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

[img] [/img]

A longer graph for you, Cougar, as requested.

It shows your original assertion that longer drinking hours didn't result in more admissions to be nonsense.

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.

I don't disagree; however, as a result of knife laws we now have legislation which makes it illegal for me to carry a knife as a general-purpose tool for sharpening pencils, opening boxes and stripping wire, but perfectly legal for me to carry a cricket bat for the express purpose of stoving someone's head in. So, that worked.

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.

Well, perhaps, but that doesn't imply intent.

For example; my grandad had a shotgun and I own a recurve bow. I've never shot anything alive and I don't imagine my grandad spent much time down in the hood with his homies popping caps in asses either.

Plenty of people take cannabis for pain control (or at least, claim to). Whether you're then 'dangerous' would depend on the drug and the individual.

And another one:

[img] [/img]

Note the leap the in alcohol poisoning and "disorder" lines in 05.

A longer graph for you, Cougar, as requested.

It shows your original assertion that longer drinking hours didn't result in more admissions to be nonsense.

Er.... doesn't that show that the rate of rise may have increased around 2005, but then plateaued/started to decline?

This is what I meant when I said

i.e. you have to get thick twunts to elect you.

ALL of the evidence strongly indicates that current practice doesn't work. ALL of the evidence indicates that prohibition has the reverse effect to that which is required, yet you'll still get people getting right up on their high chairs trying to defend the indefensible.

heuer27: I live in Ipswich where the prostitutes, (all victims of drugs) were murdered. Nowadays the Police and local authority will claim they have solved the problems that led to that. Have they? Have they bollocks..all they've done is successfully swept it under the carpet. So now instead of having prozzies openly plying their trade in and around Portman Road they advertise "services" in the local paper. So please show me your proof of successfuly winning the war on some drugs, when you do I'll show you a similar bag of hot air.

[url= http://www.ias.org.uk/newsroom/uknews/news010509/news010509.html ]And another graph.[/url]

You mean this graph, which shows the rate of increase slowing around the time of relaxed licensing laws?

[img] [/img]

Posting more graphs and ignoring all the other evidence just makes you look more and more silly.

[url= http://www.larepubliquedespyrenees.fr/2011/06/01/800-kg-de-drogue-saisis-a-urdos,197069.php ]A small local victory[/url]

I used to get called by the local court to translate when Brits got caught running stuff up from Spain. Think of all the poor trnaslators, lawyers, judges, prison guards and construction concerns that will be out of work if they legalise the stuff.

A longer graph for you, Cougar, as requested.

Cool, ta. It's not very clear, but let's go with it for now.

It shows your original assertion that longer drinking hours didn't result in more admissions to be nonsense.

Three things.

1) I've never asserted anything of the sort. What I'm asserting is that nothing anyone has presented on the subject on this thread here, myself included, has shown any correlation other than conjecture.

2) Your graph shows a fairly smooth increase overall, rather than any particularly dramatic changes. It spikes slightly in 2001 (inexplicably) and then again in 2005 (perhaps due to licensing changes, perhaps periodically like it did in 2001) before actually [i]falling [/i]in the period 2006-07-08. Arguably from your graph, we could say that the changes resulted in an initial increase during the change period followed by a steady decrease as the scheme started working.

3) That's a graph for Wales. Is Wales representative of the country as a whole? Or is it merely cherry-picked to try to prove a point? Who knows.

Anyone capable of reading graphs won't think I'm silly, Grum. They will however find Cougar's choice of graph and the interpretation he made of it on the previous page rather strange.

A small local victory

I used to get called by the local court to translate when Brits got caught running stuff up from Spain. Think of all the poor trnaslators, lawyers, judges, prison guards and construction concerns that will be out of work if they legalise the stuff.

Er..... yeah - good point, well made. 😕

Cherry picked? Nope. Just one of the many graphs that came up on the first page of a Google search which all show the same trend with the exception of the one you used Cougar. Could it be that the person accusing me of cherry picking was in fact cherry picking himself?

And another one:

Note the leap the in alcohol poisoning and "disorder" lines in 05.

