[Closed] So, its looks like world leaders finally have finally seen the light...

Knowing that it is failing and doing something constructive about it are two separate things. Watch as they do nothing.

Yeah, they'll argue about it for decade before taking any action. Make so much sense for a whole host of reasons.

America and Mexico will rubbish it, so that they can continue to deal drugs covertly and make a fortune! 😯

Genius really 💡 make it illegal thus reducing supply and then control the flow and make a fortune

America and Mexico will rubbish it, so that they can continue to deal drugs covertly and make a fortune!

Evidence or it didn't happen.

OP, so you want to legalise drugs, and tax them. Like we do for cigarets and alcohol? Because that works doesn't it, catching your 14yr old son with a bottle of white lightning behind the co-op is one thing, shooting up with crystal-meth?

And I've not seen a smuggled pack of cigarets in, ohhhhh, I don't know? 20 minutes?

I was kept uptill 1am last night by drunk people. I'd love it if they were off their face on smack too.

aye as soon as we legalise drugs everyone will be smacked out of their head 247.

Except it doesn't work like that does it? Booze is legal but not everyone is sat drinking special brew at 8 in the morning. A [i]few[/i] are yes but not everybody. What do you suggest instead of legalisation, which along with regulation will solve a lot of the drug related problems quickly, TINAS?

(and as this is STW, don't you smoke crystal meth rather than inject?)

I was kept uptill 1am last night by drunk people. I'd love it if they were off their face on smack too.

well, they'd have been a lot quieter.

war on drugs, ha ha ha ha ha ... who do you think gets all that heroin out of Afganistan?

catching your 14yr old son with a bottle of white lightning behind the co-op is one thing, shooting up with crystal-meth?

Except it doesn't work like that does it? Booze is legal but not everyone is sat drinking special brew at 8 in the morning.

Yes, but the difference is you can't go for a quick pint of heroin down the local.

You don't try the new local microbrewery ale then come round 4 hours later to start scratching at the pub door to get another hit?

well, they'd have been a lot quieter.

fair point!

don't you smoke crystal meth rather than inject?

no idea

Yes, but the difference is you can't go for a quick pint of heroin down the local.

I wasn't sure about the smoking/injecting thing either but STW pedantry and all that 🙂

Pretty conclusive evidence coming out of Portugal that their liberalisation of drug policy has had significant social benefits. It's not perfect but it's a **** of a lot better than the current phoney war.

If you are 14 which do you think is easiest to get in the playground drugs or alcohol ?

Well 10 years ago when I was 14 a bottle of vodca was a lot easier to aquire, just wait outside the spar with a £10'er untill someone bought you one.

JY plus 1.

I always thought the war on drugs in afghanistan would be much better shifted around.
1) We buy the poppies from the afghans (and help them to learn and grow about other cash crops like pomegranates).
2) The afghans love us more than the taliban because we give them cash baby!
3) Western democratic influence gets stronger..
4) At home we make the heroin and keep it clean, sell it or give it skag heads who will instantly stop petty theft and we get to keep our bikes. Happy days.

Read this re Portugal:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11454671

Then this exchange in Parliament which shows that our wonderful government didn't even look at the example of Portugal before formulating a drugs strategy.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-05-09a.54146.h

Even though in opposition CMD thought different:

Eight years ago, David Cameron wrote in the Daily Telegraph, that "politicians need to get up from behind their barricades and look at what works, rather than what sounds good".

He called for a declassification of some drugs so cannabis would move from class B to class C and ecstasy from A to B, even allowing some severe heroin users access to injecting rooms.

As a backbench MP, Mr Cameron called on the government to raise a debate at the United Nations on legalisation and regulation. It was the clearest indication ever given by a future British prime minister of a desire to rethink drugs policy.

So now he's in power, he realises he has to pander to tabloid moralising rather than use an evidence-based strategy. How thoroughly depressing.

