A ban on 'legal' highs, good!

Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 202 total)
  • A ban on 'legal' highs, good!
  • Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Drac – Moderator
    No never claimed kids are doing fewer and can’t see where you’d even get that from.

    I’ve had kids ill on weed yes but more so alcohol, you know the one that is really easily to get hold of.Both are really easy to get a hold off. The law has no baring on availabilty to teenagers.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    It’s actually one of the most convincing arguments for legalisation is that prohibition is utterly ineffectual in stopping supply.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Both are really easy to get a hold off. The law has no baring on availabilty to teenagers.

    Yes but alcohol far easier as most houses have it in stock.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Drac – Moderator
    Yes but alcohol far easier as most houses have it in stock.

    So how would the legality affect weed and other substances, given that you accept legality has no effect of supply? Why would people suddenly stock pile more, currently illegal, substances than they already do?

    I also doubt teenagers biggest source for alcohol is their parents cupboard. Most will know what they have and if it’s been raided by their children.

    The ability for children to get a hold of substances from their parents is a parenting issue for me, not a legal issue. Not a convincing argument for continued prohibition at all. If parents are having problems with their children raiding their supply, they should stop re stocking it.

    but I have seen some seriously ill people with spice type legal highs. Which if I recall correctly is what I was talking about.

    Thanks for reminding everyone Drac because it’s what my OP was about! Personally I’m not arsed about the effects of weed/alcohol/tobacco etc, long or short term but no-one apart from the people who produce ‘legal highs’ actually know what’s in them let alone the long term effects.
    I really wish the vast majority of people on here could be put in my or Dracs shoes & witness someone going under on a NPS. It aint nice & i don’t get paid enough (or god forbid, trained enough) to deal with it.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    I also doubt teenagers biggest source for alcohol is their parents cupboard. Most will know what they have and if it’s been raided by their children.

    Doubt as much as you want but that’s exactly where most get it from and you may be shocked to hear that some parents don’t really care about where it’s gone. There’s a whole big world out there past your front door.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    There’s also a whole big world outside of your callouts! 😆

    legislating against adults just because teenagers might do something is ridiculous

    jambourgie
    Member

    Thanks for reminding everyone Drac because it’s what my OP was about! Personally I’m not arsed about the effects of weed/alcohol/tobacco etc, long or short term but no-one apart from the people who produce ‘legal highs’ actually know what’s in them let alone the long term effects.
    I really wish the vast majority of people on here could be put in my or Dracs shoes & witness someone going under on a NPS. It aint nice & i don’t get paid enough (or god forbid, trained enough) to deal with it.

    Totally understand where you’re coming from on this, having to deal with the fallout etc. I guess most posts here are talking about the futility of banning drugs/prohibition. These legal highs are dangerous because there isn’t the decades of data that there is with other more well known recreational drugs, and they wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the prohibition of the illegal drugs that they imitate. But I guess if prohibition is effective, all your inmates will now no longer partake seeing as they’re illegal and everything?

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    legislating against adults just because teenagers might do something is ridiculous

    Yes as adults never take ill.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Can I see a source for your claim that most teenagers get it from their parents please?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Drac – Moderator
    legislating against adults just because teenagers might do something is ridiculous
    Yes as adults never take ill.

    I’m not arguing they don’t, but they are capable of making decisions on their own about how they **** themselves up.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Yup you really don’t get it.

    Junkyard
    Member

    So far no one has agreed with you so there are a lot of us not getting it.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Drac – Moderator
    Yup you really don’t get it.

    Spell it out then?

    But I guess if prohibition is effective, all your inmates will now no longer partake seeing as they’re illegal and everything?

    If they were unobtainable or just a lot less obtainable they’d go back to the stuff they could get before. (& stuff we can actually test for) NPS & their effects are just a complete drain on resources within the prison service & the NHS. How would you feel if your granny fell over & broke her hip (as an example) but no paramedic/ambulance was available cos theyr’e too busy sorting out a prisoner who’s off his head on spice?

    So far no one has agreed with you so there are a lot of us not getting it.

    How would you feel if your granny fell over & broke her hip (as an example) but no paramedic/ambulance was available cos theyr’e too busy sorting out a prisoner who’s off his head on spice?

    Did you get that bit?

    I really wish the vast majority of people on here could be put in my or Dracs shoes & witness someone going under on a NPS. It aint nice & i don’t get paid enough (or god forbid, trained enough) to deal with it.

    & that bit.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Well it was written after i posted.

    I get that folk realise that the emergency services deal with the rightfully needy and the undeserving needy

    I dont see what that has to do with kids doing drugs/alcohol and where they get it from and how easy/hard it is.

    FWIW i accept legal highs are not safe [ nothing is] and in may cases more dangerous than an illegal alternative

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Synthetic Cannaniboids can be bought from your local corner shop, then easily supplied to anyone. They’re not illegal to carry or sell so no laws are currently being broke. These are very dangerous drugs that have can have potentially life threatening effects on people adults and kids.

    Society has enough issues dealing with the 2 biggest legal drugs alcohol and tobacco the issues with these though tend to be long term health problems. Spice and the likes can have an effect from the single use and trust me it is not a pleasant thing.

    So while the ban won’t get rid of them totally, no one believes that, it’ll make so you can’t just walk in and pick some up with a pint of milk.

