Teenagers killed using drugs in Scunthorpe.

[Guest]

Anyone who has seen the news today will be well aware of the two teenagers who died in Scunthorpe after taking a cocktail of drink and drugs. The media seems to be taking the view that the "legal high" mephedrone is to blame but, amongst newspapers mainly, there seems to be a trend to omit the fact that a class "A" substance, methadone, and a large amount of alcohol was involved.

The issues I'd like to discuss are, do you think that the media are biased in their reporting? and how do you think the country should tackle the legal high industry given that there are thousands of psychoactive substances waiting to be released as soon as the current lot are banned?

Story

[Renegade]

I reckon it wouldn't matter a jot if this legal stuff was banned, they'd still take it anyway.

[Oz647]

I'm sorry but IMO, if you stick anything in your body that you know could have an adverse effect on you then more fool you. We all have choices and if you make that choice then suffer the consequences. Sorry but there you have it.

[SMEE]

Totally agree with Renegade. People are gonna do what they are gonna do. Illegal highs wont ever stop them

[Guest]

I'm sorry but IMO, if you stick anything in your body that you know could have an adverse effect on you then more fool you. We all have choices and if you make that choice then suffer the consequences. Sorry but there you have it.

Very vague response from you Oz when I saw you were posting I was expecting a well structured discussion, given your normal posting style. There are many things which you can put into your body which give adverse reactions, fish and chips, whisky, nicotine, glue, solvents etc. Do you not think that if the government had a more liberal attitude to drugs ie an attitude of education and warning rather than criminalisation and demonisation that more lives would be saved?

Edited March 17, 2010 by Revbirdog

[Oz647]

I'm sorry but IMO, if you stick anything in your body that you know could have an adverse effect on you then more fool you. We all have choices and if you make that choice then suffer the consequences. Sorry but there you have it.

Very vague response from you Oz when I saw you were posting I was expecting a well structured discussion, given your normal posting style. There are many things which you can put into your body which give adverse reactions, fish and chips, whisky, nicotine, glue, solvents etc. Do you not think that if the government had a more liberal attitude to drugs ie an attitude of education and warning rather than criminalisation and demonisation that more lives would be saved?

Sorry to let you down mate. :023:

I will elaborate, I am very anti drugs of any sort. I believe that if you go out one night and think, hey it'll be all right to take this "E", smoke this joint, snort this mephedrone etc then you have no comeback when you are ill or worse die. We have all seen enough news reports to know that they are dangerous and possibly fatal. I think it is easy to blame the government for their policies, (I in no way support the government or any of their policies) but I'm sorry, the governement don't tell you to snort plant food and for people to say, "but it's legal" is rediculous. Rat poison is legal, would you snort it? Bleach is legal, would you drink it? No, because you know it could kill you. I think the government should do more to warn people, yes but not in a relaxed way.

In regards to your point about putting other things into our body, I take your point but:

If you eat fish and chips you get fat, I know I've eaten loads. You could go on to have health issues because of too many fish suppers etc. Unlikely you will die there and then unless you get greedy and shovel too much into your mouth and choke to death.

If you drink alcohol you get drunk become a pain in the arse, possibly hurt yourself falling over.Worse case you may have your stomach pumped or get smacked for being a tit. You may also suffer long term health issues.

If you smoke, you may choke whilst coughing. You will most certainly suffer from health problems at some stage.

The above things are all bad for you but we do them because we know that we will survive at least in the short term. We know we can go out at night have a few bevvies, smoke a few fags get a chippy on the way home and we know we will wake up in the morning. Probably hungover and stinking of smoke and possibly puke or old kebab but we will be alive.

If you smoke/inject/snort/sniff/drink any of the things you know you shouldn't then you are taking risks with your life. We all know that if we take a bad "E" we could die, if we snort **** gear we could die so why do it?

To say it would be better if the government relaxed the laws is IMO wrong. Just because it is legal won't stop people overdosing on it. It won't stop dodgy gear getting on the streets. People will always want cheaper stuff even if it is legal. Therefore people will produce cheaper stuff, it may not be as good but hey, it's cheaper. Fags are legal but people always buy dodgy fags even when it is well documented that the dodgy foreign CHEAP fags are laced with all manner of deadly substances. People haven't got a lot of money anymore so they need the same amount of drugs but cheaper.

Anyway, I believe that we all have a choice. The option to say no thanks. If you choose to forego that option then you can't complain when you come unstuck. I know people die driving their cars and we still do it but hey, we have to live. Let's do it sensibly though.

