[Archived] Drugs

[Flopsy]

The government could use that profit to pay for treatment.

More Draconian measures wont work, they havent in America and they wont here.

Instead they'll just clog up the prisons and make them even more overcrowded.

Im sure your tune would change if your children were found with some pills and were facing 20 years in prison

[Flopsy]

But I agree with you in one respect this debate needs to be held and needs to be held now because the current measures dont work.

[blue phil]

Im sure your tune would change if your children were found with some pills and were facing 20 years in prison

354381[/snapback]

Maybe yours would change if some faceless civil servant started plying your kids (if you have any) with heroin . Still , at least some of the profit they'd make would go trying to get them off it again .......Seems a bit illogical really .

[Flopsy]

I see your avoiding the point that draconian doesnt work

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Rather than threaten them with gaol , let's double or triple the sentences they presently get

The opposite seems to be happening at the moment Phil.

Check out the link below:

Appeal court judge says that Asian drug dealer's jail term is "manifestly excessive".

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime," eh Mr Blair ?

[blue phil]

I see your avoiding the point that draconian doesnt work

354392[/snapback]

Oh ? Do the yanks stick them in solitary and force them to go cold turkey 'til they're clean ? How many drug dealers have they executed ? Your idea of draconian falls within the bounds of the present parties' liberal concensus , Flops - mine doesn't !

[Flopsy]

execute drug dealers? More will take their place - execute drug users and you'll stop the problem im sure

Solitary for all drug users - great idea - are you willing to pay for that? I bet your not.

Also will you pay for the pshyciatric treatment neccessary when they are let out or will you just dump them back on the street and tell them to get on with life.

Will you give them support to get jobs that pay well so that they are then financially secure and wont go back into crime / drugs?

Im guessing you just want to lock them up and throw away the key. Or have everyone shot.

[philipl]

A very high proportion of the smuggling is down to the creation of alternative business flows created by the enormous drugs business. Interesting to read that comment by the US Senator at the end. He'd legalise "soft" drugs but would get voted out of office. I wonder if there will suddenly be found a majority for legalisation when everybody realises it is a wholly decent and reasonable position to take?

[andy82]

....and one more point that I've never had a decent reply from the pro drug debate . How , in this litigious age , will the Government and the suppliers of heroin , crack etc get away with selling drugs that quite clearly are vastly more addictive than alcohol and consequently cause far greater damage to the individuals ? The human rights lawyers would have a field day - especially as the very same gov't (presumably) are trying to ban cigs because they are "dangerous" ....

354379[/snapback]

Jesus christ, unsurprisingly you havent a clue. First of all consider the drugs which are unquestionably far less addictive than those two...Mushrooms, LSD, ecstacy, ghb, ketamine etc etc.

The fact of the matter (look for figures if you don't believe me) is that no drug is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and there are many things in our everyday life that are far more addictive ( Monosodium glutamate, for example). I know you'll find this one even harder to believe, but ecstacy doesnt kill - what kills people is overheating, overhydrating or choking on vomit.

If heroin was legal i very much doubt youd get as many people injecting it, rather they would be smoking opium in themed cafe bars, or at the worst chasing. If the product was pure and the actual act of taking it into your body was socially acceptable, there wouldnt be the need to inject something thats been cut with brick dust, and i doubt it would be long before there would be no 'crap' product from an unreputable backstreet dealer - just as you don't see people brewing crap quality vodka and selling it on the blackmarket. Many drugs can also be ingested in several different ways, and come in the form they are currently known in for smuggling/cutting/weighing purposes rather than because thatys how the end user wants it. Legalised drugs could see cocaine return to coca cola for example - not a lot of chance of ending up looking like Daniella Westbrook then is there? A bit of good hash in some coffee works wonders, and theres no worries about damaging your lungs...

[philipl]

This columnist in The Times is an excellent pointer to where society has arrived at concerning drugs.

