Drug habits

And in California the prescription cannabis service has been an enormous success.

Plus two states voted to legalise it completely for recreational use in November, and it will be in force by 2014.

You started off by saying people listen to the government. Then proved your own point wrong. The only thing that stops people taking drugs is culture, and the only way to change that is to educate people about the harms of drugs. I've met many people who've never touched drugs because they know the problems it causes and don't want the risk. I've never met anyone who chose not to use drugs because it was illegal.

The argument is not about being able to get stronger drugs but taking drugs off the market that contain incredibly dangerous additives. When you buy it from a guy in the street, you have no idea what you're getting. You have to put your life and safety in the hands of some horrible ****** who makes a living destroying people's lives. Regulation hasn't stopped the problem completely but it has massively reduced it (again, during prohibition the quality of alcohol was so poor poisoning doubled) and most people buy non-counterfeit goods.

If new drugs are being brought to the market all the time, how do you propose to make each one illegal in time?

All those combinations you're talking about are mainly used for so called legal highs, which people only take because they want a legal form of cannabis. You can eliminate the problem by making the genuine article legal.

Remember this is not about eliminating the problem completely, we've tried that and it hasn't worked. This is about harm reduction.

 

The bill was quashed a few months ago after mass protest. They're now leaving things as they are.

 

I think the real problem in Britain is that while a large percentage of politicians probably agree a legal controlled environment would be the best tactic, it would be absolute political suicide to support a bill if not passed. The Tory press do a remarkable job at keeping the public uninformed and without them on board the Nimby's and the Not-on-my-Watchers will always win.

 

None of those States have legalised all drugs per se. Drugs aren't legal in Holland, not even Cannabis. But so what anyway?Would you consider lowering taxes, because Switzerland have done it?

Where have I proved my own point wrong in your second paragraph?

Even Countries wher laws have been relaxed drug related deaths (long term) have gone up. You can't make them illegal in time to stop them getting on the streets. But it would be a quicker process than testing them and being declared legal. What is your point?

How do you know it hasn't worked. If drugs had been legalised, the situation may be even worse. Your making assumptions that you can't back up!

 

Which is, they are illegal.

But they have tried to cut down on the tourist drug trade.

 

They are controlled there ZZ, No one is suggesting a lawless society except you.

 

zz you're making a lot of clearly false statements now and arguing from a point of ignorance. Your last argument has proven that to me.

Cannabis is technically illegal in the Netherlands but distributors can still obtain licences to semi-legally sell the product. I would consider adopting the approach of any nation if it was proven to have worked, as it has with the dutch model.

You proved your point wrong with the MMR situation. People ignored the government, which is exactly what you said they didn't do.

I call shenanigans. Drug related deaths in the Netherlands for one have dropped significantly, and hard drug use, which used to be a major problem, is now much better. You don't need to declare something legal. You only have to declare it illegal. It would be very simple to set up a piece of legislation that would stop new drugs being allowed onto the market till they had been tested.

I know it hasn't worked because the number of drug users has massively increased per-capita, right across the world, since drug laws began to be enforced with the signing of the UN drug agreement. And I mean massively.

Just to take America as an example, in the 1920's there were considered to be around 20,000 estimated cannabis users in the US. That number is now estimated to be around 35 million regular users.

Your point about the Netherlands is once again false. It was the bill to not allow tourists into cannabis cafes that was quashed.

 

Await reply justifying his remark ... ZZ twists everything to suit his stupid statements. The Lib-Dems tried to get a fair voting system but they didn't get it.

 

Hells Bells Hectic, I am not ignorant, I know quite a lot on the subject. Maybe not as much drug taking experience as you, but plenty from the other side, having had to deal with the effects on families, etc.

The fact that I pointed out the MMR problem, does not prove my point wrong? I said, "the majority" I said, "generally". I said, "not always". So how does my MMR point disprove my point. I repeat my question. Can you actually read? If so, please read my posts before discussing them.

Regarding Holland, give me some facts on how the drug laws were relaxed and how the figures show that drug related deaths have reduced, because of relaxing rules decriminalisation or legalisation, and I'll accept that it has helped there.

Regarding "how it hasn't worked". It is a simple point I am making And I don't understand why you can't grasp the concept. We will both accept that a drug free culture is unnattainable but we need to keep the problems as low as we can. My understanding, just from a politician on tele the other day, is that drug taking is actually going down now. How do you know, for sure, that had legalisation of all drugs been introduced, say 15 years ago, in this country, it wouldn't have made things worse? You can't, for sure, so you are just making an assumption. To use another analogy, it is like the civil rights brigade saying that CCTV hasn't worked because it hasn't eradicated crime. It may have helped drastically, and to say CCTV hasn't worked is making an incorrect assumption.