Problem is we spent 30 years demonising drugs in the press and just say no type campaigns that to now try and tell people the truth based on evidence is too difficult and will take someone brave.
I think it is highly unlikely a big hitter [ from any party] will take this stand but a debate woulod be useful
yes drugs ruin lifes as does gambling or drinking etc the issue is how we minimise this harm and accepting that for the vast majority of folk it will do minimal harm. Most drug users do not end up as addicts or street prostitutes in much the same way as most drinkers dont end up homless drinking meths
Prohibition is clearly ineffective.
it is interesting how values change over time it. It is not that long ago we went to war with China over opium that we were selling...these days we just do that for oil.

This is a total no brainer, and in one go also explains the fundamental flaw in democracy. i.e. you have to get thick twunts to elect you.

Prohibition didn't work in 1920's America, achieving the exact opposite of the expected outcome. You will never get a bigger and more obvious negative proof in respect of a policy than that. Illeagl drugs are no different. The only caveat I'd do differently to how alcohol is treated would be to prohibit all bar the most basic forms of advertising and all promotional activity.

yeah imagine bogof on wraps. Or even [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/sad ]this[/url] type of event..

I for one would love to see what the marketing bods (the [url=

ones[/url] anyway) can come up with for flogging hash or pills 🙂

if drugs were legal, would you go out and try them all?

personally for me its not the legality of drugs that stop me from doing them, its knowing the effects. they could legalise crack and give it away free in tescos and i still would'nt touch the stuff... i suspect most people would turn it down too.

the assumption that because something is made legal all of a sudden every person in the UK will be mainlining by the end of the day always makes me chuckle.

i'm not looking into statistics for this one as i'm not confident any statistics would be useful, for example when cannabis moved to class C for a while i heard lots more people were using it, however feet on the ground, ear and eyes open to the real world, the impression i got was more people were admitting to using it.

just my 2p

I know its not what you meant, but the onsale in Tescos argument is the one that blows me away. The Daily mail brigade always assume that this will be the outcome, whilst completely missing the point that its already generally easier to get hold of than buying booze in Tescos,(at least they check your age).

But where will the Taliban get money to buy explosives if we kill one of their main industries?

We need to emphasize respinsible use of the drugs that are not too bad cocain, opium, cannabis and wage war against the ones that are a nightmare smack / crack / methodone 😯

We also have to tackle the culture and social environment that is causing so much stress and so many individuals to turn to substance abuse to escape it!

I think:

In the grand scheme of things, drugs being legal or illegal isn't going to make a fig of difference to usage either way.

What it will make a difference to is drug quality. People are more likely to be buying cocaine rather than drain cleaner. With alcohol being legal, you don't get many people going blind from methanol poisoning; so whilst legalising it might not affect drug use, it might well affect drug deaths. Whether this is a good thing or not I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

What we should see is a shift from underground dealers selling contaminated products, towards regulated (and, hey, taxed) products. The illegal import won't go away because some people will just want the cheapest they can get, but this might at least become a minority.

if drugs were legal, would you go out and try them all?

For me personally growing up, in my child's brain I reasoned that if it was illegal then it was dangerous and if it was legal it must be safe. I can't help wonder how common that train of thought is and whether I'd have been more receptive to trying things if drugs were legalised.

In any event, it was never a decision I had to make - my exposure to drugs in my formative years was basically none (other than seeing extensive 'just say no' campaigns on TV); I don't remember seeing anyone first-hand with drugs until I was well out of College, and I'd left University by the time I first came across someone with anything harder than weed (by which time I'm old enough to make an informed decision, and they're old enough to go "fair enough then, mate" rather than piling on the peer pressure). If it'd been more common when I was at school, maybe legalisation would've been enough to tip the balance in my head? Who knows.

We need to emphasize respinsible use of the drugs that are not too bad [b]cocain, opium,[/b] cannabis and wage war against the ones that are a nightmare [b]smack / crack / methodone[/b]

🙄

Smack = Heroin = Opium

Crack = Cocaine

Methedrone = Heroin substitute used to try and wean heroin addicts off heroin

 

surely it would be better to let the Afghans grown poppy for opiate (which they are highly skilled at) and then but it all off them so it can in turn used for medical grade heroin

they get the money and we save a boat load.

win, win?

Thats my idea see my post further up. If you want to use it then credit me. I want beer compensation for this illegal use of my idea.

Isn't it the whole countries culture thing that needs assessing first?

