Drug habits

I'd like to point out that in the Netherlands, where soft drugs are tolerated, they have one of the lowest use rates in Europe.

Here where it is illegal, we have one of the highest use rates.

Just because it would be legal, doesn't mean we'd see an increase in use.

In fact people would be less harmed as drugs would be cleaner and not cut with harsh additives. Ever heard of heroin users veins collapsing? That's due to the brickdust that it's cut with, not the heroin itself.

 

I'm not suggesting that we, as a policy, restrict healthcare to people that have drug problems. Some people falling into it, maybe following some sort of experimenting, some are using it a some sort of crutch against other issues they have and these people deserve any help they get.

But when I hear apparantly intelligent people, in an unpressurised Forum, calling for legalisation as "they should have the right to abuse their body as much as they like", then that is different. It is total recklesness and selfish and they have a serious lack of understanding just how much addiction is costing this country, in health and social care, crime and the effects of crime, and the social/family breakdown, it is causing.

An absolutely ridiculous point of view.

PS Those that look to Holland as an example of how legalisation can work, should remember that they have a very strict hard drug policy - which is contrary to what some people such as Hectic are advocating.

 

I agree with almost all but there are big differences in our societies which are never accounted for.
Still our current arrangements are absolutely inadequate but once more it will be those unaffected that will be screaming about the 0.1p extra it costs them.

 

See my post above re. smoking

 

They should toughen kids up by not allowing them to have calpol.

 

The amount of lives I've seen destroyed by the bottle is beyond count. Few, very few have ever controlled their drinking - the only effective 'treatment' for many has been total abstinence. Idon't think that's a cure - that's a denial of the problem.

When I was first in Liverpool (late 80's) I became involved and interested in the, now very unfashionable, "Harm Reduction Approach" as at the time the city was flooded with cheap, resonably high quality smack and weed. The consensus at the time was that puff was a gateway to heroin and that educating end users about 'safer' toking would have a massive effect upon the numbers of those ending up as skagheads. Unfortunately, the end results of this approach was never found as due to massive political and media pressure it was killed off.

Now we're in the 21st century and our knowledge of what hash does (or more correctly THC) is a little better. We now know that THC is a very powerful psychoactive compound. I've always wondered (and would love to find out for definite) whether the anecdotal evidence concerning the high rate of habitual cannabis use amongst young British men (one of the world's highest) is linked to the fact that suicide is by far the biggest killer of men under the age of 35 in the UK. A man's brain chemistry doesn't stabilise until around the age of 21 - it would be a very difficult experiment to discover THC's effect on the this and, in turn, male neurological/physcological developnment.

I wish I had a pound for everytime I've mentioned to a teenager why he really should cut down on the spliff (to a couple of times a month) knowing that all I've done is given him the idea that puffing away on this "...natural substance..." is fine and is "...better for him..." than alcohol.

From a societal point of view here's another anecdote: I come from the 'Wood and a couple of pubs in the town were known for their "toleration" of "smoking". I had no problems, ever being near or around them particularly at chucking-out time. When the clampdown came - we were soon back to brawling and areas around these boozers were no-go zones from 10 till way past midnight.

 

Sorry but I find that extremely hard to believe.

If I walked into any hospital ward in the country right now I bet a very low percentage were lying in bed due to drug abuse.

I propose the biggest burden on the NHS is going to be some combination of:

Old age / body ageing
Illness through lack of self care - fitness, weight, obesity, diet, life style, smoking,alcoholism
Long term illness or disease
Accidents

Just because they might not be accounted in the same way the drug overhead is accounted does not mean the don't exist.

 

The NHS isn't just hospital wards. It's ambulances, mental health crisis teams, GPs, community care nurses, pharmaceutical costs, rehab centres, researchers etc etc.

 

I dont think so. Smoking illnesses tend to occur later on in life, and up until then smokers tend to live a less troubled life, in terms of being a burden on the state. My Aunt smoked heavily, got diagnosed with lung cancer and was dead within 6 months. It had little practical effect on her family and friends. The big issue with drugs and drink, is that the detrimental effects start at much younger ages and affects far more people (with regard to friends and family). If the goverment was to go soft on drugs, for example, they could be opening the door to having to support addicts and their families, for potentially 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years.

 

Thats right. A residential drub rehab program will cost £20,000 to £30,000, with no guarantee that those people will not require a second attempt within a few years.

 

Another thing I can vouch for and a mistake I will never make again ...

Just try employing a couple of potheads, not only are they unproductive but it literally costs twice as much to correct their mistakes.

 

The maybe ban them from commenting and delete comments if they act like f***t****? Or is it not worth the effort and risk?

I have no personal experience with elicit substances but am interested as to why people go down that route to see the root causes of it. Peer pressure? Life issues? etc.

 

Well durr yes, obviously.

When you walk into your GPs surgery what percentage of people in the waiting room do you think are in there for drug related problems?

When you see an ambulance driving down the road what percentage of trips do you think are made to specifically attend a drug related incident?

I simply cannot believe, in fact there is no rational line of thought that can say drug related care is the NHS's biggest cost!

It's complete nonsense.

 

That's a very important point. Imagine for example if drugs were legalised and Airlines had drug taking pilots in their employ. There is a simple test for alcohol, but no simple tests for all the possible drugs pilots can take prior to take-off. For pilot, read traindrivers, police, doctors nurses, etc, etc.

It doesn't bear thinking about.

 

There's also the medicinal and research issue. It's very hard to do research on these drugs due to their legal status. It's also very difficult for patients with a legitimate need like cancer or AIDS to get a hold of drugs that will help them, if those drugs are illegal.

Like I said, wish I had more time to get into this properly

 

That's a current Regulatory issue, not an argument for the free for all, that you want.

