Teenagers killed using drugs in Scunthorpe.

[Guest]

The main point though is that people caught with personal amounts of drugs do not recieve a criminal record meaning that there is no stigma attached to their lives, they can travel and work freely, the policy of our government to take a hard line on drugs means that young people who are experimenting with life can end up in a vicious cycle in the criminal world for doing little more than daring to try drugs which are not one of the two recreational substances endorsed by the government.

"Yes officer, I know I was speeding and driving dangerously. I was experimenting with life"

"Yes officer, I know I could have shot myself with the gun. I was experimenting with life"

"Yes officer, I know the drugs could have killed me. I was experimenting with life"

All 3 examples have 2 things in common. 1. They could kill you 2. They are illegal. See the pattern emerging? Things are considered illegal for a reason. Not as many think to control everything we do and say but to protect us and others from harm.

Why should the state protect me from harming myself? I am a sentient person, capable of taking decisions about my own well-being. If I want to take drugs that could cause harm to me why shouldn't I be allowed to take that choice?

I'm not going too indepth with this beacause I'm loaded with the flu and going to bed (could do with some drugs). BUT, you do have that choice, this has been one of my main points in this whole thread. It is you that makes that decision to take something and it is you that suffers if it is dodgy. But because these things are harmful they have been deemed illegal. The state has a duty of care to protect you from harming yourself or others. You state you are capable of making decisions about your own well being but then go on to say you should be allowed to take drugs that could harm you. That seems to me to be a contradiction in itself. What sentient or sensible person would knowingly take something which he knows will do him harm?

Oz, why not ban alcohol then? Nicotine is in the process of being banned but why not ban drink?

[Caley Stan]

Why should the state protect me from harming myself? I am a sentient person, capable of taking decisions about my own well-being. If I want to take drugs that could cause harm to me why shouldn't I be allowed to take that choice?

I thought you had already accepted the need for the state to protect people from unsafe drugs earlier in the thread.

Under a system of prohibition those who import and produce drugs have no real incentive to provide any information on their product, there is no system for those who consume drugs to ensure that they recieve a safe product and there is no way of enforcing any regulation on these products.

Who do you think is going to provide the information and regulation that you speak of? The companies who produce the drugs? There are countless examples of companies who are willing to mislead the public about the safety of their products in order to sell more of them. If we are subject to unregulated advertising and marketing then our sentinence is compromised. It is essential that the state educates its citizens and regulates the companies who seek to sell to them in order to allow us to make choices that are informed by evidence rather than advertising.

[Oz647]

"Oz, why not ban alcohol then? Nicotine is in the process of being banned but why not ban drink?"

Hello mate, I think common sense says there has to be a cut off point. By this I mean we could go on why not ban horse riding or driving or swimming? Hey, we could die doing any of these things. The powers that be have banned alcohol to a degree with an age limit deeming that anyone over the age of 18 SHOULD be sensible enough to drink in moderation. Unfortunately this isn't always the case. As I've also mentioned before it is very unusual for someone to die on the spot from having one drink but it is quite possible to die very rapidly from taking drugs. Yes there are long term implications from drinking, smoking etc and lots of people die from them but they are just that, long term ilnesses that can hopefully be treated and not something you could die from before anybody gets to you. Obviously there are exeptions with drink but hey isn't there always. It has been mentioned somewhere before about if it was legal there could be labels and info on the products etc. How long would this take to enforce and who would pay for it? On the side of every fag packet it says smoking kills. Does this stop people smoking? Not very often. Now this is only something that may kill you eventually. Would Heroin/cocaine etc have a lable stating that if you take it you could die very shortly after? I doubt it. These companies would put what they want on lables until it could be regulated and there would still be cheaper foreign versions being bought over the internet with foreign lalels that no-one can read etc etc.

Just for the record as we all seem to be parading our credentials, I have no qualifications of any sort regarding drugs or their effects on the human body/crime rates/health stats. I also have no personal experience of drugs other than on one occasion when a friend who had taken something wanted to take me on. Something he would not normally do for various reasons which we don't need to go into. All my posts are purely my opinion and are not backed up by any stats. I do however like to think of myself as quite knowledgeable and well informed. Some may disagree.

