Happy Cannabis Day!

[Aladdin]

Today marks the downgrading of cannabis to a 'Class C' substance. Although many of us would like to see cannabis decriminalised altogether, this is at least a step in the right direction.

Won't notice much of a diffrence in Brixton, mind. :D

So, is anyone against the downgrading, and why?

[budda]

Personally I think its been handled shockingly poorly, even given this governments past drugs education.

Its a pointless half-way-house that although a step in the right direction still keeps virtually all the negative aspects of it being illegal.

[morrocan roll]

happy confused err what was i doing day!

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
happy confused err what was i doing day!

:D

Yes bongbudda, I know it doesn't go far enough, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

It won't make any difference to me at the end of the day. I have and will continue to smoke in public as well as at home in full view from the street as I live on a ground floor and have big front windows.. Frankly I couldn't care less about anti-drug laws at the best of times, and in particular when it comes to legislating what I can or cannot do in my own home.

That it is still punishable by law is a disgrace in itself, but like I said this is a step in the right direction (changes take longer to occur in this country than in the Continent, we all know that) and we're now one step closer to full decriminalisation.

[Char_Baby]

well its still not gonna make me smoke it, with all the firms doing drug testing to their employees its not worth it

[RiSe & ShIne]

It's been done for the wrong reasons i belive. But as you say Aladdin, it's a step forward, and not backwards.

It won't make much difference to me, i shall continue to smoke regardless of what the laws are.

[Shogun]

It's a step forward towards the ultimate goal...legalising it.

Won't make much of a difference anywhere i think, smoking's everywhere now.

[Namaste]

Sounds a good move, if alcohol is legal then why isn't having a spliff?

Even if it stayed at that classification I'd smoke it, it's a treat now and again.

[Whowhere]

The sheer fact that smoking Weed will some day make me go insane is enough to put me off, plus the fact that it stinks worse than cigarettes and is as bad for your lungs and heart as smoking is anyway.

What we may soon find are a lot more road accidents caused by people who have got high on weed, and I'm going to look forward to prosecuting every last one of them.

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/evidence-select/cannabishealth.htm

[The Doc]

Originally posted by Whowhere
What we may soon find are a lot more road accidents caused by people who have got high on weed, and I'm going to look forward to prosecuting every last one of them.

Why would that happen? I doubt people are going to be taking more risks with cannabis now that it has been downgraded. People will be a public/private as they have always been I suspect.

[Aladdin]

Whowhere, the cannabis link to schizophrenia hasn't exactly been proved. And even those who believe in are wiser than to suggest occasional use of cannabis (which is the category most users fall into) would lead to schizophrenia.

I tell you have has been proved without a doubt instead: that alcohol is the an extremely damaging drug to both individuals and society at large; that at least 100,000 deaths a year are caused by alcohol consumption in the UK alone (compare those figures with that of cannabis-related deaths: 0 in the history of mankind); that drink driving is responsible for nearly a third of all road accidents; that alcohol is responsible for countless crimes such as assaults, abuse, rape, murder, theft, general violence, domestic violence and many others. Etc etc.

I don't know what your chief's priorities on cannabis will be. But believe me: every time you or any other officer in this country arrest a cannabis user (not while driving of course which is a legitimate concern) valuable police time is being completely wasted for no good reason whatsoever. A lot of police officers could take a leaf out of Brian Paddick's book.

But anyway. It is good of you to ensure every last person who drives stone is prosecuted. I can just hope you will also be looking forward to prosecute every last drunk driver and those who are speeding, who regardless of the right wing press' denials are as bloody dangerous as a pisshead behind the wheel.

[The Doc]

Originally posted by Aladdin
that at least 100,000 deaths a year are caused by alcohol consumption in the UK alone (compare those figures with that of cannabis-related deaths: 0 in the history of mankind);

Didn't someone die from cannabis poisining last week? Someone is Wales somewhere. Then again, that was the first one on record in Britain.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Whowhere
The sheer fact that smoking Weed will some day make me go insane

Pardon? While cannabis can definitely exacerbate pre-exisiting mental health problems or cause depression and anxiety while using it, there is no evidence to suggest that it causes long term mental health problems.

[edit to add]
In fact it even states this in that link you posted.
There is little evidence that cannabis alone produces a psychosis that persists after the period of intoxication

and

Chronic cannabis use may precipitate cannabis in vulnerable individuals but not cause the underlying psychotic disorder

[ladymuck]

There are concerns about the strength of skunk, maybe that should've been made class A. Have the Police been prepared for the probable long-term increase in toking motorists, I believe there's no specific easy road-side test.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by ladymuck
There are concerns about the strength of skunk, maybe that should've been made class A. Have the Police been prepared for the probable long-term increase in toking motorists, I believe there's no specific easy road-side test.

There has never been any serious steps taken to make skunk Class A.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by the doc horatio
Didn't someone die from cannabis poisining last week? Someone is Wales somewhere. Then again, that was the first one on record in Britain. This is true, but it was the person's absurdly high consumption that killed them. It really didn't matter whether it was cannabis or sliced bread. Too much of anything will kill you. People have died as a result of drinking too much water- yet no one would regard drinking water as a dangerous activity.

As I understand it there has never been a recorded death as a result of cannabis consumption anywhere in the world, ever (last week's incident excluded, which as I explained I don't think qualifies).

If alcohol didn't exist until now and it was discovered today, it would immediately be made illegal and probably regarded as the most dangerous and damaging substance known to society. Cannabis is by comparison infinitely safer- but it has never quite been the drug of choice of the ruling classes.

[morrocan roll]

no one has ever died from cannabis toxicity. the coroner who made this statement WILL ...be made to eat his own words.
to od you'd have to eat about 5kilo's which would be physicaly impossible!

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Aladdin
This is true, but it was the person's absurdly high consumption that killed them. It really didn't matter whether it was cannabis or sliced bread. Too much of anything will kill you. People have died as a result of drinking too much water- yet no one would regard drinking water as a dangerous activity.

As I understand it there has never been a recorded death as a result of cannabis consumption anywhere in the world, ever (last week's incident excluded, which as I explained I don't think qualifies).

If alcohol didn't exist until now and it was discovered today, it would immediately be made illegal and probably regarded as the most dangerous and damaging substance known to society. Cannabis is by comparison infinitely safer- but it has never quite been the drug of choice of the ruling classes.

Al doesn't this appply to all the alcohol related deaths as well?

How is Cannabis infinitely safer? What you say is true, taking things in excess is damaging. Nobody has ever died from drinking a pint in the same way that no-one has dies from smoking a spliff.

The effects of alcohol are so prevalent and obvious precisely because it is legal and has been established in society for so long.
The effects of Cannabis are so unclear and unknown precisely because it is illegal and has not been so well established in our culture (but this is not an argument for its legalisation)

[Luce]

the cannabis link to schizophrenia hasn't exactly been proved.
Only because there hasn't been long-term research into it. By the time that happens, a lot of people will have smoked it, and then if there is a definite link between it and mental illness, it will be too late.

[morrocan roll]

massive research was done into cannabis in victorian times due to the ammount of british troops in india who had taken to smoking large quantities of it. the fear was reefer madness which was often seen in market places and such, when men would suddenly run amok hacking at people with a machette and other well documented stories of the day. the research showed there was no such thing as reefer madness and what was being witnessed was the effects of syphilis.
the troops were bringing tons and tons of the stuff back to the uk as were many trading ships ...perfectly legaly. even queen victoria smoked the stuff daily as did the population as a whole.
in those days england had the biggest rope manufacturing factories in the world ...making hemp rope for shipping around the world. the workers toked on the massive supplies of weed on a daily basis ...where the saying ...smoking old rope comes from.
all the research since then right up today confirms what the victorian research found.
it pisses me off that people seem to believe cannabis to be some kind of modern thing. resin ...grass ...and tincture could and was brought legaly from chemists shops across the land with no problems. the first world war killed off it's consumption. by the 1920's it was again massively popular. the second world war killed it off. in the 1950's it again became popular through west indian imigration into the uk.
it has never been a problem ...from the red indians of america to the vikings of europe. when viking ships are dug out of the mud ...it is common to find the petrified remains of a huge slab of resin in the cupboard.
it only becomes a problem when people are turned into criminals for using what is basicaly a herb.
even in the bible in the very first book ...genesis ..."and i give to man every seed bearing plant for his use and pleasure ..."

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Toadborg
Al doesn't this appply to all the alcohol related deaths as well?

How is Cannabis infinitely safer? What you say is true, taking things in excess is damaging. Nobody has ever died from drinking a pint in the same way that no-one has dies from smoking a spliff. High (and sometimes just moderate) alcohol consumption has been proven without a doubt to be the direct or indirect cause of countless deaths. This is not from a massive one night bender but from the cumulative damage alcohol does to our liver, kidneys and other organs (though healthy people have also been known to die from a single alcohol overdose). Even the hangovers can kill in extreme cases- something not even heroin does.

No one on the other hand has ever died from regular cannabis consumption- even those who smoke it every day.

Yes, there might be a case that cannabis can cause mental health problems in later life. But if you compare all the date known the figures speak for themselves:

Alcohol: Linked to up to 100,000 deaths every year

Cannabis: Never linked to a death in recorded history



Alcohol: Linked to up to a third of all road accidents (another 1,000 or so fatalities) and many violent crimes of all sorts and seriousness.

Cannabis: Don't know how many deaths on road but surely not more than a dozen or two per year. As for violent crime... well anyone who's smoked knows that if anything, cannabis suppresses violence.


