Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just because this was quite a popular subject on the boring thread.


I think the current policy of prohibition isn't working and encourages marginalisation and violence so think all drugs should be legalised with some kind of licensing, removing the power of the gangsters in their distribution and they should be taxed with taxes being used to pay for rehab, health and outreach services for addicts.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/
Share on other sites

It's such a massive subject for discussion, and each drug potentially requires its own thought.


I am all for decriminalisation of cannabis. And I also believe that heroin addicts should be treated as victims rather than criminals and proscribed free, managed heroin.


However the "free all drugs" banner does not take into account the myriad of harm, addiction, legislation and crime that need to be considered in assessing each drug.


Charlie

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61473
Share on other sites

I would have places that are licenced to sell cannabis separate from ones that are licenced to sell harder drugs but may have to say yes to crack because at present it is controlled by gangsters and users are less likely than heroin users to go into treatment plus prohibition does not work, but crack is a seriously scary drug so I think more thought needs to be given to conditions when legalising it.


If there could be shown you could decrease violence and other drug dealing related crime by allowing it be sold in certain licensed premises and can increase access to drug treatment and medical services then pragmatically we would really have no option but to explore that route.


You will never be able to stop some people wanting to get sh!tfaced no matter how many laws you pass, but I think we need to look at harm reduction and removing the criminal control especially as drug money is used to fund a lot of very scary people.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61476
Share on other sites

What establishment should be licenced to sell a highly addictive drug that is very harmful to users?


I understand that it's bad that criminals own the supply chain but is legalisation of something so harmful the solution?


Wanting to get shitfaced and being addicted to something are very different things.




Charlie

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61484
Share on other sites

Charlie,


The prohibition of all drugs has been an absolute massive failure. Almost all illegal substances are pretty much freely available.


The "War On Drugs" is lost.


You/me/your children can easily go and score whatever is wanted.


It will take brave politician to admit this and to then drive forward a new way of thinking.


Surely legalised drugs, with licensed vendors and applied age restrictions is a fresh and possibly more successful way of tackling the problem?


I refer to the tired example of the Nederlands, which has a lower percentage of it's youth using cannabis on a regular basis, when compared to the UK.


I just can't see a logical argument against trying another way, when the current attempt is such a miserable failure.


Horse.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61493
Share on other sites

We already have an alcohol problem in this country....do we really want to add legalised drugs to that equation? At least the prohibition, ineffectual and imperfect as it is, still keeps a lid on the usage to some extent...I think it would be a disaster if drugs were freely available, sold on ebay, for example!!! I think we need to make it as difficult and costly as possible for anyone to buy drugs...call me old fashioned.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61495
Share on other sites

Wow - super sensible debate. I have been working with drug users in various guises for 15 years. I do agree that legalisation is the only way to control the problems caused on society by illicit drug use. The current prohibition has failed as alcohol prohibition failed in the US in the 20s. The problems caused are exactly the same. Poor quality illegal substances produced in non pharmaceutical conditions leading to huge health problems. Illegal control of drug trade (Al Capone anyone?) and the gangs of South London. A huge amount of personal crime is connected to drug use in some way.


However, there is big money in drugs and money = power. There are some big people internationally with a power base part built on this money and they will NEVER relinquish this control. Has anyone noticed how the UN in Afghanistan has totally neglected to do anything about the poppy fields? Ask yourself why! Especially as this was a huge part of their reasoning for invading in the first place. The US has blocked many conuntries previous attempts to decriminalise or legalise certain substances and they will continue to do so by threatening trade bans / sanctions etc.


Maybe a conspiracy, but where this sort of money and power are involved, government is not far in the background!


Shame, cos it would stop a lot of people dying.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61496
Share on other sites

The war on drugs is not an issue related to supply and I don't think licencing their supply will make a huge difference except to make them more expensive and just another government revenue earner. Tobacco and Alcohol smuggling continues despite licencing and many controlled pharmaceuticals like Viagra, Temezapan etc being freely available on the black market. The war on drugs IMO relates to ensuring addicts get proper support and that kids get education and information made available to them early on regarding all kinds of substance/drug abuse. They need to know how the use for recreation can lead to destruction and tragedy in their lives and at best a few health problems and a bit of escapism from the drudgeries of everyday life. People that are emotionally strong with a good network of family and friends tend to survive long term recreational use. People from an abusive past with few friends or family tend to fall foul of hard drugs. No one starts out thinking they want to become an addict and we need a system that can identify and support those that are vulnerable. There's a huge industry in rehab clinics mainly because if you want help you need to wait months before you can get a government sponsored place. Most people cant afford the cost of private help and for them often it's too late. I dread to think what my kids will get up to when I think of what I did. Fact is they're going to be (have been) exposed to drugs from a very early age. I've been completely open with my eldest since he was 14 and to date (he's 17 now) he isn't into anything except a good pint, though he's admitted to trying a few puffs. No doubt he'll try more as he gets older but I believe his head is screwed on well enough not to get into too much trouble. And let's admit it, recreational use for all us strong un's is not always warm and cuddly!
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61498
Share on other sites

