Teenagers killed using drugs in Scunthorpe.

[MrsICTFC]

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

On this point in the article - I would like to ask how many people who have small amounts of drugs here are actually jailed?

[Alex MacLeod]

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

On this point in the article - I would like to ask how many people who have small amounts of drugs here are actually jailed?

And I would like to ask how many people, commenting on this thread, have had small amounts of drugs at some point in thier lifetime.

[Guest]

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

On this point in the article - I would like to ask how many people who have small amounts of drugs here are actually jailed?

According to this document the figures for percentages of people in Uk prisons for drug offences (no indication of the amount of drugs possessed) are

Scotland-

Prisoners 7602 with 14.4% jailed for drug offences.

England and Wales

Prisoners 82240 with 15.5% drug offences

NI

Prisoners 1459 and 6.1%

So that equates to 1095 in Scotland, 12747 in England and Wales, 89 in NI

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.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Revbirdog

[Guest]

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

On this point in the article - I would like to ask how many people who have small amounts of drugs here are actually jailed?

And I would like to ask how many people, commenting on this thread, have had small amounts of drugs at some point in thier lifetime.

I would say 100% but if you reworded your post to read "illegal" drugs then I could not begin to guess, at least one anyway.

[MrsICTFC]

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

On this point in the article - I would like to ask how many people who have small amounts of drugs here are actually jailed?

And I would like to ask how many people, commenting on this thread, have had small amounts of drugs at some point in thier lifetime.

I have been spiked once, not sure if that counts.

I have never taken drugs. I drink once in a blue moon.

[MrsICTFC]

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

On this point in the article - I would like to ask how many people who have small amounts of drugs here are actually jailed?

According to this document the figures for percentages of people in Uk prisons for drug offences (no indication of the amount of drugs possessed) are

Scotland-

Prisoners 7602 with 14.4% jailed for drug offences.

England and Wales

Prisoners 82240 with 15.5% drug offences

NI

Prisoners 1459 and 6.1%

So that equates to 1095 in Scotland, 12747 in England and Wales, 89 in NI

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.

I will look at all this later, I have too much work today! x

[Oz647]

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.

[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.

What about cannabis Oz? Cannabis has only ever been attributed directly to one death in this country. Why is horse riding not illegal? Why is mountaineering not illegal? Why is crossing the road not illegal? Each these activities cause more death than smoking cannabis and dropping ecstasy put together yet the government do not feel the need to protect us from those.

EDIT- You can add eating peanuts to that list.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Revbirdog

[Johnboy]

What about cannabis Oz? Cannabis has only ever been attributed directly to one death in this country. Why is horse riding not illegal? Why is mountaineering not illegal? Why is crossing the road not illegal? Each these activities cause more death than smoking cannabis and dropping ecstasy put together yet the government do not feel the need to protect us from those.

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.

[Guest]

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"

[Johnboy]

Always an interesting debate this, Birdog, and you present your case for a rethink on the present laws governing drug/substance use very cogently.

Although I always used to believe anyone should have the right to eat, drink, smoke, snort, sniff, anything they like - so long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone else, nowadays I'm much more inclined to favour the argument presented by Oz on Page 1 of this thread. It's probably an age thing!

Regarding my old avatar and signature, which I adopted when I first joined this site, I wasn't trying to make any kind of a statement with these..... There were many on here who suggested some my early posts gave the impression of a junkie with smoke coming out his ears. I was quite happy to go along with that idea at the time - maybe I just left them in place for too long.

Johnboy,

From The Shadow of Walton Mountain,

Virginia.

[ictchris]

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?

[MrsICTFC]

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?

It's not just harming you though.

What about the people who are exploited to make the drugs, people who are killed as a result etc etc.

[Guest]

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?

It's not just harming you though.

What about the people who are exploited to make the drugs, people who are killed as a result etc etc.

All that is caused by prohibition forcing the production of drugs into the hands of organised crime with the exception of cannabis which is a weed which can easily be grown by anyone thus causing absolutely no harm to anyone but the user.

Prohibition creates crime.

An interesting graph here which compares murder rates in America during the two periods of prohibition (alcohol and the war on drugs) it is easy to see that prohibition during the two periods can be linked to a vast increase in murder.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Revbirdog

[MrsICTFC]

Prohibition creates crime.

Really? :P I'd love to see your stats on that!

[MrsICTFC]

Probably because people were so off their faces that they couldn't kill a fly.

