When the drugs policies don't work
Since 2002, the primary aim of the UK's drug strategy has been to "reduce the harm that drugs cause society". Sounds sensible enough. But from that simple mantra flow questions which are threatening to turn our approach to drugs upside down.
Does arresting street dealers and seizing drugs do anything to reduce harm? Does it, in some cases, actually create more harm? And, most controversially, would it be better to allow a slight increase in drug use if that leads to substantial reduction in drug harm?
Today the influential think tank, the UK Drugs Policy Commission calls for a more targeted approach - focusing less on arrests and seizures and more on those aspects of the drugs market that cause most damage.
Their report says that "a move away from directly attacking drug supply to one that prioritises some drug markets or dealers who are deemed more harmful also implies that agencies 'tolerate' others".
The commission recognises that this "may be misrepresented as being 'soft on crime'" but that it has the potential for "improving public perceptions of enforcement by making an impact on the main harms experienced by communities".
It might go against the instincts of every drugs squad officer in the land, but some pretty powerful voices are advocating a strategic re-think.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime recently said that in trying to reduce the harm from drugs, "arrests and seizures are unlikely to have much positive impact". Instead, they hint at a pragmatic approach. "Although entrenched markets may be difficult to disable, they can be guided by enforcement action so that they do the least damage possible".
Shaping drug markets to be less harmful is the principle behind what is called "aggressive" (as opposed to "cautious") harm-reduction. US academics Jonathan Caulkins and Peter Reuter introduced the concept [831Kb PDF] in an essay in the British journal Safer Communities this year.
Aggressive harm-reduction, they write, "is even open to policies that could increase use slightly if they reduce harmfulness substantially".
"For instance, if use increased by only 10% while cutting harm per unit of use by 50%, then total harm would still be reduced by 45% since (1 + 10%) * (1 - 50%) = 55%."
The arithmetic looks pretty speculative, but the principle is interesting. Indeed, it could be argued that, up to a point, this is the kind of formula that the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) already uses.
Soca's remit is to reduce harm from drugs, but it wrestles with the concern that traditional enforcement activity can have unintended consequences. For instance, one of the agency's board recently listed the possible negative implications of seizing, say, a large shipment of heroin:
• it might lead to higher prices which in turn might lead to an increase in acquisitive crime;
• it might mean poorer quality supply on the streets which might result in more drug-related deaths
• and disrupting an organised gang might trigger a 'turf' war with increased violence, use of firearms, and murder.
Soca's director general Bill Hughes says these are the kind of anxieties which now shape every operation they run. As he told me:
"What we have got to look at is 'where is the most harm being caused to the communities of the United Kingdom?' You have to put your resources into these areas. We could just play cops and robbers for evermore and not make a real difference."
However, the UKDPC report is hinting at a further step. In publishing the essay by Caulkins and Reuter, the commission introduces us to the idea of "specific deterrence".
Another illustration comes from the city of High Point in North Carolina. Residents were intimidated by the activities of drug gangs openly dealing on residential streets. But rather than make lots of arrests, police gathered their evidence and then let it be known that, while they had enough information to get dozens of people jailed, they would do nothing if the open market ceased. The result was fewer arrests, a big fall in violent and property crime and open street dealing stopped.
Contrast that with the evaluation of a big drugs operation in Derbyshire a few years ago. Over 200 people were arrested for possession and supply of heroin and crack. But when academics assessed the consequences, they found that the availability of drugs hardly missed a beat, local addicts stopped turning up for treatment because they feared arrest, crime rates barely changed and local communities became more cynical about the police.
Politically, the idea that one might "push or mould" the illegal drugs market into "less harmful distribution practices" might, in the words of one Soca executive, "smack of defeatism". But for many, it is not people using drugs that blights their lives. It is the violence, the intimidation and the crime associated with the illegal market.
Today's report accepts that while there is currently "little political or public appetite to ease enforcement interventions", there should at least be, in their carefully chosen words, "scope for flexibility in application and approach".
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I saw a snip-it of this on the news before seems strange that the public have had and held to this message of harm reduction for a long time.
is this sort of thing not the first steps to decriminalisation of drugs if gangs are told behave or we will bust you for drugs, behave and deal in freedom or kill and cause trouble and we lock you up.
So basically if i want to sell drugs in the UK i should get a gang cause a bit of trouble say ill behave myself and not hurt people and become a humble herb farmer. Great just what we don't want.
is it not time to bite the bullet and just do the sensible thing drug retail under licence. then you don't have to tell the gangs to behave you don't have to waist money on detection of the drug ring to act as your carrot of good behaviour. still its getting there.
Complain about this comment
At Last!
Better late than never!
However........
There are still an enormous number of vested interests( Police, prisons, lawyers, etc) who will lobby very hard to continue the status quo in regard to all drug use policies. After all their incomes depend on it.
The appetite for change amonst those in charge on these issues is unfortunately more responsive to hysterical people who have personal experience of harms up close.
Good Blog as usual, Mark.
Complain about this comment
The problem with tweaking the policies little by little is that you're never going to see a big change.
We know prohibition doesn't work well. This is an admission that enforcement can cause more problems than leaving it alone, yet this softly-softly approach is still causing harm to society by funneling drug money to gangs and harm to users by keeping prices high and quality low.
Human use of drugs will not go away. Ever. Fighting it is stupid, lets look at how we, as a society, can most accommodate our people and help them lead the lives they want to lead, not tell them what they can and can't do then bang our fists impotently against the floor when they disobey.
Complain about this comment
This sounds like decriminalisation through the back door to me and is something I'd oppose almost as much as prohibition as it will still leave drugs under the control of criminal gangs as well as allowing them to keep the profits from the sale of drugs.
It appears that this Think Tank and certain members of the Police do want to see an end to prohibition but are afraid to suggest full legalisation & regulation as they know their political masters would be afraid to ever support this for fear of losing their seats.
Prohibition does not work but decriminalisation does not go far enough if we really want to protect the vulnerable members of our society, especially children and addicts. The nation would also still be missing out on some of the benefits of legalisation, mainly taxation of recreational drugs to be used to fund addiction services as well as education & health programs. There would still be the problems associated with the lack of regulation, mainly the quantity & quality of the drugs available so wed still get dealers selling pills full of God knows what and Cannabis sprinkled with glass.
I suppose it would be an improvement on the current situation but I think we can do better than this.
Complain about this comment
An interesting view. It ties in well with the views on legalisation. Look at Amsterdam, controlled distribution of Cannibis and reduced crime as a result.
Complain about this comment
I don't think we should tolerate the supply of drugs by gangs at all but surely, if drugs could be supplied legally and cheaply (or free on prescription) by pharmacists then the gangs would be undercut and they would go out of business. There would also be an end to the sort of crimes which are commited to finance the purchase of drugs, drug use could be more effectively monitored, addicts given greater help and without the gangs to push drugs onto new users there would be a decline in addiction.
Complain about this comment
However you dress this up , it is surrendering the rule of law to the criminal. The police can and would stop most drug trafficing if they were given the support of politicians and the courts. Punishment for drug dealing must be a definite detterent ; at the moment the penalties make the risk of being caught worth taking. The idea that talking to criminals will somehow solve the problem is idiotic in the extreme, the very nature of their way of life and in general their level of intelligence and lack of morallity make logical dialogue with them impossible. As well as our own home grown dealers, the lack of immigration controls mean that we are also importing dealers and potential dealers from most of the world's cesspits. Many of these people are or were not criminals until they arrive here and find that there is a ready demand for their services trading drugs and earning easy money without working for it in communities where the rule of law has already ceased to function. In addition we employ nowadays a huge army of councellors, outreach workers, community drug advisors and lawyers who are all dependent on the drug trade for a living and will do and say anything to discredit any attempt to take a hard line on drugs. There is no easy answer to the problem, but turning a blind eye to criminality is certainly neither the answer , nor part of the answer.
Complain about this comment
We cannot go on like this for ever - the drug war is insane. Why did we not learn the lessons taught by alcohol prohibition?
Personally as a 'mere' cannabis smoker; I don't want to have to be scared of the police and I don't want to associate with criminals to get the equivelent of a few beers. I want to buy my smoke from a licenced outlet; pay my tax etc.
With alcohol being such a massive problem in our society may I suggest that we put alcohol into the class-A category where it belongs, but legalise all drugs. All recreational drugs then should be sold by off-licences only and have a blanket ban on advertising with no adverts in the windows, similar to gambling. Within an off-licence an adult can by anything from cannabis to an extacy tablet to a bottle of vodka. We all know which of those is most costly to society. The tax earned from these newly regulated substances could be put into treatment for alcohol and hard drug dependancy. Heroin should be Opium; and maybe treated as a prescription drug; either way if you don't want it to fund the taliban then legalise it and reduce its profitability.
I admit hard drugs are a problem; but prohibition makes things much worse. Lets clean up our towns and raise the standard of living for those most at risk, reduce the demand for these drugs through education and social means.
One last thing, for those who think recreational drug use is for 'drugies' - I suggest you look in the mirror when you next have a few beers or a glass of wine; you are a recreational drug user. If you still think I should be a criminal for smoking herbs then you are a hypocrite.
Complain about this comment
... or instead of telling the gang members they'd better behave or else, license them, tax them and let them pay for their retail premises from their profits. Many a gangster would make an excellent top company exec if given the chance. The motivation and market experience is already in place - complete with infrastructure. Let's just make it all legal at last and be done with it.
Complain about this comment
Existing policy has been spectacularly unsuccessful at tackling the drugs problem. This seems to take a step in the right direction but is an illogical half-way house.
Why not:
i)Legalise, regulate and tax supply of drugs (like pharmaceuticals or other legal recreational drugs) - thus driving criminality out of supply, eliminating drug-related crime, and improving safety for users.
ii) Criminalise and pursue aggressively those who use drugs and endanger others, e.g. driving, operating machinery, caring for children, whilst under the influence - thus minimising harm to third parties
iii) Plough tax proceeds and resources released from policing drug trafficking into programmes to rehabilitate chronic drug users. This would offer some hope to properly address the needs of those trapped in addiction who wish to escape
Complain about this comment
Sorry for a second post, I didn't really address THIS article.
As a cannabis smoker I am somehow responsible for illegal immigrants being used to run cannabis factories on behalf of very serious criminals; therefore funding international crime, people smuggling, gun running, drive-by shootings, gang warfare, and if you ask the last president of the USA then I am funding terrorism.
In an ideal world I would pop into an off-licence and pick up a bag of grass; in the same way as you may pick up a bottle of wine or a few beers. Big difference eh.
Complain about this comment
The obvious answer to reducing the harm that drugs cause society is to legalise all drugs. The harm from illicit drugs comes from the (il)legality of the substance. The Gov has been hitting the supply for years and has not managed to stop either supply or demand. I don't like the idea of telling violent drug dealers to be good. i would prefer the dealers to be removed from the equation. At the end of the day the profits off illicit drugs will still be used for more serious crime, so removing dealers would reduce harm on may levels. Which could only be achieved by legalising all drugs.
Complain about this comment
"...It might go against the instincts of every drugs squad officer in the land..."
I'm not sure it does.
Nick Ross had an interesting programme the other night. The police were saying 90% of burglaries in their city (Oxford, population ~ 150,000) were by 50 drug users. The police master plan was to harass the druggie burglars until they switched from burglary to shoplifting to fund their drug use. Reducing burglary is a key target for police, shoplifting has effectively been decriminalised, so end of problem.
(End of problem for the police anyway. Not so good for people trying to earn an honest living with a little shop. So what, who cares about people like that?)
Don't forget it was also the police that ran the illegal 'blind eye' for drug dealing programme in Brixton - all objections/problems carefully concealed by the media - until the uprising by decent local people made the situation untenable for them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This smacks of even more desperation. How many times have we heard how they are going to tackle drugs but the problems are becoming worse and worse.
A friend in a very respectable area had a police raid on the house next door where it was discovered that illegal chinese immigrants were running a cannibis factory. One of thousands across the country. Someone had become suspicious and informed the police and they had to send out the helicopter to survey the roof for heat. Who wants that next door to them.
Crime and drugs have spread too far due to the open door policy adopted by the EU and the British government.
Until this is put a stop to the drugs problem will just get worse until drugs are so cheap it won't be worth the bother to deal in them. But what about the human misery until it gets to that stage?
Complain about this comment
This is a no-brainer, stop pussyfooting around this issue and legalise drugs, regulate the purity, get some tax revenue from their sale. This will get rid of the crime gangs overnight and all the associated problems. Meanwhile the criminals get richer and young people continue to die needlessly.
