The drugs questions
Question One: How many people do you reckon took Class A drugs last month in England and Wales? These are people who, in the moments before consumption, were guilty of an offence which carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. So how many do you think it was?
Answer: Just over half a million people - in the last month. (There are roughly 80,000 prison places in England and Wales.)
Question Two: Out of the 32 million adults of working-age in England and Wales, how many do you think have taken illegal drugs? These are people who, in the moments before consumption of whatever illicit drug, were guilty of an offence which carries a maximum of two years imprisonment.
Answer: 11.9 million - that's 37% of the population.
The evidence for my quiz comes from the latest Home Office survey of drug use, published today [843Kb PDF]. (No cheating.) It is an annual release which has provided the big picture of drug misuse in England and Wales since it began in 1996.
Question Three: The most popular illicit drug by far is cannabis. Has the proportion of people who admitted using it in the previous year gone up, down or remained stable in the past decade?
Answer: In 1998, one in 10 of the adult population said they'd used cannabis in the previous 12 months. In 2008 it was one in 12. Cannabis use went down every year for five years while it was a Class C drug, however its use has stabilised (the data shows a slight rise from 7.6% to 7.9%) in the year it was reclassified as Class B.
Question 4: You may have read that powder cocaine use has risen in the past decade - from 1.2% of adults taking it in 1998 to 3% in 2008. What happened to amphetamine use in the same period?
Answer: Amphetamine, another stimulant drug, saw use fall from 3% in 1998 to 1.2% in 2008.
Question 5: In 1998 the government launched a 10-year drug strategy for England and Wales which promised to "break once and for all the vicious cycle of drugs and crime which wrecks lives and threatens communities".
So, after spending tens of billions on fighting drugs, what do today's figures tell us about the trend in drugs misuse? Has it gone up, down or is it stable?
Answer: Class A drug use has gone up, but use of the most common illicit drug, cannabis, has gone down - which means that overall, illicit drug use has slightly fallen. To put it another way, in 1998 one in eight working-age adults used an illegal drug while in 2008 it was one in 10.
The Big Question: Is it time to rethink our approach to drugs?
PS: Thank you to Gothnet for pointing out I'd got my numbers round the wrong way.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why bother, all these futile initiatives just drain resources from other things. Just stop treating drug addicts as though they're ill and stop pouring millions into funding councelling and a thousand other " jobs" that depend on the drug trade. The country cannot afford to pour resources down the drain in this fashion, there are plenty of other more important uses for these wasted funds.
Complain about this comment
"illicit drug use has slightly fallen. To put it another way, in 1998 one in 10 working-age adults used an illegal drug while in 2008 it was one in eight."
Wouldn't that be a rise?
I'll say what I've said before though, if they really want to break the cycle of gangs and violence they need to take these things away from gangs and violent people. Legalise the soft stuff, treat the hard stuff. It's not a "solution" as such because there's no such thing as a solution to the phenomena of mind-altering drug use amongst homo-sapiens. Some people want to take these things, others don't, still others want to make them go away for a variety of reasons, but cannot practically do so.
The sentences are plain scary for something that is, in many circles, quite socially acceptable. That's as much as serious violent crime.
Complain about this comment
"Cannabis use went down every year for five years while it was a Class C drug, however its use has stabilised (the data shows a slight rise from 7.6% to 7.9%) in the year it was reclassified as Class B."
This could suggest that while it was in effect decriminalised people were less bothered to acquire it.
Once reclassified as a B class, the illegal thrill was brought back.
I would suspect there will be a slow rise in consumption year on year while it remains Class B.
Growing and supplying may also become more prevalent while the recession continues.
Complain about this comment
kaybraes wrote:
"Why bother, all these futile initiatives just drain resources from other things."
How would ending prohibition drain resources from other things ?
The alcohol industry employs thousands of people and generates billions of pounds in taxation annually, even when you take into account the health care, policing and social costs the country still comes out with a profit as does the industry.
If we treated Cannabis in a similar way then it could generate a comparable amount of industry, employment and taxation. We're already paying the health care, policing & social costs of Cannabis but the nation is deprived the benefits that the legalised alcohol industry brings.
We'd also have several thousand fewer people going through the legal system and ending up in prison for possession, production or distribution of Cannabis.
Prohibition is costing us a fortune while helping to destroy our communities, the sooner we try something else, the better.
Complain about this comment
Prohibition not working?
Set face to stunned.
Complain about this comment
It has to be time to rethink.
Drugs and the drug industry is the greatest threat to our society.
This is a war that cannot be won but needs to be fought. The current approach is dictated by the fear of being seen to take a soft line on drugs so needs to be viewed as a hardline approach.
How about being ruthless with the dealers and pushers, but offering support to the users. That support needs to go further than the treatments being offered at the moment, which is where the objections will come from. Treat the addicts and the dealers will have no-where to push, so no money to make.
We either confront this or come up with a different way to live together as no change will lead us to an underclass that will kill off any hope of a society that we can all live in.
Complain about this comment
Just today I read from Reuters about the increase of cocaine use and the fact that people are suffering from it being cut with dangerous chemicals
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE56M3XG20090723?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11595
"Police are increasingly seeing drugs cut with a hazardous cocktail of chemicals which include phenacetin, a known carcinogen."
Also a quote from The Serious Organised Crime Agency
"People using cocaine are likely to be snorting a powder that they think they know how their body will react to but which actually contains other unknown substances which may have other side effects," an official told Reuters recently.
This is the same things that were happening with alcohol during prohibition, the mobs/gangs making all the money and the population suffering because of it.
The fact that all these governments have the proof of the effects of prohibition and STILL continues to keep the War on Drugs going is evidence that these governments are actually supporting the criminal gangs making the money off drugs and the governments are responsible for the death of every child, every person that dies due to adulterated and contaminated drugs due to their continued "War"
I feel the death of every person involved in the War on Drugs can be laid at the feet of the governments that continue to prohibit drugs and keep the drugs gangs in the vast profits they currently enjoy.
I really wish there was someway I could take the governments to court over all these deaths. There is undeniable proof from the USA that stopping prohibition dramatically reduces the death and harm from adulterated/contaminated drink, it stops the income for the criminal gangs, it stops the money and time wasted by the police, it brings vast profit in tax money for the country, it creates jobs and employment, it removes the people smuggled in and forced to work in almost slave labour for the gangs producing alcohol.
By ignoring this the governments are the ones keeping the War on Drugs going and the criminals rich.
I would love to know what big business and other "pressure" groups are constantly lobbying and paying to keep this War on Drugs going with NO thought for peoples health. The pharmaceutical industry, weapon manufactures, prison service, the drug gangs themselves? as the old saying goes... "Follow the money"
We live in a world where it's illegal to smoke a substance that has been shown to have health benefits, has not directly killed a single person and has been widely used throughout the world for thousands of years. Not just for smoking, but all the other benefits the plant has for medical, clothing and industrial use. Our PMs and MPs admit to smoking it, the American Presidents have smoked it, Top scientists have used it.
While it is not only legal, but encouraged with advertising and general life to drink a substance that is shown to have health problems and actually directly responsible for over 8,000 deaths PER YEAR just in the UK (figures from the BBC)
This just helps show that the War on Drugs" has NOTHING to do with peoples health, but purely driven by either financial or political greed or both.
Even many professionals including the police involved in the "War on Drugs" are now stating that it is the wrong way to go and they should be legal.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Can anyone guess what the number #1 cash crop is in California?
Complain about this comment
Surely, goldCaesar, the word you were looking for has an 'o' instead of a 'u' and only one 'n' ;-)
Complain about this comment
Isn't it the case that the panel of peer approved experts tasked with reviewing this particular big question is ignored by at least the current set of elected lawmakers. Said panel could be wrong one might suppose. They could be right but there are better ideas. Alack, alas, they could be being gainsayed for various other reasons. Addiction is just not too simple i would guess - up a hill backwards me thinks.....
Complain about this comment
newthink, that is not really a re-think. Look at the history of the war on drugs in the US. They have done exactly that. It was extraordinary expensive and people who had nothing to do with illegal drugs had to suffer loss of aspects of their liberty too. It had no real affect on the use of drugs. Human beings are remarkably adaptable.
Look at alcoholic prohibition in the 1930's, this was not a success either, all it did was empower gangsters and society suffered.
Prohibition of mind altering substances is not the norm, these substances where primary prohibited in this country following the US lead in the early part of this century. I suggest you look into the history of the creation of these laws.
Why do we beleive that what didn't work with alcohol will work with other drugs? In fact the end result appears to be much the same, but on a correspondingly smaller scale.
When doctors in this country could prescribe heroin to addicts we had far fewer addicts per capita. Why is this?
It seems we could go to such extremes but it would not help.
Fundamentally what right does the government have to dictate what you put into your body and what you do in your own home? Now we talk about forcing immunizations so we are saying they should then have the right to dictate what goes into our children bodies. Their is an industry behind immunisation. And their primary motivation is profit like any other industry.
Their is an powerful industry behind alcoholic and tobacco too. These industries have a vested interest also in maintaining the current state of affairs.
Personally I think we need to look at all drugs as drugs. Nicotine in tobacco and Alcohol are drugs too. If we are going to ban mind altering substances we should ban them all. Nicotine and Alcohol are at least as dangerous as the least dangerous illegal drugs. If we are going to treat grown adults like children we should at least be consistent. We may then start to see better the absurdity of this. It would at least demonstrate what the affects of prohibition on society actually are.
Complain about this comment
Jaknet, I couldn't agree more. Our political representatives of whatever flavour, unfortunately feel it is more important to score cheap shots than work together, so no political party dare consider legalisation for fear of appearing soft on drugs.
Complain about this comment
How tedious. We've obviously run out of groundbreaking journalism this week, so let's wheel out the usual. Next week: Should we let in more immigrants? The words red, rag and bull spring to mind. Particularly bull. Cue the usual 'let's legalise and regulate'.
In anwswer to the final question posed: Duh!! Obviously not, seeing as keeping it illegal shows that there is a fall in consumption.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. How many people speed in their cars? 60% of the population? 70%? What's the maximum jail term that can be applied for speeding? The headline writes itself really.
X million people commit Y offence that carries a maximum of Z years!!!!
Insert as required on a slow news day.
Complain about this comment
Jaknet I agree completely. Well put.
Surely by now people should see that governments almost universally dont care about the people. They care only about keeping themselves on the gravy train and in power. Whatever the cost.
Just recently we see how the banking industry manages to extort money from both our and the US government. In the US the process appears to be far more transparent and the extortion far more plain to see. It seems fear is the method used by vested interests to control our representatives. It seems now - somewhat too late - some in the US seem to realise they've been had. Here we are actually still in a somewhat better condition but this road will lead us to the same place too.
Complain about this comment
This is what the cannabis community want to happen
http://www.lca-uk.org/node/26
Its an interesting read, but that is all it is just a read because of miseducation dating from the 20's.
what was the first prohibition how many people were involved and who said you cant do that ?
The apple 2 people and one god didn't work then did it :)
Ive seen many people and friends and family die or go to prison in the name of this cure 'prohibition'
#Joan its one of the biggest cash crops in 11 states in the USA many of the presidents of the USA grew it for their own use.
Just watching some Chinese people on the news who got caught with a herb farm 1 million pounds through bank accounts imagine what that money could could do, in communities that had their own cafes and shops to supply the public instead of it going into the hands of oversea criminals. One case of how our own policy's are failing 1 million pounds gone from our economy.
The questions we should be asking is why people cant grow their own with licence from the home office as its now grown by pharm's under licence as medicine. With each home grow charged by square meter of grow space on the licence.
#12 all the panels come back with the wrong answer's that's the problem you only have to watch programs like the UNION to see the truth downtrodden by down-pressers.
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo a fall in recorded consumption does not necessarily result in a reduction of harm caused, which surely is the important thing here.
If you look back through the history of the war on Drugs it would seem it does not lead to a fall in consumption at all anyhow.
When such vast quantities of on the whole decent hard working people fall foul of a particular law surely we should question its legitimacy. Are we the governments servants or is the government meant to serve us ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
synchrohub and blueskyan... Thank you most humbly, as you can guess this is something I feel very strongly about.
One thing I have never been able to understand is how these drug laws are still in existence.
Harry J. Anslinger, who was mainly responsible for the drug laws during prohibition used point blank lies and public hysteria to promote the campaign (claims of wild parties with babies being injected with marijuana, One single smoke and you will go insane for the rest of your life. Were just some of the milder claims).
Any research into this shows that the main reasons were racial, protection of the current industries at that time, including paper production and the textile industries and as a means for elevating himself to national prominence. The campaign was just pure smoke and mirrors
None of the laws were produced to protect the health of the population. In fact the laws have had the opposite effect and are responsible for the production of uncontrolled, adulterated and dangerous chemicals being mixed in with the drugs, the deaths from these poisoned drugs, the deaths of everyone involved in this "War" on both sides and not to forget the millions of lives that have destroyed due to convictions/imprisonment of anyone caught with these drugs.
The Public, the Health service and the Police are the ones losing with this "War on Drugs" every other business involved is making vast amounts of our tax money out of this. From the companies running the prisons, arms manufactures all the way to the drug gangs themselves. They get rich while we get poor and imprisoned.
The Public pays Billions for this out our own pockets via our tax, the Health service has to deal with people suffering from badly made, poisoned drugs, people who have no knowledge about taking these drugs safely and without the money to help which the tax income from drugs would provide. Finally the Police suffer trying to enforce a law that is unjust (hey.. MPs admit using drugs, but that's ok) knowing that there is no way to win and all that happens is they antagonize the public and waste their own time which could be spent dealing with criminals that are not produced and supported by various governments.
As these laws have no basis in logic or fact, and they can be proved to be knowingly creating, protecting and supporting the very gangs they claim to be stopping as well failing to provide any health benefits (again actually increasing the health risks not reducing them). How are they still able to be enforced as laws? If there are any lawyers, solicitors, barristers etc who have the balls to take this on I'd love to try this as a test case, just don't have the finances to do so.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just kidding Newspaceman1. Very good point indeed as the Brits would say.
Complain about this comment
Why do people think that legalising drugs will make all of the problems associated with illegal drugs disappear? Even if there were to be a change in the law the government and legal producers and retailers will over price and over tax any legitimate supply and the current illegal producers and drug gangs will simply carry on in exactly the same way as they do now and become a less expensive, but equally dangerous and disruptive source.
Complain about this comment
I fail to understand the justification for drug policy. Before 1956 no drug was illegal. I,and the state, have no business interfering with other peoples lives when the consequences of their actions have no effect on me. I am not my brother's keeper. The only victim is the drug user. If the addict wants to risk adverse consequences then so be it.
The reality is that the war on drugs is lost and will never be won.
No (third party) victim no crime!
The benefits of legalising all drugs, irresepective of the harm they may do, are:
(i) the chemist would be allowed to sell pure and affordable drugs;
(ii) the criminal gangs profiting from the illegality would lose their market and there would be no incentive to push drugs;
(iii) our prison population would reduce significantly;
(iv) our police force could be reduced;
(v) the affordability of the habit would end drug-related crime i.e. crime to fund the habit.
Need I go on!
Complain about this comment
Very well put Jaknet.
With regard to your last paragraph, there is in fact a legal challenge being made against the way the Misuse Of Drugs Act has been implemented by an organisation called Drug Equality. You can read about them at drugequality.org.
Complain about this comment
Blueskyan
I think you mis-understand the point I am making.
I am not advocating prohibition. I am saying that there needs to be a route for addicts to obtain the drugs through a controlled environment which also provides support and advice for those looking for help. At the moment addicts are viewed by the public in the same criminal light as the dealers and pushers.
I am all for the controlled distribution of class A and B drugs so that we can then get some form of control over the product (stop the cutting with poisonous elements etc) and the supply chain.
I agree that to take a different approach with drugs compared to alcahol is illogical. There are not the same levels of criminal activity surrounding the drink trade, and although tobacco smuggling is increasing this is still small beer compareed to the drug trade.
The point I was trying to make is that - in my personal opinion - there needs to be a stronger focus at both ends of the equation. Better routes for addicts to obtain the product, but a far stronger approach to the importers and dealers.
Drugs will not go away, so we have to try to gain a level of control in order to reduce the criminal activity that is so destructive.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
One only needs to look at Amsterdam to see the benifits of legalising certain activities (cannabis, prostitution). Both of these activities have resulted in crime reductions related to the events. Obviously the statistics would show a reduction because activities which would constitute a crime no longer do. What I am refering to is crimes such as violence towards prostitutes, street killings over drugs turf etc. This reduces the cost of policing, generates tax revenue and provides a safer environment for all. It would be good to see a change in our government's attitudes; a departure from the controlling overlords intent on creating a police state would be a nice start.
Complain about this comment
To the person accusing the BBC of wheeling this out on a slow news day - I neither know nor care whether that is the case. However, I do know that this is an issue for many people. It is also an issue that affects many people, whether they are aware of it or not. If you don't care, don't post.
I work as a supported housing manager. Over 50% of my current residents are actively using drugs, mostly heroin but there are many cases of combined heroin and crack use. The city in which I live/work has long had a problem with drugs due to the fact that it is a regional capital and for various reasons the street drugs here are cheaper than elsewhere in the country.
Whilst its easy to jump on the bandwagon of criticising the government, it has to be borne in mind that this is a hugely complex issue and that the laws were inherited. Like many, I disagree with the laws as they stand, however I can't honestly say that the chaos inevitably involved in reversing them would be preferable. There are also concerns in the fact that legalisation in any form would effectively mean that governments would be going into business with major criminals worldwide. As the original article demonstrates, there simply would not be sufficient 'legally' grown/developed drugs to cater for demand. Prices charged by the Glaxo etc. would also skyrocket.
That said, whilst the laws are arguably not satisfactory, this is an area where the judiciary are increasingly interpreting these laws in a commonsense manner and they should be credited for this (there will obviously still be exceptions - those are the ones we usually hear about). Drug Treatment Orders are being used more frequently (these do not come without punishment) and I am seeing the effect of this at ground level.
It is easy to peddle the 'legalise everything'line and in many cases it can be justified. However, we need to recognise that drug use has significant effects beyond those on the individual that takes them. This can often be criminal behaviour that requires criminal justice intervention.
Ideally, I'd like to see the following:
- Supervised prescription and consumption of heroin (and all physically addictive drugs) by GPs, operated on a reducing scale as should currently be the case with Methadone. This will have an impact on crime and also the culture in which so many drug users find themselves in. There needs to be a recognition that the lifestyle of a heroin user is in some ways as addictive as the drug itself.
- Cocaine/Crack to maintain their current status (and therefore the current penalties for use/supply), but more provision for the users of these drugs to receive support alongside (not instead of) other punishments.
- Legalisation of Cannabis, alongside an increase in the legal age of consumption and stiffer penalties for offences when using, incorporating bans on usage for those who commit offences while under the influence to be monitored through regular testing.
Afraid I don't have any easy solutions as to how we'd reach these outcomes.
Final comment (sorry for going on) to all those who point out that alcohol and tobacco are equally harmful: Yes, they are. But sometimes we have to acknowledge that culture develops over time and, rightly or wrongly, these substances are now ingrained in ours. Using the damage these drugs do as justification for legalisation of all other drugs seems to me a weak and negative argument. Better to acknowledge that some 'battles' have been lost already and focus on the ones where there is room for progress.
Complain about this comment
Interesting logic - lots of people commit a certain crime therefore we should legalise it.
Following same logic, other candidates for legalisation...
* Driving 35mph in a 30 zone
* Wife beating
* Child sexual abuse within the family
* Theft from employers
* Public order offences on Friday/Saturday nights
All of these have strong evidence of high incidence, but would people want them legalised? Is this really a very good line of argument?
(I do agree that the mixed message 'its illegal but not illegal' principle we have worked on for 40 years doesn't work)
Complain about this comment
Let's be honest here, the two reasons for continuing the prohibition policy are:
1) Curtain twitching grannies and get-off-my-lawn codgers, who are wheeled out en masse from their nursing homes to be shocked and scared into voting against anything new every 4 years.
2) The plain fact that prohibition can be enforced by the sort of people who couldn't hold down a job mopping the floor in a greasy spoon, while treatment has to be applied by people possessed of a modicum of intelligence and compassion. It's just an efficient use of human resources.
Complain about this comment
To jon112uk:
I'm afraid you have flawed logic. All of your other candidates have victims, and are rightfully regarded as crimes. The government have no right to decide what substances adults consume of their own free will and not affecting others. Would you think it right to threaten someone with jail if, for example, they have a beer to relax in the evening?