[Guest]

Oz it is probably as unusual for someone to die from a drugs overdose as it is for someone to die from alcohol overdose, in my lifetime I have mingled with many drug users and many drinkers I have known 3 people die from drinking then choking on their vomit, one outside a pub in Tain but I have never known anyone to die from using drugs. You are reading too much in the newspapers I think, drugs sell papers drink doesn't.

EDIT What is wrong with having an age limit on drug use? Oh and add one drinker falling between gangway and quay to the drink death toll.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Revbirdog

[Oz647]

Oz it is probably as unusual for someone to die from a drugs overdose as it is for someone to die from alcohol overdose, in my lifetime I have mingled with many drug users and many drinkers I have known 3 people die from drinking then choking on their vomit, one outside a pub in Tain but I have never known anyone to die from using drugs. You are reading too much in the newspapers I think, drugs sell papers drink doesn't.

EDIT What is wrong with having an age limit on drug use? Oh and add one drinker falling between gangway and quay to the drink death toll.

I did state in my post that there are exeptions when it comes to drink.

OK, if I was to try and see it from your side I would possibly accept that SOME drugs could be regulated and legislation relaxed accordingly just as with fags and booze. However I still think it would be impossible to completely control drug use with a view to keeping it safe. With alcohol for example there is an age limit, rules controlling sale to people who have already drank to excess and probably a few other regs I don't know about. You could argue that this could be the same for harder drugs but I think it would be too difficult to enforce. The one other thing that springs to mind is, everybody keeps going on about how many deaths are caused by smoking and drinking and the millions spent dealing with the health problems so why oh why make something that can only add to this legal?

[Guest]

OK, if I was to try and see it from your side I would possibly accept that SOME drugs could be regulated and legislation relaxed accordingly just as with fags and booze. However I still think it would be impossible to completely control drug use with a view to keeping it safe. With alcohol for example there is an age limit, rules controlling sale to people who have already drank to excess and probably a few other regs I don't know about. You could argue that this could be the same for harder drugs but I think it would be too difficult to enforce. The one other thing that springs to mind is, everybody keeps going on about how many deaths are caused by smoking and drinking and the millions spent dealing with the health problems so why oh why make something that can only add to this legal?

How much does it cost to fight the organised crime associated with drugs? How much do the Royal navy spend chasing smugglers? How much police time could be saved if these substances were at the very least decriminalised? How much does it cost to keep a drug user in prison? Lets forget about legalisation because that wont happen in our lifetime but decriminalisation will save the country money, it costs less to treat a heroin addict for a year than it does to incarcerate him/her it would even cost less to prescribe them their heroin instead of using the more expensive, more toxic and more addictive methadone the money and time saved could be redirected at tackling the organised crime and social problems which lead to addiction of heroin and crack.

[ictchris]

Why should the state protect me from harming myself? I am a sentient person, capable of taking decisions about my own well-being. If I want to take drugs that could cause harm to me why shouldn't I be allowed to take that choice?

I thought you had already accepted the need for the state to protect people from unsafe drugs earlier in the thread.

Under a system of prohibition those who import and produce drugs have no real incentive to provide any information on their product, there is no system for those who consume drugs to ensure that they recieve a safe product and there is no way of enforcing any regulation on these products.

Who do you think is going to provide the information and regulation that you speak of? The companies who produce the drugs? There are countless examples of companies who are willing to mislead the public about the safety of their products in order to sell more of them. If we are subject to unregulated advertising and marketing then our sentinence is compromised. It is essential that the state educates its citizens and regulates the companies who seek to sell to them in order to allow us to make choices that are informed by evidence rather than advertising.

I think that industry regulators should provide information on products - if this information is found to be fradulent then it's the place of the state to prosecute these people. However, I don't think that many providers of drugs (or any other product) would deliberately lie on their information as they would be found out very quickly and their business would be crippled. If Chris' Cocaine Consortium Ltd were selling 25% pure coke but advertising it at 75% pure people would find out and, first of all, buy coke from somewhere else and then report CCC Ltd to the regulator. I don't think that if regulations were relaxed, Coca Cola would change their recipe or Cadbury's would start replacing sugar with ground up glass. One example I can recall is that in Russia one mafia group imported a load of industrial alcohol (subject to tiny tax) then re-bottled it and sold it as vodka, at a huge mark up. While that might be a good scam for some criminals, it isn't a good business. If cocaine was legal then the companies providing it would, I imagine, take great care to ensure their product was as safe and transparent as possible.