Now I know that the immense majority of us are able to indulge in the consumption of alcohol without being part of the above statistics (although in the health front the odds are sadly much lower). But the figures still stand, and to be frank if you compare all the things alcohol does to us as persons and society, against the things cannabis might do to us, I think there is no contest. I’m perfectly happy with the decriminalisation of all drugs, but those who oppose the decriminalization of cannabis on the grounds that it might be harmful to us should at the same time campaign for the illegalisation of alcohol.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Luce
Only because there hasn't been long-term research into it. By the time that happens, a lot of people will have smoked it, and then if there is a definite link between it and mental illness, it will be too late.

People have been using cannabis for thousands of years.
I'm not a cannabis advocate, haven't touched it myself for about 7 years, but I do think it should be legal. Yes, it causes mental health problems for a minority of people, but these are generally underlying problems or disappear after ceasing to use cannabis.

You know which drug causes the most mental health problems? Alcohol.

[The Doc]

Yes, alcohol is the drugs that causes the most mental health prolems but alcohol is also the most-widely used drug. It's like what someone said in one of the many race threads- if black people are in a majority in an area of course black people will be comitting the most crimes.

[Whowhere]

Ok, you may not go insane, although I doubt the ability of the Victorians and their long term research as being any good.
But it is still smoke, and smoking anything will kill you eventually. It even said in the link, weed users are more likely to suffer smoking related diseases than tobacco smokers due to the nature of how they smoke (no filter, deep puffs).

The thing thats pissing me off as well are the stupid fucks who think it's ok to smoke it in public, I'll be on the look out for them and they'll wish they hadn't.

[Blagsta]

and the police wonder why people hate them :rolleyes:

[Whowhere]

90% of all people in custody have traces of Cannabis in their bodies. Of those 80% also have traces of other, harder drugs.
Cannabis NOT being a gateway to crime and harder drugs is a myth.

I know many of you will say "But alcohol does this e.t.c." People don't commit crime to fuel an addiction to alcohol.
Burglaries aren't done by people hooked on booze. People aren't robbed in the street because their attacker is hooked on cider. People don't end up on the streets begging because they were unlucky, they do it because the dealer who gave them some heroin free the first time milked them for all they were worth the subscequent times.

Yes, a lot of people use cannabis and lead fairly normal lives. Those people mix in their own circles at university or at work. They don't give a second thought to where the drug comes from, or how it was paid for.

The police may be hated, you'll hate us even more when you realise that the reason your beloved weed has gone up in price is because we're seizing the houses, cars and bank accounts of the people who grow it.

[Blagsta]

I work in drug rehab/counselling so I think I know a little bit about it. :rolleyes:

Btw drugs are coming down in price, not up.

Legalise drugs and you remove most of the social problems associated with them.

[Whowhere]

How would legalising something like heroin help solve social problems may I ask?
You'd still get people addicted to it, robbing people for money.

[The Doc]

Are there crime rings that operate by smuggling alcohol into the country? No. You get blokes bringing in a bit too much from the C&C in France for their barbecue or just before the World Cup.

Why? Because it is legal.

I think, and I think others agree with me, that if the government set a legal barrier as to how much you can bring into the country like they have for alcohol, some of the crime would go.

[Blagsta]

Making heroin legally available to addicts would remove criminals from the supply. Heroin (in fact all illegal drugs) are kept at an artificially high price due to their black market status and the risks associated with their supply. This means that users need to get loads of money to fund a habit. They often fund habits with crime. Make it legally available and the crime rate would halve overnight. The violence associated with the drug trade is also down to it being illegal.
The main health risks associated with heroin use are also due to prohibition. Users never know the purity of what they are buying or what its cut with, this can lead to greater risk of OD or other health problems. Legalise it and you greatly reduce these risks.
A lot of people who work in the drugs field along with some politicians and some top police officers agree with this.

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by the doc horatio
Are there crime rings that operate by smuggling alcohol into the country? No.

there are actually
http://www.sghms.ac.uk/depts/addictive-behaviour/infores/tobacco.htm

http://www.hmce.gov.uk/protect/ourfight/alcohol.htm

Legalising it won't solve the problem, it'll just create more problems.

[Blagsta]

The reason why people smuggle tobacco and alcohol into this country is because they are both very highly taxed.

[Whowhere]

That doesn't explain why they sell it on, does it.
I can understand people bringing it in for themselves, the gangs that bring it in and sell it for a profit are the major problem.

[Blagsta]

Yes it does. Supply and demand. People want cheap baccy and booze, other people can supply it by smuggling.

Simple.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Whowhere]

It was made illegal after it had been legal.
Same thing happened with cannabis, true. But a hell of a lot more people drink than they to take cannabis.

[Blagsta]

Sorry don't get your point. :confused:

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Blagsta]

Whowheres point.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Whowhere

The thing thats pissing me off as well are the stupid fucks who think it's ok to smoke it in public, I'll be on the look out for them and they'll wish they hadn't. oh for fucks sake whowfucking where ...get fucking real! you realy haven't a clue about people and life ...sadly thats what seems to make a good ignorant fucking copper these days. is it any wonder coppers end up only being able to associate with coppers ...further removing them from reality. your in for some big shocks.

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
oh for fucks sake whowfucking where ...get fucking real! you realy haven't a clue about people and life ...sadly thats what seems to make a good ignorant fucking copper these days. is it any wonder coppers end up only being able to associate with coppers ...further removing them from reality. your in for some big shocks.


All i said was it pisses me off when people smoke it in public, it stinks, especially when people smoke it on public transport or in public buildings.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Whowhere

The police may be hated, you'll hate us even more when you realise that the reason your beloved weed has gone up in price is because we're seizing the houses, cars and bank accounts of the people who grow it. you are truly an ignorant fuck ...like most cops i ever met unfortunately.
the war against drugs has been going on for over thirty years ...with the result that more acres than ever before across the world grow coke ...dope ...opium. with the result that the uk now grows so much top quality weed that we are now a major exporter ...while you dumb fucks are trying to stop it coming in ...it's actualy going out.
the war on drugs has failed misserably. it's only sucsess being to hand 10 billion quid a year to villains in the uk alone.
watch out everyone ...a new super hero called whowhere is here to enforce law and order ...wearing his underpants over his fucking head!
by the way ...the victorian studies are to this day the most respected ...highly proffesional and still up to date with the last hundred years research.
i'm begining to think that a certain kind of person hides from reality by becoming a copper ...a uniform a pair of big boots and a little bit of power over other people ...good way of hiding your ignorance me thinks.
you get out there mate and bash the druggys with your big stick ...oh ...not forgetting your views on homelessness ...kick 'em in the shop doorways while they're down ...you'll go far i'm sure.
but ...the drugs that have been here in abundance for the last three hundred years WON'T ...be going away. what a waste of your time aye.

[morrocan roll]

whowhere ...can i just reccomend a book you may find interesting.
it might well give you an insight about the kinds of people involved in the movement, production and distribution of cannabis.
it's not an intelectualy demanding book.
the book is ...MR NICE ...an autobiography. by Howard Marks.
published by vintage 1998.
i'm sure you'll be able to hate mr marks with a vengance. it may give you a little glimpse of truth regarding a topic you appear to know absolutely nothing about. it will i'm sure give you an insight into the people ...the human beings involved.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Whowhere
All i said was it pisses me off when people smoke it in public, it stinks, especially when people smoke it on public transport or in public buildings.

I agree that people shouldn't smoke on public transport. But that applies to cigarettes as well as weed. Someone walking down the road with a spliff or chilling in the park having a smoke doesn't do any harm though.

[Aladdin]

Would you have a problem Whowhere with someone sitting on a bench in a square smoking a joint and minding his own business, with no kids around?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Whowhere
I'm going to look forward to prosecuting every last one of them.

is your beat in balamory by any chance? sure i've seen you there ...

[Braineater]

The NHS side already accosiated with mental heath is already underfunded. I don't think adding millions of space cadets to that list is going to be very cost effective or productive.

Here's my, slightly more ballsy proposal:

Possession with intent to supply/ Dealing : 10 years minimum.
Use in public : 6 months
Sutable amount in home /medicinal with permission of a doctor(over 18) : 100% legal
Use in home (under 18) : 3 months

I'd personally have a nation of faggers than space cadets.

Your're better off smoking banana skins :naughty:

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Aspartame
But if they were to legalise and control it like alcohol, then it could be taxed in the same way as alcohol and tobacco. and considering we spend billions of pounds a year on weed in this country and ...now export top quality weed as well ...the governbment are missing out big time.
but lets just keep things the way they are instead of the government having any kind of control over the situation we'll leave it to razor rick and his mates to live the high life. tax free high life at that.
i don't know why but people seem to assume that keeping it illegal or upping the penalties will somehow make it go away or make it safer.
up the penalties enough and i can assure you the world will become more violent ...much more violent. more dead coppers etc.
we are talking billions of quids here.
and who the fuck do any of you think you are ...telling me i cannot grow a certain herb on my windowsill along with my ginger and chillies and use it as i see fit? yes realy!

[Braineater]

Alcohol and tobacco already cause enough problems, why add another even though it is "medically lesser" than the other few?

I don't think completely legalising it would entirely solve the problem and I think regulating it would be harder than Alcohol and Tobacco.


What we need is proper research into the effects. If it were safe and doesn't cause problems I'd support it's legalisation but tell that to the dealers. Those are the people we as a nation need to target in the pocket more than anything else. As long as there are panda-eyed dependants outside inner city comprehensives I will never support 100% decrimilisation, it's not worth it.


