Time to end the failed "war on drugs"

[pap]

Once again, drugs policy is under the spotlight. This time, Richard Branson has weighed into the debate with an article in the Telegraph, It's time to end the failed war on drugs.

 

Small quote:-

 

 

Just as prohibition of alcohol failed in the United States in the 1920s, the war on drugs has failed globally. Over the past 50 years, more than $1 trillion has been spent fighting this battle, and all we have to show for it is increased drug use, overflowing jails, billions of pounds and dollars of taxpayers’ money wasted, and thriving crime syndicates. It is time for a new approach.

 

Too many of our leaders worldwide are ignoring policy reforms that could rapidly reduce violence and organised crime, cut down on theft, improve public health and reduce the use of illicit drugs. They are failing to act because the reforms that are needed centre on decriminalising drug use and treating it as a health problem. They are scared to take a stand that might seem “soft”.

 

But exploring ways to decriminalise drugs is anything but soft. It would free up crime-fighting resources to go after violent organised crime, and get more people the help they need to get off drugs. It’s time to get tough on misguided policies and end the war on drugs.

 

 

Personally, I agree with a lot of these sentiments. Seems crazy that we spend so much time and money to essentially say "we don't approve", particularly when the stuff we do officially approve of is, in many cases, much more harmful.

 

Thoughts?

[buctootim]

My thoughts are that Richard Branson got his start in business selling used records and hash at Sussex University market when his girlfriend was a student there.

 

I have no real strong views on the best way forward. Not sure that legalisation would work any better than prohibition, although I understand the arguments for legalising drugs and selling taxed pharmaceutical grade versions of them instead of contaminated street junk. Think its important to distinguish between recreational use of 'soft' drugs and addictive use of crack, crystal meth, heroin and similar nasties.

 

I once spent the afternoon with the director of a large Drug Dependency Unit and asked him what treatment programs worked best for addicts (heroin primarily) and what makes addicts have less chaotic lives. He said two things which shocked me at the time and have stayed in my memory. 1. More of my clients commute to London to jobs in the City than are on benefits. 2 "nothing I do makes any difference. The main triggers for behaviour change are getting pregnant for women and getting older for men" (once most of their veins are shot and they end up injecting their eye balls or some other bizzare location).

Edited 23 January, 2012 by buctootim

[pap]

My thoughts are that Richard Branson got his start in business selling used records and hash at Sussex University market when his girlfriend was a student there.

 

Hehe. So you think that Branson has a "Virgin Weed" on the way?

[buctootim]

Hehe. So you think that Branson has a "Virgin Weed" on the way?

 

Over time its done better than the music industry!

[Verbal]

Over time its done better than the music industry!

 

Over time it's what the music industry is built on.

[Gingeletiss]

Only a drug taker would support the end of 'the war on drugs'. I'd be a lot harder with the sentencing, they have destroyed thousands of lives, and the people who sell them on our streets deserve life. Now then pap, this is just my opinion!

[pap]

And you're entitled to it.

 

My view is that if you drink alcohol, you're a drug taker. If you smoke, you're a drug taker.

 

These things have been proven to be much more dangerous than many of the substances that are currently banned. The most ecstasy-linked deaths we've ever had in one year is 40. The same year, 33,000 people popped their clogs due to alcohol related illness.

 

Time to have a grown up debate about it, I feel.

[saintjay77]

Only a drug taker would support the end of 'the war on drugs'. I'd be a lot harder with the sentencing, they have destroyed thousands of lives, and the people who sell them on our streets deserve life. Now then pap, this is just my opinion!

 

I used to take recreational drugs regularly on nights out. Now completly clean and enjoy nights out without the need for much drink or any drugs.

 

But I would agree with what branson is saying. The amount of money being spent to stop what is impossible to stop is ridiculas. Where as if there was some kind of decriminalisation or a legal alternative it would put the criminals out of business in that area and free up funds to tackle our debt, target the criminals higher up, deal with the criminals lower down better and create more money for the gov by taxing anything they sell legally.

 

It doesnt stop people taking drugs but neither does locking them up. It would stop a hell of a lot selling drugs though which would kill a huge chain in the organised crime.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The difference with this and prohibition is that alcohol was legal before prohibition and was also legal in most other countries of the world.It was therefore thought of as an unjust law by the vast majority of ordinary Americans. Whereas, I suspect most British people would agree with the banning of drugs, and most of the World follow that as well.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that "soft" drugs are no worse than smoking or drinking and that had someone come along and "invented" Ciggies now, they would be banned.That however does not make it right to legalise drug use. The whole "war on drugs" is a load of balls cooked up by politicans to appease the public. There has been no "war". Police turn a blind eye to drug use, dealers receive poxy little sentances and we just go on pretending we're in this "war". We have the situation where we lock people up in a controlled enviorment and they still end up on drugs. If we cant control the use of drugs in prison, how can we say we are taking this seriously.