Complain about this comment
Here's a hypothetical situation.
Mr. A spends six hours every Saturday down the pub, gets wrecked, and picks a fight every now and then, and generally acts agressively towards fellow patrons.
Mr. B grows a couple of cannabis plants in his house, doesn't buy from dealers, and doesn't sell to anyone. He also doesn't get into any fights, anywhere.
Mr. A would get cautioned, most likely, for breaching the peace. (Eventually.) Mr. B is liable to years in prison, under current law.
I know which of those two people I would rather run into on a Saturday night.
Complain about this comment
It's a sad fact that "scope for flexibility in application and approach" under the present government almost always means a relaxation of rules or laws, but without any quid pro quo. Doubtless if such an approach was applied, the situation would become even worse because the gangs would still be there and the authorities would have a ready-made cop-out and so not bother confronting them. "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" seems an awful long time ago. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
The solution is obvious. Just nationalise the supply of drugs and have the National Drugs Board run by the same people who used to run British Leyland, British Steel and the National Coal Board.
Simples!
Complain about this comment
I'm normally in favour of ending the drugs prohibition, but this plan just seems stupid to me.
Whats to stop the level of gang violence to continue but just hide the evidence, instead of a murder the body will just be disposed of by the gang and it will just be a missing person with the gang still able to deal, a gang member in A+E after a sevear beating 'no honest gov, I repeatedly walked into a door' and the gang still stands.
Wont this lead to a very corrupt police force? Protecting the dealers who give them the biggest kickbacks while prosecuting the gangs who refuse? 'No brown envelope? Well I've got a couple of missing kids I can blame on you'
We will end up with the Police enforced drug dealer monopolies, and monopolies always lead to worse choice and higher prices for the consumer, which this whole idea was meant to stop.
Complain about this comment
I'm going to play devils advocate, personally i think people are blaming the wrong people for the problem of drugs. Drug dealers are a part of the problem but they aren't the cause. If we got rid of every dealer it would leave a void as demand and supply would still be there and the underlying problem of the law would still exist so the void would be filled with more dealers. The hard approach on drugs has failed in the USA the soft approach in the UK has failed the only places where they have seen any success with drugs is the countries that have all but legalised certain or in some cases all drugs.
'When the drugs policies don't work/They just make it worse/But I know I'll see your face again'
Complain about this comment
I'd like to know how involved governments are in keeping drugs flowing into countries. For example, it was stated that the Israeli military or at least former military train drug gangs in counter surveillance methods etc. in Mexico. Also transnational banks in Karachi launder money through their branches. Its curious that governments never go after the big players and the only reason for this would be that they're profitting from it. I think these connections need to be scrutinized and addressed. Who are the big players and why do we allow them to have a stranglehold on the world?
Complain about this comment
Hm. Seems that they are starting to accept the fact that the real harm of drugs comes not from the drugs themselves, but from the criminal activity that surrounds them. What a shame they then stop short of the obvious conclusion that legalising drugs altogether (with appropriate licensing and controls) would result in far less harm, together with some nice juicy tax revenues.
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the USA in the 1920s, and it's not working for drugs now. I hope one day governments will wake up to that fact.
Complain about this comment
"Today's report accepts that while there is currently "little political or public appetite to ease enforcement interventions", there should at least be, in their carefully chosen words, "scope for flexibility in application and approach".
It seems to me that the only reason we have the drug laws we do is because a large percentage of our population are stupid when it comes to drug education, drug laws and the enforcement of them. If people would only educate themselves to the actual facts rather than the rhetoric spewed by the government we'd see a big call for change.
I don't agree with the aim of this "Boston Gun Project". Ok it may have prevented a few killings but it didn't get the contaminated gear off the streets, they were still allowed to sell it, The only way to do that is to end this immoral prohibition that has spawned lie after lie from the law makers.
Oh and as a side note, can the BBC stop giving the false impression that 80% of the cannabis market in the UK is in "skunk". The vast majority of cannabis on our streets is the "soap bar," rubbish that likes to pass itself off as cannabis but doesn't even come close. Some of it is contaminated with such lovelies as rat poison, Beeswax, turpentine, milk powder, ketamine, boot polish, henna, pine resin, aspirin, animal faeces, ground coffee, barbiturates, glues and dyes plus carcinogenic solvents such as Toluene and Benzene...to name a few.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
The problem with legalising drugs I feel, lies with the uneducated populace who quite happily guzzle down vast amounts of alcohol, puff away on cigarettes and then become hysterical beyond belief when confronted with this issue. We need to educate the general population on the relative harm of each drug. If anyone saw the Horizon programme a year or so ago, scientific advisors to the govt spent 2 years researching the most common drugs used in the UK and then grading them on harm. Tobacco and alcohol were in the top ten, well above ecstasy, lsd and a number of other class A drugs. When will we wake up!!!!
Complain about this comment
"But for many, it is not people using drugs that blights their lives. It is the violence, the intimidation and the crime associated with the illegal market".
Well said Mark
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
I can see what they are trying to do have a set of dealers that are known basicly making the drug network trancparent to those that need the information. then telling the network to keep thier heads down.
so now we know that organised crime will be left alone if it behaves itself were does that leave the home grower will the same rule apply or will they now make up the crime figures? if its kept quiet will it no longer be a public order offence that is enforced? or will it be enforced by licence and contract one caught as with organised crime seems to be treated under this?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
25. At 7:23pm on 30 Jul 2009, neebols456 wrote:
"...Tobacco and alcohol were in the top ten, well above ecstasy, lsd and a number of other class A drugs. When will we wake up!!!!"
================================
How can this be true? I thought the problems with drugs come from their illegal status? - impurity, criminal gangs etc.
#23 "...they are starting to accept the fact that the real harm of drugs comes not from the drugs themselves, but from the criminal activity that surrounds them...."
Yet now you are telling us that (perfectly legal, commercially produced) alcohol and tobacco are dangerous?
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
Yet now you are telling us that (perfectly legal, commercially produced) alcohol and tobacco are dangerous?
========
Yes and far more dangerous than a lot of the currently illegal drugs are if they were produced under that same situation (perfectly legal, commercially produced). Even with the contamination and unknown strengths "drugs" still kill less people per year the alcohol and tobacco do.
As you have said alcohol kills thousands and thousands each year. Cannabis has killed none per year and yet I'm only allowed by the government to take the drug that kills. Not the drugs that are proved to be safer.
The governments own drug advisory group are some of the people who agree that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous than other drugs.
================
Can some Moderator please explain what in my last post #28 can have breached any rule. Cheers
Complain about this comment
29. At 8:37pm on 30 Jul 2009, jon112uk wrote:
"Yet now you are telling us that (perfectly legal, commercially produced) alcohol and tobacco are dangerous"?
From BBC website:
"Alcohol-related health problems cost the NHS an estimated £2.7bn a year.
In 2006-07, there were 811,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions - a 71% increase in four years.
Between midnight and 5am on weekend nights, nearly three-quarters of all attendances at A&E departments are related to alcohol".
Yep I'd say alchohol was dangerous wouldn't you?
Complain about this comment
#29:
Are you confusing my post with someone else's? I don't think my post at #23 made any comment about alcohol and tobacco. Although for the record, my position is this: alchohol is beneficial in moderation, harmful in excess. Tobacco is harmful at any level. At a population level, both probably do considerably more harm than illegal drugs per se, but maybe less harm than all the criminal activity that surrounds illegal drug use.
Does that clear things up?
Complain about this comment
kaybraes
Not all criminals as defined by our laws are equal.
So your suggesting the only way is to fight the 'War against drugs' with ever greater force until we are all die or our mission is accomplished. Whichever comes first? Otherwise where do we draw the line, when gun crime has doubled? tripled? assuming it doesn't work of course. Look at US history and see that we shouldn't hold out too much hope that it will.
I think that prohibition actually empowers the real violent criminals who threaten you and your fellow citizens well being and sometimes life. Drugs dont necessarily make a criminal, but illegal drugs are certainly a powerful tool for violent criminals.
They empower kids to run illicit businesses because they are brutal enough to. monopolise the trade in an area. Some of these people are evil people. These types of criminals are probably not going to stop because of the risk of tougher penalties, In a way that just improves their 'status'.
At the end of the day though these types of people are a tiny minority of all the people that use illegal drugs in this country. The rest we would not even consider criminals if not for prohibition..
Complain about this comment
#25 is right about the conclusions given in the Horizon show regarding drugs. From the BBC Horizon website:
"alcohol, solvents and tobacco (all unclassified drugs) are rated more dangerous than ecstasy, 4-MTA and LSD (all class A drugs). If the current ABC system is retained, alcohol would be rated a class A drug and tobacco class B."
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/
Given the choice I'd go for the legalisation and taxation route.
Allow licensed retailers to sell recreational drugs like Cannabis, Ecstasy, LSD, Magic Mushroom's & Cocaine that has come from a legal & licensed producer.
Only sell them to adults and have them sold in packs that are clearly labelled with the contents ingredients, strength and possible health risks as we do with alcohol & nicotine.
Ban all advertising, sponsorship and promotion for all drugs (including alcohol, nicotine & medicines) and make everyone produce photo I.D. such as a driving license to prove their age when buying them and have much more enforcement and much stronger penalties for anyone found selling to people under 18.
Anyone who wants to buy drugs is already able to do so. Prohibition has failed miserably and even the most dangerous drugs like Heroin are available to anyone with enough money to buy them, including children.
Ending prohibition won't cure all of the problems over-night but over time I believe they would seriously reduce many of them.
Complain about this comment
that's heavy
but it's all about the $money'$ with authorities
Complain about this comment
virtualsilverlady
Have you ever considered that those immigrant may actually primarily interested in improving their quality of life, rather then working in a factory 24 hours, which they can probably do quite happily at home.
Did you ever wonder if perhaps they might have been manipulated and forced into doing this in some way ? Perhaps it is actually the criminals already here who realise these people are easy targets for exploitation.
And if the supply which has always existed could be satisfied by licensed premises not only would anybody who might be employed to do it be required to be eligible to work here and protected like any other employee but a large scale factory would not be permitted to operate next door to you either.
Complain about this comment
"Sir Azazello wrote:
that's heavy
but it's all about the $money'$ with authorities"
Perhaps not entirely money, but more ensuring money ends up concentrated in certain hands, rather then allowing it to flow and grow freely.
Complain about this comment
#34 "Ban all advertising, sponsorship and promotion for all drugs"
So what do you do with reggae and Rastafarian faith which for the most part is about cannabis and you would be in the realms of banning religious literature.
anyways as the evening has gone on and Ive thought about this change a lot of other questions come to mind.
Street drug trade = well monitored drugs through arrests
back door street trade = not so well monitored drugs and the risk of more experimental drugs.
How is this going to be monitored as you cant have an inspection system with unlicensed drugs to monitor quality. First thing anyone will know is the AnE has extra clients. Current street arrests build a picture of dealer and client.
If dealers are moved to industrial estates and out of communitys does this also mean that growing cannabis on industrial estates be overlooked as it will not be seen as a harm in communitys and as such the price will fall from its inflated lvl per gram to a reasonable lvl per gram again thus reducing crime further . This is all very sketchy in its meaning and proposed foreseeable playing field should it succeed
Complain about this comment
#38
I think I should have been more specific.
Ban all of the aforementioned by companies selling such products to the public.
So no;
Sponsoring sports teams or arts events
TV, radio, print advertising
Loss leading sales promotions
Happy hour, BOGOF or similar deals
Product placements
That sort of thing.
I was using the retail definition of promotion, not the dissemination of religious or cultural beliefs or literature/entertainment. I'd certainly not want to stop the Rastafarian's from practising or sharing their faith.
Sorry for any confusion.
Complain about this comment
#34 "Ban all advertising, sponsorship and promotion for all drugs"
So what do you do with reggae and Rastafarian faith which for the most part is about cannabis and you would be in the realms of banning religious literature.
I think the only advertising, sponsorship and promotion that needs banning is that with a profit motive. Those who dont have the profit motive are generally unable to broadcast their idea's as far and wide and also having nothing to gain are generally just stating an opinion rather then trying to sell their own product, which they may largely not even use themselves.
Complain about this comment
"The basic idea behind specific deterrence is that the drug dealers who are known by the police to be particularly violent or otherwise noxious are subjected to a period of quite investigation. Once sufficient evidence has been gathered to guarantee a conviction and long sentence the police confront the individuals and offer a deal in exchange for future food behaviour in some form, the individuals will not be prosecuted."