Clearly the state has a role here - the state does have a role to play to ensure that consumers aren't deliberately mislead. I dont' think the state should have a role to play in preventing adults from chosing to get high or drunk or fat though, that's the difference and that's what I was getting at.

I'm not going too indepth with this beacause I'm loaded with the flu and going to bed (could do with some drugs). BUT, you do have that choice, this has been one of my main points in this whole thread. It is you that makes that decision to take something and it is you that suffers if it is dodgy. But because these things are harmful they have been deemed illegal. The state has a duty of care to protect you from harming yourself or others. You state you are capable of making decisions about your own well being but then go on to say you should be allowed to take drugs that could harm you. That seems to me to be a contradiction in itself. What sentient or sensible person would knowingly take something which he knows will do him harm?

People do things that will harm themselves all the time, every day. I am currently eating a bowl of ice cream with chocolate buttons - very fattening and unhealthy. If I eat this all the time, it's harmful. Before my dinner I drank a bottle of liquid that was 4.8% poison. This weekend I will probably smoke a packet of products that will increase my chances of getting heart disease or cancer. I am balancing off what I enjoy with the impact it has on me, that's what people do with drugs. Most people who take cocaine, for example, don't take it every half an hour.

The state doesn't have a duty of care to protect me from harming myself. The state should protect me from others who want to harm me or infringe on me, it shouldn't decide which of my rights are worth defending and prosecute me if I don't agree.

Another point is that drugs aren't that dangerous - hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people take ecstacy every weekend, deaths are massivley rare.

[Oz647]

"The state doesn't have a duty of care to protect me from harming myself. The state should protect me from others who want to harm me or infringe on me"

Which is the same thing but from another person's point of view. In other words if I can't use them I can't hurt you, if you can't use them you can't hurt me. The state does have a duty of care to protect all it's people from being hurt by others or themselves.

"Another point is that drugs aren't that dangerous"

Oh that's ok then we'll just legalise everything and all have a party, of course drugs are dangerous. Wether it be tobacco, alcohol or crack. Drugs are dangerous especially when used by idiots on a night out with no prior knowledge of the contents or origin of the drug.

[Guest]

Drugs are dangerous especially when used by idiots on a night out with no prior knowledge of the contents or origin of the drug.

Another good reason for the government to take control and make sure drug users can be assured of the contents and origin of the substance they use.

[ictchris]

"The state doesn't have a duty of care to protect me from harming myself. The state should protect me from others who want to harm me or infringe on me"

Which is the same thing but from another person's point of view. In other words if I can't use them I can't hurt you, if you can't use them you can't hurt me. The state does have a duty of care to protect all it's people from being hurt by others or themselves.

Presumably the state should intervene in far more aspects of our lives to prevent us hurting ourselves - perhaps the governmetn should set a diet for all citizens or an exercise regime?

"Another point is that drugs aren't that dangerous"

Oh that's ok then we'll just legalise everything and all have a party, of course drugs are dangerous. Wether it be tobacco, alcohol or crack. Drugs are dangerous especially when used by idiots on a night out with no prior knowledge of the contents or origin of the drug.

That's an argument for legalising drugs!

[Guest]

I don't think that if regulations were relaxed, Coca Cola would change their recipe or Cadbury's would start replacing sugar with ground up glass.

Wrong! Coca cola would revert to their original recipe and put cocaine back into their drink. Coca is the name of the plant from which cocaine is derived and is why Coca Cola is called that.

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

I can't be arsed doing any kind of meaningful research into all this, but I strongly believe excessive use of cannabis can lead to depression, paranoia and even schizophrenia.

Add to that the problems caused by dodgy dealers peddling substances of very doubtful quality. That's even happening right here in Inverness.... I say don't listen to your peer groups....Stay away from it all

Take up horse riding and mountaineering instead.

There are differing schools of thought on the mental health aspect of cannabis use, the propaganda coming from the government claims that stronger strains being bred these days are leading to higher instances of mental health problems. Currently the strongest strain of cannabis weighs in at around 25-30% THC but when you take into account that in the sixties the hashish being smoked was up to 90-99% THC due to the process of shaking the crystals from the bud to press into hash then the propaganda does not hold water.