Your point about American cannabis users is daft as well. I am sure you would find that the number of smokers and drinkers, prescription drug abuse, etc have all gone up as well since the 1920's

Finally, I really am having difficulty believing that you can read. I said that, in Holland, "drugs are illegal". That is correct.
I also said that they recently "tried to cut down on tourist drug trade", and they did, you even said so yourself. So as I was correct on both counts why are you saying it was false? And why is your mate Godfather agreeing with you?

Jeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz!

 

You were right Godfather. Absolutely everything he said was either trying to get out of what he'd previously said, or inane and vacuous.

I think I'm done with this now. I think anyone viewing this thread who isn't ZZ can see I've constructed a reasonable argument, and come to their own conclusions.

I'd like to re-iterate that I don't think taking recreational drugs of any sort is a healthy, sensible decision and I would strongly urge anyone thinking about it to go out there and see the damage it causes.

 

You spend a big long post criticising me and making stupid points. So, I took the time to answer every daft point you've tried to raise, and you run off! Typical!

...and you havn't constructed any sort of reasonable argument. It is a ridiculous argument - and that is why only a handful of Countries have done as you are suggesting.

 

Lots of anecdotal evidence in here, but very few facts with sources to back them up.

A couple of things I found particularly interesting. I will mention, first, that I never smoked or taken any form of drug in my life. I have the occasional alcoholic beverage, but those are few and far between now.

How do they handle similar situations right now? The fact drugs are illegal don't stop people from being able to use them, so you have to assume there are pilots who do so. How are they detected and regulated? Surely the answer can't be that since the drugs are illegal, no one bothers to test for them.

Logically, the situation would be no better or worse than it is today; either the monitors are already in place, in which case no problem, or they're not, in which case some pilots almost assuredly fly under the influence of illicit substances.

Alcohol is legal, but that fact doesn't make it OK to be drunk on the job.

How does this compare to, say, a drunk who comes into work? Better or worse? More mistakes or fewer?

Of course, people shouldn't be coming into work intoxicated, period...but I don't think a pothead is more likely to make a mistake than a drunk. Probably less so, in my experience; potheads don't tend to suffer from an inability to perceive the world around them, unlike drunks, who are incapable of even the most basic of tasks.

I often hear this objection to nationalised health care over here: "I don't want to pick up the costs".

The reality is that you're already paying for this healthcare, as are the US population. Hospitals over here are obliged to provide ER attention to injured/needy parties, regardless of insurance status. This means that a low income/no income party with no insurance is essentially bad debt that will not be repaid.

Of course, this means the hospital just charges those who DO pay more, to cover the costs of serving those who don't. It's not rocket science, and I doubt it's a shock to anyone. Any business prices services to cover total running costs. If bad debt is high, the paying customers cover it. It's a similar argument to how corporations do not really pay taxes (although I think that argument is somewhat flawed because markets will only pay so much for items. You can't simply raise them as much as you like, people vote with thier feet.).

Similarly, the UK taxpayer already pays for drug (ab)users. Legalising them won't change anything in that regard; the two important factors are:

1. Would legalising drugs increase the frequency of abusers?

2. Would the revenues generated by taxing a new legal sales good offset this?

3. Is this money better off in the hands of legitmate enterprise than criminal gangs, where it essentially funds futher crime?

It's a very knotty equation, and I don't think anyone really knows how to unravel it.

I think that if it could be proven that legalising various drugs would generate equal or more revenue than it costs to treat existing + new abusers, wouldn't cause excess crime, and that it would also kick criminal gangs in the crotch, I would be behind it. If not, I would be wary.

I'm generally uncomfortable with the idea of someone (read: any Government) telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, because "it's bad for you" can't be the only justification. It might be bad for me, but that doesn't justify it being illegal. Shooting someone should be illegal, because you're inflicting harm on someone else against their will. Prohibiting someone from being able top legally smoke a joint, however, it a lot more difficult to justify. I think there needs to be an overriding national interest, and that's never really been proven. Although it hasn't been disproven, either, I feel the burden of proof should be on those who seek to ban. The alternative eventually leaves us with intractable, silly laws that serve no real purpose and cost money (and police time) to enforce.

 

:newsmile59: :sign8: :newsmile59:

Sorry to hijack this, but I have to make a point on this subject. If anyone wishes to debate this I'll set up another Thread.

I hold the belief that the MMR does cause Autism, but under specific circumstances. Why? Because I began exhibiting Autistic symptoms immediately after taking the jab.

