Drug mules

[pap]

The problem with allowing everyone 'personal choice about what they stick in their bodies is fine except for the fact that society ends up having to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong.

 

I don't see it as a drugs v alcohol issue at all, if people want to get off their face they will do. i just think the less available they are the better.

 

That's a problem we're willing to accommodate when it comes to alcohol, which creates far more pieces for society to pick up.

 

How many of those other drugs have quite the transformative power for violence? Possibly cocaine, which is of course, worse if someone is also hammered on beer at the same time.

[pap]

The problem with ecstasy as with any drug is that they lead on to harder and harder stuff. I used to do the clubbing thing and the guys I went with used to end up doing more and more until it was 6, sometimes 12 a night. Then it was horse traquilizers and allsorts of other sh!t, plus the usual weed to chill out with afterwards.

 

If we make taking a pill as normal as having a pint then this will inevitably happen more and more, to younger and younger people.

 

I think most people who have ever partaken recognise the night out you're describing. A group of like minded friends staying up as late as chemically possible. The E/K/Spliff combo was quite the rage on the south London hard house scene in the early 2000s. I ran with crowds like that myself, and we're all still here, most of us now quite happy to be homebodies in our middle age.

 

There's a good point in there about not letting mob mentality fuel your choices. A "drug buddy" is probs the worst thing you can have if you fancy knocking it on the head. The potential for unwarranted mutual validation is enormous.

 

EDIT: Wouldn't say ketamine or weed were "harder" than E.

[Viking Warrior]

I see the lawyers for the two drug mules in Peru . Have pleaded. Not guilty to drug trafficking . So does that mean they are changing their story yet again . Whether they had guns pointed at their heads or not they were carrying the drugs . They are guilty as they had opportunities to tell those in authority they were being forced to carry drugs

 

And as for the BBC yet again very shoddy journalism . I was listening to a report on the radio yesterday morning . Some reporter was question an expert on these matters the journo's focus on the worst case scenario for the drug mules . The story the beeb are now reporting is these girls can expect to face upto 16 years in very squalid conditions . . Instead of focussing on a much lower sentence. They could receive

 

 

Oh and drugs do kill look at the young saints fan who died at the weekend from a legal high . Those that supply such drugs deserve to go to prison .

[pap]

Oh and drugs do kill look at the young saints fan who died at the weekend from a legal high . Those that supply such drugs deserve to go to prison.

 

You say that, but alcohol kills and so do the smokes.

 

You're also forgetting about the kids who are killed in criminal turf wars.

[Viking Warrior]

Pap

 

It is easy to distort the facts for what ever angle you wish to portray.

 

Yes alcoho; can kill and I do not mean alcoholics. Look at drink driving. and the amount of people that have been killed by a hit and run driver

what about the boy racers in their suped up cars etc, Look at the number of motorbike riders that get killed on out roads . either through their own stupidity or some stupid idiot in a car. . Oh while this may sound insensitive. My ex wifes brother who riding a motor cycle was killed by an idiot and arrogant car driver. in the late seventies. I can still see his arrogance and smirk on his face when he got a very light sentence for his erratic driving.

[pap]

Pap

 

It is easy to distort the facts for what ever angle you wish to portray.

 

Yes alcoho; can kill and I do not mean alcoholics. Look at drink driving. and the amount of people that have been killed by a hit and run driver

what about the boy racers in their suped up cars etc, Look at the number of motorbike riders that get killed on out roads . either through their own stupidity or some stupid idiot in a car. . Oh while this may sound insensitive. My ex wifes brother who riding a motor cycle was killed by an idiot and arrogant car driver. in the late seventies. I can still see his arrogance and smirk on his face when he got a very light sentence for his erratic driving.

 

Doesn't sound insensitive at all. My sister had her life completely changed by a road traffic accident, so I can appreciate that there are other large dangers out there. Despite the fact that road deaths are still a huge killer in this country, we haven't banned driving. Instead, we've all seen the speed calming measures on residential estates and rat runs. We also had a huge problem with drink driving, yet we didn't ban alcohol - just hammered home the drink driving convictions and had a concerted campaign to change hearts and minds. I'd like to think our streets are safer as a result. All these measures we've taken are a consequence of us facing up to the problems of death and injury on the roads, not pretending it doesn't happen.