Relaxing the licensing laws was mean to turn us into a country of red wine drinking open air cafe loungers like the French (or Portuguese?). We just seem to be putting more people into A&E on a weekend instead.

Relaxing the licensing laws was mean to turn us into a country of red wine drinking open air cafe loungers like the French (or Portuguese?). We just seem to be putting more people into A&E on a weekend instead.

British drinking culture is the result of the best part of 100 years of uber tight licensing laws. Blaming the current situation on the very recent relaxing of those laws is a bit like blaming a new born child for its parents behaviour. Blatantly wrong.

We just seem to be putting more people into A&E

"seem to be," or "are"? Subtle but critical difference, there.

Thought I'd read somewhere a few days ago something like 25% of all A&E visits were drinking. I seem to remember that was an increase, so technically "are" seems to the the critical word.

Can we propose culling for drug pushers to have more space? Cull few here and there to keep the population healthy like the wild animals.

What's all this about not culling waste ... hhhmmm?

Human Rights? Ya, right. It's shite.

😆

p/s: oh ya ... spray the producing countries with E.Coli that will learn them. Bring down world population and let earth regenerate. Problem solved.

British drinking culture is the result of the best part of 100 years of uber tight licensing laws. Blaming the current situation on the very recent relaxing of those laws is a bit like blaming a new born child for its parents behaviour. Blatantly wrong.

Sorry, can't see the point in your comparison. How can it be blatantly wrong?

Thought I'd read somewhere a few days ago something like 25% of all A&E visits were drinking. I seem to remember that was an increase, so technically "are" seems to the the critical word.

I'm not doubting that that may be the case, but I've an inherent scepticism of opinion passed off as 'fact'; what you "seem to remember" isn't exactly hard evidence, I'm afraid.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

OP, so you want to legalise drugs,

I think it makes sense having seen people having reactions due to bad quality and other issues.

The big plus's for this are regulating the production (improving quality and removing nasty addititives), improving the education (telling people what to expect and how to cope with it), putting in place controls around use (think coffee shops or a prescription style service for harder drugs which can be monitored to reduce abuse by those over or under age) and removing the stigma for those who need support (whether it be someone who has had a bad one or someone who needs to seek help for an addiction).

For me its nothing to do with taxes but what is right and best for society in general

People will take drugs what ever. It makes me laugh that as soon as you mention this it is suddenly seen as nasty and dirty drug dealers, crack whores and skag bags that are the problem. If you think that the majority of those that take or try drugs are probably educated and from across the spectrum of society, then the war on drugs is probably more a war on society. So in theory those of us who do take drugs should stop to stop the demand for drugs - effectively winning the war on drugs. Is that going to happen anytime soon?

(For the record I have not taken drugs for a looooooong while but have in my youth and understand from doing so why this issue will not be solved by prohibition)

I was kept uptill 1am last night by drunk people. I'd love it if they were off their face on smack too.

If they were off their face on smack they wouldn't be keeping you awake.

Regardless of anyone's opinions - very well qualified and experienced people who have [b]actually looked at the evidence[/b] are adamant that the current system is a disaster and that a radically different approach is neede.

This government claimed in opposition it would implement evidence-based policies and are completely going back on that. 'Drugs are bad mmmmkay' isn't an argument.

Bushwacked -

People will take drugs what ever. It makes me laugh that as soon as you mention this it is suddenly seen as nasty and dirty drug dealers, crack whores and skag bags that are the problem. If you think that the majority of those that take or try drugs are probably educated and from across the spectrum of society, then the war on drugs is probably more a war on society. So in theory those of us who do take drugs should stop to stop the demand for drugs - effectively winning the war on drugs. Is that going to happen anytime soon?

(For the record I have not taken drugs for a looooooong while but have in my youth and understand from doing so why this issue will not be solved by prohibition)

I wonder if there is drug problem in North Korea?

chewkw - Member

I wonder if there is drug problem in North Korea?

I hope so, but imagine its not the best place to get the munchies! 😯

Sorry, can't see the point in your comparison. How can it be blatantly wrong?

Try a little harder ? 🙄

British drinking culture is the result of the best part of 100 years of uber tight licensing laws. Blaming the current situation on the very recent relaxing of those laws is a bit like blaming a new born child for its parents behaviour. Blatantly wrong.

