Drug law reform
 

http://news.sky.com/story/1022930/mp...form-drug-laws


What reforms should there be ?
Is this being considered because it's costing far more to police the laws with little result ? and if so should some drugs be legalized and taxed the hell out of to raise money

Re: Drug law reform
 

I can imagine people on welfare will be offered legalised drugs from a kiosk in every jobcentre. payments spread over so many weeks.
they'll probably mix some dosile ingredients in to keep them chilled out and not have a tendancy to annoy the public just because they're bored and depressed.

perfect timing really.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Banning things doesn't stop them happening.Make things illegal doesn't stop people breaking the law.

I do consider the banning of recreational drugs and the war on drug dealers does come under the terms of diminishing returns as even maintaining a status quo costs society so much in increased financial costs and increasing crime connected with drug use.It's a situation we can never solve.

Pragmatism dictates that if you can't win a war then you sue for peace..and you seek to make sure that the casualties are as few as possible and that the wounded get the help and treatment they need.

Re: Drug law reform
 

As much as i hate and detest drug use (personal experience) i actually agree with you Maggie ,maybe the time has come to not so much give up as be pragmatic and accept that we aren't going to stop it and actually a large proportion of society want it

Re: Drug law reform
 

star jumps.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Not very street, me.

star jumps?

Re: Drug law reform
 

Re: Drug law reform
 

Re: Drug law reform
 

It's a difficult line to walk. The bottom line is... What is acceptable to you... Therefore, what it acceptable to society?

A blanket ban or blanket acceptance can be equally damaging.

I've taken a whole smorgasbord of narcotics over my formative years, but I consciously stopped short at the like of heroin or crack etc.

For me, I think the drug laws in this country are about right.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Regulation doesn't mean blanket acceptance.Tobacco is legal yet there's very little acceptance for smoking.

Personally I see the establishment of a Royal Commission as a good first step.

Re: Drug law reform
 

So far the war on drugs has achieved what exactly? The drugs are still available and more people are in prison. The policies of the last 30 years obviously have not worked so why continue down the same road?

Previous drug advisor's to the government suggested that they should be legalised and the result was he was fired. Didn't fit in with the PM's own beliefs and what they think will get them votes so ignored the advice. Don't see that senior MP's saying the same thing will make any difference.

Keep the ban on hardcore drugs that consume the person taking them with addiction and leading them to affect others by stealing to fund their habit. Legalise the recreational drugs that many take in their free time while holding down a full time job.

A friend of mine has always worked but once or twice a month goes clubbing and consumes some E. Came out of a club a few months back and police were searching random people who had left there. He got searched and they found a pill on him. He had a choice of getting a generic sounding "possession of drugs caution" or go on a drug awareness course. He took the course just to not get the caution even though he has done drugs for years and the course is pointless. The problem is if he gets caught again he will get a criminal record and will lose his job. Absolutely nothing else would be achieved apart from giving someone a criminal record and making them jobless. No reduction in crime or antisocial behaviour. The clubs he goes to never has any trouble as they are not the drinking type places.

To top all that off, the copper told him that they knew there was never any trouble at the place he left, its just that they needed to top up their arrest stats for the month.

Legalise and tax weed and E's for over 18's or 21's. Keep crack and heroin type drugs banned. Personally I would add cocaine to the banned list too but I can see that would be more open to debate than the others.

Re: Drug law reform
 

There are some drugs which are far less harmful then alcohol and tobacco yet they are class A drugs for example ecstasy, lsd, and class B cannabis. These drugs should be legalised just like alcohol but need to be monitored. On the other hand there are others which should remain illegal such as cocaine, heroine, meth and others, and time and money need to stay in place to crack down on those certain substances.

Some of these drugs, i know MDMA (ecstasy) has many benefits for example treatment for depression, chronic, treatment-resistant posttraumatic stress disorder, it can treat stress and also some types of cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma and other blood cancers.

These types of drugs, if not made legal should at least be given licences to be studied for possible health benefits to treat certain types of diseases

Re: Drug law reform
 

I know they're are some discussions about this in the US as well. They've had the infamous 'war on drugs' which people are increasingly accepting has been a disaster of a policy. Greatly increased prison rates for relatively minor offences because they're drug related, mandatory minimums which also increased rates but primary in poorer ethnic communities, and all at a massive expense.

It's achieved nothing other than being an expensive way to ruin lives - quite like the drugs themselves.

I am not sure if the same lessons apply here though. We've been a bit more pragmatic than that. Legalising it would send a message that these substances are ok which wouldn't help but maybe we need to quietly tone down the effort spent on minor drug taking for personal use.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Sadly there is no answer to this problem. Whatever we do we face serious consequences. The current situation is far from perfect but then the alternatives aren't either and once the genie is out of the bottle it's damned hard to put back in.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Two US states actually legalised the recreational use of cannabis last month - Washington and Colorado.

Of course, it still remains a federal crime, so the DEA and Justice Department could quite easily stomp all over people, despite it being legal under state law...

Re: Drug law reform
 

I think there is plenty of evidence that drugs like ecstacy can be as harmful if not more than fags and booze ,the task in front of the government is deciding which ones should be allowed and which ones not .

