Drug law reform

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

Originally Posted by Qtx

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.

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

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

The article i quoted just serves to prove how hard it is to find unbiased and accurate info

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

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by martyh

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 ?

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!

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.....

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.

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

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

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

Originally Posted by Matt D

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

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 .

[Tezcatlipoca]

Biased in what way?

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

[Tezcatlipoca]

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.

Originally Posted by Matt D

They were not studies into 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...

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

[Tezcatlipoca]

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.

Originally Posted by Matt D

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.

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

just serves to prove how hard it is to find unbiased and accurate info

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 ?

"What we are trying to say is we should review the penalties in the light of the harms and try to have a more proportionate legal response.

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

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by martyh

snip
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 ?

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.

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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?

Originally Posted by Guardian story on the second study

Nutt told the Guardian the drug classification system needed radical change. "The Misuse of Drugs Act is past its sell-by date and needs to be redone," he said. "We need to rethink how we deal with drugs in the light of these new findings."

(snip)

The authors write: "Our findings lend support to previous work in the UK and the Netherlands, confirming that the present drug classification systems have little relation to the evidence of harm. They also accord with the conclusions of previous expert reports that aggressively targeting alcohol harm is a valid and necessary public health strategy."

(snip)

He was not suggesting classification was unnecessary: "We do need a classification system – we do need to regulate the ones that are very harmful to individuals like heroin and crack cocaine." But he thought the UK could learn from the Portuguese and Dutch: "They have innovative policies which could reduce criminalisation."

(snip)

Nutt called for far more effort to be put into reducing harm caused by alcohol, pointing out that its economic costs, as well as the costs to society of addiction and broken families, are very high. Taxation on alcohol is "completely inappropriate", he said – with strong cider, for instance, taxed at a fifth of the rate of wine – and action should particularly target the low cost and promotion of alcohol such as Bacardi breezers to young people.

(snip)