I apologise for any typos, it's too long to proof read. :P

[dan_ict]

Wasnt there a local boy killed after an overdose of the very same substance

[ictchris]

To say it would be better if the government relaxed the laws is IMO wrong. Just because it is legal won't stop people overdosing on it. It won't stop dodgy gear getting on the streets. People will always want cheaper stuff even if it is legal. Therefore people will produce cheaper stuff, it may not be as good but hey, it's cheaper. Fags are legal but people always buy dodgy fags even when it is well documented that the dodgy foreign CHEAP fags are laced with all manner of deadly substances. People haven't got a lot of money anymore so they need the same amount of drugs but cheaper.

Anyway, I believe that we all have a choice. The option to say no thanks. If you choose to forego that option then you can't complain when you come unstuck. I know people die driving their cars and we still do it but hey, we have to live. Let's do it sensibly though.

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. The 'market', such as it is for illegal drugs, is completely skewed. For example, Ecstacy was, for a period, extremely pure MDMA - a relatively safe substance. If MDMA was legal people could take tests to ensure that they were buying good quality, they could take a safe ammount, they could take tests to check if they were allergic to any of the components of the drug, they could follow guidelines on how much water to drink etc. As things are, a stream of headlines about Ecstacy hit the papers and the drug is now classified in the highest possible category, something which bears no relation to it's harm. It is also far less pure than previously due to police pressure. Making drugs illegal simply makes them more expensive (causing crime) and less reliable (causing health issues).

I'd also question that "the dodgy foreign CHEAP fags are laced with all manner of deadly substances" - how many people have ever been hospitalised or taken ill after smoking a 'foreign' cigarette laced with 'deadly substances'? I'd bet not many. The reason that we have smuggling of tobacco is because the price of cigarettes is so high due to taxation. If duty on tobacco was reduced to the levels of European countries then we'd have less tobacco smuggling. I doubt that the consumption of tobacco would rise that much either.

The fact is that as a policy for containing drugs prohibition has failed. It is expensive, illiberal, reduces many countries (Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan) to rubble and results in a huge boon for organised crime. The tragic deaths of these lads could have been avoided if we didn't have contradictory drug laws that don't work.

[TopSix]

What were they actually doing to cause their deaths? Were they smoking some kind of plant food?

[Guest]

I'm sorry but IMO, if you stick anything in your body that you know could have an adverse effect on you then more fool you. We all have choices and if you make that choice then suffer the consequences. Sorry but there you have it.

Very vague response from you Oz when I saw you were posting I was expecting a well structured discussion, given your normal posting style. There are many things which you can put into your body which give adverse reactions, fish and chips, whisky, nicotine, glue, solvents etc. Do you not think that if the government had a more liberal attitude to drugs ie an attitude of education and warning rather than criminalisation and demonisation that more lives would be saved?

Sorry to let you down mate. :023:

I will elaborate, I am very anti drugs of any sort. I believe that if you go out one night and think, hey it'll be all right to take this "E", smoke this joint, snort this mephedrone etc then you have no comeback when you are ill or worse die. We have all seen enough news reports to know that they are dangerous and possibly fatal. I think it is easy to blame the government for their policies, (I in no way support the government or any of their policies) but I'm sorry, the governement don't tell you to snort plant food and for people to say, "but it's legal" is rediculous. Rat poison is legal, would you snort it? Bleach is legal, would you drink it? No, because you know it could kill you. I think the government should do more to warn people, yes but not in a relaxed way.

In regards to your point about putting other things into our body, I take your point but:

If you eat fish and chips you get fat, I know I've eaten loads. You could go on to have health issues because of too many fish suppers etc. Unlikely you will die there and then unless you get greedy and shovel too much into your mouth and choke to death.

If you drink alcohol you get drunk become a pain in the arse, possibly hurt yourself falling over.Worse case you may have your stomach pumped or get smacked for being a tit. You may also suffer long term health issues.

If you smoke, you may choke whilst coughing. You will most certainly suffer from health problems at some stage.

The above things are all bad for you but we do them because we know that we will survive at least in the short term. We know we can go out at night have a few bevvies, smoke a few fags get a chippy on the way home and we know we will wake up in the morning. Probably hungover and stinking of smoke and possibly puke or old kebab but we will be alive.

If you smoke/inject/snort/sniff/drink any of the things you know you shouldn't then you are taking risks with your life. We all know that if we take a bad "E" we could die, if we snort **** gear we could die so why do it?

