of drug laws to Scotland could help us to manage things better compared to the current arrangement where we have no control over it at all?

Seeing as drug laws are reserved to the UK government. Shouldn't the headline be "UK region has highest drug related deaths in the EU". :confused:

Westminster legislation is voted on by MPs, and Scotland has a proportionate representation there, based on it being part of a union.

Saying ‘we’ have no control over it is facile. I am also unsure why you think that every Scots MP would vote the same way and vote in opposition to every English MP as that seems to be your suggestion, but that is obviously nonsense.

[Mibbes Aye]

No, but treating drug use as primarily a health problem rather than a crime problem, as in Portugal, has worked.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it
https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

The problem is not Westminster government per se, it's reactionary Tories.

It’s not really reactionary Tories, it is far more complex than that.

Today’s Guardian article

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/16/scotland-records-huge-rise-in-drug-related-deaths

[Fife-Hibee]

Westminster legislation is voted on by MPs, and Scotland has a proportionate representation there, based on it being part of a union.

Saying ‘we’ have no control over it is facile. I am also unsure why you think that every Scots MP would vote the same way and vote in opposition to every English MP as that seems to be your suggestion, but that is obviously no.

Well I guess we wouldn't know would we? Seeing as our "proportionate representation" clearly doesn't count for anything when it comes to managing drug problems in Scotland.

[Mibbes Aye]

Well I guess we wouldn't know would we? Seeing as our "proportionate representation" clearly doesn't count for anything when it comes to managing drug problems in Scotland.

Managing the problem sits with ADPs and the relationship between police, health boards, social work and the voluntary sector organisations who are commissioned to carry out the majority of case work.

[JeMeSouviens]

It’s not really reactionary Tories, it is far more complex than that.

Today’s Guardian article

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/16/scotland-records-huge-rise-in-drug-related-deaths

The drug abuse problem is complex. The refusal to countenance anything beyond a prohibition, "war on drugs" policy is because of reactionary Tories.

[Fife-Hibee]

Managing the problem sits with ADPs and the relationship between police, health boards, social work and the voluntary sector organisations who are commissioned to carry out the majority of case work.

It also sits with funding availability and the power to alter legislation surrounding drug laws and control.

[Mibbes Aye]

It also sits with funding availability and the power to alter legislation surrounding drug laws and control.

ADP funding comes from Scottish Government. Legislation regarding controlled drugs sits with Westminster, that is correct, but has always been interpreted in pragmatic ways by police and local services, usually on an informal and unstated basis.

[Mibbes Aye]

The drug abuse problem is complex. The refusal to countenance anything beyond a prohibition, "war on drugs" policy is because of reactionary Tories.

This isnt a big issue for me but I would bet my mortgage that there are voters of every hue and persuasion who back a zero tolerance to drug misuse. I suspect there are many voters in the more deprived parts of our lands who would never countenance voting Tory, but live alongside the day to day impact of prolific drug use and all that comes with it and would happily be punitive in their approach.

[Fife-Hibee]

ADP funding comes from Scottish Government. Legislation regarding controlled drugs sits with Westminster, that is correct, but has always been interpreted in pragmatic ways by police and local services, usually on an informal and unstated basis.

No funding comes from the Scottish Government. It comes from Westminster and the Scottish Government redistributes it. There's no use kidding on this isn't a UK wide issue. Other parts of the UK are struggling with their own drug epidemics and it all links to this outdated "war on drugs" mantra from a UK Government that retains it's outdated "values".

[Mibbes Aye]

No funding comes from the Scottish Government. It comes from Westminster and the Scottish Government redistributes it. There's no use kidding on this isn't a UK wide issue. Other parts of the UK are struggling with their own drug epidemics and it all links to this outdated "war on drugs" mantra from a UK Government that retains it's outdated "values".

The death rate in Scotland is more than three times that in England and Wales.

[Fife-Hibee]

The death rate in Scotland is more than three times that in England and Wales.

Yes, now break it down a bit more. How does it compare to London? Or Manchester? Or Liverpool?

If you compare it to England on a whole, then yes, it's worse. But the issues south of the border are focused more around particular regions. They'll be regions that are every bit as bad as Scotland.

[Sylar]

Yes, now break it down a bit more. How does it compare to London? Or Manchester? Or Liverpool?

If you compare it to England on a whole, then yes, it's worse. But the issues south of the border are focused more around particular regions. They'll be regions that are every bit as bad as Scotland.

Do you have a link to any relevant data for those regions? I would genuinely be interested in having a look at how the large urban areas of England compare to those in the rUK.

[Fife-Hibee]

Do you have a link to any relevant data for those regions? I would genuinely be interested in having a look at how the large urban areas of England compare to those in the rUK.

No, because they won't break the data down this way. I've seen lists highlighting the worst areas in England for drug and alcohol use. But no comparable statistics to Scotland.

Why would they? When they can just compare Scotland (a region of the UK) to England as a whole and tell us how much worse we are? Instead of actually comparing Scotland (a region of the UK) to similar sized regions across England.

[Ozyhibby]

The Scottish govt have asked for this power to devolved numerous times and the request has always been denied. This is a classic case of a problem in Scotland, identified as such by a majority of our elected representatives with a potential solution ready to go that is being denied by the Westminster govt.
I doubt there is a more clear cut case of the union not working to our benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sylar]

No, because they won't break the data down this way. I've seen lists highlighting the worst areas in England for drug and alcohol use. But no comparable statistics to Scotland.

Why would they? When they can just compare Scotland (a region of the UK) to England as a whole and tell us how much worse we are? Instead of actually comparing Scotland (a region of the UK) to similar sized regions across England.

The more detailed statistics are listed here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/drugmisusedeathsbylocalauthority

Rates are per 100,000 of population rather than the per million the BBC article lists, and the data is only up to 2017 (published in 2018 and due an update).

There are indeed a higher number of drug related deaths in some counties of England - the North West has a cumulative deaths via drug poisoning of 1835 (but the a few million more of a population than Scotland). None of the UK cities have a lower drug use rate than Glasgow or Lothian with the exception of Liverpool, but yet again, the rate is lower.

The raw data also appears to provide data on drug misuse right down to the major town/city level, but the BBC article appears to focus on poisoning specifically.

So overall, while there are areas of England where drug poisoning deaths are indeed higher than Scotland, the overall rate of death per population is much lower (as the higher rates are occurring in regions with incomparable population sizes compared to Scotland).

I'm sure there are other narratives in there, as the numbers look really interesting, but that's my coffee break finished :greengrin

[Fife-Hibee]

The more detailed statistics are listed here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/drugmisusedeathsbylocalauthority

Rates are per 100,000 of population rather than the per million the BBC article lists, and the data is only up to 2017 (published in 2018 and due an update).

There are indeed a higher number of drug related deaths in some counties of England - the North West has a cumulative deaths via drug poisoning of 1835 (but the a few million more of a population than Scotland). None of the UK cities have a lower drug use rate than Glasgow or Lothian with the exception of Liverpool, but yet again, the rate is lower.

The raw data also appears to provide data on drug misuse right down to the major town/city level, but the BBC article appears to focus on poisoning specifically.

So overall, while there are areas of England where drug poisoning deaths are indeed higher than Scotland, the overall rate of death per population is much lower (as the higher rates are occurring in regions with incomparable population sizes compared to Scotland).

I'm sure there are other narratives in there, as the numbers look really interesting, but that's my coffee break finished :greengrin

Thanks for providing those figures. I'll take a look. :aok:

[Just Jimmy]

out of interest how many people on this thread deal with drugs and drug users in any capacity on a daily or even weekly basis?

other than reading on the subject what is everyone's experience to say just to legalise it?

I do and Skylars post is spot on, it's simple just not that simple - even if it was to be PART of the solution.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Just Jimmy]

Interestingly, part of the continuous rise in deaths is the increasing number of older fatalities who have been using drugs for decades.

Another factor appears to be the rise of poly drug use, where people are taking combinations that wasn’t the case in the past, This is partly linked to accessibility through the internet. Crazy as it sounds but before the rise of online purchasing there was a relatively stable quality control in that product got diluted. Online makes it a roll of the dice as to the strength and toxicity.

I think turning it into a Westminater/Holyrood thing is missing the point. Legislation is reserved but approaches to treatment are devolved and actually sit beyond Holyrood, with Alcohol and Drug Partnerships that tend to be based around local authority areas or sometimes, local authorities working in partnership with one another where there are economies of scale. They are generally made up of council staff, health board staff, third sector agencies and the police.

I actually wonder about the role of Police Scotland in all this. Generally speaking, the police have tended to opt for pragmatism when it comes to the interface between public health and criminality. I think that’s the right approach. When the service became a national body however, we did see some shifts - they adopted a much harder line in relation to the saunas and the women working there than Lothian and Borders did. Adopting a harder line in drug addiction won’t solve anything IMO.

There was a good article in today’s Guardian that critiques all sides of the debate, I will post a link to it later.also a good post on this topic


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

out of interest how many people on this thread deal with drugs and drug users in any capacity on a daily or even weekly basis?

other than reading on the subject what is everyone's experience to say just to legalise it?

I do and Skylars post is spot on, it's simple just not that simple - even if it was to be PART of the solution.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I think most people’s experience is that the current system of all drugs being illegal has been a complete failure. Legalisation takes the problem out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of the state. It won’t stop the deaths from drugs alone, a far more joined up approach is needed for that. We currently have a system that’s not taking advice from professionals as it’s not politically acceptable. It’s not just hard drugs that are the problem. Criminalising people for using recreational drugs is needless and a drain on the state.

[Fife-Hibee]

out of interest how many people on this thread deal with drugs and drug users in any capacity on a daily or even weekly basis?

other than reading on the subject what is everyone's experience to say just to legalise it?

I do and Skylars post is spot on, it's simple just not that simple - even if it was to be PART of the solution.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The point isn't to "just legalise it". It's to regulate and ensure that the substances being taken are safe and that those who participate in drug use have safe spaces to go to. In these safe spaces they can be offered counciling, programs, rehab... etc.

Social attitudes towards drug users is a big issue as well. If we keep on criminalizing them and sending them to jail to mix with other drug users and those thinking about doing drugs, then all we're doing is creating a never ending spiral of drug abuse.

Jail is expensive to the tax payer as well. Perhaps not so much in the short term, but in the long run. The money could be far better spent creating safe spaces, drug control centres and providing help and support to those who need it the most.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Decriminalise all drugs. Take supply away from criminal gangs and start treating it like a health issue. Look to countries like Portugal and Switzerland for solutions.
The money saved on policing drug gangs, smuggling, violent crime etc can be put to proper rehab programmes.
Tax weed to help the public finances as well.
Let’s be grown up and admit prohibition does not work and enriches gangsters.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fully agree with this. Drug addiction is a health issue; it shouldn't be a criminal issue. Treat adults like adults, making them aware of the risks in a truthful, non-hysterical way, then allow them to make their choices. Provide proper help to those struggling to give up. Look at how this approach has drastically reduced smoking. Tax drugs and make some of the proceeds available for education and treating addiction.

This grown up approach is probably a long way off, meaning we will continue with criminality and violence plus doctored drugs, which pose a huge risk to users. We still have a Victorian hypocritical attitude to drugs.

[Ozyhibby]

The point isn't to "just legalise it". It's to regulate and ensure that the substances being taken are safe and that those who participate in drug use have safe spaces to go to. In these safe spaces they can be offered counciling, programs, rehab... etc.

Social attitudes towards drug users is a big issue as well. If we keep on criminalizing them and sending them to jail to mix with other drug users and those thinking about doing drugs, then all we're doing is creating a never ending spiral of drug abuse.

Jail is expensive to the tax payer as well. Perhaps not so much in the short term, but in the long run. The money could be far better spent creating safe spaces, drug control centres and providing help and support to those who need it the most.

Yip. There is no one solution to this, just lots of little things that could make the whole situation better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

The point isn't to "just legalise it". It's to regulate and ensure that the substances being taken are safe and that those who participate in drug use have safe spaces to go to. In these safe spaces they can be offered counciling, programs, rehab... etc.

Social attitudes towards drug users is a big issue as well. If we keep on criminalizing them and sending them to jail to mix with other drug users and those thinking about doing drugs, then all we're doing is creating a never ending spiral of drug abuse.

Jail is expensive to the tax payer as well. Perhaps not so much in the short term, but in the long run. The money could be far better spent creating safe spaces, drug control centres and providing help and support to those who need it the most.

Good post. :top marks

[ronaldo7]

The Scottish govt have asked for this power to devolved numerous times and the request has always been denied. This is a classic case of a problem in Scotland, identified as such by a majority of our elected representatives with a potential solution ready to go that is being denied by the Westminster govt.
I doubt there is a more clear cut case of the union not working to our benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:agree:

Scotland had a knife crime problem, and although still not completely eradicated, we tackled it because we had all the tools in the box to do so.

Not one person worldwide has died in a drugs consumption room, but the UK gov continually refuse use to introduce them.

Once again we're fighting a problem with one had tied behind our backs.

There are many difficulties trying to deal with drug deaths, however, until we get ALL the powers to do so, you'll see next years figures, larger than this year.

[Smartie]

I honestly have no idea.

As a parent of a very young child it is pretty scary.

I grew up in a small town that is blighted by drugs and it is hard to look back and work out why some folk got dragged in and ended up losing their lives, some nearly did, some avoided it altogether and some had a good time dallying with recreational drugs and alcohol without being dragged in any further.

[Pete]

Just heard a guy called Darren McGarvey, aka Loki, summing it up nicely on Sky News.

He repeats a lot of what’s been said here about legalising it being only part of the way forward.

I believe it is a problem that can be solved but I’m not convinced that 95% of those who are running the country would want to hear the solution.

[Fife-Hibee]

Just heard a guy called Darren McGarvey, aka Loki, summing it up nicely on Sky News.

He repeats a lot of what’s been said here about legalising it being only part of the way forward.

I believe it is a problem that can be solved but I’m not convinced that 95% of those who are running the country would want to hear the solution.

So let's devolve it to the 8.4% of the country which contains that 5% that will.

[Radium]

Not simple.

Heroin/ opiates are by far the biggest issue and I don’t see legalising them as the way forward. I do support treating users through the health system not the courts.

Diazepam and the new strong version needs to be treated in the same way.

Cannabis should be legalised. Arguably the biggest public danger is fire from screwing the wiring up in houses to grow the stuff.

MDMA, don’t know enough about how it works to know if there’s a safe dose.

Cocaine, no experience of the stuff but clear links to crime

Bath Salts or other concoctions, why would you decriminalise such stuff.

Tackling poverty has to be part of the solution.

Keeping support local.

There isn’t a magic bullet and I admit that I don’t know enough about the wide variety of drugs to have clear opinions on them all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Not simple.

Heroin/ opiates are by far the biggest issue and I don’t see legalising them as the way forward. I do support treating users through the health system not the courts.

Diazepam and the new strong version needs to be treated in the same way.

Cannabis should be legalised. Arguably the biggest public danger is fire from screwing the wiring up in houses to grow the stuff.

MDMA, don’t know enough about how it works to know if there’s a safe dose.

Cocaine, no experience of the stuff but clear links to crime

Bath Salts or other concoctions, why would you decriminalise such stuff.

Tackling poverty has to be part of the solution.

Keeping support local.

There isn’t a magic bullet and I admit that I don’t know enough about the wide variety of drugs to have clear opinions on them all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The two worst by far at the moment are crystal meth and spice. It's the synthetic drugs that cause the most damage now. These drugs are specifically designed to be as addictive as they possibly can be. That's not to say that naturally occuring drugs can't be dangerous as well. Although the biggest danger from naturally occuring drugs is when they get mixed with other things that should never be ingested.

