[url= https://i.postimg.cc/bvLdHJtC/Drugs.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/bvLdHJtC/Drugs.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Last point - 30 seconds on a search engine will throw up all sorts of things
i gave my views on what I would see as sensible drug policies. I gave my reasoning
Of course cocaine useage should also be treated as a health issue I simply do not see decriminialisation as a part of the solution and i gave my reasons
Its just one persons view
Of course cocaine useage should also be treated as a health issue I simply do not see decriminialisation as a part of the solution and i gave my reasons
It's a difficult issue for sure. I'm not for a second advocating a big bang legalise everything approach as that would be a disaster for very obvious reasons. It needs to be a process, probably lasting a decade or more. What's most depressing however is the direction of travel, and here in the UK once again we're going in the opposite direction compared to most other western countries. It's even more depressing when you consider it's almost certainly being done to stoke Boris's reactionary support, and with the full support of the bloody labour party.
NHS seems to think cocaine is addictive...
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/cocaine-get-help/
I think a big issue with Cocaine and Heroin is the damage they do to the areas where they are grown, plenty of violence is fuelled in South America and the middle east by drugs. The impacts of lab made drugs like MDMA or LSD is lower as it only needs to involve a chemist.
Cocaine is addictive. I know a wealthy lad who would occasionally lose £1000 up his nose in a few days. Did several months in a detox centre in SA, came back, drifted into it again, now claims to have been clean for 6 months. It's been a big and long battle and not to be dismissed lightly.
Portugal seems to have gone down the decriminalisation route with notable success. Is Germany not about to decriminalise weed like in most US states? I used to use a pub where weed was ignored so long as it was outside, a most friendly and civilised place. Any arseholes would be talked down and talked out of the pub and then told politely not to come back so the police never got called. Now we've got that slob in No10 going on about 'tackling' 300,000 problem users. I guess rich pollies are not problem users. The LP I guess will be backing them. Nobody read 'Good cop, bad war' ffs?
I see a war on Johnsons flagging poll numbers
Well I suppose it makes a change from some grandiose tunnel/bridge distraction.
A few more headlines to distract before the Chrissy hols.
Portugal seems to have gone down the decriminalisation route with notable success.
I'd say the evidence is unclear. the Hughes and Stevens Paper suggests mixed success There's been no health benefits, there's been little investment in rehabilitation, and drug users are still injecting and living in squalid conditions. And perhaps most dangerously selling drugs is still in the control of illegal gangs, so the state gets no tax revenue.
Interestingly in 2019 the Conservatives published quite a sensible piece that they'd commissioned from YouGov/square space I think, to look at the public perception of drugs and drug reform. I'm guessing from today's announcement; Johnson and his team haven't read it.
Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group
Based on the Westminster opposition to the setting up of safe rooms up here, and their attack dog presses reaction to it, I will be interested in how much actual help is being given to addicts. Honestly; people dying needlessly so they can highlight how the SNP is "overseeing a drugs death epidemic."
It's actually refreshingly progressive for a Tory initiative, probably because of the overwhelming consensus among experts about the social benefits of tackling those core addicts.
And "cracking down" on county lines gangs selling smack & crack (and exploiting young people to do it) is difficult to argue with.
Obviously Priti Patel isn't the first person you'd pick for the job, and Tory cuts to policing and social services haven't helped this last decade - but y'know.
Don't hold your breath for drugs raids on middle class dinner parties, that side of it sounds like a gimmick.
And perhaps most dangerously selling drugs is still in the control of illegal gangs, so the state gets no tax revenue.