The only reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is because we've been drunk and smoking for hundreds of years.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Braineater
The only reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is because we've been drunk and smoking for hundreds of years. so we have only recently started smoking weed then?
funny ...i've smoked for 36 years now. my father smoked in egypt in the 1940,s when he was in charge of motor torpedo boats in and around the suez canal. my grandfathers generation in the 1930's were into the stuff real big time ...very fashionable, especialy in america. his father in victorian england would have been buying cannabis legaly along with opium tincture.
it's been a stoned world like forever!

[Braineater]

You misunderstand me, I'm all for it in the home at a reasonable quantity, it's none of the states business but it's on the streets , inticing kiddies and our precious doctors of tommorow that gets to me.

Grow your own by all means, smoke the odd spliff for pain relief or whatever just don't even consider selling it. :)

I'm not against it, but I am against creating social pressures where they are not warrented.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Braineater

I am against creating social pressures where they are not warrented. unfortunately mate those pressures are there already but with no controls. i believe the illegality of it gives it a rock n roll rebellious robin hood outlaw romanticism, that could be removed. it is already happening in holland.
the truth is ...it won't go away. millions of people from all walks of life are and will continue to use it. giving crime a donation of billions of untaxed pounds cannot be a sensible way to aproach this.

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Would you have a problem Whowhere with someone sitting on a bench in a square smoking a joint and minding his own business, with no kids around?

Seeing as I can't tell from a distance the difference between a joint and a fag I'd probably leave him alone.
If he walked up to me and blew it in my face then it would be different.

Rolly, I'm "fucking ignorant" and hate drugs because I'm seeing with my own eyes what a shit hole this country is becoming because of them.
Nearly every crime in every major city can be attributed to them. I've had friends and work colleagues throw their lives away for the sake of getting high.
I went out a few months ago, we stopped by one of their houses, she and her mates were all fucking stoners. One guy was just sat on the couch babbling to himself. And this makes us a great country? A guy, who could barely control his own bladder, let alone his ability to stop drool running down his mouth is the future of this country?

This is what it's like to be free to smoke what we want? Pull the other one. Now you want to make the damn things legal? You think that the gangs will go, that turf wars will be a thing of the past just because it is legal to sell and use them? Or do you suggest government controlled "outlets", fat lot of good that would do, it would just create a new tax and smugglers would be out getting it on the cheap from France.

Legalising it would make the problems worse, not better. We've only just managed to get the message across that drinking and driving is a bad thing to do, now we'll have to start the whole thing over with drugs and driving. "Excuse me sir, have you been popping E's tonight?"

If you legalise drugs, then the drug lords win. They already believe they have more power than the rest of us, making their "trade" legal would just make them believe they are Gods. Look at South America, Colombia in particular. The government there turn a blind eye for a short space of time, the next thing they know they are at war.

[morrocan roll]

whowhere ...you just don't get it do you. are you telling me that anna ford the news reader is sitting at home a dribbling wreck cos she has taken coke and smoked weed for the last tenty five years ...sir paul mcartney? deidre barlow from coronation street ...smoked the same dope as me from the same place for the same length of time ...queen victoria ...will self ...mick jagger ...a few million others including aneasthetists and surgeons ...artists politicians and ...heaven forbid a lot of coppers?
coppers to the extent that the chief constable of manchester refuses to do random drug checks on his force becuase cannabis can be traced for up to two months ...where class A's are only for about 24hrs? he stated quite sensibly that he would rather his cops smoke a weed than resort to class A's to avoid a positive result.
you know some very strange and miserable wrecks of people mate ...or did you make that bit up?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Braineater
The NHS side already accosiated with mental heath is already underfunded. I don't think adding millions of space cadets to that list is going to be very cost effective or productive.

Here's my, slightly more ballsy proposal:

Possession with intent to supply/ Dealing : 10 years minimum.
Use in public : 6 months
Sutable amount in home /medicinal with permission of a doctor(over 18) : 100% legal
Use in home (under 18) : 3 months

I'd personally have a nation of faggers than space cadets.

Your're better off smoking banana skins :naughty:

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

What you been smoking?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Braineater
The only reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is because we've been drunk and smoking for hundreds of years.

Humans have been using cannabis for thousands of years.

What was your point again? :confused:

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Whowhere
Seeing as I can't tell from a distance the difference between a joint and a fag I'd probably leave him alone.
If he walked up to me and blew it in my face then it would be different.

Rolly, I'm "fucking ignorant" and hate drugs because I'm seeing with my own eyes what a shit hole this country is becoming because of them.
Nearly every crime in every major city can be attributed to them. I've had friends and work colleagues throw their lives away for the sake of getting high.
I went out a few months ago, we stopped by one of their houses, she and her mates were all fucking stoners. One guy was just sat on the couch babbling to himself. And this makes us a great country? A guy, who could barely control his own bladder, let alone his ability to stop drool running down his mouth is the future of this country?

This is what it's like to be free to smoke what we want? Pull the other one. Now you want to make the damn things legal? You think that the gangs will go, that turf wars will be a thing of the past just because it is legal to sell and use them? Or do you suggest government controlled "outlets", fat lot of good that would do, it would just create a new tax and smugglers would be out getting it on the cheap from France.

Legalising it would make the problems worse, not better. We've only just managed to get the message across that drinking and driving is a bad thing to do, now we'll have to start the whole thing over with drugs and driving. "Excuse me sir, have you been popping E's tonight?"

If you legalise drugs, then the drug lords win. They already believe they have more power than the rest of us, making their "trade" legal would just make them believe they are Gods. Look at South America, Colombia in particular. The government there turn a blind eye for a short space of time, the next thing they know they are at war.

Have you actually read anything on this thread? :rolleyes:

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Have you actually read anything on this thread? :rolleyes: it's a bit worrying that he can't tell the difference between a roll up and a spliff but is sworn to arrest everyone he sees smoking a spliff don't you think ...

[Blagsta]

hopefully he'll learn

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Blagsta
hopefully he'll learn through some fucking big hairy arsed hells angel rolling an old holborn unfortunately.

[Shogun]

While i was reading through this post whowhere your attitude towards weed was so fucking stupid, i dread to think if all cops take the same attitude as you. GET WITH REALITY FOR FUCK SAKES, people are smoking dope everywhere now, yea i know it might not be right to smoke it on the street...but what would you do if you caught someone away behind trees out of sight having a smoke..no one from the public could see them, you and your officers happened to walk in..what would you do? they are all say 16-18.


Have you ever smoked cannabis whowhere?



People don't end up on the streets begging because they were unlucky, they do it because the dealer who gave them some heroin free the first time milked them for all they were worth the subscequent times.


And this here....:lol:

Can any drug user honestly say that their dealer give them free drugs the first time and then this was the trend of going back to find out you had to pay..bull fucking shit, a dealer dosen't give the drugsaway for free, the dealer sells them to make money, not to give away to someone for free :rolleyes:

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Humans have been using cannabis for thousands of years.

What was your point again? :confused:


The MAJORITY of people have been drinking and smoking for thousands of years. It's easier to ban something that not so many people do.

Shogun, no I've never used it. I've never felt the need to, same with smoking. I get my kicks from elsewhere, i don't need narcotics to do it for me.

Maybe dealers wouldn't give away free samples, they still milk people for all they are worth, come to a city in England and you'll see.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
whowhere ...you just don't get it do you. are you telling me that anna ford the news reader is sitting at home a dribbling wreck cos she has taken coke and smoked weed for the last tenty five years ...sir paul mcartney?

Surely you can't promote taking cocaine. Snort coke everyday for 20 years, it's good for you :rolleyes:
Weed is OK in moderation, I've done it plenty, but not hard drugs.
What annoys me also is when people boast about taking drugs.
People who smoke weed everyday should take a look at their lives, just the same have people who down a bottle of vodka everyday should.
I know 3 people who smoke weed everyday, all 3 live with their parents, have shit jobs and are going nowhere in life

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Whowhere
The MAJORITY of people have been drinking and smoking for thousands of years. It's easier to ban something that not so many people do.

Shogun, no I've never used it. I've never felt the need to, same with smoking. I get my kicks from elsewhere, i don't need narcotics to do it for me.

Maybe dealers wouldn't give away free samples, they still milk people for all they are worth, come to a city in England and you'll see.

You don't have a clue whats going on at street level. Typical police really. Utterly clueless.

[budda]

It all boils down to whether drugs would be safer, and the social cost lower, if we could control their use in a medical/social way rather than legal.

If you are going to allow people to smoke cannabis why give the profits of selling it to criminals?! That makes NO sense.

Addiction is a medical problem and should be treated as such, jail is NOT the right place.

And these 'evil' dealers who prey on children outside the school gates hoping to get them all addicted, the only way you can change that is by taking their market away. Treating the addicts and by making available restricted amounts of the other drugs.

[Shogun]

Originally posted by Whowhere


Shogun, no I've never used it. I've never felt the need to, same with smoking. I get my kicks from elsewhere, i don't need narcotics to do it for me.

Maybe dealers wouldn't give away free samples, they still milk people for all they are worth, come to a city in England and you'll see.


I get my kicks from alot of things, but yes cannabis is one of them, so is alcohol, do you drink?

Well i've never seen any real drug problems whenever i was last in england, that was years ago though.

Is it very bad the drug problems in england? I would like to hear from people who live in drug estates to hear their view on it as well because around here maybe a few people would get into trouble with the police or else the paramilatiries but other than that alot of people just continue to use drugs, although coke and heroin aren't big problems here, a few use coke, it's about if you wanted it but speed and e's and blow are about alot.