Re: Drug law reform
 

So they ask a panel of experts for their opinion. The panel of experts then give their opinion, which the government doesn't like. So they say: this wasn't quite the opinion we wanted to hear, could you go back and change your mind please? At which point the panel of experts goes: erm, no. We're experts in this, and we have this opinion because we think the available evidence supports this opinion. So the government decides that the only logical response is to fire the experts.

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

Re: Drug law reform
 

No,there isn't.... MDMA is nowhere near as damaging as fags and booze.

1. It's not physically addictive
2. It doesn't do a lot of damage to the body,mainly the teeth are affected cause users often grind them,and of course the heart does a lot of work through the raised heartbeat.

Alcohol damages every organ in the body,and fags.... well,we all know how bad they are,or can be.

just looking at the numbers there have been all of,I believe 400 odd deaths from MDMA since 1996....
Alcohol related deaths in 2010: 8790
Tobacco deaths in 2009 : 89000

pretty staggering numbers by any estimation,I'd say.

However I also believe that Tobacco shows a good way of how to reduce the number of addicts without resorting to punitive measures.

We've managed to reduce the number of smokers drastically in this country via education,not criminalisation. We didn't burn any Tobacco fields,incarcerated smokers and gave them a criminal record.
Education is key,imo., and trying to help people by giving them a criminal record is an oxymoron anyway.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Indeed ,the only point in having panels of experts to advise the government is if they actually listen to them

Re: Drug law reform
 

Indeed.

I've gone on about this several times over the last few years...

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20...l#post34732083

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/22...l#post34861718

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20...l#post35138811

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20...l#post35139262

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/22...l#post35381577

Re: Drug law reform
 

Ecstacy can kill in one hit ,never heard of anyone dying from one drink or one fag ,i do agree with your last point though education is a far more valuable tool than imprisonment for users

Re: Drug law reform
 

Yeah,what a farce that was.... but then what exactly can the government say? Just anyone who has knowledge of or works in the field knows the current policy isn't fit for purpose....
even the late Eddie Ellison,former commander of Scotland's Yards Drugs and Murder Squad thinks so:
http://eddie.gn.apc.org

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------

No doubt one hot could kill,however it is extremely unlikely.... just look at the overall deaths. Alcohol and Fags lead all the way.
How do you compare one drink to one pill? What is a comparable amount? Nobody will die from one glass of beer,but then no one will die from say just 30mg of MDMA.... compare like for like.

There are enough examples of people dying from alcohol poisoning after a night out....

And talking of fags:saying that nobody dies from 1 Fag is disingenuous for a simple reason: they are designed to kill you slowly and hook you from your first.They're a long and slow killer and all the more vicious for it.

Re: Drug law reform
 

The difference between fags booze and ecstasy is that only misuse will kill you ,smoke too many fags or drink too much and it will kill you no doubt about that but there are plenty ,indeed the majority of smokers and drinkers survive the habit and live long lives ,but 27 people die each year from 1 ecstasy pill which are typically much more than 30mg ,usual strength is 75 +mg of a variety of drugs and 43% of users report addiction

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...s/mdma-ecstasy

In short any drug can and will prove fatal if used ,some over a long period some in a short one .The government have the job of deciding if the cost of small user drug enforcement is worth the money .If ecstasy for example is removed from the class A list and people are allowed to use it or just given a warning and all of sudden thousands of people end up brain damaged each year how much does that cost the state in care

Re: Drug law reform
 

If I remember correctly, more die from an allergic reaction to anadin, or in plane crashes. The well publicised Leah Betts death was not caused by taking the ecstasy, but by drinking way too much water due to the previous media horror stories about the drug.

You don't get the same media headlines if someone has one drink and then falls off a balcony abroad or does something else silly.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Only misuse will kill you is an interesting point,though not necessarily true. I don't think it's a simple as saying drink x amount and you are safe.It's the habit that makes the difference between use and abuse. Even 2 or 3 beers a week can be a problem for some.
And how do you quantify abuse re tobacco? Would it be fair to say that a pack a day would be a normal habit that many smokers indulge in? Is that abuse? I'm pretty certain our cemeteries are full of a pack a day people.... it's hard to quantify.
The 30 mg thing was by the way meant as a like for like comparison to one beer.Of course most pills are stronger,or not if they're bunk!

I'd just like to draw your attention to the fact that NIDA is a US government site and they're heavily biased towards prohibition.... they're very inaccurate and will paint everything in the worst possible light. They're not trustworthy at all....

I agree that many substances if abused can be lethal and we as a society need to come to an agreement on what we permit or don't permit.
However unintended consequences need to be taken into consideration.

By the way,Ecstasy doesn't cause brain damage.Do you mind paying for the chaos alcohol causes? Cause that bill is much higher.

Re: Drug law reform
 

That is part of the point of making it legal and tax'ing it, the actual ingredients and dose will be more controlled and it will be a purer product free from the nasties a select few manufacturers put in there.

More harm has come to those using the so called legal alternatives which are much more harmful than the actual MDMA they are trying to mimic. Those more damaging alternatives would not be needed if people were not scared of getting the real thing.

As much as that document says 43% of users say its addictive, I have to call complete and utter bull on their stats. I know many many people who take E and not one of them is addicted to the product, or would say they were. The heaviest users out of them still only use at the weekend. That's not to say that there are people out there who might become psychological addicted to them but I would put that in the very low single digits. Painkillers are probably more addictive.