And how would doing the same with drug laws (only more so as they're completely illegal at the moment) be any different.

Cougar - Member

We just seem to be putting more people into A&E

"seem to be," or "are"? Subtle but critical difference, there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13568846

The number of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England has topped one million for the first time, according to official statistics.

An NHS Information Centre report said admissions had increased by 12% between 2008-09 and 2009-10

Bushwacked - Member

chewkw - Member

I wonder if there is drug problem in North Korea?

I hope so, but imagine its not the best place to get the munchies!

The only drug they need is to prevent them from hunger and the drug of cult worshipping.

Naahh ... just cull the drug dealers. Waste of space and feed them to the crocodile. Their human rights need to be abused badly.

I wonder if there is drug problem in North Korea?

Don't know, but there's a huge heroin problem in Iran, so it's a problem for authoritarian societies too,

If you have read any accounts of the more wealthy hard drug users.. you will perhaps have noticed that without the inherant poor quality and criminality that street users have to face.. most hard drugs are not quite the demonic force that we have been led to believe..

The "no harm" thing is nonsense. Since French drivers involved in road accidents in which people are injured have been systematically tested it's become clear that drug users do a lot of harm. The same is true in the work place with both illegal and prescription drugs increasing the risk of accidents. Is it any coincidence that the most unpleasant characters I've "met" on MTB forums also brag about their substance abuse?

And how would doing the same with drug laws (only more so as they're completely illegal at the moment) be any different.

It's possible it might do in the short term, but the example of Portugal suggests not.

The same is true in the work place with both illegal and prescription drugs increasing the risk of accidents.

Even more reason to adopt an effective strategy rather than the current failing one then.

it's become clear that drug users do a lot of harm

but you can't really blame the drug surely..?
It's got to be the idiot abusing it that's the problem...

airtragic - Member

I wonder if there is drug problem in North Korea?

Don't know, but there's a huge heroin problem in Iran, so it's a problem for authoritarian societies too,

I am not surprised since they can get them rather easily from their brotherly neighbour the Afgan ... yeah ... "brothers feeding each other drugs" ... Oh no ... it's good drugs because it is produced by the brother.

British drinking culture is the result of the best part of 100 years of uber tight licensing laws.

Is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane

If you don't let idiots have guns they can't shoot people with them. If you don't give people anti-depressors or heoin they won't mow down pedestrians while undert the influence.

Legalising recreational drugs doesn't automatically mean you can buy crack in Tesco. You could, for example, make drugs available on prescription.

edukator.. take a chill pill maaaaaaaan..

If you don't let idiots have guns they can't shoot people with them

so what you're saying is that because some folk look at child porn on the internet we should ban computers..?

yunki - Member

edukator.. take a chill pill maaaaaaaan..

Theerrree issss morrree funnnn inn cullll themmm ... to freee uppp llivvviinnngggg sssppaaccee ...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace

I wonder if there is drug problem in North Korea?

Yes, there is. DPRK is a manufacturer and trafficker of stimulants and there is reported to be widespread abuse.

Even your unworkable hyperbolic solution isn't a solution.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/03/05/2011030500353.html
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32167.pdf

I don't feel the need for any pills at all, Yunki. What are you on to be ordering me around and slurring like that?

I'm just high on life edukator.. should we ban that too...?

ransos - Member
Legalising recreational drugs doesn't automatically mean you can buy crack in Tesco. You could, for example, make drugs available on prescription.

How dare you say things like that, with your fancy [i]facts [/i]and [i]words[/i].

Legalising recreational drugs doesn't automatically mean you can buy crack in Tesco. You could, for example, make drugs available on prescription.

Yup, there's absolutely zero chance of that happening so I don't know why people seem to be suggesting it. I know I keep harping on about this, but if anyone here has a genuine interest in this issue then research how it works in Portugal.

Or just carry on with ridiculous straw man arguments based on nothing. :shrug:

ransos - Member
You could, for example, make drugs available on prescription.

that's a good idea, and we already do it, we give methadone to heroin addicts.

(but why we don't give them heroin, in a clean, controlled environment, with the support required to help them lower their dose, is beyond me.)

