Drugs - the solution

[Atilla]

As per documentary posted by Lightning.M the public have been fed years of false inaccurate and misleading information. Coupled with scare stories there is distrust and fear in the mind of the public.

There are many allegations about drugs and people not supported by facts.

 

[tomorton]

Well, it might well be that prohibition of alcohol reduced alcohol consumption. But doesn't that mean that drug prohibition is actually keeping drug consumption low? And drug legalisation would lead to increased drug consumption, just like alcoholol consumption rose after its prohibition was lifted?

 

[barjon]

As per documentary posted by Lightning.M the public have been fed years of false inaccurate and misleading information. Coupled with scare stories there is distrust and fear in the mind of the public.

There are many allegations about drugs and people not supported by facts.

It was all part of my working life and I would say that there is just as much misleading and false information purveyed by the the "legalise" brigade.

If you don't believe there should be legislation to protect people from themselves (seat belt type stuff) when the "cost" to society is relatively slight (cost to NHS in treating the addiction and its knock-on effects), then there is something of an argument to legalise drugs so long as you protect society from the consequences (a la "drunk and disorderly" "driving under the influence" with alcohol).

If, however, you are properly conversant with the extreme personal damage and mind changing effects caused by the addictions then it would be pretty irresponsible governance just to wash your hands of it.

 

[ffsear]

I think the answer is to take a leaf out of Portugals book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

 

[Atilla]

It was all part of my working life and I would say that there is just as much misleading and false information purveyed by the the "legalise" brigade.

If you don't believe there should be legislation to protect people from themselves (seat belt type stuff) when the "cost" to society is relatively slight (cost to NHS in treating the addiction and its knock-on effects), then there is something of an argument to legalise drugs so long as you protect society from the consequences (a la "drunk and disorderly" "driving under the influence" with alcohol).

If, however, you are properly conversant with the extreme personal damage and mind changing effects caused by the addictions then it would be pretty irresponsible governance just to wash your hands of it.

What you say is true and the point here is to raise the profile of what exactly we are criminalising and have the debate. To balance the argument exactly.

For too long we've been under the misguided biased opinions of failed policies.

Take the current high profile debate on cannabis a the moment. In the hands of the criminals cannabis known as hash has been modified to become the more potent and dangerous skunk. Modified and corrupted, uncontrolled and unregulated.

In the hands of the regulated and controlled pharmaceuticals one can even foresee the addictive harmful effects been removed. The drug being modified to become natures natural pain killer with no side effects (unlike paracetamol and many others).

So here we have natures pain killer which is banned whilst we are subjected to all sorts of medication with many serious side effects.


Don't know if anybody saw Jon Snow's Channel 4 program on Cannabis but well worth watching... Point is well made by the program.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/specta...earnt-skunk-causes-psychosis-and-weed-doesnt/


In the UK 80 per cent of cannabis sold on the street is skunk, and 24 per cent of new cases of psychosis are linked with its use. Clearly the answer is not prohibition. People haven’t stopped smoking dope because it’s banned, but they’re subjected to the dangers of an inferior product because there is no quality control and no freedom of consumer choice. Skunk is the moonshine of the modern black market for weed.

 

[barjon]

.................Take the current high profile debate on cannabis a the moment. In the hands of the criminals cannabis known as hash has been modified to become the more potent and dangerous skunk. Modified and corrupted, uncontrolled and unregulated.

In the hands of the regulated and controlled pharmaceuticals one can even foresee the addictive harmful effects been removed. The drug being modified to become natures natural pain killer with no side effects (unlike paracetamol and many others)..................

Possibly, but skunk would remain the more potent choice and would remain in the hands of the criminals who would do their best to persuade youngsters that "pharmacy cannabis" was just like non-alcoholic beer so man up and get the real thing!!

 

[new_trader]

Possibly, but skunk would remain the more potent choice and would remain in the hands of the criminals who would do their best to persuade youngsters that "pharmacy cannabis" was just like non-alcoholic beer so man up and get the real thing!!

This is an argument in favour of legalisation!