People have been using E since the 70's so im wondering where all the braindead crazy people are. Don't confuse the exctasy/weed only users with those drawn face skinny ill looking drug users who take everything under the sun.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Alcohol is legal so it can't be harmful. ;)

Re: Drug law reform
 

I think a lot of the problem is lack of reliable facts and so much bias in both directions .I am very much against drugs for personal reasons ,i have had a family member ruin her life ,and good friends die from drug related illnesses .On the other side i know people who take recreational drugs like cocaine on the bog lid and hold down good jobs ,i smoke myself and have been known to enjoy a right royal tipple so in that respect i am somewhat of a hypocrite as most of us are .The decision to make is where does society draw the line and what are the governments motives behind this latest initiative ,are they trying to justify the cost of continuing the war on drugs or is there a moral aspect to it ?

---------- Post added at 23:10 ---------- Previous post was at 23:05 ----------

I too doubt many of the statistics quoted on addiction ,that all depends on the definition of addiction .In the article i used they defined addiction as taking the substance repeatedly knowing it had harmful side effects .Addiction to me is not being able to carry out day to day life without taking the substance .As i said in my reply to Will21st getting reliable and unbiased info is very hard and most peoples perceptions of drugs are reliant on personal experience or what they read in the press

Re: Drug law reform
 

One point I want to make is that yes I drink alcohol but I don't misuse it..and I do resent recent attempts to use price increases to control the use of alcohol.
Now I'm fairly certain that there are those who use recreational drugs who have self control to the point that they can hold down a job,maintain their life just as I do and can take it or leave it just as I do with alcohol.I'm pretty sure that not everyone becomes a ravening addict who uses drugs..

Also I'm pretty sure that it's not the drugs that ruin peoples lives..it's what they have to do to maintain a habit that does that.It's the illegality that sucks them in and spits them out.

If tobacco is ever banned I'm pretty certain that those addicted to it will find themselves doing illegal acts to maintain their addiction.Same with alcohol.

What I want to do is remove the crime that has become associated with drugs or rather reduce it.Something that's not going to happen with the present system.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Despite my bias on the subject if i'm honest i agree 100% with all you just said

Re: Drug law reform
 

I think we can totally debunk the article quoted. No one should use that as fact or reference. Their definition of addiction would mean that someone who eats a McDonalds or hard boiled sweets more than once is an addict. As you say, the level of harm is a scale and where is the line. Eating something that goes towards rotting your teeth or food that isn't squeeky clean healthy according to someone could be considered as bad as some drugs.

The point being is the drug advisors to the government looked at many drugs and their scientific conclusion was that MDMA was harmless and most drugs should be legalised due to actual harm levels (both to the person and others). Yet once again the PM has ignored that due to personal or political reasons. So very valid point about biased based on media, personal experiences, religion or whatever.

---------- Post added at 23:37 ---------- Previous post was at 23:34 ----------

Let me add that if every stimulant or drug got banned, like coffee, tobacco, alcohol etc, I don't think many would be able to handle the stress of every day life. Its a little escape and simple pleasure for what can be a hell of day/week otherwise.

Re: Drug law reform
 

The article i quoted just serves to prove how hard it is to find unbiased and accurate info .
I don't agree with the term harmless though ,i think some cause so little harm as to be insignificant but they can cause harm .Lets face it we apply acceptable losses to life every day ,we accept that we could get knocked over by a car but the risk is actually negligible so we don't ban cars but there is still a risk ,the same with just about everything ,It's also why we have different categories for drugs

Re: Drug law reform
 

How about the Lancet studies that I linked to earlier, and also linked to in however many drug threads we've had over the last few years? The studies carried out by doctors, pharmacologists, psychiatrists and other experts that concluded that alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than cannabis and ecstasy, and that the current classification system is "arbitrary"?

2007 study by Nutt, Blakemore, et al:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rugsandalcohol

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...464-4/fulltext


2010 updated study:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ck?INTCMP=SRCH

Re: Drug law reform
 

Very good point re bias in both directions.There really should be no place for point scoring and propaganda on either side.All drugs/drink.smokes/food/whatever have inherent risks and people need to be aware of them,without scaremongering!
The thing with drawing the line I think is that at the end of the day human beings will indulge in vices,be it gambling,prostitution,drinking,doing drugs or smoking....
since we can't stop people from doing it we need to regulate these activities so to they cause the least possible harm.To me these activities are self-harming,and as long as it happens with consent then I think people should be free to do what they want,as long as they don't harm others! Of course there is pain and suffering in families with addicts,and yet it is family and friends who are the ones who can and should help,if possible.No law will stop an addict from indulging!


Well,as an addict myself I'd say my definition is that it's a way of life,a state of mind.At the heart of it to me are scarcity and a certain immaturity of character.most certainly a spiritual deficit,too.
one thing I learned when I quit,and I've been sober for a while,is that when you quit the trouble starts! How to live without.... I'm happy to say though that it's possible. ;)
All in all this is a very difficult subject and there are no easy answers.Selling Heroin and Coke at the off-licence is out of the question,equally I'm not sure we need so many places that flog cheap booze.....

very well put,Maggie,far better than I ever could! :)

That's why you're a teacher and I'm an uneducated buffoon! :D

Re: Drug law reform
 

True. I misspoke with harmless. It was just very low on the level of 'harm' that Prof Nutts team had published. Below alcohol and other substances. The scale didn't just go by damage to the body but included the social issues and impact of the drugs.