Complain about this comment
I agree wholeheartedly with post 7. Prohibition is not working and never will and govts who continue with this strategy are as responsible for every drug death as the manufacturers and dealers. Legalisation is the only way to win the war on drugs. The sooner we all act in a mature and grown up manner concerning drugs the better. The hypocrisy of the govt/law in this matter is breathtaking. More people die because of nicotine in one day in this country than all 'illegal' drugs deaths put together in one year.
Complain about this comment
#30 jon112uk
Take your head out of your backside. Comparing smoking cannabis (a private activity that affects the user and nobody else) with wife beating is just dumb.
Complain about this comment
If we were to be logical (as opposed to moralising nannies) we would assess the actual damage the drugs thmselves do to individuals, short, medium, long term; we would note the fatalities arising from such use and place it in the context of all fatalies from recreational activities (mountain climbing, horseriding, rugby, etc). We would also consider the impact to society as well in terms of antisocial behaviour. We would then make an informed decision whether we were willing to countenance such risks to society.
Depending on the decision we would legalise and licence use of some or all drugs; those we thought were too dangerous would be criminalised and draconian measures taken against all suppliers, and good education provided in schools to explain why the sanctions were in place.
It won't happen of course, or not for some time, because there is too much political capital in being tough on drug use, and too much sanctimony from govts of all natures throughout the world
Complain about this comment
I agree with #35. However, Government policy and logic very rarely happen at the same time, particularly with an issue such as drug use. The billions that are wasted fighting (losing) the war on drugs would be better spent setting up a system whereby drugs are legalised, taxed and people properly educated on the risks of taking drugs. I fear this will never happen and meanwhile young people continue to die because of tainted drugs.
Complain about this comment
tacrepus
"Even if there were to be a change in the law the government and legal producers and retailers will over price and over tax any legitimate supply and the current illegal producers and drug gangs will simply carry on in exactly the same way as they do now and become a less expensive, but equally dangerous and disruptive source."
The economics of drug dealing are a lot tighter than most people think. Take cannabis, for example. The black market is only financially viable because of prohibition. When the likes of Phillip Morris and Greene King get involved, the criminals who run the industry now wouldn't stand a chance. Some of the current growers would become legal businesses just like small independent breweries are now, but the economies of scale available to legal businesses would drive out the criminal gangs.
There's no profit in smuggling illegal immigrants into the UK to set up the kind of illegal grow operations they do now when a guy with a license and a disused warehouse can produce it industrially without any legal worries.
Complain about this comment
(30) jon112uk said
"Interesting logic - lots of people commit a certain crime therefore we should legalise it.
Following same logic, other candidates for legalisation...
* Driving 35mph in a 30 zone
* Wife beating
* Child sexual abuse within the family
* Theft from employers
* Public order offences on Friday/Saturday nights
All of these have strong evidence of high incidence, but would people want them legalised? Is this really a very good line of argument?"
Jon: You have singularly failed to see ANY bigger picture havent you? Yours is an interesting yet clumsy comment that proves nothing. Of the 5 points you have listed, 4 of them actually involve direct physical harm to another person, which are obvious crimes.
In contrast: If I grow a cannabis plant in my back room, cut, dry, roll and then smoke the plant (all by myself) in my own living room, exactly who is the victim? Where is the crime? And most importantly; why in your mind have I suddenly become a criminal that can be judged at the same level as a wife beater, sex offender, or Friday night drunken thug?
See? Just a tiny deviation from your line of thought and we have a totally different scenario MY line of thought. Another tiny deviation from MY line of thought and we would have yet another persons scenario and so on. In the long-run, this is where you will need to be a little more free-thinking and less judgmental.
Until that point, comments such as yours will be considered uneducated, unhelpful and unwelcome.
Hmmmmm....cake....
Complain about this comment
To vcfsantos:
You start by describing how widespread drug use is (I assume you mean currently illegal drugs), but then in your last paragraph imply that they are not already ingrained in our society. With millions of cannabis users in the UK alone, quite clearly they are already ingrained.
Discriminating against the users of some recreational drugs because of "historical and cultural factors" (to quote the ACMD in its 2006 report 'Pathways to Problems' is in my view plainly wrong, and is the sort of discrimination that Drug Equality are campaigning against.
Complain about this comment
When as this country ever been without drug problems like knife carrying and having a gun this Golden England has never been I notice that booze is not scene as a drug and a very powerful one as well because the Government not only gets plenty tax fro it and us but many of them are addicts as well. So it is social control like more and more things in this country the few trying to control the many. The governments of the world uses cocaine as unseen cash like blood diamonds drugs are universal currancy what does Helman have and is protected but the poppy when the armies came from Viet Nam they brought back to the USA a huge drug problem which is still has and is encouraged by the Govenment keeps the problem in the lower classes. The idea that those who import it are some low life is wrong . So Governments take away the hold of the suppliers and dealers as they are not the same people, and if people which to become addicts let them it is none of your business anyway if they did a drug sweep in the house of Government the police would be suprized at the drunks and druggies that rule this country this also goes for them who run the media.
The Govenement can never control it taking out of your mind drugs is human be it bought of the street corner or of the doctor, Shipman was cocaine addict and look what he did. Well there are many middle aged middle class and white druggies so get it right it is not the young.
Complain about this comment
tacrepus
Why do people think that legalising drugs will make all of the problems associated with illegal drugs disappear? Even if there were to be a change in the law the government and legal producers and retailers will over price and over tax any legitimate supply and the current illegal producers and drug gangs will simply carry on in exactly the same way as they do now and become a less expensive, but equally dangerous and disruptive source.
The answer to this tacrepus, is because it has been proved by FACT that removing the illegal status on substances removes the drug gangs and removes the majority of health problems caused by badly made, adulterated substances and people overdosing due to unknown strength of the substance.
For the proof I talk about just look at the facts regards the USA before, during and after alcohol prohibition.
During prohibition there was Al Capone.
"Alphonse Gabriel "Al" Capone (January 17, 1899 January 25, 1947) was an American gangster who led a crime syndicate dedicated to smuggling and bootlegging of liquor and other illegal activities during the Prohibition Era of the 1920s and 1930s."
Not to mention the rest of the bootlegging gangs and the"Mob Wars" on the open streets of America during the 30s between various bootlegging gangs.
There was the health problems due to no control over the production of alcohol and no tax money to help the health service from the sale of alcohol.
Children has easy access to badly made alcohol due to bootleggers not having a legal minimum age and only being interested in profit.
The Public was spending vast amounts of tax money trying to stop the bootleggers.
Police were fighting and dying for a losing battle regards prohibition.
After Prohibition there is not the health problems as the majority of alcohol is produced to safe clean standards and at labeled strengths. Also any health problems from alcohol have the tax money from the sale to help cover costs.
There are no gangs running round selling dodgy alcohol in dodgy streets as the bootlegging gangs have gone.
Children have a harder time getting hold of alcohol and any alcohol they do get hold of is a lot safer as it's produced to standards and does not contain poisons.
The police are able to concentrate on more serious crime rather than trying to lock up every person who has a quick half a pint, and no more police lives are wasted for this false cause.
I could go on for hours, but I have yet to see ANYONE who can produce a reason why the drugs are illegal that will stand up to an honest debate. I include ALL politicians and governments that are keeping the "War on Drugs" going in this.
I would love the chance to stand up in parliament and ask them to justify honestly and without loads of political double speak the REASON and COSTS involved in :- our money, the police time, the deaths of everyone involved and the damage done to everyone convicted of possession of drugs all due to this false "War on Drugs".
I know that the government is far too afraid to allow this sort of debate to happen otherwise it would be forced to admit that there are NO benefits, health or otherwise to the public. There is only harm to the public.
The only reasons for keeping this "War" going is to keep various business and politicians in the vast profits they are enjoying from the "War" and that includes the drug gangs themselves.
Complain about this comment
Your numbers are wrong man
circa one uk million kids drop e's each weekend
just like they were smarties
it's worse in america
when I was at uni
my friend james
bought a car bumper sticker
it said
"2,000 joints in my body, but none in my pocket"
(which would be legal btw)
(p.s. i'm bulletproof)
Complain about this comment
Invocator: We already have a system that classifies drugs according to the harm they do - it's the classification system described in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The problem is that successive governments have mis-used (sic) that act to "send messages" or discriminate in favour of tolerated, but equally dangerous (or arguably more dangerous) drugs such as tobacco or alcohol. Both of these drugs fall within the remit of the act as "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs", but have been deliberately omitted.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting that this statistical Bulletin notes (p.33):
"The BCS excludes.... those crimes termed as victimless (e.g. possession of drugs)"
discussion here:
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/07/home-office-designates-drug-posession.html
Complain about this comment
p.s. the classifications ramifications are a stupid situation too
Complain about this comment
#38
"Jon: You have singularly failed to see ANY bigger picture havent you? Yours is an interesting yet clumsy comment that proves nothing. Of the 5 points you have listed, 4 of them actually involve direct physical harm to another person, which are obvious crimes.....comments such as yours will be considered uneducated, unhelpful and unwelcome." (+ others)
===========================
Oops all that cannabis or whatever else is clouding your thinking.
I never likened cannabis to wife beating or mass murder or etc.
I questioned the idea that because large numbers of people are breaking a particular law that in turn means that the law should changed. Simple point, questioning one line of argument.
Read below for a question on a another dodgy argument.
Complain about this comment
41. At 10:47am on 24 Jul 2009, Jaknet wrote:
"....(during USA prohibition) Children has easy access to badly made alcohol due to bootleggers not having a legal minimum age and only being interested in profit....(after prohibition) After Prohibition there is not the health problems as the majority of alcohol is produced to safe clean standards and at labeled strengths..."
================================================
Thats the 'legalise it and then there will be no problems argument' But does it stack up?
Which kills more in the UK - heroin or alcohol? Which do more kids in the UK use - heroin or alcohol? Which results in more violent crime - heroin or alcohol?
Just use the search function on this site to see the articles on damage being done by legal alcohol, particularly liver damage. 60% of violent crime is allegedly alcohol related. There was yet another report the other day on the remarkable consumption of alcohol by kids as young as 12.
There's a bit of a contradiction in people saying illicit drugs should be legalised because legal drugs are more dangerous, but then saying legalising things stops all the problems.
Legalise it and all the problems go away - does that really stack up?
Complain about this comment
To jon112uk:
Once again you have a flawed argument. Comparing herion and alcohol is like comparing apples and oranges.
I can't imagine anyone seriously suggesting that alcohol is harmless, but, as jaknet described above, it becomes more harmful when prohibited.
Heroin is actually quite a safe drug when taken at recreational doses, it only becomes dangerous when contaminated and/or supplied in unknown doses - both a consequence of its illegality.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk: you are missing the point completely. No one in their right mind believes that legalising drugs will end all the problems associated with drug use. The problem with prohibition is that it puts drugs into the hands of criminals who are just interested in the huge profits they make with no regard as to how many people their merchandise kills. They also use their drug profits to fund other criminal acitivities. If drug use was legalised, controlled and taxed you take this pernicious criminal element out of the equation, saving lives and huge sums of money.
Complain about this comment
Well done yet again Mark for pointing out the obvious.
Strange how you are one of very few.
While the BCS (a survey) has major limitations, it is a fairly robust indicator, which then begs the Q?, why politicians don't follow the findings.
Steve Rolles',#44, connection to the "victimless" crime category is interesting too, highlighting the fact that about 33% of all convictions are "drug related" but very few are about supply and distribution.
The original "war" had 4 fronts, one was "interrupting the supply", which it has singularly failed to do.
The other 3 aren't looking very fit either.
Some might say it taught traffickers and distributors to get more professional.
Rational drugs policy would have relative harms (for all consumable mind and body altering substances) at it's core, and would be able to reject the prohibitionist hysterics that are still clearly running the show.
As sensible governments (Portugal, Holland, Switzerland) and rational policy makers peel away from the UN hard liners, we (UK) might actually get some change.
In the general scheme of things (politics/law making and income streams), this is never going to be very high up on anyone's agenda, unless someone grabs a single issue opportunity that somehow lets all the parties off the hook and doesn't blame anyone for the last 40 years of nonsense.
Scandinavia, USA and Middle East / Saudi are likey to pursue this to the death.(of a lot of their citizens and those of the citizens of the main production areas like Afghanistan, Burma & Colombia)
When our children ask us "What did you do in the war (on drugs) Daddy/ Mummy?" what will we tell them?
If fraud is a crime, how come politicians aren't charged with delivering failed policies?
Complain about this comment
Politicians will never consider legalising drugs because that is a vote loser. The problem is that the vast majority of the UK population are ignorant as far as drugs and their effects go. We need proper education, not scare stories from 'Frank'. Let's face it, why do people take drugs, usually because it makes them feel great. There is a risk with most things we do in life, people should be given the choice. It is hypocritical of people and governments to clamp down on so called 'illegal' drugs and then happily take the legal alternatives (and the tax revenue that generates). The war on drugs will never be won, people should realise this. Stop wasting my tax money on it please.
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo wrote:
"In anwswer to the final question posed: Duh!! Obviously not, seeing as keeping it illegal shows that there is a fall in consumption."
Really ?
Last time Heroin was legally available in Britain there were about 300 registered addicts.
There are now over 40,000.
Could you please explain how making Heroin illegal has reduced the number of people using it ?
Because when I look at these statistics I can see that there has been over a 1,300 percent increase in its use since it was criminalised so I'm finding it hard to figure out how keeping it illegal has resulted in a fall in usage.
I'll say it again:
Prohibition does not work !
Complain about this comment
49. At 2:03pm on 24 Jul 2009, neebols456 wrote:
"....The problem with prohibition is that it puts drugs into the hands of criminals who are just interested in the huge profits they make with no regard as to how many people their merchandise kills..."
====================================
Sounds a bit like the tobacco companies.
100,000 deaths a year in the UK from tobacco. Legalisation hasn't helped much there.
Sorry neebols, the 'legalise it and then there will be no problems' argument doesn't really stack up when you look at the level of harm being done by some of already legal drugs.
Complain about this comment
[quote] jon112uk
, Jaknet wrote:
"....(during USA prohibition) Children has easy access to badly made alcohol due to bootleggers not having a legal minimum age and only being interested in profit....(after prohibition) After Prohibition there is not the health problems as the majority of alcohol is produced to safe clean standards and at labeled strengths..."
================================================
Thats the 'legalise it and then there will be no problems argument' But does it stack up?
Which kills more in the UK - heroin or alcohol? Which do more kids in the UK use - heroin or alcohol? Which results in more violent crime - heroin or alcohol?
Just use the search function on this site to see the articles on damage being done by legal alcohol, particularly liver damage. 60% of violent crime is allegedly alcohol related. There was yet another report the other day on the remarkable consumption of alcohol by kids as young as 12.
There's a bit of a contradiction in people saying illicit drugs should be legalised because legal drugs are more dangerous, but then saying legalising things stops all the problems.
Legalise it and all the problems go away - does that really stack up?[quote]
=================================================================
How can you ignore the rest of my post and pick one section out of context expecting this to support your argument?
Yes there are health problems with alcohol, But if you actually read the rest of the post you would see that during Prohibition there was FAR MORE health problems and far more children getting hold of dangerous illegal alcohol than there is now that it is legal.
Also the health service has more money to help these people due to the taxes from alcohol and the fact that the police are not spending vast amounts of money stopping people having a drink.
A lot of the drugs are proved to be SAFER than alcohol, which is one reason the laws make no sense.
I guess you would prefer a return to prohibition era of the 30s and know that the only alcohol available is via criminals and it's badly made, possibly containing poisonous substances to "bulk it up" and you become a criminal just for having a glass of wine or pint of beer.
You will never stop people drinking or taking drugs. The only thing that can be done is to ensure that the drink and drugs available are of a safe consistency, reliable strength and not polluted with poison.
Regards your question of which kills more in the UK alcohol or heroin. The simple answer is alcohol.
The vast majority of deaths from heroin are due to either it being cut with dangerous cheap chemicals to bulk it up, or overdosing due to no way of knowing the strength beforehand thus no way of knowing how much to use at one time. Unlike a lot of the alcohol deaths which ARE caused directly by the drug alcohol.
Both of these problems would be removed by making the drugs legal. This has been proved not only by the USA and alcohol prohibition, but also by looking at any heroin addict who has found help in the medical services. Yes they still take heroin or an equivalent, but there are NO deaths from the clean drugs supplied by the health service as opposed to the drugs sold by some dodgy criminal only interested in profit.
Do not forget that almost all the drugs that are illegal are used daily by hospitals and doctors, yet I have not heard of anyone dying due to these clean drugs.
Drug deaths are almost always caused by impurities and poisons in the drugs, put there by the drug gangs to make more money, or by the drugs being of an unknown strength.
As for which creates more crime. Just look to the USA and prohibition to see how much crime was caused by alcohol being illegal compared to now that it is legal.
According to your figures 60% of violent crime is caused by alcohol. Well alcohol is known to produce violence whereas a lot of the illegal drugs are known to not produce a violent response, for example smoking cannabis, taking Es, mushrooms, lsd, speed are all proved to not result in as much violent response from the person taking them compared to alcohol.
Still waiting for any reason that drugs should stay illegal that will stand up to debate.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk I've come to the conclusion that you are just plain stupid and fail to understand a logical argument. I never said legalising would solve all the problems, read my posts properly please. It's people like you that make this world such a depressing place.
Complain about this comment
brilliant blog again Mark.
Answer: Just over half a million people - in the last month. (There are roughly 80,000 prison places in England and Wales.)
this shows that the way to deal with drug users isnt by takin up jail space. Lets legalize the drugs, give adults the chance to make adult decisions, there is nothing controlled about our "controlled substances" as the police have no clue how much of each drug is on the street. lets control it, tax it, use the tax to cover the costs of drug use., get away from the criminalisation for someones choice. Freedom of choice should be Part of ECHR act. we waste taxpayers money on campaigns against drugs.. those who campaign against drugs for whatever reason need to wake up that this is life now. Britain has much bigger problems than who chooses to do a line in a totilet cubicle on a saturday night.
Complain about this comment
BRAVO JAKNET that guy (jon112uk) doesn't seem capable of reading a post properly and just pulls stuff out of context to support his illogical arguments. He's the very type of person who makes having a sensible debate about drugs virtually impossible. I lost a nephew a few years ago due to a tainted heroin wrap, he was only 28. If drugs had been legalised he would still be alive. You can debate whether he should have been taking heroin but because of the additives the criminal dealers put in the stuff he is dead and buried and a family is devasted.
Complain about this comment
At 2:40pm on 24 Jul 2009, jon112uk wrote:
"100,000 deaths a year in the UK from tobacco. Legalisation hasn't helped much there."
------------
Actually it has. A legal status allows proper education of the risks associated with drugs. In the UK far fewer people now smoke cigarettes than in previous years because of the success of public health campaigns.
When the only message is "all drugs are bad, just say 'no'" then people are not made aware of the risks associated with illegal drugs and can't make informed decisions about which ones to take.
Complain about this comment
think mr brown of the income if you legalized these drugs and set a tax on them.
forget the moral arguement you have never bothered before, and no doubt it would cut police costs too thus saving money to pump into another ailing bank.
Complain about this comment
Lets just get this straight. Legalising drugs is not a magic cure all for the problems of drugs. Their can be no utopia.
A rational look at the evidence we have to date though would suggest that prohibition increases the human suffering. It does not decrease it.
Kids should not have access to drugs period, legal or illegal. If we put just a fraction of the resources we put into stopping adults using certain drugs into prosecuting people who supply drugs including the legal ones to children we would surely make an impact on the problems caused by alcohol. We are so consumed with trying to stop adults using certain drugs yet we have 11 year old alcoholics who go on to die in what should be the prime of their lives. They must get their drink from somewhere and I think that's where you will find people who can all agree are committing the kind of crimes which have victims.
If a parent finds their children are using drugs they should be able to call the police and report that someone is supplying their child with drugs without the fear that their child will be criminalised in the process.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
Sounds a bit like the tobacco companies.
100,000 deaths a year in the UK from tobacco. Legalisation hasn't helped much there.
Sorry neebols, the 'legalise it and then there will be no problems' argument doesn't really stack up when you look at the level of harm being done by some of already legal drugs.
=====================================================================
jon112uk, Yes there are health problems regards tobacco as well, but then consider what the result would be if tobacco was made illegal. The same people would be smoking as they are now if not even more due to it being illegal and more of a status symbol.
The thing is if this happened and the only way to get hold of tobacco was via criminals then there would be far higher deaths as the tobacco would very soon be contaminated by all sorts to bulk it out and make the criminals more profits.
This is not a vague idea this is exactly what happen with alcohol during prohibition.
Complain about this comment
The problem as I see it, is nothing to do with drugs (including alcohol), rather it is the reasons why people use substances that affect the mind.