When I was 2...? (Will verify with Mum on this) I was given the MMR jab. I was very small for my age and was born 2 months premature. (20th September instead of November...ish) The MMR jab was given as an all in one rather than separately, so that I think was another factor.

I was going to be a part of Dr. Wakefield's research before its research funding was cut, according the archive keeper. AKA: Mum

After 2 weeks-ish I had developed symptoms of Autism and suffered cognitive impairment. An example of this is that before my jab, I was able to recite the alphabet and numbers for 1-10. After these 2 weeks, I was forgetting the 'G', 'S' and '3'. I also started to become a lot more temperamental and, in a technical term, nuts.

Roll forward to when I'm 4, and I was very Autistic. (This was officially diagnosed by this point) I would suffer BIG temper tantrums over nothing. (A Blackpool trip ended in tears around this time because we bought a flat pack train that wasn't flat packed on the display...and no I didn't know that you had to build the train per se...and yes, the staff eventually got the train from the display to Mum after nearly 10 minutes of screaming, howling and kicking) Normally my brother had to physically pin me down to calm me down. On top of this, after one of these tantrums we had to get a new door; I rammed it with my head basically.

Against the professionals advice, Mum got me to go to WFC. This I would say was one of the best decisions she could have made; it got me used to crowds, meet people and enjoy being in a busy, new atmosphere. This aspect was crucial in coping with my Autism and developing my social side...which is still not great! (11-12 years and counting!) So much for the expert's advice, eh?

Roll on year by year, and with help from a personal LS at school I start to improve in school and social life. Today, I'm in an apprenticeship as a CAD Technician, and openly talk about my Autism. I still carry a short-ish fuse, but seldom show it at work.

In summary, I feel that the MMR can cause Autism where it's delivered as one large dose and the child receiving has a low natural body mass, as I found out.

Sorry to hijack this Thread, but had to get this out there.

EDIT - Mods, if you want to move this post somewhere more appropriate feel free.

Another EDIT - This post is on a new Thread - To avoid hijacking this one please post comments on that one; this post has been C'n'P'd.

 

i put my faith in science and personal choice. so horse riding should only be legal when people are fully informed of the risk.

i also think that qualitative and quantitive research is **** compared to people trying to interpret their own experiences in life.

 

For all intents and purposes when a pot-head comes to work on a site he looks normal, behaves normally and actually answers as though he understands what you are talking about .... not often the case with an old Alky still blind drunk from the night before (who I wouldn't employ anyway). I have employed a few beerheads in my time though, they might come in hungover but hard work and fresh air works quickly and they are normally soon up to speed. It's usually about then that the potheads light up the first of their day. Every single detail that you had carefully explained to them just an hour previously gently floats away in a cloud of acrid smoke... Well it did with those two but they didn't last long.

 

Thanks for sharing PJ. Very interesting.

 

I think we all need a splif to calm the ***** down...

Ps. Well done mods' for keeping this one going.

 

Personally, mate, I found this very informative and though it shouldn't HAVE to be put on another thread, maybe you want to start its own thread and give it the platform that it deserves. I love facts, empirical research especially - who could possibly challenge life experiences, eh?

 

Are you talking about someone who has smoked something immediately before work, or the previous night? If it's the former, you should be able to tell (s)he is high very easily. If the latter, it should be well out of the system; as far I remember, a joint should wear off within 2-4 hours (not the same as when it is no longer detectable in your system, of course).

I've knew quite a few pot smokers from back at Uni, and I could always tell when they were high, even as someone who never smoked a joint in his life.

Quite rightly, too.

If they're smoking at work, I'd say the problem is a little more than the pot itself. As an apples to apples comparison, an evening pot smoker will be in much better shape in the morning than an evening binge drinker. That's just a medical fact. Alcohol causes hangovers, and is still in the system in the morning; pot smoking is well out of the system by the morning and has no hangover effect. If you're saying they came into work high, then then the fairer comparison is to someone who went on the beers before going to work. I did that once (on my last day of school), and it was messy. I was wholly unproductive, to say the least.

 

I shouldn't but I'm going to add that as a young man I enjoyed herbal refreshment occasionally on weekends but it was nothing compared to that which is grown today and I mean nothing ... how people can stay on their feet I don't know?

 

Brave of you to share, PJ. A good read!

 

I think it's far less that the stuff has got stronger, but more that the stronger stuff is more readily available. Highest potency hasn't gone up but average potency has.

You just smoke less of it. Back in the day people would smoke a large joint or two to themselves. You wouldn't do that nowadays unless you wanted to get completely laid out. You'd either roll a smaller one or share a large with others.