Remembering the same people who are making the purity claims are the ones who are claiming the links to mental health then they become a little less credible in comparison to the experts on the other side of the arguement who claim that the increased link between cannabis and mental health is due to people self medicating and cannabis use is in their view a symptom of mental ill health rather than a cause. In all honesty there is not enough research into the subject to make any solid claims either way.

As for the substances of "doubtful quality" then one way around having our kids smoking hashish adulterated with boot polish, excrement, plastic, straw, urine, or in the case of herbal cannabis (grass) plastic or glass beads sprayed on with a "glue" to look like THC crystals which have previously been shaken off is to legalise the stuff, then users could grow their own and be totally assured of the quality, the government could also set down standards which those who do not wish to grow their own could have a level of assurance of the product they receive.

I have to say that your stance surprises me John given that you had a marijuana leaf as an avatar once and your signature used to say "pass over my pipe, I'll have a wee puff"

You talk a lot of sense mate but I'm afraid your a long way off the mark if you think the hashish in the sixties was over 90% THC .

[Johnboy]

Wrong! Coca cola would revert to their original recipe and put cocaine back into their drink. Coca is the name of the plant from which cocaine is derived and is why Coca Cola is called that.

Which would probably make it less harmful than it is now!

See here.

[Ronaldo]

I agree pretty much with everything the rev says

I listened to an interesting interview today with a lady from "Transform" if they have a website, which I ssume they do, it would be worth a read.

If you make any drug illegal you then pass it's "control" into the hands of criminals......

[Oz647]

If you make any drug illegal you then pass it's "control" into the hands of criminals......

If you made water illegal it would pass control to the criminals purely by fact that it would be illegal to handle it. Therefore you would be a criminal. The reason they are illegal is because they are dangerous, just as driving over the speed limit is, just as punching someone in the face is, just as running around with a loaded gun is. The law is there to protect you and those around you. We don't all agree with the law and most break one or more quite often, speeding etc. But they are what they are laws. They are there for a reason, without them we would have anarchy.

[Guest]

You talk a lot of sense mate but I'm afraid your a long way off the mark if you think the hashish in the sixties was over 90% THC .

Linky

The Cabinet members and various politicians, who admit to breaking the same law they seek to have their constituents prosecuted for, have also been rolling out the 'much stronger than I smoked way back when' routine with hilarious regularity. Ignoring the fact that the majority of the cannabis which would have been available when they were at university wouldn't have been herbal cannabis, but hashish. For those who might not know, hashish is produced by collecting the active natural chemicals on the exterior of the flowered buds and pressing it into solid form. Hashish would usually be found to be over 80% THC, and can be over 90%. This is what our Home Secretary and David Cameron smoked at university. Not the 12% herbal cannabis they allege is far stronger.

Okay I was out by about 10% but this quote should explain why it was so strong, the soapbar smoked by many nowadays is nowhere near that figure because when it is smuggled in from Morocco, Afghanistan etc it is broken down with solvents adulterants added and repressed. Hash that you bought in the 60s may already have had that process done to it but in the main, and because it was nowhere near as popular as nowadays, there was no real call for tampering with it.

[Guest]

Wrong! Coca cola would revert to their original recipe and put cocaine back into their drink. Coca is the name of the plant from which cocaine is derived and is why Coca Cola is called that.

Which would probably make it less harmful than it is now!

See here.

Perhaps the government should step in and ban it then free the weed which can be grown totally organically and has been proved to be relatively harmless (apart from the odd bit of statistic mashing to make it look like it mashes your brain).

Edited March 19, 2010 by Revbirdog

[Guest]

If you make any drug illegal you then pass it's "control" into the hands of criminals......

If you made water illegal it would pass control to the criminals purely by fact that it would be illegal to handle it. Therefore you would be a criminal. The reason they are illegal is because they are dangerous, just as driving over the speed limit is, just as punching someone in the face is, just as running around with a loaded gun is. The law is there to protect you and those around you. We don't all agree with the law and most break one or more quite often, speeding etc. But they are what they are laws. They are there for a reason, without them we would have anarchy.