I would even go so far as to ask why drugs are illegal - to date nobody I have asked has supplied a credible answer to this question. Throughout history humans and even some animals have ingested substances that change their perceptions to one degree or another. The question is whether that in itself is wrong. Surely it is impossible to effectively police behaviour which appears to be pretty deeply ingrained in the human psychology.
If we decide as a society we are going to criminalise the use of some substances and not others, and our reasons for this supposedly lie in health and crime then the system we currently employ is utterly flawed. Despite the assertions of politicians that there is an ongoing war on drugs, the control of supply and quantity remains firmly in the hands of the criminal fraternity. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for the war to be won unless trafficking becomes unprofitable. The resources to achieve this simply don't exist.
In summary, current legislation relating to the use of intoxicating substances is woeful and ineffective. It fails to recognise the causes and concentrates firmly on the symptoms, effectively using sticking plaster to dress a compound fracture of the femur. Further the means of controlling the movement and quality of drugs is not in our hands.
There is an economical aspect to consider. 'Drug money' gets spent in the mainstream economy and there is a lot of it. To what extent would the loss of this revenue affect the economy as a whole? Is it possible that a degree of drug use is tolerated because it is of economic benefit? On the surface of it this may seem cynical, but when one considers that it would be easy to simply ban tobacco - it has no positive use whatsoever apart from the fact that it raises huge amounts of government revenue.
I am not arguing for or against drug use. It is clear though that it is a problem that has not been dealt with effectively by legislation. It is also clear that the underlying reasons for drug use are not really understood or even acknowledged. There is public and political knee jerk at the mention of changing the way we look at drugs and this needs to be addressed. If indeed many people are using cocaine, one has to ask to what extent it is a problem. Sure for some there will be problems and we should recognise those, but for most it is purely a recreational pursuit that has no more significance than drinking a glass of wine at a party. Isn't it time we look at whether possessing a small amount of a substance that makes your mood change really is a crime?
Complain about this comment
"Sounds a bit like the tobacco companies.
100,000 deaths a year in the UK from tobacco. Legalisation hasn't helped much there.
Sorry neebols, the 'legalise it and then there will be no problems' argument doesn't really stack up when you look at the level of harm being done by some of already legal drugs."
You've yet again fallen into a fallacy, Tobacco has never been illegal so hasn't been legalised and so we don't know how much worse the problem would have been if it had been in the hands of criminal cartels.
Why are you continually looking for the complete elimination of problems before even accepting that harm minimisation might be a better way to go? We have seat belts and airbags in cars, but still people die and there's no chance of making car driving illegal.
Complain about this comment
How about legalizing the safest and most accepted 'drug', Cannabis, and ploughing the revenue generated from taxation of the new industry back into tackling the harder, more dangerous substances?
Dealers will lose their profits, and the country will benefit greatly through employment and a greater ability to tackle the drugs that really do destroy lives.
Complain about this comment
55. At 2:56pm on 24 Jul 2009, neebols456 wrote:
"...jon112uk I've come to the conclusion that you are just plain stupid and fail to understand a logical argument...."
=====================================================
Settle down - I thought all that cannabis was supposed make you lot mellow.
In response to the reasoned responses (58,61 etc)...
Where's the evidence that legality eliminates problems with drugs?
Alcohol is legal yet huge numbers of people are subject to dependence, health damage and alcohol fueled violence. Tobacco is legal but it kills thousands of people. Children are using both - more of them than use illicit drugs.
Far from legality eliminating problems the lawful drugs seem to have their own problems but on a much greater numerical level - there's no illicit drug causing 60% of violent crime or killing 100,000 people a year.
So where's the evidence that legality stops, or even reduces, the problems?
Complain about this comment
At 5:37pm on 24 Jul 2009, jon112uk wrote:
"So where's the evidence that legality stops, or even reduces, the problems?"
-------------
As far as I can see no one is suggesting that legality stops all problems associated with drugs. As to the evidence of harm reduction, there has already been evidence posted here, e.g. those you referenced:-
"... the reasoned responses (58,61 etc)"
Complain about this comment
"Where's the evidence that legality eliminates problems with drugs?"
Their is none because this is not the case. No intellectually honest person would suggest this.
Look at prohibition of alcohol, it was prohibited and human suffering as a result of the consumption and trade of alcohol increased dramatically. This was clear to everyone and prohibition was reversed. This did not eliminate the problems with alcohol, but it did reduce them again and took allot of money and power out of the hands of criminal gangs. As a result everyone, including those who did not consume alcohol before, during or after prohibition benefited.
Please see my response in 60 also.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
"So where's the evidence that legality stops, or even reduces, the problems?"
Here:
"there have been two periods with high homicide rates in U.S. history, the 1920-1934 period and the 1970-1990 period. Both before the first episode and between these two episodes, homicide rates were relatively low or clearly declining. Prima facie, this pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that alcohol prohibition increased violent crime: homicide rates are high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect; the homicide rate drops quickly after 1933, when Prohibition was repealed; and the homicide rate remains low for a substantial period thereafter. Further, the homicide rate is low during the 1950s and early 1960s, when drug prohibition was in existence but not vigorously enforced, but high in the 1970-1990 period, when drug prohibition was enforced to a relatively stringent degree."
Source: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol
So, in simple terms, the murder & serious crime rates in America declined until they introduced prohibition of alcohol when they increased significantly. Then when the law was repealed the crime rate dropped significantly until the prohibition of drugs was enforced, the crime rate has continued to rise ever since.
Prohibition is the cause of most of the problems associated with drug use, not the drug use itself.
Regarding the 100,000 deaths a year from smoking; the latest evidence suggests smoking takes an average of seven years off the average smokers life span.
As a smoker I have thought about this a lot and for various reasons have decided that, for me, smoking is worth it. I can understand that non-smokers may find this a strange decision but ultimately it is my life and therefore my decision to make.
I don't smoke when I'm around children and as smoking is no longer allowed in enclosed public areas I'm not doing any harm to anyone else either.
My smoking will have a cost to the NHS but the taxation on the cigarettes I & other smokers buy more than covers that cost too.
So really, what is the problem ?
We all make decisions that affect our lives that other people don't understand but as long as we're not harming anyone else and the activity is taxed at a level that covers the cost to the taxpayer then what is the problem ?
Do you want to reduce or possibly eliminate the problems we've got or do you just want to tell other people how they should live their lives ?
Complain about this comment
#51 the people who practice politricks are already losing votes from drug users which according to figures is at anyone time 30% of the population.
there are many laws that contradict the drug policies that we have established to justify control of people, take the
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
G.A. res. 36/55, 36 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 171, U.N. Doc. A/36/684 (1981).
this as a Christian allows me to grow cannabis for my own use (christian use of medical cannabis is well documented in both literature and archaeological evidence). see section C of article 6. But if i got arrested and taken to court for production of medical cannabis I would be told to stop with the Lame excuses your just a common criminal who has harmed society in the privacy of my own home.!!.
Article 6
In accordance with article I of the present Declaration, and subject to the provisions of article 1, paragraph 3, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief shall include, inter alia, the following freedoms:
(a) To worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places for these purposes;
(b) To establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions;
(c) To make, acquire and use to an adequate extent the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs of a religion or belief;
(d) To write, issue and disseminate relevant publications in these areas;
(e) To teach a religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes;
(f) To solicit and receive voluntary financial and other contributions from individuals and institutions;
(g) To train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate leaders called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief;
(h) To observe days of rest and to celebrate holidays and ceremonies in accordance with the precepts of one's religion or belief;
(i) To establish and maintain communications with individuals and communities in matters of religion and belief at the national and international levels.
Complain about this comment
newthink, you have my apologies for misunderstanding you. Take care
Complain about this comment
Well we've made some progress - people are accepting that 'legality = problem free' isn't a viable argument.
I'll stick with the watered down version - this seems to be 'legality REDUCES problems'
Prohibition in US? Well worn argument - how many people were killed by (example) Al-Capone during his whole career: 100? 200? Less than the numbers killed in ONE WEEK in the US by drunk driving - 40,000 a year, 800 a week. End of prohibition stopped him and his likes? They stopped him by locking him up, before the end of prohibition. His successors carried on with racketeering, multiple murders etc, well into the 1990s until the RICO laws and an FBI under new management wound them up.
#68 points to some interesting graphs, showing how cirrhosis alone kills more people in the US than ALL murders - many of which are themselves caused by alcohol. The number of cirrhosis deaths (obviously) increases again as soon as prohibition ends.
Tens of thousands of people are dying from (legal) alcohol every year in the US. Legality = reduced problems?
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
Settle down - I thought all that cannabis was supposed make you lot mellow.
In response to the reasoned responses (58,61 etc)...
Where's the evidence that legality eliminates problems with drugs?
Alcohol is legal yet huge numbers of people are subject to dependence, health damage and alcohol fueled violence. Tobacco is legal but it kills thousands of people. Children are using both - more of them than use illicit drugs.
Far from legality eliminating problems the lawful drugs seem to have their own problems but on a much greater numerical level - there's no illicit drug causing 60% of violent crime or killing 100,000 people a year.
So where's the evidence that legality stops, or even reduces, the problems?
=====================================================
How many more times do you want us to answer the same question? As I'm afraid no matter how many times you ask, the answer is still not going to be one that agrees with your view on how everyone should live.
No-one says that this will stop the problem, but there is loads of proof it reduces it.
There has been enough posts here stating and including verifiable facts from that USA before, during and after prohibition which shows an increase in harm and damage to people health whilst substances are prohibited and that the harm and damage to peoples health reduces once the prohibition is lifted.
[quote]there's no illicit drug causing 60% of violent crime or killing 100,000 people a year.[quote]
Maybe you want to check a history book at some point and try to explain that view regards prohibition in the USA which saw much higher rates of violence, much higher rates of health damage and more children drinking that was happening before and afterwards.
So yes there has been illicit drugs causing even worse problems than you state.
Is this not clear enough, or are you hoping that if you ask the same question enough times you will get an answer that pleases you, or are you here to do nothing more than troll this page.
I feel that you have had MORE than enough evidence shown to you. None of which have you managed to reply to with contradicting proof. So it's about time that you started to supply proof for your view that prohibition of any substances leads to an increase in peoples health, a drop of criminal activities, a drop in the tax money spent on policing and an increase in the tax income of the country doing the prohibition.
Look forward to seeing your reply and proof to support your statement as everyone else here who supports the legalization of drugs is more than happy and capable to provide proof to support their view, while you just disagree and supply no reason and no proof to support your view.
Complain about this comment
Jon112uk
'legality REDUCES problems' in the case of street drugs yes it will all trails in other countries back this up.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
Well we've made some progress - people are accepting that 'legality = problem free' isn't a viable argument.
I'll stick with the watered down version - this seems to be 'legality REDUCES problems'
===============
This is exactly what we have been saying all along. It's you that has been claiming we are suggesting legal = no health problem.
All along we have been saying legalize and reduce the amount of harm.
jon112uk
Prohibition in US? Well worn argument - how many people were killed by (example) Al-Capone during his whole career: 100? 200?
=================================
How about you actually add up the number of people killed due to the dodgy alcohol that he was producing, not just the number of people he killed directly.
So you think that having people like Al Capone and any other drug mobster that is getting rich of out tax money and being supported by the governments is a good thing as this is what you get when you prohibit drugs (alcohol is a drug)
========
jon112uk
Tens of thousands of people are dying from (legal) alcohol every year in the US. Legality = reduced problems?
=======
Yes because as has been stated multiple time already. When alcohol was illegal more people suffered health problems and more people died as a result of it being illegal than is happening now due to it being legal.
Complain about this comment
Here's a question for you jon112uk.
Do you want to take heroin, crack cocaine ?
Would you want to take them if they were legal?
I have taken various drugs over the years, but I have never taken heroin or crack cocaine. Both of which have been available at various times. I just have no desire or interest in taking these, especially as I know what they really do, NOT what the government wants you to believe they do.
Even if they were legal I would still have no interest in taking them. I hardly even drink alcohol these days, I don't smoke cigarettes. I'm more than capable of not taking something I don't want to take.
So why would making these drugs legal and clean increase the harm to anyone. While at the moment the drugs are not clean, they are cut with all sorts of dangerous, but cheap chemicals to bulk them up. Which only increases the harm to everyone.
The majority of people who would take drugs are ALREADY taking them. It is almost impossible to make drugs anymore available than they are without giving them away with the daily newspaper.
The main difference would be that they are no longer criminals for taking something safer than the alcohol which is the only legal choice at the moment, they would know that what they do take would be clean, not possibly mixed with extremely dodgy chemicals and of a know strength.
Where is the harm? I can only see reduction of harm whichever way you look at it.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that so much of this is hypothetical,many iof the comments saying that taking drugs is harmless so long as you know what you are doing. The question is, how do you find out and who is so stupid to try and find out. The Brain is a very complex organ with all its connections dependant on a healty body and vice versa. I do agree with the person who says that the Government has banned drugs that have a health benefit. I would also point out that the Government is inconsistent with Tobacco which can be considered harmful as well as Alcohol which also has its problems. The real problem is that the end product bought on the street from unscrupulous dealers is of indeterminate quality and add to this that every body will react unpredictably. For someone to say there is a safe way to use drugs is toforget the predicament of someone like Leah Betts. I see no charitable acts from the drug dealers in the event that their product is bad, and we have to face the fact that the Government has a duty ( that is not to say they carry this duty out properly) to look after the welfare of the population. Therefore those using drugs and breaking the law need to be aware that they are funding criminality and aparticipating in it as well, but the message will only come home to roost when they or their children suffer the ultimate fate.
Complain about this comment
Leo You will find that most who use drugs cannabis especially are well aware of the contribution to crime and once they reach the point were they have a stable and private environment they choose to grow personal amounts, hence the fall in the last few years over cannabis usage reporting.
you also go on to say "the Government has a duty ( that is not to say they carry this duty out properly) to look after the welfare of the population. Therefore those using drugs and breaking the law need to be aware that they are funding criminality and aparticipating in it as well, but the message will only come home to roost when they or their children suffer the ultimate fate."
The dealers have come home to roost in our schools outside our schools in our streets and communities. They support the government and its laws banning the sale of drugs because they profit from it. We talk of harm reduction through education but the problem with education especially the current drug education is it's one sided they make jokes out of cannabis users, make it fun or over exaggerate the effects beyond what is normal. My favorite one is vomiting on cannabis, the only time i have ever come across someone who has vomited from cannabis is when they are drunk or have swallowed a bong full of smoke. However I have come across many vomiting messes with alcohol poisoning. If you are to educate people then it must be with the TRUTH and not the half hearted media fixated figure driven hogwash backed by government and moron alike.
Current World drug policy and all reteric from governments screams the world is flat and you will fall of if you think its not.
Complain about this comment
leoRoverman
Personally I place the blame on government for funding criminality with the proceeds of some parts of the drugs trade. Those who produce and sell the legal drugs I think are in many ways worse then many of the non scrupulous drug dealers because they dont actually try and sell their product in the same way.
No drug is harmless. Every drug has side effects. Have you ever read the list of side effects for prescription medication. At the end of the day surely though it has to be the individuals right to make their own choice.
Water is not harmless either. It can kill if abused. Look at the wikipedia article on Leah Bets to see the side of the story the government didn't spend millions trying to sell to the people. The problem with this kind of advertising by the government is when it is in fact a lie it doesn't help educate people as too the dangers of drugs.
If this is allowed here is the link to that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts
Complain about this comment
Cannabis is not a drug it is a herb.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations
"It is totally illegal for me not to smoke herb
and totally unlawful or what you you would say ungodly
because it is against my religion not to smoke herb
He waters the hills from his chambers and the earth is satisfied
He maketh the grass to grow for animals and herb for the use of man
And the laws that man lay down to incriminate and victimise
and humiliate man for the use of herb is becoming so monotonous
and absurd and looks so primitive.
Herb is created for medical spiritual and scientifical purposes
and the man is trying to make it look insignificant to man
or people who claim themselves to be more privileged than some people
and research and search and go through all labrical outfomation (information)
.. I can't really express it here because it may sound subversive.
And the people who make the law and call this dangerous drugs and poison
they don't charge you for attempting suicide when you commit such an act or felony
Because if a man is committing such an act to his temple that means he is attempting
to commit a felony to his system and they don't charge you for that.
They charge you for having dangerous drugs in your posession or ganja.
I don't know what ganja is, ganja is a bird in australia"
Peter Tosh
I Am That I Am
Complain about this comment
With cannbis any kind of public health message is a red hering. If the government were truly concerned with public health they would also clamp down on activites far more dangerous than cannabis use ie:-
Extreme sports like bungee jumping, sky diving etc
Steroid use
Why is it okay to risk my life doing a extreme sport and expecting the tax payer to pay for any healthcare i might need as a result but its not okay for me to smoke a joint made with a herb that there has never been a death related to?
Cannabis prohibition has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing harm it is a deliberate form of persecution based on flawed moral judgement. It is akin to banning homosexuality or going shopping on a sunday.
Complain about this comment
76# leoRoverman
Ecstasy did not kill Leah Betts water intoxication did and if ecstasy was legal and effective education on its use was given she would be alive today.
The dealer who sold her those pills is not responsbile for her death, the government who refused her right to education on its use caused her death.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree that prohibition isn't working. The probable reason for cannabis consumption going down is that the quality of the drug being sold by dealers has declined sharply in the last two years. It's being contaminated with all-sorts of substances which is making it considerably worse for the individual users health.
Legalisation of cannabis would bring many perks as the revenue generated would help the economy, it would free up police resources to target the dealers of hard drugs like Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Meth-amphetamine etc. As we all know THESE are the drugs that are the root of most of the crime in the UK!
Also, in this time of global recession, the LAST people you want to be making big money (as money brings power!!!) are the drug cartels!
Complain about this comment
Dave,
I assume perhaps you use cannabis. So you are in interested in decriminalizing yourself while cracking down on others.
I think you do not see the big picture here.
"As we all know THESE are the drugs that are the root of most of the crime in the UK!"
Any link between drug use and crime is made worse by prohibition.
"Also, in this time of global recession, the LAST people you want to be making big money (as money brings power!!!) are the drug cartels!"
It is prohibition that gives these people that money.
Sorry, boom/recession/depression it does not matter. These people are still the last people you want to be giving money too.
You are right about the quality of Cannabis falling off a cliff. So much is cut with all sorts of junk. The irony is this was happening while the government was panicking over the 'new super strong killer skunk' 10 times stronger or whatever. This kind of rubbish leaves people in dismayed, What planet do these people live on. Anyhow they certainly rolled out the propaganda machine then and Cannabis became a convenient scape goat for many things. The BBC played its part in the hysteria too. Thankfully now its class B again all is calm again on that front.
With this blog I think the BBC has slightly redeemed its reputation in my opinion. Still a long way to go. We certainly need more fact and less opinion dressed up as fact. Opinion is fine as long as its clearly presented as opinion.
Apparently smoking Cannabis taught Jackie Smith the importance of fighting crime. These where more or less her own words. Its a shame she didn't quite get to grips with the core values of this nation which she put so much effort into trying to destroy. She is a self confessed criminal. How can she be so hypocritical. Anyhow that story is behind us now thank god.
Complain about this comment
Jaknet
"It is almost impossible to make drugs anymore available than they are without giving them away with the daily newspaper."
This is so true. I live in a 'very' rural area in Wales, it takes 20 to 30 minutes to drive to the nearest medium sized town but only 10 minutes to reach a cannabis dealer. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find one a lot closer.
Complain about this comment
...and before I forget:
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK!
Complain about this comment
Check out Portugal, where they legalised every illegal drug. Everybody in the UK and USA predicted anarachy and were laughing their heads off at the Portuguese.
Result, there was no massive crimewave that everyone expected and latest statistics show that drug use has actually come down in some parts of Portugal.
Conclusion, the stick approach just does not work, people do what they want when they want, and the more you tell them they can't do it, the more they will want to do it, it is a proven psychological trait in all human beings.
The War on Drugs is just like the War on Terror, coined by evangelical Christians in the US and followed blindly by most European Western Christian democracies. All both wars do is create more Terrorists and more drug users.
As usual though, the democratic Christians just cannot see this and will brainwash us with the dangers and scare us to kingdom come, when examples like Portugal prove their fear mongering is actually detrimental and exacerbates the problem rather than solve it.
Maybe that's what they want...
Complain about this comment
"The War on Drugs is just like the War on Terror, coined by evangelical Christians in the US and followed blindly by most European Western Christian democracies. All both wars do is create more Terrorists and more drug users."
While I would not put these wars down to evangelical Christians alone, little Hitler's come in all shapes and sizes, yes they do create more terrorists and drugs users..
and also destroy countless lives in the pursuit of the unachievable.