Loz

I agree. Should we legalise everything that is not good for society, in an effort to control the problem? Should we legalise guns, for example? I think it would be more useful spend money on rehab, because there we have a chance of making a difference...help the victims of drug usage and help them turn their lives around....the in turn help others, and so on.....we do have to think about our kids and their friends, and as adults we have to educate and protect them....they are our future.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61499
Share on other sites

Horsebox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Charlie,

>

> The prohibition of all drugs has been an absolute

> massive failure. Almost all illegal substances are

> pretty much freely available.

>

> The "War On Drugs" is lost.

>

> You/me/your children can easily go and score

> whatever is wanted.

>

> It will take brave politician to admit this and to

> then drive forward a new way of thinking.

>

> Surely legalised drugs, with licensed vendors and

> applied age restrictions is a fresh and possibly

> more successful way of tackling the problem?

>

> I refer to the tired example of the Nederlands,

> which has a lower percentage of it's youth using

> cannabis on a regular basis, when compared to the

> UK.

>

> I just can't see a logical argument against trying

> another way, when the current attempt is such a

> miserable failure.

>

> Horse.


Horse, the Netherlands has not legalised all drugs. It has decriminalised cannabis. Anybody who recommends the legalisation of all drugs has to consider what effect it would have on usage, and I can't imagine that you think that by legalising crack cocaine and heroin, their usage would go down.


The prohibition of all drugs works quite well. My son can't walk into an off licence and buy a gram of coke, and I wouldn't want him to.


And what "war" are we talking about? I don't think anyone in this country has ever had a war on drugs, more a systematic effort to police, prosecute and control.


Charlie

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61501
Share on other sites

I love it when people point to the Netherlands as a great example of drug control, citing Hollands relaxed rules on cannabis. That's only part of the picture. Lets not forget that it is estimated that about 70 percent of the confiscated ecstasy-tablets in the world are produced in the Netherlands: that is between 112 and 224 million tablets. The organisation of the trafficking of amphetamines and XTC within Europe is controlled by Dutch criminal organisations, in collaboration with criminal organisations in the destination countries. Would those same people call that a blueprint for the UK? Ever been to Amsterdam and seen people jacking up on the street? Not pretty.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61502
Share on other sites

I think there is another question to raise here. Why is the UK become the drug users capital of Europe. Why do more Brits than French, Spanish or who ever choose to dabble, become habitual or addicted? What is it about the British psychie that makes us want to get blotto'ed so often. This is pie in the sky stuff but if we find the root cause of this then solve the problem.. Obviously not going to happen but would be nice.


I dont think rehab is particularly good. It only works for those who want the help and even then the religious element of the 12 step program, which is deemed the best mechanism as I understand (I could be wrong) tends to reduce the credibility of the program with those that need the help. I know several people who have paid ridiculous sums of money to the Priory and have come out with little or no change to their routine (and BTW the Priory is rubbing it mitts together with current useage in UK). Only people I know who kick their habits have had to hit rock rock bottom before taking steps to address the situation.


So how will legalisation or decriminalisation help? I just dont see it. Addicts will do anything to address their pangs and what they dont get on that legal basis they will go another route surely.


I would prefer harder policing approach and try to ensure that scoring anything was a lot harder.


My limited experience of Amsterdam was not good.... open hard sell approach by coke dealers walking the streets who wont leave you alone until you tell them you dont have any money and you're not interested. I have to say I'd leave this country if it got to that point.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61518
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of what the posters say here, but think there needs to be a serious look at alternatives to outright prohibition because it has been a total failure.


There is a Lords enquiry into it at the moment I think so I'm going to try to dig out some of their findings as they are often a lot more enlightened and less prone to political cowardice than their counterparts in the commons!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61520
Share on other sites

Amanda, you started this thread by saying you "think all drugs should be legalised." Does this mean that you have changed your stance? And that you now believe that the powers that be need to examine alternatives to prohibition?


A good outcome from an interesting and informed debate.


Charlie

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61526
Share on other sites

haha, isn't that what I said? I think the way they are legalised/licenced etc needs to be very carefully managed.


This is a report on the debate by the Lords


http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/11/lords-savage-drug-strategy-consultation.html


Got the wrong Hansard report. Gona try to find the right one.