Thats the issue that concerns me with the halfway house of "decriminalisation" In the netherlands recently some councils have begun growing to keep the profits I believe
This is why for cannabis and MDMA I would have a regulated market and for Heroin a state controlled supply with "shooting galleries". Take the profits and its very lucrative out of the hands of the criminals and also to reduce the harm from an unregulated supply
Recently in the UK there was a batch of poorly made MDMA that actually had a slightly different drug in it. It was both more powerful and had a much longer time to take effect. The result was that people would take a pill, think nothing was happening when they didn't go up after an hour. take another and so on until they all came on at once and of course that led to huge issues
Again the dutch experience -street drugs are tested, bad batches the info is put out there and you can even get your stash tested anonymously
On harm reductions with heroin usage. there is a significant issue in glasgow with junkies ODing and dying. the scottish government wanted to set up "shooting galleries" where narcan ( which stops the action of opiates) was available and medical care and clean needles. Stopped completely by the tories to score cheap political points. this shows how disjointed the system is and how much its based on nonsense rather than science
To go back to cocaine - and to set aside please its addictive qualities debate. My position is that the harm from it does not come from the effects of prohibition but from its actual effects. thus I do not see any level of decriminalisation actually reducing harm
I make no moral point over this - I simply want the harm to individuals and to society reduced
Another point is to give people the true facts about drug use. The "just say no" and "all drugs bad" does not work when so many people have seen otherwise. The classic here is Leah Betts who was used in a campaign to stop people taking MDMA
She took some MDMA at a party ( she also took distalgesic tablets in a damaging dose) she was a smart kid who wanted to get high. When the MDMA came on she panicked and her and her pals had read about drinking lots of water with MDMA ( which is 'cos it mucks up your temperature control and if you are dancing away you can over heat and dehydrate)
So she drank lots of water - I mean litres and litres. she died of cerebral oedema caused by that excessive water intake. the MDMA was nothing to do with her death directly. If we had a decriminalised / harm reduction approach she could have taken medical advice she was too scared to do and given the correct advice and would have lived. the fear of being found out and the lack of knowledge led to her death - she died because of prohibition not because she took MDMA
Someone in her position would under the sort of drugs policy I would like to see wpould have been able to get proper medical advice and may not even have had the MDMA in th efirst place as cannabis would be available legally. she certainly would not have taken the distalgesic which is highly toxic. Even without the MDMA and water the DGs would have had her toxic anyway
That is a very refreshing document that one Nickc. But then Prof Nutt was sacked for telling the truth on drugs!
This is why for cannabis and MDMA I would have a regulated market
Sure, but I don't think for a minute that would stop gangs selling drugs, they'd just sell it more cheaply, and lets be honest, most folks would just continue to buy it from the source they'd always had done.
This is why there isn't a market in dodgy Russian fags at 50p a pack...
I think many, many people would be only too pleased to be able to buy MDMA legally and with some quality assurance.
Dunno about weed, not my thing.
Recently in the UK there was a batch of poorly made MDMA that actually had a slightly different drug in it. It was both more powerful and had a much longer time to take effect. The result was that people would take a pill, think nothing was happening when they didn’t go up after an hour. take another and so on until they all came on at once and of course that led to huge issues
That's been the case since E's have been around. Anyone who inadvertently double dropped a Dove in the 90's will know the feeling well.
Someone in her position would under the sort of drugs policy I would like to see wpould have been able to get proper medical advice and may not even have had the MDMA in th efirst place as cannabis would be available legally. she certainly would not have taken the distalgesic which is highly toxic.
People take MDMA and cannabis for very different reasons. I don't think I'd fancy smoking a few joints before going to a techno night for example.
On harm reductions with heroin usage. there is a significant issue in glasgow with junkies ODing and dying.
I've seen you use the term junkies on a couple of threads. Quite surprising as a healthcare worker who has worked within addiction services. These people are human beings with an addiction. Someone's son or daughter. Refering to them as junkies does no-one any good. Fortunately, there is a campaign being launched on this very topic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59542090
Nutt was sacked
they so often are
my point is that legalising cocaine would not reduce the harms to individuals and society. Decriminalising heroin would
Well apart from the huge harm that organised crime brings obviously. If you don’t decriminalise or legalise that drug, there will still be turf wars etc over that still hugely lucrative revenue stream.
Fair enough on the use of "junkies" futurreboy - lazy typing. I'll take my telling 🙂
Jamj my thesis ( and backed up by evidence from the netherlands) a lot of the time people want to experiment and get high - so the availability of legal drugs reduces the demand for illegal ones is that despite it being a different sort of drug
Nickc - I very much doubt it and I am not sure if this was meant sarcastically but there is a big market in fake fags
legal production of cannabis and MDMA would take out most of the illegal market IMO so long as the price point was right - and legal stuff should be cheaper than illegal as you do not have to factor in the losses from busts.
i gave my views on what I would see as sensible drug policies. I gave my reasoning
And on reviewing the replies following your post @tjagain - the vast majority of people are supporting 90% of your post, just disputing one point for a couple of reasons. I would say that’s a significant degree of agreement.