[Viking Warrior]

I agree pap . Alcohol does kill . Having minimum prices does not have any impact apart from hitting the sensible drinkers . I do believe that the state and NHS need to be more proactive re those with alcohol addiction . The comments that the various alcohol clinics will only deal with someone with addiction if the voluntarily ask for help . They should be forced to attend detox etc type clinics

[PhilippineSaint]

I agree pap . Alcohol does kill . Having minimum prices does not have any impact apart from hitting the sensible drinkers . I do believe that the state and NHS need to be more proactive re those with alcohol addiction . The comments that the various alcohol clinics will only deal with someone with addiction if the voluntarily ask for help . They should be forced to attend detox etc type clinics

 

You say ask for help I went to the NHS and asked for help regarding alcohol addiction and got given a telephone number that never got answered so I still have my addictions and live in the Philippines as thatis where I can afford them.

[Lord Duckhunter]

People who say booze and cigs cause more damage may well be right, but that's beside the point. If they were a new "invention" then clearly they'd be prohibited, but they're not. Maybe the day will come when fags are, but it'll never happen with booze. Any prohibition will be unenforceable. Not being able to ban existing legal vices does not mean we should allow any others.

[pap]

People who say booze and cigs cause more damage may well be right, but that's beside the point. If they were a new "invention" then clearly they'd be prohibited, but they're not. Maybe the day will come when fags are, but it'll never happen with booze. Any prohibition will be unenforceable. Not being able to ban existing legal vices does not mean we should allow any others.

 

That's not the argument being made at all. If the war is on distribution of illegal substances, then the war has been lost. Putting dealers away achieves nothing. Even if they're unable to conduct operations from inside ( many do ), someone else will fill the gap in the market. The cost of enforcement, particularly on the softer drugs, is basically wasted money. It's an insoluble problem, so why we continue to spend money locking people up when we could be taxing their customers and keeping them safer, I don't know.

 

Isn't there a recession on or something?

[saintfully]

Whilst full legalisation may not be answer, neither is prohibition. Currently many teenagers can source any drug they want in comfortably less than 24 hrs - along with all the risks associated with its illegality. IMHO, maintaining the 'war on drugs' in its current form puts vulnerable members of our society at increased risk.

[Gemmel]

That's not the argument being made at all. If the war is on distribution of illegal substances, then the war has been lost. Putting dealers away achieves nothing. Even if they're unable to conduct operations from inside ( many do ), someone else will fill the gap in the market. The cost of enforcement, particularly on the softer drugs, is basically wasted money. It's an insoluble problem, so why we continue to spend money locking people up when we could be taxing their customers and keeping them safer, I don't know.

 

Isn't there a recession on or something?

 

You might have already guessed pap, but I have a view on most things, but the drug "Debate" leaves me without opinion or stance.

 

I recognize that some seemingly normal people use, enjoy and manage illegal drugs without any issues. The flip side of course, is the trail of destruction it brings to many lives and ultimately how many lives (In many ways) it can take......And that is even before you get into the debate of legalizing it or not.

 

I can see the arguments for legalizing it, but could never tick that box, based on the pitfalls of these drugs being more freely available, but think that we can all see "the war against drugs" isn't one we are winning. Conversely, whilst it remains illegal, it will continue to be driven by crime gangs and barons and the users are often forced into crime to fund their habits and the whole cycle from start to finish impacts society.

 

It seems a question that we have no answer too, yet at the same time, know that our current stance, isn't working.

[hypochondriac]

Whilst full legalisation may not be answer, neither is prohibition. Currently many teenagers can source any drug they want in comfortably less than 24 hrs - along with all the risks associated with its illegality. IMHO, maintaining the 'war on drugs' in its current form puts vulnerable members of our society at increased risk.

 

What teenagers have you been hanging out with?

[saintfully]

What teenagers have you been hanging out with?