The number of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England has topped one million for the first time, according to official statistics.

Ah, ok. I looked for a little while for reports and could only find Daily Mail articles which ran for a page of scaremongering followed by a sentence at the end going "a spokesman from people who actually know about these things said 'what a load of bollocks,'" so good spot.

Looking at the non-video 'read more' link from that page takes us to the full story [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13559455 ]here[/url]. It includes this graph,

[img] [/img]

Now, the licensing laws were changed in 2005. Can you see the massive spike in that graph? No? Me neither.

Conclusion: the 24-hour drinking laws have made no statistical difference, positively or negatively, on alcohol-related hospital admissions. It's climbing, but it's been climbing for at least years.

Being on the high of life is fine by me, Yunki. Excellent even. If you're feeling so high on life why object to someone stating the obvious on an MTB forum? You're on the attack for reasons known only to yourself and bringing in child porn and computers which is about as red as herrings get. Since when was child porn the primary function of a computer?

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and chill a little.

If you look at the facts surrounding the Dutch decrimminalisation of cannabis ,it reveals that subsequent to this they have encountered a huge problem with Heroin misuse. Whilst there is no real evidence to link the two ,my experience is that drug takers are thrill seekers looking for the rush and when one drug stops providing that, they move on to some other substance/activity.

When the Americans first entered Afghanistan they destroyed the poppy fields totally decimating the worlds supply of heroin (95% of which originates from there). This lasted for one season when they realised that they had also killed the Afghan economy stone dead. The Americans then turned a blind eye and let them grow the poppy again in order that the country could have some sort of income.
These self same people have told us that they have failed in the war on drugs .If they had maintained their original stance then Heroin would not be the problem it is in our society.No doubt something else would have filled the void but it shows that the war on certain drugs can be won if there is a determination to do so.

If you look at the facts surrounding the Dutch decrimminalisation of cannabis ,it reveals that subsequent to this they have encountered a huge problem with Heroin misuse. [b]Whilst there is no real evidence to link the two[/b] I'm going to spout about my own prejudices as if they are facts/evidence

FTFY.

No doubt something else would have filled the void but it shows that the war on certain drugs can be won if there is a determination to do so.

Really? Are you actually serious?

You guys are missing the point.

If drugs is the problem for the society then cull the drug pushers. The more the merrier so that we have more space to live in. Effective or not at least you have more space to live in. Stop pussy footing ... human rights I hear ... shite. Cull that too.

If you don't let idiots have guns they can't shoot people with them

Whilst factually correct, this sidesteps the point that the problem isn't guns, it's idiots. Make it hard to get guns and you'll still have idiots.

If you could hypothetically remove access to all the knives in the world, you'd see a massive drop in knife crime but a comparable rise in broken bottle and tyre iron crime. Crime, as a whole, would go on regardless.

Legalise or criminalise drugs, it doesn't matter. You want to reduce drug usage, you need to address [i]why [/i]people take drugs.

Grum I said experience not prejudice. Over 20 years of dealing with addicts on a daily basis . What is your experience ?

The information about Afghanistan is fact so yes I am serious.

You do realise that if you extroplate that graph back there were no admissions at all before 1996, Cougar. That graph shows the dramatic increase in recent years after a long period in which admissions were below the 600k mark. A period that ended in about 05.

Grum I said experience not prejudice. Over 20 years of dealing with addicts on a daily basis . What is your experience ?

The information about Afghanistan is fact so yes I am serious.

You work with addicts and you believe we can 'win the war on drugs'? So what, stop the international trade in drugs and end drug addiction/use completely? 😕

If you look at the facts surrounding the Dutch decrimminalisation of cannabis ,it reveals that subsequent to this they have encountered a huge problem with Heroin misuse. Whilst there is no real evidence to link the two

Look, I realise it's "only" wikipedia but I strongly suspect you're talking shite. Can you substantiate even the first part of what you say (seeing as you've based the second part of what you say not on research - and drugs and their users have been researched to death - but on your own anecdotal experiences).