Interesting observation about how totally out of touch the hard right of the Daily Mail is with society and the Tory Party.

[blue phil]

Jesus christ, unsurprisingly you havent a clue. First of all consider the drugs which are unquestionably far less addictive than those two...Mushrooms, LSD, ecstacy, ghb, ketamine etc etc. 

The fact of the matter (look for figures if you don't believe me) is that no drug is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco,

If heroin was legal i very much doubt youd get as many people injecting it, rather they would be smoking opium in themed cafe bars, or at the worst chasing. If the product was pure and the actual act of taking it into your body was socially acceptable, there wouldnt be the need to inject something thats been cut with brick dust, and i doubt it would be long before there would be no 'crap' product from an unreputable backstreet dealer - just as you don't see people brewing crap quality vodka and selling it on the blackmarket. Many drugs can also be ingested in several different ways, and come in the form they are currently known in for smuggling/cutting/weighing purposes rather than because thatys how the end user wants it. Legalised drugs could see cocaine return to coca cola for example - not a lot of chance of ending up looking like Daniella Westbrook then is there? A bit of good  hash in some coffee works wonders, and theres no worries about damaging your lungs...

354459[/snapback]

The first paragraph is irrelevant if we're considering the legalisation of all drugs - nobody is disputing that there are differing levels of harmful substances .

The second paragraph (edited) is just plain ridiculous . What would you prefer your kids to take on a night out , a few cigs and a couple of pints of bitter , or heroin and crack - however they are packaged and put into the body ? Making something socially acceptable doen't make it safe - hence your point about alcohol.

Your third paragraph is just plain naive , youthful wishful thinking . Hard drugs are hard drugs however they are packaged and ingested . If they're not having the desired effect then the "consumer" will find some that are - that's what they want FFS . If the Gov't water the package down (call it making drugs purer or safer , whatever ...) they'll turn back to illegal supplies .

As for your point that too much of the present gear is "sub-standard" - full of brick dust as you put it - well , that's not in the pushers interests (even they have to adhere to market principles and keep the customer satisfied ) The implication also there is that somehow if the Gov't gets involved the consumer will be able to take hard drugs , get a sufficient kick out of it as they do at present , but yet suffer no serious long or short term damage . Naive to the point of stupidity ....

There may be an argument to make soft drugs more readily available but no sensible adult who gives a damn for impressionable kids should extend that to the hard stuff simply because the government hasn't the resolve or guts to tackle the present problem . Kids should be educated and protected not have their own Gov't collude into making them drug induced wasters. What next - a bill to encourage binge drinking ......

[Flopsy]

  There may be an argument to make soft drugs more readily available but no sensible adult who gives a damn for impressionable kids should extend that to the hard stuff simply because the government hasn't the resolve or guts to tackle the present problem .

354634[/snapback]

Or have followed advice from people like you to make punishments more and more severe and have ended up in this situation where a huge swathe of society is being criminalised

and there is no end in sight

or we could just kill everyone that would work

[blue phil]

Great post , Flops - well argued ........yawn

[Flopsy]

Ooooo look a stock Blue Phil response when he cant think of a decent reply

[Gareth]

Maybe yours would change if some faceless civil servant started plying your kids (if you have any) with heroin.

354390[/snapback]

It'd be a lot more likely that heroin would only be available on prescription, like it was before the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971.

Many drugs can also be ingested in several different ways, and come in the form they are currently known in for smuggling/cutting/weighing purposes rather than because thatys how the end user wants it.  A bit of good hash in some coffee works wonders, and theres no worries about damaging your lungs...

354459[/snapback]

There's also sticking it in a casserole...

Kids should be educated and protected not have their own Gov't collude into making them drug induced wasters.

354634[/snapback]

Yes, young perople sould be protected, but you have to accept that a fully-grown adult has the right to make their own decisions...

[philipl]

The most ludicrous defence of legalising drugs that I've ever heard . Get rid of one dangerous substance and replace it with a whole variety of far more dangerous substances .....and all with the aim of keeping the revenue coffers full ???  Good grief , Flops , you've excelled yourself 

354375[/snapback]

This was the point I started the thread from.

Approximately 11 million British adults have taken illegal drugs.

6,406 drug-related deaths were recorded between 1997 and 2001 in England and Wales: 369 from cocaine, 145 from ecstasy and 5,188 from opiates. In the same period alcohol killed 25,000 to 200,000 and tobacco was involved in about 500,000 fatalities.

There is no logical reason for banning drugs whilst tobacco and alcohol are legal.

Either ban them all or make them all legal.

[philipl]

....and one more point that I've never had a decent reply from the pro drug debate . How , in this litigious age , will the Government and the suppliers of heroin , crack etc get away with selling drugs that quite clearly are vastly more addictive than alcohol and consequently cause far greater damage to the individuals ? The human rights lawyers would have a field day - especially as the very same gov't (presumably) are trying to ban cigs because they are "dangerous" ....

354379[/snapback]

As you can see from the figures above, tobacco causes far more fatalities proportionately to its adicts than illegal drugs as a category do to those adicted to those products.

I am anti-drugs as much as I am anti-tobacco and anti-drunkenness. You actually raise the strongest point in favour of legalisation.

In a legalised world, the legitimate organisations selling this stuff would have to get product liability insurance. The victims and victims families who suffer loss would presumably have recourse in law to obtain compensation from the legitimate suppliers.

Putting that lot together, the pricing is inevitably going to be a great deal higher (even without taxation) than the cost of an Afghan subsistence farmer tending his poppy crop yet the fact that unadulterated product would be available unlike the junk being peddled now would break the illegal trade.

[colin]

Maybe yours would change if some faceless civil servant started plying your kids (if you have any) with heroin .

354390[/snapback]

Having worked in the civil service for a while I can state without fear of contradiction, that all of my colleagues have actually got faces.

Which is probably a good indication of the nature of your arguement which seems to rely on tired old hackened phrases and a desire to "lock 'em up for good" attitude which has been prevalent for years and has got us absolutely nowhere.

The "addictive and destructive" drug policy needs to take a good look at itself and realise that it is getting nowhere fast.

The criminal elements that supply heroin are in it for the long term because it makes them rich. You can double/treble/quadruple prison sentences. Perhaps even (allah forbid) start chopping off body parts but it won't make the slightest bit of difference.

An approach which no government will look at is to actually purchase heroin from the suppliers and dole it out in controlled measures to the users depending on their need.

It's not really that difficult. If we can invade Afganistan & Iraq, two of the principle suppliers then the rest should be easy.

Mr Smith, you use 2 grams a day. It's cut with either Vim or talc, you share a needle and you carry out 5 burglaries per day. You cost the country millions in crime, stealing DVDs and selling them for £5 to a fence.

Mrs Smith, you help Mr Smith and you go shop-lifting, pickpocketing, and turn tricks for money to fuel your habit. You pass on STD to your punters

Both of you are regular users of the NHS because you are so completely wasted, your kids are in care, you don't know where your next fix is coming from and all that you know is that you will screw anyone anywhere just to get the money for your next jab.

*****************

Mr & Mrs Smith. Here's your 2g of smack, it'll keep you going for the next 24 hours. It's clean, no Vim, no need to commit a crime. Pass your needle back to me when you've done. You can have 1.9g tomorrow and we'll see how you go.

*******************

Naaaah, lock the buggers up. It doesn't do any good trying anything different.

[pg]

Idea.

1) Government legalises all drugs.

2) All drugs are sold through the government, which takes a nice comission (i.e. tax).  But the drug price is still very affordable for your average whino/booze-hound/meth-head/stoner etc.

3) Government keeps records of who does what drugs and what level of dependency/addiction each user has.

