@wrightson I had assumed there was an element/factor for links between the substance and violence/crime in the score. Alcohol would score more highly for that than tobacco as far as I am aware.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Meow Meow
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
The drug harm index assesses all the various harms and associated costs to society.
It combines robust national indicators of the harms generated by illegal drugs into a single-figure time-series index. The harms include drug related crime, community perceptions of drug problems, drug nuisance, and the various health consequences that arise from drug abuse (e.g. HIV, overdoses, deaths etc.). To enable a single index to be constructed, the harms are measured consistently according to their relative cost to individuals and society.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0806.pdf
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr2405.pdfPosted 2 years ago # -
Also there are some drugs that you just should not even 'experiment' with, like Heroin, Crack/Cocaine and the likes
Why not? Armed with the right information, a good (preferably pure) source and a modicum of intelligence I don't see any reason why not. Cocaine is relatively harmless in moderation and if not in combination with alcohol. Heroin is one of the safest drugs out there if taken properly in the right amounts with a pure/uncut supply (they gave it to my missus whilst giving birth so go figure!). Crack I can't comment on but I have friends who've dabbled who are perfectly sane and who haven't become the stereo-typed crack whores you see in the papers.
All of them should be legalised and freely available, with no exceptions other than maybe an age restriction.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Indeed no government would sign up to such a thing, but under even current legislation it would be generally your fault if your product was knowingly killing folk, so problem solved for the government
Which would mean that you wouldn't be able to sell the stuff that people want legalised
Posted 2 years ago # -
Under the let's legailise everything concept, I can sell it, make loads of money, then a year later when everyone's liver's fail, say sorry guv, not my problem, the government said it was fine, it's for them and the NHS to sort out. No sane government would ever sign up to such a general principle.
Well the government is obviously insane then as this is exactly what they're doing with alcohol and cigarettes. Sure it may take more than a year to f*** up your liver/lungs but the principle is no different. You might have a point if you could say with certainty that taking a particular drug will guarantee your death or irreversible injury, but the trouble is that with most (if not all) recreational drugs you can't.
Posted 2 years ago # -
+1 dazh
Publicised deahs from mcat? publicised deaths from alchohol? Did Leah Bets die from ecstasy or from a cocktail of ecstasy and alchohol? How many deaths from asprin paraceetamol, ibuprofin have been splassed all over the tabloids? There is always an agenda behind what we see and read. I think that some people need to open there eyes a little wider. One of the reasons illegal drugs are so lucrative for dealers and potentiall dangerous is because of the illegality of them. If they were properly controlled + taxed by the government they would be alot cheaper and safer. Also alchohol and cigaretts in certain circumstances are by far the most destructive drugs available. Just look at the vast majority of down and outs in you city centre they're drinking cider and smoking fags.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Leah Betts died from ignorance. She took an E on top of alcohol and painkillers, She panicked and she thought water acted as an antidote. She drank so much water she got cerebral oedema from diluting the electrolytes and died from that. E being illegal didn't stop her taking it. If it wasn't illegal she could have got proper health advice and wouldn't have died. Its a classic case of why prohibition is wrong.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That is kind of my point. There was still an anti ecstasy campaign from her parents and some tabloid papers. Where as it was the legal drugs and water that had the greater impact on her. I believe and I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe that no one has ever died soley from ecstasy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I love how people on here talk about it being dangerous when 600 people every quarter are killed or seriously injured on the uk roads whilst on a bike. We ride bikes for the fun and it makes us feel great. millions upon millions of doses of mcat have been taken over the last year and two people have died. Surely it's just another experience people have the choice to experience or not that also has risks, its not illegal (yet) so drug dealers an not making money out of it, i really dont see why people are so hostile towards it??? when we get on a bike we all know one slip and we could be finished but no-one is rallying for biking to be illegal, or horse riding or any other activity involving risk, almost all of which seem huge compared to mcat.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Leah Betts died from ignorance....
Exactly. I've often said whilst debating this subject with various people that Leah Betts was killed by prohibition and the sensationalist Brass Eye style coverage of drugs in the media.