'drug dealers who are known by the police to be particularly violent'
Surely its the particularly violent people we could do with removing from society ? Particularly after having consumed all the resources required to do it.
Does this imply that someone not 'known by the police to be particularly violent' doesn't have that as a bargaining chip which can be used as a get out of jail free card. Kind of speculating here.
Do the police really expect these people to suddenly change because the police have just divulged this information to them? Don't particularly violent people generally look for weaknesses they can pick on - people weaker then them - its kinda a survival mechanism really. They dont actually want to meet their match.
So we cant end prohibition but particularly violent people can deal drugs as long as they give the appearance of being good to the police after a stern warning and having been informed that actually their operations have flaws.
wow
Complain about this comment
"Politically, the idea that one might "push or mould" the illegal drugs market into "less harmful distribution practices" might, in the words of one Soca executive, "smack of defeatism". But for many, it is not people using drugs that blights their lives. It is the violence, the intimidation and the crime associated with the illegal market."
The simple solution then would be to make the drugs market legal people participation would be entirely obvious and keep violence and intimidation illegal for obvious reasons. The dont have to go together.
Complain about this comment
I think my statement in 42 needs some correction, sorry:
The simple solution then would be to make the drugs market legal, peoples participation would be entirely voluntary and keep violence and intimidation illegal for obvious reasons. They dont have to go together.
Complain about this comment
The craven approach to the problem satisfies neither the pro-legalisers nor the anti-drug sections of society. I place myself firmly in the latter camp and would like to see much tougher enforcement of existing legislation, rather than the current policy of surrender to the drug lords. The policy of 'reducing the damage caused by drugs' needs to be rethought. The example you give of the effects of a seizure of heroin, for example:
it might lead to higher prices which in turn might lead to an increase in acquisitive crime - then make sentences for theft or robbery much higher when drugs are an aggravating factor.
it might mean poorer quality supply on the streets which might result in more drug-related deaths - tough! They chose to take drugs, they chose to contribute to the misery they cause. I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy at all, and if society took this view then they'd be fewer addicts and fewer deaths.
and disrupting an organised gang might trigger a 'turf' war with increased violence, use of firearms, and murder. - so we wring our hands and let this happen do we? No we don't - we fight fire with fire. Use specialised armed enforcement units and keep murdering drug lords and dealers behind bars for life.
The message should always be that illegal drugs are bad. If you take them, we'll try to help you get off them. If you don't accept this, then you will face the full force of the law.
It is not the drugs themselves that are the problem, nor is it society. It is the weak-willed enforcement of the rules and insidious liberalism that has blurred the distinction between good and bad, and allowed standards to slip in our society - to the detriment of us all. You don't win a war by refusing to fight it. Governments need to take tough decisions - like a good parent - and make clear what is acceptable and what isn't. What you don't do is cave in to every demand made by the population, or make your enforcement of the rules sketchy or inconsistent. That way chaos lies, and we are fast approaching that point.
Complain about this comment
31. At 9:12pm on 30 Jul 2009, iNotHere wrote:
29. At 8:37pm on 30 Jul 2009, jon112uk wrote:
"Yet now you are telling us that (perfectly legal, commercially produced) alcohol and tobacco are dangerous"?
From BBC website:
"Alcohol-related health problems cost the NHS an estimated 2.7bn a year.
In 2006-07, there were 811,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions - a 71% increase in four years.
Between midnight and 5am on weekend nights, nearly three-quarters of all attendances at A&E departments are related to alcohol".
Yep I'd say alchohol was dangerous wouldn't you?
=========================================================
Absolutely. That's exactly the point I'm making. And you have only mentioned harm to the person consuming it, I would also raise the violent crime it causes both on the streets and in domestic violence.
Alcohol is legal. It is produced under strict quality control. It is sold by regulated sellers.
Yet it causes huge harm. It is inherently harmful and massive numbers of people are using it - therefore massive amounts of harm.
Tobacco - same comment.
My question is why some people on here have so much faith that if other drugs were sold the same way the problems would go away?
Far from legal = safe .... it looks more like legal = mass consumption = mass harm.
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo
You seem to believe that tough enforcement of Prohibition would solve all of our problems.
Could you please explain why because there are already various countries that impose the death penalty on drug dealers & traffickers while also imposing very long prison terms for drug users yet each and every one of them has a continuing increase in the amount of drug use amongst their populations.
Iran has some of the most severe penalties for drug users but all the law has achieved is an ever increasing amount of executions, prison terms, drug addicts and social harm, the same can be said for each and every nation that tries to impose Zero Tolerance.
Then we look at countries like Holland were there is a far more liberal approach to drugs and we see an ever decreasing amount of drug addicts, associated crime and social problems.
The illegality of drugs is one of the reasons so many people start using them as they see it as some sort of rebellion so it is therefore cool.
Even if you did manage to enforce your policies, how are you going to afford to build all of the extra prisons to accommodate the additional ten million adults who would be locked up due to their drug use ?
How are you going to process that many people through the legal system and more importantly, how would the nation and the economy survive ?
I also love your following statement:
"What you don't do is cave in to every demand made by the population"
In case you haven't learnt about this in school yet, Britain is a democracy and in a democracy the government are supposed to serve the people, not dictate to them or treat them like some errant teenager.
The people make the decisions, the government are supposed to implement them.
You may still be a child and in need of protection by your parents but we are not. We are adults and are therefore able to decide for ourselves if we consider a risk to be acceptable. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing the government does will ever stop me from making that choice for myself and unless they're going to put a Police Officer in every home & business in the country while also checking every single container that enters the country then there is no way to stop other people from doing the same.
Then there's also this from you:
"The message should always be that illegal drugs are bad"
Could you please explain why, or even why they are worse than legal drugs ?
Cannabis is one of the safest recreational drugs on the planet and does far less harm than alcohol to both the individual user and society as a whole, the only reason it is causing any harm to society at the moment is because of its status as a prohibited drug.
Complain about this comment
#45:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that legalising drugs will make all the problems of drug use go away. There will still be heroin addicts who will do their health immense harm.
But the point is that if drugs were legalised, then the only harm they would do would be the harm of the drugs themselves. All the criminal activity that surrounds drug use would be dramatically reduced.
Complain about this comment
#47
"I don't think anyone is suggesting that legalising drugs will make all the problems of drug use go away. There will still be heroin addicts who will do their health immense harmBut the point is that if drugs were legalised, then the only harm they would do would be the harm of the drugs themselves. All the criminal activity that surrounds drug use would be dramatically reduced."
=========================
Yes, I accept that - So long as people are not making any claims that legalisation eliminates ALL problems, because it doesn't.
It would only reduce the overall harm if the numbers of users remained low.
No one will ever know the exact numbers but you can find figures like 250,000 'problem drug users' and 50,000 'heroin addicts' Mark gives us figures like ELEVEN MILLION tobacco users. 1500 a year die from 'drug' use; 100,000 die from tobacco use.
So we make cocaine, heroin etc legal. They can be bought at the co-op cigarette kiosk. No risk of heroin/drain cleaner mix. No risk of prosecution or a criminal record. No risk of being ripped off or just plain robbed at knife point. etc etc. Just like buying the cigarettes.
Are people suggesting that the number of people using the newly legal products would not rise? Not even a bit?
Will we still have only 1500 deaths a year?
(I don't claim to know the answer on this - I'm just questioning what seems to be a bit of an assumption: legalisation = safe)
Complain about this comment
jon112uk wrote:
"So long as people are not making any claims that legalisation eliminates ALL problems, because it doesn't."
No-one is or has made that claim, everyone on here is claiming it would lead to a reduction in problems, not that all of the problems would go away.
"Are people suggesting that the number of people using the newly legal products would not rise? Not even a bit?"
From other nations experiences over the short term there would be a small rise just after the end of prohibition but over time this would be reversed and there would be a reduction in the number of people using drugs. Holland being the perfect example as they've got far lower usage and addiction rates for most drugs than most other developed nations that still have prohibition.
The only people making the legalisation = safe assumption seems to be those in the anti-legalisation camp, I've never met anyone who thought legalising drugs would make them safe but almost everyone I know believes making them legal would make them safer.
Complain about this comment
#49
"....Holland being the perfect example as they've got far lower usage and addiction rates for most drugs than most other developed nations that still have prohibition....."
===================================
Heroin and cocaine can be legally sold in a shop by legitimate manufacturers? In what country is this? In Holland?
(Drug policy of the Netherlands: "Importing and exporting of any classified drug is a serious offence. The penalty can run up to 12 to 16 years if it is hard drug trade, maximum 4 years for import or export of large quantities of cannabis." - Wikipedia, with sources)
Complain about this comment
Oh God, I see the crank is back on - you know who you are don't you. Tell you what jon112uk, let's just make everything that is potentially bad for us illegal, then we can ALLl spend the rest of our lives in jail, would you be happy then. Please get off these posts, what you have to say has reminds me of amateur school debates. Please go away and bother people on another post!!!!
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo
You say
"The message should always be that illegal drugs are bad. If you take them, we'll try to help you get off them. If you don't accept this, then you will face the full force of the law."
Now if we look at the figures from one of marks previous blogs:
"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."
So say we had some magic process by which we could identify all users of illegal drugs, we would have 37% of the working population - 11.9 million people who we would need to offer help too. The vast majority of the people do not see their drug use as problematic to their lives, and if it did stop them actually living a normal productive life then surely 37% or our working population would not be able to hold down a job. We would be in dire situation for sure.
So now say we come to enforce the current laws to their full extent. Lets assume half these people suddenly stop. We need to imprison 18.5% of the current working population. That's 5.95 million people. This would be an economic disaster in and of itself. Mark pointed out 'There are roughly 80,000 prison places in England and Wales.'. We are talking about imprisoning 18.5% of our working population.
How on earth will we afford that. Are you willing to scrap all other public services in order to try and accommodate the need to imprison 18.5% of our working population? We are running a deficit as it is. If you remove this many people out of our labour pool and instead take on the cost of accommodating them in prison how could we ever turn that around.
It seems to me you are willing to commit economic suicide in order for the government to act as a 'tough parent' when dealing with - grown adults. Your utopia would be a very financially poor one indeed.
When you consider that their is no magic way of identifying these people and you are proposing massive armed civil war against 37% of our working population in order to find and punish them do you not see that the economic damage would be far more serious then even this implies.
Personally I dont see the idea of ending prohibition as 'insidious liberalism' Limited government and personal freedom are as much a conservative ideal as anything else.
Complain about this comment
Yet again john you've taken the comment completely out of context and tried to put words into my mouth that I have never used.
As we all know Holland now has far more liberal drugs policies than most other countries, specifically with recreational drugs as they have now separated recreation drugs like Cannabis from more harmful drugs like Heroin.
This has lead to a reduction in people using hard drugs as they are able to get their fix from other, less harmful drugs that are now available due to decriminalisation.
An example of this would be when my friends and I went on one of regular trips to Holland, we were able to buy Ecstasy without the risk of prosecution and were then able to buy a testing kit so we could check the strength and purity of the tablets.
We were able to buy and take drugs in a safe and regulated environment and had any of us suffered any ill-effects we could have got help from their medical professionals and wouldn't have had to worry about telling them what we had taken.
In short, as adults we were able to make our own choice in a way that minimised the risks to ourselves and others.
As you can see from my post I never mentioned importing or exporting or any of the other things you've mentioned, I was merely pointing out that their more liberal approach to drugs has resulted in less people taking drugs, less people becoming addicted to drugs as well as a reduction in associated crime.
In other words, they have helped reduce the harm associated with drugs, something that our laws have continuously failed to do.
The following articles will also give you a much better idea of how Holland treats Heroin than Wikipedia:
http://www.q4q.nl/methwork/methadone/Newsletter15/dutch.htm
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/328/heroin.shtml
http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol20no2/crackdown.htm
http://opioids.com/heroin/holland.html
http://drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/
A quote from the last link says:
"As for hard drugs, the number of addicts in the Netherlands is low compared with the rest of Europe and considerably lower than that in France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category."
Rates of drug use in Holland:
http://www.csdp.org/ads/dutch2.htm
Complain about this comment
neebols456
Personally I think it's unnecessary to make such a comment regarding jon112uk. He has as much right to participate as anyone else. If his statements are so flawed then explain why this is so.
I understand your frustration but we must all be free to state our opinions and not be referred to as a crank or have our comments belittled as "amateur school debates".
I may disagree with jon112uk stance but I fully respect his right to make it heard as much as anyone else has that right.