 

I'm all for looking at other options, but first we need a proper war on drugs. Once we've adopted a zero tolerence to dealers, once we've had proper support networks for addicts, once we've hammered people off their face on a sat night and taken to court all the middle class kids with a bit of blow, then we can look at the results and maybe then say the "war on drugs" has not worked. But at the moment it's a phoney war cooked up by election seeking politicans and the myth is endorsed by hard pressed police chiefs , prison officers, probation service and the justice system, who haven't got the will or the resource to do anything about it.

[pap]

I used to take recreational drugs regularly on nights out. Now completly clean and enjoy nights out without the need for much drink or any drugs.

 

But I would agree with what branson is saying. The amount of money being spent to stop what is impossible to stop is ridiculas. Where as if there was some kind of decriminalisation or a legal alternative it would put the criminals out of business in that area and free up funds to tackle our debt, target the criminals higher up, deal with the criminals lower down better and create more money for the gov by taxing anything they sell legally.

 

It doesnt stop people taking drugs but neither does locking them up. It would stop a hell of a lot selling drugs though which would kill a huge chain in the organised crime.

 

Not to mention the amount of problems that are caused through the supply of substances through the criminal underworld. Many health problems associated with drugs actually stem from the levels of chemical contamination that build up as the product is moved through the chain.

 

Your last point is perhaps the most important. Prohibition has not stopped people taking drugs, nor has it had much effect on their availability. So the situation right now is that we're spending a great deal of money to achieve something essentially impossible, putting public health at risk as part of that process.

[saintjay77]

The difference with this and prohibition is that alcohol was legal before prohibition and was also legal in most other countries of the world.It was therefore thought of as an unjust law by the vast majority of ordinary Americans. Whereas, I suspect most British people would agree with the banning of drugs, and most of the World follow that as well.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that "soft" drugs are no worse than smoking or drinking and that had someone come along and "invented" Ciggies now, they would be banned.That however does not make it right to legalise drug use. The whole "war on drugs" is a load of balls cooked up by politicans to appease the public. There has been no "war". Police turn a blind eye to drug use, dealers receive poxy little sentances and we just go on pretending we're in this "war". We have the situation where we lock people up in a controlled enviorment and they still end up on drugs. If we cant control the use of drugs in prison, how can we say we are taking this seriously.

 

I'm all for looking at other options, but first we need a proper war on drugs. Once we've adopted a zero tolerence to dealers, once we've had proper support networks for addicts, once we've hammered people off their face on a sat night and taken to court all the middle class kids with a bit of blow, then we can look at the results and maybe then say the "war on drugs" has not worked. But at the moment it's a phoney war cooked up by election seeking politicans and the myth is endorsed by hard pressed police chiefs , prison officers, probation service and the justice system, who haven't got the will or the resource to do anything about it.

 

I knew someone who would normally go through around 20 pills in a night, be gutted that he could only get hold of 10 one night, take 2 then get caught for the rest and get a 6 year sentance.

 

I agree that sometimes it seems like a feeble "war" but its not something that is taken lightly. The police and system do try to make examples out of people and take a hard line aproch but there are so many people doing it the system is p**sing into the wind any time it takes action. The pride of the system only happens when customs or police find a massive stash coming into the country or moving round it. Locking up one person for minor or major offences is not something to be proud of as they know that for every 1 there are 100's more that havent been caught or ready to take over. Take their market away from them and what are they going to do then?

 

Legalising may not be the answer and I am not suggesting it is but I would agree that the current method is not working and it might take some drastic turn to make any change whats so ever.

 

Your point about ciggies is correct though, the same goes for alcohol. If that came about now the system would have a fit about this drink that makes people act weird, lose inhibitions, get into fights and cause death and destruction. BANNED! We all know that those examples are on the extreme end of drinking alcohol but the papers wouldnt report about a couple who enjoyed a glass of wine with a meal when there was a drunken fight going on would they?

[saintjay77]

Not to mention the amount of problems that are caused through the supply of substances through the criminal underworld. Many health problems associated with drugs actually stem from the levels of chemical contamination that build up as the product is moved through the chain.

 

Your last point is perhaps the most important. Prohibition has not stopped people taking drugs, nor has it had much effect on their availability. So the situation right now is that we're spending a great deal of money to achieve something essentially impossible, putting public health at risk as part of that process.