I suppose one of the biggest arguments for legalization and regulation is that government can oversee the production of these drugs and ensure that they are as safe as they possibly can be for drug users. That and the fact that they can use the taxation generated through the licenced sale of these drugs to combat the problem.

[Mibbes Aye]

The two worst by far at the moment are crystal meth and spice. It's the synthetic drugs that cause the most damage now. These drugs are specifically designed to be as addictive as they possibly can be. That's not to say that naturally occuring drugs can't be dangerous as well. Although the biggest danger from naturally occuring drugs is when they get mixed with other things that should never be ingested.

I suppose one of the biggest arguments for legalization and regulation is that government can oversee the production of these drugs and ensure that they are as safe as they possibly can be for drug users. That and the fact that they can use the taxation generated through the licenced sale of these drugs to combat the problem.

I think you are right to talk about the danger of NPS. I also think the danger is about poly use.

What I don’t agree with, not that I think you were saying this, is that legalisation removes the criminal element from the process. Alcohol and tobacco are legal but there is no shortage of criminal activity in relation to either. Legalising drugs and presumably taxing them won’t stop a market emerging for untaxed drugs, totally negating the whole point of legalisation and regulation.

[Ozyhibby]

I think you are right to talk about the danger of NPS. I also think the danger is about poly use.

What I don’t agree with, not that I think you were saying this, is that legalisation removes the criminal element from the process. Alcohol and tobacco are legal but there is no shortage of criminal activity in relation to either. Legalising drugs and presumably taxing them won’t stop a market emerging for untaxed drugs, totally negating the whole point of legalisation and regulation.

You keep the tax low enough to make it only marginally worthwhile to smuggle. You won’t wipe out drug gangs but the reduction would be dramatic.
If an addict can get his fix safely at a drug treatment centre then he will.
Where is the incentive for drug dealers then to try get people hooked in the first place?
Personally I would allow weed to be sold through licensed shops but everything else supplied only through the government as part of a harm reduction approach.
The money saved from the criminal justice side of this can then be put into programmes to help people come of drugs altogether.

I read a great book on this about 18 months ago called Chasing the Scream by Johan Hari. It has a great history of the war on drugs and how it has failed so spectacularly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

I think you are right to talk about the danger of NPS. I also think the danger is about poly use.

What I don’t agree with, not that I think you were saying this, is that legalisation removes the criminal element from the process. Alcohol and tobacco are legal but there is no shortage of criminal activity in relation to either. Legalising drugs and presumably taxing them won’t stop a market emerging for untaxed drugs, totally negating the whole point of legalisation and regulation.

I don't disagree that they'll still be a black market out there (like there are for many things). But at the very least having approved labs producing these drugs will give drug users a safer alternative. I also think it would be cheaper for them to use the safer alternative as well. Drugs are such an expensive business because they're illegal and often have to pass through many different channels before they reach the user.

[Mibbes Aye]

You keep the tax low enough to make it only marginally worthwhile to smuggle. You won’t wipe out drug gangs but the reduction would be dramatic.
If an addict can get his fix safely at a drug treatment centre then he will.
Where is the incentive for drug dealers then to try get people hooked in the first place?
Personally I would allow weed to be sold through licensed shops but everything else supplied only through the government as part of a harm reduction approach.
The money saved from the criminal justice side of this can then be put into programmes to help people come of drugs altogether.

I read a great book on this about 18 months ago called Chasing the Scream by Johan Hari. It has a great history of the war on drugs and how it has failed so spectacularly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Decent points but you have to trust the government of the day to keep taxes low.

What we haven’t touched upon is the ethical issue - I’m not ideological on this and I certainly was no angel in my young adult years. I’m often reminded of the suggestions that if alcohol or tobacco had never been found until now, they would be legislated against on the grounds of public safety and the better interest of society.

Is there a moral issue and is it right for the state to take sanction? Does civil liberty extend to taking mind-altering substances?

I have no fixed position, just curious as to the views of others.

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't disagree that they'll still be a black market out there (like there are for many things). But at the very least having approved labs producing these drugs will give drug users a safer alternative. I also think it would be cheaper for them to use the safer alternative as well. Drugs are such an expensive business because they're illegal and often have to pass through many different channels before they reach the user.

Thanks for the reply, see my response to Ozy as I think it addresses some of your post.

The whole point of drugs is they are a very lucrative income stream - dealers and organised crime groups will circumvent any legal approaches, just as they do with alcohol, tobacco, or designer goods, I suspect. If that means lowering the price to make it more affordable than something licensed then that is what will happen. True capitalist economics, I guess!

[Ozyhibby]

That’s why only weed should be available commercially. All the other substances carry risks that the state could never endorse their use or allow the supply to be privatised. Their use should be discouraged at every turn while at the same time allowing people to access them (that made sense in my head). A system needs designed where there is no market for criminals to exploit while allowing the State to minimise the use as much as possible. If heroin was supplied at cost price (pennies) to addicts then there would be no illegal market to exploit.
The hardest ones are recreational drugs but it’s is not impossible.
There will always be people who want to take drugs or get drunk. We have to find a way that can do this with the least amount of harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Thanks for the reply, see my response to Ozy as I think it addresses some of your post.

The whole point of drugs is they are a very lucrative income stream - dealers and organised crime groups will circumvent any legal approaches, just as they do with alcohol, tobacco, or designer goods, I suspect. If that means lowering the price to make it more affordable than something licensed then that is what will happen. True capitalist economics, I guess!

Yes, but looking at tobacco and alcohol for a second. Just what percentage of the UK market would you say crime syndicates take up? I would say probably not a great deal. Designer good knock offs tend to be imported here and obviously don't match up to the quality of the genuine designers. But you can be sure that if the UK Government outlawed clothes tomorrow, we'd see a far greater influx of knock off gear coming into the country. :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

That’s why only weed should be available commercially. All the other substances carry risks that the state could never endorse their use or allow the supply to be privatised. Their use should be discouraged at every turn while at the same time allowing people to access them (that made sense in my head). A system needs designed where there is no market for criminals to exploit while allowing the State to minimise the use as much as possible. If heroin was supplied at cost price (pennies) to addicts then there would be no illegal market to exploit.
The hardest ones are recreational drugs but it’s is not impossible.
There will always be people who want to take drugs or get drunk. We have to find a way that can do this with the least amount of harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get your point about accessibility and availability, it makes sense to me but you are right, it’s quite a subtle distinction.

At the risk of sounding trite, if it was simple it wouldn’t be a problem.

[lord bunberry]

Just heard a guy called Darren McGarvey, aka Loki, summing it up nicely on Sky News.

He repeats a lot of what’s been said here about legalising it being only part of the way forward.

I believe it is a problem that can be solved but I’m not convinced that 95% of those who are running the country would want to hear the solution.
That’s the best post in this thread. There’s a solution out there, but it’s not compatible with public opinion.

[Fife-Hibee]

BBC balance at it's best.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1151255607699234817/pu/vid/1280x720/Tjf6Czl2ZHruc3Yx.mp4?tag=10

[Hibrandenburg]

I'll buck the trend and say there's drugs and then there's drugs. A blanket legalisation can't be the answer. There's mind altering stuff out there that can turn humans into monsters. Humans are experimental by nature and will always seek new boundaries to cross. I've a German mate who's a GP and his grandfather was a chemist who was involved in the development of Pervitin and has done a lot of research on his involvement. I guess what I'm saying is that legal drugs in the past have created so many problems that they've had to be regulated, once you start regulating you create a black market and there's no easy answer.

[Ozyhibby]

I'll buck the trend and say there's drugs and then there's drugs. A blanket legalisation can't be the answer. There's mind altering stuff out there that can turn humans into monsters. Humans are experimental by nature and will always seek new boundaries to cross. I've a German mate who's a GP and his grandfather was a chemist who was involved involved in the development of Pervitin and has done a lot of research on his involvement. I guess what I'm saying is that legal drugs in the past have created so many problems that they've had to regulated, once you start regulating you create a black market and there's no easy answer.

The vast majority of drug users though would benefit. There will still be those who push the boundaries but if the state can supply the mainstream drugs then it doesn’t leave a lot of market drug dealers.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MagicSwirlingShip]

The two worst by far at the moment are crystal meth and spice. It's the synthetic drugs that cause the most damage now. These drugs are specifically designed to be as addictive as they possibly can be. That's not to say that naturally occuring drugs can't be dangerous as well. Although the biggest danger from naturally occuring drugs is when they get mixed with other things that should never be ingested.

I suppose one of the biggest arguments for legalization and regulation is that government can oversee the production of these drugs and ensure that they are as safe as they possibly can be for drug users. That and the fact that they can use the taxation generated through the licenced sale of these drugs to combat the problem.

I agree these are both very damaging substances, but I'd argue the drug doing to most damage on the streets these days is Cocaine. Its everywhere, and practically socially acceptable for most of the working class under 30.

[Fife-Hibee]

I agree these are both very damaging substances, but I'd argue the drug doing to most damage on the streets these days is Cocaine. Its everywhere, and practically socially acceptable for most of the working class under 30.

Cocaine is certainly more wide spread at the moment. But you can think of Crystal Meth as the big step up. Cocaine has some nasty side effects when used over long periods of time. Crystal Meth is just plain nasty from the get go. It can hook a first time user in, just like that.

[MagicSwirlingShip]

Cocaine is certainly more wide spread at the moment. But you can think of Crystal Meth as the big step up. Cocaine has some nasty side effects when used over long periods of time. Crystal Meth is just plain nasty from the get go. It can hook a first time user in, just like that.

I agree, but its not even close to being as widespread as Cocaine, certainly in Scotland.

Meth is a massive problem in the states, but hasn't really touched Scotland yet

[Cataplana]

Years ago I worked with a guy, who was conservative in his views.

He said the solution to Glasgow's Heroin problem was to give the addicts two weeks notice that lethal Heroin was going to be put on the streets.

He sort of thought that would give people two weeks to get clean, or face the prospect of being eliminated.

I sometimes wonder if he is in charge of drug policy now. People are taking industrial quantities of street Diazepam, cut with God knows what.

The consequence is 2000 deaths, which is really the tip of the iceberg. You have the number of near misses, and hospital admissions to consider,as well.

It has to be time to ensure a safe supply whilst working on the reasons people take drugs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Anything that gets rid of the drug taking/dealing bitch that occupies one of the tenement flats in my stair will do me, ****bag! 😠

[Fife-Hibee]

Anything that gets rid of the drug taking/dealing bitch that occupies one of the tenement flats in my stair will do me, ****bag! 😠

Dealing is a serious crime. Have you reported them to the authorities?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Dealing is a serious crime. Have you reported them to the authorities?

Eh? Once or twice!

[James310]

Have any of the expers looked if the increase in the price of alcohol in Scotland has had an impact. A bottle of Frosty Jack's is probably now more expensive than a small bag of Heroin.

Saying that I have no idea how much a small bag of Heroin costs so could be nonsense.

[Sylar]

Have any of the expers looked if the increase in the price of alcohol in Scotland has had an impact. A bottle of Frosty Jack's is probably now more expensive than a small bag of Heroin.

Saying that I have no idea how much a small bag of Heroin costs so could be nonsense.

Thinktank I work for did some analysis last year to see what the impact was of the increase - in spite of the price rise, purchases and consumption both increased last year but a large part of this was attributed to both the weather and that it was a World Cup year.

[Smartie]

Have any of the expers looked if the increase in the price of alcohol in Scotland has had an impact. A bottle of Frosty Jack's is probably now more expensive than a small bag of Heroin.

Saying that I have no idea how much a small bag of Heroin costs so could be nonsense.

A friend of mine was a huge advocate of the legalisation of cannabis.

He used to describe the effect of inflation on a "unit" of cannabis - it didn't have any effect, and it had been the same price for as long as he had used it.

He was a big believer in legalising and taxing the life out of it, the same was as is done with cigarettes and alcohol, where the majority of the price increase is related to an ongoing increase in taxation.

[The Modfather]

I can see the benefits to legalising drugs, tax and less dangerous quality of drugs than there are now. However is there a risk of drugs becoming socially acceptable which in turn leads to more people trying them than if they were still illegal. Like alcohol, I’m sure drugs will affect different people in different ways. Is there a chance we could then see a more noticeable negative impact of drug users in our day to day lives if they were legalised?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I can see the benefits to legalising drugs, tax and less dangerous quality of drugs than there are now. However is there a risk of drugs becoming socially acceptable which in turn leads to more people trying them than if they were still illegal. Like alcohol, I’m sure drugs will affect different people in different ways. Is there a chance we could then see a more noticeable negative impact of drug users in our day to day lives if they were legalised?

Yes.

[Ozyhibby]

I can see the benefits to legalising drugs, tax and less dangerous quality of drugs than there are now. However is there a risk of drugs becoming socially acceptable which in turn leads to more people trying them than if they were still illegal. Like alcohol, I’m sure drugs will affect different people in different ways. Is there a chance we could then see a more noticeable negative impact of drug users in our day to day lives if they were legalised?

I would say tobacco is becoming less socially acceptable every day despite still being legal. Whether something is socially acceptable is up to us as a society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

I can see the benefits to legalising drugs, tax and less dangerous quality of drugs than there are now. However is there a risk of drugs becoming socially acceptable which in turn leads to more people trying them than if they were still illegal. Like alcohol, I’m sure drugs will affect different people in different ways. Is there a chance we could then see a more noticeable negative impact of drug users in our day to day lives if they were legalised?

Drugs are already at the point where they're deemed socially acceptable. You can find dealers dealing in broad daylight in busy towns now. Stand in the centre of Edinburgh and ask around. You'd be hooked up in less than 10 minutes.

Having safe spaces to go to will keep them out of the public eye making it harder for people to seek out drugs. Keeping members of the public safe and vulnerable drug users safe as well.

[Cataplana]

I can see the benefits to legalising drugs, tax and less dangerous quality of drugs than there are now. However is there a risk of drugs becoming socially acceptable which in turn leads to more people trying them than if they were still illegal. Like alcohol, I’m sure drugs will affect different people in different ways. Is there a chance we could then see a more noticeable negative impact of drug users in our day to day lives if they were legalised?

The Dutch experience tends to suggest we wouldn't. Likewise the increasing legality of recreational drugs in the USA would suggest most people will use responsibly.

There is far too much use of morality in the formation of drug policy.

[lord bunberry]

Drugs are already at the point where they're deemed socially acceptable. You can find dealers dealing in broad daylight in busy towns now. Stand in the centre of Edinburgh and ask around. You'd be hooked up in less than 10 minutes.

Having safe spaces to go to will keep them out of the public eye making it harder for people to seek out drugs. Keeping members of the public safe and vulnerable drug users safe as well.
Your first paragraph is untrue, the second is spot on.

[danhibees1875]

Have any of the expers looked if the increase in the price of alcohol in Scotland has had an impact. A bottle of Frosty Jack's is probably now more expensive than a small bag of Heroin.

Saying that I have no idea how much a small bag of Heroin costs so could be nonsense.

It's an interesting point. I'm not sure how you would measure it though. You could probably draw correlation between the two, not that it would necessarily prove much by itself.
Even if it was the case that there was any causation there, I don't think I'd feel comfortable blaming what I believe to be a positive social move to combat the alcohol problem for being the cause of the increase in drug death. That's a bit of a no win situation.



There's been a few comments, earlier in the thread mostly, around where the control lies to tackle the issue. I assume it's a bit of a grey area where some lies in Scotland and some Westminster. Can anyone suggest what it is we could be trying to do which would be achieved if the decision making capabilities were at Holyrood rather than Westminster?