To say it would be better if the government relaxed the laws is IMO wrong. Just because it is legal won't stop people overdosing on it. It won't stop dodgy gear getting on the streets. People will always want cheaper stuff even if it is legal. Therefore people will produce cheaper stuff, it may not be as good but hey, it's cheaper. Fags are legal but people always buy dodgy fags even when it is well documented that the dodgy foreign CHEAP fags are laced with all manner of deadly substances. People haven't got a lot of money anymore so they need the same amount of drugs but cheaper.

Anyway, I believe that we all have a choice. The option to say no thanks. If you choose to forego that option then you can't complain when you come unstuck. I know people die driving their cars and we still do it but hey, we have to live. Let's do it sensibly though.

I apologise for any typos, it's too long to proof read. :P

Oz I don't want any heated discussions as you have had to have with other posters here but I would like to debate with you, if you don't mind?

You state that you are anti drugs of any kind, I wonder if that is through your military training, if you have taken in the propaganda which generations of governments have handed down. Do you drink coffee or tea? Red Bull? You have already touched upon alcohol and nicotine but do you realise that these are the two recreational drugs which cause the most harm on this planet?

The fish and chips point was made because it is reckoned that obesity is one of the biggest killers of Scots people through developed heart problems and other related issues.

You once touched upon us all speaking Arabic if we never had the forces to protect our freedoms, one of those freedoms being the freedom to drink alcohol, your post sounds a lot like you are in favour of the government having the power to control our lives, the power to dictate which substances they feel we should and should not be allowed to use.

Most people who die from drug misuse do so because they are not aware of what they are doing or because they are using substances which are either adulterated with dangerous impurities or too pure. If the government took a protectionist stance rather than a demonisation stance then they could control the purity of drugs available, they could educate people in the dangers and when people do get themselves in trouble they would not be afraid to go and seek help.

Leah Betts, the young girl who died after taking ecstasy one night, died because of the government's demonisation of the drug. If the government had taken a stance where drug education was taught in schools then she would have known that drinking 30 litres of water in a night whilst using a substance which restricts urination would kill her, she died of kidney failure due to over hydration, not ecstasy overdose as was the propaganda at the time.

These two unfortunate souls who died in Scunthorpe are said to have used a cocktail of mephedrone, a synthetic stimulant, alcohol, a depressant, and methedone a synthetic opioid anyone who has any knowledge of drugs at all knows that you should never mix stimulants and depressants it is a one way ticket to the morgue. If only the government stood up to it's responsibilities and taught this to the generation coming through school now.

I don't know if you have noticed but more and more people these days are using drugs, for whatever reason, surely the sensible thing is to make sure that they do it safely? because they are going to do it regardless of the law.

Portugal has decriminalised all recreational drug use and the reports from there are somewhat surprising, if you hold the same kind of viewpoint as yourself Oz, I know I wont change your mind on the subject and similarly you wont change mine but perhaps you might just become a little more understanding.

There is a good article here on the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal.

All this before I have even touched on the side of drugs which will perhaps strike a nerve with you, given your background.

It is said that global terrorists are now investing into the drug trade, Al qaeda in Afghanistan being the obvious example. What would happen if opium was legalised? Afghan farmers would not have to sell their product to Al Qaeda to survive in their war torn land, they would become legitimate farmers selling their product to our government (although there are a few conspiracy theories which name MI6 as black bag traders anyway) who would then control the supply and quality of the product and keep our junkies safe and away from having to rob houses and mug old folks to get their fix. it is also said that the same global terrorist organisations are making in roads into the Columbian cocaine trade and a similar tactic could be employed there. I don't buy into the government's guilt trip that this is the fault of drug users, humankind has used psychoactive substances for recreation since the dawn of time, how else would we know about them now?

The governments of the world have to stand up and admit that they have lost their war on drugs and realise that to protect the people of the world they have to take another look at their tactics, by legalising all drugs and taking strict control over the quality and availability of them then they have it within their power to wipe out a large portion of organised crime's income. They had to do it to take control of the mafia in the US in the 1930s, it will not be long before modern and global prohibition forces a similar tact across the world.

[Guest]

What were they actually doing to cause their deaths? Were they smoking some kind of plant food?

This stuff is not nor has ever been a plant food, calling it "plant feeder" is a way of getting around the MHRA rules on medicines. Mephedrone is a research chemical, another name for a chemical which the government knows little about, calling it plant feeder gives vendors a legitimate reason to sell the chemical as a substance which is marked "not for human consumption" there are literally thousands of chemicals out there ready to be released to replace any which are banned.