Agree with Maggy in most respects.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Nothing wrong with those at all ,i certainly wouldn't dispute them but the lancet is by doctors for doctors so that will be biased at the other end of the scale .

Re: Drug law reform
 

Biased in what way?

Re: Drug law reform
 

biased in that the worst case scenario in drug abuse will always be presented with doctors ,and vice versa for users .There never seems to be a study showing that some users lead a full and rewarding life, results of any research always show one extreme or the other depending on who interpreted them ,doctors or users

Re: Drug law reform
 

Not totally sure of the relevance of your point to these studies. They were not studies into e.g. just one drug, concluding the "worst case scenario" at "one extreme" due to the authors being doctors.

They were studies (by doctors, chemists, pharmacologists, psychiatrists, etc.) that took detailed looks at a wide range of drugs (illegal and legal) and ranked the level of harm they each cause by looking at various types of physical harm and social harm plus likelihood of addiction...

The first study concluded that, of the 20 drugs they investigated, heroin & cocaine were the most dangerous. Alcohol came in at 5th most dangerous, 6th place went to ketamine, in 9th place was tobacco, 11th place cannabis, 14th place LSD, and 18th place was given to ecstasy.

The second study was a more detailed update of the first, which addressed criticisms of the first study. It concluded that, for overall harm, alcohol was the most dangerous drug in the UK, with heroin and crack in second and third place respectively. When looking purely at harm to the individual user, the top three were heroin, crack, and crystal meth. Cannabis and ecstasy were (again) quite low down like they were in the first study, with ecstasy (again) the lower of the two.

Re: Drug law reform
 

I'm not disputing the results Matt,what i am saying is that a doctor or other medical professional will automatically think "drugs bad" "no drugs good" because they are doctors that is bias i am referring to ,maybe i'm using the wrong word

Re: Drug law reform
 

But the doctors and other experts who carried out these two studies did not simply say "drugs bad" for everything.

They looked at a wide range of drugs, legal and illegal, and a range of types of harm, and ranked them accordingly, giving them scores for types of physical harm to the user, social harm to others, and overall harm.

Don't seem to have the bias you say, and as mentioned previously they actually concluded that e.g. alcohol is more harmful than various illegal drugs (including ecstasy). Physically harmful and socially harmful.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Ok Matt ,you managed to find surveys that aren't biased well done you ,i didn't say it was impossible i said that it was hard


and i was correct because the study you linked to was inaccurate at first so it was redone moving alchohol to a class A drug and being the most harmful ,i don't dispute that ,but is the study realy suggesting that drinkers should be punished or put on the same level as crack users ?,what punishment is suitable for the most harmful drug ?

Surveys like that may be useful to number crunchers but ultimately society will decide what they want ,and at the moment a large part of society seems to want to take drugs maybe even the majority

Re: Drug law reform
 

Which is exactly why drug law needs reforming, so that users are not criminalised simply for possessing some.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Well,whilst alcohol may well be as harmful as crack,the user of neither should be punished,that's the point.If someone feels like self-harming then I don't believe it's the governments job to stop me or anybody else.



I don't believe that a majority of people in this country would start using crack or heroin if it was legally available.I know I wouldn't,and neither would you Marty,I believe. :)

Re: Drug law reform
 

Survey? You make it sound like a YouGov panel...

I've linked to and quoted from these studies repeatedly in past drug threads over the last few years... including in direct replies to you which you have then replied back to.

They're not talking about "punishing drinkers" the same as crack users (nor saying it should just be a free for all with no classification system at all, as some critics of Nutt and co claim they're saying), nor is the study just something for the "number crunchers".

The current classification system is BS and should be re-thought. It should actually take into account levels of harm, e.g. why are some people severely punished for choosing to use something that is far less socially harmful and physically harmful than other drugs in the same Class and even other drugs that are actually legal?

Re: Drug law reform
 

you've misunderstood ,i meant that possibly a majority of people in britain are drug users (including fags and alchohol) i should have been clearer,which in my book would be a statement from society about what is wanted

---------- Post added at 22:01 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

study ...my bad;)


and i agree, but what do we do about alcohol then ,the most harmful drug and the most widely used ,the study is unambiguous about that

Re: Drug law reform
 

I posted a couple of alcohol related quotes from Nutt before:


The government's recent talk of a minimum price for alcohol actually fits in with this, as that's aimed at tackling problem drinking... I'm in two minds over that. Part of me hates the very idea, because I hate the nanny state ... yet at the same time something does need to be done as alcohol abuse is a massive problem.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Agreed .One thing i am concerned about is minimum pricing of alcohol could lead to an increase in black market booze ,the same as trying to price fags out of peoples pockets

Re: Drug law reform
 

Never had a problem with SOME drug use myself, if people want to smoke stuff like Cannabis, I say let them

I would hazard a guess (I haven't checked), that a lot more people die from drinking and smoking cigarettes/tobacco, than they do stuff like Cannabis?

I dunno, but if the EXPERTS say the law should be changed, who are the government to turn round and say "no"?

I personally don't smoke anything, nor drink or take any form of drugs.

Perhaps the solution is just to do what I think most people assume the government would do, if it was legalised...tax it.

The only thing the government can do, is educate people about the dangers of smoking, taking drugs and drinking.