There's a BBC article that wraps up 5 possible solutions quite neatly, I think it follows a lot of the ideas in this thread well:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48921696

Decriminalisation - I assume this is Westminster
Safe consumption rooms - the article points out that the Scottish government want this but can't implement as it's reserved.
Tackling poverty and homelessness - my understanding would be there are going to be various ways to address this, split between Holyrood and Westminster.
Harm reduction - not sure where it lies
Reduce stigma - surely a local issue, Holyrood or councils.

I'm not sure about decriminalisation, at least not across everything. I don't fully understand the harm reduction one either. The rest seem like good ideas though.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's an interesting point. I'm not sure how you would measure it though. You could probably draw correlation between the two, not that it would necessarily prove much by itself.
Even if it was the case that there was any causation there, I don't think I'd feel comfortable blaming what I believe to be a positive social move to combat the alcohol problem for being the cause of the increase in drug death. That's a bit of a no win situation.



There's been a few comments, earlier in the thread mostly, around where the control lies to tackle the issue. I assume it's a bit of a grey area where some lies in Scotland and some Westminster. Can anyone suggest what it is we could be trying to do which would be achieved if the decision making capabilities were at Holyrood rather than Westminster?

There's a BBC article that wraps up 5 possible solutions quite neatly, I think it follows a lot of the ideas in this thread well:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48921696

Decriminalisation - I assume this is Westminster
Safe consumption rooms - the article points out that the Scottish government want this but can't implement as it's reserved.
Tackling poverty and homelessness - my understanding would be there are going to be various ways to address this, split between Holyrood and Westminster.
Harm reduction - not sure where it lies
Reduce stigma - surely a local issue, Holyrood or councils.

I'm not sure about decriminalisation, at least not across everything. I don't fully understand the harm reduction one either. The rest seem like good ideas though.
Homelessness sits with local authorities but with a big SG influence.

Harm reduction sits with health boards, ADPs and third sector organisations that do frontline work.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

It's an interesting point. I'm not sure how you would measure it though. You could probably draw correlation between the two, not that it would necessarily prove much by itself.
Even if it was the case that there was any causation there, I don't think I'd feel comfortable blaming what I believe to be a positive social move to combat the alcohol problem for being the cause of the increase in drug death. That's a bit of a no win situation.



There's been a few comments, earlier in the thread mostly, around where the control lies to tackle the issue. I assume it's a bit of a grey area where some lies in Scotland and some Westminster. Can anyone suggest what it is we could be trying to do which would be achieved if the decision making capabilities were at Holyrood rather than Westminster?

There's a BBC article that wraps up 5 possible solutions quite neatly, I think it follows a lot of the ideas in this thread well:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48921696

Decriminalisation - I assume this is Westminster
Safe consumption rooms - the article points out that the Scottish government want this but can't implement as it's reserved.
Tackling poverty and homelessness - my understanding would be there are going to be various ways to address this, split between Holyrood and Westminster.
Harm reduction - not sure where it lies
Reduce stigma - surely a local issue, Holyrood or councils.

I'm not sure about decriminalisation, at least not across everything. I don't fully understand the harm reduction one either. The rest seem like good ideas though.

How is reducing stigma a good idea? Until it's legal that would be a 'mare. I'll make it clear I'm only bothered about what's happening literally on my doorstep, and whilst 1 out of 6 tenants in the stair cause hassle, anything that gets her to **** will do us.

[danhibees1875]

Homelessness sits with local authorities but with a big SG influence.

Harm reduction sits with health boards, ADPs and third sector organisations that do frontline work.

:aok:


How is reducing stigma a good idea? Until it's legal that would be a 'mare. I'll make it clear I'm only bothered about what's happening literally on my doorstep, and whilst 1 out of 6 tenants in the stair cause hassle, anything that gets her to **** will do us.

I took it to mean the stigma around addiction and asking for help.

[Betty Boop]

:agree:

Scotland had a knife crime problem, and although still not completely eradicated, we tackled it because we had all the tools in the box to do so.

Not one person worldwide has died in a drugs consumption room, but the UK gov continually refuse use to introduce them.

Once again we're fighting a problem with one had tied behind our backs.

There are many difficulties trying to deal with drug deaths, however, until we get ALL the powers to do so, you'll see next years figures, larger than this year.
The SNP have cut funding to alcohol and drug partnerships for the last twelve years.

[Cataplana]

:aok:



I took it to mean the stigma around addiction and asking for help.

I don't think stigma is a barrier to people seeking help. It is hopelessness and lack of any self esteem, secondary to things like lack of status, and trauma.

[ronaldo7]

The SNP have cut funding to alcohol and drug partnerships for the last twelve years.

£2.6 billion cut to our pocket money in the last ten years.

Once again, a devolved matter is trying to be fixed with a Scottish sticking plaster.

[James310]

£2.6 billion cut to our pocket money in the last ten years. You can only pish with the cock you have.

Once again, a devolved matter is trying to be fixed with a Scottish sticking plaster.


It's shameful that after 10 years in power you still blame Westminster for this, the Scottish Government take no responsibility at all? Seeing you are probably the biggest grievance monkey on here it's not a surprise.

Why are deaths in Scotland so much higher with exactly the same policy then?

[ronaldo7]

It's shameful that after 10 years in power you still blame Westminster for this, the Scottish Government take no responsibility at all? Seeing you are probably the biggest grievance monkey on here it's not a surprise.

Why are deaths in Scotland so much higher with exactly the same policy then?

Your post is rather derogatory, and personal but I will respond.

Your last paragraph is wrong, their were more deaths in England than Scotland last year.

The drugs issue is deep and varied, from poverty and young people not having many life chances. We need a broad suite of powers to deal with the problem. We don't have those. powers.

[James310]

Your post is rather derogatory, and personal but I will respond.

Your last paragraph is wrong, their were more deaths in England than Scotland last year.

The drugs issue is deep and varied, from poverty and young people not having many life chances. We need a broad suite of powers to deal with the problem. We don't have those. powers.

Derogatory and personal? You having a laugh? You are the one that is called out for the wee personal digs, you never liked it when someone else pulled you up on it did you.

Scotland has the highest rate of drug related deaths in Europe, yet you blame Westminster, how very predicable.

[ronaldo7]

Derogatory and personal? You having a laugh? You are the one that is called out for the wee personal digs, you never liked it when someone else pulled you up on it did you.

Scotland has the highest rate of drug related deaths in Europe, yet you blame Westminster, how very predicable.

I've been asked to pull you up on your language by your pal. Just doing as I was asked.

You'll find the figures are correct. Over 3000 drug deaths in England last year.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/08/08/drug-misuse-deaths-fall-but-still-remain-too-high/&ved=2ahUKEwjdlc2fjL3jAhUCQEEAHc4SCOsQFjAHegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2IjRzwAU9GHRI1FZKSjsPN

[Crunchie]

It might if the power to do it lay in Scotland. There's next to no chance of UK gov run by Tories doing it though.

The decision made by the snp to create Police Scotland had a major negative effect. Drug dealing went unchecked in many areas for lengthy periods and drug squads were disbanded. Priority was given over to robbery and housebreaking.

[Crunchie]

In a country where opportunities are systematically kept to a bare minimum for young people, is it any surprise to anyone that there is such a major drug issue here?

Young people are not invested in. We're not given the budget that allows us to invest in young people. We have a UK Government that only takes care of their own (the OAPs that vote for them).

So it's either turn away and leave this country, or stay here and have no real prospects in life and turn to whatever is available to pass the time.

What complete and utter tosh. You make it sound like we're still in the late 70s, 80s. You actually sound like my old man 40yrs ago.

[Crunchie]

I honestly have no idea.

As a parent of a very young child it is pretty scary.

I grew up in a small town that is blighted by drugs and it is hard to look back and work out why some folk got dragged in and ended up losing their lives, some nearly did, some avoided it altogether and some had a good time dallying with recreational drugs and alcohol without being dragged in any further.

I would say that's an experience shared by many. I grew up in a poor housing estate in North Edinburgh and lost almost half my classmates from secondary school to heroin in the 80s.

[speedy_gonzales]

Why are deaths in Scotland so much higher with exactly the same policy then?



Your last paragraph is wrong, their were more deaths in England than Scotland last year.





Scotland has the highest rate of drug related deaths in Europe, yet you blame Westminster, how very predicable.



You'll find the figures are correct. Over 3000 drug deaths in England last year.


Gents, I assume we're talking "pro rata" here, I think you know it, I think we all know it, yet you argue like two bald men over a comb.

Scotland has the highest rate of drug related deaths in Europe, pro rata,,,, brilliant, like our unhealthy relationship with alcohol it seems we really have to be the best at pressing that self destruct button.

[Cataplana]

Disappointing that when people are dieing that supporters of different political parties choose to argue about whose fault it is

2000 deaths in Scotland is a much higher per capita rate than 3000 in England. It's pettiness like that that causes you to despair.

Our drug problem was not caused by one set of politicians, but all politicians - the whole lot have blood on their hands. It has been the fear of introducing radical change and upsetting core voters that has caused them to persist down the same flawed path for decades.

The war on drugs is nothing more than a war on poor people. It is way of distracting the rest from their plight by focussing on their supposed morality. Much easier to say it's their fault due to their lifestyles than to admit that they are failing due to a failed system.

Time to shift this particular red herring onto the sidelines. The thought that this debate could generate into a party v party pissing contest sickens me to the pit of my stomach.

[lord bunberry]

Disappointing that when people are dieing that supporters of different political parties choose to argue about whose fault it is

2000 deaths in Scotland is a much higher per capita rate than 3000 in England. It's pettiness like that that causes you to despair.

Our drug problem was not caused by one set of politicians, but all politicians - the whole lot have blood on their hands. It has been the fear of introducing radical change and upsetting core voters that has caused them to persist down the same flawed path for decades.

The war on drugs is nothing more than a war on poor people. It is way of distracting the rest from their plight by focussing on their supposed morality. Much easier to say it's their fault due to their lifestyles than to admit that they are failing due to a failed system.

Time to shift this particular red herring onto the sidelines. The thought that this debate could generate into a party v party pissing contest sickens me to the pit of my stomach.
:top marksWell said.

[ronaldo7]

It's shameful that after 10 years in power you still blame Westminster for this, the Scottish Government take no responsibility at all? Seeing you are probably the biggest grievance monkey on here it's not a surprise.

Why are deaths in Scotland so much higher with exactly the same policy then?


Your post is rather derogatory, and personal but I will respond.

Your last paragraph is wrong, their were more deaths in England than Scotland last year.

The drugs issue is deep and varied, from poverty and young people not having many life chances. We need a broad suite of powers to deal with the problem. We don't have those. powers.


Gents, I assume we're talking "pro rata" here, I think you know it, I think we all know it, yet you argue like to bald men over a comb.

Scotland has the highest rate of drug related deaths in Europe, pro rata,,,, brilliant, like our unhealthy relationship with alcohol it seems we really have to be the best at pressing that self destruct button.

I was merely pointing out to the other poster that his statement was in fact, wrong. I know that the figures are pro rata, and are heading in the wrong direction in Scotland. They've been halted slightly in England but are still too high.

The RESERVED issue of drugs policy has been challenged on a number of occasions and still we're told, NO.

One death in Scotland is one too many, that's why I'll continue to support the Scottish Government in their endeavours to change the policy.

[ronaldo7]

:agree:

Scotland had a knife crime problem, and although still not completely eradicated, we tackled it because we had all the tools in the box to do so.

Not one person worldwide has died in a drugs consumption room, but the UK gov continually refuse use to introduce them.

Once again we're fighting a problem with one had tied behind our backs.

There are many difficulties trying to deal with drug deaths, however, until we get ALL the powers to do so, you'll see next years figures, larger than this year.


Disappointing that when people are dieing that supporters of different political parties choose to argue about whose fault it is

2000 deaths in Scotland is a much higher per capita rate than 3000 in England. It's pettiness like that that causes you to despair.

Our drug problem was not caused by one set of politicians, but all politicians - the whole lot have blood on their hands. It has been the fear of introducing radical change and upsetting core voters that has caused them to persist down the same flawed path for decades.

The war on drugs is nothing more than a war on poor people. It is way of distracting the rest from their plight by focussing on their supposed morality. Much easier to say it's their fault due to their lifestyles than to admit that they are failing due to a failed system.

Time to shift this particular red herring onto the sidelines. The thought that this debate could generate into a party v party pissing contest sickens me to the pit of my stomach.


In my post above, I've mentioned that we had the tools to deal with our knife crime epidemic, and are winning that battle. It's governments that make policy, and like it or not, as I've said, if we continue on the same path, next years figures will increase, and we'll probably still be asking for the policy to change.

We don't have all the answers here, so why not look elsewhere, where they've had success.

I'm all for trying.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

[Hibrandenburg]

Drug and alcohol abuse in Scotland has been a problem long before any powers were devolved to the Scottish parliament. To pretend that throwing money at the problem without taking other measures will make it go away is madness. Scotland can't try another approach because it's hands are tied by laws made in London. The carrot and stick approach doesn't work, especially when you only control the carrot.

[Cataplana]

In my post above, I've mentioned that we had the tools to deal with our knife crime epidemic, and are winning that battle. It's governments that make policy, and like it or not, as I've said, if we continue on the same path, next years figures will increase, and we'll probably still be asking for the policy to change.

We don't have all the answers here, so why not look elsewhere, where they've had success.

I'm all for trying.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

Agreed, it's time to step away from the adversarial approach to the problem.

Portugal is a step in the right direction. However, they haven't really tackled the issue of supply. This means that there is still a large amount of criminal activity surrounding drugs.

Personally, I would like to see drug use become a matter of personal choice and responsibility. We don't regulate dangerous sports like climbing, why should we regulate drugs?

We always come back to alcohol. Consumption and supply of alcohol are pretty much in the domain of the free market. Only the most desperate consume unsafe products.

To me passing the matter onto health, and social services is passing power over people's lives from one set of suits to another.

[James310]

PMs questions yesterday and a great opportunity to press the PM about how the Scottish Governments hands are tied, but no Ian Blackford thinks a question about Donald Trump is obviously more important.

Priorities?

[Hibrandenburg]

Personally, I would like to see drug use become a matter of personal choice and responsibility. We don't regulate dangerous sports like climbing, why should we regulate drugs?

Because people who climb tend not to effect or endanger the people around them. There's a whole spectrum of drugs out there with many having a good case when it comes to decriminalization, but there's many that will still ruin lives and there's no way they should be legalised.

[The Modfather]

Agreed, it's time to step away from the adversarial approach to the problem.

Portugal is a step in the right direction. However, they haven't really tackled the issue of supply. This means that there is still a large amount of criminal activity surrounding drugs.

Personally, I would like to see drug use become a matter of personal choice and responsibility. We don't regulate dangerous sports like climbing, why should we regulate drugs?

We always come back to alcohol. Consumption and supply of alcohol are pretty much in the domain of the free market. Only the most desperate consume unsafe products.

To me passing the matter onto health, and social services is passing power over people's lives from one set of suits to another.

While I can see where you’re coming from, there is a clear downside to the personal choice route. You only have to look at the the negative impact the availability of coke has had on going to Hibs games, particularly Tynecastle and Hampden. The positives to legalising drugs might outweigh the negatives but I don’t see how it’s possible to negate the negative impact drugs has on some people and the impact that has on everyone else.

[Cataplana]

While I can see where you’re coming from, there is a clear downside to the personal choice route. You only have to look at the the negative impact the availability of coke has had on going to Hibs games, particularly Tynecastle and Hampden. The positives to legalising drugs might outweigh the negatives but I don’t see how it’s possible to negate the negative impact drugs has on some people and the impact that has on everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, drugs are a pity stupid thing to do. Freedom of choice is freedom to be an arse in my book.

