[Archived] Drugs

[American]

we are paying and for what exactly ?

364406[/snapback]

People to brag about taking tax payer sponsored trips to the World Cup?

[FourLaneBlue]

It would not matter where he came from, be it England/Australia/US, I reckon the Singaporese would hang them, Full stop.

364493[/snapback]

Nope...I'd put money on it being that he was Vietnamese, if he was a white Aussie they wouldn't have hung him. Just the way it is Dave. Similar to Vietnam, Cambodia, China etc. They don't like to hang a white person. No problem hanging their own or another of Asian descent but a whitey...

Edited December 3, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[dave birch]

Nope...I'd put money on it being that he was Vietnamese, if he was a white Aussie they wouldn't have hung him. Just the way it is Dave. Similar to Vietnam, Cambodia, China etc. They don't like to hang a white person. No problem hanging their own or another of Asian descent but a whitey...

364652[/snapback]

Not so sure about that FLB.

Back in the 1980's a couple of Aussie guys, Barlow and Chambers, were executed in Malaysia when caught trying get heroin (I think) into Australia.

[joey_big_nose]

jbn

this govenment is systematically robbing every single one of its workers

the taxes are greater than the current rate of inflation

council tax is nearing another 4% rise for next year with the average wage rise no more thatn 2.4%

car tax is getting more expensive yet the roads are not any better

fuel is rocketing

vat is being added to EVERYTHING

the police/ambulance and fire service all want US to pay an extra 1.2% extra on top of the additions to council tax

get my point ?

we are paying and for what exactly ?

364406[/snapback]

Yes there is a general increase in the tax burden, I agree with that and see your point although personally I am in favour of an increase in taxes provided services improve and social issues (wealth gap, literacy) etc. are tackled effectively with it.

I think we may misuderstand each other. I thought you were making a general statement on the role of government generally, and now see you a referring to the Labour government specifically. I wouldn't agree it is 'robbing the country' exactly but funds don't seem to be used that wisely ot has to be said.

What I was getting at, even if it was proffered erroneously, was that there is an ongoing problem of an increasing amount of people who criticise vehemently without being inclined to get involved in the process of creating solutions. It is very easy to knock things down but much harder to build them up.

One of the saddest things in life for me is the constant unabated negativity. It feels like we are increasingly living in a depressed, self pitying and arrogant country while we have a life style unsurpassed in human history. It seems as if we are slowly damming ourselves with laziness and self importance.

Sorry for being a bit cranky.

[philipl]

Two quite astonishing contributions to the Guardian's request for comments on the Government's approach to drugs:

"The government is serious about reducing problem drug use and its many harms. There is no room for complacency, but the progress being made, particularly on drug treatment, is probably one of the government's best-kept secrets. There is record spending on drug treatment, with a 40% increase next year. The target of doubling numbers in treatment may be met two years ahead of schedule, but much more needs to be done to improve treatment quality and effectiveness.

"The upward trend in drug use has stabilised, with promising signs of falling use among children and young people, particularly for cannabis and some class A drugs. The government has introduced restrictions on bail for drug-related offences, compulsory drug testing on arrest and, should the test be positive, a requirement to undergo an assessment. The aim is to get more offenders, or potential offenders, into treatment. Cannabis reclassification was not a "soft" response, but based on evidence of its relative harm and the strategy to concentrate on even more harmful drugs such as heroin, cocaine and crack. The predicted increase in cannabis use has not happened. Indeed, the reverse has happened.

"Danny Kushlick

Director, Transform

"On page six of the UK updated Drug Strategy 2002 it says: "We will maintain prohibition. . ." In 2003, the prime minister's strategy unit produced a report for the cabinet that showed that, far from tackling drugs, its policy of enforcing the drug laws was actually creating many of our drug problems. As a result of supply-side drug law enforcement, heroin and cocaine are worth more than their weight in gold and, consequently, organised criminals run the market. We have some of the toughest drug laws in Europe, the highest levels of drug use in Europe, the highest per capita prison population in Europe. Nearly a fifth of UK prisoners are drug law offenders, and more than half are there as a result of committing acquisitive crime to support a habit.

"The crime costs associated with prohibition are estimated at £16bn a year. Prohibition creates crime and criminal opportunities, increases public ill-health and drug-related dangers (especially for young people), wastes billions of pounds, contributes to political instability in producer countries, and infringes human rights. We should plan an exit strategy from the global "war on drugs" and replace it with a more effective system of legal control and regulation.

"Edward Garnier

Shadow home affairs minister"

So the British Conservative Party agrees with me!

[blue phil]

Concensus politics , Philip - you , Blair and the new boy Cameron are all as detached as each other from the reality of the danger of drugs and haven't the balls to confront the problem head on , preferring to roll over and accept another lowering of society's standards .

Another thing you've got in common with Blair/Cameron- all ex public school boys protected by money from the problems you pretend to have an answer to . You haven't a clue .

[philipl]

So you would ban tobacco and alcohol as well?

[blue phil]

Too late , they're already legalised and banning them now would be totally impractical. What would you do - make them more readily available in order to curb the problems they cause ?

Just because one or two forms of "abusive" substances are legal is hardly a great argument for legalising them all .

[philipl]

But you obviously would prefer tobacco and alcohol to be illegal in an ideal world judging by that reply.

[Flopsy]

can we ban caffine as well?

Highly addictive and also quite damaging

[philipl]

Ask a philosopher!

[Gareth]

Two quite astonishing contributions to the Guardian's request for comments on the Government's approach to drugs:

"The government is serious about reducing problem drug use and its many harms. There is no room for complacency, but the progress being made, particularly on drug treatment, is probably one of the government's best-kept secrets. There is record spending on drug treatment, with a 40% increase next year. The target of doubling numbers in treatment may be met two years ahead of schedule, but much more needs to be done to improve treatment quality and effectiveness.

"The upward trend in drug use has stabilised, with promising signs of falling use among children and young people, particularly for cannabis and some class A drugs. The government has introduced restrictions on bail for drug-related offences, compulsory drug testing on arrest and, should the test be positive, a requirement to undergo an assessment. The aim is to get more offenders, or potential offenders, into treatment. Cannabis reclassification was not a "soft" response, but based on evidence of its relative harm and the strategy to concentrate on even more harmful drugs such as heroin, cocaine and crack. The predicted increase in cannabis use has not happened. Indeed, the reverse has happened.

"Danny Kushlick

Director, Transform

"On page six of the UK updated Drug Strategy 2002 it says: "We will maintain prohibition. . ." In 2003, the prime minister's strategy unit produced a report for the cabinet that showed that, far from tackling drugs, its policy of enforcing the drug laws was actually creating many of our drug problems. As a result of supply-side drug law enforcement, heroin and cocaine are worth more than their weight in gold and, consequently, organised criminals run the market. We have some of the toughest drug laws in Europe, the highest levels of drug use in Europe, the highest per capita prison population in Europe. Nearly a fifth of UK prisoners are drug law offenders, and more than half are there as a result of committing acquisitive crime to support a habit.

"The crime costs associated with prohibition are estimated at £16bn a year. Prohibition creates crime and criminal opportunities, increases public ill-health and drug-related dangers (especially for young people), wastes billions of pounds, contributes to political instability in producer countries, and infringes human rights. We should plan an exit strategy from the global "war on drugs" and replace it with a more effective system of legal control and regulation.

"Edward Garnier

Shadow home affairs minister"

So the British Conservative Party agrees with me!

368074[/snapback]

Not quite..., you seem to have mis-read the article, as the contributor's names are above their views, i.e. the 1st quote is from DrugScope; the 2nd is from Transform, and the Tory view is the following:

I sit as a part-time judge and most of the people that come in front of me are there, one way or another, because of drugs. Drugs are the single biggest factor behind urban crime. Legalisation is often put forward as a solution, but it is not as simple as that. The people who suffer the consequences of drug abuse would suffer it whether drugs were legal or not. Unless every country in the world legalised drugs, decriminalisation in this country alone would make things worse.

Finding solutions to drug abuse requires more serious action than changing classifications. We need to get to grips with why people turn to drugs. Helplessness, boredom, the breakdown of the family and of communities are all contributory factors. A considered and mature review of our drugs policy should be uppermost in our plans for the future of the Conservative party. If we want a government that really will cut crime and the causes of crime, getting a grip on drug abuse and addiction is absolutely crucial.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Gareth

[Gareth]

Has anyone seen the Wikipedia article on the reasons for and against legalisation?

– it seems the reasons against it are based on “morals” (but whose morals should we base this, or any policy, on?) and fear, e.g.