 

I think there would be a massive cost involved into creating a relitivly safe legal version of anything but im sure alcohol companies or pharmical companies would gladly take that on the chin if they knew there was a profit to be made. End result would mean we know whats in what ever is being taken and Boots arnt going to be selling one thing while advising you that Heroin or crack would be much better for you.

 

It will never happen but the argument makes sense to me at least. I am happy that my drug taking days are well behind me and even if anything like that became legal I doubt I would go near it. I wont be advising my kids to go out and try anything legal or not either. much more fun things to waste money on these days IMO.

[The Cat]

I pretty much agree with Branson. At the very least pot should be decriminalised purely for the fact that it would mean Police don't have to waste their time on prosecuting people for recrational use.

 

In my opinion there should be some laws allowing people to grow a small amount of cannabis in their own homes. That would stop many people needing to visit dealers and put quite few of them out of business.

 

Mind you if the Government wanted to go further and make themseles a shed load in tax revenue then they could sanction coffee shops in certain cities (London, Bristol, Brighton etc). This would never happen though because it would be a massive vote loser for whichever party introduced it.

 

Certain elements of the media don't help with provoking moral panic over drug issues. The most famous would be the death of Leah Betts who did not die from taking ecstacy, more the fact she was mis-informed and believed you had to drink copious amounts of water when taking the drug. She drank too much, her brain expanded and she died.

[Lighthouse]

I'm all for decriminalising drugs, all of them. Clearly the law is not a deterant for most people. I don't know anyone who has wanted to take drugs, but refused on the basis that they are illegal. I know people who take drugs because they want to and I know know people who don't take drugs because they don't want to. That's it. Obviously an age limit is required, same as alcohol, but I think most adults are capable of making their own decisions. If you legalise drugs you can sell it and tax it. You'd save millions each year in Policing drug crime, and the tax revenues would be enormous.

[pap]

I'm all for decriminalising drugs, all of them. Clearly the law is not a deterant for most people. I don't know anyone who has wanted to take drugs, but refused on the basis that they are illegal. I know people who take drugs because they want to and I know know people who don't take drugs because they don't want to. That's it. Obviously an age limit is required, same as alcohol, but I think most adults are capable of making their own decisions. If you legalise drugs you can sell it and tax it. You'd save millions each year in Policing drug crime, and the tax revenues would be enormous.

 

Sensible response. In terms of balancing the budget, decriminalisation would be a six-pointer.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Only a drug taker would support the end of 'the war on drugs'. I'd be a lot harder with the sentencing, they have destroyed thousands of lives, and the people who sell them on our streets deserve life. Now then pap, this is just my opinion!

 

Presumably you want tougher measures on alochol and ciggies then? both i which you abstain from right?

[Saint Mikey]

Good discussion, and some valid points made.

 

IMO, whilst it seems a 'no-brainer' to introduce laws to legalise or de-criminalise, certainly some drugs. As with most things like this, it's massively complicated and the ramifications are pretty much unknown. There is a massive argument that if you take something like pot, than you will go on to try recreational Class A's and could move you on to Crack and Heroin etc. I know that this is true to a certain extent (certainly taking the step between hash to speed to E's/Coke). However, I think that many many people don't consider crack or heroin in the same league. Everyone knows that this is hardcore stuff.

 

This is just one argument to keep ALL drugs (socially accepted drugs excepted) illegal. The majority of people would point to a society hooked on crack & heroin, as the hoi polloi go on a relentless quest for the better and better buzz. This would never happen, but the argument is there. Take Amsterdam as an example. I'm not sure of all the facts here, but they are now backtracking on their de-criminalisation of marijuana. I don't think that there is any evidence that the road they have taken has reduced any Class A drug addiction (i.e. Crack & Heroin). Having been there myself, I'd like to know what it was like before, if it's an improvement now!!

[pap]

Good discussion, and some valid points made.

 

IMO, whilst it seems a 'no-brainer' to introduce laws to legalise or de-criminalise, certainly some drugs. As with most things like this, it's massively complicated and the ramifications are pretty much unknown. There is a massive argument that if you take something like pot, than you will go on to try recreational Class A's and could move you on to Crack and Heroin etc. I know that this is true to a certain extent (certainly taking the step between hash to speed to E's/Coke). However, I think that many many people don't consider crack or heroin in the same league. Everyone knows that this is hardcore stuff.