The police can't catch all shipments coming in and now alot of the drugs are made in the Uk and shipped out elsewhere as mroll said somewhere..that the uk are now a main exporter and you police are trying to catch it coming in.

[budda]

The drug problems in England isnt all that bad, we do, granted have the highest use of illegal drugs in Western Europe, but this country certainly isnt going to hell in a handbasket because of it.

In fact the crime rate in the UK has been stable if not going down since Labour came to town, and your now less likely to be the victim of crime that you have been since the mid-80's.

Do NOT believe everything you read in the papers.

Yes we have drug problems, but they are because of the shockingly bad drugs education and treatment services, not really because of the drugs in of themselves.

[Aladdin]

At least 1 million young people take ecstasy every weekend. No social problems or crimes from them.

Many more millions smoke joints. No many social problems from them either, not because of cannabis anyway.

You want to target people Whowhere, target drunk and disordely idiots. They cause far more damage and grief.

[ladymuck]

No social problems or crimes from them.

Dealers/gangsters wealth?

Maybe a few long-term health problems from ecstasy and the stronger strains of cannabis. The state has a role in safeguarding the nations's health, prohibition or control may be the only way.

alcohol is not mind-altering in it's action, drinkers use and abuse it in a straightforward fashion plus it will not go away regardless of how many other drugs are permitted

[budda]

Who are you safegaurding by the current situation?

Drugs are cheaper and stronger than they have EVER been in this country. Yes the state does indeed have a role to play, and that should be in protecting vunerable users, NOT putting them in prison.

[ladymuck]

and that should be in protecting vunerable users

the 1 million young people taking ecstasy every weekend, presumably?.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by ladymuck
Dealers/gangsters wealth? I don't mind my dealer being wealthy. He risks long prison sentences, so it is only normal his remuneration is high. But anyway, I see what you're saying and I have one word for it: decriminalisation.

Maybe a few long-term health problems from ecstasy and the stronger strains of cannabis. The state has a role in safeguarding the nations's health, prohibition or control may be the only way. The state has no role in banning me or anyone else from taking any substance I please. Let's make that absolutely crystal clear.

Other than that, prohibition has never and will never work.

alcohol is not mind-altering in it's action, drinkers use and abuse it in a straightforward fashion plus it will not go away regardless of how many other drugs are permitted Oh yes it is. Alcohol is one of the most mind-altering substances known to man. Go to any pub at closing time on a Saturday night and you'll see what I mean.

Ecstasy on the other hand brings the very best in people and makes everyone happy, content and good to others. Even violence junkies such as football hooligans have been known to abandon violence when taking ecstasy became popular briefly a decade ago.

Anyway, drugs will not go away either regardless of how many laws are passed and punishments given. It's about time the government realises it will never, ever, ever ever stop people from taking drugs.

You cannot have it both ways. Either campaign for a decriminalisation of drugs or a prohibition of ALL drugs, including alcohol.

[budda]

Decriminalisation doesnt go far enough, you need the drugs to come from licenced and checked sources and at least some of the revenue to come back to the government to go into treatment centres.

Aladin, did you see my Manifesto on drugs I posted recently?

[Aladdin]

I don't think so, can you provide link?

[budda]

Ladymuck; Yes, every single person who uses ecstacy is vunerable, of course they are, they are buying a black market product with no qaulity controls what so ever. They are also probably basing their harm prevention information on second hand information from a mate because they dont trust the government because the drugs education has been terrible.

If the education was better and the sources reliable it would go some way to protect users.

[budda]

Heres my thoughts on the matter, its a shame more people dont go in the drugs section we have been debating the law change of late and it would have been good to get others thoughts.

http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59505

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by ladymuck
Dealers/gangsters wealth?

Maybe a few long-term health problems from ecstasy and the stronger strains of cannabis. The state has a role in safeguarding the nations's health, prohibition or control may be the only way.

Legalise. I've yet to see a convincing argument against legalisation.

Originally posted by ladymuck
alcohol is not mind-altering in it's action, drinkers use and abuse it in a straightforward fashion plus it will not go away regardless of how many other drugs are permitted

Alcohol not mind alterering? Errr...yeah, ok whatever you say. :rolleyes:

[Kermit]

I'll post here what I posted in drugs:

It's a tricky situation- the trouble is not with cannabis and such like, the trouble comes with heroin and cocaine.

These drugs are very dangerous and addictive, and cause serious damage very quickly into the addiction- cocaine rots the nostrils, heroin causes blood vessels to collapse. It isn't like alcohol or tobacco, which causes damage but only in small amounts over a very long period of time; cannabis does the same, and so should be in the same category.

The liberty argument is a compelling one, but it misses one key point- the state is there to protect people, from themselves as much as anyone else. The state cannot allow people to do what they want to their bodies, no matter how dangerous, whilst being fully able to discharge its duties to protect its citizens. And, to be quite honest, it's a bit rich for drug users to be demanding legalisation and at the same time demanding drug rehab programmes- if drugs are such a matter of liberty, people should be left to deal with it themselves.

The law is just about correct in this time- I would advocate rehabilitation of drug users, forced if necessary, rather than punishment, but for those who deal the drugs then I would advocate much stronger sentences. I suppose its the carrot and the stick- make it harder for people to get the drugs, but help them to get off them at the same time.

No, I don't think drugs should be legalised, because of the public safety concerns. Comparing heroin and alcohol is a ridiculous position to base an entire argument on.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Alcohol not mind alterering? Errr...yeah, ok whatever you say. :rolleyes:

It's not really in the same league as heroin, though, is it?

[Blagsta]

No. Heroin is much safer. Although more addictive.

[Blagsta]

Heres my reply to Kermit's reply in Drugs

Originally posted by Kermit
heroin causes blood vessels to collapse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Only if used IV with bad technique/dirty gear.

Heroin is much less physically harmful than alcohol. In fact its one of the least physically harming drugs there is.




Originally posted by Kermit
it's a bit rich for drug users to be demanding legalisation and at the same time demanding drug rehab programmes- if drugs are such a matter of liberty, people should be left to deal with it themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is nonsense too. Drugs should be legal due to harm reduction reasons as well as civil liberties. By your argument, we should not give any help to people with alcohol, tobacco, gambling, eating problems etc.

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Heroin is much safer. Although more addictive.

And therein lies the problem with drugs.
yes I drink, sometimes I drink a bit, but because of other priorities and self control not as much as I could.
Does a heroin addict have the same luxury? What happens when they lose control, they go overboard and spend all their money on it? They turn to crime.

legalising it won't change a thing, people will still be addicted to it, and will still do what they can to get it.

And to your earlier question, yes I'll be going after drunk and disorderly as well, thanks for asking.

[Blagsta]

Have you actually read any of the arguments for legalisation? Care to address the argument rather than ignore it?

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Have you actually read any of the arguments for legalisation? Care to address the argument rather than ignore it?

Legalise. I've yet to see a convincing argument against legalisation.


I'll answer both questions for you. When the majority of the population believe that sitting around in a drug induced coma is a fun way to spend your life then I'm sure they will be legalised. At present most people kind of enjoy being able to have some control over the lives, so it doesn't really matter what arguments there are for, or against. Majority rules.

[Blagsta]

That is such a non-argument. It makes sense to legalise. Please give me some real reasons why you are against legalisation or admit that you actually know nothing about it.

Typical police attitude actually. Pig ignorant and unwilling to listen.

[Skive]

Originally posted by Whowhere
I'll answer both questions for you. When the majority of the population believe that sitting around in a drug induced coma is a fun way to spend your life then I'm sure they will be legalised.

No they'll be legalised when people understand that keeping drugs illegal is doing more damage than good.

Heroin for example if we have doctors prescibing free safe heroin, with clean needles in a safe envirioment you'll see the blackmarket collapse. Addicts will wan't to buy dirty gear off the streets at stupid prices, when they can get it clean and free. As a result you'd see crimes commited to fund drug habits drop dramatically. Drug dealing at the moment is controlled by organised crime and funds terrorism.

At the same time we can consentrate on education and harm reduction. You can believe in legalisation without agreeing with, or encouraing people to take drugs.

[Braineater]

Here's the pros and cons of Cannabis legalisation in my view correct me if you wish :)

Pros:

1. It makes you feel good. No denying it.
2. It keeps the population docile if used moderatly unlike Alcohol.
3. Extra tax money to be spent on whatever the government wishes.
4. It keeps it off the streets.
5. Legal Cannabis farms and processing factories will provide much needed work, hell we could even export grade A UK ganja to other countries.
6. Compared to Alcohol and Tobacco the physical health risks are lesser.
7. Cannabis has real medicinal properties and is more the stress reliever than Tobacco.

Cons:

1. It makes you feel good, briefly.
2. Cannabis users are a little too docile, it would cut productivity and would be dangerous. Going for a funny fag break could be the last thing you ever do at work if you are around vital machines.
3. It bloody stinks!
4. Extra tax money would have to go on rehabilitation centres and treatment for hardened addicts (fair enough) and the income could be less than outgoings.
5. It keeps it off the streets, but kids would have to be introduced to something a little harder. Drug dealers will become more competative and violent. Lower black market prices.
6. It has the same mental problems alcohol does. Research into the effects of cannabis is sketchy.
7. There is no on the spot test for drug driving and police shouldn't have to waste time analysing piss at the side of the road. More arrests purely on suspicion with no evidence, possibilities of miscarriges of justice.