"man up and take these illegal drugs instead of drinking alcohol"

 

[Atilla]

Possibly, but skunk would remain the more potent choice and would remain in the hands of the criminals who would do their best to persuade youngsters that "pharmacy cannabis" was just like non-alcoholic beer so man up and get the real thing!!

In the absence of the gardener weeds will grow and flowers be starved of light.

Look at the evidence and case studies! Has anyone read the excellent case study for Portugal posted by ffsear?


We have 70mph limits on our roads and Government regulation allows the production of cars that can travel at 100+ mph.

So if individuals can drive responsibly and road system, safety rules and laws manage millions of drivers interacting with each other at high speeds you saying cannabis will get out of control?

It has precisely because of government prohibition leaving the field open to criminals.


Do you not see this?

You suspect system can not be improved?

You believe it will end up worse?


In the UK 80 per cent of cannabis sold on the street is skunk, and 24 per cent of new cases of psychosis are linked with its use. Clearly the answer is not prohibition. People haven’t stopped smoking dope because it’s banned, but they’re subjected to the dangers of an inferior product because there is no quality control and no freedom of consumer choice. Skunk is the moonshine of the modern black market for weed.

 

[new_trader]

If you don't believe there should be legislation to protect people from themselves

I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind can support laws that allegedly protect people from themselves...why not make sugar, salt, fatty foods, confectionary, skydiving, scuba diving and taking a bath illegal?

The Government doesn't exist to play the role of parent, its job is to protect individual rights, not take them away. Do you really want the Government raising your children? I can't think of anything worse.

As far as 'protecting people from themselves', do some research on victimless crimes and then ask yourself if the drug addict currently being **** raped in gaol has been protected from himself thanks to the Government.

 

[barjon]

I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind can support laws that allegedly protect people from themselves...why not make sugar, salt, fatty foods, confectionary, skydiving, scuba diving and taking a bath illegal?

The Government doesn't exist to play the role of parent, its job is to protect individual rights, not take them away. Do you really want the Government raising your children? I can't think of anything worse.

As far as 'protecting people from themselves', do some research on victimless crimes and then ask yourself if the drug addict currently being **** raped in gaol has been protected from himself thanks to the Government.

Yeah, I agree with most of that. One of the effects of so much "protect you from yourselves" legislation has been a huge diminution in the concept of personal responsibility. It's always someone else's fault nowadays (and I've got the lawyer to prove it )

 

[barjon]

................Do you not see this?.............

.

I don't know why you and new_trader seem to think I am against any legalising of drugs.

All I've been doing is to parade the two sides of the argument to try and show that there is not an easy peasy, clear cut answer.

Certainly I have spent a lot of my time trying to hold back a rising tide and feeling a lot like King Canute in the process. It would be so easy just to accept the inexorability of the tide, but I have also seen the extraordinary damage done to individuals (and the knock-on effects on others and/or society in general) by drug use.

 

[Pat Riley]

Yeah, come on guys, leave barjon alone. He's had to put up with drug related issues very close to home. Just look at his cat!

 

[Atilla]

I don't know why you and new_trader seem to think I am against any legalising of drugs.

All I've been doing is to parade the two sides of the argument to try and show that there is not an easy peasy, clear cut answer.

Certainly I have spent a lot of my time trying to hold back a rising tide and feeling a lot like King Canute in the process. It would be so easy just to accept the inexorability of the tide, but I have also seen the extraordinary damage done to individuals (and the knock-on effects on others and/or society in general) by drug use.

Perhaps it has something to do with your posts suggesting the legalise brigade is doing as much misleading :?::!::?:

Putting the case forward and raising cannabis drug profile is not misleading imo and very happy to see some states now legalising it.

Based on what you say perhaps you are in a better place to draw some lessons learned on what worked and what didn't in your experience?

How might have the knock-on effects been treated differently? Do you not think events may have panned out better for individual and those around him?

Who benefited and who lost in all of this? Think winners and losers. I'm willing to bet criminals won and rest lost.

Why hold on to a losing strategy Change the system. :idea:

 

[barjon]

......................Perhaps it has something to do with your posts suggesting the legalise brigade is doing as much misleading :?::!::?:............

:

Aye, both sides been doing that is all I was pointing out.