And if people become ill as a result of doing the above, perhaps they should be made to pay for their hospital treatment.

Re: Drug law reform
 

I honestly think that legalizing and taxing some drugs would encourage the black market .

Educate and take their chances is the best option

Couldn't agree with that

Re: Drug law reform
 

Nah,that doesn't make sense,Marty.... prohibition is the perfect black market for OC.If drugs are legally regulated it will take away the profit from the crooks and put it into the hands of proper businesses,just like when alcohol prohibition ended Capone was out and Jack Daniel's in....

I agree with you on overtaxing,though.Tobacco is indeed too expensive and encourages a black market. I also agree the same could happen with drugs if tax isn't applied carefully.



snip


I agree,if we stop medical treatment for risky behaviours than where do you draw the line....

Re: Drug law reform
 

There is a thriving black market for fags and booze ,in fact just about anything that is taxed simply because the crooks can supply/produce cheaper and people want cheap .Of course some will by legit drugs as they buy legit fags but there will always be a black market for drugs imo

Re: Drug law reform
 

Whilst I do agree there is one distinct difference.We don't have Booze and Fag 'dealers' shooting each other in our streets,terrorising whole estates and destabilising entire countries.
With fags and even more so booze people mostly choose the legal option. The difference to drugs is there is a choice!
The drugs market is entirely in the hands of criminals with no no quality control or regulatory body.Disputes are always being fisty-cuffed,stabbed-,or shot-out in the streets.... no solicitors here!

So yes,there will probably remain a small black market but the overwhelming majority of dealers large and small will have to look for new sources of income.

Re: Drug law reform
 

I see your point ,maybe it's one of those things that will remain to be seen .It does raise another question though ,assuming you are right and the dealers have to find another source of income what will it be and will it be worse than dealing drugs .Would society be better off keeping the status quo because every one knows where they stand and we don't want society inflicted by another more terrible criminal led horror

Re: Drug law reform
 

This is indeed a problem!

I remember reading a story about a massive drugs bust the police in Liverpool made something like 15 years ago, and just before Christmas,too.Apparently there was an unusual spike in armed robberies on Post Offices and Off Licences since people relied on those drugs as their source of income and now had to look for alternative sources!! :erm:

I guess the proper gangsters will always be just that,but a fact is also that many small-time dealers are addicts themselves who buy 'bulk' for friends and themselves and then basically consume the profits....

Another concern could also be that some 'Ghetto-economies' will collapse since drugs to them IS THE ECONOMY.... so for some poor areas it could mean hardship,as stupid as that sounds.

Cans and worms come to mind with this issue.... :Yikes:

Re: Drug law reform
 

And think of the jobs and income generated by new companies that set up in business to serve customers needs.Licensed to produce a clean product too plus the tax that the government would get in the form of customs and excise.Those bulk buyers could buy their product legally in the amounts they want for their personal use and not risk prison.I can see a lot of upsides too.

Re: Drug law reform
 

That scenario is certainly a possibility but if ,for example, cannabis was legalized and produced under license by legit companies wouldn't it be much more available and possibly cheaper than it is now, meaning more people would be higher for more of the time .Do we really want people openly nipping out to the smoking shelter at work for a joint and getting spaced out .At the moment the rarity and cost of the drugs is providing some sort of control.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Well we do advocate that no one uses alcohol when driving or operating machinery.Employers are within their rights to penalise workers who drink on the job and cause foul ups..even to sack them..Why should the use of drugs be any different?

Re: Drug law reform
 

Yes,I see this scenario as well,it will be a totally new,legal industry created with opportunities for new jobs being created.

I think your objection goes back to this fear that many people have,thinking that people will be getting high all the time once it's legal(except themselves,of course).Many people seem to fall into that way of thinking:what will my neighbour do?
There are people now who smoke Cannabis at work now,and I don't believe it will be significantly more or even any more at all if we regulate.If anything use may go down.... the Dutch really aren't that much into weed,and especially the young aren't,since it's not being seen as cool to do it.Legal regulation takes away the whiff of rebellion,which can only be a good thing,imo.

Oh,and drugs really aren't rare at all.Id' wager a guess you could arrive in many towns in Britain and within 30 mins. get hooked up. Heck,if you know where you have to look probably within 10 mins!

At least with a regulated supply there will be ID checks and quality control.'Retailers' who sell to minors will be punished,just as is now,I'd assume.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

Indeed,the laws surrounding drugs and booze at certain occupations are the same now anyway.Legal cannabis wouldn't mean being allowed to operate a crane whilst high.

Re: Drug law reform
 

oh yeah thats brilliant. allow crackheads to wonder freely causing mayhem. that and EU Human Rights. living the life!

Re: Drug law reform
 

the way I see it is, if someone wants to do it, they're going to do it whether banned , illegal or legal, so why not legalise these drug and distribute them in controlled places like certain pharmacy's, those people using them should need to register and a track put on how much they use, if they're heavy users, the money made should be put towards helping these people cut down or stop completely.

cigarettes and alcohol do much more damage to peoples health then some the class A drugs so this is something the government should consider.

As I said these people are going to get these drugs either way, we don't know what is in street drugs, they are putting their life in further danger at least controlled drugs would be a lot more safe and 100% clean.

Re: Drug law reform
 

I agree.