 

You do raise a good point. Marijuana has been used to relieve symptoms of MS and other illnesses, possible due to the way it affects receptors in the brain. There is some research to back up this theory. I fully endorse a policy of further research into is prescription and controlled use as a medicine.

 

I'm afraid you're over simplifying. If someone has a fit due to an affliction caused by long term drug use and is being ferried to hospital in an ambulance is that a drug-related incident in your eyes? It is in mine.

I have quite a lot of knowledge and experience through work of the real picture of drug use in my local area (and given it is quite rural it's probably worse in the big urban centres) and how it affects the police and NHS. I wouldn't have believed the scale of it myself until I got involved in dealing with it. It is genuinely massive. A lot of it isn't obvious at a general glance as you walk along the street minding your own business but it's there.

That aside, the comment above was that drug users and alcohol abusers and those with mental illness are the biggest burden on the NHS. Not just drugs related stuff.

 

It doesn't although from a purely technological point of view so-called 'drugalysers' are about to come into use in the next 5 years which will provide just such a simple roadside test for the police to use. No more putting your finger on your nose and all that pseudo-science guesswork.

 

There are simple tests for most of them ... and anyway I don't think the argument is valid for positions of public responsibility, non usage would be mandatory. For me it was a pair of brickies that repeatedly forgot a detail on 3 identical floors only to remember it the on the fourth ... when it wasn't actually supposed to be there.

 

...and it's nonsense pedalled about by the anti drug brigade.

The NHS spends about £110 B a year.

About £1 B of that goes on drug related care

About £3 B of that goes on alcohol related care

So what do you think it spends the other £ 106 B on then? Snow cones?

The cost of drug and alcohol care pales into insignificance when compared with the general cost of care of near 60 B people across the UK.

 

Well I'm not an expert on the capabilities of drug analysers, but surely the problem is that there are ways to mask the results and this is why anti drug enforcers in the sporting world find it such a difficult task to keep up.

Also, it is pretty difficult for a pilot to take booze onto a plane and drink it without being noticed, or his breath smelling. Whereas it would be ridiculously simple to sneak on a tablet (or a small powder sachet) or two and take it. Of course, non usage would be mandatory, but that doesn't matter in the case of addiction, and a difficulty in detection. I only mention this aspect of legalisation because I have seen a documentary on this very subject (regarding pilots) in America and it was raised by an airline Operating Officer

 

Here's another one: smoking costs the NHS about £5 B a year. So more than drugs and alcohol abuse combined then.

 

Currently legal proscription drugs, such as morphine, can easily be abused the same way.

Banning everything in tablet form is clearly not an answer

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-196793/Heavy-cost-binge-drinking.html

This is a Mail article reporting on a recent government survey on the costs of alcohol to the UK (at lest £20bn). Of course, it doesn't prove anything but makes your £3bn look at bit low! Where did you get that figure?

I've lost the link, but I was also reading that in 2005 the US governement estinated the cost of drink and illegal drugs was $468bn, obviously on 5 times the population.

 

Police and paramedics respond to more calls where mental health is evident than anything else. First hand knowledge.

 

Interesting statistics

Are there less than 3x as many alcohol users as drug users? If so then I agree, alcohol is a more serious issue.

From a quick search I'm sure more updates figures can be obtained.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/taxsurvey2000.pdf

According to the above report alcohol tax revenue was forecast to be £6.6bn in 2001, taking into account frequent above inflation tax rises I would assume this figure is much higher now. There's no denying abuse causes issues but it more than pays for the financial consequences to the health service.


Ststistics like these can always be massaged to prove whichever point the researcher needs to prove.

 

Not really an argument against legalising though is it? The problem in the states has only manifested itself because previously they could get away with it. Sports is a very much win at all costs environment, flying a passenger jet is not comparable and if it meant an end to your whole career you would not want to fail a mandatory monthly check.

Pilots are intelligent ... athletes can be as thick as the proverbial two planks.

 

Of course, but if it is illegal to buy the drugs, then it isn't going to be as easy to get them, is it?

It makes me laugh, this sort of argument (morphine can be abused). It is like saying, that because HGV's abuse 60 mph speed limit, we should remove the 70mph limit for cars!

 

Those stats are laughable. Absolutely flawed.

Where's the breakdown of the other billions you mentioned?

 

If you think making drugs illegal makes them difficult to get a hold of then you've lost your mind. When I was at secondary school it was far, far easier for me to get illegal drugs than it was for me to get alcohol.

That's not the argument at all. In fact it's more akin to saying that rather than banning people from using cars at all because they cause accidents, let's regulate and control things and let people drive, but with restrictions (speed limits, road laws).

In this example the restrictions would be things like not being able to use drugs in public places, and an age limit on buying them (I think 21 would be best for things like cannabis)

 

Well, I'm not an expert on the airline industry. As I said, I am just going by what someone (an expert) said in the documentary. I'm not sure of your career path, maybe you know about these things and know better than him?

 

I said "isn't going to be as easy to get them", not "difficult". Anyway I'll bow to your superior experinece in buying illegal drugs. But as I have said, you take them if you want, but don't expect me to feel happy about it, unless you declare that you'll pick up the tab for any care social and health costs.

Your car related analogy is totally stupid with no relevance whatsoever.

 

Once again zz completely ignores an argument and carries on regardless

I'll even change it to "if you think making drugs illegal makes them harder to get a hold of then you've lost your mind".

 

Those figures are definitely massaged by the anti smoking lot ... if someone smokes it is seemly always a contributory factor according to Doctors but it is rarely the cause (lung disease excepted of course) but somehow the figures always get lumped in. However smoking definitely saves the government a fortune in unpaid state pension as smoking considerably shortens life expectancy for all smokers including the healthy ones.