If you look at that graph there is a long time line and I am sure there are many other factors that need to be taken into consideration.

[Guest]

Prohibition creates crime.

Really? :P I'd love to see your stats on that!

Al Capone

Read this

Seriously though if you prohibit something which a significant part of the population use then all you do is create a black market for the prohibited item, depending on how popular and how keen the population are to keep using the item forces the price up the higher the price the more dangerous the criminal that is willing to provide the item. Prohibition does not work if there is a large market.

[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?

It's not just harming you though.

What about the people who are exploited to make the drugs, people who are killed as a result etc etc.

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?

It's not just harming you though.

What about the people who are exploited to make the drugs, people who are killed as a result etc etc.

All that is caused by prohibition forcing the production of drugs into the hands of organised crime with the exception of cannabis which is a weed which can easily be grown by anyone thus causing absolutely no harm to anyone but the user.

Prohibition creates crime.

As birddog says, the illegality of drugs causes the vast majority of problems with them.

[Guest]

Here is another set of statistic relating to American death figures circa 2000.

You will see that the highest cause of death was indeed a drug, tobacco, followed by poor diet and inactivity which kind of backs up the Scottish government's stance on fat tax which so many on these forums seem to be against yet people are so anti drugs :P which come in at third bottom (cannabis being counted separately at zero) alcohol is placed third on the list.

Tobacco 435,000

Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000

Alcohol 85,000

Microbial Agents 75,000

Toxic Agents 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347

Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000

Suicide 30,6223

Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000

Homicide 20,3084

Sexual Behaviors 20,000

All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600

Marijuana 0

I find with these kinds of figures which are mirrored to a degree (firearms would not be so high for a start) in this country that the stance of our government is a bit bewildering, I can understand the public as they have been systematically misled by government for generations however nowadays when so much information is easily accessible it is getting harder to understand the way people blindly follow what their leaders have to say.

[MrsICTFC]

[Guest]

What rubbish. So you are both telling me that as soon as they become legal everything will be OK? People will take less and it will be a better place? Based on stats that are from a different country? Basing it on a chart that shows me that in America from 1975 to now murders have increased and you are telling me that is soley because of the fact they are harder on drugs? So much has happened in America in that time that many other factors can contribute.

I also think this idea that people only take drugs because they are illegal is bollocks. Does no one have a mind of their own anymore.

Are you going to bring any facts to the debate or just opinion? What qualification have you? Just so I know whether your opinion is worth listening to or if you are just another opinionated housewife poisoned by government propaganda.

I was willing to ignore the laughing smiley when you wanted to try to ridicule my statement "Prohibition creates crime" but just to show how out of touch you are I will explain-

If smoking was prohibited tomorrow then me rolling a cigarette would not be committing a crime today, however tomorrow I would be, crime created!

I am sorry but unless you can bring anything substantial to the debate I will not be replying to your nonsense again.

[MrsICTFC]

Well maybe you could bring something substantial into the debate? Anyone could go off grab loads of stats, google is fantastic!! I can't show you stats because there are none to suggest that decriminlisation doesn't work in the UK.

I am not a housewife thanks. Nor do I fall to the government.

I agree that adjustments need to be made however, I do not believe that decriminalisation is the answer. I would rather see more money pushed into research, prevention and treatment.

Edited March 18, 2010 by MrsICTFC

[Guest]

Well maybe you could bring something substantial into the debate? Anyone could go off grab loads of stats, google is fantastic!! I can't show you stats because there are none to suggest that decriminlisation doesn't work in the UK.

I am not a housewife thanks. Nor do I fall to the government. I have seen first hand what drugs can do to people. I could introduce you to a few when I pop round to their house to support them because they cannot manage as a result of their past drug use. Maybe you would like to see one guy who is now in a wheelchair as a result? Who has to be assisted out of bed, to the toilet etc etc. I see people who have been abused or homeless falling into drugs because it's the only thing they have, what benefit does it do them?

I agree that adjustments need to be made however, I do not believe that decriminalisation is the answer. I would rather see more money pushed into research, prevention and treatment.

Removed my post as I think there may well have been a little too much personal info in there, if you missed the reply MrsICTFC then I will PM it to you but hopefully you will have seen that I do have a good knowledge base.

I believe the answer is education, regulation and understanding. There have been years of attempted prevention and years of research but with each generation the amount of users grows, not exactly working is it?

Edited March 18, 2010 by Revbirdog

[Oz647]

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?

[MrsICTFC]

Feel free to PM me x