Complain about this comment
Also when jon112uk is quite correct like his last point the thing to do is accept your mistake.
Prohibition has not ended in Holland. They do have a much more tolerant attitude and as far as I'm aware its only Cannabis which can be legally sold or possessed in small quantities for personal use but even there production is mostly illegal. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Complain about this comment
At 1:45pm on 31 Jul 2009, blueskyan wrote:
Also when jon112uk is quite correct like his last point the thing to do is accept your mistake.
=========================================================
Sorry blueskyan, I did not post about Holland so don't know what you mean. As to your other point about jon112uk, I'm sorry but the guy IS A CRANK, he argues for the sake of argument and cannot ever back anything up with facts. He also takes comments out of context which is very unhelpful. So I'm afraid on the subject of jon112uk we will have to agree to disagree, no hard feelings.
Complain about this comment
45. At 09:13am on 31 Jul 2009, jon112uk wrote:
"Alcohol is legal. It is produced under strict quality control. It is sold by regulated sellers".
Very true, but I don't agree with the regulated sellers bit, all right I know they need a license to sell alchohol, but let's face it they give those licenses out like smarties nowadays. Where's the regulation when a post office, petrol garage, grocers all next door to each other, are all allowed to sell the stuff.
I call that saturation rather than regulation, and the reason I suspect that we have so many problems with cirrhosis, alchoholism and all the associated problems. If you make a substance that is harmful THAT easy to get hold of how do you expect people to show restraint with the amount they use, mankind has a self-destruct button and he will press it with no help from anyone else, that should be obvious throughout history.
I advocate the legalistion of the drugs that are currently illegal, and the reason....I see nothing but misery and pain for all concerned if things carry on the way are now. We're throwing 1.5 billion pounds a year at this problem and not even making a dent in the amount that is being imported or grown here. Cannabis, speed, ecstasy, coke, crack all the party drugs are all available in virtually every street in every city, town and village in the country. It won't matter how tough we are how long the prison sentences, even if the powers that be decide capital punishment is the way to go people will STILL use drugs. Do we keep pummelling them or do we try to control the problem.
With the proper controls in place and a RESTRICTED sale (same goes for alchohol) ie, off licenses and pubs for booze and specific shops that only sell soft drugs, restrict the number in each town....restricted amounts sold and ID presented when purchased. Strictly controlled cannabis farms where the quality can be mantained. With safeguards in place it would cut use because it wouldn't be as "in yer face" as it is now...children would find it harder to obtain, the people who use "soft drugs" would be able to do so away from criminality. Quality assured ecstasy manufactured by legal chemists to specific standards.
Heroin to be prescribed by GPs only under strict control with a very heavy lean towards treatment and NOT punishment.
And the whole lot can be taxed!
If the legalisation is thought out and well planned I cannot see where the chaos would ensue. I can see there might be an increase in use of the now illegal drugs for a while but I believe the picture the government paints is nothing but scaremongering...just like their Frank website.
I can however see nothing but chaos looming with the current policy because it is being implemented by MP's who don't know the first thing about the subject...a bit like Lippylippo really...
I wish people would educate themselves about the subject rather than allow themselves to be spoon fed propaganda by the government.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
51. At 1:11pm on 31 Jul 2009, neebols456 wrote:
Oh God, I see the crank is back on - you know who you are don't you. Tell you what jon112uk...Please get off these posts, what you have to say has reminds me of amateur school debates.... Please go away and bother people on another post!!!!
===========================
Tetchy. All those drugs and still you can't keep calm.
I guess this means you don't have a reasoned argument to make?
Complain about this comment
neebols456
"Sorry blueskyan, I did not post about Holland so don't know what you mean."
That post was not directed at you specifically.
"As to your other point about jon112uk, I'm sorry but the guy IS A CRANK, he argues for the sake of argument and cannot ever back anything up with facts. He also takes comments out of context which is very unhelpful."
I would just like to add that we do need as many devils advocates as possible. If you have faith that your idea's and opinions are right then you can have some faith that they can stand against any such criticism.
I think we need to have faith in the intelligence of the readers here to make up their own minds given a reasoned debate.
"So I'm afraid on the subject of jon112uk we will have to agree to disagree, no hard feelings."
And no hard feelings intended from here either. Take care.
Complain about this comment
blueskyan
I don't know if it is legal or not but I have bought Cannabis, Ecstasy, LSD & Magic Mushroom's from coffee shops in Holland, there were other drugs available but as these are the only ones I used to buy I didn't really look into what they were.
All of them were bought from large, city centre type coffee shops and were on display in a cabinet behind the counter.
I don't go over there as often as I used to but it used to be quite common when there to have Police Officers or other government officials outside of clubs with drug testing kits so that you could check the potency & purity of the drugs you were going to take.
Drug testing kits are also available at a reasonable price from many retailers, although I think they also used to be available for a small fee from health centres as my friends who live over there used to get theirs from their local pharmacy.
The legality of production is another complicated issue, there are several places you can go over there and see Cannabis being grown on a commercial scale, as well as the annual growers cup and Cannabis festival that takes place in Amsterdam. I think it is still technically illegal to produce but the Police have stopped enforcing the legislation.
Complain about this comment
53. Secratariat:
I understand your point, but for heroin/cocaine that's a long way from legalisation.
For example it still leaves supply in the hands of unlawful dealers - hence the need for you to be using quality testing kits. I don't feel a need to do that when I buy at bottle of vodka at the supermarket.
Can we clarify - is anyone here saying heroin/cocaine/amphetamine should be legal like alcohol/tobacco?
Complain about this comment
BRAVO INotHere, I wish people would educate themselves on the subject before spouting off from left field. Legalise, regulate, educate, tax. Cut out the criminals.
Complain about this comment
Drug classification is a joke in this country and most others, below is a paragraph from drugequality.org that sums the situation up quite well.
In March 2007, scientists, including members of the UK Parliament's top advisory committee on drug classification, published a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 substances in a report entitled "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The report rated most "illicit" drugs as far less harmful than the drugs alcohol and tobacco and called for an urgent review of the drug classification system which was deemed arbitrary.
Below is a quote from govt which more or less admits they have got it wrong and classification needs to be seriously reviewed.
"The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic risk benefit analysis. It is also based in large part on historical and cultural precedents [...] the Government acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs." (Cm 6941, "The Government Reply to the Fifth Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Session 2005-6 HC 1031: Drug classification: making a hash of it?")
Basing anything on historical and cultural developments is discriminatory, we now abhor racism, however, historically and culturally we were a racist nation so therefore I could be a racist and get away with it for cultural and historical reasons - NONSENSE!!!!!
NO PROHIBITION OR DISCRIMINATION!!
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
"Tetchy. All those drugs and still you can't keep calm."
What exactly do you know about neebols456 drug consumption?
It's not the case that anybody who is against prohibition consumes more drugs legal or illegal then anyone else and its not the case that they necessarily consume illegal drugs.
Personally I am interested in my children growing up in a safe and decent country. My opinion is that prohibition takes power from the good people in society and hands it to the bad and sometimes plain evil.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk - I have told you before on these posts that I do not take drugs you ignorant crank! GO AWAY!
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
"Can we clarify - is anyone here saying heroin/cocaine/amphetamine should be legal like alcohol/tobacco? "
I am.
All drugs have dangers. All drugs should be legal.
What gives the state the right to interfere in these decisions by grown adults.
It seems even if you assume the state does this for our good(which I dont beleive anyhow - I beleive they are looking out for certain interests with lots of money and markets to loose) then it doesn't seem to help decent honest people anyhow.
It certainly helps the violent criminals among us by giving them something extremely profitable to trade and earn lots of money, which gets pumped back into their crimes.
Complain about this comment
Secratariat
Thank you for your from the ground perspective. It certainly sound different to how its described in the main stream media. That doesn't exactly surprise me though (:
Complain about this comment
neebols456
"BRAVO INotHere, I wish people would educate themselves on the subject before spouting off from left field."
I think half the problem is that many do consider themselves to have been educated by the government propaganda machine. I think its hard to blame someone for having become the product of the indoctrination they have received since birth.
I think the best we can do is help people to start questioning assumptions for themselves. I dont think we can necessarily expect this to happen on its own. I shouldn't imagine that is easy for someone who has put faith in their government to start questioning all these things again from scratch.
Complain about this comment
Oh sorry, I do take drugs, tobacco and alcohol, oh but hang on a minute, they're legal so that's ok, even though they probably do me more harm than most illegal drugs, but hey, we live in a hypocrisy. I'm interested in harm reduction were illegal drugs are concerned, legalisation will make them safer (not safe!) and will get rid of the nasty criminals that currently peddle them, I would much rather my 15yr old daughter took a clean ecstasy tablet than a bottle of vodka.
Complain about this comment
64. At 2:42pm on 31 Jul 2009, blueskyan wrote:
"...What exactly do you know about neebols456 drug consumption?..."
================
Absolutely nothing. He may not be on drugs, it might be some naturally occurring intellectual impairment. But it seems to annoy him when I say it.
I don't feel a need to mock other people, yourself included, because you are furthering the debate rather than throwing insults. I guess that is because you have some credible points to make.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk
I would point you in the direction of my first comment on this blog, a brief extract:
"This sounds like decriminalisation through the back door to me and is something I'd oppose almost as much as prohibition as it will still leave drugs under the control of criminal gangs as well as allowing them to keep the profits from the sale of drugs."
I've never held Holland up as a perfect solution, but they do have a better solution than us.
Personally I would be in favour of the legalisation of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine and amphetamines for adult use.
I do not drink alcohol and personally consider it to be one of the most dangerous drugs in the world; I've got no intention of trying to stop anyone else from drinking the stuff though.
As far as I am concerned it is your body, your life and therefore your choice. If you commit any other crime to pay for your drugs or while under the influence of drugs then I'd prefer you to be prosecuted for those crimes.
Obviously there would be certain restrictions in place so that you couldn't drive, work or be responsible for children while under the influence just as we do now with alcohol.
I would separate hard drugs from recreational drugs too, if we offered all Heroin users free Heroin from shooting gallery type medical facilities where you must use it inside the building it would destroy the trade in that drug.
Users and addicts would be able to go and get their fix using clean needles, pipes etc and there would be medical staff on hand to offer advice on giving up with addict services being provided in the same building to get them out of normal hospitals.
These would be paid for with the taxation from Cannabis & other recreational drugs.
Within a short period Heroin would no longer be a viable product for dealers as they'd no longer have enough customers to sell too, this would get rid of the unscrupulous dealers who give away their drugs to vulnerable people to get them hooked.
It would also see a massive reduction in acquisitive crime as addicts would no longer need to steal to pay for their Heroin as it would be provided for free.
Complain about this comment
Every person on this site have made credible points - with one exception. I'm not mocking a certain person, I am stating my personal opinion of a certain person, I only make opinions on people through knowledge. The posts that person has made today and in the past make me believe him to be a crank, he comments on me taking drugs with no basis in fact for that comment, I find that ignorant and insulting. He infers I have not made any credible points and have merely mocked him. Just goes to show he does not read people's post properly.
Complain about this comment
66. At 2:53pm on 31 Jul 2009, blueskyan
Thank you. I thought some people were taking that position.
My concern about the full legalisation - sell them like alcohol/tobacco - approach would be this...
Whilst there might be some gains (quality control, put illegal dealers out of business) these gains could easily be overwhelmed if there were increases in the number of people consuming them.
You present an argument reminiscent of JS Mill - if it only hurts yourself, the state should stay out of it. I would suggest that the state can't just ignore issues like this. The state regulates other medicines/foods/consumer goods etc for public safety reasons. Every year medicines have their licenses removed or restricted if harm is shown to occuring - even if people are willingly taking them, the state still intervene.
There are also arguments about risk to others - eg. the drunk who assaults people or the person who becomes aggressive in response to paranoia or agitation following ampthetamine use. The state has a legitimate role to intervene in these issues.
I wouldn't be happy with the government staying out of issues like this. To me the example we already have with alcohol and tobacco is not a good one.
Complain about this comment
Another drugs blog. Are we in danger of repeating ourselves all over again?
Welcome to all the new posters on this subject - some of you might not be aware that there has been a number of drug related blogs on Mark Eastons' pages over the past few weeks - they're worth a read if you've just joined in this one and you might get a good idea of the thoughts of many of the posters above by reading back through those blogs.
For my part in this discussion, I can see this as positive intention, but in line with Secretariat, it is no more than 'back-door' legislation which in my honourable friends most noble words, is no better than prohibition.