My drug overdoses are due to a good batch and stronger doses than normal. The criminals who make billions double their money down the line so most Class A powder at least has very little of it in it by the time it is taken

Re: Drug law reform
 

the fact that people are moving towards legal highs aswell is another real concern.

Im not saying all the legal highs are dangerous, but so many are coming onto the market its hard to keep track of what is what, and we don't have any idea whats in them or what they even are.

At least with the illegal stuff they have been tested and we know what they are and what they do.

Even recently some of the "safer" legal highs were put on temporary bans this year and just days later replacements were shipped, these quick bans are putting peoples lives at further risk as these people developing legal highs are 10 steps ahead of the government.

We'll have more of an issue in the future with legal highs and keeping drugs illegal, rather than legalising and controlling, legalising and controlling is the way forward and this government really needs to consider their actions.

Re: Drug law reform
 

That's like arguing to make stealing legal ,some people do it despite it being illegal so why not make it legal

Re: Drug law reform
 

you steal kingsmil bread from Tesco or Sainsburys its going to be the same thing, you buy ecstasy from a street dealer or from these controlled pharmacy it likely wont be the same.

We're talking about peoples lives here and to be honest, there are some things in life where people should be allowed to make their own decision on, but at the same time be given a safe option.

Re: Drug law reform
 

you argued that people are going to it anyway so make it legal ,if you argument is that quality will be better then my counter will be that people will still buy the cheap blackmarket stuff just as they do with fags, booze and anything you care to mention

Re: Drug law reform
 

my main point here being that as adults we should be given the choice to make these decisions whether or not take that which drug we desire and have that safety net just like we do with alcohol or cigarette.

Why should we be told that we're allowed to drink alcohol, but responsibly but not smoke cannabis.

Im not a smoker, a drinker or a drug taker, I quit cigarette and cannabis 3 years ago and have quit alcohol and the only other drug I did mdma in the last 4 months so it doesn't make much of a difference to me, but if we're old enough to decide if we can smoke cigarette, we're old enough to know if we can do cannabis or whatever other drug one desires.

People shouldn't somehow be made to feel "bad" just because they occasionally take ecstasy or smoke cannabis just because its illegal.

Re: Drug law reform
 

because that is where society has drawn the line .Alcohol as a drug has been largely ignored because of it's historical use and wide use as a substitute for water ,cigarettes because until fairly recently the dangers weren't known or acknowledged, now ,slowly they are being restricted untill eventually they will be banned imo

Re: Drug law reform
 

Pragmatism dictates that we have to rethink how we deal with drugs and addiction.

We can't afford the situation as it is now.It costs more and more to even keep pace with the present situation which all the anti drugs agencies admit that they are only controlling the tip of the iceberg.

Frankly what people want to do with their own bodies is not my concern.They will do it with or without my approval or disapproval.What is my concern is how much taxpayers money is being spent on a pointless exercise and war we can NEVER win.
That it is certain that removing the criminality from the situation WILL reduce the associated crime that surrounds the illegal trade in drugs.Licensed drugs that aren't adulterated and are at a reasonable price will mean that users won't have to turn to crime to feed their addiction.Addiction clinics can be provided from the customs and excise duty that the government could collect as they currently do from tobacco.Plus the tax that can be raised from legitimate growers,producers of said drugs would add to the country's tax coffers.

And yes we need to protect children but we already have to so in regards to alcohol and tobacco so that's an argument not worth making as education is the real answer to controlling addiction.

Mind what do I know..I've never felt the need to smoke or take drugs and alcohol is not a vice for me.All the above is my observations after years of watching others and reading up on the subject..maybe I am simplifying it.But when a senior policeman thinks it's a viable idea and previous drug consultants have suggested it I think it is time to really place it on the agenda for discussion because we are NOT winning the war on drugs.

Re: Drug law reform
 

If druggies want their vices to be legalised then I say fine, as long as punishments for crimes committed whilst under the influence of them are made much more harsh.

We already get people using "I don't remember doing it as I had taken *enter substance of choice* at the time" as a 'defence' in court and legalising all drugs will only lead to an increase.

Re: Drug law reform
 

we'll never win the war on drugs, unless we legalise and control them, it may take time to make a dent but its the first step. Other crimes will automatically go down which are largely funded by illegal drug trade.

The world will be in a much better position because of it.

that's a wrong way of calling it.

I guess we can call anyone who drinks alcohol alcoholics, or maybe people who drink coffee, tea, eat chocolate or have energy drinks are also druggies.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Agreed!But then I've never understood why a drunk driver who kills with the car can only be charged with accidental death or manslaughter.As far as I'm concerned it's straight murder because it's a well documented and proven matter that NO ONE can drink and drive safely.

Re: Drug law reform
 

mostly heard from from the pee head

---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Agreed totally

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------


Yeah how many times do we hear " I can't start my day without a coffee" addiction by definition

Re: Drug law reform
 

well its caffeine at the end of the day which is a pretty dangerous drug. Just because its available in our daily products we consume doesn't change the fact that's its a dangerous, addictive drug.

Re: Drug law reform
 

You do post a bit of rubbish here,sorry Marty.

Please look up 'malum in se' and 'malum prohibitum',two different legal concepts.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

I take it this will apply for all drugs,including alcohol?