It doesnt absolve people of responsibility to others. However the only real impact that drug use has on others is to offend their sense of right and wrong.

Are we really so sensitive that the sight of a 55 year old man chewing his face off is grounds for calling the police? I am just as bothered by the fact he acts and talks like a 25 year old, but I don't expect legislation to regulate that.

You come across all sorts of annoying and reprehensible people at matches. It is the person that is the problem, not the drug. The fact is that when these tools go home and come down they are actually quite proud of their behaviour .

Let's be honest the worst period of football hooliganism,had nothing to do with drugs. Young (and those who think they are young) men will act in that way whatever drug you offer.

Personally, I think all seated stadia are part of the problem here. You can't move away from the trouble makers like you used too

Edit: I think there is a much bigger problem with people standing in places like the East Terracing. Sooner or later there is going to be a tragedy because of it. That doesn't get the same outraged response that a few people acting like fsnnies on cocaine does.

Why not turn the problem on its head. Start selling weed and ecstacy at the ground, it the rest of the crowd was monged, or loved up, the coke heads would look even bigger knobbers than they do right now.

Regulate the behaviour, not the drug. Most cocaine users don't go to football matches in big gangs - it's a red herring.

Let's be honest, what harm do drugs really do to other people, compared to other forms of anti social behaviour.

[Cataplana]

Because people who climb tend not to effect or endanger the people around them. There's a whole spectrum of drugs out there with many having a good case when it comes to decriminalization, but there's many that will still ruin lives and there's no way they should be legalised.

They endanger the lives of mountain rescue teams, and their deaths and injuries have the same impact on those around them as drugs do on others. What is different is that one is seen as a noble and brave past time, whereas the other is seen as decadent and self indulgent.

Drug addiction is largely a matter of personal choice, as was demonstrated at the end of the Vietnam war.

Heroin abuse was endemic amongst GIs. There was a fear that they would bring the problem home with them. It didn't happen, suggesting that it was a problem with the individual rather than the drug.

Evidence suggests that, with a supply of medicinal quality heroin, people can lead productive lives .

[Curried]

PMs questions yesterday and a great opportunity to press the PM about how the Scottish Governments hands are tied, but no Ian Blackford thinks a question about Donald Trump is obviously more important.

Priorities?



To answer your question on priorities…….here you go:

https://www.snp.org/were-taking-urgent-action-to-tackle-scotlands-drug-emergency/

[Hibrandenburg]

They endanger the lives of mountain rescue teams, and their deaths and injuries have the same impact on those around them as drugs do on others. What is different is that one is seen as a noble and brave past time, whereas the other is seen as decadent and self indulgent.

Drug addiction is largely a matter of personal choice, as was demonstrated at the end of the Vietnam war.

Heroin abuse was endemic amongst GIs. There was a fear that they would bring the problem home with them. It didn't happen, suggesting that it was a problem with the individual rather than the drug.

Evidence suggests that, with a supply of medicinal quality heroin, people can lead productive lives .

Like I say, there's drug and there's drugs. I'm open for the discussion to legalise certain drugs based on what effect (immediate, short term and long term) they have on the individual and society. But a blanket legalisation of all narcotics would be madness. To compare climbing to consumption of cocaine, crack cocain, methamphetamine, LSD and even ecstasy is ludicrous, all these narcotics have been proven to have short and long term negative effects on mental health and are not only a strain on the individual but society as a whole. As for offering happy pills with your pie and bovril at matches, as a Hibs fan for many decades I can see the appeal, but surely you're having a laugh.

[RyeSloan]

So let me get this right.

So far we have had rather predictable responses from the most avid Indy supporters that of course there is nothing that can be done unless they have MORE power and MORE money and not one tiny bit of humility that maybe the existing powers and money that are used and spent have failed to prevent a large spike in numbers.

The we had Fife prattling on about how the youth of today are not invested in and face a simple choice of a life of drug and destitution or getting the hell out of Dodge! Oh and of course that it’s all Westminster’s fault as well.

The we had some sensible comments about the complexity of the matter, how there is multiple agencies, laws, approaches involved in dealing with the issues and the drivers behind the problem....a huge number of which lie as a devolved or local level.

Then it was good to read a number of posters suggestions and discussions around decriminalisation and legalisation, areas that would need significant devolution of powers. These approaches however do not seem to be anywhere near the minds of the Scottish populace as a whole nor the SG in terms of topics of concern or manifesto pledges.

Finally we had a suggestion to sell weed and ecstasy at the games!! Must admit I thought that was the most out there idea so far and would, at least as a one off, make for a rather interesting event! [emoji2957]

[JeMeSouviens]

So let me get this right.

So far we have had rather predictable responses from the most avid Indy supporters that of course there is nothing that can be done unless they have MORE power and MORE money and not one tiny bit of humility that maybe the existing powers and money that are used and spent have failed to prevent a large spike in numbers.

The we had Fife prattling on about how the youth of today are not invested in and face a simple choice of a life of drug and destitution or getting the hell out of Dodge! Oh and of course that it’s all Westminster’s fault as well.

The we had some sensible comments about the complexity of the matter, how there is multiple agencies, laws, approaches involved in dealing with the issues and the drivers behind the problem....a huge number of which lie as a devolved or local level.

Then it was good to read a number of posters suggestions and discussions around decriminalisation and legalisation, areas that would need significant devolution of powers. These approaches however do not seem to be anywhere near the minds of the Scottish populace as a whole nor the SG in terms of topics of concern or manifesto pledges.

Finally we had a suggestion to sell weed and ecstasy at the games!! Must admit I thought that was the most out there idea so far and would, at least as a one off, make for a rather interesting event! [emoji2957]

You missed out the predictable responses from the most avid Unionists blaming the Scot gov for the spike in deaths, but other than that, not a bad summary.

You should do this on every thread - the RyeSloan TL;DR :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

They endanger the lives of mountain rescue teams, and their deaths and injuries have the same impact on those around them as drugs do on others. What is different is that one is seen as a noble and brave past time, whereas the other is seen as decadent and self indulgent.

Drug addiction is largely a matter of personal choice, as was demonstrated at the end of the Vietnam war.

Heroin abuse was endemic amongst GIs. There was a fear that they would bring the problem home with them. It didn't happen, suggesting that it was a problem with the individual rather than the drug.

Evidence suggests that, with a supply of medicinal quality heroin, people can lead productive lives .

The MRTs are all volunteers and climbers themselves. Plus there are significant health benefits from being fit enough to haul yourself up mountains and mental health benefits too, it's very mindful.

So there :na na:

[James310]

To answer your question on priorities…….here you go:

https://www.snp.org/were-taking-urgent-action-to-tackle-scotlands-drug-emergency/

After 10 years, that's great. And looks who he is blaming.

Obviously Trump is a greater priority for Blackford who failed to bring it up at all.

[Cataplana]

[QUOTE=JeMeSouviens;5848959]The MRTs are all volunteers and climbers themselves. Plus there are significant health benefits from being fit enough to haul yourself up mountains and mental health benefits too, it's very mindful.

So there :na na:[/QUOTE

Lol.

There are less dangers and as many benefits to mental health from safe drug taking than mountain climbing.

Otherwise, why do drugs exist?

On a serious note, the first step has to be reducing the death rate at present, by reducing risks from poor quality drugs, and tackling the reasons why people take them in the first place.

[Cataplana]

You missed out the predictable responses from the most avid Unionists blaming the Scot gov for the spike in deaths, but other than that, not a bad summary.

You should do this on every thread - the RyeSloan TL;DR :wink:

Why can't you all play nice?

If this is a uniquely Scottish problem (10 x as many deaths as England) and it requires a uniquely Scottish solution, is it too much to ask that the chattering classes on both sides develop an uncharacteristically Scottish approach, and stop blaming each other?

Scotland has had a problem with self loathing, and self destruction for decades, and if its any comfort no one party has ownership on the cause of it.

[JeMeSouviens]

The MRTs are all volunteers and climbers themselves. Plus there are significant health benefits from being fit enough to haul yourself up mountains and mental health benefits too, it's very mindful.

So there :na na:

Lol.

There are less dangers and as many benefits to mental health from safe drug taking than mountain climbing.

Otherwise, why do drugs exist?

On a serious note, the first step has to be reducing the death rate at present, by reducing risks from poor quality drugs, and tackling the reasons why people take them in the first place.

:agree:

Tackling reasons is a much longer term thing obv but I think our short term crisis response has to be centred on harm reduction and getting as many problem addicts into treatment as possible.

[Cataplana]

Like I say, there's drug and there's drugs. I'm open for the discussion to legalise certain drugs based on what effect (immediate, short term and long term) they have on the individual and society. But a blanket legalisation of all narcotics would be madness. To compare climbing to consumption of cocaine, crack cocain, methamphetamine, LSD and even ecstasy is ludicrous, all these narcotics have been proven to have short and long term negative effects on mental health and are not only a strain on the individual but society as a whole. As for offering happy pills with your pie and bovril at matches, as a Hibs fan for many decades I can see the appeal, but surely you're having a laugh.

Yeah, I'm having a laugh, the pie and Bovril are dangerous enough.

You are going down a classic route regarding the effects that drugs have on people. I am saying criminalise the behaviours you cause not their consumption or possession.

At the end of the day, if someone wants to sustain brain damage falling off the Ptarmigan ridge, or to sustain it taking one too many acid trip, what's the difference.

Apparently if someone beats someone else's brains out in a boxing ring, it's OK because there is a health benefit (except, obviously to the guy whose brains were beaten in). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands they have been working on the benefits of LSD in combatting psychosis, but it seems there is a moral aspect to that, or a lack of faith in people's ability to look after themselves?

Your statement is full of contradictions, and poorly evidenced statements, I''m afraid. People have taken narcotics for millenia because of the benefits to their mental health. It is not the drug that is the problem, but the individual, and to a lesser extent the influence of criminality.

We could argue all day about the evidence about drug use damaging society. For me, it's like alcohol, many people use it responsibly; very few become addicted; it is a very addictive substance. Give the individual the facts and allow them to make a choice, and the vast majority of people will not put their lives, or mental health at risk.

Put the control in the hands of criminal justice, or the health service, or moral guardians like social work, and consumption is done covertly, and irresponsibly. Can I point out that Portugal's drug consumption has gone down since de criminalisation? The central tenet is that people can choose sensibly.

I am proposing a radical solution, and we are getting off track from the thread. People are going to take drugs, let's cut the death rate, and start to work on the reasons people take drugs.

[Cataplana]

:agree:

Tackling reasons is a much longer term thing obv but I think our short term crisis response has to be centred on harm reduction and getting as many problem addicts into treatment as possible.

:agree:

First thing first, stop the deaths by making it possible for them to use safely. Basically, keep them alive long enough for them to make the choice to stop, then when they are ready to have robust support in place - which includes offering them opportunities to have more fulfilled lives in future.

As part of that, I would advocate the return of "The British System" for registered addicts, allowing them access to clean supply of drugs. At the same time though, I would not allow anyone to use drug abuse as any sort of defence for anti social behaviour, if that means replacing the honerous Methadone supply programme in jailes with clean Heroin, then that's how it should be.

In the short term, there would be widespread abuse of the system, and we would have to be able to discourage addicts from other countries heading up here, as the Dutch and Swiss did. It may take a generation to see real benefits.

The long term solution goes much deeper into the society we live in, and would involve improved trauma care, and the prospect of something better than sitting in your own bodily fluids - such as a life that doesn't involve sitting in Muirhouse, or Irvine staring at the rain falling outside your window.

[JeMeSouviens]

Why can't you all play nice?

If this is a uniquely Scottish problem (10 x as many deaths as England) and it requires a uniquely Scottish solution, is it too much to ask that the chattering classes on both sides develop an uncharacteristically Scottish approach, and stop blaming each other?

Scotland has had a problem with self loathing, and self destruction for decades, and if its any comfort no one party has ownership on the cause of it.

Are you serious? Yes, of course, that's way too much to ask. :rolleyes:

I don't really think it does require a uniquely Scottish solution anyway. The things that would help the acute Scottish crisis would also help in rUK. But there is no urgency to do anything other than be "tough on drugs" from the UK gov, so if we're waiting on policy changes from there, we may be waiting a long time ...

[beensaidbefore]

I don't think stigma is a barrier to people seeking help. It is hopelessness and lack of any self esteem, secondary to things like lack of status, and trauma.

I thi k there is an assumption there that all drug users addicts are not able to function and play a part in society. I know personally more than 1 person who does not fit the stereotype, but are technically drug addicts. They have a mortgage, go out to work each day, one even runs his own business. There would be a huge stigma, and possible negative affect, if they came out and asked for help. Not least from their wives/partners.

[Cataplana]

I thi k there is an assumption there that all drug users addicts are not able to function and play a part in society. I know personally more than 1 person who does not fit the stereotype, but are technically drug addicts. They have a mortgage, go out to work each day, one even runs his own business. There would be a huge stigma, and possible negative affect, if they came out and asked for help. Not least from their wives/partners.

Excellent point. Would you say they face the same risks as those taking substances like street Diazepam?

[Cataplana]

Are you serious? Yes, of course, that's way too much to ask. :rolleyes:

I don't really think it does require a uniquely Scottish solution anyway. The things that would help the acute Scottish crisis would also help in rUK. But there is no urgency to do anything other than be "tough on drugs" from the UK gov, so if we're waiting on policy changes from there, we may be waiting a long time ...

Within the UK, Scotland appears to have a unique problem. I can't ignore the fact that the UK government seems to have been on holiday for the last three years.

I also can't ignore the fact that health and criminal justice are devolved matters, as is wealth creation.

Against that background, Scotland appears to have a much more serious problem than the rUK.

I personally suspect that there is a large element of "the Glasgow factor" at play here. Namely a nihilistic attitude to life that is uniquely Scottish, which results in reckless drug taking behaviour - abuse of street Diazepam is a most prevalent in Scotland.

I am more concerned that politicians within Scotland pull together, and don't use this as a political football. Within or outwith devolution this is a problem that needs dealt with now.

It is very depressing to see the familiar pattern of Scottish politics coming out on here. We need to move on from "a big boy did it and ran away" and take ownership of our own private problems

The seperatusts need to say, "why has this happened on our watch?", the Unionists need to say "why is their not a UK solution forthcoming?"

Most of all, a genuine compassion for and understanding is required by both. I am sick of them blaming each other when people are miserable now.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yeah, I'm having a laugh, the pie and Bovril are dangerous enough.

You are going down a classic route regarding the effects that drugs have on people. I am saying criminalise the behaviours you cause not their consumption or possession.

At the end of the day, if someone wants to sustain brain damage falling off the Ptarmigan ridge, or to sustain it taking one too many acid trip, what's the difference.

Apparently if someone beats someone else's brains out in a boxing ring, it's OK because there is a health benefit (except, obviously to the guy whose brains were beaten in). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands they have been working on the benefits of LSD in combatting psychosis, but it seems there is a moral aspect to that, or a lack of faith in people's ability to look after themselves?

Your statement is full of contradictions, and poorly evidenced statements, I''m afraid. People have taken narcotics for millenia because of the benefits to their mental health. It is not the drug that is the problem, but the individual, and to a lesser extent the influence of criminality.

We could argue all day about the evidence about drug use damaging society. For me, it's like alcohol, many people use it responsibly; very few become addicted; it is a very addictive substance. Give the individual the facts and allow them to make a choice, and the vast majority of people will not put their lives, or mental health at risk.