IMHO I think many of the anti-drugs brigade view on drugs is tainted beyond what we can say here. I was very anti-drugs when I was younger. During my time in the forces, I wouldn't consider anything other than nicotine and alcohol. Whilst I was with Thames Valley plod, I had a duty to uphold the law. As a grown up, well, I've grown up, and have tried pretty much everything I could put my hands on. I did my experimentation a little late, but the truth is, I made an educated choice. I use what I want, and leave what I don't like, just like a kid presented with his first roast dinner. Eat the meat, leave the veg.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we clarify something. Drugs is a generic term, and to say 'drugs this' and 'drugs that' is very short-sighted, unless you are making a generic statement. One drug is different from another drug and if we are ever to make this work, we need to differentiate the specific drug along with its effects.
Cannabis is a harmless substance. It can be drunk, smoked, prepared in a multitude of different ways. Its uses are remarkable, from textiles to foods, from fuels to furnishings - and as an aside, you can smoke it too. It's dangerous because of the way the illegal traders bulk it with sand, brick dust, ground glass. Cannabis does not naturally come with sand, brick dust or ground glass in it, and so as a plant, and as a textile and as a drug it is NOT dangerous.
If we're talking about addiction, please can we specify which addiction. Not all drugs are addictive, and not all addicts are druggies. Please, stop generalising. That's the job of the gutter press and look where that attitude has gotten us as a nation.
Cocaine is harmful, but by that I mean street cocaine. It comes down to what it is cut with, however, it also depends on the method of consumption. Injecting is far far far more dangerous than 'snorting' but again, it all depends on the 'cut'.
Crack (cocaine) or freebase coke is addictive for about 15 minutes, then the craving passes. You want more, but by the time you've gotten more, the craving has gone, and once you realise that, you can easily give it up. I just remind myself how miserable I get when it's all gone and then I don't even want to start.
Heroin is the evil one - the highly addictive one - the one that most people are knowingly or otherwise referring to when they talk of addiction (apart from tobacco and alcohol). Again, it comes down to the 'cut' but from an addictive point of view, there's nothing worse than heroin. Harmful? Only because it's cut with potentially fatal ingredients and because many 'junkies' choose to inject rather than smoke. An overdose of heroin can be fatal because of the unknown properties of the street drug and its cut. It suppresses the respiratory system and puts the user to sleep, death occurring because they stop breathing and don't wake up.
As for the comment by LippyLippo "...it might mean poorer quality supply on the streets which might result in more drug-related deaths - tough!.."
You are such a kind hearted soul aren't you? What if they made alcohol illegal? Think of the post you put on the 'pubs are evolving or dying' blog. Illegal alcohol would mean pubs would have to be illegal, because they would be seen as a purveyor of an illegal drug, and those inside would be automatic criminals. Your claim that you simply want to go for a beer to escape the routine of home life would make you a criminal. What if I were to say the same to you - 'no pubs and illegal alcohol might mean poorer quality supply on the streets which might result in more alcohol-related deaths - tough!' At least alcohol would be illegal and the problem solved, eh?
Complain about this comment
blueskyan
You're welcome mate.
Without wishing to incriminate myself here I'll try to give a brief description of my experiences of Cannabis for those who have none.
I started smoking Cannabis at 16, a few of our friends from sixth form college would meet up at each others homes a couple of times a month and buy some from a local dealer. We'd then spend the night listening to music, watching films & playing computer games while passing round the spliffs, bong & pipe.
When I went to university my use increased, as did the initial costs as Cannabis was much more expensive where I went to Uni compared to where I grew up, this resulted in me and some friends going back to my home town once a month and collectively buying a large amount to take back for our personal use.
A few of our friends found out we were doing this and asked if they could chip in, within a few months one of my friends decided it was easier to just buy a large amount himself and sell it on to anyone who wanted it, he never made any profit from it but he sold it at a slightly higher price than we bought it for to cover the cost of travelling back to my home town once a month and so that we could get ours for free.
He only ever sold to our friends and everyone was under strict instructions to never bring anyone round we didn't know or tell anyone we were buying/selling it.
In my experience this is the most common form of drug dealing, people who buy in bulk and then sell to their friends, normally they start doing this because they realise it is much cheaper for them and their friends.
When we were at Uni Cannabis soap bar (resin) from my home town would cost 60 pounds for an ounce and a nine bar (normally eight and three quarters of an ounce in weight, pressed into a solid block) would cost us about two hundred and fifty pounds, or about half the price of buying individual ounces. At Uni the prices would normally be between 50 and a hundred percent more expensive, so up to about 120 pounds an ounce.
My friend continued to sell Cannabis until the end of our fourth year, only ever sold to friends and we never had any trouble from the Police, neither of us have a criminal record.
We would also go to Amsterdam a few times a year but especially for the growers cup as it was always fun trying out the new varieties and speaking to the growers.
At one of these trips we bought some White Widow seeds from the breeder who had developed it and in the summer between the first and second years we started growing it in our loft. We coated the walls with aluminium foil, waterproofed the floor and set up a UV light and we used the garden shed to dry and cure the finished product.
This was only ever used for our personal consumption and we never sold any of it, we'd happily share it with people visiting our house or when we had parties but in effect it was our personal crop for those of us living in our house.
We never made any money out of Cannabis at Uni, we probably could have but at the time we regarded it as a favour to our friends to go and get decent quality & low cost Cannabis so we didn't have to rely on the poor quality & expensive stuff being sold at Uni. Really we just wanted cheap and decent stuff for ourselves, we never intended to become dealers, it just kind of happened and if you'd have asked us at the time we would not have considered ourselves drug dealers as we were never trying to do it as a business and never sold to anyone we didn't know well. At no time did we ever try to get someone to smoke for the first time and we never tried to sell it, the reality is that it sells itself.
When I finished Uni I got a job back home and when I came back I found that the old smoking network was still in place, even though many of us had moved away for Uni. Several of my old smoking friends had moved back home for work after Uni and we pretty much picked up where we'd left off before moving away.
I continued buying from friends and still do as I've found it is the best way to ensure quality. Most of the people I buy from now mainly grow their own and then sell some of it on to friends although we do still have some imported from various sources.
At the moment there is a lot of Squidgy-Black (a more pure & fresh form of soap-bar) and Moroccan Gold (dried & compressed buds that looks like a golden version of soap-bar but doesn't need to be pre-burned when rolling) in the area, these are both higher quality versions of Cannabis and sell for a similar price to what the media refer to as Skunk.
As I'm now a 30 year old professional I am able to afford the good stuff, I smoke about an ounce a month and this costs me about 120 pounds. I can get hold of soap-bar for much less, normally between 30 and 45 pounds an ounce but as it contains lots of unknown additives I prefer to stick with the better varieties.
Of my close friends and work colleagues, about half are regular or heavy smokers smoking between one and two ounces a month. About a quarter are occasional smokers who will smoke when they're with us but don't buy it themselves and the other quarter do not smoke at all or only do so once or twice a year.
We are all highly qualified professionals and my close group of friends includes a teacher, a doctor, a chartered surveyor, a lawyer, a few I.T. guys and a Vet (amongst others).
None of us have ever been in trouble with the Police and if you met us in work or out on the street you would probably never imagine that any of us where regular drug users.
None of us ever smoke around children or near to the general public, mostly we smoke in each others homes or we go to a few quiet places along the coast near here when the weather allows, there is also a bar around here with a large garden, the landlord is a biker and allows Cannabis to be smoked in the garden of an evening as long as you keep it discreet and don't sell it there.
I did used to grow my own when I first got back home from Uni but with the demands of work I didn't have the time or inclination to carry on, it may cost a little more but the guys I get it from produce better stuff than I can anyway, one of them is a trained Botanist so he has a bit of a professional advantage too.
I have never met anyone who has developed mental health problems from smoking or any other problems that I can think of and I know a lot of people who smoke. The worst effects Ive seen are what are called having a Whitey; someone smokes too much in too short a time period, gets light-headed and may throw up. This normally wears off within an hour and is something Ive never experienced personally; Ive only ever seen it happen to other people and even then only to a handful of them who are usually teenagers who smoke too much at a party.
The one thing that may surprise you is the number of people who smoke, there are tell-tale signs that smokers can pick up on that your average non-smoker wouldn't and it is quite common to get a knowing look from someone who then turns out to be a smoker too, the company I work for has literally hundreds of smokers working here from the post-boys up to the Chief Executive (I know, I've been to his home) at least a half of the staff are smokers.
This post has turned out a bit longer than I intended so I'll stop now, if anyone has any questions please feel free to ask and I'll try my best to answer.
Complain about this comment
It's pretty clear some people ARE suggesting full legalisation - sale like tobacco/alcohol. Adults make your own choices. Personally I wouldn't want to go with that. The level of harm from mass consumption of tobacco/alcohol is, in absolute terms, much more than anything we have experienced from currently illicit drugs taken by comparitively small numbers of people.
The experience with tobacco/alcohol is not something I would want to repeat with yet another drug(s).
(neebols - please go and take something to calm yourself, you're getting really quite unsettled)
Complain about this comment
jon112uk,
I have limited time now but will attempt to address these issues briefly and look at it more thoroughly later...
"You present an argument reminiscent of JS Mill - if it only hurts yourself, the state should stay out of it."
Their are many activities we accept people can participate in which are entirely recreational but which may hurt other people. Lets take swimming in the sea as an example - normally people pose no threat to others doing this but should they get into trouble then they do risk other's - the lifeguard will risk their lives to rescue the person. We dont make swimming a criminal offence as a result. We accept that these risks exist.
"The state regulates other medicines/foods/consumer goods etc for public safety reasons. Every year medicines have their licenses removed or restricted if harm is shown to occuring - even if people are willingly taking them, the state still intervene."
I am not arguing against state regulation of the supply side. This is in fact a good thing. This is what gives the consumer some power over the producer. Primarily when it comes to food we regulate to ensure the supply is what it is claimed to be by the seller. With consumer goods we regulate to ensure they are safe to use - but still they go wrong and accidents happen. I do think the state needs to regulate the supply side to protect the consumer. Right now though with regard to illegal drugs the state has no controls at all and the consumer no protections.
"Every year medicines have their licenses removed or restricted if harm is shown to occuring - even if people are willingly taking them, the state still intervene."
Medicines are in a way a different kettle of fish. I dont think people choose to take medicines for recreational purposes(ignoring for a moment the dual use drugs), they need too due to various health problems. They may be willingly taking them but that is because they have been sold on the idea - they beleive it will help them. It is appropriate that their is an independent body to verify that a manufacturers claims for their medicines are correct and that the medicine is reasonably safe. How safe that is often depends on how serious and life threatening the condition they intend to treat is and what the alternatives are. People dont make a choice to become ill and so they need protecting from the drug industry in a somewhat different way.
The government takes away a drug companies license to manufacture and sell a drug for a specific use. It does not actually make it a criminal offence for an individual to manufacture and use that drug if they choose too. But as their would be good reasons for removing the licence you will not find many people foolish enough to do this.
"There are also arguments about risk to others - eg. the drunk who assaults people or the person who becomes aggressive in response to paranoia or agitation following ampthetamine use."
These risks to others do exist. Of course the state has a legitimate role to intervene when people are using violence against another person. I would be careful though before handing this responsibility over entirely too the state. It cannot possibly protect everyone. As decent citizens we do have some responsibility for learning to look after ourselves - and coming to the aid of our fellow citizens when they are in trouble.
It is always a small minority of people who cannot take responsibility for their own drug consumption. Now you may forgive someone for getting drunk and violent once - although you will stop them - but they then need to understand that they cannot handle their drink - and so if they continue to do this then perhaps we should be much tougher with them then we are a present.
But their are much bigger problems at present then the violent drunk or aggressive paranoid amphetamine user, both of whom are often quite easily contained by straight people who are willing to take some responsibility for their fellow citizens and their own saftey with the help of the police force.
The bigger problem is with organized crime and how should I put it organized criminal teenagers who have been empowered by the fact that this market is theirs. You have teenagers who think they are literally kings and can assault both other teenagers and adults as much as they can get away with. These people have not been made this way through consuming drugs - they are this way by nature. It is their market which allows them to earn money and increase their power over others and adds to their ego and sense of being able to get away with in some cases murder. Often they dont even consume the drugs they sell. In a way it is power over others that is their drug.
"I wouldn't be happy with the government staying out of issues like this. To me the example we already have with alcohol and tobacco is not a good one."