The reason these guys died, if the news reports are true, is that they used mephedrone (plant feeder) which is a chemical nearly as potent as ecstasy or cocaine with alcohol and methadone two powerful depressants this caused too much stress on their bodies and they shut down.

I don't know if you remember synthetic cannaboids were banned in December but there are now replacements for the banned "smoking blends" on the market and these are nearly as potent as the banned ones.

[ictchris]

You don't smoke mephedrone, you snort it.

[Snow]

These two unfortunate souls who died in Scunthorpe are said to have used a cocktail of mephedrone, a synthetic stimulant, alcohol, a depressant, and methedone a synthetic opioid anyone who has any knowledge of drugs at all knows that you should never mix stimulants and depressants it is a one way ticket to the morgue.

Well I've learnt something new today cos I never knew that.

My only vice is Guinness. I think I'll just keep it that way. Happy St. Patrick's Day.

[TopSix]

Snorting plant feeder seems a bit daft. If the government doesn't have a full understanding of this chemical best to ban it. Especially after this chemical receiving so much publicity through this story today.

[Guest]

Snorting plant feeder seems a bit daft. If the government doesn't have a full understanding of this chemical best to ban it. Especially after this chemical receiving so much publicity through this story today.

It's not plant feeder, the substance is receiving a lot of publicity but what a lot of newspapers have omitted and what the TV news reports are only giving a slight mention to is that the guys also used a Class A heroin substitute which is more toxic and more addictive than the drug it is designed to substitute.

[Alex MacLeod]

Anyone who has seen the news today will be well aware of the two teenagers who died in Scunthorpe after taking a cocktail of drink and drugs. The media seems to be taking the view that the "legal high" mephedrone is to blame but, amongst newspapers mainly, there seems to be a trend to omit the fact that a class "A" substance, methadone, and a large amount of alcohol was involved.

The issues I'd like to discuss are, do you think that the media are biased in their reporting? and how do you think the country should tackle the legal high industry given that there are thousands of psychoactive substances waiting to be released as soon as the current lot are banned?

Story

Just to correct a misconception Birdie. Mephedrone, as yet, is not an illegal drug though there is moves afoot to make it so. It is also a totally different substance to methadone.

Methadone is not a Class A, B, or C drug. It is a prescription drug, normally used for intense analgesia but also as a substitute for heroin addiction.

One of the big problems within our society is the fact we are unable to find or fund things that will keep the majority of youngsters away from finding their kicks by chemical means. And, as you say, if one substance becomes illegal another will appear. In my younger days it was alcohol. the next generations it was weed. Then there was evo-stick and solvents and magic mushrooms. Now its mephedrone. many of the problems could be resolved if we could give the kids the thrills without the chemicals.

[TopSix]

Great post Alex. Agree 100%.

[Guest]

Anyone who has seen the news today will be well aware of the two teenagers who died in Scunthorpe after taking a cocktail of drink and drugs. The media seems to be taking the view that the "legal high" mephedrone is to blame but, amongst newspapers mainly, there seems to be a trend to omit the fact that a class "A" substance, methadone, and a large amount of alcohol was involved.

The issues I'd like to discuss are, do you think that the media are biased in their reporting? and how do you think the country should tackle the legal high industry given that there are thousands of psychoactive substances waiting to be released as soon as the current lot are banned?

Story

Just to correct a misconception Birdie. Mephedrone, as yet, is not an illegal drug though there is moves afoot to make it so. It is also a totally different substance to methadone.

Methadone is not a Class A, B, or C drug. It is a prescription drug, normally used for intense analgesia but also as a substitute for heroin addiction.

Alex if you would like to check the table below you will see methadone is indeed Class A when possessed without a doctor's prescription. Most prescription only drugs fall into the class C bracket with a few being unclassified (legal to possess but not to supply) however methadone is without a shadow of a doubt Class A. The table also makes interesting reading as to the levels of harm from certain drugs and their classification under the government system, which needs a drastic overhaul.

One of the big problems within our society is the fact we are unable to find or fund things that will keep the majority of youngsters away from finding their kicks by chemical means. And, as you say, if one substance becomes illegal another will appear. In my younger days it was alcohol. the next generations it was weed. Then there was evo-stick and solvents and magic mushrooms. Now its mephedrone. many of the problems could be resolved if we could give the kids the thrills without the chemicals.