You cant fight a war against drugs. Drugs are not intelligent forms of life. What this means in practice is it's a civil war against your fellow citizens.
Complain about this comment
Several people have made rather erroneous comparisons to Portugal.
With the exception of drugs that remain legal due to long-term cultural acceptance (alcohol, tobacco etc), drugs remain ILLEGAL in Portugal. The Portuguese government does NOT make money from taxing the trade in illegal drugs. The Portuguese government is NOT busy regulating legal sales of drugs to ensure their safety and purity.
The focus there remains on decriminalising personal use - with an emphasis on "treatment" (i.e. drug use is seen as a medical problem, not a valid personal choice), and going after dealers, producers and importers. An interesting conclusion (though only a few years data are available) is that this approach counterintuitively seems to cut both "soft" and "hard" drug use.
Some people will think that it's a sign the Portuguese government hasn't been brave enough to follow the logical progression of its policies to full legalisation, others might think that it's a perfectly sensible public health policy, other that Lisbon has opened up a soft underbelly on the "War on Drugs". Think what you like, but please do so on the basis of the facts.
I think it's worth accepting that some drugs will be legal or illegal in different countries due to historic traditions, so public acceptability is unlikely to correlate with levels of harm. Take alcohol - in Britain, it would clearly be impossible to ban it in the foreseeable future, no matter what harm it might do to society, because with a few exceptions (certain ethnic minority groups, small teetotal communities in Wales) it has become completely culturally ingrained. Even if it was logical, moral and economical to ban alcohol, it just couldn't be done in the UK in a democratic system. Other countries do have severe bans on alcohol (mostly Islamic countries) and many nationals of those countries look at the UK's problems with alcohol with shock and utter disgust. But attempting to replicate their policies here would be pointless because of the social differences - since their cultures largely shun alcohol anyway, prohibition of alcohol there hasn't produced the disasters that followed in the United States and would certainly follow here.
On the other hand there are certain drugs that are always likely to be illegal in the United Kingdom because the vast majority of people are deeply opposed to their legalisation. This opposition may not always be rational, but it's certainly culturally ingrained. It may be closely tied to our "aesthetic" views - what is it that makes a beautiful or worthwhile society? The vast majority of British people are disgusted by the idea of living in a town where you can buy hard drugs from the newsagent, next to the cigarettes... or going to a pub where in the queue for the bar, the guy in front of them buys a line of cocaine from the bartender. For whatever reason, that's not the Britain they want to live in, and in a democratic society majorities tend to get their way. It's no good saying they're all just old biddies or the Daily Mail has polluted their minds or even waving projections of reduced crime figures at them and hoping they'll change their minds - they've all got opinions, and they've all got votes.
The truth is that users of illegal drugs remain a minority in this country, and users of the harder drugs an even smaller one that is socially and culturally unaccepted. Users of "lighter" drugs seem to be generally better tolerated, and it is conceivable that the electorate would "forgive" a party that liberalised some drug laws if they had data - and preferably results - to back it up. But full-on "legalise everything and regulate it" appears anathema to the British national psyche, whatever its merits.
Society can't be designed from scratch on a drawing board (if given the chance I'd eliminate tobacco from history - but I can't), so no government will ever produce a completely logically coherent set of social policies. There are always different interest groups with competing ambitions and who see the balance of facts differently; democratic governments tend to compromise between these interests. The alternative is a state that tries to completely rewrite society, its culture and values - a sort of "Cultural Revolution" historically associated with the least democratic regimes.
I don't think that successive governments have got the balance of interests right. And I think they've often acted more from fear of a great "moral panic" among the electorate, than because of their own ethical beliefs. Reform is clearly needed. But I do think that using alcohol and cigarettes as a "gold standard" to judge other drugs against ("if tobacco isn't illegal, then why shouldn't X be?") is unfair. It imposes too high a standard of logical consistency where it is unreasonable to expect it, and ignores cultural, historical and electoral (i.e. democratic) realities: the argument seems just as misguided as the opposing and all-too-frequent rallying cry that "decriminalising cannabis is just another step down the slippery slope to forcing all nine-year olds to take compulsory heroin".
Perhaps unusually, I'd be perfectly happy to live in a state whose ancient traditions and fervently-held religious strictures against artificially altered mental states had led to a complete ban on the whole spectrum from alcohol and cigarettes to crack. I'd also be perfectly happy to live in a state whose public liberality and "try anything once, so long as you don't harm others" culture had led to a sophisticated, completely legal, tax-paying, quality-regulated drug industry with minimal criminal involvement and good public health education - so long as there was just enough paternalism to guarantee that children and the vulnerable were protected, and struggling addicts treated as a medical concern rather than ignored as "individuals making their own informed decisions and who should live with the consequences". But whatever their merits, Britain is - and can be - neither of those countries.
Complain about this comment
# 81
spot on mate!!! people who dont know how to deal with takin e are more likely to suffer, educate like we do with alcohol and smoking.
Regular ecstacy user from 2001-2008 and never had any bad experiences on them, i learned how to control my body temp and my mind in the correct way, i used e with people i trusted "with my life", not once do i regret it and while ultimatly our thoughts go to the parents of those who have died or suffered from e use, lets remember that we all make choices in our lives, and if your kid needs to hide a choice from you then that is the governments fault..
drugs wont heal the world by a long shot, but surely it will save / make so much money for the government if legislation was brought in.... policin hours reduced, taxes. and with support there for those who do need it in clubs etc, rather than hiding away from bouncers, the health service will surely notice the difference as well!!!
our future, should be our choices without fear of punishment for not obeying the government.... the country goes to war to give people more choice... Liberal britain reads so much better than what we have at the minute!!!
Complain about this comment
Very well put blueskyan ..83
And_all_that
Fully agree with you regards Portugal. It's not illegal for personal, but still illegal to deal and supply. Which I always thought was a strange way of doing it.
As you say there will be countries that won't have drugs for religious reasons same as alcohol at the moment, but that's the wish of that country to follow those religious rule so it's their choice.
I have to disagree regards
On the other hand there are certain drugs that are always likely to be illegal in the United Kingdom because the vast majority of people are deeply opposed to their legalisation.
they've all got opinions, and they've all got votes.
The truth is that users of illegal drugs remain a minority in this country.
===============================
How do we really know that illegal drug users are a minority ? Hell even the government takes drugs.
Yes we all have votes, but I was under the "obviously silly" idea that the job of an MP is to represent their local constituents in parliament.
The reason I guess this is a silly idea is because I've NEVER had any MP contact me, by any form or method to ask my opinion on anything. Especially whether I feel drugs should remain illegal or not. In fact no-one I know have ever been asked by an MP what their view is about anything.
So my question is how do we know what the population really want as they have not been asked for the last 41 years that I know of.
Also on what basis do the MPs vote in parliament as I really cannot see that they are doing the job of representing the constituents at all? Are they just representing the interest of whatever business pays them the most. As if so, that means that our MPs are just a bunch of bought and paid for mouthpieces of whatever industry has the most money.
Yes we have the vote of one of two parties (it seems) every few years, but they have never asked my view on this.
Has anyone here EVER really been asked their view on anything by ANY government ??
Complain about this comment
Mark.
I don't know if you can help, if only with a bit of advice.
Regards my last post and the paragraph about how MPs vote. Is there any way you could do one of your charts showing how it breaks down regards how they vote.
If not do you have any hints how I could go about finding out the info myself? As I'm very curious now, how many MPs actually have the foggiest idea what their constituents really want?
Cheers
Complain about this comment
c
Complain about this comment
Lights a doob.....Thinks about it for nanosecond.....Nothing new there.....Move onto next subject.....Should politicians be on pain of death for making wrong policy.....make plans for a high prodution gallow.....
Des Currie
Complain about this comment
Agree entirely with Jaknet #7
Prohibition is an immoral disaster, and is costing lives and resources on an unacceptable scale. It is time the news media - especially the BBC - started holding to account those responsible for perpetuating this debacle rather than promoting Prohibition by stifling the enormous body of evidence which demonstrates its failure.
Complain about this comment
"break once and for all the vicious cycle of drugs and crime which wrecks lives and threatens communities". If this statement is true then our society would have fallen apart by now if 37% of working adults between the age of 16 and 59 were taking drugs, fact is society isnt falling to bits because of drugs. It maybe falling to bits but that is because of the 'want of money' not the want of drugs. I think its time too break once and for all the vicious cycle of Government/media and law which wrecks lives and threatens communities.
Mark it seems a large portion of society is already rethinking their views on drugs, The only person i know who hasn't tried an illicit substance is my mum. i know police officers custom officers and teachers who have tried cannabis, and i also know people who have been caught smoking weed and now have had their careers ruined because of it. People are going to smoke cannabis now what ever the Government say, it is here too stay and people have seen through the propaganda of earlier decades.
Drugs are a natural resource in many countries, and unfortunately maybe because of international laws on prohibition many of these countries are wrecked by civil wars and terrorist attacks, crime gangs run the drugs and make all the profit and these countries see no money from it. The UK fought wars and built empires on opium, so why cant other countries like columbia, afgan etcetera make money off their natural resources, if that money was used to benefit those countries what could be bad with that. Drug use in the western world is destroying certain places across the world but that is because the money is going straight into the hands of criminals and terrorists because of the LAW instead of being used to build the country and support society.
Complain about this comment
We have plenty of grass and
Freewheelin' Franklin says :
"Dope will get you through times of No Money
Better than Money will get you through times of No Dope"
Complain about this comment
The truth is that users of illegal drugs remain a minority in this country. can we have a figure for this as its only presumed upon a poll or questionnaire of a minority which is likely to not admit the truth of habit through fear of law.
At the end of it all though its about personal choice something which has been eroded in this country. I made a choice to use cannabis over alcohol and the antidepressants which are prescribed for my metal health and after all are psychotropic drugs no different to cannabis in there function upon the brain with one difference endocannabinoids actually control the dopamine and serotonin transport and regulation of the brain, Now the psychotropic drugs the doctor prescribes only mask the problem through altering the state of mind the same way cannabis does. The toll on my physical health though is greater through the prescribed psychotropic drug then it is on cannabis.
Religion also suffers under prohibition. The English bible is changed and altered to suit the message of the day so its not that as some say religion frowns upon psychotropic drugs its in-fact the case that politics and law frown and look down on religion.
taken from the bible King James Version the bible of the church of England. Isiah 18:4-5
4 For so the LORD said unto me, I will take my rest, and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.
5 For afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect, and the sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks, and take away and cut down the branches.
and now the English Revised Version
For thus hath the LORD said unto me, I will be still, and I will behold in my dwelling place; like clear heat in sunshine, like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.
For before the harvest, when the blossom is over, and the flower becomes a ripening grape, he will cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks, and he will cut down and take away the spreading branches.
These parts are in-contention as some will take it as the harvest of grapes for wine yet cant explain the processing of the branch's and others take it as the harvest of the new wine 'cannabis' and its processing into cloth food and medicines. From understanding of passages like this the Rastafarian faith and other christian belief has resurfaced.
Complain about this comment
there are receptors in (all) our brain's for all manner of drugs. this would seem to be evidence of a long-standing association between humans and 'drugs'. so, either god put the receptors there, or they 'evolved' over a long period of time.
either way, people take drugs (whether legal, or illegal) - FACT. pretty much always have - FACT. always will - FACT!
wars on drugs are pointless, and a waste of money!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
One Spliff A Day
Keeps the Evil Away
Complain about this comment
Billy Boyo what make you bad so?
Billy Boyo :- One Spliff A Day
Zomby - Spliff Dub THE ORIGINAL
Complain about this comment
History has taught us one very important fact. The minority only get heard if they become the majority, no matter how big the minority or how valid the argument.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have read a lot from people who are against any form of drug legalisation, reasons why they don't want other people to use drugs. I have also read comments from said people that attempt to place non drug users on some kind of pedestal, as though they are better than those who use drugs for recreation/pleasure. Which is unhelpful and unwarrented. However what I don't see from these people are any suggestions as to how things can be improved.
Surely they cannot be happy with the way things are at the moment? They cannot be happy with dealers on the streets selling to their kids, kids dying from using contaminated gear, with criminal gangs causing havoc in their neighbourhoods, with addict prostitutes on their street corners. . Surely they can't honestly believe that all this will magically go away one day if and when the war on drugs is won.....surely they aren't THAT naive.....are they?
Ok so if the ultimate aim isn't being acheived from attempting to batter drug users into submission with prison sentences and scorn, spending obscene amounts of money and causing untold amounts of misery across the world wouldn't it would be a good idea to have a look, without prejudice, at the evidence that has been gathered over the last 40 or so years from both sides and find a strategy that has a better chance of working?
We have lots of examples throughout our history that prove prohibition doesn't work, alchohol (the most obvious), suicide, abortion, homosexuality, the list goes on. All when illegal caused a huge amount of suffering because the very nature of them being illegal forces them underground.
I know our politicians don't care/aren't interested in the people of the UK other than the amount of money and power we can give them. I would've thought the people would have a bit more compassion towards their countrymen.
Or have we become THAT selfish?
Complain about this comment
Some Wonderful Music
Zomby - Spliff Dub THE ORIGINAL (Billy Boyo - O
Complain about this comment
one spliff a day
good music must play
take a dip in the bay
keep bad things away
so me doctor say
.. nice tune
Complain about this comment
When will people actually learn that prohibition never works? Make something illegal and it just becomes more attractive, to users as well as dealers. The only real way to beat the effect that drugs have on society is to take away the illegality from the equation - dealers are the real vicious face of the drug problem in society. However, people forget that far more crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol than could ever be committed by those under the influence of drugs- but becuase alcohol is widely accepted in society now there would be an outcry if the Government were to try and ban it (plus they make a nice killing on the taxes from it!)
Legalise and regulate soft drugs to remove the dealers from the cycle. Offer real treatment and help for those addicted to hard drugs, and give more support to those recovering from addiction to get back into the workplace. People don't suddenly wake up and think "Today I'm going to become an addict!" There is a long road of abuse, distrust, self-hatred and depression that kicks someone into substance abuse, and these are the people who fall through the cracks and miss out on a real life, but as usual the needy get ignored while the rest of society point the finger and shout "It's your own fault!"
Complain about this comment
reading todays newspapers it looks like drugtaking is rising dramatically amongst the London posh..its the smart thing to do at dinner..well that shows you where that class of people are in life...they are the dregs of society ...drugs are a fatal attraction and in my book anyone associated with them should be shipped to a deserted island and dumped..we dont need drugs in our society because all they do is fuel crime and murder and make the world a dreadful place to live in
Complain about this comment
Of course, for many of us legalisation is a genuine no-brainer but for politicians it's a "third rail issue" i.e. touch it and you're finished. The most obvious agent of destruction for the politician who might wish to consider legalisation is what we used to call the tabloid press. However if there was a real prospect of it happening you'd see the politicians supporting it being threatened, blackmailed or, if necessary, assassinated. The vested interests in the War on Drugs (on both sides of the law) are too powerful and too ruthless to be safely defied.
And no, decriminalisation of personal use is worse than useless, as with any situation where one side of a transaction is legal while the other is criminal. There needs to be a legal, regulated, source of supply as there was back when addiction was a minor medical problem rather than a threat to society.
People seem to have forgotten that prohibition was purely a 20th century idea. In Victorian England use of the currently prohibited drugs was legal and routine. There were problems, of course, but nothing like the levels of use and addiction we see today.
Complain about this comment
... nice illustration of how the War on Drugs has rewritten history to give the impression that there's no alternative just came up on the TV schedules. A young Sherlock Holmes vs. a drugs king-pin. Kind of grimly hilarious set at a time when the British had recently gone to war against the Chinese government who were trying to ban the British firms who were selling morphine to the Chinese population. Particularly with Sherlock being a cocaine user.
Complain about this comment
The legality (or not) of marijuana is pretty much irrelevant; just be careful... ;)
Have a listen to Frank Zappa when he describes the other benefits of hemp plants (probably the real reason for it's continued suppression)
''Grow More Pot''
Pt 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ4MauvhRxM (the build up)
Pt 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir-Skbhj8F0&feature=related (heavy data)
Complain about this comment
Thanks CatsToCoats Id not seen that version of the interview very funny :)
Complain about this comment
@ oldsitkaspruce
Any chance you could explain how drugs fuel murder & crime ?
Or why people using drugs are the dregs of society who deserve to be shipped to a desert island ?
From where I'm standing it looks like prohibition is what causes all of the murder & crime and I'm finding it hard to see things from your perspective because no-one who is in favour of prohibition seems to have any logical reasons to back up their opinions.
I know a lot of people who use illegal drugs recreationally and I wouldn't describe any of them as the dregs of society, mostly they're normal, decent people who work hard and look after their families and the only difference between them and the non-drug users I know is their choice of recreational drug. Some choose alcohol and/or cigarettes while others prefer Cannabis, Magic Mushroom's, Ecstasy or Cocaine.
They're not addicts, the only crime they've ever committed is possession of a controlled drug and the only people they're harming is themselves and repealing prohibition would reduce that harm significantly.
Complain about this comment
@ 108
Once again the views of the morally righteous, nothing constructive to say, just jump up on that pedestal man, show us all how superior you are with your oh so intelligent reasoning and innovative ideas. Man I wish I was as perfect as you that I could look down my nose at another group of human beings.
Funny that, you would think it would be the drug using law breakers that wouldn't be able to construct an intelligent arguement. On the contrary, with the exeption of one or two the only intelligent arguement I've seen in many a blog has come from the drug users. From the other side of the fence we've seen insults, hatred, disdain, disgust but sad to say no proof to offer and...NOT ONE CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUEMENT.
Hmmmm....maybe the straight bods need to chill out a bit and start using their brains instead of their emotions.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK!!!
Complain about this comment
The more I look into the drugs legislation issue the more I come to the conclusion that the UN drug policy law was written by chimps. It has so many holes, was built on totally spurious ideals, won't EVER curb the drug trade, has wasted an absolutely criminal amount of money, caused an inhuman amount of suffering and has raised the crime/murder/addiction rate wherever it has been implemented.
The money wasted on the war on drugs could've increased the living standards for an untold amount of people, probably would've saved a large number of lives, kept people fed in third world countries, paid for better equipment in hospitals and better research into HIV/cancer etc.
Tell me, you people who want to bury your heads in the sand and leave things the way they are.......has it been worth it????
Do we have to go ANOTHER 40 years before this utterly objectionable and wastful so called 'war' is ended and we have some sensible policy regarding drugs?
Complain about this comment
"Around four million people use illegal drugs each year. Most of these people do not appear to experience harm from their drug use, nor do they cause harm to others as a result of their habit."
(HC-318, The Governments Drugs Policy, is it working? 2002)
"Government acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illegal drugs."
(Cm 6941, The Government Reply to the Fifth Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Session 2005-06 HC1031 Drug classification: making a hash of it)?
"At present, the legal framework for the regulation and control of drugs clearly distinguishes between drugs such as tobacco and alcohol and various other drugs which can be bought and sold legally (subject to various regulations), drugs which are covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) and drugs which are classed as medicines, some of which are also covered by the Act. [] these distinctions are based on historical and cultural factors and lack a consistent and objective basis."
(Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Pathways to Problems 2006)
(source: http://www.drugequality.org/)
THEY can see it, what will it take to get the Government to listen?
Complain about this comment
Government? listen? C'mon, prohibition helped the US gangsters. I suspect that the bottom line is that it STILL DOES.
Complain about this comment
Why has no one mentioned poverty? Financial poverty, poverty of ambition, .... poverty of participation in the arts, sciences, the world...
People take mind-altering drugs (at least initially) to escape from the realities of their lives. Giving young people a future worth looking forward to will surely go a long way towards reducing drug use. Drugs, including alcohol are a means of escape.
I'm not sure if there is data to support this thesis. I watched drug use and abuse increase rapidly in my city during the '80s when there was a rapid change in employment, and heavy industry was being removed from our economy.
I'd like to see a global study; what drugs are used in which countries and what changes occur as economies change? Are there any decent studies looking at drug abuse over the past century in the UK? What patterns emerge?
Obviously it isn't the sole reason, but it surely must play a large part...
I hate the idea of people spending their lives hooked on hard drugs, and the impact that has on communities, families and their kids. But at least if it is 'dispensed' users would be protected from using 'cut' drugs. Soap powder etc mixed with heroin serves to increase profits and worsen the health of the user.
Remember, the parents of the drug abusers are most likely to be decent people, dreading the day when it ends badly.
Too many funerals for too many young people have taken place for this to degenerate into an unthinking debate.
Complain about this comment
> On the contrary, with the exeption of one or two the only intelligent arguement
>I've seen in many a blog has come from the drug users.