The state does not stay out of these issues entirely. It regulates the supply side. It contains(in my opinion not enough) the advertising. It requires people are made aware of the health issues. Therefore you can quite happily go and buy a beer without worrying that it could make you blind. Advertisers cant claim that drinking gives you special powers(although they certainly work hard to push the boundaries)
The state has stepped in and limited where people can smoke. I think in general this is a good thing but that they may have gone a little too far in some respects.
The state is not entirely out of the picture with these legal drugs, if anything it has far more positive controls - but we still leave it up to the individual on the demand side to decide if they wish to consume these substances or not - but their are certain restrictions to help limit their impact on others. And at least they are protected in that they know their alcohol is good quality or if it was not they have power over the producer to prosecute for the misrepresentation of their product.
Their will never be a perfect solution. Big profit making industry will always seek to maximize profit. The state needs to ensure they have too take into consideration what's important to the end user.
Their will always be violent and dangerous people. Often people who get drunk and become particularly violent are often violent when they are not drunk - they just have the sense to limit their violence to situations where they wont get caught. In a way perhaps exposing such people is a good thing if we then deal with them properly. The thing is we have plenty of non violent drug users and dealers in our prisons and our legal system seems often to consider sending out a tough message on drugs more deserving of prison space then sending out a tough message on violence.
At the end of the day we have 37% of the working population considered criminals when by far the vast majority do not pose a threat to others. It is those that do pose a threat we should focus on - at least it's more feasible that we could find prison space for them, or help them get to the bottom of their problems. Drugs may highlight their problems but are not necessarily the root cause.
Ironically most illegal drugs are medically very safe when they are pure and of known dose. Safer even then the vast majority of medicines. The legal ones are actually amongst the most dangerous while having no medical use either. With all drugs legal I think they will still cause the vast majority of the problems. But does that mean making them illegal for individuals to choose to consume will help?
As I have stated before I think we should be focusing more on keeping all drugs out of the hands of minors. I would even be in favour of raising the age limit for the purchase of all drugs, of driving, of serving in the army to 21. That way we can keep them in the hands of people who are going to be more capable of using them responsibly and we can take a much tougher stance on the exceptions. And the exceptions will tend to have problems independent of their drug use.
Anyhow much more lengthy then I had considered, and now I have to take my family shopping for food.
Complain about this comment
"For my part in this discussion, I can see this as positive intention, but in line with Secretariat, it is no more than 'back-door' legislation which in my honourable friends most noble words, is no better than prohibition."
Sounds to me like its another layer of madness that only gives more power to those who would harm us.
Complain about this comment
78. At 5:21pm on 31 Jul 2009, blueskyan wrote:
"...Sounds to me like its another layer of madness that only gives more power to those who would harm us..."
Aye thank you.
It's a piece-meal solution at best and a defending of the current 'all drugs are illegal because they are' ideology, at worst.
Complain about this comment
One of the most important questions that rarely gets asked is;
If we legalised all drugs tomorrow, would you start using any you currently don't ?
For me the answer is a definite No.
I've already decided what drugs I want to use and their legality is, to be honest, irrelevant to me.
I'd guess for most people the answer would be the same, you either use certain drugs or you don't and your decision about using them had little to do with their legal status.
I reckon there'd be less chance of children getting hold of them if they were properly regulated and the associated health problems would probably be dramatically reduced too. Taking them out of the hands of criminal gangs would also prevent much of the gang-problems we are starting to experience.
Legalise them, tax them and regulate them. Educate everyone about the relative dangers and make sure they've got proper labels on them so you always know what you're taking.
If you want to use certain drugs (including alcohol & nicotine) then that's your choice, as long as you're not stealing to pay for them or committing crimes while under the influence then I don't really care and if you are we already have laws to deal with these crimes.
Complain about this comment
68. At 3:04pm on 31 Jul 2009, blueskyan wrote:
"I think half the problem is that many do consider themselves to have been educated by the government propaganda machine. I think its hard to blame someone for having become the product of the indoctrination they have received since birth".
That's the thing though isn't it.....we've all had the same indoctrination since birth, but have realised that the 'official' line is not as honest as it purports to be. Once that is learned then the truth has to be found...therefore self-education is in order. Many are too lazy to educate themselves, preferring to believe the lies that keep them in their 'comfort zone'.
Complain about this comment
As a recreational drug user, I would like to able to do what I want to my own body in my own home using my own money that I have earned legally.
Most importantly, I would like to be able to do this without worrying about arrest, prosecution, loss of my job and the social stigma of a criminal record.
repeal all drug laws now and let people make their own choices !!!
Complain about this comment
How can criminalizing 37% of the working population be good for democracy? is it not the root cause in the break down of respect in law and order.
Complain about this comment
At 6:19pm on 31 Jul 2009, iNotHere wrote:
"That's the thing though isn't it.....we've all had the same indoctrination since birth, but have realised that the 'official' line is not as honest as it purports to be. Once that is learned then the truth has to be found...therefore self-education is in order. Many are too lazy to educate themselves, preferring to believe the lies that keep them in their 'comfort zone'."
Well lets hope that with all that has happened recently allot more people start to realise that politicians have an almost pathological inability to tell the truth.
Not only that but taking the expenses scandal as an example, are more interested in hiding the truth to cover their own corrupt backs then actually ensuring that our public money is used responsibly.
I wonder why we elect the same people over and over. Taking this country into illegal wars that we have absolutely no right or need to enter isn't even enough. What will it take?
Personally I think as we have now entered into an era of unsustainable economics where we keep gluttonous banks with unsustainable business models propped up with public money so that their unrelenting greed can continue virtually unchecked and the US is doing the same on a much bigger scale essentially assuring their collapse that things can only get allot worse for everyone from here on in. Maybe that's what it will take for us to realise we're being taken for fools.
Complain about this comment
Time to legalise drugs. HMG can buy up billions of pounds worth of drugs on the world markets so forcing the criminals out and then make its money back through taxes on the sale in the UK. Set the tax levels right and usage will slowly decline. As the criminals get squeezed from a lack of source and a lack of custom, HMG can gradually buy less of the world stock without needing to worry about a thriving contraband domestic market.
If we can persuade liberal EU neighbours to follow the same path then we can achieve three aims:
Reduce international and domestic crime
Provide genuine new revenue streams for emerging nations and conflict zones (increasing international stability and resolving conflict)
Create new jobs and boost domestic (and global) GDP [at least legitimise jobs and make more of global money movement transparent]
Complain about this comment
A suspicious type would probably say that SOCA has seen the anti-prohibition argument, has probably figured out for itself that the argument is sound and is trying any number of randomly-thought-of "new approaches" so the game can keep moving instead of coming to its natural conclusion - legalisation. So the drug-enforcement gravy train rolls on playing this needless game of cops and robbers at taxpayers expense.
Fortunately I'm not that suspicious, but I still think they're making a mistake with continuing prohibition..
Complain about this comment
Ok this sounds plausable. Try to make the dealers deal in a civilised fashion. Next perhaps we could train them in customer service. Next advise them on quality control. Then decriminalise their activities and turn them into respectable businesses paying tax to the government. Wow, we will have turned thousands of 'criminals' into law abiding citizens holding down a job! Success! I can't wait.
Complain about this comment
"The most convincing evidence of the harm caused by the criminalisation of party pills in April last year comes from a recently convicted drug dealer.
This man, whose name is suppressed, admitted smuggling 100,000 ecstasy tablets in just three months. He told media that his small operation became massive almost overnight after the government banned party pills, which contain the active ingredient benzylpiperazine (BZP).
The ban was instituted despite an investigation showing BZP caused little harm to users. BZP is not like methamphetamine, which in its crystalised form is called P, and ecstasy. The criminal acts and damage caused by P addicts have filled news pages for months. Ecstasy, while less harmful, has been implicated in several deaths.
When the ban became law, people switched from taking safer party pills to the much more dangerous methamphetamine and ecstasy.
"I went from selling 5000 pills a month to 5000 pills a week," the 52-year-old drug dealer explained to a weekend newspaper about the financial impact to his operation of the ban, which he estimated had generated up to $12 million in revenue".
Source: (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/blogs/nick-smith/2603636/Drug-bans-are-bad-economics)
I think this shows, PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
Can I please dispel a myth that seems to be prevalent. The Dutch have NOT legalised Cannabis.
It is still illegal to possess and illegal to grow, the law hasn't been changed, they have just tolerated the industry. Since a change of government two years ago there has begun a crackdown on the cannabis industry. As a result coffee shop prices have almost doubled in the past two years. The Dutch government has commissioned a company called SEON to specifically root out weed plantations. The employ thermal guns, helicopters and sniffing machines against plants, pots and soil. They also use mini helicopters which can hover over a building or neighbourhood to detect heat and they even poke the sensors into letterboxes to detect the smell from the plants. They have closed down a lot of the growers in the south east of the country.
Coffee shops have been closed as one of the rules that allows them to stay open is that they are only allowed to have half a kilo on the premises at one time, that can include what's in the customers pockets as well. If they exceed the limit they face immediate closure and the government are carrying out random spot checks to make sure they sticking to the limits. So if you visit be aware they might not want you tokin' in their shops.
Hopefully when a change of government happens things will relax a bit but until then it's not the tokers paradise we've been led to believe.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
...and might I add there is now an increase in contaminated weed in the Netherlands as growers try to maximise their profits, although the majority of this is marked for export......to here!
This is what happens when there is no regulation and control and a tough government anti drug stance on production and sale.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
The reason why the govt. lays down laws about what we can and can't put into our bodies is the economy needs fit and able workers turning up every day (M to F).
Business owners demand it.
From outcries over the original 'gin palaces' to WW I licensing laws (which we've only just loosened) the ruling class decide what you can do and when you can do it. All so you can be an effective worker-bee.
And that's why drugs are banned.
That, and the potential for mind-enhancing experiences that might make us (non-elites) question what it's all about.
Does that sound like something politicians would vote to change?
Complain about this comment
"The Dutch government has commissioned a company called SEON to specifically root out weed plantations."
Cool, privatised law enforcement. Otherwise known as parasites.
Complain about this comment
UK forces in afganistan are to no longer get involved in the drug trade in afganistan let the heroin run freely!!
Complain about this comment
"Robdemanc wrote:
Ok this sounds plausable. Try to make the dealers deal in a civilised fashion. Next perhaps we could train them in customer service. Next advise them on quality control. Then decriminalise their activities and turn them into respectable businesses paying tax to the government. Wow, we will have turned thousands of 'criminals' into law abiding citizens holding down a job! Success! I can't wait."
Aren't these people called publicans?!
Complain about this comment
Mr Easton. You seem obsessed by drugs. Constantly repeating the argument that 2 wrongs make a right. How much do drugs cost in your area?
You favour legalising marijuana. Are you unaware of the campaign against tobacco? Are you, the "drug expert", unaware that smoking cannabis makes you addicted to nicotine?
Complain about this comment
Novparl wrote:
"Are you unaware of the campaign against tobacco? Are you, the "drug expert", unaware that smoking cannabis makes you addicted to nicotine?"
You seem to be unaware of the fact that Cannabis does not contain nicotine. Smoking Cannabis on its own does not make you addicted to nicotine; it must be smoked together with tobacco for you to become addicted to nicotine.
Cannabis does not have to be smoked in a spliff or with tobacco, you can smoke it with a pipe, bong, buckets, hot-knives, vaporiser & other methods too, none of which requires you to use tobacco.
Cannabis is also most effective when eaten, the most popular method being including it in a cake mix to make Space Cakes, although it can be added to a variety of other foods too.
Complain about this comment
from the FT
Why its time to end the war on drugs
By Matthew Engel
Published: July 31 2009 16:13 | Last updated: August 1 2009 02:03
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/486fb0d8-7ca3-11de-a7bf-00144feabdc0.html
Complain about this comment
95 lol You favour legalising marijuana. Are you unaware of the campaign against tobacco? Are you, the "drug expert", unaware that smoking cannabis makes you addicted to nicotine?
ever heard of bongs pipes vaporizers none use tabbaco so shhhh.... fact is more smokes move to cannabis than cannabis users become tabbaco smokers.
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal
That's the point I was making at #96, somehow I was moderated out for listing some of the various methods you can use to get high from Cannabis, strange considering some of the other information I've posted on this topic.
It amazes me how many people think all Cannabis is smoked in spliffs, many of my friends won't touch spliffs as they don't like tobacco so they have bongs, pipes etc to smoke theirs with or they make space cakes and similar so they can get high from eating it.
Maybe Novparl is suffering from a slight case of Reefer madness...
