Drug Policy

[blinder999]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

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

> Even the Police admit it isn't working.

but then, the laws aren't exactly rigorously enforced by the Police (for various reasons), are they?

I'm not saying they could be, without building an enormous number of prisons, but laws that aren't enforced will never be respected.

Personally, for example, I wouldn't have transgressed in Japan - they jail you (very nasty) then deport you, if you get caught with anything. But round here, anything goes.

[char1ie]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

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

> Even the Police admit it isn't working.

Very true. But the police aren't saying "legalise all drugs".

In my original post I said that heroin addicts should be treated as victims rather than criminals and prescribed free heroin.

This is a great way of preventing crime and has been shown to work. In fact I think there is a trial going on at the moment in the UK.

Charlie

[DaveR]

Prohibition works to the extent that you cannot buy coke at the newsagents, but we have now reached the point where throughout the UK you can buy pretty much any controlled drug fairly cheaply and easily - subject to occasional fluctuations, drug prices across the board have never been lower. The issue with prohibition is whether the very limited success in making drugs marginally more difficult to obtain is worth the by products - a huge volume of acquisitive crime and a certain amount of very serious violent crime being two of them.

[Keef]

They have just banned smoking in pubs, I can't see them leagalising all drugs!

To legalise heroin would be bloody ludicrous, making it readily available to everyone. At the end of the day, anyone can get hold of some weed, but you can't exactly say to a bloke in the pub "do you know where I can score some heroin mate?". I know it's gettable if you really want to get it, but God don't make it easier for people to try it!

Besides, if it were legalised and controlled, the black market would probably still exist, offering stronger mixed up stuff.

I have no problems with a lot of recreational drugs, but to say end prohibition and legalise them all is madness.

Another thought that has just entered my mind... Imagine how easy it would be to spike people's drinks with dodgy stuff if drugs were that easily come by...

[Jah Lush]

The point I'd like to make here is that if a drug like heroin were to be legalised then the only people who will be able to get hold of it free of charge on prescription should be registered heroin addicts with the back up of a full recovery programme available, also free of charge.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I read that the only drug that is illegal is Cannabis, the rest are just controlled.

Read the Lords debate I put up for input from people who have worked in this area for decades. It is really well informed and interesting, honest!

[Maurice]

Imagine that Chav - and informed debate from that fuddy duddy body you believe needs more people like you to be truly representative. Me thinks the system may be working and more reflective than one might contend.

Now. What about GHB (you know, the one I labelled GBH to howls in an earlier thread)?

It's legal-ish. Some forms are all out legal it seems. And folks who take it tend not to get violent or addicted. If taken in the right quantity, it makes someone all ovely and nice. No issues.

But, as I understand it, getting the dose right is impossible meaning on a given night, dozens of ambulances are called. A lot of issues there...(and I think perhaps a lot more ambulances than alcohol).

Umm......

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

"Imagine that Chav - and informed debate from that fuddy duddy body you believe needs more people like you to be truly representative. Me thinks the system may be working and more reflective than one might contend." How do you know what I think of The Lords?

I actually don't agree that they should go down the same route as The Commons with media spun elections etc but do think the current system is not fair as selection is not transparent and is skewed towards the party in power. Having said that, the only ones who have to toe any party line are the ones looking to be paid for sitting on select committees etc, so they are on the whole more independent than their sheep-like elected counterparts in the other chamber.

[????]

Crack houses are far less scary than you'd imagine

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

But the insurance on subsidence is prohibitive!

[lozzyloz]

>:D

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

whooosh, over my head. Please explain!

Oh you mean crack as in a broken bit. Ok sorry too much fresh air nowadays seems to be affecting my brain.

[Klaus]

A fair part of the problem is lumping all illegal drugs in with each other, irrespective of their effects on the individual and wider society. It makes no sense to teenage kids (and me) why a drug like alcohol is legal and cannabis isn't.

A good example of how legalisation could work can be seen in our neighbouring areas. There are a number of shops in Peckham selling weed across the counter. They keep themselves reasonably anonymous, doing deals away from the public gaze. They don't sell to those who look under 18 or 'drug tourists' and have been operating in a similar manner for years with few problems, i assume with local police turning a blind eye.

Compare this to Brixton, where after a period of tolerance, the police are clamping down on dealers again. The streets are full of people offering any kind of drug you can imagine, making the place feel hostile, even during the day. The solution for cannabis is simple: legalise it, tax it, control it like alcohol and educate people on the side effects.

The same can go for ecstacy, which is cheap, does little or no harm to society and is unlikely to ever appeal to the masses anyway.

There are all sorts of problems with coke, ranging from where it's grown to the effect it has on it's users and legalising it makes no sense. To crack down on growing usage in the UK there needs to be a greater level of education regarding it's dangers and increased police pressure on dealers.

Anyone who feels the need to take heroin or crack obviously needs help. Giving it away in special centres would eliminate the main problem associated with them, which is crime committed by addicts to pay for their habit. These centres can them help them off.

To those who favour complete prohibition: i assume you would you also support the banning of alcohol?

[????]

At least some crack users know how to use an apostrophe properly

[char1ie]

Klaus, I think that your post is very sensible and along the lines of what I think about drug control.