 

This is just one argument to keep ALL drugs (socially accepted drugs excepted) illegal. The majority of people would point to a society hooked on crack & heroin, as the hoi polloi go on a relentless quest for the better and better buzz. This would never happen, but the argument is there. Take Amsterdam as an example. I'm not sure of all the facts here, but they are now backtracking on their de-criminalisation of marijuana. I don't think that there is any evidence that the road they have taken has reduced any Class A drug addiction (i.e. Crack & Heroin). Having been there myself, I'd like to know what it was like before, if it's an improvement now!!

 

Good point.

 

The assumption that someone partaking of a "jazz woodbine" is automatically going to start doing crack and heroin is one that people love to trot out. Think you nailed the potential reach of "gateway drugs". Definitely consistent with my experience. I know loads of people who'd happily go out and get spannered at a weekend, but wouldn't even consider involving themselves with hardcore stuff. It's fairly amazing that according to our classification system, MDMA is "as dangerous" as crack cocaine and heroin, yet the figures don't bear it out at all.

[SuperMikey]

I'm all for decriminalising drugs, all of them. Clearly the law is not a deterant for most people. I don't know anyone who has wanted to take drugs, but refused on the basis that they are illegal. I know people who take drugs because they want to and I know know people who don't take drugs because they don't want to. That's it. Obviously an age limit is required, same as alcohol, but I think most adults are capable of making their own decisions. If you legalise drugs you can sell it and tax it. You'd save millions each year in Policing drug crime, and the tax revenues would be enormous.

 

This.

 

Of all the people I know who take drugs (and that's most people I know, in one way or another) not many of them are scared by the possible repurcussions of their actions. I myself smoke cannabis once or twice a week, and I don't ever let it interfere with my working life, my academic life or my social and family life. I've been smoking cannabis for about 2 years, and i've never tried any other drugs. Most of my friends have, and I have nothing against them for that. However, i've just never been tempted by other drugs in that way. I think that shows that someone can be a moderate user of soft drugs and not just a person on the path to harder drug use like everybody is told. I've seen enough of most drugs in common use in this country to see their good side and their bad side (seeing my friend almost comatose after taking ketamine has definitely put me off it!), and I feel that I can make an informed and educated decision about drugs because of this. The nanny culture that we operate under at the moment with regards to drugs helps nobody, and all it does is put money into the hands of criminals.

 

It'd be a very radical step for this government, but I think if they can be controlled properly and regulated, drugs should be legalised.

[dune]

This.

 

Of all the people I know who take drugs (and that's most people I know, in one way or another) not many of them are scared by the possible repurcussions of their actions. I myself smoke cannabis once or twice a week, and I don't ever let it interfere with my working life, my academic life or my social and family life. I've been smoking cannabis for about 2 years, and i've never tried any other drugs.

 

I thought you'd just dropped out of Uni?

[dune]

Personally i'm quite anti drugs as i've seen the effects they have on peoples lives, but it should be an individuals personal choice the same as drinking alcohol. I think the balance is about right at present with the onus of punishing the dealers and not the users. I would not wish to see full legalisation of "soft drugs"such as draw because a) it isn't a soft drug and b) it leads to harder drugs.

[pap]

Personally i'm quite anti drugs as i've seen the effects they have on peoples lives, but it should be an individuals personal choice the same as drinking alcohol. I think the balance is about right at present with the onus of punishing the dealers and not the users. I would not wish to see full legalisation of "soft drugs"such as draw because a) it isn't a soft drug and b) it leads to harder drugs.

 

You kind of are punishing the users, though. Why should someone who wants to smoke dope have to associate with criminals when someone who is going out and getting leathered can do so legally?

[landford.saint]

To put my views into some perspective:-I dont smoke, I do drink, I do take prescibed drugs for a couple of problems due to injuries over the years. I was a police officer for a number of years, been retired for over a decade. I totally agree that the 'war on drugs' has been a waste of time and effort. The money involved and the needs of many will not see the end of it. However there is no such thing as 'soft' drugs. We all have known or met people seriously affected by alcohol and/or gambling. I have seen many people, including friends and aquaintances affected by cannabis. Like all drugs the occassional Saturday night spliff, is one thing but the several times a day, 24/7 is totally different. You do not want to have to deal let alone live with someone suffering the paranoia, anger, mood swings etc. of someone like this. A close friends family member was like this, and their whole house lived in fear of them. The house didn't have an undamaged door. Their mother had a nervous breakdown because of them. Dont give me your rubbish about cannabis being harmless, that is absolute ******s. I agree that one drug use doesn't neccesarrily lead to another.

Yes the 'war on drugs' is a joke. But just because it hasn't worked it doesn't mean you should legalise drugs. The conviction rate for rape is a bout 5%. Going on your logic we should legalise rape. Legalising drugs makes as much sense as legailsing rape.