Put the control in the hands of criminal justice, or the health service, or moral guardians like social work, and consumption is done covertly, and irresponsibly. Can I point out that Portugal's drug consumption has gone down since de criminalisation? The central tenet is that people can choose sensibly.

I am proposing a radical solution, and we are getting off track from the thread. People are going to take drugs, let's cut the death rate, and start to work on the reasons people take drugs.

I've seen what drugs do to people first hand. Both the legal and illegal variety. I'm not against radical change but against throwing good money after bad. If any change is to take place then both the UK and Scottish governments have to play ball, the Scottish government have already said they are willing to look at alternative options but there's no point doing things half arsed and the UK government aren't going to change their opinion on the war on drugs anytime soon. In a previous life I dealt with drug abuse on a daily basis, both the immediate effects and long-term consequences. Legal or illegal it's about personal choice, some people can cope with with drugs and are functioning addicts, most can't and depending on the drug different people react differently. The comparison with boxing now is again ludicrous, both people in the ring are there voluntarily, you might have an argument if boxing included the participants jumping into the crowd and swedging at everyone and anyone but they don't, any medical consequences are carried by those who voluntarily step into the ring.

[beensaidbefore]

Excellent point. Would you say they face the same risks as those taking substances like street Diazepam?

One of them, yes. The others possibly not so much.
Part of the problem for the guy who owns his business is he gets off his face on coke then needs to get some sleep so takes downers, but he's on it dveryweekend, plus mdma, Es, and would be up for trying most things with the exception of heroin/crack. Sure there must be others out there who operate the same way. Not sure how you tackle the issue because he was big on legal highs when they were readily available, so not sure having stuff readily available over a counter would work for folk like him.

I do believe that having it regulated and taxed would work better than the current set up though.

[RyeSloan]

You missed out the predictable responses from the most avid Unionists blaming the Scot gov for the spike in deaths, but other than that, not a bad summary.

You should do this on every thread - the RyeSloan TL;DR :wink:

To be honest I’ve not seen too much blaming of the Scot Gov going on but in some respects they are as culpable as the next group of people that have some responsibility here.

I suppose I was more rather despairing that every subject, no matter how complex, seems to attract Indy / Unionist chatter...even when Scotland has a clear and obvious issue over and above the rest of the UK and, by these stats at least, the EU.

There is clearly a whole shed load of money and effort put into health, education, policing etc. in the areas that could effect outcomes here but rather than simply debate the issue at hand (which may of course come up with some suggestions where further devolved powers may assist) the go to modus operandi of some just seems to point fingers of blame. And in doing so make a complex issue one that is broken into the usual binary choice of Indy or not.

Anyway I’m not gonna get too upset about something that seems to happen on every thread on here and from largely the same posters that seem to spam every thread with unsubstantiated sounds bites to turn any topic into something to justify their cause.

Right that’s me had my wee moan...I’m off to do something rather more constructive instead [emoji2][emoji106]

[Cataplana]

One of them, yes. The others possibly not so much.
Part of the problem for the guy who owns his business is he gets off his face on coke then needs to get some sleep so takes downers, but he's on it dveryweekend, plus mdma, Es, and would be up for trying most things with the exception of heroin/crack. Sure there must be others out there who operate the same way. Not sure how you tackle the issue because he was big on legal highs when they were readily available, so not sure having stuff readily available over a counter would work for folk like him.

I do believe that having it regulated and taxed would work better than the current set up though.

Given that the guy can still run his business, is there actually a problem?

I mean, I wouldn't chose to live like that, but he appears to be keeping it together.

[Ozyhibby]

Whether a unionist or Indy supporter, one thing is clear. The current devolution settlement is not working in this matter. The fact that both govts can point the finger of blame is not right and needs changed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

To be honest I’ve not seen too much blaming of the Scot Gov going on but in some respects they are as culpable as the next group of people that have some responsibility here.

I suppose I was more rather despairing that every subject, no matter how complex, seems to attract Indy / Unionist chatter...even when Scotland has a clear and obvious issue over and above the rest of the UK and, by these stats at least, the EU.

There is clearly a whole shed load of money and effort put into health, education, policing etc. in the areas that could effect outcomes here but rather than simply debate the issue at hand (which may of course come up with some suggestions where further devolved powers may assist) the go to modus operandi of some just seems to point fingers of blame. And in doing so make a complex issue one that is broken into the usual binary choice of Indy or not.

Anyway I’m not gonna get too upset about something that seems to happen on every thread on here and from largely the same posters that seem to spam every thread with unsubstantiated sounds bites to turn any topic into something to justify their cause.

Right that’s me had my wee moan...I’m off to do something rather more constructive instead [emoji2][emoji106]

Back of the net.

[James310]

I think in situations like this the Unionists chat about what are the Scottish Government up to is perfectly valid. To blame it all on Westminster and the big bad Tories cutting of multi billion pound budget is the comic book type response of your typical dyed in the wool nationalist.

Yes the UK government need to do more but those that are saying, and there are some, that the Scottish Government have no powers at all are clearly blinded by their hatred of anything Westminster or Tory. Is there really nothing they can do under the significant powers they have?

There comes a time when responsibility needs to be taken from all sides. But to blame it all on Westminster and the bad Tories and advocating any responsibility is really poor.

[Hibrandenburg]

One of them, yes. The others possibly not so much.
Part of the problem for the guy who owns his business is he gets off his face on coke then needs to get some sleep so takes downers, but he's on it dveryweekend, plus mdma, Es, and would be up for trying most things with the exception of heroin/crack. Sure there must be others out there who operate the same way. Not sure how you tackle the issue because he was big on legal highs when they were readily available, so not sure having stuff readily available over a counter would work for folk like him.

I do believe that having it regulated and taxed would work better than the current set up though.

His long-term physical and mental health will pay a price, even if he's not paying the price now he will in the long run. The scientific research on long-term substance abuse is indisputable, there's no way you can sustain the lifestyle you describe without consequences to his health.

[beensaidbefore]

Given that the guy can still run his business, is there actually a problem?

I mean, I wouldn't chose to live like that, but he appears to be keeping it together.

You ask a good question. He's managing to keep it together at the moment, but he admits it has been noticed by folk at work, and on at least one occasion he has been that wasted whilst at work he has to redo work the following day due to him making an arse of it. My fear is its a matter of time before things start falling apart if he carries on the way he is. He won't take a telling though, and that's coming from his 2 best men.

I suppose the question is what do we mean when we say drug addicts. As this anecdotal evidence shows, there can be a range of people affected by drug use. Perhaps we need to be clearer what we mean when we talk about drugs and addicts rather than using those terms so broadly, because there is a huge range from occasional recreational ie taking a pill in a club and having a few joints, to stealing or selling your body to pay for your daily heroin fix. Narrowing in on where the problems really lie and then responding helpfully rather than scornfully is key imo.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think in situations like this the Unionists chat about what are the Scottish Government up to is perfectly valid. To blame it all on Westminster and the big bad Tories cutting of multi billion pound budget is the comic book type response of your typical dyed in the wool nationalist.

Yes the UK government need to do more but those that are saying, and there are some, that the Scottish Government have no powers at all are clearly blinded by their hatred of anything Westminster or Tory. Is there really nothing they can do under the significant powers they have?

There comes a time when responsibility needs to be taken from all sides. But to blame it all on Westminster and the bad Tories and advocating any responsibility is really poor.

I think most on here agree that there has to be radical changes to how we deal with our drug problems. I think it's fair to say that the Scottish government would be willing to implement changes but have their hands tied because the power to change the relevant laws to make changes lies at Westminster. Throwing money at the problem without law changes is just pissing in the wind.

[Cataplana]

One of them, yes. The others possibly not so much.
Part of the problem for the guy who owns his business is he gets off his face on coke then needs to get some sleep so takes downers, but he's on it dveryweekend, plus mdma, Es, and would be up for trying most things with the exception of heroin/crack. Sure there must be others out there who operate the same way. Not sure how you tackle the issue because he was big on legal highs when they were readily available, so not sure having stuff readily available over a counter would work for folk like him.

I do believe that having it regulated and taxed would work better than the current set up though.

Given that the guy can still run his business, is there actually a problem?

I mean, I wouldn't chose to live like that, but he appears to be keeping it together.

[James310]

I think most on here agree that there has to be radical changes to how we deal with our drug problems. I think it's fair to say that the Scottish government would be willing to implement changes but have their hands tied because the power to change the relevant laws to make changes lies at Westminster. Throwing money at the problem without law changes is just pissing in the wind.

So change can only be achieved by a change in the law to allow people to shoot up in safe rooms?

I think with the powers they have they could do more.

What's to stop the Scottish Government saying to Police Scotland don't arrest anyone who shoots up in a safe and secure environment. That's within our control surely?

[Moulin Yarns]

So change can only be achieved by a change in the law to allow people to shoot up in safe rooms?

I think with the powers they have they could do more.

What's to stop the Scottish Government saying to Police Scotland don't arrest anyone who shoots up in a safe and secure environment.

Westminster!!!


https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/lord-advocate-simply-cannot-approve-safe-injecting-rooms-without-drug-law-reform

[Cataplana]

You ask a good question. He's managing to keep it together at the moment, but he admits it has been noticed by folk at work, and on at least one occasion he has been that wasted whilst at work he has to redo work the following day due to him making an arse of it. My fear is its a matter of time before things start falling apart if he carries on the way he is. He won't take a telling though, and that's coming from his 2 best men.

I suppose the question is what do we mean when we say drug addicts. As this anecdotal evidence shows, there can be a range of people affected by drug use. Perhaps we need to be clearer what we mean when we talk about drugs and addicts rather than using those terms so broadly, because there is a huge range from occasional recreational ie taking a pill in a club and having a few joints, to stealing or selling your body to pay for your daily heroin fix. Narrowing in on where the problems really lie and then responding helpfully rather than scornfully is key imo.

I don't think society is as judgemental about people seeking help as some believe. Look at the goodwill the likes of Paul Gascoigne has received.

You have raised good points about the challenges facing functioning addicts, and there must be parallels with what alcohol users to through.

To me, someone is ready to stop when they can say to themselves "nothing is worth this."

Whether it's the problems of coming down, or constant guilt about lies.

[James310]

Westminster!!!


https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/lord-advocate-simply-cannot-approve-safe-injecting-rooms-without-drug-law-reform

So that one law change is all that is required and will solve this problem?

As I say get Police Scotland to not arrest anyone injecting in a safe and secure environment. That power exists today.

[Cataplana]

Westminster!!!


https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/lord-advocate-simply-cannot-approve-safe-injecting-rooms-without-drug-law-reform

Are other solutions not available? England has a lower death rate, yet doesn't have injecting rooms.

Or is it the case that our problem goes way beyond Heroin use, and is due to unique Scottish reasons for polypharmacy.

Is the free availability of drugs like Gabapentin, on prescription a factor? Why our love affair with Benzodiazepines? Why do Scots indulge in riskier drug taking behaviour than their Southern counterparts?

Blaming one part of this complex issue, is naive, and lazy. Our drugs policy has been blighted by both.

To me, a central issue is that the politicians and their supporters have no idea what they are talking about.

[Cataplana]

I think in situations like this the Unionists chat about what are the Scottish Government up to is perfectly valid. To blame it all on Westminster and the big bad Tories cutting of multi billion pound budget is the comic book type response of your typical dyed in the wool nationalist.

Yes the UK government need to do more but those that are saying, and there are some, that the Scottish Government have no powers at all are clearly blinded by their hatred of anything Westminster or Tory. Is there really nothing they can do under the significant powers they have?

There comes a time when responsibility needs to be taken from all sides. But to blame it all on Westminster and the bad Tories and advocating any responsibility is really poor.

Starting to suspect that this is a Trojan Horse from the nationalists. The question has to be asked "why are we in thus ness compared to the rUK with pretty much the same laws.

We need honesty from all if the problem is going to be fixed. That includes looking at issues with prescription drugs. Do free prescriptions lead to a surplus of "desirables" like Gabapentin, due to people not stopping their prescription once they don't need them?

All of a sudden we have massive concern over a problem, and the only answer is to adopt a solution Westminster won't let us implement.

Personally I think we should have complete control over it, and an independent country is the only way to get that. But, I can also smell ***** when it's being thrown around.

[Moulin Yarns]

So that one law change is all that is required and will solve this problem?

As I say get Police Scotland to not arrest anyone injecting in a safe and secure environment. That power exists today.

No it doesn't. A change in the law is required before the Scottish government can provide the safe and secure environment.

[James310]

No it doesn't. A change in the law is required before the Scottish government can provide the safe and secure environment.

But you agree it's not just one law change that is required, the Scottish Government could do more with the existing powers and budget they have?

[Moulin Yarns]

But you agree it's not just one law change that is required, the Scottish Government could do more with the existing powers and budget they have?

A simple question, how do you legally provide a safe and secure environment for drug users when it's a reserved matter for Westminster?

[James310]

A simple question, how do you legally provide a safe and secure environment for drug users when it's a reserved matter for Westminster?

Ignore my question then.

You lobby the government for change, you raise it at PMs questions and the like, instead of questions about Donald Trump.

How does anyone else get changes to the law.

[Cataplana]

A simple question, how do you legally provide a safe and secure environment for drug users when it's a reserved matter for Westminster?

You could instruct the PFs not to prosecute anyone using in a safe environment. Much the same way as prostitution has been tolerated in Edinburgh.

Seems you're more worried about getting onto Westminster than solving the problems people face.

[Moulin Yarns]

You could instruct the PFs not to prosecute anyone using in a safe environment. Much the same way as prostitution has been tolerated in Edinburgh.

Seems you're more worried about getting onto Westminster than solving the problems people face.

But as I said to James, there are no LEGAL safe and secure environment because it requires Westminster to change the law.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ignore my question then.

You lobby the government for change, you raise it at PMs questions and the like, instead of questions about Donald Trump.

How does anyone else get changes to the law.

Read the holyrood article again, or for the first time.

[Cataplana]

But as I said to James, there are no LEGAL safe and secure environment because it requires Westminster to change the law.

Well done, but there is a potential solution to the problem. However you appear much happier to win argunents with semantics, than prevent the death of fellow citizens.

You do know that drugs are still illegal in order countries, but that they have found solutions. Why are you asking for something you know you can't have?

[RyeSloan]

But as I said to James, there are no LEGAL safe and secure environment because it requires Westminster to change the law.

I think that point has been made and taken.

However there was no such thing four years ago either when the rate was about half of what it is today. So clearly there has been a change somewhere along the line that has caused the rises in recent years, that can’t be attributed to a policy that didn’t exist then and doesn’t exist now.

[Fife-Hibee]

I think in situations like this the Unionists chat about what are the Scottish Government up to is perfectly valid.

Of course you do. It's all "very convenient" to ask what the Scottish Government are doing about this. Despite the fact that they have repeatedly put foward proposals to try and tackle the issue that has been rejected by Westminster at every turn. Then calling for the powers over drug laws to give them the ability to impliment radical new plans, which have always been rejected time and time again.

So then you'll ask. Well why don't the Scottish Government use powers that are already devolved over health to tackle the grim issue of drug abuse in Scotland? Making the assumption that they don't already do everything they can (within the confines of the health budget) to tackle the issue in ways that don't match up to plans that could prove far more effective, had they control over drug laws.

[Cataplana]

I think that point has been made and taken.

However there was no such thing four years ago either when the rate was about half of what it is today. So clearly there has been a change somewhere along the line that has caused the rises in recent years, that can’t be attributed to a policy that didn’t exist then and doesn’t exist now.

I was interested to read where this figure cane from. Among other things included in the mortality rate, are drug overdoses as part of suicide

Further investigation shows no comparable recording system of England, where figures are supplied by local authorities.