Complain about this comment
"Are you, the "drug expert", unaware that smoking cannabis makes you addicted to nicotine? "
Or in short - Smoking Cannabis does not make you addicted to nicotine.
It is consuming nicotine that makes you addicted to nicotine and that is found in Tobacco. There is no nicotine in Cannabis.
and as for
"Mr Easton. You seem obsessed by drugs. Constantly repeating the argument that 2 wrongs make a right. How much do drugs cost in your area?"
I dont understand what they are trying to say.
Complain about this comment
@#95
Funny I was unaware cannabis had any nicotine in it....thought that was tobacco. Do you know something we don't?
There are other ways to use cannabis, it doesn't have to be mixed with tobacco...ie, it can be rolled in a paper on it's own and smoked, in a pipe, a bong, it can also be cooked into food and eaten.
To my way of looking at it the reason Mark has so many blogs about drugs is, it is a popular subject, it's not discussed anywhere else on the BBC website, the most important one in my opinion is that the drug prohibition issue is a HUGE problem, not only in this country but also around the world and as such it is something that SHOULD be discussed at every available opportunity.
Tell me are you the type of person that just wants to bury their head in the sand and pretend it'll all go away...that one day the war on drugs will be won and it'll all be over?
Got news for you...it ain't gonna happen, the drug 'problem' hasn't got any better in any country that uses the same draconian laws we do. It costs the country 1.5 billion pounds a year (without taking into account the cost of our soldiers in Afghanistan, helping the US take down the poppy fields) to achieve what exactly....oh yes absolutely nothing. User numbers haven't decreased significantly over the last EIGHTY ONE years in actual fact numbers have increased hugely, especially for cannabis use. The volume of all the illegal drugs has increased so much that anybody can buy it just about anywhere.
As far as I and a fair few others are concerned this utter waste of taxpayers money has to stop, in favour of legalisation, regulation and control, rather than the chaos and misery we have now.
That's why these blogs are here.....PROHIBTION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
yer Secratariat they can be a bit funny with some comments even though its been posted in similar wording b4 in a earlier blog.
so much misinformation its no wonder the public hasn't got a clue
What surprises me is all the would be murderers who want to keep drugs illegal. kill all dealers hang em high bla bla wonder how such people would feel if someone wanted to murder their families and friends.... and they say we drug users have no respect for life.!!!
Complain about this comment
Decriminalise use, licence distribution.
But ...
Anybody convicted of any crime at all, even so-called minor offences such as shoplifting or vandalism or parking on double-yellow lines, while under the influence of any intoxicants (including alcohol) automatically gets a minimum of two years hard labour added to whatever sentence they would have had for the basic crime.
Conviction for unlicenced distribution gets confiscation of all assets and profits plus minimum five years hard labour.
(Yes I know we don't do hard-labour, but the drugs policy isn't the only thing that needs to change).
People with self-control who harm nobody as a consequence of their consumption of alcohol or other intoxicants will be able to continue to enjoy their habit and those who can't will be removed from society.
Complain about this comment
I am an otherwise lawabiding cannibis smoker and I must say I am delighted to see so many comments advocating legalisation and taxation. To my mind this shows a general shift in public opinion which will hopefully open up the next step in discussing this subject openly and that is practical management of supply. Most politicians, if asked off the record would probably agree with us here but their next thought would be how do we as a state convince other drug producing states to sell us their previously illegal crops to supply our now legalised market? Cannibis is obhiously easy to grow in green houses but Cocaine and Heroin would need to be sourced from various South American and Asian states (some of which we are currently at war with!) and after generations of telling these states that their crops are "destroying our societies" and they must "help us to put a stop to them" we now about face and say "well actually we've had a bit of a change of heart"!
Your average politician would run screaming in terror at the very thought of what the "Daily Knee Jerk" would print the next day, not to mention the diplomatic nightmare which would ensue from our friends and neighbours who disagreed with our new policies. I long for the day when I can buy good grass from a legal supplier (not the hoods I have to deal with now!) and smoke sure in the knowledge that my taxes are being well spent, but until this subject is widly and sensibly debated in public I and the millions like myself will continue to risk criminalizing ourselves while lining the pockets of hoods and terrorists, and I mean terrorists, I'm from Northern Ireland so believe me I know what I'm talking about.
Complain about this comment
I support your views entirely. What about the amount of cash 'real money' hemorrhaging into the hands of the drug suppliers, all from foreign lands.
Criminality is the factory floor. We as a nation are loosing our children to the criminal fraternity. 'Crime' is what is filling the bellies of our poor, not the Tax payer, he is keeping the Banks afloat untill everyone realises where the money has gone.
Nighthawking
Complain about this comment
Huge issue. What happens in cases where the police actually corroborate with the dealers?
Complain about this comment
Why doe we us what the American us for their people? we are not American and to be honest not many good ideas come from such a self obsessed country we have drugs in this country because it make huge amounts of money and if the Govenment could tax it without being seen as being part of the drug scene it would do it like prostitution only to tax it would make them pimps. The big dealers all well they are usually very rich and as we know there is laws for the rich and different ones for the rest of us, Also the rich like drugs and keep the market going but all the police go after is the small players to give the idea that they are earning their pay and the middle class feel safe and it will not happen to them or those they know. So the so called war of drugs is a sham.
Complain about this comment
106. At 10:04am on 04 Aug 2009, PARRISIA_GREECE wrote:
Huge issue. What happens in cases where the police actually corroborate with the dealers?
What kind of corroboration are you talking about?
Complain about this comment
91. At 3:07pm on 01 Aug 2009, elvislite wrote:
"...The reason why the govt. lays down laws about what we can and can't put into our bodies is the economy needs fit and able workers turning up every day (M to F)..."
I agree - that is the reason, but it is the reasoning here that is in question. The simple fact is that a large proportion of the M to F brigade, myself included, already use drugs, and I still turn up for work every day, as do many others.
I've worked non-stop since 1981 when I left school. I've represented my country in war, I've worked inside the establishment, I've been a licensed drug dealer (a licensed publican) and now I work in the world of aviation. I've never drawn state benefits, I've never stolen nor engaged in crime (other than when I buy my drugs - a crime by definition, not by action) and still I'm labelled as a good for nothing drug user, incapable of holding down a life.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
elvislite wrote:
"...The reason why the govt. lays down laws about what we can and can't put into our bodies is the economy needs fit and able workers turning up every day (M to F)..."
I had more sick days due to hangovers than comedowns, and I had a hell of a lot more comedowns. In fact a night out on ecstasy and as long as it wasn't cut with anything dodgy resulted in no comedown whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
I would like to know what the "cultural and historical precedents are that the government citing for the reason cannabis was reclassified...Does anyone here know?
Complain about this comment
time to license me thinks, ensures good clean safe drugs,takes the trade out of the hands of violent gangs that use the money to fuel other criminal activity and would reduce crime by 55% thereby allowing the police to concentrate on the other 45% with more than double the resourses and try to cure the problems associated with the most hameful drug on the market.
Alcohol
Complain about this comment
inotHere seems to match Gw and the different lvls of classification. well thats my theory :D
Complain about this comment
Drug chief sues over sniffer dogs
oppps lol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8182594.stm
Complain about this comment
In my opinion is not possible to let the gangs to do whatever they want. I think it is insane to speak with them, because they have been kicking the law from the begining. The police can and would stop most drug trafficing if they were given the support of the law, politicians, the courts and more budget. Punishment for drug dealing must be treated with higher penalties.
In some international regulations is a crime against human rights.
However, if you want to legalize it, then do it but not in accordance with the drug dealers and their rules. If you give to the gangs an easy way, they will take more and more from the community.
I have a Portugal neighbor that is letting the flat next to mine, that stays at home all day and night playing video games. But people knock at his door at least in 3 occasions every night. What is he doing for living and to pay the rent?? Who knows, but this has been happening from more than 1 year. It is crazy that police does not wonder what is happening there.
Complain about this comment
Ok, in general 'drugs' are harmful to bot users and non-users. Some are more harmful than others and some of us on this blog aren't even talking about the same thing when we use the word 'drugs'. All irrelevant. What is relevant, and what seems to be obvious to most of us here is that the anti-drugs laws simply cannot be enforced. Whether a police force has a 'zero-tolerance' policy or a 'lets-pretend-it-isn't-happening' policy makes absolutely no difference at all.
The main problems, it seems to me, are those of associated property crime, and the harm caused by bad drugs and the fact that their use is forced underground. Both of these are not only exacerbated by but are a direct result of 'drugs' being illegal.
So, I suggest, legalising drugs would at worst make no difference and at best vastly improve the situation. And in any event there would be a lightening of the enormous burden to the taxpayer even if you remove the taxation of drugs themselves from the equation.
Or have I missed something?
Complain about this comment
115. At 4:10pm on 05 Aug 2009, venepueblo wrote:
"...The police can and would stop most drug trafficing if they were given the support of the law, politicians, the courts and more budget..."
OK - this blog is specifically aimed at drug policy, but I guess trafficking is a part of that. However, trafficking is handled by HM Customs & Excise and they DO have full legal support, full political support, full legislative support and a load of budget, and they only clip the surface. The UK has something like 12,000 miles of coastline. The resources required to patrol such a coastline is huge, even with the assistance of the Royal Navy, RAF, Irish Navy and the HM Coast Guard. They have successes but cannot be everywhere all of the time.
Legalised drugs would not prevent trafficking, but it would make it unnecessary as proper import procedures would take over from that.
"...Punishment for drug dealing must be treated with higher penalties..." That works, doesn't it? Have you been to Turkey or SE Asia? Life for drug smuggling, even the death penalty, and you can't tell me that those countries do not have drug issues. A change in thinking is what is necessary.
If you have read up on the other blogs that Mark has opened up to discussion, you will see some statistics. I hate statistics because they can be managed to give the wrong impression, but there are some you cannot argue with either.
If a large percentage, and we're talking like a third of the working population here in the UK, have engaged in using Class A drugs, and the 'law' states that the recreational use of those drugs is illegal, what does that mean about the;
1) actions of the population?
2) state of the law?
If a third of the working population were driving electric cars or asking for more Hydrogen filling stations, that would be almost 11,000,000 voices shouting. Imagine those same 11,000,000 voices shouting for the legalisation of Cannabis. That's where we are at.
"...However, if you want to legalize it, then do it but not in accordance with the drug dealers and their rules. If you give to the gangs an easy way, they will take more and more from the community..."
Agreed, mostly.
I used to sell Cannabis. I'd do it for a little extra income, but only to people who I knew, and of those, only adults. Everyone I sold to was a smoker already - I simply capitalised on an opportunity that was already there. I'm not a drug gang, but an ordinary civilised respectable humane responsible fully employed, fully tax-paid, fully integrated member of society. I would continue under license if that was possible, and for that reason, I think that the authorities, should the law ever change, would need to consider integrating some members of the drug world into mainstream supply streams. Have said that, I do agree that we cannot simply legalise drug 'barons' as the media would put it, but then, we're getting into a much harder discussion, much harder drugs.
"...I have a Portugal neighbor that is letting the flat next to mine...people knock at his door at least in 3 occasions every night. What is he doing for living and to pay the rent??..."
Concern understood, but it all depends on what he's up to. If he's selling weed, 3 times a night isn't going to pay for much. This is another benefit from a legalisation angle. People wouldn't need to call at some shady apartment doorway - they'd get it at a licensed outlet, so cleaning our housing estates of drug dealing kids and the pushers higher up whose aim is to promote and thus sell more and more of their dodgy, unregulated, unlicensed, unsafe product.
Complain about this comment
116. At 4:49pm on 05 Aug 2009, Its_an_Outrage wrote:
"...but are a direct result of 'drugs' being illegal...legalising drugs would at worst make no difference and at best vastly improve the situation..."
Bravo sir, BRAVO
No sir, you have missed nothing.
Let's have a common sense approach and I call for open discussion in the media, on TV or Radio, to reach the largest possible audience in the land.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
SHLA2UK
"I used to sell Cannabis. I'd do it for a little extra income, but only to people who I knew, and of those, only adults. Everyone I sold to was a smoker already - I simply capitalised on an opportunity that was already there. I'm not a drug gang, but an ordinary civilised respectable humane responsible fully employed, fully tax-paid, fully integrated member of society."
yer that's the case for just about everyone that uses cannabis at some point in their lives but that's the problem with supply and demand. People know you know a bloke and b4 you know it its an ounce or two instead of you own quart. And that goes for anyone defendant jury and judge.
Complain about this comment
#1CommunityCriminal
No they are not saying 'go get a gang' there is a dealer in my town who hasn't been bothered by police for many years yet he sells a lot of cannabis and a bit of cocaine.