“If currently illegal drugs are legalized, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [along with drug regulators in other countries] will have to be shut down, meaning that all health and safety restrictions on foods and drugs will be eliminated. Massive epidemics of diseases, overdoses and accidental drug interactions will occur.”

although the response is completely accurate:

* This is a meaningless scare tactic with no basis in reality. Drug legalization does not mean a lack of regulation. Cigarettes come with warnings. Alcoholic beverages are clearly marked with the amount of alcohol. Currently, legal drugs contain a listing of all active and inactive ingredients. There is no legal or moral reason the FDA would have to be shut down.

* Indeed, the FDA should continue to play an important role in the regulation of recreational substances. The government's sole role in protecting the citizenry is to educate and warn. The FDA should ensure purity, dose size, and provide for accurate labelling, indications, and warnings where appropriate. Drugs should be legal for sale only with ingredients, warnings, and purity levels clearly marked.

* It is likely that "legalization" would result in stronger regulation, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms would be expanded to cover these new regulations, since their job is already very similar.

* The Food and Drug Administration regulates legal drugs. The Drug Enforcement Agency, which regulates illegal drugs, would become unnecessary.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Shocking...

[blue phil]

I wonder if the legalisation of all drugs - as some of the half wits on here suggest - would make the above incident more or less likely .

Or whether the incident would be more or less likely if the suppliers of the same drugs were to be strung up as an example to their peers .

Either way it's a shocking indictment that our education system produces such people . Which reminds me .....congratulations to the government for producing record numbers of exam successes this year - for the umpteenth year running

[Flopsy]

just coz you didn't get decent grades

So its gone from locking people away to stringing them up?

Still i agree I hope that women rots - which she will for nine years - I doubt they'll let her out early. I dont think killing her will do any good for society though.

[American]

I wonder if the legalisation of all drugs - as some of the half wits on here suggest - would make the above incident more or less likely .

And you call yourself a libertarian...

[thenodrog]

I dont think killing her will do any good for society though.

Wouldn't do society any harm either. BUT It would undeniably be better all round if she'd OD'd years ago Flopsy......

.........unless of course the unfortunate infant turns out in a zillion zillion to one chance to be the father of some John Connor / Neo character of the future rather than yet another druggie tea leaf / burden on the state etc.

Nah ###### I'll take that chance she'd have been better brown bread years ago.

[blue phil]

And you call yourself a libertarian...

Up to a point , American ; this case doesn't just effect the individual ....unless all drug users were to be sterilised before being dished out drugs , which is a thought.....

Flopsy , try reading my post with a little more care and you'll see that I never advocated killing the girl . (Mind you I didn't NOT advocate it..... )

[Flopsy]

so what does

strung up

mean exactly? Or was it just generalisation on all dealers?

Although stringing up by the thumbs/toes might work as a good deterrent

[blue phil]

Or whether the incident would be more or less likely if the suppliers of the same drugs were to be strung up as an example to their peers .

"Strung up" doesn't really mean anything on its own - talk about selective quoting !!

I tell you what , Flops , I'll do it for you (see above) NB - the all important word , "suppliers"

[Flopsy]

and the leagilsation argument is that if drugs are legal - then people wont be buying off the streets but from controlled retailers.

Also as for selective quoting I learnt it all from you and Theno

[blue phil]

Off the streets or from controlled retailers , what does it matter ? Would anything other than a strictly enforced clampdown on drugs distribution have saved the girls' kid ? I doubt it ....unless of course , the controlled retailers are going to accompany the buyer 24 hours a day and monitor every fix they take .

Anyway I'm glad we seem to have sorted out the "stringing up" business - it would save time , though , if you developed a brain and learned to think before posting

[American]

Phil, I used to agree with you until I realized one thing - What is it that makes alcohol any better? Are you saying we should ban alcohol? Plenty of booze related deaths happen all over the country. If anything, drugs like the wacky tabacky are safer than alcohol and also closer to how they are found in nature.

(And I don't do drugs, I just don't think we should pick and choose what we allow people to do.)

[blue phil]

Alcohol has always been legal in our society - well maybe not yours but you get my drift - but to use this as an argument to legalise drugs that are vastly more addictive and ruinous to people is just plain daft .

I suppose at the end of the day it's all about how healthy a population you want and the govt's role in achieving that aim . Personally I don't agree with too much state interference in peoples' lives but living where I do I see on an almost daily basis what hard drugs can do to those without the education and motivation to walk away from the pushers - (or the shop counters if they were made legal). The story about the girl and her junkie 10 year old kid is no surprise to me - that's what hard drugs reduce people to . It turns what could be normal people into little more than animals .

If the state is going to interfere it should do so by positive measures , not by copping out and helping to dope up its younger citizens just because it lacks the political will to do right by them .