[dune]

You kind of are punishing the users, though. Why should someone who wants to smoke dope have to associate with criminals when someone who is going out and getting leathered can do so legally?

 

It's not an ideal situation, but legalisation would only lead to to more people smoking draw, and this in turn would lead to more people moving on to harder drugs.

[dune]

However there is no such thing as 'soft' drugs. We all have known or met people seriously affected by alcohol and/or gambling. I have seen many people, including friends and aquaintances affected by cannabis. Like all drugs the occassional Saturday night spliff, is one thing but the several times a day, 24/7 is totally different. You do not want to have to deal let alone live with someone suffering the paranoia, anger, mood swings etc. of someone like this. A close friends family member was like this, and their whole house lived in fear of them. The house didn't have an undamaged door. Their mother had a nervous breakdown because of them. Dont give me your rubbish about cannabis being harmless, that is absolute ******s.

 

This is so true. Those who think it's a soft drug are usually clueless left wing types that smoked the odd spliff at Uni and think they know it all.

[pap]

To put my views into some perspective:-I dont smoke, I do drink, I do take prescibed drugs for a couple of problems due to injuries over the years. I was a police officer for a number of years, been retired for over a decade. I totally agree that the 'war on drugs' has been a waste of time and effort. The money involved and the needs of many will not see the end of it. However there is no such thing as 'soft' drugs. We all have known or met people seriously affected by alcohol and/or gambling. I have seen many people, including friends and aquaintances affected by cannabis. Like all drugs the occassional Saturday night spliff, is one thing but the several times a day, 24/7 is totally different. You do not want to have to deal let alone live with someone suffering the paranoia, anger, mood swings etc. of someone like this. A close friends family member was like this, and their whole house lived in fear of them. The house didn't have an undamaged door. Their mother had a nervous breakdown because of them. Dont give me your rubbish about cannabis being harmless, that is absolute ******s. I agree that one drug use doesn't neccesarrily lead to another.

Yes the 'war on drugs' is a joke. But just because it hasn't worked it doesn't mean you should legalise drugs. The conviction rate for rape is a bout 5%. Going on your logic we should legalise rape. Legalising drugs makes as much sense as legailsing rape.

 

Very good point, but are you perhaps guilty of presenting the exception as the norm?

 

I could definitely tell some stories about people who've had some very bad reactions to drugs. I could tell countless more about people with very bad reactions with alcohol. As a former officer of the law, you will know that the amount of alcohol-related violence is far higher than say, cannabis.

 

Your last point, about legalising drugs making as much sense as legalising rape is astonishingly ill-informed. Are you honestly saying that someone buying an illegal substance for their own use is on a par with raping someone?

[pap]

It's not an ideal situation, but legalisation would only lead to to more people smoking draw, and this in turn would lead to more people moving on to harder drugs.

 

Take a look at the anecdotal accounts of people on here.

 

If there is a link between dope and other drugs, it's not straight to crack-cocaine/heroin.

 

I would argue that alcohol is just as much as a gateway. The amount of people I see in pubs that are "on the beak" ( local slang for snorting coke in the bogs ) is amazing. Same thing with people who try to give up smoking, and end up recommencing the habit when they're on the beers.

[Verbal]

This is so true. Those who think it's a soft drug are usually clueless left wing types that smoked the odd spliff at Uni and think they know it all.

 

Take a chill pill bro.

[Saintandy666]

I think nobody here would actually want people to take drugs like heroin. Heroin ruins lives, and I think everyone, even those who vouch for decriminalisation would state this. It is a irrevocable fact.

 

The question is though, how do make it so that the least amount of harm comes from drug use, both to the individual and the community. The answer, perhaps paradoxically to some is decriminalisation. Drugs are illegal at the moment, yet millions do them every week, some perhaps harmlessly where the only damage done is to themselves, others problematically, and that is what needs to be addressed, problematic drug use.

 

No-one who advocates decriminalisation is going to say it would result in zero drug usage, that just isn't achievable. But what statistics from other countries show is that where a more lenient approach to drugs have been taken, problematic drug use is down and so is hard drug usage, in many cases dramatically.

 

I do not believe that if drugs were decriminalised tomorrow, there would be a rush to go and do drugs such as heroin. How many on here would go try it? People get on to heroin when they are in a dark place, generally a pressurised environment. If it were legal, though obviously not easily obtainable people could seek help and be treated as patients not criminals.