 

I regularly have contact with teachers across the south-east of England. If kids want drugs they know who to speak to and how to get them, just like adults do. Not surprisingly, more often than not it's children from difficult backgrounds that find themselves engaging in these kinds of activities and often these kids have greater access. In my experience, the vast majority of folk will end up having access to illegal drugs at some point in their life (and maybe most will have a little dabble?). This tends to be in late teenage/early 20's and from what I've observed, most grow out of it. It seems to me that the present policy does little to help those most vulnerable to this problem.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That's not the argument being made at all. If the war is on distribution of illegal substances, then the war has been lost. Putting dealers away achieves nothing. Even if they're unable to conduct operations from inside ( many do ), someone else will fill the gap in the market. The cost of enforcement, particularly on the softer drugs, is basically wasted money. It's an insoluble problem, so why we continue to spend money locking people up when we could be taxing their customers and keeping them safer, I don't know.

 

Isn't there a recession on or something?

 

What a bizarre post.

 

On this basis you could argue that the entire criminal justice system serves no good purpose because crime has not been eradicated. Why imprison a thief when there will always be another thief ready to take his place eh? No, we persecute crime not because we expect to entirely eradicate it, but rather by enforcing the law we aim to deter criminality, to punish the guilty and avoid a state of lawless anarchy arising. Above all the principle purpose of the criminal justice system is to reduce the scale of the damage done to society from what it might otherwise be.

 

As for our tendency for self harm being a 'insolvable' problem, human nature being what it is you may be right here. But there is a key difference between a problem being a insolvable one, and it being regarded as a uncontainable one.

 

But ultimately society cannot protect everyone from themselves at all times. That obvious truth however does not mean your (highly uncharacteristic I must say) free market or laissez faire approach advocated here would (I feel) be seen as a acceptable policy by the vast majority of reasonable people.

[pap]

What a bizarre post.

 

On this basis you could argue that the entire criminal justice system serves no good purpose because crime has not been eradicated. Why imprison a thief when there will always be another thief ready to take his place eh? No, we persecute crime not because we expect to entirely eradicate it, but rather by enforcing the law we aim to deter criminality, to punish the guilty and avoid a state of lawless anarchy arising. Above all the principle purpose of the criminal justice system is to reduce the scale of the damage done to society from what it might otherwise be.

 

As for our tendency for self harm being a 'insolvable' problem, human nature being what it is you may be right here. But there is a key difference between a problem being a insolvable one, and it being regarded as a uncontainable one.

 

But ultimately society cannot protect everyone from themselves at all times. That obvious truth however does not mean your (highly uncharacteristic I must say) free market or laissez faire approach advocated here would (I feel) be seen as a acceptable policy by the vast majority of reasonable people.

 

There is a massive difference between someone stealing from other people and someone selling (and perhaps producing) an illegal recreational chemical. The former is simply taking from someone. The latter is building a means of production and distribution. I say this with a measure of confidence because the distribution of alcohol and tobacco happens without wholesale accusations of thievery.

 

I'm glad we have a measure of agreement later on. I don't think it's the government's job to police what people put in their bodies, although I would certainly be happy to temper that with effective education. I think the campaigns that show the relatively short-term effects of harder stuff like crack cocaine or crystal meth are staggeringly effective in deterring people from use. That is an example of the right information, however unpleasantly it is used, keeping people from trying the more dangerous stuff out.

 

Other countries have gone for decriminalisation, and it hasn't been a disaster. Critics might point to the recent tightening of drug legislation in the Netherlands, but the Dutch aren't stopping their own people from partaking - they're just tired of being a legal magnet for overseas visitors looking to get off their faces.

 

I honestly think you'd be surprised at the attitude to drugs in the mainstream, Charlie. It's not even a new thing. Generations have experimented, we had a summer of love in the late 60s, a rave revolution in the 90s and pretty consistent use throughout. As I've indicated before, I spend a lot of time in Northern Ireland. A good mate of mine reckons raves, and the ecstasy that was breaking down barriers at the time, facilitated a lot of mutual contact with "the other side" at the various gatherings. No-one gave a f**k "what people were" and got on with the hugging and the dancing. Of course, you'll never see the headline "Club drug solves sectarian issues for an evening", but that's precisely what it did, at least on a very local level.