4) Government restricts access to public services based on your current level of drug use (i.e. no motor-vehicle license for LSD freaks).

5) Governments spends loads of drug-related revenue on nice parks, schools and hospitals and other public infrastructure.

315845[/snapback]

blue phil - you must have me confused with someone else.

I don't say these things out of 'moral idealism', so that we can all become peace-loving hippies and live in spiritual harmony. Rather, I say them as pragmatist, that the current way of dealing with drugs doesn't really work.

We are conditioned to deal with a small amount of drug crime.  We accept this as the natural way of things.  Yet its bloody ludicrous!

If you walk around the CBD of Melbourne, you'll get asked 'are you chasin'?' every hundred metres or so.  You can see drug deals happen right in front of your eyes. 

Meanwhile parking inspectors walk down the same streets fining people hundreds of dollars if they exceed their metered parking space by five minutes. What does this say?  That the city of Melbourne regards evil car uses as a legitimate source of revenue, yet heroin dealers are to be given free reign?

Almost all 'petty' inner-city crime (muggings, break-ins, assualt) is drug-related.  Melbourne has been subjected to a gang war over the past few years, and it is all related to 'turf wars' over drug dealing and distribution.  Drive by shootings, killings in public restaurants... just like a Scorcese picture.

The current Anglo-Saxon policy on drugs doesn't really do anything.  It doesn't prevent crime.  It doesn't deter drug use.  It doesn't get people off drugs.  It provides no alternative.

You are older and wiser than I, so what can you think of to make things better?

The current policy of 'really doing not much' is being played out in the US.  The result of this to have 'nice neighbourhoods' barricaded and separted from the 'bad 'hoods' with private security firms, whilst everyone is armed to the teeth.  And the US has the largest prison population on the planet.

Prohibition didn't work.

Do we legalise drugs and be 'bleeding heart lefty scum'?

Or do we arrest drug dealers on site and shoot them? 

And lastly, not all drug uses are forced/coerced into it out of fear/desperation/deprevation.  I know many drug users who are intelligent, sophisticated well-off adults.  Yet they choose to write off entire weekends every now and then with whatever they get their hands on (ketamine, GBH, crystal meth, speed and god knows what else).

You and I may find the idea of injesting horse tranquilisers or paint solvents as completely stupid.  Yet for some people, it comes as easy as downing a few pints.

317199[/snapback]

This topic was also reviewed extensively back in the General Election thread. Rather than type out all that again.. I thought I'd just quote it.

I'll just say that personally, I'd be more than happy to instigate a policy whereby any dealer of highly addictive drugs is shot on sight. But I can see that many people would object to this.

[blue phil]

Which is probably a good indication of the nature of your arguement which seems to rely on tired old hackened phrases and a desire to "lock 'em up for good" attitude which has been prevalent for years and has got us absolutely nowhere.

*****************

Mr & Mrs Smith. Here's your 2g of smack, it'll keep you going for the next 24 hours. It's clean, no Vim, no need to commit a crime. Pass your needle back to me when you've done. You can have 1.9g tomorrow and we'll see how you go.

*******************

354776[/snapback]

Since when have our politicians and judges adopted a policy of "locking them up for good " ? Have I missed something in the last few decades ? All I see is a weak system failing to tackle the problem by dishing out ridiculously low sentences to criminals who view the whole legal system with something between amusement and contempt .

My whole point . Col , is that a harsh system has NOT been tried in my lifetime . We've tried the social worker , poor darlings approach - it hasn't worked . Time to start treating criminals as criminals and protecting the law abiding .

***************

Mr and Mrs Smith - Here's your 2g of smack . It'll keep you going for the next 24 hrs . It's just as dangerous and addictive as that which your dealer supplied but we hope you like.....Pass your needle back and come back tomorrow when we'll give you 2.1g if you promise not to cause trouble . Don't worry about the cost ; Mr Tx Payer will pick up the bill . You just carry on lying in the gutter living a totally unproductive and worthless life until you're old and grey and ready for a state pension .....