The reason he is left alone is that he is not violent and does not sell to minors, all his customers are otherwose law abiding and no harm is caused to anyone.
If they took him down he could be replaced by a gang or a much more violent dealer who may start selling things like heroin and possilby to children.
As has been stated its time the government relaised no matter what they do people will always want drugs, rather than having a idealisitic ridiculous idea that drugs can be eradiciated its time to manipulate markets to reduce harm.
Of cause the best way to really reduce harm would be to legalise these substances which would take dealers/gangs out of the picture completely.
Complain about this comment
8. At 2:25pm on 30 Jul 2009, headinhands wrote:
One last thing, for those who think recreational drug use is for 'drugies' - I suggest you look in the mirror when you next have a few beers or a glass of wine; you are a recreational drug user. If you still think I should be a criminal for smoking herbs then you are a hypocrite.
Well said. I extend the term "recreational drug user" to tea and coffee drinkers and tobacco smokers. Chocolate and cheese have also been proven to alter brain chemistry so I'm also lumping those in there. Lettuce varieties contain opiate-like alkaloids similar to laudanum so all you salad-eaters, you're all druggies too.
it makes me wonder about the law - it seems a lot more obsessed with what I do to myself rather than what I inflict on other people. it's about time a person's private domain reclaims that private status. when your actions directly make problems for others is when it's no longer in your private domain, but not before.
Complain about this comment
95. At 10:03am on 03 Aug 2009, Novparl wrote:
You favour legalising marijuana. Are you unaware of the campaign against tobacco? Are you, the "drug expert", unaware that smoking cannabis makes you addicted to nicotine?
now there's an opinion that definitely hasn't been lifted straight out of the daily mail..
I notice a lot of people correcting the quoted point, listing various methods of consuming cannabis, bongs, vapourisers etc. personally I like to mix mine with a 3:1 aggregate of ground sperm whale ivory and pigeon blood and apply liberally into both eyes under a slightly gibbous moon, chanting "death to the infidel".
will I become addicted to nicotine?
Complain about this comment
We all know but dare not say it that the only solution is to legalise and licence all drugs. This would end the war in Afghanistan for one and break the cartels in SOuth America. We need men(and women) of strength and wisdom in charge - not these numpties.
Complain about this comment
LuftHamza wrote:
I like to mix mine with a 3:1 aggregate of ground sperm whale ivory and pigeon blood and apply liberally into both eyes under a slightly gibbous moon, chanting "death to the infidel".
Brilliant !
I'll have to give that one a try as it's a method I'd never heard of before. Now where do I get Sperm whale ivory from ?
I'd also agree with using term "recreational drug user" for tea & coffee drinkers, watching people come into work most mornings is like watching a scene from Shawn of the Dead and most people are useless until they've had their morning tea or coffee hit.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
I've never been a newspaper reader, prefer to get my news online. I got really curious why everyone takes the mick out of the daily mail so I decided to have a look at their website. They have had a live discussion going on entitled "Should we turn a blind eye to drug dealers"? The article that spawned the debate is filled with such glaring inaccuracies I'm not surprised their readers have such anti-drug views.
Some of the comments on there had me wiping my eyes with incredulity, so I thought...why not. Been having a long debate about the merits of legalisation and why hemp is such a useful plant....thought I'd try and change a few minds...it lasted four days and there was only one other person there in favour of legalisation. It became really hard going towards the end, given up now....they have no hope!
I now see why people take the mick out of daily mail readers.
Complain about this comment
122. At 2:17pm on 06 Aug 2009, LuftHamza wrote:
"...personally I like to mix mine with a 3:1 aggregate of ground sperm whale ivory and pigeon blood and apply liberally into both eyes under a slightly gibbous moon, chanting "death to the infidel"..."
Excellent - I'm going to try that method tonight - it's still a full moon - will that make it at better experience?
Complain about this comment
125. At 5:15pm on 06 Aug 2009, iNotHere wrote:
"...I now see why people take the mick out of daily mail readers..."
Ha, a convert. Welcome to a bigot-less, (Daily) Mail-free world
Complain about this comment
lol yup i used to chat about it on the sun forums a few years ago strange bunch. Couldn't see the wood for all the tree's I gave up there aswell.
Complain about this comment
Thank you SHLA2UK don't think I'll be going back there in a hurry. :)
Another thing, I won't EVER complain about the speed of moderation on these blogs again. The Mail debate was supposed to be live....it was about as live as a snail, 6+ hours to get the posts cleared. Well done BBC at least you can call these discussions near enough live. I think drugs are essential to take part in those debates....did my head in for sure..lol
Complain about this comment
I've often read on the pro cannabis sites that there is no point in debating the subject with like minded people, because the point is to change peoples minds...but in those places you can get pretty isolated and it kinda feels like being hit over the head with a blunt instrument..lol
Complain about this comment
Inothere indeed it does thats why i like this place can be frustrating at time with wording stuff but on the whole the speach is free here and well opinionated, plus i figure that more people read these blogs than do the pro cannabis sites or at least more people uneducated(with reguardsto drugs) with little understanding of cannabis otehr than the media hype.
The new frank claims seem a bit suspect for the under 18's but at least they are trying to educate them about the harm to the natural endocanaboid system in young people.
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal
The whole of "Frank" is a bit suspect in my opinion. I don't know who they've spoken to to get their 'facts' but whoever it was must be having a damn good laugh now. Kids know about the 'harms' of cannabis, they smoke it anyway....and come on, I'm sorry but a bit of paranoia that lasts for maybe 30 mins is NOT a mental health problem. It's all to scare kids into not using it and isn't working. My personal opinion is that if 'TalktoFrank' was written on paper it would be worth using as a firelighter, at the very most, that way you'd get SOME use out of it.
Complain about this comment
126. At 5:23pm on 06 Aug 2009, SHLA2UK wrote:
122. At 2:17pm on 06 Aug 2009, LuftHamza wrote:
"...personally I like to mix mine with a 3:1 aggregate of ground sperm whale ivory and pigeon blood and apply liberally into both eyes under a slightly gibbous moon, chanting "death to the infidel"..."
"Excellent - I'm going to try that method tonight - it's still a full moon - will that make it at better experience"?
Just looked at the Frank website....don't take that SHLA2UK, Frank says your head will explode.
Complain about this comment
124. At 4:20pm on 06 Aug 2009, Secratariat wrote:
"I'll have to give that one a try as it's a method I'd never heard of before. Now where do I get Sperm whale ivory from ?
I'd also agree with using term "recreational drug user" for tea & coffee drinkers, watching people come into work most mornings is like watching a scene from Shawn of the Dead and most people are useless until they've had their morning tea or coffee hit.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK"
Yep, the 9am zombie shuffle through the door and straight to the kettle makes me smile every day. in every office of every town there are many people vastly more substance dependent than the average cannabis user.
the most striking aspect are the habits of the office tobacco smoker - out in front in all weathers, once an hour. should they miss one of those it becomes a bit like sharing the pavement with a drunk joey barton.
as for the ground sperm whale ivory, I catch mine myself as the norwegians and japanese charge too much. there's a recession on, don't you know!
you are totally correct - prohibition doesn't work. by it's very definition it shouldn't work because if you have to prohibit something, it suggests that people are already doing it.
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal & iNotHere
The "Talk to Frank" campaign is just the latest in a long line of failed attempts by the government to spread fear & disinformation about drugs to children & young people.
I've always thought this to be counter productive.
When I was at school the best information we ever got about drugs came from our Chemistry & Biology teachers who would talk about drugs from the bio-chemical angle, in effect describing how various drugs interact with your body to produce certain effects. I always found this very interesting & informative.
When I was in the fifth year at high-school PSE (Personal & Social Education) was introduced and we then started to get the scare stories about drugs instead of information.
When I then started smoking Cannabis in the first year of Sixth Form I realised that most of what I'd been told in PSE was absolute rubbish, Cannabis did not turn me into some brain-dead waster, quite the opposite was true. This made me doubt everything I'd ever been told about drugs and was a small part of the reason I then decided to try other drugs too, after all, if they'd lied about the dangers of Cannabis then why should I believe what they'd said about Ecstasy, LSD & Cocaine ?
It obviously wasn't a logical thing to do but then again, teenagers aren't the most logical of people.
At the moment we try to scare children and young people about the dangers of drugs, this not only makes them more appealing to those teenagers with a natural instinct to rebel but also makes teenagers who do try Cannabis doubt everything they've ever been told about drugs and therefore makes them more likely to try other drugs too.
I think it would be better all round if we just told young people the truth about drugs and left the scare stories out of it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Secratariat
"I think it would be better all round if we just told young people the truth about drugs and left the scare stories out of it".
I wholeheartedly agree with you, I don't understand this attitude that children have to be sheilded from life and as such have to be told half-truths and downright lies, lies which are going to be found out to the detriment of the relationship, cos they ain't gonna trust you again. Surely the aim of raising children is to prepare them for adult life, not frighten the hell out of them.
Complain about this comment
137. At 1:19pm on 07 Aug 2009, iNotHere wrote:
"...Surely the aim of raising children is to prepare them for adult life, not frighten the hell out of them..."
LOL - too true.
I think I was about 6 when I realised that Santa Claus didn't exist, but had to carry on the charade for my sister when she came along a year later. She, being a girlie, believed it until she was about 10 (or 12, 14, 16 maybe she still believes), but the point is, keeping things from kids - or worse, using lies to control them, is no different to how we are starting to perceive the methods our govt use to control us.
The concept of Frank was supposed to educate - something that I think is overdue - real proper education on the subject, truth, honesty and keep it real. What happened was a propaganda machine that evolved and started to believe its own spouted lies.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
Ok, posting this again using just the link as the extract I posted from this website has been pulled.
I just found this on http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy_main/2009/aug/05/marijuana_used_for_methadone_wit I knew this was a versatile plant but I didn't know it could help with methadone withdrawal.
Complain about this comment
It is claimed Cannabis can help alleviate the following symptoms;
Adult ADD
Aggressive disorders
AIDS
Alcoholism
Alzheimer's disease
Asthma
Cancer chemotherapy
Chronic pain
Chron's Disease
Depression
Diabetic Gastroparesis
Dystonias
Epilepsy
Glaucoma
Insomnia
Labour pains
Menstrual cramps
Migraine
Multiple Sclerosis
Paraplegia
Phatom limb pain
PMT
Pruritus
Psuedotumour Cerebri
PTSD
Quadriplegia
Rheumatic diseases
Schizophrenia
Severe nausea
Systemic Sclerosis
Tinnitus
Tumours
and many more...
Unfortunately the quality and quantity of research into this is very limited due to the legal status of Cannabis and it's only recently that some nations have started to review this situation and allow medical research into the benefits of Cannabis and the compounds that can be extracted from it.
Complain about this comment
We all worry about drugs getting on to the streets but if no one used the stuff then it wouldn't get sold. Demand dictates supply here. Agree with the comments which say buy it at point of manufacture and sell it on licence from pharmacies. The whole drug supply chain would dissapear very quickly. The Govt could even tax it to make extra money.
Complain about this comment
iNotHere thc delta 9 turns to thc delta 6 when super heated this attaches to the opium receptors hence why it works on meth withdrawals.
another interesting story : Pot Parents: Smoking's Better Than Drinking!
http://www.momlogic.com/2009/08/pot_parents_moms_want_kids_to_smoke_marijuana.php
Complain about this comment
Drug death toll at record levels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8196998.stm
Complain about this comment
Just found this, so much for the rule of law.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/597/US_military_afghanistan_drug_trafficker_hit_list
Great drug policy!
Complain about this comment
Im following a story atm of total hypocracy with reguards to GW and growing your own.
A medical user is prescribed sativex by his doc at the cost of £300+ every 2 weeks and its private prescription. He couldn't afford their costs so grew his own. he gets busted a few months down the line this is were the hypocracy starts.
He is precribed medical cannabis produced under the supervision of GW and the Homeoffice, so its now concluded that it is benifical to him and his quality of life but costs upto 4x the home price for the same result.
Does this now mean that the goverment and GW are in a turf war were they are the only ones that can win as they have the backing of Law when it comes to what is classed as medical cannabis.!!!!
Complain about this comment
Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession
http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2009/08/20/mexico_decriminalizes_small_scale_drug_possession/
Complain about this comment
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/08/mexico-decriminalises-personal-drug.html
Complain about this comment
Could it be that at last common sense is seeping into the brains of the powers that be?? Other countries need to follow suit now.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS