Drug deaths in Scotland highest in EU

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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/201...orld-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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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/201...orld-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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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-urge...rug-emergency/

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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!

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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!

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

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

[James310]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

https://www.snp.org/were-taking-urge...rug-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 [/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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

[Cataplana]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Back of the net.