Again,

1) I note a rise consistent with trend from previous years, followed by a drop-off a couple of years later.

2) This is from the wirral.nhs website and presumably is the stats from one hospital (it's out of context and doesn't actually say). Again, are you cherry-picking (badly) or is this statistically representative?

Incidentally, this also shows that self-harm dropped significantly in 2006. I wonder if that's related, hmm?

Edukator - your lack of ability to interpret basic information objectively (combined with a dogged determination that you are right) is ridiculous. Can't be arsed with this any more.

So do you or don't you think that people being able to drink for longer has resulted in more hospital admissions and more public drunkeness or not, Cougar? If not, how do you explan the doubling of alcohol related hospital admissions in the last seven years according to the graph you posted (and a significant increase from 05 according to sources other than the Department of Health).

Feeling silly and ducking out, Grum. Or just gone to get a bigger shovel to dig that hole you're in.

Anyone capable of reading graphs won't think I'm silly, Grum. They will however find Cougar's choice of graph and the interpretation he made of it on the previous page rather strange.

I'd certainly agree that one of us can't read graphs.

Could it be that the person accusing me of cherry picking was in fact cherry picking himself?

I've not picked anything. I've tried to comment objectively on the "evidence" provided by yourself and others.

Cherry picking would be me selecting whatever evidence would give a favourable result to prove or disprove the idea that the change in laws made a significant difference to alcohol abuse statistics. Your accusation is flawed fundamentally because for the purposes of this discussion I don't really care if it has or not.

My point, for the third time, is that if you're going to state something as fact, it should be fact, otherwise what you've got there is called 'opinion.' Nothing you've shown me thus far has conclusive. Which is fine, the data might not actually exist.

But that's a far cry from going "ah, yes, well everyone knows that the hospitals are full of drunk people since the law was changed." It's the sort of cowardly evasive statement that our media likes to use to tell us how terrible everything is, with a little disclaimer at the end attributing the soundbite to a bloke called Dave who spoke to a guy in a pub who drove past a hospital last week.

Time for DIY but a thought before I go. Is it a coincidence that the person that started a thread yesterday because he is suffering from depression and thinks pills will help also started a thread celebrating world leaders throwing in the towel on illegal drugs? And the same person started a thread about not drinking being a problem for him not long before that?

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.

And the primary function of alcohol and cigs is?

Who seriously gets pissed at work except for lap dancers and darts players?

a thought before I go

a thought..? about bloody time..!

err.. based on the spurious inference provided in your last post I have decided to ignore all the evidence presented by scholars around the world and drastically re-think my stance on the issue.. 🙄

A while ago I was sadly watching "Worlds strictest parents" or something similar.

There was this kid who was well into his weed. He got sent to a dutch family and went to a dutch school for a week. He was on a constant mission to get stoned but when he spoke to the "cool" kids he was laughed out of the room as they said cannabis was boring and they had no interest in it.

While this is anecdotal I do wonder how many school kids of the same age (16-18) would say the same over here.

So do you or don't you think that people being able to drink for longer has resulted in more hospital admissions and more public drunkeness or not, Cougar?

I'd no idea (which is why I was asking for data). Nor, it seems, do you. From what you've produced so far though, it'd seem that it hasn't.

If not, how do you explan the doubling of alcohol related hospital admissions in the last seven years according to the graph you posted (and a significant increase from 05 according to sources other than the Department of Health).

I thought I'd been doing that for the last half dozen posts?

The graph I posted (from someone else's link) covers eight years from 02/03 to 09/10, and shows a steady increase in admissions before and after the licensing change. I have no explanation for this (as this data isn't supplied), though I could probably hazard wild guesses if pressed. What I do know, though, is "people being able to drink for longer" occured in 2005, right slap bang in the middle of that graph, yet there's no statistically significant change in the general rate of increase at that point.

Edukator - You don;t know my situation and you obviously haven't read my threads so I'll edukate you.

I'm currently suffering from a long term illness and I am on a detox (hence the no drinking which has actually been very liberating). The depression has nothing to do with drinking or drugs but is actually due to the limitations placed on my life because of the illness, which ironically was actually caused by over doing it on the bike. 🙄

You'd be wise to know what you are talking about rather than just reading my topic titles and making judgements.