Education and a mature facts based approach is and always will be the only effective way to deal with the drugs 'problem'. The fact that we can't do this says an awful lot about the society we live in.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Alex - certainly very few - it would seem there might have been a few allergic reactions but its not clear. It is not toxic of itself and most of the deaths have been dehydration.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well the government is obviously insane then as this is exactly what they're doing with alcohol and cigarettes. Sure it may take more than a year to f*** up your liver/lungs but the principle is no different.
So your argument is that because we already have these two legal drugs that can kill you, we should therefore have more?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Good gear though. had a few sesh's on it last year,quite close to the E's of old i'd say.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'll second that Blower, had a little go in the name of science. Very nice indeed.
As with all legal & illegal substances use your noggin and don't over indulge.
Most people grow up and get a life and don't ahve time for hangovers or come downs!
As MDMA is heavily researched they could cut all this untested new crap out by just legalising that.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So your argument is that because we already have these two legal drugs that can kill you, we should therefore have more?
Yes that's about it. If you look at the facts prohibition does nothing other than enrich criminals and victimise and endanger users. Prohibition, and the immature and blinkered attitude to drugs use that it promotes, goes to the very heart of just about every problem we have in our society. Crime, anti-social behaviour, community breakdown, poverty, etc. They all in some way are caused or are amplified by prohibition, because it denies the simple fact that wherever they exist, drugs will always be used by people whether they are legal or not. You just can't ban or prohibit human nature.
Posted 2 years ago # -
As MDMA is heavily researched they could cut all this untested new crap out by just legalising that.
It's legal in Switzerland for use in marriage counselling due to the openess it creates in people and the ability it gives them to talk honestly about how they feel
Posted 2 years ago # -
So your argument is that because we already have these two legal drugs that can kill you, we should therefore have more?[/i]
[i]I love how people on here talk about it being dangerous when 600 people every quarter are killed or seriously injured on the uk roads whilst on a bike
Ian you are choosing to believe what you want. Like has been said before drugs being illegal doesn't stop them from being used. If anything it glamourises them. Also there are many daily activities much more dangerous such as driving, walking down a pavement, cycling. You will die t some point any way and most things in the world have the potential for shortening your life span. As long as people are able to make informed decisions they can stay safer.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Being an adult I think you should be able to have that option
Hah! If only being over 18 meant that you were always able to make sensible responsible descision!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Different drugs need different approaches IMO
heroin - liscened "shooting galleries" for chaotic users, presribed to take home for non chaotic users. Take all the glamour and rebellion out of it and stop all the crime junkies commit to pay for their fix. Cheaoper to society that our present set up and I am convinced useafge would reduce as fewer new addicts.
cocaine - just keep it banned - you don't get addicted but it don't half **** people up
MDMA and similar hallucinogens - legalise along with cannabis. Harm is low but still there - this would allow healthcare to problem users.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not convinced there IS any glamour in it TBH, illegal or not.
And the other side of the "make it freely available" coin is regardless of safety, many of them are very addictive and lead to people becoming less productive and less able to self-motivate (by their nature), and less able to make sensible judgements. Do you think the number of machinery/vehicular accidents would rise or fall if it were freely available? Do you think people would become more productive at work should they be allowed to do a bit of their favourite tipple during a break - while smoking and alcohol are, these days, frowned upon during work hours, if there was an open season on all drugs do you think the work ethic would win out? IMO it would be the start of a rather rapid decline.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Coffeeking - our current system simply does not work. Other countries that have gone to a less criminal more healthcare model have much less problems. Holland is the prime example but there are others.
Every year in the UK we have more junkies and the average age is lower - in Holland its the opposite.
What we need is pragmatic solutions based upon evidence not moral judgements based on tabloid journalism
Posted 2 years ago # -
Every year in the UK we have more junkies and the average age is lower - in Holland its the opposite.
But what drugs are you considering here. Holland still has as high cannabis use as the UK, so ignoring it doesn't seem to have helped much. With regards other drugs, there are still differences between hard and soft drugs over there too, with hard drugs still being considered illegal. And your suggestion that their drug use is falling seems to be incorrect from the figures, and several of their politicians believe the policy of ignoring drug use is failing and they should move to banning it.