Ok this is the right one, but you have to press next section to carry on with it as it is quite a long debate. I'm gong to try to read it all because it is actually quite good once you get past the first bit where the Government reels off all their 'proof' that their policy is working.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/71029-0007.htm

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61535
Share on other sites

I had to share this class bit of the debate by Lord Mancroft:


"Noble Lords are aware that statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal may be very interesting, but what they conceal is far more important. Over 20 years in the drugs field, I have learnt that the figures that we are given, genuine though they may be, need to be treated with a very large pinch of salt. It is unarguable, however, that by any measure—overall drug use, drug-related crime, drug-related deaths, level of drug seizures, cocaine use, or whatever—the UK has the worst drug problem in Europe by a long measure and the second worst in the world after the United States."


And this


I pray that my children will never, ever take drugs, but I know that a significant proportion of their generation, from all walks of life, do and will take drugs. I would like the Minister to explain, when he comes to answer this debate, why the Government think that it is better for my kids or anyone else’s kids to buy drugs at an artificially inflated price—probably paid for by crime—of unknown strength and purity, which increases the risk of overdose, from criminals who are often armed and dangerous. The Minister could also tell us why the Government think that it is a good idea to follow a policy that benefits only criminals, international drug dealers and the Taliban.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61539
Share on other sites

And Lord Cobbold:


Prohibition was expected to rid the world of drugs by now. It has manifestly failed, and the Government cannot possibly argue that it has been a success. Obviously, no Government like to acknowledge failure but we now have a drugs trade which is reckoned to be the second largest world trade after oil and is totally in the hands of criminals, costing this country up to ?17 billion—or ?19 billion, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has just said. To continue with present policies is to accept and effectively tolerate the existence of the criminal gangs that control the trade.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61541
Share on other sites

From Lord Richard:


Like the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, I recommend that noble Lords look at the document issued by the North Wales Police Authority in response to the consultation paper we are considering today. Its view is clear, and interesting not only for what it says but whence it comes: that that police authority should urge the repeal of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and its replacement with a “misuse of substances” Act based on a new “hierarchy of harm” that would also include alcohol and nicotine. It also advocates that the police authority should seek affiliation with the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, which is campaigning for the repeal of prohibition and its replacement with a legal system of regulation and control. These are bold recommendations, coming from a police authority.


This guy makes sense!


My inclination now is much the same as that expressed recently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in somewhat bold phrases:


“If people are addicted to heroin, give them heroin. I'm not suggesting you sell it at newsagents, but if you were to offer it to addicts in a medically controlled setting, there would be no criminal market”.


That argument seems to me to be unanswerable.


Anyone getting a bit more respect for the dusty old Lords? I did when I started reading some of the Law Lords judgements during my degree. They seem not to be old fusty farts!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61543
Share on other sites

char1ie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Horsebox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Charlie,

> >

> > The prohibition of all drugs has been an

> absolute

> > massive failure. Almost all illegal substances

> are

> > pretty much freely available.

> >

> > The "War On Drugs" is lost.

> >

> > You/me/your children can easily go and score

> > whatever is wanted.

> >

> > It will take brave politician to admit this and

> to

> > then drive forward a new way of thinking.

> >

> > Surely legalised drugs, with licensed vendors

> and

> > applied age restrictions is a fresh and

> possibly

> > more successful way of tackling the problem?

> >

> > I refer to the tired example of the Nederlands,

> > which has a lower percentage of it's youth

> using

> > cannabis on a regular basis, when compared to

> the

> > UK.

> >

> > I just can't see a logical argument against

> trying

> > another way, when the current attempt is such a

> > miserable failure.

> >

> > Horse.

>

> Horse, the Netherlands has not legalised all

> drugs. It has decriminalised cannabis. Anybody who

> recommends the legalisation of all drugs has to

> consider what effect it would have on usage, and I

> can't imagine that you think that by legalising

> crack cocaine and heroin, their usage would go

> down.

>

> The prohibition of all drugs works quite well. My

> son can't walk into an off licence and buy a gram

> of coke, and I wouldn't want him to.

>

> And what "war" are we talking about? I don't think

> anyone in this country has ever had a war on

> drugs, more a systematic effort to police,

> prosecute and control.

>

> Charlie



Charlie/ Lozzyloz,


I never said that the Netherlands had legalised drugs, nor did I or anybody else use it as a "great example of drug control" - I'm struggling to work out where you got this from? I was merely using that country as an example of having taken a different approach to drug laws/legislation/control, whatever you wish to call it, and a possible benefit of this approach.


Some interesting quotes there, CWALD. One of the problems with anybody in govt, policing, the judiciary etc coming out and saying that drug laws need changing, is that they tend to get vilified by the Daily Mail and the red tops and their career then takes a hammering for proposing a sensible alternative to a failing/failed system.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61587
Share on other sites

I think that the total failure of prohibition is making some people in authority look at alternatives but like someone said above, the people making all the money out of the illegal drug trade have enormous power behind the scenes, and are unlikely to allow that power to be watered down without a fight!
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2141-drug-policy/#findComment-61607
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...