Personal situation aside, I'm not really sure what a poster's private life has to do with the validity or interest of the links they post.

I think people's personal lives as revealed on or invented for this forum have a lot to do with the validity of their posts, Cougar. When Stoner posts on a thread about wood pellet burners I take more interst in his posts and give them more validity than someone committed to using as much neuclear and fossil fuel produced electricity as possible.

Over doing it on the bike or overdoing it on the bike whilst simulataneously drinking too much combined with other things in your life we don't know about Bushwacked? I've noted people often live in denial of the real causes of the ills in their lives and chose something they can't be reproached for to blame.

brilliant..

failed to make any valid point on topic.. failed miserably to make a valid point on the tangental topic so makes disparaging assumptions about the OPs personal life..

genius..

although you probably quite enjoyed the naif film that you plucked your screen name from.. I would suggest that edukator is a very misleading nom de plume..
(although I would have to agree that people should seriously consider giving up on the dope and all that)

Edukator I dont accept you view of the graphs and concur with what cougar says about them. however, even if i was to accept your view, all you have done is show a correlation and not a causal link. You have not proved your point and you have neatly sidestepped the critical issue of facts relating to drugs use in countries that have liberalised their drugs policy. These may be a little bit more important in the context if what happens to drug use when it is decriminalised.
As I said originally the issue is doing least harm- do you rally think this is best achieved with prohibition?

Whether it's acausal link is equally debatable - I believe it's causal you don't agree, no problem. It was Cougar's graph and intepretation of it I objected to. I continue to disagree with his interpretation and now you, Junkard.

In answer to the last question, yes, Junkyard. There are enough people out of their heads on the roads and pavements without removing laws and measures that reduce the supply of drugs. Restrictions on supply result in higher prices (as any economist will tell you) that is dissuasive in the same way as increasing the price of almost anything reduces consumption - even petrol.

This forum is full of people going public on issues varying from being fat, drinking too much, being anti-depressor dependant, using illegal drugs and being proud of it, having disfunctional relationships, to enjoying riding their MTB. Takes all sorts, eh! I'll admit to being in the last category BTW.

I believe it's causal you don't agree, no problem

As drunks do all this should we also ban alcohol? No one is saying people on drugs should drive to the forest as fast as they can then crack out the chainsaws but then again neither should a drunkard.
I note you made no reference to the impact of liberalising drugs laws in usage of drugs again.

using illegal drugs and being proud of it

Well go back a couple of centuries when opium use was legal, Junkyard. Opium use at the time was widespread but became marginal when banned.

[url= http://1stratearticles.com/Articles/Content/The_High_Cost_of_Drugs_in_the_Workplace-766.html ]A good reason not to leglise[/url]

Well if people are proud of being fat, alcohol dependant, out of theri heads on substances whether prescribed or illicit and in disfucnctional relationships then I don't have the same values as those contributors.

Society has values too that are backed up by laws and I'd rather not see laws dropped that protect the people that contribute positively from the destructive behaviour of others.

£££ + Drugs + Pushers = cull.

Drugs + become addict + self harm + no crime = blame self not others.

Drugs + addict + crime = cull.

🙄

It may make more sense to compare our current scenario with a neighbouring European country this century with more liberal drug laws than to look at the Opium use in the 1800's.
Thanks for the link showing pissed and stoned people have more accidents at work. If I had argued against this you would have made a great point.
Anyway given

Up to 40 percent of industrial fatalities and 47 percent of industrial injuries are linked to alcohol use and alcoholism

Edukator - you really can't have a good debate can you... 🙄

I appreciate your views and can understand what you are saying but you have to remember than not everyone who uses drugs fits into the stereotype you are painting every user with. From what you have said it sounds like you are slightly uneducated on this subject in relation to first hand knowledge, but please correct me if I am wrong.

You'll probably find that the 80 / 20 rule applies here.

However, I'm still not quite sure how my personal situation has influenced a group of ex world leaders to raise this issue, you obviously think it has, otherwise why mention it?