While the legalization of cannabis remains controversial, the introduction of heroin-assisted treatment in 1998 has been lauded for considerably improving the health and social situation of opiate-dependent patients in the Netherlands.[3] In 2010 research shows that the "heroin-junkies" have disappeared from the streets of the Netherlands and the treatment is upgraded from a test-trial to standard treatment for otherwise untreatable addicts. Also, the number of heroin addicts has dropped by more than 30% since 1983.

Over 20 years of dealing with addicts on a daily basis . What is your experience ?

In what capacity? Copper?

It's the primary fuction argument, Cougar. People do lots of things with knives and most don't even consider using them for anything more than eating with. There are hammers, a chain saw oand all sorts of things that could easily be used in weapons in my shed but they aren't going to be used for anything else.

The primary function of a gun is to shoot living things and the priamry function of illegal drugs is to get out of your head which is dangerous to anyone around you on the roads and in many jobs.

[b]Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."[/b]

The problem is not the addicts nor the drugs but the pushers. Cull them because they have no regards about the side effects on society. They are on the high on £££$$$.

Pushers advertise their products which naturally means some idiots start buying them because they are caught up with all those advertisement of feel good factor as they "cannot" control their urge. The by product of taking those drugs are societal ills which everyone knows.

For the hard of understanding,

I said with determination the war on some drugs could be won however another substance would no doubt come along and fill the void.

Grum what point are you trying to prove.

I said with determination the war on some drugs could be won however another substance would no doubt come along and fill the void.

So the war on drugs couldn't be won then. 😕

Your statement about Afghanistan is full of all sorts of innacuracies and logical jumps also - what makes you think production wouldn't have just increased somewhere else? Was there a massive decline in heroin use in this country when 95% of the world's supply was apparently cut off?

You do realise that if you extroplate that graph back there were no admissions at all before 1996, Cougar. That graph shows the dramatic increase in recent years after a long period in which admissions were below the 600k mark. A period that ended in about 05.

So what's your point? I'm not extrapolating anything, because then we move from "facts" to "guesswork." Show me the figures.

Where's this magical 600k cutoff come from? It's arbitrary and meaningless. You could equally well argue that the graph shows "the dramatic increase in recent years after a long period in which admissions were below the 1000k mark. A period that ended in about 2010" or "... admissions below 400k which ended in 2002."

You can extrapolate what you like but there is nothing in that graph to show that anything different or special happened in 2005 when the licensing reforms took place.

Since when was child porn the primary function of a computer?

by your own logic you now appear to be claiming that the primary function of drugs is for people to drive dangerously while under their influence..!!

I'm gonna step out very quietly and carefully and find something more constructive to do as you are being completely unreasonable and a little hysterical..
my 'attack' was merely an undermining of your flawed argument..

enjoy the rest of your day folks..

Reports that show the war on drugs has failed:
http://idpc.net/publications/failure-regime-selected-publications

Reports that show alternative approaches of decriminalisation and regulation are working:
http://idpc.net/publications/alternative-strategies-selected-publications

General report on drug law reform in practice:
http://www.tni.org/report/legislative-innovation-drug-policy

The Global Comission on Drug Policy that will call on the UN to end the war on drugs
http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Documents.aspx

Drug War by the Numbers
http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/drug-war-numbers

Final Report of the Latin American Comission on Drugs and Democracy
http://www.drogasedemocracia.org/English/Destaques.asp?IdRegistro=8

General report on drug law reform in practice:
http://www.tni.org/report/legislative-innovation-drug-policy

Given how many people (in this thread and elsewhere) seem to be happy to substitute their own ill-informed prejudices for any kind of evidence-based discussion - it looks like we get the policies/politicians we deserve. 🙁

the priamry function of illegal drugs is to get out of your head which is dangerous to anyone around you on the roads and in many jobs

The primary function of a skipping rope is to use it to jump up and down, skipping which is dangerous to anyone around you on the roads and in many jobs. Of course, if you don't act like a **** and don't try to use a skipping rope when you're driving and not at work, then it's a lot safer.

grum - Member

Given how many people (in this thread and elsewhere) seem to be happy to substitute their own ill-informed prejudices for any kind of evidence-based discussion - it looks like we get the policies/politicians we deserve.

I have no prejudice I just want to free up space on the planet so everyone is treated equally with fairness like equal opportunity.