Drug law reform

Originally Posted by Zee

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

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 .

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

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

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

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.

Originally Posted by danielf

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

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

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by danielf

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

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

Originally Posted by Will21st

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.

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

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by danielf

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

Originally Posted by Will21st

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.

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

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

.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

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.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Qtx

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.

Alcohol is legal so it can't be harmful.

Originally Posted by Will21st

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

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