Edukator - Member

Well go back a couple of centuries when opium use was legal, Junkyard. Opium use at the time was widespread but became marginal when banned.

A good reason not to leglise

Wow, an article which cites itself as the source, and tries to sell you drug testing stuff at the bottom.

It was Cougar's graph and intepretation of it I objected to

Wasn't my graph. Do pay attention, 007.

Restrictions on supply result in higher prices (as any economist will tell you) that is dissuasive

Higher prices, good gravy. We'd be better off giving the shit away for free in an all-you-can-inject bazzar, and letting natural selection take its course. Why do you think you can get Methadone free from the NHS now? It's primarily to stop scrotes from mugging old ladies to buy heroin.

there was a report on the radio in germany a few weeks back hailing the statistic that cannabis useage among the under 30s had decreased over the last 18 months.

two reports later they were complaining that the number of hospital admissions had increased amongst exacly the same age group.

😕

I did my Thesis on this very subject circa 10 yrs ago.

My conclusions then where that the situation was out of control and the 'war' could never be won... good to see that the world leaders are coming round to my way of thinking! 😉

The Govn. at the time had appointed a drugs Czar (Keith Helliewell- A former copper who just happened to be 'on message' with the prevailing govnt. thinking)... If I cast my mind back and think really hard I can actually remember him achieving a great deal...of sweet FA!

To much political rhetoric and posturing to get to the heart of the issue.

Last week a polce driver ploughed into a group of kids on a pedestrian crossing killing one and injuring the others. He could give no explanation and was not speeding according to witnesses. Europe 1 has just reported that the drug tests have revealed he was "sous l'emprise de stupéfiants". The kid died for only one reason, the police dirver was drugged up.

Many wars are never won but comstant policing limits damage done. There are still three or four thousand people killed on the roads every year dspite all the repression. Does that mean we should stop policing the roads? Of course not. Limititng the supply of drugs and people knowing it's an illegal activity will reduce use because most people are law abiding citizens and are not prepared to pay a fortune for livivng in illegality.

So the next time you see a police vehicle slowly approaching a pedestrian crossing and you think it safe to lead your children across, stop! The driver could be out of his head on drugs.

Edukator - naughty step for talking utter twaddle!

Brilliant troll Edukator 😆 I also like the ironic user name. 8/10, good use of graphs and personal attacks. 8)

Edukator your argument is not against legalisation of drugs it's against dicks getting in cars whilst intoxicated on whatever substance (which I wholeheartedly back). Two entirely seperate issues.

I think it would be a good idea for some CSI types to go into house of commons and a few anti drug legalisation media institutions swab the toilet cisterns take a load of hair (or whatever) samples (anonymously of course) and test for illicit substances find out if there's a greater or lesser prevalance of [i]indicated[/i] drug use compared to other work places.

Limititng the supply of drugs and people knowing it's an illegal activity will reduce use because most people are law abiding citizens and are not prepared to pay a fortune for livivng in illegality.

I am calling troll as well

or wally

"[i]the opposite has happened[/i]"

You can't prove that either, Junkyard. The pro-liberalization arguments based on consumption being higher in France where canabis has not been decriminised is nonsense. Denmark has the same level of consumption of France despite being decriminalised.

You'll also find that in decriminalised does not mean legal. It means that people caught get treatment rather a criminal record and prison sentence. I am against legalisation but in favour of appropriate measures to deal with those caught. Think Portugal rather than Holland.

The level of consumption is irrelevant, show me some stats to qualify that society in any of these countries has declined following a change in the drug laws?

Are you sure that the figures relating to consumption are not more accurate once it becomes more of an open issue?

I haven't been following this particular flame-off, but I think this thread needs a lolcat.
🙂

[img] [/img]

The level of consumption is irrelevant

+1. You can't compare two countries like for like and draw conclusions based on one difference. There are far, far too many other factors to consider, not least of which is simply cultural differences. China eats more rice than America, for instance; I'm reasonably sure that it's not because the US have stricter rice control laws.

a drugs Czar (Keith Helliewell...I can actually remember him achieving a great deal...of sweet FA!