The more I look into it, I detect an orchestrated ambush by Holyrood. The politicians make me sick.

So we have a headline grabber, and knee jerk solution that doesn't address the problem (deaths are not only attributable to IV drug use.)

What a bunch of tossers.

[Cataplana]

Of course you do. It's all "very convenient" to ask what the Scottish Government are doing about this. Despite the fact that they have repeatedly put foward proposals to try and tackle the issue that has been rejected by Westminster at every turn. Then calling for the powers over drug laws to give them the ability to impliment radical new plans, which have always been rejected time and time again.

So then you'll ask. Well why don't the Scottish Government use powers that are already devolved over health to tackle the grim issue of drug abuse in Scotland? Making the assumption that they don't already do everything they can (within the confines of the health budget) to tackle the issue in ways that don't match up to plans that could prove far more effective, had they control over drug laws.

The big question is why is the problem worse, according to them, in Scotland than it is in England, who have the same laws

[Fife-Hibee]

What's to stop the Scottish Government saying to Police Scotland don't arrest anyone who shoots up in a safe and secure environment. That's within our control surely?

What is your definition of "safe and secure" enviroment? Their own homes? Potentially surrounded by other family members? No skilled medical professionals incase something goes wrong? No access to safe drug sources?

There are no "safe and secure enviroments" for drug abusers in Scotland, without the control on drug laws to implement them. Which the Scottish Government keeps calling for.

[Fife-Hibee]

The big question is why is the problem worse, according to them, in Scotland than it is in England, who have the same laws

That's a question that could have and probably should have been asked many decades before now.

[Cataplana]

That's a question that could have and probably should have been asked many decades before now.

Indeed, but I suspect that the SNP are manipulating figures to make political capital out of Westminster.

The more I look into it, the shooting galleries are a bit of a red herring as IV drug use has little to do with the data collected

I would have more resoect if they were proposing more radical measures. But, I think they might not get as widespread backing for a Portuguese answer, for example.

I don't believe their motives are sincere.

[Weegreenman]

I think we need to stop pandering not only to the drug dealers but the drug takers also of this world. It’s time for drastic change or else we’ll still be talking about this **** in twenty years time.

[Cataplana]

I think we need to stop pandering not only to the drug dealers but the drug takers also of this world. It’s time for drastic change or else we’ll still be talking about this **** in twenty years time.

What do you suggest?

[James310]

https://www.gov.scot/publications/road-recovery-new-approach-tackling-scotlands-drug-problem/

They seemed to think they has enough powers in 2008 when the Scottish Government with Alex Salmond as FM published "The road to recovery: a new approach to tackling Scotland's drug problem"

Guess that was a massive failure based on the current data, was Westminster to blame for this as well?

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.gov.scot/publications/road-recovery-new-approach-tackling-scotlands-drug-problem/

They seemed to think they has enough powers in 2008 when the Scottish Government with Alex Salmond as FM published "The road to recovery: a new approach to tackling Scotland's drug problem"

Guess that was a massive failure based on the current data, was Westminster to blame for this as well?

Read the article where the advocate general gives his opinion before blaming everyone else.


Not forgetting Scottish tory MSPs also said that they want the power to do more, but Westminster reserves all the powers that need to be devolved.

[James310]

Read the article where the advocate general gives his opinion before blaming everyone else.


Not forgetting Scottish tory MSPs also said that they want the power to do more, but Westminster reserves all the powers that need to be devolved.

I read it. What about the 2008 plan? Massive failure despite the Scottish Government saying they had the powers they needed at the time?

For a Green again you are very supportive of the Scottish Government, not even a hint of criticism. Even that strange guy Ross Greer was very critical.

[Ozyhibby]

I read it. What about the 2008 plan? Massive failure despite the Scottish Government saying they had the powers they needed at the time?

For a Green again you are very supportive of the Scottish Government, not even a hint of criticism. Even that strange guy Ross Greer was very critical.

When it comes to drug policy there is no political party who is not touched by failure.
The SNP’s current plans do not go far enough. They need to go the whole distance and say they will move to the Portuguese model (if they get the powers).
All the SNP can say is that they are further along the road compared to Labour or the Tories when it comes to dealing with this as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue.
This is a UK wide problem as well. It’s worse in Scotland just now but there will be part of England where this is every bit as much of a problem. If Westminster wants to carry on as they are just now with a zero tolerance approach then the should devolve the powers to Scotland so that Scotland can pursue a solution that suits our needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Indeed, but I suspect that the SNP are manipulating figures to make political capital out of Westminster.

The more I look into it, the shooting galleries are a bit of a red herring as IV drug use has little to do with the data collected

I would have more resoect if they were proposing more radical measures. But, I think they might not get as widespread backing for a Portuguese answer, for example.

I don't believe their motives are sincere.

Manipulating what figures? This isn't the SNPs figures. The SNP accept that there is a major problem in Scotland. There is also a major problem in other parts of the UK as well and it's all occuring under the same outdated drug laws. Whether safe houses will help current drug abusers or not isn't clear, but if it stops them mixing with non-drug users and potentially turning them into future drug abusers as well (something that is all too prevalent within the prison system) then it's a start at the very least.

[Moulin Yarns]

I read it. What about the 2008 plan? Massive failure despite the Scottish Government saying they had the powers they needed at the time?

For a Green again you are very supportive of the Scottish Government, not even a hint of criticism. Even that strange guy Ross Greer was very critical.

Very good. Get personal.

[James310]

Very good. Get personal.

I think that's the 3 or 4th post now you have ignored the actual question. Can't blame Westminster for that.

The definition of Strange is unusual or surprising, that he certainly is. Not personal at all. But you deflect again, maybe answer the question?

[Cataplana]

Manipulating what figures? This isn't the SNPs figures. The SNP accept that there is a major problem in Scotland. There is also a major problem in other parts of the UK as well and it's all occuring under the same outdated drug laws. Whether safe houses will help current drug abusers or not isn't clear, but if it stops them mixing with non-drug users and potentially turning them into future drug abusers as well (something that is all too prevalent within the prison system) then it's a start at the very least.

The comparison was the SNP's, but they are not comparing apple with apple.

I am questioning their sincerity, when the solution they offer is not in line with the problem presented. Shooting galleries are no answer to abuse of prescription medication, or indeed self poisoning by suicide.

I have no objection to safe houses as you call them, even though you rather naively think it will prevent them mixing with other drug users. My main gripe is people kicking this political football, with no real understanding of the data, or the reality.

As I say, I smell *****, because the SNP are going for the one solution they know they cannot have. What a bizarre approach, when they can't even point out why it will work.


Very good. Get personal.

Can't blame the guy when you won't give a straight answer to questions. You're like one of those guys on Question Time.

[Fife-Hibee]

The comparison was the SNP's, but they are not comparing apple with apple.

I am questioning their sincerity, when the solution they offer is not in line with the problem presented. Shooting galleries are no answer to abuse of prescription medication, or indeed self poisoning by suicide.

I have no objection to safe houses as you call them, even though you rather naively think it will prevent them mixing with other drug users. My main gripe is people kicking this political football, with no real understanding of the data, or the reality.

As I say, I smell *****, because the SNP are going for the one solution they know they cannot have. What a bizarre approach, when they can't even point out why it will work.

That's not what I said. :confused:

It will keep them away from non drug users that could potentially become drug users should they mix with them. Which is a major problem within the prison system.

We all know what the data says. We're not stupid. But if you breakdown the data in England, there are areas there just as bad as Scotland. There is no golden bullet policy that the Scottish Government are failing to impliment that would solve Scotlands drug ills.

[Moulin Yarns]

I think that's the 3 or 4th post now you have ignored the actual question. Can't blame Westminster for that.

The definition of Strange is unusual or surprising, that he certainly is. Not personal at all. But you deflect again, maybe answer the question?

No, calling someone strange is personal

[James310]

No, calling someone strange is personal

And there is the 5th reply ignoring the question again. Deflection at it's finest.

Shall we go again? Care to answer the question?

[James310]

No, calling someone strange is personal

Do you think Boris Johnson is a strange guy? Or Jeremy Hunt?

[The Modfather]

And all the usual suspects are present as the thread is ruined and those having an interesting debate a few pages back have been chased away. Well done guys, well done 😒

[Cataplana]

That's not what I said. :confused:

It will keep them away from non drug users that could potentially become drug users should they mix with them. Which is a major problem within the prison system.

We all know what the data says. We're not stupid. But if you breakdown the data in England, there are areas there just as bad as Scotland. There is no golden bullet policy that the Scottish Government are failing to impliment that would solve Scotlands drug ills.

I'm sorry, I didn't read it properly.

Who is this "we" you are talking about, I am not sure everyone would be aware that things like suicide by drug overdose would be classified as a "drug related death."

I think there is a significantly higher amount of prescription drugs in the mix in Scotland. This could be due to people not cancelling repeat prescriptions as they don't pay for them, that's a uniquely Scottish issue, which might be addressed by more frequent medication reviews by GPs.

You appear to be missing my point that the data in England is recording different things. You can't directly compare them, and so the science is flawed from the get go.

I don't fully get your last sentence, are you saying the Scottish Government has yet to identify a strategy? In that case, what has Westminster got to do with anything at this stage? As I say, they appear to have come up with a headline grabbing solution, which has no relation to the data regarding deaths. One which they know Westminster will block, it appears, as it is not a new thing that this is a reserved matter.

People's lives are being used as ballast in a greater political argument, and I find that distasteful.


No, calling someone strange is personal

You aren't going to answer his question, are you?

[Cataplana]

And all the usual suspects are present as the thread is ruined and those having an interesting debate a few pages back have been chased away. Well done guys, well done 😒

OK mate, if that's me, I apologise. It's disappointing when sharing ideas becomes a matter of people digging themselves into their silohs.

I'm out now, I think safe places for injecting can be incorporated by giving guidance to PFs, I think they will go some way to reducing harm, but that they are being used as a headline grabber, as the problem goes way beyond IV drug use.

People that pretend to debate, yet are not prepared to acknowledge or concede the other party's points are effectively trolls in my book.

[Fife-Hibee]

Who is this "we" you are talking about, I am not sure everyone would be aware that things like suicide by drug overdose would be classified as a "drug related death."

Oh god.... please no. Not you as well. :greengrin


I think there is a significantly higher amount of prescription drugs in the mix in Scotland. This could be due to people not cancelling repeat prescriptions as they don't pay for them, that's a uniquely Scottish issue, which might be addressed by more frequent medication reviews by GPs.

There is no direct evidence to support the claim that this has anything to do with repeat pharmacy prescriptions.


You appear to be missing my point that the data in England is recording different things. You can't directly compare them, and so the science is flawed from the get go.

I may be wrong here. But it was my understanding that this data was collected via an EU survey and would thus be consistent between members?


I don't fully get your last sentence, are you saying the Scottish Government has yet to identify a strategy? In that case, what has Westminster got to do with anything at this stage? As I say, they appear to have come up with a headline grabbing solution, which has no relation to the data regarding deaths. One which they know Westminster will block, it appears, as it is not a new thing that this is a reserved matter.

What i'm saying is. There is no effective strategy within the confines of the powers of the Scottish Parliament that can really make a difference here. The best that could be achieved is a major shift in NHS priorities towards directly treating drug users. Which of course takes priorities away from elsewhere, such as treating cancer, heart attacks, stokes.... etc. Which we would then have a thread about on Hibs.net hounding the Scottish Government for their failures reinforced by the BBC and pals.


People's lives are being used as ballast in a greater political argument, and I find that distasteful.

I agree. I really wish the BBC and other British MSM sources would give it a rest already. Their "all too convenient" rhetoric on the Scottish Government is digusting.

[Hibrandenburg]

Indeed, but I suspect that the SNP are manipulating figures to make political capital out of Westminster.

The more I look into it, the shooting galleries are a bit of a red herring as IV drug use has little to do with the data collected

I would have more resoect if they were proposing more radical measures. But, I think they might not get as widespread backing for a Portuguese answer, for example.

I don't believe their motives are sincere.

Sorry but that just doesn't ring true. The mainstream media broke this story, you're suggesting they're in cahoots with the SNP? That would be a first. The Scottish government alone are the ones who would like to tackle the problem with radical changes to policy. But their hands are tied because they would need new legislation from Westminster bit the silence is deafening. How you can turn this into an SNP conspiracy is baffling. Scotland has always had an alcohol and drugs problem, it's cultural and it outdates devolution and previous UK governments have failed to address it. If the problem is going to be solved within the UK then both Westminster and Holyrood need to work together, tell me please how Westminster is suggesting we deal with the issue?

[Cataplana]

Oh god.... please no. Not you as well. :greengrin

Sorry, I won't do it again, is it something of an problem?

There is no direct evidence to support the claim that this has anything to do with repeat pharmacy prescriptions.

No, neither has there been any investigation. Plenty of evidence that prescription medications like Gabapentin are in the mix, would tighter control of it be part of the answer?

I may be wrong here. But it was my understanding that this data was collected via an EU survey and would thus be consistent between members?

There is every chance that I am wrong, I frequently am. I was going by this source, https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/deaths/drug-related-deaths-in-scotland/2018 . I apologise if there is an EU based comparison available.

What i'm saying is. There is no effective strategy within the confines of the powers of the Scottish Parliament that can really make a difference here. The best that could be achieved is a major shift in NHS priorities towards directly treating drug users. Which of course takes priorities away from elsewhere, such as treating cancer, heart attacks, stokes.... etc. Which we would then have a thread about on Hibs.net hounding the Scottish Government for their failures reinforced by the BBC and pals.

I have already said, I would like Scotland to adapt a model at least as radical as Portugal's. That ain't going to happen unless we can restrict the programme to Scottish nationals. One of the disappointments for me is that they are focussing solely on deaths, there is a terrible burden on the NHS treating overdoses, mental illness, and brain injuries, for example.

I agree. I really wish the BBC and other British MSM sources would give it a rest already. Their "all too convenient" rhetoric on the Scottish Government is digusting.

I'm sure you're right. Although I do have my reservations about people promising what they can't deliver.



I'm going to leave it here, as I have spent far too much time hogging the thread. Thanks for an honest discussion.



Sorry but that just doesn't ring true. The mainstream media broke this story, you're suggesting they're in cahoots with the SNP? That would be a first. The Scottish government alone are the ones who would like to tackle the problem with radical changes to policy. But their hands are tied because they would need new legislation from Westminster bit the silence is deafening. How you can turn this into an SNP conspiracy is baffling. Scotland has always had an alcohol and drugs problem, it's cultural and it outdates devolution and previous UK governments have failed to address it. If the problem is going to be solved within the UK then both Westminster and Holyrood need to work together, tell me please how Westminster is suggesting we deal with the issue?

I suppose the SNP, and government briefed them did they not?

The radical change to policy does not appear to address the problems identified.

It's hardly a conspiracy when they do it in the open, it's political opportunism, which all politicians are guilty often to the detriment of the people.

How did we get here, you were arguing against me wanting to legalise all drugs earlier, yet because I slate all politicians, you go on the defensive.

Westminster is doing hee haw, but they might ask how it can be that Scotland has got into such a mess, when most of the powers needed to address this problem are in place.

Either way, I am getting out of this sickening, whataboutery based argument.

[Hibrandenburg]

Very good. Get personal.

He does it all the time then cries wolf when he gets some back. Hypocrite

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm going to leave it here, as I have spent far too much time hogging the thread. Thanks for an honest discussion.




I suppose the SNP, and government briefed them did they not?

The radical change to policy does not appear to address the problems identified.

It's hardly a conspiracy when they do it in the open, it's political opportunism, which all politicians are guilty often to the detriment of the people.

How did we get here, you were arguing against me wanting to legalise all drugs earlier, yet because I slate all politicians, you go on the defensive.

Westminster is doing hee haw, but they might ask how it can be that Scotland has got into such a mess, when most of the powers needed to address this problem are in place.

Either way, I am getting out of this sickening, whataboutery based argument.


Try finishing a jigsaw with just most of the pieces. Either Westminster give the Scottish government all the powers to address the problem or at least cooperate in doing so. The silence from Westminster is deafening.

[Fife-Hibee]

Try finishing a jigsaw with just most of the pieces. Either Westminster give the Scottish government all the powers to address the problem or at least cooperate in doing so. The silence from Westminster is deafening.

:top marks

Not sure what "radicial policies" they're referring to. The policies the Scottish Government want to implement, they can't. I do have to question people's politicial motives when only now does the axe suddenly fall on the Scottish Government over drug related deaths in Scotland when the issues goes far back beyond the SNP, beyond Labour and beyond the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

[James310]

He does it all the time then cries wolf when he gets some back. Hypocrite

I agree personal abuse against fellow posters is unacceptable. But we really now saying politicians are exempt? Really, because if so then I hope you are all consistent for MPs across all parties.

So that's a new rule is it, all politicians have to receive no personal abuse on here because it obviously offends a number of posters?

And I am hypocrite....

[Cataplana]

I agree personal abuse against fellow posters is unacceptable. But we really now saying politicians are exempt? Really, because if so then I hope you are all consistent for MPs across all parties.

So that's a new rule is it, all politicians have to receive no personal abuse on here because it obviously offends a number of posters?

And I am hypocrite....

Don't take it personally. :faf:

[Hibrandenburg]

I agree personal abuse against fellow posters is unacceptable. But we really now saying politicians are exempt? Really, because if so then I hope you are all consistent for MPs across all parties.

So that's a new rule is it, all politicians have to receive no personal abuse on here because it obviously offends a number of posters?

And I am hypocrite....

I didn't say that.

[James310]

I didn't say that.

So what did I get back then after allegedly being 'personal' by calling Ross Greer strange? Do you think personal abuse of politicians is off limits on this board as that's what I was being pulled up for, does that offend you?

If so then as I say I hope you and the other poster are consistent pulling up everyone whenever they get personal regarding any politician from any party. Then we will see who the hypocrites are.

* Just for balance on the other thread there is absolutely no issue saying Jeremy Hunt should be shot, but don't dare call Ross Greer strange.

[ronaldo7]

I agree personal abuse against fellow posters is unacceptable. But we really now saying politicians are exempt? Really, because if so then I hope you are all consistent for MPs across all parties.

So that's a new rule is it, all politicians have to receive no personal abuse on here because it obviously offends a number of posters?

And I am hypocrite....

You are the only poster I've seen use the term, "grievance monkey" on here. Do you think that's acceptable use of language towards another poster?

[James310]

You are the only poster I've seen use the term, "grievance monkey" on here. Do you think that's acceptable use of language towards another poster?

I would not class that as personal abuse no, so yes I do. If the admins felt it was then I am sure I would have been pulled up for it. It's a well known and widely used phrase for SNP supporters, like Yoon and the like that you like to use.

There is even a Twitter account dedicated to it.

https://twitter.com/GrievanceMonkey?s=09

[ronaldo7]

I would not class that as personal abuse no, so yes I do. If the admins felt it was then I am sure I would have been pulled up for it. It's a well known and widely used phrase for SNP supporters, like Yoon and the like that you like to use.

There is even a Twitter account dedicated to it.

https://twitter.com/GrievanceMonkey?s=09

Thanks for that. It makes you fair game now.

[James310]

If all you have is pulling me up for calling Ross Greer strange on a thread about Scotland having the highest rate of drug deaths in the EU then that tells it's own story. If that's the biggest point here then it tells you everything.

[James310]

Thanks for that. It makes you fair game now.

To you I have been for a long time, so no difference. Don't go in the huff again though if another poster calls you out again.

[ronaldo7]

It's shameful that after 10 years in power you still blame Westminster for this, the Scottish Government take no responsibility at all? Seeing you are probably the biggest grievance monkey on here it's not a surprise.

Why are deaths in Scotland so much higher with exactly the same policy then?


To you I have been for a long time, so no difference. Don't go in the huff again though if another poster calls you out again.

I've been on here a while, and have no need to go in the huff, leave the site for a while, and then come back, pretending to be someone else.

Remember that.:aok:

[stoneyburn hibs]

Ozy nailed it for me on the 1st page of this thread, completely agree.
Surprisingly (at least I thought) in West Lothian the highest percentage of drug users/junkies living in council accommodation is in Linlithgow.

[James310]

I've been on here a while, and have no need to go in the huff, leave the site for a while, and then come back, pretending to be someone else.

Remember that.:aok:

If it keeps you happy, which sadly it probably does.

[ronaldo7]

For those interested about the numbers in the report.

Annex G is interesting.:wink:

https://t.co/IiMoL2MpL7?amp=1

[ronaldo7]

If it keeps you happy, which sadly it probably does.

Cheers John.:aok:

[James310]

Cheers John.:aok:

So now you have had your fun, do you fancy answering the question that your friend avoided to get back on topic?

I am curious as to why they Scottish Government are so confident that they need Westminster to change the laws when in 2008 their "The road to recovery: a new approach to tackling Scotland's drug problem" stated they had the powers they needed, why if that was such a failure should we now believe their next plan will succeed?

[Fife-Hibee]

So now you have had your fun, do you fancy answering the question that your friend avoided to get back on topic?

I am curious as to why they Scottish Government are so confident that they need Westminster to change the laws when in 2008 their "The road to recovery: a new approach to tackling Scotland's drug problem" stated they had the powers they needed, why if that was such a failure should we now believe their next plan will succeed?

Really? Is that what it said? "We have all the powers needed to tackle Scotlands drug problem"?

[James310]

Really? Is that what it said? "We have all the powers needed to tackle Scotlands drug problem"?

No, they published a really detailed plan hundreds of pages long with a final chapter called 'Making it Work' but then obviously added it was a waste of time as none of it was possible because of Westminster and the bad Tories.

Come on, there is deflection and then there is deflection. Of course they believed at the time of writing the report and publishing it they had the powers, you know that though don't you.

[ronaldo7]

Some more good information about the subject. Glasgow based.

https://t.co/EC0llJhm2p

[ronaldo7]

So now you have had your fun, do you fancy answering the question that your friend avoided to get back on topic?

I am curious as to why they Scottish Government are so confident that they need Westminster to change the laws when in 2008 their "The road to recovery: a new approach to tackling Scotland's drug problem" stated they had the powers they needed, why if that was such a failure should we now believe their next plan will succeed?

If you think the drugs scene hasn't changed in 11 years, then you need to do some reading. This quote is from the second link in Glasgow which I posted.

"The huge increase in the use of street benzodiazepines – implicated in 56pc of deaths – is enormously worrying. These drugs are being churned out by gangsters based here in Scotland, selling at extremely low prices and being consumed in large quantities"

If you're not even acknowledging that the UK government are dragging their heals on this, we'd best end it here.

[Hibrandenburg]

So what did I get back then after allegedly being 'personal' by calling Ross Greer strange? Do you think personal abuse of politicians is off limits on this board as that's what I was being pulled up for, does that offend you?

If so then as I say I hope you and the other poster are consistent pulling up everyone whenever they get personal regarding any politician from any party. Then we will see who the hypocrites are.

* Just for balance on the other thread there is absolutely no issue saying Jeremy Hunt should be shot, but don't dare call Ross Greer strange.

I've no problem with folks making snide references towards politicians, my problem is with you doing it to fellow Hibs supporters on a football forum. You appear to have little or no interest in the football side of this platform but happily come on this page and constantly dish out snide derogatory remarks to (fellow) Hibs fans. We can all disagree without the name calling. You've taken some stick but you reap what you sow.

[James310]

I've no problem with folks making snide references towards politicians, my problem is with you doing it to fellow Hibs supporters on a football forum. You appear to have little or no interest in the football side of this platform but happily come on this page and constantly dish out snide derogatory remarks to (fellow) Hibs fans. We can all disagree without the name calling. You've taken some stick but you reap what you sow.

It was made about Ross Greer. I don't believe he is a fellow Hibs fan and I don't think he reads this board. But let's not let the facts get in the way of another bashing.

[Hibrandenburg]

It was made about Ross Greer. I don't believe he is a fellow Hibs fan and I don't think he reads this board. But let's not let the facts get in the way of another bashing.

So you don't sling derogatory names at fellow Hibbies.

[James310]

So you don't sling derogatory names at fellow Hibbies.

Depends on your definition of derogatory? Is a Yoon a derogatory term to you? Would you call out a poster who called another a Yoon?

[Hibrandenburg]

Depends on your definition of derogatory? Is a Yoon a derogatory term to you? Would you call out a poster who called another a Yoon?

Yoon is only derogatory when directed at Mibbes Aye. Just because he walks and talks like one, doesn't mean he is. :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Yoon is only derogatory when directed at Mibbes Aye. Just because he walks and talks like one, doesn't mean he is. :wink:

:greengrin Very droll.

[Curried]

Interesting piece in the Guardian today by Simon Jenkins entitled “Scotland has a drugs problem – and it’s called Westminster”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/19/scotland-drugs-problem-westminster-policy (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/19/scotland-drugs-problem-westminster-policy)

[Hibrandenburg]

:greengrin Very droll.

:greengrin Sorry MA, the temptation got the better of me but you know how we gnats are. :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

I have been away for a few hours and it seems some spat has been going on while I was away.

Anyway, I was thinking drug control is targeting the wrong people. As I am at risk of heart disease and stroke I take aspirin. An over the counter drug that you can only buy in limited quantities.

The other day I was behind a family on holiday from the Netherlands at the supermarket checkout and they had 2 packs of Calpol for their young children, they were only allowed 1 pack.

So, my point is that there are severe control over medicines which are safe in normal use but because some drugs are illegal users are not protected by providing a safe and secure environment for their use because the law prevents it and the government is not willing to help.

[James310]

If you think the drugs scene hasn't changed in 11 years, then you need to do some reading. This quote is from the second link in Glasgow which I posted.

"The huge increase in the use of street benzodiazepines – implicated in 56pc of deaths – is enormously worrying. These drugs are being churned out by gangsters based here in Scotland, selling at extremely low prices and being consumed in large quantities"

If you're not even acknowledging that the UK government are dragging their heals on this, we'd best end it here.

If criminal gangs in Scotland are a large part of the problem what are Police Scotland doing about it. They have the powers to smash the gangs and stop the supply. That's nothing to do with Westminster.

[Ozyhibby]

If criminal gangs in Scotland are a large part of the problem what are Police Scotland doing about it. They have the powers to smash the gangs and stop the supply. That's nothing to do with Westminster.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Wow, no law enforcement organisation on the planet has ever managed to stop the supply of narcotics but you think Police Scotland should just about be able to do it with a little political will from Nicola Sturgeon?

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Wow, no law enforcement organisation on the planet has ever managed to stop the supply of narcotics but you think Police Scotland should just about be able to do it with a little political will from Nicola Sturgeon?

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apologies for having the bizarre suggestion that the Police could do more to stop the supply of drugs, how silly of me. I am pretty sure some police force will have had success against the supply of drugs somewhere on the planet, why not here.

Silly emojis x 10

[Killiehibbie]

Yoon is only derogatory when directed at Mibbes Aye. Just because he walks and talks like one, doesn't mean he is. :wink:

How many different meanings for yoon are there?

[ronaldo7]

If criminal gangs in Scotland are a large part of the problem what are Police Scotland doing about it. They have the powers to smash the gangs and stop the supply. That's nothing to do with Westminster.

We're now on page 7 of this thread, and you've jumped from one bandwagon to another. I don't think you really care about the drugs deaths, you're not really bothered are you. I think, cressida dick, said , that she'd need 100,000 extra officers to deal with the drug problem in London. Are you prepared to pay the extra tax for those extra officers in Scotland. Your party had enough to say about the new tax system when it was introduced.

Maybe you could get down to fettes, and tell them how to do it, if its that easy.

[Moulin Yarns]

Apologies for having the bizarre suggestion that the Police could do more to stop the supply of drugs, how silly of me. I am pretty sure some police force will have had success against the supply of drugs somewhere on the planet, why not here.

Silly emojis x 10

You must mean this drugbust https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2303687/episodes?season=1 :wink: (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2303687/episodes?season=1)

[ronaldo7]

How many different meanings for yoon are there?

I'll start.

Kim Jong yoon.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'll start.

Kim Jong yoon.

Oh you don't get me I'm part Yoonion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOCWUgwiWs

[Cataplana]

If you think the drugs scene hasn't changed in 11 years, then you need to do some reading. This quote is from the second link in Glasgow which I posted.

"The huge increase in the use of street benzodiazepines – implicated in 56pc of deaths – is enormously worrying. These drugs are being churned out by gangsters based here in Scotland, selling at extremely low prices and being consumed in large quantities"

If you're not even acknowledging that the UK government are dragging their heals on this, we'd best end it here.

This whole thing about shooting galleries is a red herring. It has already been suggested that criminal justice could provide a work around. It's disappointing that no one has confirmed or denied if that's possible, as it would mean things could move on faster.

As someone with no political affiliations I find the pettiness and whataboutery prevalent in this discussion quite offensive and depressing.

It seems to me the political classes are more interested in slogqnising and name calling, and settling old scores than admitting to their own incompetence and indolence in allowing this problem to develop.

If the government, or the opposition had any interest in fixing this, they would be much harder on fixing it. A plague on all your houses.

However there has been an outbreak of discussion of facts, regarding Benzos.


They are also being imported from Pakistan and China, but they are all significantly dangerous. They are often cut with Amitryptylline and God knows what else.

Just aw significant for me is the number of deaths where Gabapentin is a factor. This drug is being over prescribed by GPs and then ends up on long term repeat prescriptions. It has a currency value in poorer areas.

I don't know why users are so keen on these two drugs (benzos are pretty much restricted to Diazepam.) But it illustrates the need to offer safer alternatives, such as medicinal grade Heroin, or genuine Diazepam, on prescription.)

In the short term, I think this would see an increase in abuse, but dispensed from licensed centres alongside education and rapid access to detox facilities, I think it would reduce the number in the long term.

At the same time, there is a much bigger picture that involves freeing families from the cycle of hopelessness fuelled by a benefits system that incentivises sickness and unemployment, as it is easier to contain the poor with cheap food, housing and medication, than it is to offer them any hope of self actualisation.

[Cataplana]

We're now on page 7 of this thread, and you've jumped from one bandwagon to another. I don't think you really care about the drugs deaths, you're not really bothered are you. I think, cressida dick, said , that she'd need 100,000 extra officers to deal with the drug problem in London. Are you prepared to pay the extra tax for those extra officers in Scotland. Your party had enough to say about the new tax system when it was introduced.

Maybe you could get down to fettes, and tell them how to do it, if its that easy.

Cressida Dick must be on drugs, she should study what goes on in Portugal ����. What is she suggesting, one polis per bam?


Apologies for having the bizarre suggestion that the Police could do more to stop the supply of drugs, how silly of me. I am pretty sure some police force will have had success against the supply of drugs somewhere on the planet, why not here.

Silly emojis x 10

If you are pretty sure, why not go the whole hog and give us an example of a country that has won the war on drugs. I'm pretty sure none have done it by the use of law and order alone.

[James310]

Cressida Dick must be on drugs, she should study what goes on in Portugal ����. What is she suggesting, one polis per bam?