Re: Drug law reform
 

For the ones that are currently illegal. That would be the price of having your drugs on general sale. They are contraband for health reasons (not just your own) so if you insist on having free access to them then you accept the responsibility for any further crimes caused as a result of using them.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Just like booze then

Re: Drug law reform
 

It was quietly trialled in Scotland around fifteen years ago and was a disaster, free heroin to all registered addicts just like it was before we joined another of America's crazy wars and was a complete disaster, the smack heads still robbed and stole and bought crack instead and got doubly high.

This isn't even counting most drug abuse happens over the course of a weekend in nightclubs and the like, unless you're going to have a chemists in the cloakroom of each club dispensing e's and cocaine on request organised crime will still have a market.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Yep.

But with more drugs being available, more crimes will be committed under their influence. If you insist on putting more of us at risk then you will be punished more harshly which I think you'll agree is fair.

Re: Drug law reform
 

I do not put anyone at risk smoking a bit of weed now and then except myself

But with more drugs being available? I know you do not circle this kind of world so I forgive you for not knowing but there are plenty for everyone easily accessible to anyone already and criminals are getting rich off it. Decriminalisation and /or legalisation will not make the problem any worse anyone who wants drugs now can get them and with prices being high there is more chance of crime being committed let alone the hundreds of thousands of criminal event happening every day that never gets reported

Re: Drug law reform
 

I'm sorry I was under the impression the topic was about the suggestion of all drugs being make legal.

You know absolutely nothing about me and my experience about this.

The worrying thing is people like you genuinely believe that.

Re: Drug law reform
 

you accused me of putting people at risk I answered that

You are right I know little about you Russ and honestly in real life I would not want to . I am sure the feeling is mutual

Do not be worried Russ people like me have no power what you got to worry about?

Re: Drug law reform
 

sorry but that is utter crap, try basic economics if not common sense.

Your taking something that is illegal and expensive and turning into something that is legal and cheep.

1. Anyone who was put off by it being illegal will now use. The ability to walk into a shop and purchase can only increase the number of people.
2. More people will be able to afford to use as it is cheaper
3. Some people who already use will use more now as it more affordable.

So how can this not increase use and cause more problems?

J

Re: Drug law reform
 

As I've said in the past if I'm referring to you directly then I'll make it clear. Each of my posts has been aimed at 'you' as in the people that want all drugs to be made legal.

The difference being don't make ignorant and arrogant assumptions based on 'little' knowledge I have on you.

The irony...

---------- Post added at 07:50 ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 ----------

No point in using logic and common sense to some in this thread, it would be wasted. Not 'wasted' as in the effects of drug use, obviously.

Re: Drug law reform
 

I'm more concerned about the 'if it's legal then it must be okay/safe' mentality. Smoking and alcohol is taking a lot of out the NHS, to add something else I don't think would be a good idea.

I'd expect crime would also go up if more people get addicted and with the way things are going then add cheap drugs and poverty / crime then I'd say it could well be a recipe for disaster.

Re: Drug law reform
 

and as I said I have not harmed anyone except myself.

You banned me once for calling you arrogant Russ remember oh and you have called me a drug addict

don't then its simple

---------- Post added at 08:03 ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 ----------

1 read what I wrote. I clearly said decriminalised / legalised I am not saying I want all drugs legal
2 people can afford it now plenty of people spend plenty
3 maybe but at least the money wont be going into the hands of criminals

---------- Post added at 08:04 ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 ----------

it is already there and the drugs are dirty meaning more people are likely to have problems with the dose or mix

Re: Drug law reform
 

By taxing the drugs as tobacco and alcohol are currently being taxed the government can pay to EDUCATE and to help fund addiction clinics.

As for there being more people attracted to it well I suspect most of the present attraction/addiction to drug taking is down to the thrill of doing something forbidden and illicit.

Re: Drug law reform
 

The hole in your reasoning is so massive I could drive a truck through it.;)

So what you're saying is in Russ' world GBH committed by someone under the influence of drink is a mitigating factor but under the influence of coke should lead to harsher sentences.
Doe 't really gel,does it?

By the way,illegal drugs are mostly not associated with violence,bar cocaine.Ask any cop to how many fight calls he's been and the ratio of alcohol v other drugs,I think you'll be surprised.

Complete and utter rubbish.heroin prescription program's are a great success wherever they are implemented. Not only do most addicts greatly reduce their by-consumption but the crime figures go down massively.The Swiss run actual Heroin clinics,so successful has it been,and the people actually voted to keep the program running in a referendum. In Fact,every German police chief supports theses program's in all the major cities there and it sure isn't because crime is up.

Really?So people won't be able to buy their legal drugs beforehand? ;)


Really,more crimes? So what crimes will that be? Please don't answer robbery and burglary as those are crimes associated with the trade. In fact drugs and violence are synonymous because of their prohibition.

Prohibition causes crime.... Fact!

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

Ok,so what you're saying is that as soon as Heroin is legal you will start to use it... Correct? Crack? It's legal,right?

Yeah,thought so,and neither will 97% of the population.Legal doesn't equal condoning. Legalisation is about our crime and violence problem,not about our drug problem.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Way to avoid the question (nicely made up number by the way it's actually 95.32% ). It was stated that the legalization would not have any impact when it plainly would.

Your the one stating that making some thing legal means everyone will start. I never said that

Even using your made up number, suddenly 3% of the population will become drug users 10% (according to studies) will become addicted in the first year. So that's 0.3% of 60M only around 200,000. Guess it's not a problem then.