 

No they were fine until my back was turned but I couldn't babysit them all day, I was the boss, foreman, interpreter and engineer all rolled into one and at that time I had nigh on 30 lads working for me. (I ran it as a co-oprative before someone starts).

 

Lol what I smoked was half the strength of skunk and then superskunk came on the scene with 16x more THC than that ... and that was years ago it is probably double that now, no wonder it causes severe depression.

 

Superskunk's a bit of a myth mate, trust me as someone who's moved in smoking circles. It's talked about a lot by bottom wiping rags like the daily mail, but the fact is, it doesn't really exist. The strongest stuff you can get will certainly mess you up if you're an inexperienced smoker or otherwise vulnerable, but that's always been the case. It's just that the stronger strains have become more readily available in the last ten years but they've certainly always been out there, and lower strength stuff is slightly harder to come by.

 

all they did was drop the super off the name, research the history of THC and you will see why I'm shocked ... it's like all those baby boomers were taking kiddies aspirins compared to horse tablets.

 

What appears absent from this thread so far are those who are perpetually partaking in drink and drugs, not to the point of leisure and being social, or even having a temporary addiction, but beyond this, to the point of being beyond help. I have little or no opinion on drink and drugs, providing that it can be controlled. In principle, I'm no different to the 'real' sufferers; if I have a bad day at work, I'll be avoiding the gym for the night and sneaking off for a quiet drink before home. The underlying issue here, in my scenario, would be the indicators - what triggers individuals to need to have a drink. For me, in this scenario, I was stressed. The underlining issue, however, is control. I went for one drink, then home. I didn't want a second, I didn't need a second. And therefore, I wouldn't label this as being a problem.

I wouldn't want to sound stereotypical, but the main bulk of individuals who I feel are beyond help - and what I mean by this are those who are supported for, have intervention after intervention, but in Martinson's words, 'nothing works' - are those who struggle to keep to any daily routine, have no life stability, poor housing (or are homeless), sofa surfing even, totally unpredictable in behaviour... if I was to stereotype I would say the Big Issue sellers, but actually, most are good people who are wanting to kick the habit (they have to be clean as part of their licence conditions to work and undergo regular risk assessments to determine this or they are eliminated from the bidding process, thus having their licence revoked).

With the ever increasing role of social housing (it attracts a more wide-range of people these days, probably due to the recession), I do wonder who is going to step in and provide this individualistic support? MH and drug/alcohol charities/organisations are running low on funding year on year (one area that Cameron is still trying to instil his notion of the Big Society on - volunteer groups, etc), and it appears social housing organisations are no longer just a housing provider, but actually provide this support too, from a welfare and sustainability perspective that is. You could argue they are starting to fill the gaps that other agencies, including the police - who in my eyes no longer have the monopoly, but more a joint responsibility in a multi-agency setting - are unable to fill themselves, most notable of which is the local authority.

I hope that when Cameron sits back and discusses budgeting in such areas as we've been discussing today, I sincerely hope he doesn't do what he normally does, and neglect areas that don't concern his own constituency. I've always thought he was blinkered - this belief of what doesn't concern his West Oxfordshire residents doesn't concern anyone else outside of his coterminous borders. And in little old Witney, nothing really happens....

 

The thing that separates the recreational from the habitual user is usually genetic. Roughly 10% of the population have an "addictive personality". Many causes for this have been suggested over the years, the current prevailing theory being that faulty dopamine production is to blame. Not enough is produced in everyday life as a reward chemical but too much is produced when the brain is chemically stimulated.

For these people there is no chance of responsible use, and unfortunately, complete abstinence from all chemical stimulants (including alcohol and abusable prescription drugs) is the only course of action that can cause them to lead normal, fulfilled lives

 

Most 'hard drugs' like Methamphetamine or cocaine or heroin offer really nothing but a short bit of kookoo fun and then a (shortened) lifetime of misery with repeated use. How critically and quickly a substance can change the intrinsic you-ness that is you should be a key factor in whether or not people should be free to take it at will. In many ways, people who break themselves on this stuff become wards of the state, whether we want them to or not.

Marijuana makes me depressed, but I enjoyed it for a while before that happened. I could probably handle it in small amounts infrequently, but I don't think it's worth it much after all. As a few have mentioned, it's unregulated and that makes it hard to know how much is enough or too much. I know people get good at figuring it out, but unless yourself or your buddy grew it, who the hell knows what it is and what's gone onto it? All things being equal, I don't think it is any better or worse for you than tobaccky or drink, and that's an important factor in the discussion, don't you think?