If you are pretty sure, why not go the whole hog and give us an example of a country that has won the war on drugs. I'm pretty sure none have done it by the use of law and order alone.

I am not suggesting the whole war on drugs will be won, but I don't believe that in the history of the police they have never been successful just once in reducing the supply of drugs or breaking up organised criminal gangs. It's their job.

[James310]

You must mean this drugbust https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2303687/episodes?season=1 :wink: (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2303687/episodes?season=1)

A link to a TV show?

[Moulin Yarns]

This whole thing about shooting galleries is a red herring. It has already been suggested that criminal justice could provide a work around. It's disappointing that no one has confirmed or denied if that's possible, as it would mean things could move on faster.




The Lord Advocate is pretty clear on what you crudely referred to 'shooting galleries'


The Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC, told the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday that while he does have the power to instruct police not to refer people caught with illegal drugs for criminal proceedings, this alone would not lead to giving consumption rooms the green light.


He stood by his 2017 decision to block plans for a facility in Glasgow that would allow users to take drugs under supervision and insisted that a change of the Misuse of Drugs Act was necessary before he would consider signing off on one in future.

[Moulin Yarns]

A link to a TV show?

Aye, the only place you will find police raids on drug factories.

[James310]

Aye, the only place you will find police raids on drug factories.

Is that right?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46634384

When police raided the garage, they found 1,676,094 etizolam pills, which are sometimes sold as fake valium and dubbed the blue plague.

[Cataplana]

I am not suggesting the whole war on drugs will be won, but I don't believe that in the history of the police they have never been successful just once in reducing the supply of drugs or breaking up organised criminal gangs. It's their job.

Well, unless you can show examples, that is nothing more than a hypothesis. The absence of any success stories pushes me to considering the 99.999 % of cases where they have failed, made things worse or joined in.

The "organised criminal gangs" are entire housing schemes trading their prescription drugs for drink, or tobacco. There is little production of street benzos in Scotland, such that the discovery of a "factory" in Paisley remains a talking point weeks after.

edit: hasn't seen that link, but it's not the norm.

They are imported from Pakistan, and China via web sites that are legit and open to all. Why are you not concentrating on the examples of countries that have had success?

[James310]

Well, unless you can show examples, that is nothing more than a hypothesis. The absence of any success stories pushes me to considering the 99.999 % of cases where they have failed, made things worse or joined in.

The "organised criminal gangs" are entire housing schemes trading their prescription drugs for drink, or tobacco. There is little production of street benzos in Scotland, such that the discovery of a "factory" in Paisley remains a talking point weeks after.

edit: hasn't seen that link, but it's not the norm.

They are imported from Pakistan, and China via web sites that are legit and open to all. Why are you not concentrating on the examples of countries that have had success?

So a quick 30 second Google search brings up the police raid that breaks up a gang making drugs on an industrial scale, only 50 miles along the road.

So there is a success right there, I am sure you would agree. Plenty more stories like that.

It's not just on TV shows it happens.

[danhibees1875]

So a quick 30 second Google search brings up the police raid that breaks up a gang making drugs on an industrial scale, only 50 miles along the road.

So there is a success right there, I am sure you would agree. Plenty more stories like that.

It's not just on TV shows it happens.

So the police are working to reduce the supply of drugs. I thought your arguement was that the police weren't?

There's no way the police can entirely stop all supply of drugs. I think it's unfair on them to suggest they could.

[Cataplana]

So a quick 30 second Google search brings up the police raid that breaks up a gang making drugs on an industrial scale, only 50 miles along the road.

So there is a success right there, I am sure you would agree. Plenty more stories like that.

It's not just on TV shows it happens.

Define success, has it had any impact on the sale of street Diazeoam? (Hint: the answer is "no".)

I really had hoped for a more grown up discussion where we actually talk about the problems rather than try and score points arguing about semantics. You are just as bad as the other two, and are probably better ignored. :aok:

[Ozyhibby]

So a quick 30 second Google search brings up the police raid that breaks up a gang making drugs on an industrial scale, only 50 miles along the road.

So there is a success right there, I am sure you would agree. Plenty more stories like that.

It's not just on TV shows it happens.

It’s not success though. Confiscated drugs are just a cost of doing business for drug cartels. Individual gangs might even be put out of business but the supply continues.
The only way to measure the success of law enforcement in stopping the supply of drugs is in the price. If the price is rising then less drugs are getting in, if it’s falling then more drugs are getting in. Given that demand is rising and it’s still getting cheaper I would say that very little success is being had.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Define success, has it had any impact on the sale of street Diazeoam? (Hint: the answer is "no".)

I really had hoped for a more grown up discussion where we actually talk about the problems rather than try and score points arguing about semantics. You are just as bad as the other two, and are probably better ignored. :aok:

Who are the other 2?

[Cataplana]

Who are the other 2?

Grow up son, you're all the same to me.


It’s not success though. Confiscated drugs are just a cost of doing business for drug cartels. Individual gangs might even be put out of business but the supply continues.
The only way to measure the success of law enforcement in stopping the supply of drugs is in the price. If the price is rising then less drugs are getting in, if it’s falling then more drugs are getting in. Given that demand is rising and it’s still getting cheaper I would say that very little success is being had.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could probably even be seen as a failure, the latest batch (white pills) has particularly nasty side effects.

[James310]

Grow up son, you're all the same to me.



Could probably even be seen as a failure, the latest batch (white pills) has particularly nasty side effects.

We are all the same what? If your going to chuck accusations expect to be questioned on them.

[ronaldo7]

The Lord Advocate is pretty clear on what you crudely referred to 'shooting galleries'

Thanks for that. Out earning a crust, at the moment. I'll have to forego my party membership to be able to discuss anything on here again.

Over and out.

[Cataplana]

The Lord Advocate is pretty clear on what you crudely referred to 'shooting galleries'

Its a crude world out there, maybe you need to experience some of it? Do you really think what term is used for these facilities is the issue here?

You politicos, are really quite reprehensible characters, any attack on your position or attitude is infinitely more important to you than meaningful discussion aimed at making people's lives better. Can you not see why people are becoming so disengaged from politics,

Getting away from your sanctimonious hijacking of the English language, it seems to me that - with the political will - the Lord Advocate could be minded to see things differently.

Take your own ego and hubris out of this, and you never know you might achieve what is supposed to be your goal - changing someone's point of view. However I suspect your true goal is to occupy the moral high ground and look down on others who don't.

it woukd drive anyone to drugs. Gangs of wee men, sitting at their computers while people die because they are too busy blaming each other.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Its a crude world out there, maybe you need to experience some of it? Do you really think what term is used for these facilities is the issue here?

You politicos, are really quite reprehensible characters, any attack on your position or attitude is infinitely more important to you than meaningful discussion aimed at making people's lives better. Can you not see why people are becoming so disengaged from politics,

Getting away from your sanctimonious hijacking of the English language, it seems to me that - with the political will - the Lord Advocate could be minded to see things differently.

Take your own ego and hubris out of this, and you never know you might achieve what is supposed to be your goal - changing someone's point of view. However I suspect your true goal is to occupy the moral high ground and look down on others who don't.

it woukd drive anyone to drugs. Gangs of wee men, sitting at their computers while people die because they are too busy blaming each other.

Wow! That's quite an attack.

[JeMeSouviens]

And all the usual suspects are present as the thread is ruined and those having an interesting debate a few pages back have been chased away. Well done guys, well done 😒

Oh well, it was interesting while it lasted.

[Cataplana]

Wow! That's quite an attack.

Pissed off with it all mate. Final straw was the nonsense about shooting galleries.

Have a lot of experience including losing friends to street Diazepam, and he tries to make out I'm the problem, because I don't use PC language.

Fact is, it's politics that's caused this problem. Nobody had the bottle to make the changes that were successful elsewhere, because the other side would whip up hysteria by calling names.

They also have to accept that their failure to provide meaningful futures for people has contributed to the reasons people take, and buy and sell drugs. We have people pretending to have illnesses so that they can get prescriptions to then sell on the drugs.

Yet, I get it in the neck for using a term like shooting galleries. He'll be telling me I can't call them junkies next.


Oh well, it was interesting while it lasted.

:agree:

[Fife-Hibee]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/19/scotland-drugs-problem-westminster-policy?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Cataplana]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/19/scotland-drugs-problem-westminster-policy?CMP=share_btn_tw

Can't argue with that, I'd be happy for us to go out own way if we could guarantee that problem users from other countries weren't going to descend on Scotland.

[Fife-Hibee]

Can't argue with that, I'd be happy for us to go out own way if we could guarantee that problem users from other countries weren't going to descend on Scotland.

I can just envision planes upon planes full of hard drug users engulfing Scotland right enough.

[Cataplana]

I can just envision planes upon planes full of hard drug users engulfing Scotland right enough.

Any need for that?

The Dutch and Swiss took precautions to ensure that very thing did not happen, by restricting the service to their own nationals.

Perhaps you should learn more about the subject before you go handing out random bits of sarcasm?

[Moulin Yarns]

Any need for that?

The Dutch and Swiss took precautions to ensure that very thing did not happen, by restricting the service to their own nationals.

Perhaps you should learn more about the subject before you go handing out random bits of sarcasm?

Ahem :greengrin

[Fife-Hibee]

Any need for that?

The Dutch and Swiss took precautions to ensure that very thing did not happen, by restricting the service to their own nationals.

Perhaps you should learn more about the subject before you go handing out random bits of sarcasm?

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being genuinely sincere. Couldn't you tell? :dunno:

It's a real worry, all these hard drug users buying plane tickets and flying all the way over to other countries just so they can milk off that countries system instead..... oh wait, hud oan. It's not just drug users that do this.... they're all at it. :faint:

Close down the airports! :cb

[Cataplana]

The spike in the last 4 years or so must be a clue as to what’s going on. It’s almost doubled in that time.

It was on a gradual rise but that spike is something else.

I do wonder about the stars though from other EU countries and wonder if the standard ‘better reporting’ line is responsible for the unwanted top of the charts billing.

I have the same question. Are we comparing apple with apple?

Why are suicides by drug overdoses counted as drug related deaths, for example? Is that the case in other countries?

We are told polypharmacy is a major issue in Scotland. I wonder if stricter medication reviews on the back of our excellent free prescriptions night have a part to play in limiting supply.

Gabapentin and Pregablin are being dished out like sweeties by GPs, who probably are not fully aware that they are a drug of abuse.

[Cataplana]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/dont-blame-addicts-shameful-drug-18332594

[Fife-Hibee]

From this time last year:
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1019594187686207488

[Cataplana]

Ahem :greengrin

Yeah, sorry for the sarcasm and the outburst. Particularly when calling them shooting galleries was not constructive.

Treatment Rooms is a more appropriate name, and will be more likely to result in positive outcomes. Sometimes language is very important.

[Cataplana]

Interesting stuff from Scottish Drugs Forum on Reporting Scotland tonight. Basically asking that we don't get too caught up in the injecting rooms as a solution, as there are other things we could be doing now.

If we could be doing them now, I suspect we could have been doing them for the last few years. Politicians need to reflect on that when they are disputing whose fault it is.

[Fife-Hibee]

Interesting stuff from Scottish Drugs Forum on Reporting Scotland tonight. Basically asking that we don't get too caught up in the injecting rooms as a solution, as there are other things we could be doing now.

If we could be doing them now, I suspect we could have been doing them for the last few years. Politicians need to reflect on that when they are disputing whose fault it is.

What things are those? Things we could be doing within the devolved remit of the parliament, or changes we've already requested at Westminster, only to be told that we're doing it their way?

[Mibbes Aye]

Interesting stuff from Scottish Drugs Forum on Reporting Scotland tonight. Basically asking that we don't get too caught up in the injecting rooms as a solution, as there are other things we could be doing now.

If we could be doing them now, I suspect we could have been doing them for the last few years. Politicians need to reflect on that when they are disputing whose fault it is.

This is a good article from the other day in the Guardian. As opposed to the Simon Jenkins piece someone else quoted, this one features actual research and interviewing at the coal face in Scotland and therefore has authenticity and lacks the glibness of Jenkins.

Curiously I think it mentions safer treatment rooms only once, in acknowledging the breadth, depth and complexity of the issue.

It is non-partisan and worth reading. Hopefully it allows people to think about things in a more constructive way you have already identified - that this thread is about a serious issue but seems to have turned into a petty bickerfest about red herrings. Sometimes petty party politics need to take a back seat and the debate should be about how we try and address a massive social problem without pointscoring.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/19/engagement-and-connection-the-key-to-reaching-scotlands-addicts

[Cataplana]

This is a good article from the other day in the Guardian. As opposed to the Simon Jenkins piece someone else quoted, this one features actual research and interviewing at the coal face in Scotland and therefore has authenticity and lacks the glibness of Jenkins.

Curiously I think it mentions safer treatment rooms only once, in acknowledging the breadth, depth and complexity of the issue.

It is non-partisan and worth reading. Hopefully it allows people to think about things in a more constructive way you have already identified - that this thread is about a serious issue but seems to have turned into a petty bickerfest about red herrings. Sometimes petty party politics need to take a back seat and the debate should be about how we try and address a massive social problem without pointscoring.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/19/engagement-and-connection-the-key-to-reaching-scotlands-addicts

“This is really a clinic that’s treating trauma,”

Thanks for sharing that. Fantastic article, but one that will sadly go missed by many, as the chattering classes go onto the next flavour of the week.

It would have been great if the figures were a catalyst to cross party, collobarative action, but I fear that they have had their spat blaming each other, and it will join homelessness, mental health, food banks and ex servicemen on the list of touchstones for people who like to pretend they care, but don't care enough to fix the problem.

[ronaldo7]

People working together to get some movement on one aspect of the drug problem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49063485

[Fife-Hibee]

People working together to get some movement on one aspect of the drug problem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49063485

Shame the "pro-devolution" Scottish Labour Party won't put their names to it. But fair play to the Liberal Democrat's that did.

[ronaldo7]

Shame the "pro-devolution" Scottish Labour Party won't put their names to it. But fair play to the Liberal Democrat's that did.

That'll be the Red herrings.:rolleyes:

[Cataplana]

People working together to get some movement on one aspect of the drug problem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49063485

Heard that on the radio this morning. Used to be most of the real work at Holyrood was done in the committees. Is that still the case?

[ronaldo7]

Heard that on the radio this morning. Used to be most of the real work at Holyrood was done in the committees. Is that still the case?

This is at Westminster. The radio programme was with Crispin Blunt, and he seemed very taken by the route determined by the Portuguese.

[Cataplana]

This is at Westminster. The radio programme was with Crispin Blunt, and he seemed very taken by the route determined by the Portuguese.

I think I have reached the point where I have no meaningful contribution to make. (In defence I was driving when it was on the radio, but that doesn't excuse not reading it!)

Thanks anyway, great to be pointed towards new information.

[ronaldo7]

I think I have reached the point where I have no meaningful contribution to make. (In defence I was driving when it was on the radio, but that doesn't excuse not reading it!)

Thanks anyway, great to be pointed towards new information.

If we all keep pushing, we'll get there in the end. :aok:

[stoneyburn hibs]

If we all keep pushing, we'll get there in the end. :aok:

Pushing?? Wtf?? 😁

[Cataplana]

If we all keep pushing, we'll get there in the end. :aok:

Yes.

[southsider]

Ghetto defendant
It is heroin pity
Not tear gas not Baton charge
That stops you taking the City.

[CMurdoch]

Ghetto defendant
It is heroin pity
Not tear gas not Baton charge
That stops you taking the City.

Not listened to that Clash track for years.
Allen Ginsberg does a voice over on it if I remember correctly