Oz why do you find it so hard to comprehend black market economics?

A simple way to look at it is if something is legal then those selling it are legitimate licensed business men with no need to enter into other activities such as murder to protect their business, otherwise they risk their license, make it illegal and you generate a whole lot of other criminal activities and render the business to be unregulated.

[Guest]

I agree pretty much with everything the rev says

I listened to an interesting interview today with a lady from "Transform" if they have a website, which I ssume they do, it would be worth a read.

If you make any drug illegal you then pass it's "control" into the hands of criminals......

Website here.

Sorry about all the separate posts if a mod wants to merge my last few please feel free.

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

You talk a lot of sense mate but I'm afraid your a long way off the mark if you think the hashish in the sixties was over 90% THC .

Linky

The Cabinet members and various politicians, who admit to breaking the same law they seek to have their constituents prosecuted for, have also been rolling out the 'much stronger than I smoked way back when' routine with hilarious regularity. Ignoring the fact that the majority of the cannabis which would have been available when they were at university wouldn't have been herbal cannabis, but hashish. For those who might not know, hashish is produced by collecting the active natural chemicals on the exterior of the flowered buds and pressing it into solid form. Hashish would usually be found to be over 80% THC, and can be over 90%. This is what our Home Secretary and David Cameron smoked at university. Not the 12% herbal cannabis they allege is far stronger.

Okay I was out by about 10% but this quote should explain why it was so strong, the soapbar smoked by many nowadays is nowhere near that figure because when it is smuggled in from Morocco, Afghanistan etc it is broken down with solvents adulterants added and repressed. Hash that you bought in the 60s may already have had that process done to it but in the main, and because it was nowhere near as popular as nowadays, there was no real call for tampering with it.

Dont want to get into an arguement over this but this is 1 subject I know a lot about and trust me there is no way the hashish was 80% THC not even the first shake primo hashish . I've smoked most days for the last 30 years and travelled to many hashish producing countries and none of it including opiated Temple Balls come close in strength to the modern hybrid weed strains that are available nowadays .

[Alex MacLeod]

Oz it is probably as unusual for someone to die from a drugs overdose as it is for someone to die from alcohol overdose, in my lifetime I have mingled with many drug users and many drinkers I have known 3 people die from drinking then choking on their vomit, one outside a pub in Tain but I have never known anyone to die from using drugs. You are reading too much in the newspapers I think, drugs sell papers drink doesn't.

EDIT What is wrong with having an age limit on drug use? Oh and add one drinker falling between gangway and quay to the drink death toll.

Because you dont know anyone does not mean it doesn't happen. I'm short of a sister.

People will argue for something, or against it, depending on their own personal wants and needs. Thats life. Whether they are right and the next person wrong we will never really know because decision is always biased towards personal viewpoints. In anything, be it drink, drugs or smoking there will be users who can find arguement to use and non users who find arguement not to use. There will be truthful information and there will be information designed to shock and decieve but the arguement will never be won.

[Guest]

Oz it is probably as unusual for someone to die from a drugs overdose as it is for someone to die from alcohol overdose, in my lifetime I have mingled with many drug users and many drinkers I have known 3 people die from drinking then choking on their vomit, one outside a pub in Tain but I have never known anyone to die from using drugs. You are reading too much in the newspapers I think, drugs sell papers drink doesn't.

EDIT What is wrong with having an age limit on drug use? Oh and add one drinker falling between gangway and quay to the drink death toll.

Because you dont know anyone does not mean it doesn't happen. I'm short of a sister.

People will argue for something, or against it, depending on their own personal wants and needs. Thats life. Whether they are right and the next person wrong we will never really know because decision is always biased towards personal viewpoints. In anything, be it drink, drugs or smoking there will be users who can find arguement to use and non users who find arguement not to use. There will be truthful information and there will be information designed to shock and decieve but the arguement will never be won.

Sorry to hear that, truly, and given that information I find your stance on this subject very admirable you seem to have taken a view of finding out facts and acting on them rather than reacting to circumstances.

[Guest]

Wind of change stirring?

[Renegade]

I believe in the next mid term elections, legalising marijuana is on the ballot in California.

[TopSix]

It appears there may be a referendum held on this issue in California alongside the mid-terms.