????, your post is just pointless. Everybody makes mistakes with their grammar. In fact, I quote from your latest post on this forum: "there's also a long eatblshed train station"

Charlie

[Nero]

I'd push for higher prices of alcohol, both in pubs and in offies, and supermarkets. I'd tax the really strong brews heavily and leave the lighter brews, such as the newer 2% lagers, with normal tax. Alcopops and the like would also be subject to higher taxes. Why? Because while we don't think we do, a lot of use abuse alcohol. A G and T and 2/3 of a bottle of wine of a night is not unheard of amongst the middle classes, and non wine lovers can often sink 4 pints a night, three or four nights a week. Over a long period of time it harms the body. I concede, though, that a little bit of alcohol on a regular basis has been shown to have positive health effects. Nero

[Keef]

Not being funny, but I pay enough tax as it is, I don't want to pay more on my beer!

[barrymarshall]

Klaus - I broadly agree with you on things like Ecstasy and pot. I think both should be freely available to adults. MDMA is reckoned to be statistically safer than paracetamol and no-one as far as I know has ever died because they smoked too much dope! Longer term may be a different story, but then taking ANY substance regularly over a long period can have deleterious side effects.

I think the big stumbling blocks, though, are the counter-cultural statuses of the substances in question, which makes the prospect of legalisation/decriminalisation remote. Also, drugs are a good stick for politicians to use at election time (any time really). Like law and order, few politicians deviate from the "get tough" script. That said, I was surprised when cannabis got downgraded to a category C drug, on a par with steroids or "illegal" prescriptions. So maybe there is hope.

When it comes to harder drugs, such as cocaine or heroin, the issue gets murkier. While I do think heroin users should be given free, clean drugs and a clean, safe place to use them, and that the industry needs to be taken out of the hands of criminals, I think a society that has heroin for sale openly in shops has a lot to say for itself. Same with cocaine. From a libertarian perspective, I don't have any philosophical objections to individuals getting high if that's what they want to do. But what does it say of society that people's lives are so screwed up or hard to deal with that they need to use chemicals to escape? I think it says a lot about how modern society is riddled with alienation and that it expresses itself in all manner of ways. Some turn to booze, some get violent, some get depressed, some gamble. I don't think the question of drugs and their use in society can be answered without looking at the bigger question of void at the heart of society and what people use to fill it.

[*Bob*]

barrymarshall Wrote:

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

> I don't think the question of drugs and their use

> in society can be answered without looking at the

> bigger question of void at the heart of society

> and what people use to fill it.

Human beings are pleasure-seeking creatures. What 'does it' for everybody here?.. Reading? Sex? Food? Going on holiday? Lively debate? Taking the children to Alton Towers? Making miniature windmills out of balsa wood? Are any of these things cited as as means of filling a void at the heart of society? Not really. They are experiences that people choose to give them pleasure.

Drugs offer a different experience. Try as you might, you are not going to be able to replicate the experience of taking LSD by reading a good book or listening to a record.

[lozzyloz]

I don't think the question of drugs and their use in society can be answered without looking at the bigger question of void at the heart of society and what people use to fill it.

Precisely.

We have an undercurrent in our culture, easily accessible to youngsters where drugs are shown to be cool and edgy, sometimes glamorous or even romantic. It's even well linked with violence and getting ahead in life. So who benefits from this? The kids? No. The authors/artists? To some degree. But the real gangsters are the music and film marketeers who turn them into attractive packages for kids to digest. I'm not advocating censorship but there are too many instances where kids are being exposed to stuff way too early.

[*Bob*]

It amuses me no end the way that people who "don't" are always inventing reasons end explanations for the people that "do".

Several years ago, some friends of mine came down to visit from up north. A university professor, a teacher and a painter and decorator. They hated the idea of clubbing. The bleepy music. The requirement to do drugs. The bobble hats and sunglasses. "Sad", they said.

So, like Nic-O-Tine, I persuaded them to go clubbing - just once - just for the experience.

It's great watching people finally 'get it'.

[LizzygotDizzy]

For whatever reason people take drugs, whether it be for personal social enjoyment, having had a hard life and needing to escape/forget, or whatever, at the end of the day there is enough information out there for people to know what they are getting into when they set off on this road, for every 5 people who take drugs because of their past life experiences there are 100 who have had the same experience but "choose" not to go down this road. I am not trying to say that everyone is the same and can deal with their pasts or cra* the same way either, but I am for people with medical conditions who take things like weed to alleviate their symptoms,but recreational usage or whatever it all boils down to the fact that it was their personal decision to start taking them. I for one personally believe it should not be legalised, (weed even though deemed a "soft" drug isn't ideal as prolonged use of this can create chemical imbalance in the brain and cause paranoia leading to schizophrenia etc. legalising drugs would then open up the floodgates to all of the drug curious out there, instead of being surrounded by the stigma which is currently attached to it I believe there should be much stricter control concerning the importing, dealing etc , but believe those already hooked and seeking help should be offered the highest quality of help possibly available.

[LizzygotDizzy]

Oops feel a battering coming on for expressing my personal opinion, (heads for the hills to take cover from the barrage!!!)

[Klaus]

So, if you believe that drugs that have harmful side effects be banned i assume you support the prohibition of alcohol too?

[Klaus]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> It amuses me no end the way that people who

> "don't" are always inventing reasons end

> explanations for the people that "do".

>

> Several years ago, some friends of mine came down

> to visit from up north. A university professor, a

> teacher and a painter and decorator. They hated

> the idea of clubbing. The bleepy music. The

> requirement to do drugs. The bobble hats and

> sunglasses. "Sad", they said.

> So, like Nic-O-Tine, I persuaded them to go

> clubbing - just once - just for the experience.

>

> It's great watching people finally 'get it'.

lol

Blame the bleeps.