I don't really know what might work - I was just one of the guys charged with stopping the damn stuff getting in.

 

[Splitlink]

Nobody should think the people who burgle your house and steal your car for drug money will not burgle your house nor steal your car for easy money for something else. The problem lies with the people, not the legal framework.

I'm not sure about that. If an addict does not have the money for his addiction, then he will find it. I would not like to live in an area that has a lot of addicts. If they do not rob you, they will contaminate you and your family and that area will become a slum.

This is like nuclear power, etc. The genie is out of the bottle-. Getting it back in is, almost, impossible in a democratic society.

 

[hhiusa]

I'm not sure about that. If an addict does not have the money for his addiction, then he will find it. I would not like to live in an area that has a lot of addicts. If they do not rob you, they will contaminate you and your family and that area will become a slum.

This is like nuclear power, etc. The genie is out of the bottle-. Getting it back in is, almost, impossible in a democratic society.

So your solution is throw up our hands and let a junkie be a junkie. Are you excusing the drug addict for his behavior? Legalisation does not do anything but allow potheads, stoners and tweakers to be more public about their addictions. Even if you legalise it, the addiction will consume them and they will continue to steal to finance their addiction because it will never be cheap enough. They most likely cannot keep a job and as such will not be able to afford it no matter how cheap legalisation makes it. Democracy has nothing to do with drug addiction.

If you don't want to live in an area with drug addicts, then don't live in an area with drug addicts. That was easy.

 

[new_trader]

So your solution is throw up our hands and let a junkie be a junkie. Are you excusing the drug addict for his behavior? Legalisation does not do anything but allow potheads, stoners and tweakers to be more public about their addictions. Even if you legalise it, the addiction will consume them and they will continue to steal to finance their addiction because it will never be cheap enough. They most likely cannot keep a job and as such will not be able to afford it no matter how cheap legalisation makes it. Democracy has nothing to do with drug addiction.

If you don't want to live in an area with drug addicts, then don't live in an area with drug addicts. That was easy.

You can speculate all you want about what will happen, but I have never heard of anyone having to resort to crime to support a cigarette habit.

The main problem as I see it is that everyone here believes they can be trusted to manage themselves but want the Government to manage others because they can't be trusted.

 

[Splitlink]

So your solution is throw up our hands and let a junkie be a junkie. Are you excusing the drug addict for his behavior? Legalisation does not do anything but allow potheads, stoners and tweakers to be more public about their addictions. Even if you legalise it, the addiction will consume them and they will continue to steal to finance their addiction because it will never be cheap enough. They most likely cannot keep a job and as such will not be able to afford it no matter how cheap legalisation makes it. Democracy has nothing to do with drug addiction.

If you don't want to live in an area with drug addicts, then don't live in an area with drug addicts. That was easy.

IF you choose to interpret what I said in that way so be it but I can assure you that is not what I meant.

Legalise, or not, will not make much difference. All it does is toss the ball around for solutions that are not there.

Legalising, IMO, condones it. I don't want that, either.

The US, via the CIA, started the arms for drugs trade in the sixties. It has spread all across the US and is, now, well established on our side of the Atlantic, too.

That is where the genie left the bottle. Burning the poppy fields in Columbia at this stage of the game is like pissing on a bonfire.

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

You can speculate all you want about what will happen, but I have never heard of anyone having to resort to crime to support a cigarette habit.

https://reportingproject.net/underg...gling-still-booming-&catid=3:stories&Itemid=1

Cigarette smugglng by organised crime is a major problem. That's why the 'legalise it' brigade is fundamentally wrong - assuming governments will need to tax it (at least in part to fund the health services who will have to pick up the pieces from wider drug use), then there will always be a criminal who sees smuggling as a way of making a buck. And those individual criminals are soon pushed out by organised crime.

 

[Splitlink]

Is it still a major problem? I'm just asking.

There is no doubt in my mind that tobacco smoking has gone down considerably since new smoking laws have come in. Booze will be next, by the look of it. So, perhaps, the war on drugs should go down that route. But how?

A lot of people got fed up with smoke filled rooms. Having legalised hashish on the train is not going to make the general public very happy, I shouldn't think.