[morrocan roll]

to answer someone further back ...no i aint syaing coke is good for you ...i stated that anna ford has used it for 25yrs and is not a dribbling wreck. there are millions of others who have and are doing the same. your point of view means that everyone who indulges in the addictive qualities of alcohol will become a total incapable useless alcoholic wreck ...becuase alcohol has the ability to be addictive and destructive. but most people usw it sensibly. ever read sherlock homes ...cocain and morphine were legal and reasonably fashionable when the book was written so sherlock had a syringe full of morphine to relax and syringe full of cocaine for mental stimulation. he was not portrayed as an idiot!
it's very easy to spot on here the people who's knowledge of drugs comes from the sensasional press stories of those who fuck their lives up with the stuff.
gearge best and thousands more like him have turned themselves into complete twats through alcohol abuse ...doesn't give you the right to say I ... can't use alcohol.

heroin is indeed the least harmful drug on the market medicaly long term. no liver, kidney, heart, lung or brain damage at all.
stick to much up your arm by mistake you die ...it rarely happens.
give clean heroin to people legaly and controlled and all the ships heading here full of the stuff will have worthless cargoes ...but maybe not ...change the course of the ship to a country where it it's still illegal (uncontrolled) and you'll make your millions.

productivity going down cos of smoking weed ...if people go to work smoking dope you may well be right but then people going to work swigging whiskey would have similar effects. why would factory workers suddenly start turning up at work thinking hey what a great place to get pissed!

i'm an ex heroin addict. i'm fifty years old and have never been a jibbering homeless wreck. i never knew any who were. but the streets are full of all kinds of failures and victims.
i am fitter and healthier than old freinds my age who worked and drank and avoided drugs. in fact ...i have a yearly medical and year on year ...i have perfect blood pressure, perfect pulse, no cloggy arteries. am physicaly big and physicaly very strong ...powerful. i have children and grand children all thriving.

this year will be my 36th year of smoking cannabis for pleasure.
there are millions just like me ...why do you think the millions like me have escaped the insanity and doom and desperation that so many of you believe to be inevitable?

[morrocan roll]

ladymuck ...you have lossed any credability saying alcohol is not mind altering! why the fuck do you think it sp popular?
ahhh ...i think i understand ...you believe mind altering to mean ...it alters your mind forever and not just saturday night!
like i said ...credability on this topic ...a big fat ...nil!

[Luce]

Ecstasy on the other hand brings the very best in people and makes everyone happy, content and good to others. I'm sure the parents of Leah Betts are really happy. How can a hard drug bring out the best in people? How can people be content taking it? People get addicted to drugs, and then aren't content unless they have more and more of the drug, and will go to extreme lengths to get it.
The state do have a right to control people to a degree; you can't just do what you want, there would be anarchy.

[BlackArab]

Has anyone ever gone to a dealer for weed/hash only to have him say no but here's some heroin?

Has anyone ever been offered it outside their school gates by a total stranger?

Was anyones first drug experience with weed/hash and not fags/booze?


Answers from personal experience only not hearsay.


ps Whowhere, just wondering are you joining Avon and Somerset cops by any chance?

ps Blagsta, is that your photo? if so how's Zoe Ball? :lol:

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Luce
The state do have a right to control people to a degree; you can't just do what you want, there would be anarchy. ...and anarchy is what we have regarding drug use becuase the state refuse to take control of the situation leaving it in the hands of villains. you can't just keep repeating the same old crap ...what would your solution be to the drug problem? you people never offer anything. there must be an alternative to the massive ever rising drug/crime relationship ...the guns and violence and killings over who is having control over the stuff ...proving that we as a society and certainly the state have no control whatsoever! tell me what your alternative is the chaos we have now instead of just repeating this shgite that drugs are silly and horrible for fucks sake!

[The Doc]

I hope that Whowhere never gets promoted to a high, government level position. National alcohol prohibition and a curfew for all people under the age of 50. STOP HAVING FUN! I wonder if you are Christian, oh, or even better, a Quaker?

When the majority of the population believe that sitting around in a drug induced coma is a fun way to spend your life then I'm sure they will be legalised.

So why not ban alcohol? Lots of people are affected in the same way by alcohol.

I'm not sticking up for any drugs, I detest them and would never take them ( with the exception of cannabis) but I have problem with some of the lower-classed drugs being downgraded. You haven't come up with a suitable argument why people shouldn't do it?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by the doc horatio
wonder if you are Christian, oh, or even better, a Quaker?



taliban i think.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Luce
I'm sure the parents of Leah Betts are really happy. How can a hard drug bring out the best in people? How can people be content taking it? People get addicted to drugs, and then aren't content unless they have more and more of the drug, and will go to extreme lengths to get it.
The state do have a right to control people to a degree; you can't just do what you want, there would be anarchy.

The fact is that thousands of people take drugs every weekend. The majority suffer few problems. A minority have massive problems. But IMO a lot of these problems would be lessened by legalisation for the reasons already stated.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by BlackArab
ps Blagsta, is that your photo? if so how's Zoe Ball? :lol:

It is me actually. Me and Photoshop. :D

Are you saying I look like Norman Cook? Or Johnny Ball?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Blagsta
It is me actually. Me and Photoshop. :D

Are you saying I look like Norman Cook? Or Johnny Ball? you look two faced to me!

[budda]

I think the example of Leah Betts parents is unfair and doesnt help the arguement what so ever. There are thousands of people who are possitively impacted by MDMA, I suggest you try and find some of the mental health studies that were done in the US before it was banned there. It has great potencial for therapy.

But, yes, you are right, there have been deaths from people using MDMA, but many of those were to do with the condictions under which it was taken and the purity of the drug. There is some evidence for example to suggest that Leah Betts might not have died if she had not consumed so much water, as she was misinformed about how much to drink.

Black Arab; My first drug experience was with Hash, before I got drunk or smoked a cig. But I do realise this is somewhat rare.

Luce You have to realise that not all drugs are the same! All drugs are addictive, yes, but every pleasurable activity is, like eating, exercise etc. But no-where near all class A drugs are physically addictive, or addictive in any way to the varst majority of people who use them. Yes heroin and cocaine are a plague on society, but there are many other drugs which are no-where near as dangerous.

[Aladdin]

May I add that if the parents of Leah Betts must blame someone for their daughter's death they should blame disinformation, not the drug itself.

Leah Betts died as a result of ingesting ridiculous amounts of water- her kidneys simply gave in. She did this because she did not know the facts about ecstasy and she believed "you had to drink lots and lots of water to be safe". She was not dancing and sweating, simply hanging around a party and drinking litre after litre of water so there is little surprise about the tragic outcome.

The pill she took (and 'apple' I think it was) turned up to be very pure (yet not too strong) and thus a very safe one. Drug dealers actually reported increased sales for 'apples' after the forensic report came out.

Oh, and another thing. Ecstasy is not addictive.

[ladymuck]

ecstasy users are running long-term risks, maybe the State can't prevent that. Legalisation gives a green light, usage amongst the very young is likely to increase (like getting a bottle of vodka/cider to share) with bad oucomes. Maybe we should stick with present arrangements

[BeckyBoo]

Questions id like to ask people who have used any kind of drug, be it cannabis or ecstacy or whatever. (not smoking fags).

Looking back from when you have been using drugs have you been really dependant on the drug and have commited a crime to get the drug ? Have you borrowed money because you feel that you 'need' the drug ?
If you had a 16 yr old son/Daughter would you try to stop them trying drugs of any kind ? Which drug do you think causes the most problem and probably the most addictive ?

Being a user of drugs would you turn the clock back and never have started in the first place ?

Me being a smoker (cigarettes, nothing else) i deffinatley would never have started in the 1st place and id do anything to stop people even start in the 1st place. So im curious on your views of how you would handle your Son/Daughter doing drugs.

Thanks :)

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by bongbudda
I think the example of Leah Betts parents is unfair and doesnt help the arguement what so ever.


but even you would admit them pictures were horrific. For me not being a user thats all I would see and remeber how horrific they were.
Her parents would not want to see another person end up like their Daghter did, so its all about educating. Like in your post you are educating people who may be thinking about using that specific drug by explaining the do's and dont's.....which is a good thing :thumb:

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by ladymuck
ecstasy users are running long-term risks, maybe the State can't prevent that. Legalisation gives a green light, usage amongst the very young is likely to increase (like getting a bottle of vodka/cider to share) with bad oucomes. Maybe we should stick with present arrangements Given that hundreds of thousands of young people take e regardless of what the law might say about it, present arrangements are clearly not working.

But that's hardly news isn't it?

[budda]

No-one is suggesting that the State just hand out pills to kids. In fact it could well be easier to control the supply of MDMA if it were legal.

If you could buy it 'over the counter' then you could ask for details from everyone who bought it. In this way you could do your best to stop kids getting it. Do dealers ask for ID? Of course not and with pills going for a pound each its cheaper than cider for kids now.

Becky; Have I commited a crime to 'feed my drug use' - Yes. Every time I buy a drug I am commiting a crime, its unavoidable really isnt it. I really dont like the situation though. I have never robbed, stolen etc. to get drugs EVER.
I have gone without other things because at the time I prefered amphetamine to buying new CD's clothes etc. But it was always always MY money.

Would I change anything? NO, definately not, I am a better person, I am happier with myself, I am happier with my friends and we know each other better because of the things we have done. I also think my relationship with my wife is better because of it.

What drug do I think is the most addictive? Clearly that is crack, I really really dislike cocaine, it has a reputation that is no where near the reality, thats very dangerous.
However I think alcohol does the most social damage because it has more users.