 

Aside from the argument on problematic drug use, we have the crime argument. It's estimated that we, in just Britain spend £6bn on cannabis alone each year. Most of that goes in the pockets of dogey individuals who use it to fund their criminal enterprise with such activities as trafficking. It's no coincidence that prohibition of alcohol in the 20's in the USA led to the rise of people such as Al Capone. To decriminalise drugs, such a cannabis would give those who wish to experiment (as people inevitably always do) a non-pressured way to purchase cannabis which does not contribute to funds which support misery the world over to thousands. (not to mention the fact of no harder drug pushing by dealers). And this doesn't even address the amount of money we spend hunting down illegal cannabis farms each year, which are a scrounge on society and rip communities apart as gangs fight over the lucrative supply lines. To legalise it would be to cut off the demand for these supply lines and would be stop an important source of income to less than savoury people. In short, the criminalisation of drugs is perhaps the greatest financial gift we gave to crime, perhaps ever.

Now on to the health affects. To bring us back to our parallel with 1920's america, it is known that when alcohol was made illegal, not only did people end up drinking more, they ended up drinking harmful moonshine which caused countless side affects not usually associated with alcohol. The same is true for drugs, which dealers to save money cut with other substances to enhance their profit margins... I know of people who have seen what is mixed with drugs in an attempt to do this, and they certainly never wanted to touch them again... in short, it causes extra cost to the country as a whole as more people have bad side affects causing health problems that would have not been present otherwise. This added to by the fact that many 'new drugs', some of the more harmful substances created synthetically are only in existence because of the illegality of drugs.

 

And that does touch on needle sharing which among other problems spreads HIV. Oh, and as a side note, where a more lenient approach has been taken to heroin in trials in the UK, crime has fallen dramatically - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8255418.stm - astounding statistics from that study.

 

This doesn't even address the affects on individuals caught smoking cannabis who end up with it on their record, excluding them from society later in life for a 'crime' that affected no one else.

 

I realise, I'm going on a bit here, but it is something I believe in passionately. We all want the same thing... the least amount of problematic usage of all the drugs going, whether that be Tobacco, Heroin, Cocaine, Cannabis, Ectasy etc and it is clear that the only way to do this is by decriminalising it and allowing use within a regulated, taxed, non-pressurised environment. It is ridiculous though, the current situation, when often as a 16 year old, it is easier to obtain cannabis than alcohol.

 

In the past, the government has been too scared to act on this, ignoring advice from those with much more experience on this subject than you and I. Just look at Professor David Nutt, sacked from the governments own advisory panel for doing his job, looking at the facts and advising on the best course forward.

 

I really don't think we can ignore this much longer, it's coming up to a critical point where action must be taken. Positive action. To not take the brave move now and sail on through the inevitable knee-jerk reaction would be to only sentence the problem to further escalation.

Edited 23 January, 2012 by Saintandy666

[buctootim]

Personally i'm quite anti drugs as i've seen the effects they have on peoples lives, but it should be an individuals personal choice the same as drinking alcohol. I think the balance is about right at present with the onus of punishing the dealers and not the users. I would not wish to see full legalisation of "soft drugs"such as draw because a) it isn't a soft drug and b) it leads to harder drugs.

 

Oh look. Lying twonk of week award..... again.

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/fb_mb.php?m=v&t=45827#51

 

Drugs of the decades by dune on 13:55 - Jan 19 with 546 views

 

 

 

 

90's Pills

00's Snow

10's M-Cat

 

FACTS.

[saintjay77]

To put my views into some perspective:-I dont smoke, I do drink, I do take prescibed drugs for a couple of problems due to injuries over the years. I was a police officer for a number of years, been retired for over a decade. I totally agree that the 'war on drugs' has been a waste of time and effort. The money involved and the needs of many will not see the end of it. However there is no such thing as 'soft' drugs. We all have known or met people seriously affected by alcohol and/or gambling. I have seen many people, including friends and aquaintances affected by cannabis. Like all drugs the occassional Saturday night spliff, is one thing but the several times a day, 24/7 is totally different. You do not want to have to deal let alone live with someone suffering the paranoia, anger, mood swings etc. of someone like this. A close friends family member was like this, and their whole house lived in fear of them. The house didn't have an undamaged door. Their mother had a nervous breakdown because of them. Dont give me your rubbish about cannabis being harmless, that is absolute ******s. I agree that one drug use doesn't neccesarrily lead to another.

Yes the 'war on drugs' is a joke. But just because it hasn't worked it doesn't mean you should legalise drugs. The conviction rate for rape is a bout 5%. Going on your logic we should legalise rape. Legalising drugs makes as much sense as legailsing rape.