Many border towns are seeing a massive influx of drug-seeking holiday makers and having problems due to that, and they are seen as a major drug traffiking gateway in europe. Sounds ideal to me
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have a few friends who work in the law enforcement side of things. What I hear from them is that drug addicts (mainly heroin & crack) repeatedly commit crime and often have absolutely appalling lives and backgrounds. The types of crimes they commit rarely lead to long sentences, and their lawyers will always aim to get the minimum sentence they can. The other side of this is that drug treatment programmes are generally only available to people serving prison sentences longer than 1 year. The end result is that it's almost impossible to break people's addictions.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people taking other drugs and there are people who are prescribed opiates for pain relief, but they're not stumbling around asking for 50p for the bus to see their nan...
Personally, I view the problem as being that drugs are a more attractive option than real life for a large slice of society. And I include alcohol in that. Until we produce a country where people are capable of looking after themselves and coping with life (and life is something that can be coped with - ie functional social services), we're going to have problems with drug addicts of one form or another.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Coffeeeking - junkies - heroin addicts. Look at the swiss experience as well.
They also have less issues with cannabis and other drugs than we have.
What do you suggest we do? Our current stance has clearly failed.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Look at the vast majority of countries TJ, there's no easy solution. There are heaps of solutions out there and none seem to be working, including the "we'll just ignore it" technique, and the "oh, poor junkies" technique. I don't have a suggestion, I'm not tasked with that job and it's not in my personal experience, however I see no pros to the legalisation other than additional tax revenue and fewer people in jail. I can't see it vastly reducing the number of non-authorised dealers, I can't see it reducing the number of people using and I can't see it changing much at all, other than giving people the big thumbs up and "have a nice day" due to having taken a different tack. Just because an existing policy is not currently functioning does not mean it is inherently flawed, or that there are better alternatives.
All the swiss experiment does is cater for existing junkies and not a) help them off or b) dissuade new people (fashions and peer pressure do that). All they've done is show that they can provide it as a medicinal solution. How many people would want to employ such people? Presumably they are not allowed to do any job requiring any level of responsibility or dexterity.
I just don't think the legalisation alternative is a sensible option, regardless of how bad the currnt system is.
But as tron said:
Personally, I view the problem as being that drugs are a more attractive option than real life for a large slice of society.
This is exactly the problem, and if you offer it freely and cheaply it will become an even more attractive, government sanctioned, alternative. And I don't see how we can hope to have a functional society with that level of disfunction being accepted as the norm.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Coffeeking - but that is exactly the swiss and dutch experience - by medicalising heroin addiction it makes it look uncool and therefore less folk do it. a simplification of a complex position but that is the dutch experience. You also get a lot less crime as you don't have junkies robbing folk to get the money to pay for a fix
Freely available cannabis means less folk use other drugs
Prohibition has clearly failed. a variety of differing approaches for different drugs has been proposed - you rubbish this despite it being what the evidence suggests is the best approach. If you rubbish the evidence based approaches then surely you should b e suggesting something else. You also need to distinguish between different drugs
Please note I am not suggesting a total legalisation.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think there are two main aspects to the drugs 'problem'. One is the health and other effects of drugs on the users and the implications for society of widespread drug use. The other is the effect on society of the black market in both legal and illegal drugs.
On the first I don't think there is anything to fear from a situation where drugs are freely available to adults to use at their own discretion. Society already tolerates widespread use of legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, legal highs etc) and for the most part hasn't descended into the dystopian vision of hell that some say it would. Obviously there are problems related to chaotic use and addiction, but there are already well established programmes within the health and social services to address these, and these could be massively expanded and improved with the tax revenue received from legal drug sales.
On the second, I think to reduce or eliminate the problems caused by the black market you need to look at full legalisation and availability. The black market will never be eliminated fully as the trade in bootlegged cigarettes and alcohol shows, but it can be vastly reduced. The problem with solutions like only allowing drugs like heroin to be available via prescription is that it will only create another black market. And just because something is freely available, it doesn't mean its production and supply could not be tightly regulated, licensed and controlled.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I heard its shite, palpitations and paranoia? I won't be partaking thanks :).
Posted 2 years ago # -
MrNutt - Member
I heard its shite, palpitations and paranoia? I won't be partaking thanks :).depends how you are in yerself though,everyones different. ;0)
Posted 2 years ago # -
quite possibly, it could be great for me but I've no desire to try it anymore than I'd like to snort petrol
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