I would much rather know if my kid was using, than them lie to me. We would then discuss the issue and I would explain all the dangers to them.

[Kermit]

Aladdin- Leah Betts' brain actually drowned because so much water was in her body, because E is an anti-diruetic. Doesn't E, because it's a salt, actually increase thirst as well?

My main concern is that the main reason people seem to give for legalising drugs is that "the law isn't working". To use various examples, the law on speeding and drink-driving are not working- peoople still do it, and often- but that doesn't mean that speed limits should be abolished, and that drink-drivers should be allowed to drive after 22 pints of Stella. Yes, those examples are slightly different because they impact on others, but the point still remains valid.

I understand the protection and liberty arguments, but I'm still very dubious that the arguments are water-tight enough to allow highly addictive drugs out onto the market freely. Especially as, if the drugs are legal and freely available, they would become more marketable and that, in itself, would make them more desirable. It wouldn't make most people convert, but those who were thinking of dabbling but were too afraid of the law to would try them.

Also, the issue of who would provide the drugs is important. If doctors prescribe heroin, for instance, then it's not very different to them prescribing methadone now, and if doctors prescribe things like E or coke then either doctors would ahve to give them to everyone, regardless of medical advice, or there would become a black market for these drugs, like there is for Viagra now, for those who couldn't find a doctor to give it to them. If it's just a drugs shop that provides them, would that be a private enterprise- meaning advertising- or a state-operated franchise? How would the state stop children getting their hands on very harmful or addictive drugs?

The law doesn't work, but that simply means that the law needs to be reviewed and adapted- it doesn't mean that the law should be abandoned.

[budda]

Kermit, you dont seem to be listening, where did anyone say these drugs would be widely available?

None of us are suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that, after years of reform of the drugs education policy in this country it would be better for someone to go to their local drugs education centre to buy their MDMA under tight control, than it would be for them to buy it from a dealer in a club.

These drugs would certainly NOT be marketed in any shape or form and there would be education given at the sale on effects and dangers.

The question is, how can we reduce the harm done to individuals and society by drugs? I think the answer lies with education and harm prevention. Your not going to stop people doing it, you might as well try and perswade people to make informed choices and do it as safely as possible.

[Blagsta]

The term "controlled substance" is a bit of a misnomer...

[morrocan roll]

methadone is more addictive than heroin and mongs you out to much. plus methadone does not provide what the user is needing ...it prevents him from withdrawing. far to easy to overdose on methadone as well.
lets make burglary and speeding on the roads legal is a none argument. these things are not distrupting society to the extent of illegal drugs ...people arent going round shooting each other to control their big big tax free turn over of hard cash becuase they want to drive to fast.
ladymuck thinks we'd be better off leaving things the way they are! ok ...gun crime and mayhem will eventualy rule every street in the land ...you don't seem to grasp that there is 10 billion quid a year up for grabs on the streets by anyone tough enough and determined enough to have control ...believe me theres plenty of people out there who are tough enough and mean enough.
name a british company that turns over 10 billion quid a year. just to get some perspective of how big this thing is.

becky ...all my kids smoke pot ...only one of them to excess and he's doing fine. all of them drop an ecstacy tablet around three times a yr on their get togethers at blackpool partys. i am more than happy with it.
most dangerous drug out there ...crack.
i turned to heroin after making loads of money from two well planned crimes and some cannabis smuggling. no violence ...no weapons. at one point i was seriously involved with supplying a a famous recording studio with a lot of cannabis. i ended up with so much cash at one point and in the company of the wrong people when the sha of iran was toppled causing tons and tons of brown heroin ...a completly new product for the west ...to flood western europe. cannabis became almost worthless for a while as millions of people switched to this new product. i became hopelessly addicted for a number of years. i'm fine now and have smoked weed for 36 years ...i have no intention to stop ...i go weeks sometimes without smoking it. i love the stuff!

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Skive
No they'll be legalised when people understand that keeping drugs illegal is doing more damage than good.

Heroin for example if we have doctors prescibing free safe heroin, with clean needles in a safe envirioment you'll see the blackmarket collapse. Addicts will wan't to buy dirty gear off the streets at stupid prices, when they can get it clean and free. As a result you'd see crimes commited to fund drug habits drop dramatically. Drug dealing at the moment is controlled by organised crime and funds terrorism.

At the same time we can consentrate on education and harm reduction. You can believe in legalisation without agreeing with, or encouraing people to take drugs.

So the fact that most drugs turn their users into helpless addicts doesn't matter. Instead we should dimply give it away for free?

yes, a real good idea, let's turn the citizens of this country into a nation of addicts.

Blagsta, you're missing the point entirely. Apart from the obvious points that most drugs are harmful and have terrible addictive qualities as well as side effects, THE MAJORITY DON'T WANT THEM LEGALISED.
You can argue about how fucking great they are until you're blue in the face. People will just ignore you.
And frankly you should know better, like I've mentioned before you see the harmful effects of drugs everday, but you still decide that legalisation is the way to go. Hmm, I smell hypocrite.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Whowhere
So the fact that most drugs turn their users into helpless addicts doesn't matter. Instead we should dimply give it away for free?

yes, a real good idea, let's turn the citizens of this country into a nation of addicts.

Blagsta, you're missing the point entirely. Apart from the obvious points that most drugs are harmful and have terrible addictive qualities as well as side effects, THE MAJORITY DON'T WANT THEM LEGALISED.
You can argue about how fucking great they are until you're blue in the face. People will just ignore you.
And frankly you should know better, like I've mentioned before you see the harmful effects of drugs everday, but you still decide that legalisation is the way to go. Hmm, I smell hypocrite. seems that most people in this thread want them legalised. seems that over 50% of the population at large now say cannabis should be legalised. the chief constables association is calling for full legalisation of cannabis.
seems like you have read nothing in this thread about the facts.
most drugs are not highly addictive or only as addictive as alcohol. how many people use alcohol and how many abuse it?
seeing as over ten billion quid a year is spent on illegal drugs in the uk alone and seeing as drug consumption as been huge for thirty years ...how come the hospitals and mental institutes haven't collapsed under the strain of all these seriously sick and demented people.
you answer none of the arguments ...you refute none of the facts put before you. instead you just keep repeating the same old mindless and illinformed crap.
your knowledge of drugs is nil.

[Aladdin]

Actually Whowhere in the case of cannabis several recent polls have suggested the majority does want it legalised.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Whowhere
Blagsta, you're missing the point entirely. Apart from the obvious points that most drugs are harmful and have terrible addictive qualities as well as side effects, THE MAJORITY DON'T WANT THEM LEGALISED.
You can argue about how fucking great they are until you're blue in the face. People will just ignore you.
And frankly you should know better, like I've mentioned before you see the harmful effects of drugs everday, but you still decide that legalisation is the way to go. Hmm, I smell hypocrite.

Oh for fucks sake. :rolleyes:

Please try and READ AND ENGAGE WITH THE DEBATE. This is pointless otherwise.

Yes, I see the harmful effects of drugs everyday. And this is why I want them legalised. Because a lot of the harmful affects are due to prohibition. I'm not the only person to think this. A lot of drug workers think this as well as top police officers, government thinktanks and MP's. Explain that one away.

[Blagsta]

Read these links

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=933

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=831

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=679

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=335

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=223

[Skive]

Originally posted by Whowhere
So the fact that most drugs turn their users into helpless addicts doesn't matter. Instead we should dimply give it away for free?

yes, a real good idea, let's turn the citizens of this country into a nation of addicts.

Please try to take in what we're trying to explain :banghead:

Most drugs carry very little risk of addiction. People very rarely become dependant on drugs such as Cannabis, Ecstasy and LSD.

Originally posted by Whowhere
Apart from the obvious points that most drugs are harmful and have terrible addictive qualities as well as side effects, THE MAJORITY DON'T WANT THEM LEGALISED.

The majority (like yourself) are influenced by articles in the paper and government scare tacticts and don't know enough about the situation to make a fair judgment.

Why do you refuse to see that by keeping drugs illegal you are only fueling more crime and funding a black market which is largely controlled be organised crime and terrorists.

Most drugs do not have 'terrible addictive qualities'. Most users use drugs quite safely without becoming dependant on any. The same way the 'majority' of people use alcohol without problems.


Originally posted by Whowhere
You can argue about how fucking great they are until you're blue in the face. People will just ignore you.
And frankly you should know better, like I've mentioned before you see the harmful effects of drugs everday, but you still decide that legalisation is the way to go. Hmm, I smell hypocrite.

We're not promoting drugs here, we trying to argue a case that would see both users AND non users benifit from legalisation. I agree that some drugs like (such as crack) can wreck lives but putting the control and distribution of that drug in the hands of criminals, and then prosecuting the addicts who take it is a big mistake.

Why not try to answer some of the points we've been making rather than just bang on about how terrible drugs are.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Read these links

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=933

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=831

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=679

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=335

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?intID=223 get fucking real blagsta! i read all those links and the people involved are obviosly gangsters, junkies and the brain damaged dope smokers who happen to be members of parliament , the police force and other disreputables ...or ...he won't read them or ...he won't understand them.
OR ...he'll say ..."well while it's still against the law i'll make 'em sorry they ever came on my patch"!
the guy is totaly ignorant about the facts and hgas obviously no intention of educating himself. unbfortunately he has been given the authority to harrass!
we should start a campaign to criminalise should idiots.