[hutch]

So, let me get this straight. You solve the alcohol addiction problem by making it harder to get and solve the drug addiction problem by making them easier to get? Riiiiiiiight.

[pap]

So, let me get this straight. You solve the alcohol addiction problem by making it harder to get and solve the drug addiction problem by making them easier to get? Riiiiiiiight.

 

Er, no.

 

Just regulate and tax it all and get on with it. Not really that hard, is it?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

But it is the states business to protect its citizens from harming themselves, as far as practicably possible in this culture anyway. That's why school kids can't legally buy booze, there are speed limits on our Motorways, and the sale of automatic weapons to the general public is prohibited. Long live the 'nanny state' I reckon. But let's say your free market were to become a reality. As you know in a free market the laws of supply and demand state that as the supply of any commodity increases then the price must inevitably come down. So this particular (somewhat Thatcherite) policy of deregulation ensures both a plentiful, and a increasingly cheap, supply of recreational drugs (substances that come within the definition of a poison) is available to all.

 

Oh hooray.

 

But what we need is more/better drug education in this country I hear you say. Well the truth is we have been earnestly teaching our kids about the harm smoking tobacco will certainly do to their bodies for decades now. The (very) mixed success of that policy can be observed outside the gates of any secondary school at going home time. The truth is we may not be a mature enough society to handle the freedoms you advocate I'm sorry to say. For the life of me I can't see why making drugs even more freely available than they already are is going to make this society a better place to live in.

 

.

Edited 21 August, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[pap]

But it is the states business to protect its citizens from harming themselves, as far as practicably possible in this culture anyway. That's why school kids can't legally buy booze, there are speed limits on our Motorways, and the sale of automatic weapons to the general public is prohibited. Long live the 'nanny state' I reckon. But let's say your free market were to become a reality. As you know in a free market the laws of supply and demand state that as the supply of any commodity increases then the price must inevitably come down. So this particular (somewhat Thatcherite) policy of deregulation ensures both a plentiful, and a increasingly cheap, supply of recreational drugs (substances that come within the definition of a poison) is available to all.

 

Oh hooray.

 

But what we need is more/better drug education in this country I hear you say. Well the truth is we have been earnestly teaching our kids about the harm smoking tobacco will certainly do to their bodies for decades now. The (very) mixed success of that policy can be observed outside the gates of any secondary school at going home time. The truth is we may not be a mature enough society to handle the freedoms you advocate I'm sorry to say. For the life of me I can't see why making drugs even more freely available than they already are is going to make this society a better place to live in.

.

 

Numerous reasons. many already provided in this thread. Much lower cost of enforcement, ability to regulate the market and keep it free from contaminants, thereby keeping the public safer. The same sort of scrutiny applied to the long term effects of using a specific substance, much as we have with alcohol and tobacco, rather than the wholly inaccurate "it'll all kill you" rhetoric that's puffed up in the papers. People are at risk of contaminants because of the criminal source of illegal narcotics.

 

I expect people made exactly the same arguments you're making about drug availability against booze in prohibition-era America. Society will fall apart. We need to be saved from ourselves. That piety may have warmed their hearts, but they indirectly fuelled vicious criminal gangs through the colossal miscalculation that we've made with drug policy, that prohibition is what people wanted. If that were true, demand would have fallen away long ago and this conversation wouldn't be happening.

 

I'm not sure there are hard truths to be found here, but there is a reality. There has been enduring demand for narcotics in this country for decades, and the vast majority of that demand hasn't been wretched addicts, physically Jonesing for their next fix. It has been people seeking an alternative to being a beer monster on a Saturday night.

[Viking Warrior]

Philippines You say ask for help I went to the NHS and asked for help regarding alcohol addiction and got given a telephone number that never got answered so I still have my addictions and live in the Philippines as thatis where I can afford them.

 

Sorry to hear your story, That's bloody awful . They are meant to help . I have tried on a few occasions to get help for some employees who were alcoholics . The NHS did not want to know unless the individual approached them . By that time it's to late . Three of the individuals who I tried to get help for are now dead .