[Archived] Drugs

[Flopsy]

how many kids die a year from overdosing on perscription drugs or over the counter drugs?

Or from drinking house hold cleaners etc?

And tougher action and sentences has not worked, does not work and will not work.

[Gareth]

Two-year-old boy becomes the latest tragic victim of the drugs menace

For the 30-year-old man held on suspicion of neglect, I fear that he may get a pathetically low sentence, instead of the judge sending out a strong message to other drug users who are neglecting their kids.

In my view liberal Britain has not been tough enough in recent decades on the junkies and dealers who break the law. If Britain is to have any chance of winning the drugs war in this country, then tougher action and sentences are needed.

Is prohibition really something you support? Isn't that just part of the Nanny State?

[blue phil]

And tougher action and sentences has not worked, does not work and will not work.

Since drugs became a real and widespread menace "tougher action and sentences " have not even been tried ; we've merely gone further and further down the road of leniency and liberalism . Result ? The problem gets worse , standards in society get lower .

I could guarantee you that if the prisons were cleaned up and made drug free , and all prisoners with drug problems were kept in solitary until the poison had left their systems then things would improve . If more prisons are necessary then we should build them - basic cheap and cost productive wooden barracks could be thrown up in no time at all .

Repeat offenders using drugs as an excuse for their crimes should have their sentences doubled (and doubled again ) until such a time that they are either pemanently incarcerated or , preferably , see the error of their ways and stop taking drugs and committing crime .

Obviously such scumbags would need post prison rehabilitation in order that they may take their place in society once again . I'm sure that a frontline posting in Iraq would do the job perfectly ............

[blue phil]

Is prohibition really something you support? Isn't that just part of the Nanny State?

An absurd generalisation ......

[American]

Since drugs became a real and widespread menace "tougher action and sentences " have not even been tried ; we've merely gone further and further down the road of leniency and liberalism . Result ? The problem gets worse , standards in society get lower .

It's been tried here and has failed miserably.

[Presty On Tour]

drugs are bad

[Gareth]

An absurd generalisation ......

Please explain

[blue phil]

It's been tried here and has failed miserably.

Really ?

Do you execute large scale drug dealers over there ?

Or double the sentences every time a drug ridden criminal is convicted ?

Or have solitary confinement for addicts ? In drug free prisons ?

[blue phil]

Please explain

Obviously some things in society have to be subject to "prohibition" . Others don't . It's a matter of opinion .

But to put them all in the same bracket and lump them all in alongside the phrase "nanny state" is just plain daft .

[American]

Really ?

Do you execute large scale drug dealers over there ?

Or double the sentences every time a drug ridden criminal is convicted ?

Or have solitary confinement for addicts ? In drug free prisons ?

We have major penalties for crack possession that are mandatory. We have 3 strikes that give life in prison for a 3rd felony. None of this has ever worked. 3 strikes did get a guy off the streets for the rest of his life for stealing 2 slices of pizza from a kid, though.

[BuckyRover]

Execute drug dealers?

Does that apply to people that work in coffee/chocolate plantations or did you mean to narrow down your definition of "drug"?

[philipl]

Definitely includes purveyors of tobacco and alcohol even if topping the bosses of Nestle and Cadbury's is taking it a bit too far.

Edited March 24, 2008 by philipl

[Flopsy]

evil @#/?s the lot of them

[Gareth]

Obviously some things in society have to be subject to "prohibition" . Others don't . It's a matter of opinion .

But to put them all in the same bracket and lump them all in alongside the phrase "nanny state" is just plain daft .

How do you decide which "things... have to be subject to prohibition"?

The Nanny State label is apt: grass/E/mushrooms/LSD, etc are banned for no apparent reason other than that the politicians don't want us to use them (for our own good of course) and the bans aren't based on any evidence of their need or effectiveness, and seemingly ignoring the consequences of the bans - substances in the control of criminals, violent crimes resulting from a black market in the trade, a complete lack of quality control - while at the same time allowing fags and booze to be freely available.

[blue phil]

Execute drug dealers?

Does that apply to people that work in coffee/chocolate plantations or did you mean to narrow down your definition of "drug"?

It would be a bit tedious to analyse and categorise the term "drug dealers" every time I post .

Read through the thread and you'll get the general idea of the kind I'm referring to .

It may require a bit of concentration on your part ..........

[blue phil]

How do you decide which "things... have to be subject to prohibition"?

The Nanny State label is apt: grass/E/mushrooms/LSD, etc are banned for no apparent reason other than that the politicians don't want us to use them (for our own good of course) and the bans aren't based on any evidence of their need or effectiveness, and seemingly ignoring the consequences of the bans - substances in the control of criminals, violent crimes resulting from a black market in the trade, a complete lack of quality control - while at the same time allowing fags and booze to be freely available.

You seem to be falling back on the illogical argument that because certain harmful substances are already legal then equally and more harmful substances should likewise be made legal . It just doesn't make sense . It would make more sense if the whole bloody lot were made illegal - cultural and historical realities make that impossible .

Oh ....and I like the bit about "quality control " . I'd just love to know how you could subject crack cocaine and heroin to quality control whilst reconciling that to the war currently being waged on the humble ciggy and high strength lager from the "nanny state" .

Do you see quality control as a means of diluting the hardest type of drugs ? If so the druggies would simply go back to the street dealers . If you mean that they should remain "pure" and as addictive as they are at present then you are advocating that the state colludes with killing its own citizens . Nothing more , nothing less .

Like I said the logic of your argument just isn't there .

[philipl]

But the State already colludes in the killing of its own citizens from tobacco and alcohol through roads, medical mal-practise and running the armed forces.

What we are arguing about is not whether drugs are desirable or not but what is the best way for society to police them, limit their use and help the people who use them and want to desist.