On second thoughts here a Kilogram of smack - take the lot at once and save us all a lot of hassle ....

[blue phil]

In a legalised world, the legitimate organisations selling this stuff would have to get product liability insurance. The victims and victims families who suffer loss would presumably have recourse in law to obtain compensation from the legitimate suppliers.

Putting that lot together, the pricing is inevitably going to be a great deal higher (even without taxation) than the cost of an Afghan subsistence farmer tending his poppy crop yet the fact that unadulterated product would be available unlike the junk being peddled now would break the illegal trade.

354754[/snapback]

It seems obvious to me that the"hard" type of drugs (if we're still talking about legalising all drugs) are by their very nature addictive and dangerous . Therefore there are always going to be losses - thousands of them . If their families are going to be able to sue the manufacturers then it's not going to be worth their while going into business - and who's going to insure them ? If every smoker had recourse to the law in such a way then the cig industry would be forced underground - back to square one . You simply can't at the end of the day , make a dangerous substance safe .

Next you state that , quite correctly , the price of the drugs would be above that now provided by the illegal barons - by quite a lot no doubt. I'd suggest that these barons wouldn't have too much trouble seeing off the new competition . A semi comotose druggie will always put price above quality control ....

I'm afraid that the only way you could make all drugs legal would be for the Gov't to give them away, to accept that the stuff will kill many and destroy the prospects of still more to have a worthwhile life , and to remove any recourse to the law when the inevitable happens. How anyone can reconcile this with living in a civilised society is beyond me ....

[thenodrog]

In a Newsnight poll last night, 6% of respondents would be more likely to vote for someone who had smoked cannabis at some time in the past!

354162[/snapback]

.........as long as they didn't inhale eh?

[Flopsy]

How anyone can reconcile this with living in a civilised society is beyond me  ....

355003[/snapback]

Where as your civilised society is shooting all drug dealers and locking up in solitary all users?

If your going to do that, can we play them the new Coldplay Albulm and OK Computer for teh whole prison sentence to really punish them please (or is that too harsh )

[colin]

My whole point . Col , is that a harsh system has NOT been tried in my lifetime . We've tried the social worker , poor darlings approach - it hasn't worked . Time to start treating criminals as criminals and protecting the law abiding .

On second thoughts here a Kilogram of smack - take the lot at once and save us all a lot of hassle ....   

354996[/snapback]

Woooh there Phil,

Perhaps a point I have not put across adequately is that most addictive drug users (and by this I mean the really addictive drugs like heroin) don't deliberately start off wanting to be come addicts, and therefore criminals, to feed their habits.

On the other hand you can take your bank-robbers; car-hijackers; post office with a sawn-off shotgun; straight-forward violent thug types..... who do their crimes either for the sheer malicious pleasure or because it makes them money.

If your average drug addict goes a shoplifting it's to get money to feed the drug habit, not to get money for getting rich. Address the addiction and the reason for the crime disappears. Crime drops. The criminal organisation which supplies the drugs is no longer needed.

Locking up the gullible, the weak, the misguided and the foolish for becoming addicted will just fill the jails with the gullible, the weak, the misguided and the foolish. Probably jabbing themselves with more smack cut with Vim.

This country already imprisons more people per head of population than most of the others in Europe. By your own hard-headed standards it isn't working.

Time for a re-think, I think.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

[thenodrog]

Time for a re-think eh? Right. Well never mind the logistics at this point I'd like to point out that we should export all our prisoners to somewhere where it is cheaper to keep em. The worlds poorest countries like Western Sahara, Mongolia etc would all welcome our money and I'm sure with a little help from our army could adequately cope with our jailbirds. That way we could imprison all the truly deserving at reduced cost to the taxpayer and thereby imprison more of the anti- social reprobates (and for the full term of their sentences) that our society has spawned and who treat comfy prison sentences with disdain.