Like horse riding which contributes to more deaths per annum than ecstasy use or mountaineering.......

You get the drift.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Revbirdog

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

That table looks like typical government propaganda , cannabis more harmful than ecstasy and solvents !!!!

[Alex MacLeod]

Not sure where your table comes from but under the misuse of drugs act Methadone is not classified.

http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/...e-of-drugs-act/

Having spent a deal of time, a few years ago, on a drugs awareness committee I have learned a great deal on the subject.

[Guest]

That table looks like typical government propaganda , cannabis more harmful than ecstasy and solvents !!!!

It was compiled by that guy who resigned (was forced to resign) over government interference in the work of the independent experts who are employed by said government to give them advice.

I think the fact that in this country cannabis tends to be smoked alongside tobacco, generally speaking, is what increased the score on the table.

[Guest]

Not sure where your table comes from but under the misuse of drugs act Methadone is not classified.

http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/...e-of-drugs-act/

Having spent a deal of time, a few years ago, on a drugs awareness committee I have learned a great deal on the subject.

The governments own Frankie baby tells me a different story.

You should also have looked at the link on the page you posted then scrolled down to page nine, I've learned a great deal on the subject through years of being a psychonaught, nothing illegal for me now though due to the fascist p1ss police.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Revbirdog

[Oz647]

Oz I don't want any heated discussions as you have had to have with other posters here but I would like to debate with you, if you don't mind?

No probs mate, I only have heated arguements with people who I feel won't see any point of view but their own. You are not one of these

You state that you are anti drugs of any kind, I wonder if that is through your military training, if you have taken in the propaganda which generations of governments have handed down. Do you drink coffee or tea? Red Bull? You have already touched upon alcohol and nicotine but do you realise that these are the two recreational drugs which cause the most harm on this planet?

The fish and chips point was made because it is reckoned that obesity is one of the biggest killers of Scots people through developed heart problems and other related issues.

I wouldn't say it was due to my time in the military but it probably helped enforce my views. At some time during my life I have of course taken all the "drugs" you mention here. As I mentioned earlier these will all cause health problems in life and account for lots of deaths and government funding but my point was that you take these knowing you will be fine after. Yes you may suffer health problems later in life but they will not kill you on the spot.

You once touched upon us all speaking Arabic if we never had the forces to protect our freedoms, one of those freedoms being the freedom to drink alcohol, your post sounds a lot like you are in favour of the government having the power to control our lives, the power to dictate which substances they feel we should and should not be allowed to use.

I can asure you that couldn't be further from the truth. The big brother thing is a blot on humanity. Whilst I believe there must be control to a degree, I also believe we should be free to make our own choices in life. This is entirely my point which I obviously didn't put over correctly. Don't blame the government for people overdosing, they didn't make anyone snort this sh1te. The individual made a conscious decision to stick a substance in his/her body knowing full well that it could do him/her harm.

Most people who die from drug misuse do so because they are not aware of what they are doing or because they are using substances which are either adulterated with dangerous impurities or too pure. If the government took a protectionist stance rather than a demonisation stance then they could control the purity of drugs available, they could educate people in the dangers and when people do get themselves in trouble they would not be afraid to go and seek help.

Every single person who takes drugs or not as the case maybe knows the danger of drugs. If I offered you some white powder and said hey this is good stuff, would you not be slightly concerned? Wether the drug is cut correctly or mixed with whatever you still take a massive risk taking it. Your body may not be up to it for a start. You could have underlying health problems which cause a bad reaction to the drug. You make that choice.

Leah Betts, the young girl who died after taking ecstasy one night, died because of the government's demonisation of the drug. If the government had taken a stance where drug education was taught in schools then she would have known that drinking 30 litres of water in a night whilst using a substance which restricts urination would kill her, she died of kidney failure due to over hydration, not ecstasy overdose as was the propaganda at the time.

I agree totally about education in schools. Whilst I am sorry for her and her family, I must point out that if she hadn't taken the tablet she would probably still be alive even if 30 ltrs of water might have made her a tadd poorly. She made the decision, her choice

These two unfortunate souls who died in Scunthorpe are said to have used a cocktail of mephedrone, a synthetic stimulant, alcohol, a depressant, and methedone a synthetic opioid anyone who has any knowledge of drugs at all knows that you should never mix stimulants and depressants it is a one way ticket to the morgue. If only the government stood up to it's responsibilities and taught this to the generation coming through school now.