Recently in the UK there was a batch of poorly made MDMA that actually had a slightly different drug in it. It was both more powerful and had a much longer time to take effect. The result was that people would take a pill, think nothing was happening when they didn’t go up after an hour. take another and so on until they all came on at once and of course that led to huge issues
Probably something like PMA or PMMA, although there are lots of dangerous MDMA analogues. Lots of these came about because of a crackdown on MDMA pre-cursors, so illegal labs start making something similar but more dangerous.
Similar situation with so called "Research Chemicals" where tweaks are made to the chemical structures of common drugs to give a legal but still effective alternative. Lots of these have no history of safe(ish) use like illegal alternatives and have caused deaths.
Sure, but I don’t think for a minute that would stop gangs selling drugs, they’d just sell it more cheaply, and lets be honest, most folks would just continue to buy it from the source they’d always had done.
I think weekend ravers would be queueing up for high quality, pure MDMA in known doses. You're right that it would have to be cheap enough to out-compete the same old dealers though.
Jamj
I stepped away because the thread was in danger of getting derailed over that small point. I stepped back in as it hadn't. I think some missed nuance there in how you saw what I said. I did not mean " no one agrees with me I'm out" It was to stop that point of contention derailing the debate
Another aspect to any liberalisation of any drugs is driving and working - needs robust policy around this. Cannabis is really tricky because its detectable long after it has no effect and indeed its actually hard to find impairment in driving after cannabis.
so long as the price point was right
I think one of the reasons that the market in legal weed in California has more or less collapsed as a standard way the users to buy was the cost to growers of taxation and regulation that was being passed on to buyers. Essentially illegal growers can still undercut legal sources. The legal weed market is now more or less relegated to "high value" bespoke weed crops that are bought by the very wealth only. Pretty much everyone else has gone back to what they were doing before, only the difference now is that the cops mostly look the other way. The drug gangs are still shooting each other, still fighting over territory and still indulging in criminal behaviour with all the money they're making
I think the idea that simply legalising some drugs will mean the end of drug gangs is the stuff of fantasy I'm afraid.
Another aspect to any liberalisation of any drugs is driving and working – needs robust policy around this. Cannabis is really tricky because its detectable long after it has no effect and indeed its actually hard to find impairment in driving after cannabis
I've wondered how this could be managed. I worked in a job where drug testing was relatively normal and found it mental that someone could lose their job for smoking a joint a week or so before the test, yet someone banging in to the Class A's all weekend would sail through a mid week test.
Back in my clubbing days I'd have loved to have been able to buy legal MDMA with some idea of how strong it was going to be before taking it. I might not have shat my pants at Glade festival in 2007 if I knew what I was putting into my body.
Another aspect to any liberalisation of any drugs is driving and working – needs robust policy around this. Cannabis is really tricky because its detectable long after it has no effect and indeed its actually hard to find impairment in driving after cannabis.
That's true, although I can't see that drug driving would necessarily increase as a result of legalisation would it? Surely if the reason you don't take drugs now is their illegality then if drugs became legal why would you drive under the influence (which would be illegal).
One of the "quirks" (problems) of the dutch ecstasy law is that it is decriminalized to carry one (or maybe two) pills but any more and you are classified as a dealer. So if you are the buyer for a night out, you buy a strong pill that can be split. That has lead to much stronger pills being sold which can catch out inexperienced users or if the pill is badly made uneven doses on the split.
Again it would be better to be able to buy a legal pill of known quantity and quality.
Surely if the reason you don’t take drugs now is their illegality then if drugs became legal why would you drive under the influence (which would be illegal).
It's not a case of being under the influence at the time. Drugs can be detected in your system for a period of time after the effects have well worn off. TJ's cannabis example is a good one. Say I crashed my car on the Wednesday and was tested by the police, the joint I smoked on Saturday night would still show up in my system despite not being under the influence of it.
I might not have shat my pants at Glade festival in 2007 if I knew what I was putting into my body.
And if reform to the drug laws prevented just one raver soiling themselves, then that's justification enough in my mind.
That has lead to much stronger pills being sold which can catch out inexperienced users or if the pill is badly made uneven doses on the split.