[BlackArab]

Originally posted by Blagsta
It is me actually. Me and Photoshop. :D

Are you saying I look like Norman Cook? Or Johnny Ball?

I do think your a prime candidate for the 'Stars in your eyes' DJ special lol!

[Kermit]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
when the sha of iran was toppled causing tons and tons of brown heroin ...a completly new product for the west ...to flood western europe. cannabis became almost worthless for a while as millions of people switched to this new product.

Remind me again about the argument that says that people won't progress to "harder" substances...

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Kermit
Remind me again about the argument that says that people won't progress to "harder" substances... people who had never taken an illegal substance in their lives ...in there thousands were swept along by this very new and ver cheap substance. for the first time in western history you could casualy smoke heroin as opposed to injecting it.
the continous lack of education/information about such things ensnared a few million people into addiction. it became the most popular of drugs because it literaly flooded the streets of europe.
it was also a very comforting substance. it was also incredibly easy to invest a thousand pounds and turn it into five thousand pounds in twenty four hours ...every twenty four hours. you could buy as little as a hundred quids worth in the morning and by the evening have a grand in your pocket.
it replaced coal in mining towns that had lost all source of income.
once respectable greengrocers and news agents who were about to go down with the closure of the local pit started selling the stuff to survive and...if you sold it you had to be seen to use it or you were considered to be very very dodgy ...legitamate target for a good kicking or worse and the loss of all your money and your bag of goodies ...we are still living with that legacy.

[Blagsta]

Combine that with what Thatcher was doing to the country...

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Combine that with what Thatcher was doing to the country... and thatcher new that the millions of people on the move from iran iraq and many other middle east states cos of the fall of the sha and the political fallout that went with it ...could not bring any belongings with them or cash. very wealthy people in their thousands fled to europe with what they could carry. surgeons ...lecturers ...engineers ...doctors ...lawyers ...artists ...writers ...tv people etc etc ...had only one way to leave with some of their wealth in tact ...heroin.
it had nothing to do with people progressing from cannabis.
a safe estimate would be that a tiny tiny percentage of people who start smoking cannabis will become heroin addicts.
what of the people who start on heroin ...is that a gateway to the drugs they end up settling for ...lager and a weed?
most people star on tobacco ...a gateway to best bitter? best bitter a gateway to crack?
of course some people will want to try everything but the way this gateway thing is put across totaly ignores the fact that for thousands of people their first drug is mushrooms or heroin or speed.
why do people presume that people start with cannabis? misinformation and lack of education again.

[Shogun]

People are always going to use drugs, they'r always going to be about no matter what class they are, be it A or C or legal.

When someone wants something there's always someone to sell.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Combine that with what Thatcher was doing to the country...

I was wondering when it'd be her fault...

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kermit
I was wondering when it'd be her fault...

How old are you? Do you remember it?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Blagsta
How old are you? Do you remember it?

Not quite old enough, wasn't in the right country.

But from the reading I've done on it for my studies, thatcher wasn't as bad as everyone tries to claim. The miners, IMHO, were asking for it.

[Blagsta]

Thats where we differ then. The economic policies that Thatcher was responsible for fucked a lot of communities over.

Depends on what you source you use for your studies as well.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Thats where we differ then. The economic policies that Thatcher was responsible for fucked a lot of communities over.

Depends on what you source you use for your studies as well.

Tends to be the academic journals.

I think some of them did- the £10billion that was pissed away with the Poll Tax fiasco is a great case in point- but I think that given the situation after the Heath and Callaghan governments tough action was needed on the Unions, who had become too involved in Government and had become too powerful. Essentially my belief is that the miners shot themselves in the foot- they demanded wage rises they couldn't get, and the power stations just went and bought coal from Romania instead. By the mid-1980s it was actually cheaper to import the stuff from Australia than it was to operate the UK mines- and the miners have no-one to blame but themselves.

It's still a tragic mess though, especially around here (County Durham/Northumberland). I think the unions needed to be taught a lesson, but I think the miners probably paid too high a price for it.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kermit
Tends to be the academic journals.

Still depends which ones you read. Or don't you think academics can be biased?

[Aladdin]

Regardless of whether she was good for the country, the economy, etc, she still was an Apartheid apologist and ardent defender of such people as Augusto Pinochet- a man who amongst other things had women raped by dogs and thousands murdered.

For that alone Margeret Thatcher should be remembered in infamy as an evil, twisted witch from hell. The champagne is on ice (as it has been for the last 3 years or so, as it happens) for the sad day in which she pegs it.

But that's another debate and I don't wish to derail the thread further.

[Blagsta]

But anyway, without getting drawn into a debate over the merits of Thatcherism, there is no doubt that the massive dismantling of traditional industry and the unemployment and hopelessness that followed contributed towards the rise of heroin use in the 80's.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Aladdin

For that alone Margeret Thatcher should be remembered in infamy as an evil, twisted witch from hell. The champagne is on ice (as it has been for the last 3 years or so, as it happens) for the sad day in which she pegs it.

there will be street partys across the land mark my words.
looks like your off the hook for a while whowhere.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Kermit

I think some of them did- the £10billion that was pissed away with the Poll Tax fiasco is a great case in point- and the 11 billion pissed into the wind by the chancellor when we had to leave the excchange rate thingy. but whats 11 billion quid?
only a years turnover of illegal drugs.

[ladymuck]

and the 11 billion pissed into the wind by the chancellor when we had to leave the excchange rate thingy. but whats 11 billion quid?

Do you seriously think the State can become the UK's dealer and pocket that cash. Who would do it , pharmacists, doctors, doubt many of them would touch the issue. Many people in responsibility are anti-drugs. What about the law-suits 'my son was a triathllete till he took that E, now look at him, he's a cabbage' Life is not that simple

[budda]

Doctors already prescribe Methadone, what difference would it be for them to prescribe heroin insted?

Drug workers already give out needles and advice, would it make a huge difference if they could also refer you to treatment centers?

Licences could be sold, in a similar way to the 3G mobiles for the opening of cannabis cafes. The potencial for profit is good enough that the government wouldnt have to put any money up themselves. All they would have to do is let private companies bid.

The type of reform I want is over a long period, 7 years plus before we got to a point where MDMA and the 2-C series of drugs would be available. That would give the government lots of time to look into the most effective, safe and easy way of distribution.

Personally I would suggest that local social services handle the operation, it could be a 'one-stop-shop' for your sexual, drugs, etc. problems, plus being a community centre.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
and the 11 billion pissed into the wind by the chancellor when we had to leave the excchange rate thingy.

That's not really Thatcher's fault- that was the French shafting us. Besides, she wasn't PM then;)

Of course academics are biased, but I've read all sides. I've even read articles saying that Militant wasn't such a bad thing either- but on balance I don't think it was.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by ladymuck
Do you seriously think the State can become the UK's dealer and pocket that cash. Who would do it , pharmacists, doctors, doubt many of them would touch the issue. Many people in responsibility are anti-drugs. What about the law-suits 'my son was a triathllete till he took that E, now look at him, he's a cabbage' Life is not that simple

Sorry, but you're clueless. Try listening to people who know what they are talking about.

[ladymuck]

Sorry, but you're clueless. Try listening to people who know what they are talking about

Please enlighten me further,You don't mean yourself , do you?

[Whowhere]

Alright, got some arguments and info for you all, this is for a city but is most likely emulated in other big cities.

Total approx value of goods stolen in a city 2003-2004 which are drugs related=£150-£200 million.
Approx value of goods stolen that won't fund an addiction=£50 million
Total street value of those goods is approximately 1 third.

Total weekly cost for a heroin addict to fund his addiction=£500
Total value of goods a heroin addict must steal every week to fund it £1500.
Percentage of heroin addicts in custody who are unemployed=80-90
Percentage of people in custody with traces of drugs in their bodies=68%
Percentage of those people with heroin and cocaine in their body=57%

Paints a lovely picture doesn't it. The police estimate that if the drugs stop then robberies and thefts will drop by approx 2/3.

And no, legalisation is not an option I'm afraid. A lot of people who are much cleverer than us have decided that the crime would just shift elsewhere and still cost the country money from lost tax revenues in other areas to about the same amount.

As for cannabis, the unofficial line is if it isn't blatant then do what you like. if you use it blatently in the street, near children or if children themselves use it then you're fucked.

[Whowhere]

ps.It's also the belief that legalising even more potentially fatal and highly addictive drugs isn't really the clever way to go.
There is already enough trouble without adding cocaine, heroin and amphetamines into the mix.

[Skive]

Originally posted by Whowhere
Alright, got some arguments and info for you all, this is for Nottingham but is most likely emulated in other big cities.

Total approx value of goods stolen in Nottingham 2003-2004 which are drugs related=£150-£200 million.
Approx value of goods stolen that won't fund an addiction=£50 million
Total street value of those goods is approximately 1 third. Total weekly cost for a heroin addict to fund his addiction=£500
Total value of goods a heroin addict must steal every week to fund it £1500.

:banghead: LISTEN to what we're saying. Legalise heroin, make it free on prescription to addicts. You won't find any addicts stealing to fund their addiction when they can get safe herion free from their doctor.

Originally posted by Whowhere
Percentage of people in custody with traces of drugs in their bodies=68%


How is that figure worked out anyway?

Originally posted by Whowhere
Percentage of those people with heroin and cocaine in their body=57% [/B]

What bollocks that is. Care to explain how this percentage was reached.

Originally posted by Whowhere
A lot of people who are much cleverer than us have decided that the crime would just shift elsewhere and still cost the country money from lost tax revenues in other areas to about the same amount[/B].