Hey, don't assume that everyone in favour of legalisation is a drug user, or even thinks using is a good idea. That panders to the witch hunt mentality where everyone who doesn't agree that witches should be burnt is assumed to be a witch.
I'm not in favour of legalisation because I, personally, want to use drugs. I'm in favour of it because I believe that prohibition is, in principal, immoral and, in practice, a social disaster.
In fact I'd state as a general principal:
The use of the law against vice exacerbates the vice and corrupts the law.
Complain about this comment
oldsitkaspruce
'in my book anyone associated with them should be shipped to a deserted island and dumped..we dont need drugs in our society because all they do is fuel crime and murder and make the world a dreadful place to live in'
in my book it's the morally righteous that get sent to the deserted island. We do need drugs in our society the World Health Org. has a list of drugs that are essential to human life. Many more people are addicted to one of the most dangerous and legal drugs alcohol. Many would argue that it is in fact the LAW that is fuelling crime not drugs. The drugs you mean are heroin and cocaine, they are the drugs that the addicts who rob and steal take, and these drugs were being prescribed (heroin anyway) until a few decades ago and strangely acquisition crime was nowhere near as bad then, can you see the link...i doubt it...drugs are bad...smack heads are scum bags...alcoholics are victims...blabla....
Complain about this comment
I'm still waiting for the evidence that prohibition in the US resulted in an overall increase in deaths.
Secretariat pointed me to some graphs (#68)- thank you. One showed an ongoing increase in US homicides right from 1900 onwards, no consistent change in trend in the 20s. The same page showed deaths from liver disease going down during the prohibition period. Cirrhosis caused more deaths than ALL murders.
At the moment, with legal alcohol, the US has 40,000 deaths per year from drunk driving, 35,000 deaths from cirrhosis. They have 17,000 murders, utterly eclipsed by the deaths directly attributable to alcohol, despite the fact that that they have more murders now than during prohibition.
Far from 'harm reduction', mass consumption of a lawful product appears to result in mass health problems. This idea that legalisation makes things better doesn't seem to stack up.
Complain about this comment
Prohibition is a 20th century phenomenon. Most drugs used to mainstream, even ecstasy. Its seems that prohibition stems from some faceless civil servant deciding one day that people were having too much of a good time so let's make it illegal. There never appears to be any logical or scientific thinking/evidence behind prohibition, and have you noticed there always appears to be a strong dose of religious moralising prevelant. Have many deaths in recorded history can be directly linked to religious beliefs - shall we ban religion then! You should only base your arguments about legalising drugs on facts.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
Alcohol is well known to cause violence I wonder how these figures would reflect if cannabis was legal over the same period in time. Taking that after reefer madness was disproved and cannabis was found to make you relaxed and pacify anger hence why the USA kept up prohibition on cannabis with the Russians being blamed for the sedation of the USA rendering soldiers unable to fight during the cold war years or so the USA government thought.
Would you see the same amount of violence and death through alcohol if there was a passive alternate 'cannabis' for those that had a bad reaction to being drunk.
Cannabis cant be compared to alcohol heroin or any other drug that currently causes problems in society's around the world.
The world ran fine before the 1920's and the approach of prohibition then the problems started.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk - steady on jon - first I don't use cannabis. Secondly, nothing you have posted on this blog 'stacks up'. You singularly fail to see the point of other peoples posts. NO ONE HAS SAID LEGALISATION WILL SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS SURROUNDING DRUG USE - WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING THE RISKS AND HARM ASSOCIATED WITH DRUG USE. Legalisation would reduce alot of the harm associated with drug use as well as putting the criminal element out of business - DOH!
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
I presume you did not read the text that accompanied the graphs. Perhaps as you are the one advocating the continuing removal of liberties from people, you might at least do some research to find evidence supporting your arguments.
Anyhow their is some debate on the interpretation of numbers as always, but its a bit more complicated then just looking at a graph. Quoting that article:
"Beyond the results presented here, additional results in Dills and Miron (2001) - which account for the effects of state prohibitions, pre-1920 federal anti-alcohol policies, alcoholic beverage taxes, income and other factorsdemonstrate consistently that Prohibition had a small, statistically insignificant, and possibly even a positive effect on cirrhosis. Given the evidence that cirrhosis is a reasonable proxy for alcohol consumption, this implies Prohibition had little impact on the path of alcohol consumption."
Also when you are drinking alcohol full of containments their are plenty of additional health problems beyond cirrhosis, which normally requires long term abuse.
Prohibition was such a disaster that even some of its supporters had changed their minds by the end of it.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
"At the end of Prohibition, some supporters openly admitted its failure. A quote from a letter, written in 1932 by wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr., states:
'When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.'"
Complain about this comment
#12 CommunityCriminal
The world ran fine before the 1920's and the approach of prohibition then the problems started.
===================================================
The graph referenced by Secretariat (#68) showed the homicide rate in the US increasing from 1900 onwards, not from 1919/20. Personally I couldn't see any change in the trend from 1920 onwards.
Yes, alcohol is linked to lots of violence - some sources say 60% of violent crime and 70% of 'date rapes' for example.
Strangely, if you look at it the other way around I am actually saying that (illegal) cannabis causes less problems than (legal) alcohol or tobacco. That's why I'm questioning the idea that legality is an effective contribution to overall harm reduction. It looks more like legality = mass consumption = mass health problems to me.
Complain about this comment
oldsitkaspruce wrote:
we dont need drugs in our society because all they do is fuel crime and murder and make the world a dreadful place to live in.
=============================
Ok oldsitkaspruce I'm very interested to see if you can live up to your lofty ideas yourself.
When you become ill do you do and see the doctor and refuse any medication as it's drugs? ... yes some of the drugs that are prescribed contain the same illegal drugs you are complaining about.
Have you ever had a drink of tea or coffee?.
As these both contain one of the worlds most widely used Psychoactive stimulant and Central Nervous System stimulant drugs going... Caffeine
Have you ever had a drink of alcohol, smoked a cigarette, taken even an aspirin or paracetamol.
You yourself take drugs almost every day, but because they have become so commonly used and ingrained in our society they are not seen as drugs even though they are.
You cannot tell me you have never got up and been really looking forward to the first cup of tea of coffee in the morning... Welcome to what a craving for a drug feels like... That's your body wanting the drug Caffeine.
I doubt you, or any one here can claim that they "Never take drugs".
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
And regarding the homicide rates, although these dont tell the whole story of death and health impairment(such as blindness) from beverages of unknown quality, that article shows two graph and its interesting to see some correlation between expenditure on enforcement and the homicide rate. Anyhow this is what they summarise with but they do go into more detail
"The data in Figure 4 combined with the data in Figure 3 show that expenditure climbs along with the homicide rate during Alcohol Prohibition and then falls at the end of this prohibition, as does the homicide rate. The relation is not perfect; other factors undoubtedly play a role. For example, the homicide rate begins rising about a decade before constitutional Prohibition takes effect, a fact that potentially reflects demographics (the enormous levels of immigration during the early part of this century), the violence-inducing effects of World War I, or perhaps merely changes in the sample of states used to compute homicide rates (Miron 1999). Regression analysis in Miron (1999) considers this more formally and confirms that enforcement of alcohol prohibition played a central role in causing the increasing and decreasing homicide rates during this period."
Complain about this comment
jon112uk - ok jon let's look at things through your very skewed perspective. Tobacco and alcohol cause more harm than all illegal drugs put together. If we are going to ban substances due to the harm they cause we should ban tobacco and alcohol and legalise drugs such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy etc. We are talking about harm reduction. It is the contaminants that criminals put in drugs that make them so dangerous. Let's ban red meat, cheese, paracetamol, hay fever tablets, water - all have health risks if abused.
Complain about this comment
Jon112uk yer okays just morning brain fog :)One of the other things to look at is the rise in illness related to natural endocannaboids since cannabis has been taken out of the food chain and then look at the illness that is cured by natural cannaboids.
In addition to Sativex, GW has the following earlier stage programmes underway:
THCV
A novel cannabinoid product, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), is in Phase I development. THCV has shown promise in pre-clinical studies as a potential treatment for obesity, diabetes and related metabolic disorders.
Otsuka Collaboration
Under a collaboration agreement with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, a range of GW cannabinoids are being researched as drug candidates within the field of CNS and oncology, with a view to selecting the most promising candidates for full clinical development, regulatory approval and global commercialization.
What a cure for cancer lol old news..... all the above are plauges of the 20th century if im not wrong?
Complain about this comment
Theirs nothing like waking up and fuelling my brain with a nice cup of coffee so I can trot off to work high on Caffeine. Don't know how I'd get to work without it.
It's a good thing no one notices I am a drug addict turning up at work driven by drugs.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
I'm still waiting for the evidence that prohibition in the US resulted in an overall increase in deaths.
Secretariat pointed me to some graphs (#68)- thank you. One showed an ongoing increase in US homicides right from 1900 onwards, no consistent change in trend in the 20s. The same page showed deaths from liver disease going down during the prohibition period. Cirrhosis caused more deaths than ALL murders.
===================================================
jon112uk... Yet again you take a single item completely out of context, you totally ignore the rest of the information presented with the graph and you try to twist the figures to fit your view on how the world should be.
Why did you not bother to read or mention the rest of the info on that page? Was it because it would prove you wrong?
You comment about deaths from liver disease and homicides. I'm guessing because these are the only figures that might, taken on their own seem to support your view.
Well how about we include the conclusions that the very people who did this research came to without only seeing the bits you want us to see.
I appreciate that there is a lot to read there, so to help you along I've done that same as you have been doing, and here is a quick highlight of some of the most "Interesting" snippets from the results.
--- There is little effect of state prohibitions on cirrhosis.
--- This last fact is the most problematic for the claim that Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption
--- Might suggest that Prohibition played a substantial role in reducing cirrhosis, but further examination suggests this conclusion is premature.
--- Nevertheless, the behavior of cirrhosis after repeal fails to suggest a large effect of Prohibition.
--- Cirrhosis began declining from its pre-1920 peak by as early as 1908, and it had already attained its lowest level over the sample in 1920, the year in which constitutional prohibition took effect.
--- Two other effects of prohibitions are the effects on overdoses and accidental poisonings
--- This implies that prohibitions help make the potent forms of a good more readily available or even help create more potent forms of a prohibited substance
--- Two other effects of prohibitions are the effects on overdoses and accidental poisonings.
--- Prohibitions potentially increase violent and non-violent crime.
--- Combined with the greater existence of high potency products, this further suggests the possibility of increased overdoses, as well as accidental poisonings, under prohibition.
--- Prohibitions can increase demand through a "forbidden fruit" effect, meaning a tendency for consumers to desire that which has been forbidden to them.
--- Prohibitions give black market suppliers an incentive to corrupt law enforcement officials and politicians.
--- Prohibitions help make the potent forms of a good more readily available or even help create more potent forms of a prohibited substance.
I'm looking forward to seeing your reply to this.
I have still yet to see any proof that Prohibition helps reduce harm and does not actually increase harm.
There is loads of proof that it DOES increase harm, but NOTHING to show it reduces harm.
WHY do we continue to pay for and support this "War on Drugs" when all it does is harm the population as a whole?
Quote 1
The fact that cirrhosis was substantially lower on average during Prohibition than before or after might suggest that Prohibition played a substantial role in reducing cirrhosis, but further examination suggests this conclusion is premature. First, there have been substantial fluctuations in cirrhosis outside the Prohibition period, indicating that other factors are important determinants and must be accounted for in analyzing whether Prohibition caused the low level of cirrhosis during Prohibition. Second, there is no obvious jump in cirrhosis upon repeal. This fact does not prove that Prohibition had no effect, since the lags between consumption and cirrhosis mean the effect of increased consumption might not have shown up immediately. Nevertheless, the behavior of cirrhosis after repeal fails to suggest a large effect of Prohibition. Third, cirrhosis began declining from its pre-1920 peak by as early as 1908, and it had already attained its lowest level over the sample in 1920, the year in which constitutional prohibition took effect.
Quote 2
This last fact is the most problematic for the claim that Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption. One possible explanation for the large pre-1920 decline in cirrhosis is that state prohibition laws were becoming increasingly widespread during the 1910-1920 period. Dills and Miron (2001) use state-level data, however, to show the declines in cirrhosis during this period were typically as large or larger in wet states as in states that adopted prohibition laws. More formally, they estimate a fixed-effects regression using state-level cirrhosis data to show that, once aggregate effects are accounted for, there is little effect of state prohibitions on cirrhosis.
Quote 3
Two other effects of prohibitions are the effects on overdoses and accidental poisonings. Because suppliers in a prohibited market must hide their activities from the authorities, they have a strong incentive to produce and ship the good in the most concentrated and hence most easily concealed form (Thornton 1998). This implies that prohibitions help make the potent forms of a good more readily available or even help create more potent forms of a prohibited substance. By itself this effect does not necessarily change the manner in which consumption takes place; consumers can potentially redilute the commodity in question to achieve their desired degree of potency. But in practice such redilution is imperfect, suggesting increased overdoses under prohibitions.
Quote 4
In addition to affecting price and quantity, prohibitions potentially increase violent and non-violent crime. Participants in an illegal trade cannot use the legal and judicial system to resolve disputes, so they seek other methods such as violence. Enforcement of prohibitions means reduced resources for enforcement of non-prohibition laws, which implies reduced deterrence of crime generally. Prohibitions can increase income-generating crime, such as theft or prostitution, by raising prices if consumers finance consumption of the prohibited commodity from such crime. And prohibitions give black market suppliers an incentive to corrupt law enforcement officials and politicians. Despite these tendencies to increase crime, the net effect of prohibitions on crime can be negative if prohibitions discourage consumption of the prohibited good and if such consumption encourages criminal activity. Thus, the net effect of prohibitions on crime can only be determined empirically.
Quote 5
Two other effects of prohibitions are the effects on overdoses and accidental poisonings. Because suppliers in a prohibited market must hide their activities from the authorities, they have a strong incentive to produce and ship the good in the most concentrated and hence most easily concealed form (Thornton 1998). This implies that prohibitions help make the potent forms of a good more readily available or even help create more potent forms of a prohibited substance. By itself this effect does not necessarily change the manner in which consumption takes place; consumers can potentially redilute the commodity in question to achieve their desired degree of potency. But in practice such redilution is imperfect, suggesting increased overdoses under prohibitions.
Quote 6
Consumers in a prohibited market cannot sue the manufacturers of faulty goods or complain to government agencies without incriminating themselves. In addition, the costs of advertising are high in a prohibited market, so producers cannot easily develop a reputation for quality in order to generate repeat business. Thus, uncertainty about quality is likely to be greater in a prohibited market. Combined with the greater existence of high potency products, this further suggests the possibility of increased overdoses, as well as accidental poisonings, under prohibition.
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal,
The real crime here is that they take a plant given to all of us equally by god and hand it over to big pharma to exploit for a profit. People with say Glaucoma suffer terrible pain and possible eye damage while we wait for these businesses to find a way to profit from the substance. And Glaucoma is far from the only illness treatable using canabis.
But where would the profit be if you could grow your own medicine. How would they take money from our NHS for their rehashed drugs ?
We are governed by big business it seems, and it becomes clearer every day.
Complain about this comment
oldsitkaspruce
One other question I forgot to ask. When you say Drugs, you do mean drugs as in all known and recognized drugs?
Or do you mean Drugs as in the drugs other people take... that don't include the drugs you take?.... p.s. EVEN toothpaste contains a DRUG... it's called fluoride.
Just asking as if it's the first... then you are a drug taker along with the rest of the world and have no basis to stand on for your comment.
If it's the second and some drugs are good, but any drug you don't personally take is bad... then your comments are just pure hypocrisy and have no basis to stand on either.
Complain about this comment
Looks a bit desperate here - we're now having to go into advanced mathematical analysis to find an effect on deaths attributable to the US prohibition. That must be a really huge, in your face effect.
Meanwhile lawful alcohol continues to be the number three cause of death in the US.
Basic point: legality of alcohol doesn't no harm or even reduced harm. It looks like lots of harm.
I'm not saying prohibition of alcohol worked or that legality has made things worse. I'm just questioning the assumption that making yet more drugs legal would result in LESS problems. There's no sign of less problems from alcohol now it is legal in the US - tens of thousands of people are dying every year.
Complain about this comment
oldsitkaspruce
'in my book anyone associated with them should be shipped to a deserted island and dumped..we dont need drugs in our society because all they do is fuel crime and murder and make the world a dreadful place to live in'
You will quickly run out of deserted islands to place individuals on. So what's your next plan ?
Complain about this comment
Indeed Blueskyan the saddest thing about this whole argument millions of people held in bondage while the pharms get rich' shareholder prisons grow in number and profit. Maybe one day just to add insult to injury they will have chain gangs harvest their pharma crops.....
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
"The graph referenced by Secretariat (#68) showed the homicide rate in the US increasing from 1900 onwards, not from 1919/20. Personally I couldn't see any change in the trend from 1920 onwards."
Really ?
Because when I look at the homicide rates on that graph it looks to me like there's a significant reduction in the murder rate from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 in the period following the repealing of prohibition and then the trend increases back up to 10 per 100,000 in the period when the prohibition of drugs was enforced.
I don't know about you but a 40% reduction in the homicide rate is a significant reduction in my book.
If you couldn't see any change in the trend then how do you explain the graphs distinct M shape ?
It isn't a straight line or a gentle curve; it is a distinct M shaped graph.
It clearly shows a steady increase until the late 30s followed by a distinct reduction until the late 60s followed by another steady increase until the present day.
The one question none of the pro-prohibitionists seems to be able to answer is what exactly is your plan ?
What do you think we should do to reduce the harm to our society and how are you going to implement & enforce it ?
This is the big one none of you ever seems to be able to come up with, all we ever get is that we're going to carry on as we have been doing, even though it is obviously failing to protect our society and can easily be shown to be causing more harm than it prevents.
Prohibition has never worked, does not work and will never work yet many of you seem intent on carrying on with it and will carry on with it until the day the drug-lords take over our entire country with the profits they're making from producing & distributing drugs.
Even if we were to go to the total extreme of executing all drug users & dealers it still won't stop the problems, as many other countries will tell you.
Several countries have been using the death penalty for drug users for years and every year they end up executing more than they did the year before and the associated problems just keep getting worse.
People enjoy taking drugs and they're going to carry on taking drugs no matter what policies or punishments are put in place to try to stop them.
So come on then please any pro-prohibitionists out there:
What is your plan ?
I'll say it again:
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK !
Complain about this comment
132. At 11:39am on 27 Jul 2009, Jaknet....
Oddly enough I did read the whole thing.
Strange sort of analysis: when cirrhosis fails to follow a simple pattern (rise until 1920, then decline until 1935, then rise straight after would be perfect) this is presented as strong evidence prohibition had no effect on consumption. When homicide rates fail to show the oposite effect they are subject to tortuous analysis until they are deamed to prove prohibition caused an increase in murder.
Utterly trustworthy I'm sure.
The number of present day deaths from legal alcohol is massive - 4-5 times the whole of the murder rate, let alone any small numbers which might or might not have been caused by prohibition.
The idea that legalising alcohol in the US has had any substantial effect on reducing harm just doesn't stack up.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
"Looks a bit desperate here - we're now having to go into advanced mathematical analysis to find an effect on deaths attributable to the US prohibition. That must be a really huge, in your face effect."
This is not being desperate. It's how we make sense of lots and lots of numbers. Without some analysis numbers like this are largely meaningless. The mathematics helps us untangle the mess and see what they really say.
These studies are then peer reviewed. Other statisticians will look at the work and see if it makes sense. Try alternative methods and see if they come to the same conclusion. This is how we make progress. Its called science and I dont think science is being desperate - its being thorough.
I like the way the government will take a freshly published meta study and claim it proves something, it doesn't initially. Once its stood up to peer review and been independently verified then it begins to mean something. The media and government dont often follow through when they've held up some study that supports their point of view. I wonder why - perhaps they are not actually interested in getting closer to the truth but in swaying opinion.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk - you just keep missing the point completely. Prohibition makes the situation WORSE by:
1. putting the prohibited commodity into the hands of criminals who care little about the quality of their products.
2. the quality of the product relates directly to the harm it can cause.
3. we make criminals rich, who can then afford to spread their nets wider causing more misery.
4. you criminalise whole sections of law abiding people.
5. you clog up the justice system.
6. huge sums of public money are wasted trying to police the whole stupid system.
Hope that makes things clearer for you, or do you just want to ban everything that could possibly cause harm?
Complain about this comment
"I'm not saying prohibition of alcohol worked or that legality has made things worse. I'm just questioning the assumption that making yet more drugs legal would result in LESS problems. There's no sign of less problems from alcohol now it is legal in the US - tens of thousands of people are dying every year"
I'm just questioning the assumption that keeping drugs illegal while trying expensive initiatives like becoming softer-harder-softer err OK lets get harder or relabelling drugs back and forth will help us reduce problems or if its getting us anywhere. Where is the evidence that prohibition works ?
It certainly costs allot of money that much is for sure. We have no money and are living on the national credit card.
"There's no sign of less problems from alcohol now it is legal in the US - tens of thousands of people are dying every year"
If you are talking about the events in the 1920's and 1930's when you say 'now its legal' can you find some evidence to support your statement. I dont think it is true. Do you think prohibition was repealed because they thought - hmm well this is working and we'll have more problems if we lift prohibition so well lets do it just for a laugh.
Complain about this comment
to get a true figure from alcohol related violence you would have to break it down to types of alcohol just like the types of drugs and types of cannabis. to show actual facts about the time of alcohol prohibition. How did the actual alcohol picture change during this time? as the alcohol brewed would not match the current consumption rates from the standardised brewing industry before prohibition. (just a thought)
Anyway we blame so much on alcohol in the last 100 years for the downfall of society could that be because choice was taken by force, leaving just a violently happy liquid. Not really a good choice in the long run but i suppose it adds to the chaos needed to distract the public from the real issues.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
Oddly enough I did read the whole thing.
Strange sort of analysis: when cirrhosis fails to follow a simple pattern (rise until 1920, then decline until 1935, then rise straight after would be perfect) this is presented as strong evidence prohibition had no effect on consumption. When homicide rates fail to show the oposite effect they are subject to tortuous analysis until they are deamed to prove prohibition caused an increase in murder.
Utterly trustworthy I'm sure.
========================================
Trying very hard not to laugh here...
You are seriously expecting me to believe that your entire reply to the majority of the article YOU used to get figures from to support your view... is
Quote
"Utterly trustworthy I'm sure."
So how come only the figures that suit YOUR view are trustworthy and the rest of the article, which blatantly is the opposite of what you claim these figures mean is not trustworthy?
jon112uk wrote:
The number of present day deaths from legal alcohol is massive - 4-5 times the whole of the murder rate,
==============================================
Yet again easy to say figures and I don't disagree that today's figures show alcohol deaths above murder rate.
What I fail completely so see is how this helps support your case, as I feel that it does the TOTAL opposite.
As you say deaths from the drug Alcohol are vast. SO WHY are proven and known safer drug options banned from being used and we are forced to only take the dangerous and known to be lethal drug Alcohol?
All this does is increase the harm to people. I'd prefer to smoke cannabis which has not killed ANYONE than drink alcohol which kills THOUSANDS, but that's illegal because "Drugs are Bad"
jon112uk wrote:
The idea that legalising alcohol in the US has had any substantial effect on reducing harm just doesn't stack up.
==============================================
So all the provable deaths, injuries and people lives ruined due to prohibition just becomes
Quote
"small numbers which might or might not have been caused by prohibition."
because it does not support your view so just dismiss this as small and unknown when it's been PROVED and is known FACT.
The figures and all studies from the era both before, during and after prohibition all CLEARLY show that during prohibition there was a vast increase of harm to the population of the USA during prohibition.
This has been stated many times on this very page, but as few quick reminders to help you.
More people dying from badly brewed and poisioned alcohol during prohibition.
More people harmed by the criminal gangs running the illegal alcohol trade.
More police killed whilst fighting the illegal alcohol gangs.
More children suffering from alcohol during prohibition
More peoples lives ruined by being classed as criminals just for a glass of wine/beer.
Less money to support the health service due to tax money spent fighting the alcohol gangs and no tax income for any alcohol sales.
The list goes on, and on , and on.
How many more need to DIE before this "War of Death, Harm and Political Benefit" is finished.
Complain about this comment
"Strange sort of analysis: when cirrhosis fails to follow a simple pattern (rise until 1920, then decline until 1935, then rise straight after would be perfect) this is presented as strong evidence prohibition had no effect on consumption. When homicide rates fail to show the oposite effect they are subject to tortuous analysis until they are deamed to prove prohibition caused an increase in murder."
These numbers dont represent carefully controlled experiments. The data itself is full of inaccuracies. Even if they where carefully controlled experiments analysis is still necessary but it may become easier. Their are many factors that effect these things other then the factor you are looking at.
Therefore they must be subject to 'tortuous analysis', to factor out other variables. Their is nothing unique about that in this context.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
"Utterly trustworthy I'm sure."
John the world is virtually your oyster. If you dont trust this source find others. I would recommend never trusting any single source. Find something credible that does support you point and view(in this case that that source is suspicious) and show it to us please.
Complain about this comment
If prohibition was a such success in America why was it repealed? This is of course nonsense, it didn't work, I'm amazed that it actually happened and even more amazed it took so long to realise it didn't work. This is what happens when you put moralists and quasi-religious fanatics in charge of policy. People will always do things that puts them in harms way. It should be societies duty to minimise the risk without curtailing people's freedom. There are far more pressing issues the human race needs to address.
Complain about this comment
Whatever happened to the old Pounds Shillings And Pence (also known as L.S.D. but BBC can't do pound signs). It was nice to take a little trip not on a plane or a ship.
'Open the doors to perception' Aldous H. used to say,
or 'Tune In Turn Drop Out' Timothy L. would say
or a 'Separate Reality' Carlos C. used to say
or 'Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test' Tom W. used to say
or 'Fear and Loathing in Vegas' Hunter T. used to say
in their psychadelic journeymen apprenticeships or allegedly non-fictional books
Complain about this comment
john112uk
As an adult, do I not have the right to decide if I find a risk worthwhile or not ?
Must I forever be kept under your wing and told exactly what I can and can not do with and to my own body ?
Because this is what it sounds like you're saying.
I've decided that I'm willing to accept the risks associated with various activities I participate in and if this results in my premature death then so be it, as such I'm willing to allow other adults the same right to decide for themselves.
Why are you so obsessed with protecting everyone from themselves ?
Just a quick reminder, everyone dies.
You will, I will, everyone will.
The point is that we get to live our lives the way we want to and do the things we want to, as long as we're not harming anyone else or denying them their rights then what exactly is the problem ?
In the last few years I've lost a few friends, one to hand-gliding, one to mountain climbing and one to motor sport.
In all three cases the individuals died taking part in an activity that brought no real benefit to society, was in no way essential to their lives or careers and was in every sense a recreational activity they could have lived without.
Are we now to ban these activities because a few people a year die taking part in them ?
All of your hand wringing isn't going to stop the fact that people like drinking or smoking or taking drugs or hand-gliding and lots of other potentially dangerous activities but as long as they're not harming anyone else then what's the problem ?
Surely the best approach is to minimise this harm be providing them with a legal, safe & regulated way to engage in their chose activity instead of driving it underground and into the hands of criminals ?
I don't drink alcohol but if other people want to drink themselves into an early grave then frankly, that's their right. Drinking alcohol may be prematurely killing thousands of people a year but this is their choice, not yours, not mine, theirs.
My life + My body = My responsibility
The same should be true for all adults.
Once more (all together now):
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK !
Complain about this comment
Be Aware of Drugs:
Show the Real Dangers of hard drugs like photo's of crystal meth head addicts.
Not propaganda like "Reefer Madness" films and "Gateway" mentalities for ital weed.
Education for Teenage Children and Hospitalisation for Addicts
Not
Criminalisation and Prohibition and Incarceration
Complain about this comment
neebols456 wrote:
If prohibition was a such success in America why was it repealed? This is of course nonsense, it didn't work.
==================================================
Excellent question and one that the pro "lets ban everything" groups always hope no-one asks.
One other passing thought of the two view expressed here.
They seem to me to come down to 2 basic ways of life and they are:-
Ban everyone from taking anything that I don't personally agree with because it's bad and I have no wish to take it, so no-one else is allowed to take it. Keep the drug criminals rich and keep the only choice the known dangerous drug alcohol.
OR
Legalize it and let everyone have the choice of what they want to take. No-one to be forced to take any specific drug and no longer is the only choice that of one single dangerous drug.
Remove the criminal income from the drugs and provide safe clean drugs for the people who do want to take them.
To put the 2 choices simply it seems to me to be a case of choose between a freedom of personal choice or choose complete lack of freedom of choice.
If drugs were legal as they have been for the majority of humanities history. No-one is going to come round and force people to take a drug they don't want to take.
So why does the anti pro-legal only support complete obeyance with their way of living life and no other choice. While the pro-legal are for giving everyone the freedom of choice and removing the criminal profit.
How many more years of failing to stop the criminals will it take before someone has the balls to admit that the constant repeating of the same methods to control drugs for over 70 years has failed, is constantly failing and it's only outcome it to produce the complete opposite results.
Complain about this comment
This great - I thought all that cannabis was supposed to make you guys mellow but this has got you energised.
You could interpret those graphs any which way - particularly if you want to start bringing in demographic, economic and other factors. The inconsistency is the willingness to accept some figures at face value then look for more sophisticated analysis for others when they don't suit his point. I'm not claiming prohibition acheived anything - I don't see any substantial & consistent effect in those figures - prohibition had a limited effect (if any) on health and it had a limited effect (if any) on violence.
Alcohol has been re-legalised for half a century but is killing 4-5 times the whole of current day US homicide figure and some of those homicides are themselves attributable to alcohol.
You're still missing the basic point - alcohol is legal and it still causes massive problems. Far from legality = 'harm reduction' the effect seems to be mass consumption = mass harm.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
This great - I thought all that cannabis was supposed to make you guys mellow but this has got you energised.
=============================
This sort of comment makes me even more certain you are just trolling.
jon112uk wrote:
You're still missing the basic point - alcohol is legal and it still causes massive problems. Far from legality = 'harm reduction' the effect seems to be mass consumption = mass harm.
==================================================
No you are completely missing the point the illegal alcohol creates MORE harm than legal alcohol ever has.
Until you can prove that you have something relevant to say and not just repeating the same tired comments I'm going to consider you're just trolling. As you have yet to put forward a single point to show that having drugs illegal is creating less harm than having them legal.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk - This great - I thought all that cannabis was supposed to make you guys mellow but this has got you energised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be so ignorant, I have told you before on this posting that I don't take cannabis, you are insulting me and other people on this post, for all you know I have may have never taken drugs at all, that is my business, not yours or anyone else's. You cannot follow a logical argument, you only see what you want to see and it is people like you that make having a constructive debate of these very real issues virtually impossible. You sit in your ivory tower (or padded room -whatever) while young people die through contaminated drugs. I will no longer be taking any interest whatsoever in any of your posts. We are only interested in harm reduction, don't be so obtuse!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually believes that the 'war on drugs' is working and that prohibition and criminalisation is the way to deal with drugs. Anyone from the police or govt looking at this blog who would like to comment? I won't hold my breath. PS no stupid and unhelpful comments from YOU KNOW WHO!!!!
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
'This great - I thought all that cannabis was supposed to make you guys mellow but this has got you energised.'
That is mildly offensive.
"You could interpret those graphs any which way - particularly if you want to start bringing in demographic, economic and other factors. The inconsistency is the willingness to accept some figures at face value then look for more sophisticated analysis for others when they don't suit his point. I'm not claiming prohibition acheived anything - I don't see any substantial & consistent effect in those figures - prohibition had a limited effect (if any) on health and it had a limited effect (if any) on violence."
It seemed to me it was you trying to take figures at face value 'I looked at the graph and what I see is' - where as others have been trying to point out that it is not that straight forward but that the conclusions of various analysis are described in the text. And the figures in that article are a tiny part of the bigger picture. They look at cirrhosis and homicide which are just two tiny windows into the issues of health and violence,
And its not a matter of brining in other factors. Its a matter of trying to remove them. They are in the data already.
"You're still missing the basic point - alcohol is legal and it still causes massive problems."
I think we can agree that is true
Far from legality = 'harm reduction' the effect seems to be mass consumption = mass harm.
But this is where many will disagree.
You dont seem to base your argument on anything other then the fact that we have serious and growing issue Alcohol in this country. Perhaps there is more to that story then meets the eye. Their is no doubt that Alcohol is a dangerous drug and in this country we have particular problems with using it responsibly. So your argument seems to imply that prohibition would improve matters? Or that under prohibition the problems would stay the same ?
Complain about this comment
There are hundreds of thousands of more books, films and musical references to quote in this genre such as 'On the Road', 'The Emperor Wears No Clothes', 'Up In Smoke', 'How High', 'Half Baked' etc but I've got to go now for a late lunch because I'm feeling hungry and I could eat a horse.
See ya I wouldn't want to be ya
Complain about this comment
156. At 2:34pm on 27 Jul 2009, blueskyan
"So your argument seems to imply that prohibition would improve matters? Or that under prohibition the problems would stay the same ?"
=======================================
OK - seriously, I would say not significantly diferent. I think the US demonstrated that they could not acheive an effective prohibition therefore did not create the effects they anticipated.
There were certainly a few more murders due to Capone etc and there may have been a few less deaths due to liver disease. Without a properly designed study with a controlled or ABAB design we will probably never know for sure. Unless they actually managed eliminate the alcohol then it was never going to work how they expected.
But did legalising it again end the problems: clearly not.
Complain about this comment
How accurate are the figures from the Home Office Survey of drug use?
I myself would answer truthfully about the illegal substances I enjoy from time to time. However I know a few of people who take drugs but would never take the risk of admitting it outside of their circle of freinds.
This would include answering questions on a confidential government survey.
Has the amount of people who would not admit to any drug use (when they do take some illegal drugs) been factored in at all?
Complain about this comment
"There were certainly a few more murders due to Capone etc and there may have been a few less deaths due to liver disease. Without a properly designed study with a controlled or ABAB design we will probably never know for sure. Unless they actually managed eliminate the alcohol then it was never going to work how they expected."
This is the key flaw. They would never have been able to eliminate the alcohol and so would never have achieved the effects that some anticipated.
The government will never be able to eliminate illegal drugs.
How much money are we going to spend and how many lives should we destroy trying.
Complain about this comment
"But did legalising it again end the problems: clearly not."
And one final time. No one is suggesting legalisation will end the problems. Is their another language that you may understand better ?
Complain about this comment
How accurate are the figures from the Home Office Survey of drug use?
==============================================
Probably not as accurate as they would like to think. As you say, not all drug users will take part in govt sponsored surveys for obvious reasons. There needs to be far better education on drug use. A lot of young people I know take drugs or have taken drugs and seem to be quite ignorant of the risks/effects etc. Nearly all seem to drink alcohol, young people seldom want to get involved in anything to do with authority so I guess the figures are not particularly accurate.
Complain about this comment
Re: previous post (whatever number..)
Should read:
Tune In
Turn on
Drop Out
Dr. Timothy Leary, Ph.D.
Dr. Timothy Leary, PhD (1920-1996) Psychologist, philosopher, explorer, teacher, optimist, author and revolutionary avatar of the mind.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
But did legalising it again end the problems: clearly not.
==================
It REDUCED the problems. The deaths, the tax money wasted fighting it, the criminal income, the illegal alcohol gangs and the people criminalized for having a glass of wine.
It helped by increased money for the health service and police service, more time for the police to concentrate on crime that actually harms others, cheaper alcohol, safer alcohol and more money for the government via tax.
So it ended a lot of problems and reduces the rest.
Complain about this comment
At the end of the day it's all kind of pointless anyhow.
Government does not work for us.
They will do whatever their puppet masters want them too either through outright corruption or spreading fear and uncertainty. They only care about staying in power and seemingly keeping their personal use of public money secret. Keeping big business happy is a necessary part of this. Even if they destroy the country doing so.
The government works for big business.
The government is incapable of telling the truth or admitting a mistake.
Complain about this comment
blueskyan wrote:
At the end of the day it's all kind of pointless anyhow.
Government does not work for us.
They will do whatever their puppet masters want them too either through outright corruption or spreading fear and uncertainty. They only care about staying in power and seemingly keeping their personal use of public money secret. Keeping big business happy is a necessary part of this. Even if they destroy the country doing so.
The government works for big business.
The government is incapable of telling the truth or admitting a mistake.
========================================================
I fear this is very much the truth of what is happening.
Complain about this comment
Everyone stop replying to jon112uk the guy is a stooge. He wouldn't recognise a reasoned argument if it bit him on the a**e. And in reply to blueskyan - you are right, govt does not work for us but against us, never trust anyone who wants power.
Complain about this comment
So, does anyone have any good reasons for us to carry on with the prohibition of drugs ?
Anyone at all ?
Complain about this comment
Secratariat wrote:
So, does anyone have any good reasons for us to carry on with the prohibition of drugs ?
Anyone at all ?
======================================================
A couple of posts back I invited anyone from the other side of the fence, govt officials, police, medical people to put their views forward, and like I said then, I won't hold my breath. I don't think anyone can defend prohibition without resorting to the usual hysterics about how dangerous drugs are, dodgy moral arguments and the usual religious nutters. Can someone prove me wrong? If we prohibit because of harm then tobacco and alcohol must be prohibited, anything else is hypocrisy of the worst kind!
Complain about this comment
Moksha: can also be achieved through Yoga
Complain about this comment
167. At 3:36pm on 27 Jul 2009, neebols456 wrote:
Everyone stop replying to jon112uk the guy is a stooge
=============================================================
That's the second time I've been accused of that - the 9-11 conspiracy people variously accused me of being a BBC stooge (there to keep up the controversy/debate) or a government stooge (there to spread the state approved version of events).
That's pretty cool, if only I could get the BBC or the government to pay me for it I would really be laughing.
Complain about this comment
and so the argument goes on.
Hi to Secretariat, Gothnet and Jacknet - here we are again.
After the previous blogs 'give drug users and break' and 'how Portugal deals with drugs', I think we have defined two very opposite camps, as expected.
What I want to put in the mix is that we need to stop thinking about 'all drugs' in whatever way. There are thousands of drugs we use day in, day out, all over the world. There are those legal drugs and there are those illegal drugs, but we should be addressing illegal drugs in their own merit, individually.
As for the use of the illegal drugs versus other criminal activity, please stop. You cannot compare the use of something versus the activity of someone.
If I drink, I am not a criminal. If I drink to excess I'm not a criminal. If I then drive a car, I am liable to arrest for drinking whilst intoxicated - there is the crime, not the act of drinking. If I then go on to kill someone, whilst drunk, and whilst driving my car, I am guilty of a much bigger crime - but not specifically related to alcohol. Under the current law, I'm a criminal if I purchase and / or consume cannabis, regardless of any other actions.
The argument that x% do something, therefore it should be legalised is stupid. However, when it comes to public opinion, if x% believe something, that is a case for the argument.
Yes, if 35% of the male population were engaged in wife-beating, it shows a large percentage, but hang on here, wife-beating is illegal for a damn good reason - it is assualt. If 60% of the adult population smoke cannabis, then that is indicative of opinion, and therefore needs to be considered.
Any change in drug laws would be gradual, not overnight. Industry would need to adapt, and supply chains set up to deal with the logistics of taking an industry off the street and making it legitimate. To use the argument of individuality, cannabis would be a great place to begin.
Legalisation of cannabis, preceded by a concerted effort to meet demand, supply to retail and the replacement legislative process that would be required - to ensure quality, strengh, packaging etc., - would need to be accompannied by a process of education.
One poster here said earlier that the majority of the population know nothing about drugs, but then other arguments go on to say that much of the population use drugs so therefore legalise them. Both incorrect arguments.
A lot of people have experience of drugs, one way or another, and much of that experience will differ from one person to another. Education, proper regulation, correct and fair taxation and more education is the only way I can see. Change takes time. It cannot happen overnight. It takes many generations to change opinion, and education is the key to that change.
Stop demonising drugs just because they're drugs. Penicillin, Aspirin, Paracetamol are all drugs, but we don't demonise them. What comes to mind when I say Heroin? What comes to mind when I say Morphine? It's all down to very clever (or stupid) marketing by the various governments of the day.
Educate
Regulate
Tax
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
> So, does anyone have any good reasons for us to carry on with the prohibition of
>drugs ?
There is the problem of children. In the case of children you can make a valid moral argument for restraining self-harming behaviour. Of course prohibition has failed here to, but something more resembling the situation with respect to tobacco might be slightly more effective.
Complain about this comment
At some point it will become apparent that the "drug problem", as it is called, is not a criminal issue; it is a medical issue and therefore the users and addicts should be treated for addiction and be offered help, not locked up. Well done to portugal, who have dealt with the issue in a humane and effective manner. This suggests they are leading the way on how drugs can be managed in societys. it has shown from the portugal experiment that drug use has fallen by 10%. As long as humans exist there will be a percentage who will use mind altering substances. Dont get me started on where Alcohol fits in (the legal mind altering drug).