 

Slight problem with the drugs that are available right now is there is no controlled testing on the product other than "does it get you smashed?" if it was legalised then there would be vigourous testing and the end product would no doubt be much weaker than what is currently available. mixtures would be made up that reduce certain side effects and in theory the drug would be a whole lot safer than it currently is.

 

What would alcohol be like if it turned up on the black market today? Flavoured white spirits maybe?

 

Like I said before, I am not suggesting it should be legalised but can certainly see the arguement and think its worth a better debate than has gone on before.

 

To put it in the same sentance as rape is a bit odd though. Nothing can be done to rape to make it weaker or controlled and it involves someone not giving their consent. Maybe some of the money being saved from chasing muppets selling weed could also be put towards more police on the street making more possible rape victims safer?

[pap]

Saintandy666 - don't want to quote your post, as it is rather long - but a great assessment of the current and historical situation.

[Saintandy666]

Saintandy666 - don't want to quote your post, as it is rather long - but a great assessment of the current and historical situation.

 

Cheers As I said, it is probably one of the things that I believe in most passionately! The problem in convincing people to the view that decriminalisation will actually cause more problem is that people just immediately think, legal means more availability equals more usage, when this actually isn't the case as other countries who have gone down this route already show!

[pap]

Oh look. Lying twonk of week award..... again.

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/fb_mb.php?m=v&t=45827#51

 

Drugs of the decades by dune on 13:55 - Jan 19 with 546 views

 

 

 

 

90's Pills

00's Snow

10's M-Cat

 

FACTS.

 

Blimey.

 

Can we have dates of use please dune? I'd like to do some cross-referencing of your historical posts

[Saint Mikey]

Cheers As I said, it is probably one of the things that I believe in most passionately! The problem in convincing people to the view that decriminalisation will actually cause more problem is that people just immediately think, legal means more availability equals more usage, when this actually isn't the case as other countries who have gone down this route already show!

 

Who are these countries, and what are the stats? I'm interested to know, as I thought Holland in particular was backtracking (although thinking about it, that maybe more to do with tourism).

[pap]

Cheers As I said, it is probably one of the things that I believe in most passionately! The problem in convincing people to the view that decriminalisation will actually cause more problem is that people just immediately think, legal means more availability equals more usage, when this actually isn't the case as other countries who have gone down this route already show!

 

Yup. They're completely correct if you ignore all the evidence!

 

Anyways, I've often wondered whether the contraband status of drugs makes them more attractive.

 

Pap's somewhat less than mathematical formula:-

 

Desire = people wanting what they don't/cannot have.

 

My relationship with alcohol changed tremendously the moment I turned 18. Dunno if that is a common thing, but it certainly seemed cooler when I wasn't allowed to have it.

Edited 23 January, 2012 by pap

[pap]

Who are these countries, and what are the stats? I'm interested to know, as I thought Holland in particular was backtracking (although thinking about it, that maybe more to do with tourism).

 

Portugal basically decriminalised everything.

[Saint Mikey]

Portugal basically decriminalised everything.

 

Must have been recent? I went to Lisbon in Summer 2009 and loads of shifty mateys were trying to flog 'hash' to tourists - on the quiet and no cafes.

[dune]

Oh look. Lying twonk of week award..... again.

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/fb_mb.php?m=v&t=45827#51

 

Drugs of the decades by dune on 13:55 - Jan 19 with 546 views

 

 

 

 

90's Pills

00's Snow

10's M-Cat

 

FACTS.

 

What have I lied about Timmy?

[dune]

Cheers As I said, it is probably one of the things that I believe in most passionately! The problem in convincing people to the view that decriminalisation will actually cause more problem is that people just immediately think, legal means more availability equals more usage, when this actually isn't the case as other countries who have gone down this route already show!

 

You know nothing about anything Andy. You're just a child.

 

If canabis was legalised more people would smoke it and that would be bad for them and bad for the country.

 

Also more people would move on to stronger drugs.

Edited 23 January, 2012 by dune

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

You know nothing about anything Andy. You're just a child.

 

If canabis was legalised more people would smoke it and that would be bad for them and bad for the country.

 

Also more people would move on to stronger drugs.

 

Can you back this up with evidence please? Thanks.

 

Anyway, I thought you were all for raising money for the exchequer? The legalising and subsequent taxing of certain drugs would no doubt raise billions. Granted you would have to factor in any costs that the NHS might have to burden...but then again, alcohol seems to do alright out of it.

Edited 23 January, 2012 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[dune]

Can you back this up with evidence please? Thanks.

 

I don't need evidence, i've seen it with my own eyes like landford saint.

[dune]

Certain elements of the media don't help with provoking moral panic over drug issues. The most famous would be the death of Leah Betts who did not die from taking ecstacy, more the fact she was mis-informed and believed you had to drink copious amounts of water when taking the drug. She drank too much, her brain expanded and she died.

 

True, but being high on ecstasy made her drink that amount of water. I remember back then knowing not to do this.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I don't need evidence, i've seen it with my own eyes like landford saint.

 

So you've seen with your own eyes something that you are predicting to happen in the future?

[Saintandy666]

You know nothing about anything Andy. You're just a child.

 

If canabis was legalised more people would smoke it and that would be bad for them and bad for the country.

 

Also more people would move on to stronger drugs.

 

Perhaps I don't... but I think I do know about the current state of drug usage in younger people and how easy it is to obtain it despite it being illegal... and also the affects of drugs on people and community. I can also read up on the other stuff to find out the core hard stats. In countries where this route has been taken, like the Netherlands and Portugal, problematic drug usage is down, heroin usage is down, and so is cannabis usage albeit by not as much as harder drugs like heroin... but when you consider the impacts of the two drugs it's more important to get drugs like heroin out than cannabis which in its herbal form is largely harmless in the long term, though of course there is some dispute as to whether it causes psychosis, but studies say mixed things. Also, alcohol and tobacco can cause terrible long term effects if overused, so perhaps we should ban them? Of course not! It'd be a disaster as shown by previous attempts to ban alcohol!

 

So in summary, your points aren't backed up by any evidence. More people haven't smoked it in countries where this has already occurred and less people do harder drugs! My arguments are supported by both national statistics, as well as some anecdotal evidence re: the availability and usage rates... yours is just backed up by anecdotal evidence which by itself makes for a very weak argument when you are trying to state the case for nationwide law.

 

Using the age card is a very poor attack on my arguments by the way.

[The Cat]

You know nothing about anything Andy. You're just a child.

 

If canabis was legalised more people would smoke it and that would be bad for them and bad for the country.

 

Also more people would move on to stronger drugs.

 

Maybe there would be a short term rise in people smoking cannabis, but I really can't see how this would lead onto more people taking harder drugs. Alcohol is a drug and it doesn't mean that once you start drinking it's a straight path to coke and smack, or that you become a full blown alcoholic.

 

For one, if the drug was decriminalised it would mean people wouldn't need to go to a dealer to buy it which (depending on the dealer) would mean they were less likely to come into contact with harder drugs. I know plenty of people that smoke weed, and not many who take harder drugs. And some of those who do class a's don't smoke at all.

[pap]

Can you back this up with evidence please? Thanks.

 

Anyway, I thought you were all for raising money for the exchequer? The legalising and subsequent taxing of certain drugs would no doubt raise billions. Granted you would have to factor in any costs that the NHS might have to burden...but then again, alcohol seems to do alright out of it.

 

A lack of evidence has never stopped Inspector Dune from trying to arrest sensible arguments.

[pap]

True, but being high on ecstasy made her drink that amount of water. I remember back then knowing not to do this.

 

It's poor education.

 

The only thing our government was telling the youth back then was "don't do it - it's evil and illegal".

 

Three causes of ecstasy related death are:-

 

1) Overheating. Body loses ability to regulate own temperature properly.

2) Drowning. Drink too much water because you are hot, and you risk drowning your brain.

3) Reaction to contaminants.

 

The Dutch did something different. They passed legislation so that clubs had to be well ventilated, gave advice on water intake and made testing kits available.

 

Result? We lost 40 people a year due to ecstasy related death. The Dutch have never attributed a death to MDMA itself.

 

We can all adopt a holier than thou attitude, but even some of the older blokes on here could probably regale us with stories about the relative strength of LSD in the '70s. Everyone is young once, and you do stupid things when you're young.

 

I prefer the pragmatic approach of the Dutch. They decided that it was more important to safeguard their kids than say "We don't approve". Pretty much every ecstasy related death in this country would not have happened if we'd have done the same.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I don't need evidence, i've seen it with my own eyes like landford saint.

 

Conjecture then, thrown out.

[View From The Top]

I'm all for decriminalising drugs, all of them. Clearly the law is not a deterant for most people. I don't know anyone who has wanted to take drugs, but refused on the basis that they are illegal. I know people who take drugs because they want to and I know know people who don't take drugs because they don't want to. That's it. Obviously an age limit is required, same as alcohol, but I think most adults are capable of making their own decisions. If you legalise drugs you can sell it and tax it. You'd save millions each year in Policing drug crime, and the tax revenues would be enormous.

 

This is my view too.