They are taught to say no. Once again sorry for them and family but according to the news they had alledgedly consumed copius amounts of alcohol. They had also taken mephedrone and methedone. They made the decision to take a cocktail of drugs and it killed them, harsh but fact. If they hadn't taken the drugs they would be alive. One of the fathers said something to the effect of because it was legal he didn't expect to die (not an exact quote but along those lines). I'm sorry but this stuff is advertised as plant feeder (I'm not saying it is just that is what it is advertised as) would you go to B&Q and buy a tub of any other plant food and snort it? If the answer to this is yes you deserve everything you get. It's easy to blame the government for not teaching them to not mix drugs but once again I come back to....They made the choice

I don't know if you have noticed but more and more people these days are using drugs, for whatever reason, surely the sensible thing is to make sure that they do it safely? because they are going to do it regardless of the law.

I'll give you that. But why must they take them?

Portugal has decriminalised all recreational drug use and the reports from there are somewhat surprising, if you hold the same kind of viewpoint as yourself Oz, I know I wont change your mind on the subject and similarly you wont change mine but perhaps you might just become a little more understanding.

There is a good article here on the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal.

I will read it and report back.

All this before I have even touched on the side of drugs which will perhaps strike a nerve with you, given your background.

It is said that global terrorists are now investing into the drug trade, Al qaeda in Afghanistan being the obvious example. What would happen if opium was legalised? Afghan farmers would not have to sell their product to Al Qaeda to survive in their war torn land, they would become legitimate farmers selling their product to our government (although there are a few conspiracy theories which name MI6 as black bag traders anyway) who would then control the supply and quality of the product and keep our junkies safe and away from having to rob houses and mug old folks to get their fix. it is also said that the same global terrorist organisations are making in roads into the Columbian cocaine trade and a similar tactic could be employed there. I don't buy into the government's guilt trip that this is the fault of drug users, humankind has used psychoactive substances for recreation since the dawn of time, how else would we know about them now?

This one could run and run so I'm going for a short option. I don't think legalisation would stop the problems you mention unless it was global legalisation and that will never happen. The only way it would stop junkies robbing would be if it were free on the NHS and that won't happen. If it does then we should campaign for free booze as well (it's my drug of choice)

The governments of the world have to stand up and admit that they have lost their war on drugs and realise that to protect the people of the world they have to take another look at their tactics, by legalising all drugs and taking strict control over the quality and availability of them then they have it within their power to wipe out a large portion of organised crime's income. They had to do it to take control of the mafia in the US in the 1930s, it will not be long before modern and global prohibition forces a similar tact across the world.

Taking control of the quality and quantity will not help. People will always want it cheaper and more of it. If the doctor says you've had your quota for the week you will go elsewhere for more. Also when a junkie is given the choice a certain amount for say ?20 or double that amount for the same ?20 he will always go for the cheaper option even if he knows it might be dodgy.

Finally re the fake fags, this is an extract from the Manchester gov website. There are many more but this will do.

"A tobacco and cigarette survey carried out by officers earlier this year highlights the dangers of counterfeit cigarettes, which have been found on sale across the city. Cigarettes were tested for cadmium, arsenic and lead and although each of these is found in normal cigarettes the laboratory tests have shown that the counterfeit cigarettes contained excessive amounts - 5 times more cadmium, 3 times more arsenic and 7 times more lead.

Cadmium is extremely toxic to humans affecting the kidneys and the lungs. Arsenic is also highly toxic and is a proven carcinogen in the lung and skin if inhaled or ingested. Exposure to lead can also be dangerous and chronic lead poisoning is associated with kidney damage and can affect the unborn child."

Wow, thank f**k for that. Whilst I'm sure some will disagree with my views and some will agree, they are just that, my views. I have the right to hold them just as you have the right to yours. If you do not agree with them please by all means post but please don't start anything as I'm all typed out.

There have been many posts since I have written this (took a while). If any point in my post is duplicating anybody elese or causing offence to any poster. Sorry

[Guest]

Excellent post Oz. Not a lot to take issue with there at all.

[Alex MacLeod]

The committee I was involved in was put together to build a drugs awareness programme for schools.

The first 'expert' on the panel who spoke started of by asking everyone what a drug was. Nobody answered tobacco or alcohol. Two of the most harmful drugs in our society. Basically what the guy was saying is that you cant have a drug awareness campaign if you discount those two. So, if anyone claims to be intolerant to drugs then they have to be intolerant to all drugs and not just the ones they dont intend to use.