I believe this is also because the law was that dealers/manufacturers were prosecuted/sentenced based on the number of pills they were caught with, so it made sense to make incredibly strong pills designed to be split up for a single dose. You could/can get pills that were literally 4-5 times more MDMA in than an old school pill the likes of which UK 90s ravers were taking.
At least there is an explanation for brexit..... 😁
TBH I'd legalise MDMA, LSD and mushrooms long before weed. All of these are completely harmless but very easy to misuse by taking way too much. Legalising them so that you can rely on the dose and purity without running the risk of taking some dodgy chemical made by a graduate chemistry student is a no-brainer. FFS mushrooms grow out of the ground all over the country, the fact that picking them is a class A drugs offence is patently ridiculous.
Good topic, always comes back as an 'issue' every few years. But, there are much more dangerous synthetic drugs available now than the Ecstacy/Heroin/Coke of old e.g. Spice
Generally, i'm against legalisation in principle, but not in practice. More widespread use of community service orders would help (I think) in addressing an addict who goes shoplifting e.g. packing bags in Morrisons.
As for the dealers, they show remarkable organisation and marketing skills which could be put to better use in a well-paid job, with lower death rates!
Don't forget people always want the 'forbidden fruit'. So if cycling was illegal, everyone would be doing it!
FFS mushrooms grow out of the ground all over the country, the fact that picking them is a class A drugs offence is patently ridiculous.
What's even more ludicrous is that, as you say, picking them is a class A drugs offence. But get down on your hands and knees and graze them like a cow and you're good to go*.
It's as if whoever made up these laws was on shrooms or something.
*probably
As for the dealers, they show remarkable organisation and marketing skills which could be put to better use in a well-paid job, with lower death rates!
Pragmatic too. I used to help promote a club night and the one of the main promoters and I were just taking a stroll around the dance floor.
A voice in the corner called out 'Psst - want any pills. A tenner each...'
Promoter 'Err, don't you know who I am? I am one of the promoters'
Dealer, without missing a beat 'Oh sorry mate, didn't realise. £8 then...'
Was very funny...
Don’t forget people always want the ‘forbidden fruit’.
Part of the Switzerland approach to heroin usage / addicts. ( I do not know if its changed now but IIRC) they set up safe legal supply to addicts in a bureaucratic manner - so you could get your clean fix no problem ( and if pharacutical stuff is available no one wants street stuff) and you could take it in a safe place but the whole thing was done in a manner just to make it really dull and tedious. It kills the illegal market, you get few new recruits because the illegal market is gone, the users do not die or commit crimes. basically bore them out of heroin addiction
go to your local centre, its painted beige with a bored receptionist. Pick up your fix, go into a dull room with a cheap table and chairs with everything painted beige, have your fix and leave. takes all the glanmour and rebellion out of it and makes it deeply uncool
but the idea all cocaine users turn into violent offenders is nonsense.
Agree , out of the broad spectrum of users I know ( and I have been genuinely surprised by some of them ), it's the violent offenders who use it more regularly ( i.e they are violent offenders even when they haven't had any)
/with regards to drug testing, When we have used subbies on sites where they have regular drug tests, there are a heck of a lot them who don't turn up on a Monday ( can't think why 😉 )
A lot of the youth are buying their party drugs on the dark web these days - buy their stuff in bitcoin and get it shipped from mainland europe, apparently much better stuff and sometimes has dose indicated and even user reviews.
Makes a change from buying 3 for a tenner and hoping for the best back in my clubbing days.
Another aspect to the thesis " different drugs need different approaches" Heroin and sometime cannabis is used to blot out " shit life syndrome" Improve the lot of people and reduce heroin addiction.
indeed its actually hard to find impairment in driving after cannabis.
My best times on Gran Turismo....
If anybody wants to actually understand the subject rather than argue about it, just work your way through the Drug Science Podcasts with Prof Nutt.
The evidence is already stacking up on MDMA and physicadelics for therapy.
And the evidence against the WAR ON DRUGS is completely overwhelming.
First one is actually about alcohol. Turns out that just 1 unit is too toxic to pass todays tests... 1.3 million visits to hospital a year caused by it too.
they set up safe legal supply to addicts in a bureaucratic manner
Yeah, it wasn't designed like that, that was just a side effect of being...Swiss. There's aslo the issue that they chose well motivated addicts, there was "just" over a thousand of them for the entire country, and the clinics were free and run by well motivated staff.