Prohibition through criminalisation and harsher penalties is clearly as disastrous an option for controlling substances as it was for controlling alcohol in the States.

[blue phil]

Alcohol is nowhere near as instantly addictive as many of the substances you wish to see legalised - the comparison is foolish . I've already mentioned earlier that 90% of heroin addicts do not work . Unless they are somehow rich to begin with then they are simply a drain on society. Getting them OFF drugs is the desired result ....giving them "quality controlled" drugs merely keeps them dependant on the tax-payer . You could argue (and no doubt will) that schemes should be funded to wean them off drugs . That has never proved to be cost effective and legalising hard drugs just sends out the signal that government has given up even trying . Who could take a government seriously that is in the business of getting people off drugs whilst silmultaneously making them legal ........

I can just about see the argument that mild forms of cannabis could be given the green light (or substances on a par with alcohol ) but the users of that aren't as great a threat to society as the crack and heroin addicts .

As for the argument that the state already colludes in killing its citizens ; well that could be true to a certain extent but is that really a sensible reason for further adding to that list ? It's as daft as saying that we should invade Iran because we've already invaded their neighbour Iraq ......

[philipl]

There is a simple blockage in your understanding.

Decriminalisation does not equate to "giving up" on controlling hard drugs. If you ever see TV ads for any alcoholic drink in the USA you can immediately see and hear that decriminalisation of alcohol did not go hand in hand with abandonning measures to discourage inappropriate use.

[neekoy]

I say "off with their heads"

I am with Phil, execute drug dealers and even if this is not a deterrent for some to become drug dealers, they are off our streets.

This kind of relates back to the capital punishment thread of yesteryear, punishment is punishment for crime not designed as a deterrent.

It is a deterrent for me, but I have a job, pay taxes and an underlining obligation to do the 'right thing' for society in general.

Edited March 26, 2008 by neekoy

[ABBEY]

panaroma

[blue phil]

There is a simple blockage in your understanding.

Decriminalisation does not equate to "giving up" on controlling hard drugs. If you ever see TV ads for any alcoholic drink in the USA you can immediately see and hear that decriminalisation of alcohol did not go hand in hand with abandonning measures to discourage inappropriate use.

On the contrary ; the blockage in understanding is entirely with those , like yourself , who study the problem in theory only . Tell me the last time you saw kids wandering the streets stoned out of their heads . When drug use and the accompanying chaos it causes in society begins to plague the streets of Valetta I'll start to take you seriously .

Consider the practicalities of legalising ALL drugs - perhaps you could address the following points you have thus far managed to ignore .

Who pays for the drugs ? If 90% of heroin users for example don't work then I doubt they're going to start simply because of a change of supplier. The tax payer will simply subsidise a lifetime of oblivion for those who decide that is an acceptable way of life for themselves .

Are the drugs to be subject to taxation ? If so then they're going to be more expensive than at present .

At what age will people be able to buy/be given/prescribed hard drugs ? Do you really think that the government should be dishing hard drugs out to kids ? Or do you think kids are going to wait until they're 18 before starting ?

How much success have the government had in curbing alcohol abuse amongst the young ? How much success do you honestly think they would have in discouraging "inappropiate use" amongst substances that are far , far more addictive - and which they themselves have just supplied ?

How will the government even manage to control the supply and distribution routes of heroin for example ? Deal with the Taliban ? The war lords in Pakistan ? It would take an army to do so with any success ; our own army collaborating in the drug trade with the intent to poison our own kids .

If you suggest that heroin "substitutes" be used do you really think the punters will go through all the trouble of registering and going on schemes and sitting having talks with well meaning social workers ? They'll simply take what's on offer , sleep through the sermons and carry on making the lives of honest people a misery .

To counter all that , I'm afraid the only arguments you've put forward is that the government

should start a few anti drug schemes alongside some propoganda slogans . All the evidence shows this hasn't worked with drink let alone drugs ! If legalised alcohol causes our town centres to be no go zones at weekends then it's absolute madness to suggest we can curb that whilst legalising crack and heroin !

Your argument that the government already indulges in shady practices with regard to alcohol and so might as well apply them to drugs needs no further discrediting - it's just plain barmy and has not the trace of any logic to support it.

No offence , Philip , but I fear your views are stuck in the past when the drug trade was largely confined to the relatively harmless stuff . Time has moved on and now it's not just a few students fighting the system by having a spliff ; whole communities have been blighted by crack and heroin and the scum who supply it . It's immoral to do anything other than criminalising anyone involved in the trade .

[American]

Are the drugs to be subject to taxation ? If so then they're going to be more expensive than at present .

That is a simplistic view, that doesn't take into account the extra cost that is paid now because they are illegal. The risks the current suppliers have to take, and their consumers have to pay for, would be gone.

[philipl]

Having just lost another wonderful friend (only aged 50) to tobacco-induced lung cancer I would happily make tobacco a class A drug if we have to have drugs made illegal to keep Blue Phil happy.

I have known plenty of junkies and none of them have died from it.

[blue phil]

It is also simplistic to believe that the new suppliers would simply take over the reigns of distribution without a hitch and would do the job cheaper than , for example , the local Asians in Blackburn with their connections . (Unless the government would produce "substitute" drugs - which I reckon might not get the nod of approval , quality wise , from the "customer" ! )

I believe you Yankies are convinced that the market system always provides cheaper and better goods than any nationalised industry . Why should the drugs trade be any different ?

Also , have you seen the price of ciggies in this country ? Maybe the government should take over the industry and start giving them away or provide them in the NHS - I'm sure that would help the cancer problem .

If they did the same with that other drug , alcohol , I might even register as an addict myself ...