    I dont see what that has to do with kids doing drugs/alcohol and where they get it from and how easy/hard it is.

    Because that was some peoples defence for keeping spice.

    jambourgie
    Member

    If they were unobtainable or just a lot less obtainable they’d go back to the stuff they could get before. (& stuff we can actually test for)

    Fair enough. So, it’s your testing that’s pushing them to use these dangerous drugs?

    NPS & their effects are just a complete drain on resources within the prison service & the NHS. How would you feel if your granny fell over & broke her hip (as an example) but no paramedic/ambulance was available cos theyr’e too busy sorting out a prisoner who’s off his head on spice?

    I’d be bloody angry. Angry at the politicians that perpetuate this ludicrous war on drugs and cause all this pain in the first place.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    I’d be bloody angry. Angry at the politicians that perpetuate this ludicrous war on drugs and cause all this pain in the first place.

    So let drugs be readily available as that’ll mean there won’t be a drain on resources?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    If you legalised, weed and ecky etc, the synthetic market would dissappear over night.

    There is a reason that legal highs mimic the traditional ones.

    My argument isn’t for legal highs at all, as I’ve said I wouldn’t touch them and find it easy enough to get the real stuff if I choose.

    jambourgie
    Member

    So let drugs be readily available as that’ll mean there won’t be a drain on resources?

    Well they’re already readily available, but yes. Because then the quality can be maintained, and thus the drain on resources will be mitigated.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Drac – Moderator

    So let drugs be readily available as that’ll mean there won’t be a drain on resources?It would kill the synthetic market.

    Plus we could them take all the money we put in to policing, and the tax income, and fund the NHS.

    grum
    Member

    Drac your personal experience in this is just a meaningless emotional argument. Let’s look at actual evidence shall we – drug decriminalisation in Portugal has worked, prohibition has comprehensively failed – the debate is over.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    I’d also ask the question, why should I be criminalised just because a small percentage(and it is a very small percentage) can’t do something correctly or in moderation?

    whatnobeer
    Member

    So let drugs be readily available as that’ll mean there won’t be a drain on resources?

    Pretty much? Why would anyone take spice when the real deal is safer and and also legal?

    The government needs a paradigm shift when it comes to drug policy, but there’s not a chance of anything changing when policy isn’t based on evidence.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Pretty much? Why would anyone take spice when the real deal is safer and and also legal?

    I can see the sense in that but Spice isn’t a harmless drug and it has nothing to do with my emotions of why I think that, it is a harmful drug.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Drac – Moderator
    Pretty much? Why would anyone take spice when the real deal is safer and and also legal?
    I can see the sense in that but Spice isn’t a harmless drug and it has nothing to do with my emotions of why I think that, it is a harmful drug.

    No-one is arguing that it isn’t.

    So let drugs be readily available as that’ll mean there won’t be a drain on resources?

    If you let them be available legally you could tax them, and in a similar vain to Alcohol and Tobacco the funds from taxation can contribute to more resources. Currently that doesn’t happen (unless you count tax on fertiliser).

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    No-one is arguing that it isn’t.

    Good but I only emphasising that as grim seems to think I’m emotional over my reason for wanting rid of it.

    whatnobeer
    Member

    I think we’re all agreed that most if not all of these new drugs aren’t good, but we differ in how we solve the problem. Making them illegal isn’t going to help much, whereas a whole new approach to drugs policy where we don’t criminalize those who dabble would be a much better solution.

    Junkyard
    Member

    no recreational drug is “good”
    no recreational drug is “safe”- everything has risks
    Some are clearly more dangerous than others
    Plenty enjoy alcohol yet some choke on their own vomit/drink them self to death
    Prohibition is not the best method to reduce harm
    Having the supply of dangerous things only in the hands of criminals wont make things safer

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Drac – Moderator
    No-one is arguing that it isn’t.
    Good but I only emphasising that as grim seems to think I’m emotional over my reason for wanting rid of it.

    Fair enough. Do you agree with continuing and expanding prohibition? If yes, could you list the benefits of this approach?

    Drac & EGF – I don’t think anyone has actually disagreed with anything you’ve said regarding legal highs. Reading through this though it’s like both sides are having completely seperate arguments.

    Ban the “legal highs”, decriminalise and regulate the illegal ones. With no reason to emulate easily mass produced drugs the synthetic market becomes irrelevant. Good old capitalism undercuts the criminals (growing, producing, smuggling, distributing) and the profits go back into society rather than warlords, terrorists and cartels. Sounds good to me.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Sounds a better idea squirrel but these dangerous ones do need banned.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Drac – Moderator
    Sounds a better idea squirrel but these dangerous ones do need banned.

    A plaster on a hatchet wound springs to mind here.

    Premier Icon BigJohn
    Subscriber

    Why do people think that legalising cannabis and ecstacy will mean that we get a safe supply?

    Hamburgers have been legal for years and have you seen the dodgy crap that gets put into them? And of course, all the current supply chain from the cartels to the dealers are just going to say “Oh well, that was good while it lasted. Time to get a proper job now”.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Hamburgers have been legal for years and have you seen the dodgy crap that gets put into them?

    There was a scare when I was a kid, but that’s kind of the point – we found out. At least the stuff that goes into cheap nasty meat is edible and won’t poison you.

Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 202 total)

The topic ‘A ban on 'legal' highs, good!’ is closed to new replies.