BigJohn - MemberI've never understood the logic of making any drug illegal.
It doesn't stop people getting hold of it, it doesn't stop people knowing it's dangerous.
All it does is enrich the dealers, trap and impoverish the users, and prevent proper regulation and safeguards.
tjr666 - MemberIn my eyes its just all ridiculous PR bull$hit to gain vites for taking a tough stance on a drug that (lets face it) not even they know anything about let alone joe bloggs.
Totally agree.
Bring drug production and sale under control of government agencies with proper facilities for the manufacturing thereof, then sit back and collect all that lovely VAT & whatever narcotax is added. The budget deficit that McBroon has so magnificently overseen would be gone within a generation, dealers would be left high (guffaw) and dry both in this country and overseas, and the Daily Fail would have pretty much nothing to get frothy-lipped about and go the way of the Dodo. It's a win/win/win situation.
Bring drugs under control of government agencies with proper facilities for the manufacturing thereof, then sit back and collect all that lovely VAT & whatever narcotax is added.
Aye, because we don't get fake cheapo cigarettes or people smuggling stuff in now on those either?
As for "natural" - have you seen some of the chemicals found in herbal drugs, pesticides etc used by the growers to improve growth and pest resistance? Not sure I like the idea of that any more than something a chemistry set turns out.
Some, yes I agree, but again thats where the being informed and having the intelligence to do a bit of research on the stuff you are going to be knocking back first comes in. Only makes sense, and I am mainly pointing to herbal drugs such as morning glory, baby woodrose or dried fly agaric mushroom etc. natural, non additive malarky (yes, there maybe some pesticides used in growing etc, but taking the morning glory for example, garden centres spray them with a chemical which will make you very sick if ingested, whereas the ones from a head shop will been 100% non contaminated)
Some, yes I agree, but again thats where the being informed and having the inteligence to do a bit of research on the stuff you are going to be knocking back first.
My point is that it's generally the young and uninformed/drunk that try them anyway, most other people have grown out of it by the time they're capable of really considering and researching it. Teenagers know that unsafe sex spreads kids and disease, but they still do it despite massive education campaigns and free contraception; do you really think that they'd think and research their choice of drug? They drink white lightning and the like for christs sake, they'll get the cheapest drugs they can and take absolutely **** all notice of common sense. It's not the adults who sometimes have a brain that we need to protect.
But I was not like that when I was a teenager, I looked into things a lot first before attempting anything, I think the difference is made when you are taking drugs to 'get smashed oot yer head lik' or to enjoy an experience.
Just natural selection at work again maybe? 😉
oh yeah and Frosty Jack is way cheaper than White Lightning.
IMHO all drugs should be legalized, taxed, licenced and sold over the counter much as fags and booze are. Then all dealers should get 10 years for selling as they do now-first offence-life for second offence. That would clean up the whole grubby drugs scene and de-glamourize it.
But I was not like that when I was a teenager, I looked into things a lot first before attempting anything, I think the difference is made when you are taking drugs to 'get smashed oot yer head lik' or to enjoy an experience.Just natural selection at work again maybe?
Two thoughts on this. IMO Anyone who looked at drugs a lot and didn't take the "it'll be fine, they[re only rare cases" view would not take them. And just because you did think about it, does not mean others will, in fact you'll prob find the ratio is about 10:1, most will just go with what their mates are doing.
Frosty Jack was never about when I was a kid, it was Hooch 😀
Stevie, probably would be the best idea, but also one that will never happen. Also there are some drugs that you just should not even 'experiment' with, like Heroin, Crack/Cocaine and the likes, selling them over the counter would be ridiculous, presription for current addicts, possibly (in fact has this idea not already been put forward?)
tjr666-whether vile drugs like smack and crack should be sold over the counter-morally-is moot-people WILL take them anyway so we may as well control it. That way the terrible quality of drugs prepared by the gangsters running them now-ie cocaine cut with Vim/bleach powder-would be sorted and weaker strains could be supplied.
This is as neart as we have to objective evidence about teh relative potential for harm with drugs.
[img] 
[/img]
No one size fits all approach will work -different drugs require different approaches but it is clear that prohibition as we have it has failed totally - since prohibition started in the 60s more and more drugs are consumed and more and more harm is done.
Myself I would want governments to use an evidence based approach and view it as a public health issue not a criminal one.
All that will happen when M CAT gets banned is a bigger payday for dealers, as the street price goes up and the purty goes down
Probably not.
When BZP was banned it dissapeared.
Mephedrone took its place.
Ban mephedrone and it will dissappear and something else will take its place.
How's that chart work TJ? Is that the likelihood of being damaged by one attempt at use? Or what?
Ketamine has no class?? Seriously??? That is the one drug which, over the last few years, have watched take hold in some friends in an almost scary fashion. It just destroys you. People who were once reasonably intelligent and fun loving people turned into dribbling no brain idiots by that stuff. Why people take that at clubs I will never ever know.
On closer inspection, that is pretty out of date...cannabis is a class b now for starters.
tjr666-I've seen that happen with crack-that drug is pure filth and consumes users almost totally within 12 months. Crack dealers are as close a case for corporal punishment as exists.
Yeah I agree, why can't people just have a joint and a nice belgian beer/Red Wine and leave it at that 😀
Why people take that at clubs I will never ever know.
they do it wrong for a start
Or a slice of space cake and an ice-cold Peroni Nastro Azzuro 8) !
[i]tjr666-whether vile drugs like smack and crack should be sold over the counter-morally-is moot-people WILL take them anyway so we may as well control it.[/i]
The problem is that once legalised you create business opportunities that didn't previously exist for nominally legitimate companies that don't really benefit society.
I as an MD of a small pharma, could patent a chemical, that allthough gives a fantastic high, is also highly addictive and causes multiple organ failure after a couple of years of use.
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.
If you wanted a regulated system to avoid shysters like myself, then you'd have a system simlar to what we have with presciption drugs, which would mean that pretty much the same amount of things that were legal before, would be legal after.
@Ian-under my suggested plans your new drug and it's unscrupulous producer would receive 50 lashes and 25 years in clink.
i suspect there's a fairly thin line between what big pharma will do to make money and the lengths drug dealers will go to to stay in profit!
:tin foil hat:
Tj, What does the "mean value" relate to on the y axis of the graph. I can't see how alcohol Is more harmful than tobacco? Surely tobacco is related to far more deaths?
If I plea-bargin can I get a spanking instead?
[i]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.[/i]
Indeed no government would sign up to such a thing, but under even current legislation it [i]would[/i] be generally your fault if your product was knowingly killing folk, so problem solved for the government
@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.
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.
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.
[i]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[/i]
Which would mean that you wouldn't be able to sell the stuff that people want legalised 🙂
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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[i]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.[/i]
So your argument is that because we already have these two legal drugs that can kill you, we should therefore have more?
Good gear though. had a few sesh's on it last year,quite close to the E's of old i'd say.
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.
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.
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
[i]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]
[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[/i]
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.
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!
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.
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.