I also don't buy into the argument that people only use as it's illegal etc etc. so the numbers would fall.

Allowing easy access can only make the use of drugs more wide spread. And this can only increase the number of addicts as repeated use (it's cheep and easy now) is one of the key factors in addiction.

Yes there could be more money to fund help due to taxation etc. but there is a massive illegal trade in Alcohol and tobacco now so why would it be different for drugs?

J

Re: Drug law reform
 

because it is cheaper to buy it off a bootlegger

Re: Drug law reform
 

Not sure where you stand on this now, is it going to be more expensive or not, thought you said the underground bootleggers would all disappear?

Are know saying that easy access would increase the number of users or not?

J

Re: Drug law reform
 

And as dangerous as buying illegal drugs because you cannot be sure what the heck has been mixed into the brew.How many times has antifreeze found it's way into booze?
Anything cheap is likely to be a knock off with all the attendant ills so I've no sympathy for anyone being so stupid.

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------

Well that's down to those crooks who bootleg anything and everything like illegal iPhone chargers.Anyone who is willing to put their live in their hands is an idiot.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Agreed I just don't think it's going to be any different than it currently is for tobacco etc. Some people will always go for the cheaper option.

Short term I think problems will increase as the number of users and the number of addicts will increase. Using the increase in revenue to fund education and treatment etc. will take time, as has the education on smoking and drinking.

I don't think that the current situation is sustainable, I'm just not sure of the solution.

I think there are two ways to go either increase of punishments to become a true deterrent or relaxing of laws, either one requires education

If laws were relaxed I think a massive increase in punishment of people abusing these laws are required. For example currently I think that causing a death whilst under the influence, driving or not has some form of pre-meditation and should have a greater punishment than normal not less.

You made the decision to take what ever drug (and I include Alcohol in this) so it's your responsibility for your actions.

As for increasing punishments, the result of driving whilst under the influence is a life time ban for the first offence, would it make people think twice? Or knowingly getting into a car with a drunk driver making you equally responsible.

People would think twice.

J

Re: Drug law reform
 

And yours is so circular I could draw a coin with it. Why are you right? because you're right. Why are the rest of us wrong? because we're wrong.

Yes, it does. You commit an offence under the influence of a dangerous substance that had previously been illegal for 100 or so years then you accept the consequences of it. Can't do the time? Simple, don't do the crime.

I wouldn't. You're the one who mentioned violence, not me.

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

More than just a slight distortion of the truth however as you're aware discussing team actions in public is against the T&Cs.

Re: Drug law reform
 

it wasn't a great success when it was trialled here and I worked in drug rehabilitation at the time so I don't need Facts from Germany or Switzerland, I saw it with my own eyes.

Yes I suppose they could but them before hand, if the late night chemist is on the way to the club and a conscious decision is made to get something before they get there, otherwise the crooks will still have their market.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Right,so your first point in the quote I posted wasn't that more people wouldn't use? Which is exactly the point that you're making here? Which is the point that I'm making.
Most people wouldn't use even if it was legal... and if it's legal the drugs are far less dangerous than they are now.
Will there be an increase in use? Maybe,maybe not.A lot of people would come out of the closet,that's for sure.

By the way,addiction rates over the years tend to be constant...

---------- Post added at 16:18 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

Please link me to this failed trial.There have been numerous others in the UK that were successful so I'd like to know why this one failed.Thank you.

Yes I suppose they could but them before hand, if the late night chemist is on the way to the club and a conscious decision is made to get something before they get there, otherwise the crooks will still have their market.[/QUOTE]

Right,so they couldn't buy the day before or during the day.Interesting. And of course you'll buy the tainted stuff from the crook rather than sorting yourself out in advance....

Re: Drug law reform
 

What you have forgotten is that regardless of the legality of drugs ,users will still have to buy them and if they commit crimes to get the money to buy them now they will have to do the same if they are legalised ,you may also find that IF ,and it's a big IF ,the drugs are cheaper when legalised then users will most likely just use more .

Re: Drug law reform
 

Right,so they couldn't buy the day before or during the day.Interesting. And of course you'll buy the tainted stuff from the crook rather than sorting yourself out in advance....[/QUOTE]

I told you why it failed and that's the reason why it wasn't reported.

Your assuming recreational drug use is planned and not impulsive, some may well "sort themselves out" the day before a substantial number wouldn't.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Oh Dear,hit a nerve,have I? Anyway,let me know when you have a good,logical reason for making alcohol a mitigating factor and other drugs an aggravating one.The fact you're condoning drunken crime doesn't seem to enter your mind?


Well,whatever offence.By the way you are of the opinion that alcohol fuelled offences are ok.What a message to send to the kids,eh? :dozey:

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

Our Press that will jump on a sensationalist drug story whenever it can will not report when a Diamorphine prescription trial fails? I find that very hard to believe Daddy.
I've just had a look and it seems there was no program in Scotland....however the SNP and Scottish Labour seem to favour trials due to,wait for it,positive trials in GERMANY!!

What do you know,those pesky Germans. ;)

Anyway,please tell me where and when this supposed Scottish trial took place,cause making stuff up just makes your argument kind of weak.

Re: Drug law reform
 

Like I said before it got removed, Boots sell Over the Counter Meds which are legal highs.

Tut tut the message board police are out in force this afternoon.