People may disagree with the methods employed by Portugal- but the clearly positive results show that they had the balls to try a new appraoch and this has proved sucessful. Like smoking and alcohol- no matter what people try to do, no matter if they try and ban it, people will still use it, its human nature. By no longer making it a big issue- that attraction, that alluring sense that draws a good proportion of people to drugs, will start to thaw away in time. people are going to take drugs anyway, so why not follow Portugals example and give it a go.
My Questions is who in power has the balls to take the initative and drive this forward and turn a negative situation into a positive and managable situation, freeing the poice up and the prisons to deal with the real issues in society.
Complain about this comment
"The argument that x% do something, therefore it should be legalised is stupid. However, when it comes to public opinion, if x% believe something, that is a case for the argument."
This argument is not necessarily stupid when what you are talking about is a victimless 'crime'. Something that their was no compelling reason to make a crime in the first place. What your talking about is making X number of people criminals when fundamentally they should not be. Potentially destroying there lives.
But if you look at it from the point of view that even if one person wants to do it, and it is a victimless crime and there was no compelling reason to make it a crime in the first place then I can see your point. We are meant to protect minorities in our society. In essence democracy is flawed in that it is not necessarily the case that 51% should rule over 49%.
From my point of view this is a matter of core principles. Where does our freedom begin and the state's right to force itself into our lives end. I would have thought what you choose to put into your body - or not put into your child's body in the case of immunisation shouldn't even be under discussion. If we accept that the state has any place in these decisions then we should certainly not call this a free country.
Complain about this comment
CobaltChicken
The issue of 'the children' is often brought up in debates over drugs to add some emotional weight behind the argument for criminalization with the assumption that that prevents children from getting drugs.
It seems quite plausible though that actually it makes drugs more readily available to children.
from a previous post of mine
Kids should not have access to drugs period, legal or illegal. If we put just a fraction of the resources we put into stopping adults using certain drugs into prosecuting people who supply drugs including the legal ones to children we would surely make an impact on the problems caused by alcohol. We are so consumed with trying to stop adults using certain drugs yet we have 11 year old alcoholics who go on to die in what should be the prime of their lives. They must get their drink from somewhere and I think that's where you will find people who can all agree are committing the kind of crimes which have victims.
If a parent finds their children are using drugs they should be able to call the police and report that someone is supplying their child with drugs without the fear that their child will be criminalised in the process.
Complain about this comment
Darth_Vibe
In my opinion while the Portuguese may have taken a step in the right direction it still kind of leaves their laws with a somewhat absurd contradiction, in that to be in possession you must have been involved in 'criminality' somewhere along the line, where the vast majority of the time what you have is two consenting adults making a trade, where the 'criminal' is actually performing a service in the eye's of his customers and his activities are victimless too.
Complain about this comment
CobaltChicken
I don't think even the most ardent pro-legalisationist (think I may have just made that word up but I'm sure you get my point) would argue for everyone to have access to whatever drugs they want.
It is an accepted fact that children do not enjoy the same rights as adults as they lack the physical & mental maturity to deal with some things, none of us want children smoking, drinking or doing drugs not prescribed by a doctor.
In my opinion the regulation aspect of the legalise, regulate and tax plan is the best way to reduce the access children have to drugs while the taxation would pay for education to try to inform them why they should wait until they're adults before trying them.
I know we still have problems with the under-age sale of alcohol but based on my experience around here (that I obviously accept will be different from other people's experiences) the teenagers around here don't tend to be drinking, most of them are smoking Cannabis.
On the estate I live on there are several young teenagers who walk around smoking spliffs all of the time, obviously their dealer does not have to carry out the Task 21 age checks that the local Tesco Express does when they try to buy alcohol. As the dealer is selling from a private place there are also no other people there who would report his selling to children whereas Tesco would have lots of people there who could report their law-breaking.
I'd like to see far more enforcement & much tougher penalties for people selling alcohol to children just as I'd like very tough penalties for anyone selling drugs to children. Unfortunately we can't enforce the laws against people selling drugs to children as we don't know who or where most of them are, unlike Tesco's they tend not to put up large illuminated signs advertising their services.
Complain about this comment
>The issue of 'the children' is often brought up in debates over drugs to add some
>emotional weight behind the argument for criminalization with the assumption that
>that prevents children from getting drugs.
I know, But children are so often the fly in the libertarian ointment. Because of them government has to be at least somewhat involved in these matters.
The problem is we have a government that treats adults like children and, increasingly, children like adults.
I think it would help if we created a definite dividing line, identified with a rite of passage (like the old "key of the door" thing). Once a person passed that line it would be acknowledged they had the right to chose even self-destruction.
Complain about this comment
"The problem is we have a government that treats adults like children and, increasingly, children like adults."
Interesting way of putting it.
And from what I've been reading they want to treat every new born child as a 'potential criminal' to be profiled so that 'intervention' can occur to stop them heading down the road to 'criminality'.
This is where this government really starts to scare me. On top of every other violation of our liberties.
Complain about this comment
blueskyan
Thanks for the response, i pretty much agree with what you have to say, there are so many what ifs, and so many rules, we are in a society that already fears the government, this can only lead to tyranny and more rules and more senseless laws. however if we were in a society, where the government feared the people, we would have some form of democracy. My hopes for the future and my childrens future are that laws are made with a common sense approach and evidence based laws. this is the 21st century, not the dark ages as some of our laws and mps seem to want us to stay there. Untill someone stands up and is counted, these condridtions and grey areas in law, will remain. Drugs as the name suggests is a medical issue and should be looked at on medical grounds.
Complain about this comment
Secratariat
A simple, yet affect method to help reduce children obtaining alcohol, would be to remove it from the supermarkets completley, and give it back to the pubs and off license. Giving the local pub back to the local people, and creating jobs. i was in a local supermarket recently and was shocked the guy in front bought a can of cider, for 59 pence and i was charged 60 pence for a can of coke, to me that doesnt make sense, and never will. Again it is one law for some and one law for the rest....
Complain about this comment
jon112u
Maybe you could let Gordon Brown, no he is not payed to think, he is payed to do. and who died and made him god. i constantly here him say this is what i think. This is ment to be a demoracy where we want to hear what everyone things.... i am very capable of making dessions for myself and for thinking for myself....
Complain about this comment
Why don't we just legalise drugs?
The people who want to use drugs are probably already using drugs, so they can be quality assured and taxed. Let's face it, if a dodgy guy on a street corner cuts your cocaine with drain cleaner you can't exactly take it back for a refund and threaten to sue him. If it's over the counter in reputable chemists buyers can be sure of just what they are getting.
Teenagers get into trying drugs to look cool, or look hard. What could be less cool for the average 15-year-old than standing in line behind an 85-year-old woman buying her corn plasters, to get a couple of grams of cocaine?
Drug dealers are known to sell the first fix or two cheap, to get people hooked. Then the price goes up. If you can buy drugs legally there's no point selling them cheap, because they don't have the chance to hike the price beyond the price in the chemist.
It would also reduce crime. Everyone trying to raise £100 for the next fix needs to commit £100 worth of crime, whether that's burglary, mugging, prostitution, whatever. Cut the price to £25 for a fix and 3/4 of that crime disappears.
It would stop gang warfare over lucrative drug selling territory - why fight for the right to sell when you can still get it cheaper at the chemist?
And finally it would free the police and NHS from dealing with all of the above. It would seem, to coin the phrase, that everyone's a winner.
Complain about this comment
Far too sensible for the government to even consider.
Like removing road tax and adding more tax to fuel, simple, green(theirs a direct correlation between fuel burnt and emissions), efficient(we already have the systems in place to collect the revenue and would be simplifying these further) and it would do more to encourage the development and purchase of fuel efficient cars.
But no - road pricing is the answer because that way you get to pay big business to track your every car journey and tot up your bill - why do it cheap and simple when you can throw yet more massive contracts at business and burn through 10's maybe 100's of billions to create a new system of taxation with money you dont have and further interfere with peoples lives.
You see that's the way our government thinks.
Complain about this comment
Or here an idea, we can set up a charity and all who care about this issue can donate as much money as they can spare, we can keep hiring lobbyists from various sectors of industry and giving them the resources they need to do the magic they do to make our government understand what is 'the right thing'.
You see this way could even eventually pay for itself because you can get those lobbyists to get the government to sign up to some massive contract pay lots of money and well theirs not even an overwhelming need to deliver anything. We can then refund people their donations and anything left over hand back to the tax payer.
Perhaps that's the way to do it.
Complain about this comment
How many people went to a drug dealer every day of the week ? and how many go and buy drugs from off licenses and pubs and super markets before the week end when they can cause major trouble in the towns and cities or parks there is no class for this drug as the Govenment backs those who make it as they get huge tax from them and also most of the PMs take this drug most days of the week and have it paid for by the tax payers in their place of work. If caught drink driving then the job you do comes in to play, Royals upper crusts actors, footballers well sports men in general, and doctors get lower or no sentences because its not seen as a drug get it can cause people to be come very evil and dangerous of a couple of glasses. It is admired, by men including those who run the country were you get to see many of these chosen ones show all the signs of being boozers world wide yet it is not classed.
We hear about those who spend benefits on it at a pound a litre for rubbish but not about those who drink a bottle of super market cheap a day, or PMs who can not get up in the morning to sit in either house red faced and asleep after spending the evening at the club drinking whiskey or Brandy or any up market booze then fall out in the early morning to go home, it is all hypocrisy we have never had a booze Czar why is that because the booze companies like the pill compies have to much say and to many lobbyists in the house of Lords. So class it all or leave people alone, take away the criminal stigma and the dealers I am talking about those who live in the posher places in England and deal to those who are really runners the little man. I am talking about the big men those who mix with PMs and police, we are not all daft just because we do not indulge. Stop pointing fingers as those who have no power while those who do are hidden.
Complain about this comment
#182 Darth_Vibe wrote:
"A simple, yet affect method to help reduce children obtaining alcohol, would be to remove it from the supermarkets completley, and give it back to the pubs and off license..."
That's a point, when I was a kid it wasn't allowed to be sold in supermarkets, only off licenses and pubs and as my parents weren't drinkers I very rarely came into contact with alchohol while growing up. If it had been in the supermarkets maybe it would've seemed a more 'normal' practice to me.
When did supermarkets obtain the right to sell it....and why, does anyone know?
Complain about this comment
Blueskyan your idea is already in action but the government has closed a lot of the websites and information that they contributed to.
The Legalise Cannabis Alliance UK (ex political group now pressure group)
http://www.lca-uk.org/
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal
Many years ago I did come across lca and for a while followed their forums but I was put off at the time by a seemingly heavy handed approach to censoring and removing peoples posts that seemingly the forum owners found disagreeable. The reason seemed to be to maintain a good image. Personally I think we are only human and any community is just a bunch of imperfect individuals. We should not try to hide that and the only way to learn is to debate and disagree. It just seemed to me much like the very politicians we complain about.
Obviously its each forum owners right to manage their forum in the way they wish, but their decisions will affect there visitors willingness to take part.
Anyhow that was many years ago and maybe things have changed now. I will take a visit and see what's going on now.
By the way how does the Government manage to close down these websites ?
Complain about this comment
175. At 6:18pm on 27 Jul 2009, blueskyan wrote:
"...This argument is not necessarily stupid when what you are talking about is a victimless 'crime'..."
Hi Blueskyan, maybe I didn't write that very well - on reading it again, I can see where it may be misunderstood.
What I was trying to say was that some people here are mireading the argument of usage or action versus legislation. For instance, using the rationalisation that if a large percentage of the population are doing something, then it should be legalised. That is the part I tried to show was a stupid argument, but rather it is the case that opinion is more the important factor. If a fair percentage (I think 10% was quoted) have admitted using cannabis, you can assume that the same percentage would agree with a legalisation plan. In actual fact, the 10% is likely more like 25% or 30% and a quarter of the population is not insignificant. If such a proportion were true, then it is fair to assume that opinion is moving in favour of legalisation, and it is definitely worth consideration.
In previous posts of this type, I've often said that the purpose of these forums is to effect opinion, and hopefully bring about a change in that opinion.
It is no doubt a complex issue, and the posts on this blog mirror, in both positive and negative ways, the posts on previous blogs of the same subject, but the more these things are discussed, the more we can effect a change.
Speaking specifically about cannabis, if a large percentage of the population are using, in the privacy of their own homes, in company of like-minded friends or family (children aside), then it is not the problem we are constantly led to belive it is.
Of course there would need to be laws to protect and that is what I mean by the 'educate, regulate and tax' approach.
Education is needed for everyone - not TV adverts, not school curriculum changes, but society eduction. We know how to conduct ourselves, or how we are expected to conduct ourselves in certain situations. We know not to drink then drive, we know not to smoke in a shop or on a train or bus, we know when not to cross the line because maybe children are present. That is eduction.
Regulation backs that up - with not only regulation of the industry to ensure quality standards, pricing, etc., but also to regulate the use of cannabis by the individual. We have regulation in place to state where alcohol may be consumed and where tobacco may be smoked, so there is no reason why we cannot have a similar cannabis rule. Personally, I'm not really bothered about having a spliff when I'm at the pub having a pint - I would just rather have a cigarette (outside of course - unless we could effect a change of opinion in that arena too!!!!), but I use cannabis at home in place of a drink, generally. It's a choice.
Tax is self explanatory. The Govt would need to be clever about it, of course, not causing a tax hike like they have with tobacco and to some extents, alcohol. The danger to both of these legal drugs is that it is cheaper to buy under the counter tobacco these days, but the point here is that the quality is rubbish, and I prefer to buy my tobacco at a licensed retailer - more expensive, but I know what I'm getting.
As for children, they would be protected far more rigidly than they are now. Any kid with a fiver in his pocket can get a bag of heroin from unscrupulous street dealers, or a couple of pills or even a 5draw of weed. Take it off the streets, license it's sale, and you remove that, not completely at first, and it would take time to bring about that change, but it is the first step in a long journey toward proper control and treatment for drugs.
One last comment, can we please stop talking about drug users as addicts. That is not the case, and is not helpful to the tone of this discussion.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
If the government believe a website 'promotes' rather than educates on the use of cannabis etc they shut them down. A lot of the sites I used to frequent a few years ago have now vanished for this reason. LCA were trying to 'tow' the line and not be seen to be 'promoting', the use of cannabis, they didn't want to give the government any reason to close them down. It made for a pretty dire forum at that time if I remember.
Complain about this comment
Web sites are easy to close and because they gave full knowledge on how to grow and look after cannabis from seed to disease one belonged to UK420 from what i remember caused a few ripples as most were medicaly based sites.
Complain about this comment
Hopefully, you didnt smoke before taking this quiz or maybe hopefully you did. So, sit back, grab your lightersand take this quiz!
1) Ganja is legal in Jamaica and everyone walks around smoking spliffs. (True/False)
2) When Columbus discovered Jamaica in 1494, he found the Arawak Indians harvesting large fields of Ganja. (True/False)
3) Rastas were the first people to smoke Ganja as part of their culture. (True/False)
4) All Rastas smoke Ganja and drink alcohol casually. (True/False)
5) Rastas believe that Ganja was the plant found on King Solomons grave. (True/False)
6) Bob Marley smoked Ganja. (True/False)
7) Rastas were the first Jamaicans to use/smoke Ganja. (True/False)
Okay, so I hope that wasnt too difficult. Since nobody cheated, we are going to go through the answers.
1) False - Ganja is illegal in Jamaica.
2) False - Although, nobody is certain about who brough Ganja to Jamaica, the early English settlers in Jamaica and the United States of America were fond of using Ganja for medicinal purposes and to create clothes.
3) False - The Ancient Hindus of Nepal and India were the most famous smokers of Cannabis in the ancient world. In fact, the word Ganja comes from ancient Sanskrit.
4) False - A devote rasta will smoke ganja, but will never drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.
5) True - Rastas believe that marijuana was the special herb found on King Solomons grave. This is an instrumental part of Ganja in the Rasta believe.
6) True - Bob Marley certainly smoked Ganja.
7) False - Before the rastafari movement in the 1930s, other Jamaicans used Ganja for medicinal purposes, for teas, and for special blends with tobacco. Once the rasta movement gained strength, the usage of ganja went to a higher level.
Well, I hope you enjoyed this quiz as much as you enjoy your summer holidaypass this post around. Bless.
Complain about this comment
this was the story of the censorship by government (and the BBC)
http://www.ukcia.org/library/censored/index.php
Complain about this comment
Having had a look at the LCA website at www.lca-uk.org, I've come across this article written by Norm Stamper, former Seattle, WA., police chief, and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
He writes "...Any law disobeyed by more than 100 million Americans, the number whove tried marijuana at least once, is bad public policy. As a 34-year police veteran, Ive seen how marijuana prohibition breeds disrespect for the law, and contempt for those who enforce it.
Lets examine arguments against legalizing marijuana: use and abuse would skyrocket; the increased potency of todays marijuana would exacerbate social and medical problems; and legalization would send the wrong message to our children.
Its reasonable to expect a certain percentage of adults, respectful or fearful of the current prohibition, would give pot a first try if it were made legal. But, given that the U.S. is already the worlds leading per capita marijuana consumer (despite our relatively harsh penalties), its hard to imagine a large and lasting surge in consumption. Further, under a system of regulated legalization and taxation, the government would be in a position to offer both prevention programs and medical treatment and counseling for those currently abusing the drug. Its even possible wed see an actual reduction in use and abuse, just as weve halved tobacco consumption through public educationwithout a single arrest.
Potency? Users, benefiting from the immutable law of supply and demand, have created huge market pressure for quality marijuana over the past few decades. Legalization opponents are correct that todays weed is not your old mans weed. But the fear-mongers miss the point, namely that stronger strains of marijuana are already out there, unregulated by anything other than market forces. Its good that responsible consumers know to calibrate their consumption; they simply smoke less of the more powerful stuff. But how about a little help from their government? Purchase booze and you have access, by law, to information on the alcoholic content of your beverage, whether its .05 percent near-beer or 151-proof Everclear.
Perhaps the biggest objection to legalization is the message it would send to our kids. Bulletin: Our children have never had greater access to marijuana; its easier for them to score pot than a six-pack of Coors. No system of regulated legalization would be complete without rigorous enforcement of criminal laws banning the furnishing of any drug to a minor.
Lets make policy that helps, not handcuffs, those who suffer ill effects of marijuana or other drugs, a policy that crushes the illegal marketthe cause of so much violence and harm to users and non-users alike..."
http://www.lca-uk.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=15113
Credit to the man. He is obviously speaking from experience and is using the common sense approach that due to the numbers of people that are involved, we need to address HOW we look at this issue, and stop, as we are now, brushing it under the carpet as an illegal activity which is therefore obviously wrong by default.
He has addressed the points of Educate, Regulate and Tax and his words reinforce the slogan:
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
Found this interesting history if anyone's interested.
Cannabis first became illegal in the UK, and most of the rest of the world, on 28th September 1928 when the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act came into force. There were no British domestic reasons, no lobbying for or against prohibition, and no Parliamentary debates.
The Act controlling 'Indian Hemp and all resins and preparations based thereon' had been passed after Britain signed the 1925 Geneva International Convention on Narcotics Control, organised by the League of Nations. Asked what it was all about on a slow day in Parliament, a junior Home Office Minister explained that the Convention could not be ratified without an 'important but small' law being passed. 'What it does is include coca leaves under a former Act. They are the real basis of cocaine - we place them in the same category as raw opium.' Cannabis itself was ever mentioned aloud.
This apathy was nothing new. When the 1920 Act controlling opium and cocaine was passed, there were problems finding enough MPs to vote on the committee stages. In 1893 a huge report by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission had concluded that 'the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all'. It recommended, for India, 'restraining use and improving the revenue by the imposition of suitable taxation' at 'as high a rate of duty as can be levied without inducing illicit practices' on the grounds that 'the best way to restrict the consumption of drugs is to tax them.' Taxes on cannabis were already normal in India - Bengal state government made about £100,000 per year through the 1860's [£5-10 million in today's money]. This report from the Empire was never publicly discussed in the UK, and the authorities were content to have no laws at all controlling cannabis for another thirty years.
The herb had few supporters in the 1920's. European hemp for ropes and paper was usually believed to be a separate plant, though related. Modern medical uses were rare and both traditional herbal medicines and patent potions had become unfashionable at the turn of the century, after campaigns by the British Medical Association. Apart from a few adventurous poets and musicians, there were hardly any recreational cannabis users in Europe.
There was little or no opposition to cannabis use, either. Prohibitionist campaigns worked against alcohol and cocaine at home, opium abroad. Some people thought opiate users would take up cannabis if their supplies were cut off. 'Drugs' were seen as filthy foreign stuff which should be suppressed for the foreigners' own good. Fear and contempt of 'coloureds', and of sex, was the visible motive in a few 1920's newspaper drug scandals about foreigners with cocaine or opium, and the English girls they allegedly corrupted and destroyed, but cannabis was rarely accused.