 

The issue was raised by an Operating Officer of an airline who who was discussing the fact that there is a regular trickle of pilots who fly planes whilst under the influence. Testing isn't a regular occurrence, as it only happens if there is a reason to suspect drink. He says, and as a layman I tend to agree, that it is easier to sneak on drugs than booze onto a plane to be used during a flight - and then easier to use them once on board. At the moment it is definitely against the Law to even be in possession of hard drugs and so a pilot moving around the airport environment where searching can happen at any time, pilots would bulk at carrying them as mere possession would be an offence. Whereas, if legalised, it wouldn't be an offence and therefore may risk carrying them on board.

I suppose, then once on board, they can't be smelt or seen as booze can, and therefore less likely to cause suspicion. He said that in the early days, Portugal had issues with their pilots after rules were relaxed there.

But, as I said initially, he seemed to think it would be an issue and so I raised it on this thread.

Regarding who pays the cost of looking after addicts, etc.

I am fully aware of the practical issues here and I agree with almost everything you have said.

I am, by nature, someone who wants to be left to do as I please and want others to be left to do the same. This is often a common "thread" to my arguments. I draw the line though, if this freedom detrimentally affects others around them, their family, or the taxpayer. Once that starts to happen then this freedom should be questioned and, if necessary, stopped or taken away.

There is not one obese person who starts eating to get fat or with the attitude, "I know this food is harmful". Everybody needs food to survive and that is why we eat. Obviously, obese people that need medical help should receive the care they need, but in my opinion, they should be making "deals" along the way to try and reduce their consumption, and this often happens in hospitals.

Regarding drink, again, no one starts of saying that they will become an alcoholic and because it is a open and obvious part of culture now, people want to join in and socialise. Many millions of us do socialise and drink without becoming an alcoholic. Sadly, for some, they succumb to the booze for a myriad of reasons.

For me, there is not one benefit in taking hard drugs and therefore no-one should take them. Form the outset, it is abuse of their body and therefore is a different mindset to food and booze. Some people may be able to handle taking them, but I am sure that the % succumbing must be much higher than those that succumb to alcoholism after first drinking a beer. The risk is far too high. Again, of course some will just drift in becoming an addict and I believe they should get all the help they need.

My issue is with people who just say "I am entitled to abuse my body and I fully expect the taxpayer to pay for the damage I am doing to me and to my family, etc,".

There is no answer, but it is the concept that I disagree with. People have to accept responsibility for their own actions.

 

That's a lot of words to say that hard drugs are a bad thing when no one has been defending their use.

 

The bit in bold is not true, sadly.

In some of the group therapy I've been part of for my depression there have been a high number of obese adults.
Some were already overweight before their mental health problems kicked in while some were not.

What was obvious though was how acutely aware each obese person was of the damage they were doing to their bodies (and lifespan) by over eating.

Of course the over eating by them is a self inflicted punishment to reinforce the thought pattern that that person is of no worth, unattractive, just doesn't care anymore or it's the one simple pleasure (eating) that they refuse to give up.

But there are definitely obese adults who know the amount and what type of food they're eating is harmful.

 

I think it's a given that society does not want drugs and it should be a given that targeting the dealers is a major part of the solution but how you go about it is another matter. If you follow the idea that drugs should be state controlled, essentially undercutting the dealer then to a large degree you are supporting their use. Unfortunately here all I can see happening is a that a new market will develop (or rather a large part of the old one), specifically those that have no choice but to stay under the government radar. Dealers pockets will take a big hit but to a large extent it will just cause them to be more aggressive in their marketing, targeting younger kids and more employees in responsible positions (at increased risk).

The other way of tackling them is increased surveillance but at what cost? I commit no crime and have no dirty little secrets but still I feel uncomfortable having my communications trawled through (including those on this messageboard), albeit just by a computer looking for an interesting word or phrase in the hunt for criminals. There can be no doubt that this country is fast becoming a fascist state so are we really happy to have reduced crime at such a cost?

 

I think there can be some doubt about that.

It's like people saying we have a police state. The Guardian ran a splash yesterday about how they'd uncovered a 'secret' database put together by the police and held centrally about 9,000 so-called domestic extremists. How did they uncover this in our awful police state? Did someone infiltrate the Home Office at night with a micro-camera and break into Theresa May's safe? Did they hire a team of hackers to crack a computer cypher?

Nope. Some bloke made a subject access request under the Data Protection Act and then the journo followed it up with a Freedom of Information Act request which told all. Wow. Police state indeed...

 

Short of actual genocide there is nothing the gestapo did that our government(s) can claim to have not done ourselves and with programs like Prism now a reality governments have the real opportunity to undermine our democratic[sic] systems still further and to profit greatly while doing so. Or are we too 'British' to make that possible? ... don't kid yourselves!