Sorry but that argument about people 'much cleverer than us have decided' is total bullshit. :lol:

[Skive]

Originally posted by Whowhere
ps.It's also the belief that legalising even more potentially fatal and highly addictive drugs isn't really the clever way to go.

Who's belief? The people who hold this belief are like you - gernerally ignorant of the simple plain facts that we're trying to show you.

There is already enough trouble without adding cocaine, heroin and amphetamines into the mix. [/B][/QUOTE]

They are already in the mix though! :rolleyes: Keeping them illegal doesn't stop people takign drugs, it only makes criminals out of normal law abiding people, or punishes addicts for having an illness when what the really need is help. We need to stop driving drugs underground.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Skive
You won't find any addicts stealing to fund their addiction when they can get safe herion free from their doctor.



He does have a point.
If someone needs heroin and they can get it free then surely crime rate will drop and the gear they get will be safe stuff.

The more I listen here the more my mind is starting to change.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by ladymuck
Please enlighten me further,You don't mean yourself , do you?

Seeing as I work in the field and am studying qualifications in the drugs field, I think I know a little more than you do.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Whowhere
And no, legalisation is not an option I'm afraid. A lot of people who are much cleverer than us have decided that the crime would just shift elsewhere and still cost the country money from lost tax revenues in other areas to about the same amount.

What a load of crap. The crime would "shift elsewhere"? What? The crime is committed to feed drugs habits. Take the artificially high price and balck market out, you get rid of the crime.

Who are these clever people anyway? I'm willing to concede they are cleverer than you anyhow. Not cleverer than the rest of us though.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Whowhere
ps.It's also the belief that legalising even more potentially fatal and highly addictive drugs isn't really the clever way to go.

Please tell me why. You have no substance (pun sort of intended ;) ) to your arguments. You just blindly repeat the same thing over and over and over again without actually engaging in debate or answering any points...

[ladymuck]

An outsider can give a fresh viewpoint unconsidered by those droning away at the workplace :)

[Blagsta]

Not when you haven't the first clue what you are talking about.

[morrocan roll]

WHOWHERE ...i'm realy glad your sticking with this ...you have had some serious flack the last couple of days ...insults threats and so on. stick with it mate ...
in the sixties addicts were prescribed ...no drugs problem. in america only illegal supply available ...big problem cos of big money.
no one is saying that giving addicts what they need is ideal ...they are saying it will be a massive improvement from what the situation is now, for everyone. an addict will have no excuse at all to steal or be unemployed ...if he commits a crime he has no excuse ...so bang him up heavy.
the current situation is cuasing mayhem. lets go back to the old situation of prescribing which proved itself to work.
when alcohol was taken out of capones hands ...the killing and the poisoning stopped. industry and government had taken control again. read through this entire thread ...it realy is interesting.
the only other option is ...tell me what the options are W.W.
we cannot carry on like this ...billions of quids available to villains and the drug sitution getting ever bigger.
i keep asking what the solutions are ...we have illegal or legal ...illegal is going to destroy the world we know and love.
what is your solution to the problem.
...and seriously WW ...you have had some serious shit thrown at you on here ...respect for sticking with it.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by ladymuck
An outsider can give a fresh viewpoint unconsidered by those droning away at the workplace :) if you have anything at all to offer to this debate ...we're waiting.

[LadyJade]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
WHOWHERE ...i'm realy glad your sticking with this ...you have had some serious flack the last couple of days ...insults threats and so on. stick with it mate ...

Seconded Mr Roll. Some of you need to calm down and stop telling people they are speaking rubbish simply because they offer a differing opinion. Proof was asked for and Whowhere posted some statistics.

Instead of telling him they are bullshit, perhaps you would like to post some statistics of your own backing up your stance???

Instead of going in for the kill, perhaps you could try persuasion through evidence, I'm all for impassioned debate but this is getting a bit out of hand, and you don't get your point across by merely telling someone they are wrong.

[budda]

As has been said before, most of us are not suggesting legalisation/state control because we think it will be fantastic. We are suggesting it because we believe it will be better than what we have.

It boils down to what option will cause the least harm to the users and society as a whole.

Yes there will always be harmful users, and yes there will still be drug users who commit crime, but if you get up in the morning and you know where your next hit is coming from that HAS to reduce crime.

I think purely increasing the number of treatment centres would make a big impact. People have to wait WEEKS if not months to get into one. Thats weeks where you have to find 100 pounds a day+ from somewhere.

[LadyJade]

So essentially does this debate come down to a difference in opinion of what addiction is then?

If you believe it is a mental health problem then you advocate decriminalization and increase in treatment. If you believe it is purely choice and physical addiction, you advocate criminalization of addicts.

Very black and white, just a thought.

[ladymuck]

From the Mori website
...Respondents expressed very strong objections to drugs but, whilst 82% considered taking cocaine to be 'very wrong', 30% would like to see the legalisation of cannabis with 51% opposed. .

It's easy to think that because you and your friends find no issue with drugs that the public feel the same way, it's not so

[budda]

Oh, of course, I know that the majority of people wouldnt think the plan I have put forward to be a good idea. I however believe in it firmly and I try and perswade others of my point of view.

The government doesnt help the situation with its terrible drugs education policies. And of course the headline;

"Man took MDMA and had a good time with little harm"

Doesnt sell many papers does it.

[budda]

There is also the point that even if you hate drugs, and hate drug users it is cheaper for everyone if you treat them.

Its a 2 to 1 ratio, every pound on treatment saves two on crime.

So surely if you really hate drug users you would want to spend as little on them as possible, treatment would be the best option for this.

[Kermit]

There is a wide gap between treatment and decriminalisation and legalisation.

If a drug addict is carrying the amount needed for "personal use" then it is very rare that charges are brought, if that is the only crime- source, defence solicitors I know. That is helpful- there is no point in jailing people because they are addicted, and the law generally understands this.

Treatment is also available- not enough money is spent on it, IMHO, but the treatment is available. Those seeking treatment are generally not prosecuted or punished, but those who REFUSE treatment are- and that is how the law should stand. If addicts are not going to reform, or even try, then if they rob or burgle they should have the book thrown at them.

Legalising the products would not remove the addiction aspect. Yes, it may guarantee better quality produce, but I feel that that would remove one of the psychological barriers to people taking harmful drugs- if E could be guaranteed, more people would take it, causing more damage.

The idea of doctors prescribing it is desirable, in theory, but a question of mine from earlier remains- how would it work? If the doctor prescribed it to anyone who asks for it then the cost would go through the roof, and it would have to be funded by the taxpayer; otherwise it would still only be available to those who could afford it, and the crime issue would remain. If the doctor didn't prescribe it to everyone then the black market would remain for those who couldn't get it from the doctor- so there would be no difference to now.

The law is basically correct- help the addicts and throw the book at the dealers. The law is correct, and although it is very difficult to enforce any of the alternatives proposed here are much more unworkable, both legally and in practice.

[budda]

I think its rubbish to say that people caught with personal use are not charged, loads are and even if you only get a caution thats still a criminal record which means you are barred from getting certain jobs.

Heroin could be given on prescription, diamophine is dirt cheap to make so it wouldnt cost the NHS much, and obviously a lot of users would pay the £6.30 per prescription. And if you kept the amount prescibed in each go small then not only would it be more income but also you could regulate it better.

I dont think your point about MDMA works either, surely it would be better for a few more people to use PURE product than all the people already using to use crap 'street' supplies. It is the fact that pills are unregulated that is one of their key dangers.

It doesnt make much sense 'help the addicts and throw the book at the dealers', because surely it would be better to help the addicts and remove the dealers altogether. The black market creates addicts because low level dealers try and find customers, it also creates a massive amount of violence, and it fund terrorism and mass murder over seas.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by LadyJade
So essentially does this debate come down to a difference in opinion of what addiction is then?

If you believe it is a mental health problem then you advocate decriminalization and increase in treatment. If you believe it is purely choice and physical addiction, you advocate criminalization of addicts.

Very black and white, just a thought. i don't believe it is that black and white. the choice to use drugs for pleasure is your choice. if youi screw up on it then in my eyes you have a medical problem and all the research so far is that it is not a mental issue as such. psychiatrists are the last people you want dealing with addiction but ...pscycoanylists/councilors ...yes.
you don't need a shrink when your addicted to nicotine. nicotine being a far deadlier addiction than heroin. a much more difficult addiction to break as well. but ...saying that, i'm a nicotine addict. i chose to smoke but for the life of me i cannot see what i get out of it ...every other drug gives an obvious effect ...what the hell does this crasp nicotine do for me? all nicotine addicts must be mad ...i need a shrink!
black and white ...not on your nelly.

[LadyJade]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
the choice to use drugs for pleasure is your choice. if you screw up on it then in my eyes you have a medical problem

That a much better way of putting it mr roll, a medical approach rather than a criminal approach. And I meant that my statement was b&w and a bit simplistic, not the issue!!!!

[Skive]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Legalising the products would not remove the addiction aspect. Yes, it may guarantee better quality produce, but I feel that that would remove one of the psychological barriers to people taking harmful drugs- if E could be guaranteed, more people would take it, causing more damage.


Generally if people want to take something they will regardless of the laws on that substance - drugs have been around for thusands of years and they're not going to go away. Surely seeing as though people take it anyway we should concentrate on harm reduction - reducing the harm drugs cause to both the user and society.

Drug prevention is what we have at the moment and it doesn't work. We still have people taking drugs and many don't realise how to do so as safely as they can. We have so many dangerous myths and scar