Cannabis was added to the agenda of the 1925 Convention on Narcotics Control because Egypt and Turkey proposed it. Both countries had histories of prohibition based on interpretations of Islamic law; newly secular, they were trying to be 'modern'. The Egyptian delegate denounced 'Hashism' which he said caused from 30-60 per cent of the insanity in his country. 'In support of this contention... there are three times as many cases of mental alienation among men as among women, and it is an established fact that men are much more addicted to hashish than women'. Hashish addicts, he said, were regarded as useless derelicts. 'His eye is wild and the expression of his face is stupid. He is silent; has no muscular power; suffers from physical ailments, heart troubles, digestive troubles etc; his intellectual faculties gradually weaken and the whole organism decays. The addict very frequently becomes neurasthenic and eventually insane.'
These claims for the dangers of cannabis made in 1925 were not investigated by the League of Nations until ten years after it was banned. That study was never completed. The only serious investigation made previously was the 1893 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, which contradicted most of the Egyptian's speech, but was not referred to. India opposed banning cannabis in the Convention, as their delegate said it had been used there since time immemorial, grew wild, and they doubted that a prohibition could be enforced. The British delegate suggested that it should be considered further and abstained from the vote, but signed in the end, along with another 57 nations
(Source: http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm)
Complain about this comment
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
the does it make you MAD question ?
only if you believe the government.
Cannabis and mental illness - the Keele StudyPosted in July 4th, 2009 by UKCIA in News and comment Something weve been waiting for ages for has finally arrived, the government has (albeit very quietly) published the study from Keele University entitledAssessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005
http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=76#comment-1209
Complain about this comment
197. At 5:29pm on 28 Jul 2009, iNotHere
A good history lesson, and it tallies with an account I've just read at the LCA website. For anyone interested, it is very much worth a read, and is a list in a kind of bullet-point format from 2700BC to the present.
http://www.ccguide.org/chronol.php
or go to
http://www.lca-uk.org/ and click on the 'history' link on the left hand side menu
One thing that stands out, if you read it top to bottom (which I did and my eyes are now blurry so it's time to go home and have a spliff), is that there has been a battle between politicians and researchers where one is living in fear of the other, and there are no prizes for guessing who has the upper hand.
Most research, often concluded by government appointed bodies it must be said, seems to be rejected or simply ignored by the government that ordered the research in the first place.
Up to the late 19th or early 20th century, use of cannabis was seemingly widespread - even Queen Elizabeth I (in 1563) ordered that hemp should be grown or landowners would be fined.
What does seem to have happened, and it may have been part of the same phenomenon described by iNotHere @ 197, is that the US administration created a department of the FBI in 1931 and put a guy called Anslinger at the top, who was an ardent supporter of PROHIBITION. It was the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He later testified to the US Congress that Marijuana was the most violence-causing drug known to man. The objections of the American Medical Association were ignored.
Only a few years later, in 1943, the US Military Surgeon magazine declared that smoking cannabis is no more harmful than smoking tobacco, which was backed up in '44 by the New York Academy of Medicine who reported that marijuana use does NOT cause violent behaviour, does NOT provoke insanity, and does NOT lead to addiction or promote opiate usage. Anslinger described the authors as dangerous and strange.
Even the New-York Mayor's 'La Guardia' Report entitled "The Marijuana problem in the City of New York" concluded that smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word, that juvenile delinquency is not associated with marijuana smoking and that the publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York is unfounded. This was countered by Anslinger, threatening prison to any doctors or medical body found to be carrying out cannabis research.
Oddly, 4 years later, in '48, Anslinger said that cannabis users were peaceful, and that cannabis could be used during a communist invasion, to weaken American will to fight.
Now there's a U-turn if I ever saw one. It becomes obvious when you read the history, that cannabis use has been prolific throughout human history, but the scare stories that have been banded around, particularly in the 20th Century, are just that.
Don't get stoned - it will kill you, then
Don't get stoned - the commies will take advantage and kill you
Come on - at least get your story straight.....
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why can we not just accept that people will want to take drugs no matter what? It has been going on for thousands of years. So the drug "problem" isn't really a problem at all. It is a behaviour amongst our species. With the current illegal status of drugs, this makes the behaviour dangerous at times. We need a government with balls who will legalise drugs and have them distributed in a controlled way. However, it would have to be global for it to work effectively. Tax it and everyone is happy!
Complain about this comment
So from the Keele study we seem to have
[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence.
Interesting I did not wake up to here this information blasted by the BBC through the radio, TV and media.
It certainly makes a mockery somewhat of the conclusions jumped too here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6917003.stm
Why does Dr Stanley Zammit get all the attention ?
Perhaps in the interests of being fair and balanced and representing the entire population of the UK the BBC could raise the profile of this study to a similar degree?
If the BBC is going to wade in on one side of the argument surely it has a public duty to present equally the other side of the argument ?
Otherwise it seems the BBC rapidly looses credibility.
Often it is the case in science that one methodology or approach yields one set of results and another methodology another. This is why none of these studies are really the final word. Still their may be a link - but also their may not. This an extremely complicated things to study - not helped by the fact that its illegal to consume anyhow.
Science will try and get closer to the truth by looking at why different methodologies yield different results and moving forward and trying new things which must always be subject to peer review and where possible duplication before they can be considered more then a mere hypothesis.
Unfortunately government and it seems media even OUR BBC are only interested in picking and choosing what suits them and ignoring anything to the contrary.
Complain about this comment
"Unfortunately government and it seems media even OUR BBC are only interested in picking and choosing what suits them and ignoring anything to the contrary."
Or if not ignoring outright then presenting with a different level of credibility and prominence.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
"Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, often presents information primarily in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda."
I wonder does the BBC mission statement mean anything at all or is it just an agent of propaganda.
My dad has a great deal of respect for the BBC. I find it hard to share this respect. I wonder if the BBC has changed and that is why or is it just because now we have far more sources of information.
Complain about this comment
blueskyan
I agree mate. If the media are supposed to be an unbiased source of information then why don't they ever report some good news stories about drugs ?
As Bill Hicks used to say:
How about a positive LSD story? Wouldn't that be news-worthy, just the once? To base your decision on information rather than scare tactics and superstition and lies? I think it would be news-worthy.
Talk to most drug users and they'll have loads of positive stories to tell about times they were under the influence while the scare stories we hear from the press are much less frequent events so why do we get press reports about all of the negative aspects but none about the positive ?
If all you knew about drugs had come from the press you'd assume all drug users were hopeless addicts living miserable lives and never contributing to society, the truth is somewhat different, in my opinion.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could, just once, get an honest and open discussion about drugs in the mainstream media without all of the usual lies & misinformation we're used to seeing about the subject.
SHLA2UK
Good to see you here spreading a little more common sense, I wonder if we ever get through to anyone or if we're just shouting into an empty cave ?
Complain about this comment
I gave up on main stream BBC a long time ago Mark is the only real reason why I bother with the BBC. As one of the 37% of illegal drugs users this is the only representation that the BBC is willing to give us so I use it.
Can we have some Drug based programing that educates properly shown at prime time on BBC1 after all I'm sure the money from the licence fee of the 37% of the country that uses drugs will pay for suitable programmes to represent our views.
Complain about this comment
Secratariat
"I agree mate. If the media are supposed to be an unbiased source of information then why don't they ever report some good news stories about drugs ?"
I think I can maybe understand more if this where a private organisation because ultimately their mission is to stay in business and so they naturally will focus on what sells.
But the BBC is our public broadcaster which we all pay to run. I thought part of the reason why this is a good thing is because they are not bound by the need to sell their stories, so they can actually perform what their mission statement describes. They are meant to have some form of independence from government and was this not the foundation of their argument for not splitting the licence fee between different organisations. That argument would seem to be flawed in that the BBC hardly gives even the appearance of independence from government anyway.
In light of this perhaps it is the BBC we should be privatising, although I do feel very strongly for the role it should perform if it does not then well I would rather have one less bill to pay.
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal it's not 37% of the pop that are taking illicit drugs it's 37% of adults of working age. Still i think that stat is far more important as it shows that drug users are actually active members of society able to hold down jobs and not lazy smelly layabouts unable to get themselves out of bed, as many Gov sponsored propaganda ads would like us to think. remember the recent 'Frank' ad about weed turning your brain into jelly, what a load of tosh.
Complain about this comment
banis yer i take your point but it is still 37% of the bill paying population not a statistic to be overlooked.
Frank don't make me laugh hes got nothing to say take a look at this made for frank to tell the truth ..........
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
on 28 Jul 2009, blueskyan wrote:
"Unfortunately government and it seems media even OUR BBC are only interested in picking and choosing what suits them and ignoring anything to the contrary.
Hving just read the keele report. This just suggest even more we live in fear of the government. How can they brush it under the carpet and contiue to use scare tacktics. we no long live in a democracy, we no longer have freedom of speach. freedom of choice. And our right to be human is being challenged. they banned tabbaco yet cigatettes are still on sale why not give the manufatures a 5 year plan to close down the production of ciggarettes. you cant all that would do is move it into the black market like drugs, and ciggarettes are far more addictive and harmfull, and a pull on the medical resorses than cannabis.
Complain about this comment
The illegal drugs trade amounts to a billion pound world wide industry probs more, because it is unregulated no figures are available. Surely any ecconomist would recognise this as a viable business. A businnes plan showing a business making thousands of pounds prophit. The now subsidiced banks would Jump at the chance for a slice of they cake.
Even in times of (credit crunch nice spin for RECESSATION).
Complain about this comment
Sometimes it really does seem that slowly but surely the lunatics are taking over the asylum. Not a good situation for anyone even the lunatics in the end.
Complain about this comment
# 200. At 6:49pm on 28 Jul 2009, SHLA2UK
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
# 201. At 7:08pm on 28 Jul 2009, iNotHere
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Can the moderators please give some indication of why my post has been referred. I don't recall writing anything contentious, other than in the vein of the blog - after all, it is a contentious issue, but that should not prevent it being discussed.
I notice that iNotHere also had a post removed - I cannot, obviously, defend that post, but as it is directly following mine, I suspect it may have been referred for the same reasons.
Please can we have some feedback about posts that are referred, to properly explain the errors of our ways, and give us a chance to redress the balance?
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
212. At 1:19pm on 29 Jul 2009, blueskyan wrote:
"...Sometimes it really does seem that slowly but surely the lunatics are taking over the asylum. Not a good situation for anyone even the lunatics in the end..."
I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you are sitting - the lunatics are always madder on the other side.
I do, however, agree. Things were heading in the right direction, then we lost our industry, centred our nation around a financial edict, government became an extension of that edict, not sure if it is puppet or puppeteer, ideals changed, perfection laid out as a Utopian dream and now look at us.
If I am the lunatic, I'd be entitled to take over this particular asylum.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
#212
Actually, I disagree, I think the lunatics are currently in charge and have been for some time but there is a growing movement towards injecting some reason into this particular debate, at least.
I would venture that 20 years ago the comments here would have been dominated by hardline reactionary opinions unable to look beyond the simplistic "drugs are bad, therefore we must ban drugs" mantra.
The fact that the majority of comments are in favour of a more pragmatic approach aimed at reducing harm rather than demonising is surely a good sign. It may take time but I am hopeful that reason and good sense will win out in the end.
Complain about this comment
I think for all our problems we still have a way to go before the lunatics are truly in charge. Although we seem to forget the lessons of history and are moving in the wrong direction.
My idea of having the lunatics in charge is say Mao's china or Kim's north korea. I think we have a hard time trying to grasp what life is like under those circumstances. Where our Dear Leader Brown would be in power as and until he dies although his endless rhetoric may sound quite similar and then we look forward to Browns son taking over.
All education and information designed to make you think that despite living in abject poverty it is not the fault of you or your leaders but some nebulous enemy who you are conditioned to want to kill.
Where you have absolutely no rights in your home and your life can be ended on a whim.
That is when you know the lunatics are completely in control.
Complain about this comment
# 213 SHLA2UK
Yeah I noticed that, I was making a comment about post #199 the one about the Keele report. Don't understand why it's not been moderated this long afterwards. I could understand it if it was having a go at the beeb or was insulting etc but it wasn't. Oh well censorship is alive and kicking at the BBC.
Complain about this comment
@ 215
The reason it's mainly anti prohibition on here is cause the pro lot have skulked off to their corner 'cos they know they are wrong and they ain't gonna change our minds :)
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
To the moderator. My post #201 apparently now has broken the house rules. Am I not allowed to mention my late husbands mental illness and the fact he used cannabis?
Or was it that I mentioned that I had used it to help me cope with said illness?
Am I gonna get a reply to this or are you going delete this one as well?
Complain about this comment
217. At 4:06pm on 29 Jul 2009, iNotHere wrote:
# 213 SHLA2UK
"...Yeah I noticed that, I was making a comment about post #199..."
My post was a link to the history of Cannabis use and a few comments I'd made taken from researching that site - it would be good to know what I've said wrong, but even better to be able to discuss it openly and defend my words - there's that defensiveness thing again LOL!
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
208 everyone
Frank certainly has some serious issues. I remember driving along and an advert on the radio with the sound of frying and they say 'Hear that - that's the sound of frying brains'. I found it particularly distasteful and am grateful I was not in a position where I had to explain to my son the answer too 'Daddy, what are frying brains?'
So much of what they do is so far over the top as to immediately render itself useless. Some of these adverts should have at least a '15' or '12' rating !
They talk about trying to get through to young people but I dont see how they can possibly do that by simply trying to scare them to death. Young people are not stupid !! They can pick apart a lie as well as anyone. It seems all it really achieves now is to teach young people that the government will spend large sums of money trying to lie to them and scare them.
Personally I think young people deserve to be given honest answers and its always important not to completely try and answer their question but to give an opinion and the facts you know but encourage them to think for themselves and question you.
We can all learn something that way. It's amazing the ideas that run through the young mind.
The government seem to hold Frank up as a great achievement, but its hard to see how it can be helping the situation.
Complain about this comment
Just to add
Our children should NOT have images of 'frying brains' shoved into their innocent worlds by a government propaganda machine ever.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Moderators - my post @ 200 has now been published. Thanks again.
Complain about this comment
Good to see this is still going.
Shame that no-one from the "anti-legal" side is able to come up with any reason that might give the current laws any form of justification.
I personally refuse to follow a set of laws that have no basis in fact at all and have been proved to be harmful for the majority of the population in general around the world (from farmers trying to make a living all the way through to the the people being killed by contaminated drugs or killed by the criminals being supported by the prohibition).
Quick pause while I refill my second favorite drug... Caffeine.
(Or could be first, can never quite decide)
blueskyan wrote:
Just to add
Our children should NOT have images of 'frying brains' shoved into their innocent worlds by a government propaganda machine ever.
==================================
I fully agree with you and it's not just the propaganda of drugs the children are being battered with. The one that really gets/worries me is the current one of "Every single male is a pedophile and children must report anything they suspect to be dodgy to the local council etc."
How many councils are now using underage children to spy and report on anything that might be called "suspicious". Still I'm getting off topic here.
Does anyone here know how to get in touch with Mark Easton? As the only way I can see is to ask in these blogs, but that gets no answer.
Complain about this comment
blueskyan wrote:
Our children should NOT have images of 'frying brains' shoved into their innocent worlds by a government propaganda machine ever.
I couldn't agree more.
When I was at school our science teachers used to teach us about drugs. One of my chemistry teachers told us a great story from his days at university in the 60s when he and his friends used to make LSD in the chemistry lab, they would then do the standard tests on its purity and potency before testing them out on themselves back at home and some of the fun things they got up to.
He then went on to tell us about his friend who had bought some unknown pill from an unknown person in a dank back-street pub, the pill turned out to contain a chemical that induced a heart attack in his friend who died twenty minutes later in his arms while waiting for an ambulance.
The moral of the story was that you could never trust anything you bought from an unknown person as you had no idea what it would contain, this for me added to my desire to see the end of prohibition.
How many more people need to die from unknown substances before the government steps in and regulates the production of drugs ?
Complain about this comment
As Jaknet says, "Shame that no-one from the "anti-legal" side is able to come up with any reason that might give the current laws any form of justification." The only prohibitionist responses are cheap attempts to smear and "let's-talk-about-something-else" such as Lippy Lippo's comment early on in this thread.
I can't think of any real arguments for prohibition to continue, I can only think of the pretexts:
"To stop the spread of drug use" - (exactly the opposite has happened and let's face it, that horse has bolted).
"Taking chemical pleasure is morally wrong" - (use the word 'moral' without saying how you're hurting others is a sure sign that you've lost the argument).
"It will cause the breakdown of society" - nice one, this because you cannot prove this either way until it happens. Only example to give is legalisation of alcohol in the States in 1933 (which only hampered crime) and what's happening now in Portugal (promising, but we can't really confirm one way or another yet).
Time to take this one to the politicians/ones who are pulling their strings and let's not give them an easy ride. Hit them with real medical opinion and make 'em squirm. As an example of where government "thinking" is now, take a look at what's printed on the government website about cannabis:
"Cannabis is and always has been illegal". - Tell that one to Queen Victoria et al before it was actually made illegal in the 1930s.
"It now dominates the illegal drugs market in the UK and is stronger than ever before". - So prohibition hasn't exactly worked, then has it?
(link:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_076345)
Remember it's only the ones who are pulling the government's strings that have a vested interest in prohibition. The politicians are only interested in VOTES. (And just possibly the "fear" factor of the hidden-enemy-within beloved by all political leaders) So let's have a properly-researched primetime program putting across all viewpoints and if some politicians are shown to be liars about this then so much the better. This is what the BBC should be for, to educate the public. It certainly won't be done in the tabloids. We need an almighty kick in the direction of legalisation and control.
Complain about this comment
On the same government page Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said:
Some young people may be 'binge smoking' to achieve maximum possible intoxication which may be very serious to their mental health."
BINGE SMOKING??????? LOL Does she think anyone is gonna believe that?
Complain about this comment
I in the process of reading the comments on here
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=6815&start=60&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20090730151722#paginator
The one thing I see over and over again is the belief so many have in the government line..."rise in mental health probs....we need more money thrown at the problem....zero tolerance.... Most crimes are committed under the influence of hard drugs...etc
Then there's the..."All criminals are evil. Execute them all - even for speeding and littering offences. Speeding kills many people every year and usually nothing happens to the criminal.
This may bring people closer together - we could all go down the town square every weekend and watch these scumbags die while shouting "looser, scumbag" at them - great entertainment.
Tobacco and alcohol are the worse of all - make them illegal and hang anyone who can't kick their vile, disgusting habit".
I despair of our population. These are the view we've got to change definitely made harder by a government that thinks tokers "binge smoke"
PROHIBITON DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
227. At 2:15pm on 30 Jul 2009, iNotHere wrote:
"...BINGE SMOKING??????? LOL Does she think anyone is gonna believe that?.."
Here we go.
- Invent a phrase (Binge breathing)
- Invent a nasty outcome (oxygen cellular overload - OCO for short)
- Invent a solution (breath clean air for 23 hours per day)
- Repeat the phrase over and over until everyone believes it.
Binge breathing kills, don't over breath, don't become a victim of OCO, don't be a victim of over-breathing. Get your 23 a day.
Before you know it, everyone is warning against binge breathing and if enough people say it, maybe the BBC will report it on the 6 o'clock news.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
What I wonder about sometimes is why the BBC never questions prohibition. There was a piece on Today yesterday where the question of "harm reduction" and the idea of police looking the other way when drug dealers did their business quietly. I believe the interviewer was Mark Easton. At no stage was the obvious conclusion even put forward, that such tolerance was nothing less than an admission that prohibition was worse than useless.
Instead, as ever, prohibition was treated as if it were a law of nature, that we simply have to find a way to live with. There's an inexplicably complete failure of the imagination here. People seem genuinely unable to imagine a world without prohibition, either in the future or even, really, in the past.
And yet, the truth is that this world shaped by the War on Drugs started well within living memory. In fact, as far as I can see, the real start of the problem in England was in the late 60s where, thanks to the malfeasance of a single venal doctor, the practice of prescribing heroin to addicts was outlawed. That was the point where organised crime stepped in and heroin use began an exponential increase. Before that most heroin addicts had become addicted due to medical use of morphine.
Is this merely a triumph of propaganda? Are there rules, explicit or understood that BBC interviewers are required to follow?
Complain about this comment
CobaltChicken
"Instead, as ever, prohibition was treated as if it were a law of nature, that we simply have to find a way to live with"
Like bailing out failed banks.
But in both instances its more or less the exact opposite.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS