When the drug laws don't work
That one disgruntled vet can scupper government plans to outlaw an "evil" chemical is evidence of a clash of philosophies on the role of the state in dealing with risk. It will also be cited as support for the view that the Misuse of Drugs Act is not fit for purpose.
The system of drug classification and penalties goes back almost 40 years and, it is argued, is too clunky to cope with a modern world in which a new and dangerous drug can move from a Far-Eastern lab to become the drug of choice in British nightclubs in a matter of a few months.
The current structure moves at a stately pace: from considered scientific assessment to ministerial judgement and through the legislative process of both Houses of Parliament. It also contains, as the home secretary discovered this morning, statutory traps which can frustrate ministers wishing to act promptly.
Under the act, Dr Polly Taylor's resignation means the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is not constituted properly. The 1971 legislation states that the council must include someone with "wide and recent experience of... veterinary medicine" and, at the moment, she is the only vet they've got. Until such time as the committee finds a suitable replacement, the home secretary cannot act (though see update below).
For those who believe delay puts lives at risk, Dr Taylor's action must seem the height of irresponsibility. But for her, it is a matter of profound principle.
The resignation is further fall-out from the home secretary's decision to sack the former chairman of the ACMD, Professor David Nutt, last November. The professor was dismissed after giving an academic lecture in which he criticised the government policy on classifying cannabis and ecstasy, but his departure prompted five members of the Advisory Council to resign, furious at what they saw as an attack on the independence of scientific advisers.
In an attempt to cool matters, the government has published principles on which its relationship with scientific advisers will be founded. The final version was released five days ago. But before the ink is barely dry, Dr Polly Taylor has resigned from the council, saying the code won't stop advice being "subjected to a desire to please ministers or the mood of the day's press".
Dr Taylor is particularly dismayed by a line in the code which says that "Government and its scientific advisers should not act to undermine mutual trust". In her resignation letter [207Kb PDF], she says this is "highly unsatisfactory and appeared to justify ministers appointing and dismissing independent scientific advisers according to 'trust' which is an arbitrary and subjective matter".
The affair is evidence of a philosophical divide between a political community which wants to respond swiftly to public anxiety and a scientific community which wants hard evidence before coming to any conclusion.
As a result, there are two distinct views on how government should respond to the arrival of new drugs which pose a potential harm to users.
The first, favoured by politicians, is the so-called precautionary principle: "we don't know how dangerous this substance is, so we will ban it until such time as it can be proved to be safe".
The second is supported by some scientists and academics: "we should not move hastily towards a ban without evidence of the physical harm from a drug because prohibition itself causes harms".
The UK Drugs Policy Commission, an independent academic think-tank, has urged "much caution" before rushing to outlaw mephedrone. "The result would be to potentially create criminal sanctions against users (and hence possible imprisonment) for a drug whose real harms have not even been assessed," says commission Chief Executive Roger Howard. "If the harms were later to be found less than anticipated, then it would be extremely unlikely that any government would 'un-classify' it or downgrade it," he tells me.
Prohibition, it is argued, tends to push price up and purity down, increasing the health risks and prompting more acquisitive crime. A ban also moves production and supply from an observable and potentially controllable legal environment to the underworld. But the counter-argument is that it is the very legality of mephedrone which has increased its popularity. There is evidence that it has now overtaken ecstasy among clubbers, some of whom may believe that because it is legal, it is safe.
Professor David Nutt and Dr Les King, who set up the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs following their departure from the ACMD, have also written to the home secretary [86Kb PDF] urging him to wait before taking action against mephedrone.
They write that: "it is imperative to avoid, particularly in the pre-election period, a knee-jerk reaction to press coverage of deaths that may or may not have been caused by mephedrone".
Their view is that ministers would do better to wait until the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) has completed its evaluation of 'legal highs', including mephedrone. A formal risk-assessment is expected to be submitted in early July.
It is self-evident that, with any new drug, it takes time to assemble the hard science on which to judge its relative harm. Despite all the press stories, there is actually no confirmed case in Britain of mephedrone having contributed to any death in any way. That's not to say that it isn't dangerous: today the ACMD is reported to have identified at least 18 deaths in England and a possible seven in Scotland where cathinones, of which mephedrone is one, have been implicated. In seven cases, there was evidence of mephedrone at post-mortem. But, as yet, no inquest has concluded that mephedrone killed someone.
For politicians, though, especially in the febrile atmosphere of an impending election campaign, this is not the time for considered debates about the role of independent scientific advice and risk assessment. As the prime minister told the country at Question Time last week, he is "determined to act to prevent this evil hurting the young people of this country".
Update 1254: Home Office lawyers have been poring over the Misuse of Drugs Act and believe that, even without the requisite vet, the Advisory Council can report and the government can legislate for a ban. A spokesperson has said:
"Based on its current formation, the ACMD is still able to fulfil its statutory role and provide advice on mephedrone today on which we can act. We have said we intend to act immediately on receipt of the ACMD's advice and this is still our intention."
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~45~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Well what can one say other than told you so and welcome to the 21st century.
http://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/uk_national_news/5199194.Chinese__to_create_new_legal_highs_/
Drugs 1 government 0 on an indefinite basis now ? or do we stem the flow from china with a little invasion maybe a few economic sanctions.
Methedrone was the key to Pandora's box.
Complain about this comment
18 deaths. WOW what a huge number. Why don't you contrast that to alcohol or tobacco? Legal does not mean safe. Illegal does not mean harmful.
This is just a knee jerk reaction by a clueless government.
Complain about this comment
b4 im condemed on my spelling of meph
Mephedrone was the key to Pandora's box.
:D
Complain about this comment
Despite this Government's best efforts, I believe that most people in this country wish to live in a free society. That means the default position must be that nothing is banned without very good reason.
If and when, and only then, there is scientific evidence that a new recreational drug causes serious harm, it should be banned. Yes, there are risks to waiting, but there are risks as soon as one gets out of bed in the morning!
Complain about this comment
For the last time, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MEPHEDRONE WAS A CAUSE OF DEATH of ANYONE, and it is a GOOD THING that "one disgruntled vet can scupper government plans" when those plans are knee-jerk responses without any scientific basis. If politicians want to ride on a bandwagon of tabloid opinion, that's a political decision, not a scientific one, which makes a mockery of having a scientific advisory board. I would have resigned, too. To stay would be to lend credibility to the government's position.
Complain about this comment
Working with young people (16-19) I have found that they are interested to learn about the dangers associated with drugs, but do not care one jot about their legal status. They also prefer unbiased information and dismiss 'Frank' as pure propaganda with little meaningful content.
Hence, if you want to discourage the use of any substance, provide evidence (from proper scientific research) about the dangers inherent in its use. Don't waste time & money making it illegal, your target audience don't care.
Making a drug illegal only forces potential users to mix with criminals to obtain it, it does not put them off from wanting to do so. It also increases the danger, as criminals tend to increase profits by 'cutting' the substance you want with other potentially harmful and unknown ones to make the active ingredient go further.
Complain about this comment
I can't see how the strategy of simply adding new chemicals, to the list of covered substances, is ever going to work as an effective drugs policy.
I was a teenager during the rave scene of the early 90's and have used, at some point, virtually all of the recreational drugs, that are currently banned. I haven't taken any of them for about eight years and also stopped drinking and smoking about a year ago and it was a lot harder stopping those than it was any other substance.
We have a media obsessed with sensationalist stories of 'the latest drug' yet is quite happy broadcasting programmes full of people smoking and drinking, which quite honestly is doing far more harm to people than anything else.
As far as I see it, the only solution is to either allow everything and permit people to make educated choices, as to what they want to do with their bodies or ban everything including alcohol and tobacco. Anything else just seems pointless.
Complain about this comment
Apparently the Chinese can supply a never ending and ever changing supply of these drugs and Alan Johnson under the direction of Gordon Brown will try to ban all of them. When they upgraded cannabis the effect was to draw in the criminal gangs because the profits became huge (prices have more than doubled) so now the gangs spray what was a reasonably harmless drug with plastic so they can crop it earlier and up the margin on it (the health implications of the so called grit weed are horrific), the effect of this has been that the kids who used to smoke a few spliffs have now taken to experimenting with this new stuff. I have signed numerous petitions to Downing st to get them to re look at the cannabis situation and to re instate Dr Nutt but more often than not petitions of that ilk are kicked out without even being looked at as Gordon Brown does not approve.Bring back Dr Nutt I say
Complain about this comment
Brilliant! If the government bans it then I have to assume that the cost of the drug will drop, the usage will increase, and a new legal high (possibly more toxic) will replace it for those without the contact to get it from 'a friend'.
After all that's what happened to ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis, ketamine, mushrooms, salvia, speed etc. etc.
I see the first poster currently has the tally at Drugs 1 Government 0. Could I suggest raising this to Drugs 40 Govenment 0? They've spent billions on this futile war and all they managed to do was reduce the cost and increase the supply.
Complain about this comment
Surely all the Government need to do is Get DEFRA to ban the fertilser as having poential heath risks, or at the very least force producers only provide the stuff in a diluted form with coloured dyes and flavours added to prevent people taking the fertiliser by mistake.
That way you get round the ACMD who are putting intellectual argument before the health and safety of ill informed people.
Complain about this comment
Is it me or does the good doctor repeat a whole paragraph in her letter? towards the end when describing the good work of the council. Very strange, at least give it a read through before hitting send!
There has been enough publicity on methadrone for people to maketheir own informed decisions, banning only hightens the spectre around said "evil" substance.
Complain about this comment
Update 1254: Home Office lawyers have been poring over the Misuse of Drugs Act and believe that, even without the requisite vet, the Advisory Council can report and the government can legislate for a ban. A spokesperson has said:
"Based on its current formation, the ACMD is still able to fulfil its statutory role and provide advice on mephedrone today on which we can act. We have said we intend to act immediately on receipt of the ACMD's advice and this is still our intention."
Very weak this and they seem to be making law to suit themselves how would such things stand under EU law for legally binding and will those accused of supply have case against the government on impromptu law making IE after this cut down recommendation will there be legal loop holes that can be exploited as the panel was not as stated in the MODA71.
Complain about this comment
if you're in a club and you look around you see the drunks; loud, rowdy, noisy, the ones causing the fights. look at poeple on mephadrone on the other hand; the opposite; poeple just out to have a good time. never would someone on mephadrone cause a fight. and yes--5 poeple or so may have died BUT these people were mixing mephadrone (which in your propoganda you have failed to note); it was NOT the direct cause. and its a ridiculous statement to make considering how many people are in hospital every night having their stomach's pumped or dying from alcohol or messing up family life or jobs. quite frankly i think the drug that needs to be banned is alcohol. and yes; i would recommend mephadrone over alcohol for any night.
Complain about this comment
Once again our authoritarian, illiberal, undemocratic masters have decided what we as responsible, law abiding, tax-paying adults can do with our own bodies, largely due to the usual over reaction by the type of idiots that beleive everything the daily mail tells them. Piece by piece are country is becoming less and less free.
Why do we as citizens let the government intrude into everything we do. Do you really beleive thet they have our best interests at heart, or the interests of themselves and big business, in this case the alcohol lobby, because for £10 of meow meow you can enjoy yourself all night; alternatively you can by 2/3 drinks in a london pub/bar/club for that, with a massive mark up by the big corporations that own them plus the taxman gets his cut so he's happy, which is what this is really all about.
Complain about this comment
As Prof Nutt has recently stated criminal gangs must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of mephedrone being banned. The price will rocket and the quality will plummet. How can we expect to control a substance when we hand the production and distribution over to criminal gangs? Like it or not these types of drugs are here to stay and banning them will achieve nothing. Regulate and licence is the ONLY sensible option.
Complain about this comment
Well done to Dr Polly Taylor for making another stand against government by headline, rumour and suspicion. Either government takes the approach of listening to experts, making the time to consider their reccomendation and the evidence for them before deciding whether to accept it or not; or they invite news editors round the cabinet table and simply pass control over to them.
This does raise another point though, how to help everyone understand risk, relative impact and indeed personal responsibility. Until we all do then the ACMD could repeatedly tell us that mephedrone is safer than alcohol, tobacco or even crossing the road but would be ignored in the clamour for something to be done about this new risk. This could be even though it is, on balance, far less of a danger than a lot of risks that we have already accepted in our daily lives and so are no longer concerned about except in passing.
Complain about this comment
Of course, the government should rely on the red tops and blue-rinsers for formulating government drugs policy rather than evidence and facts. How dare anyone suggest that the opinion of people who've spent their entire professional career studying the effects of pharmacology on humans and other similar physiologies be given precedence?
I get on my knees daily (sometimes more) to thank whatever deities care to listen that we have a government that will never give in to informed adults doing as they please with their lives. And that this government is resolute enough to ignore any petty laws stopping them from interfering in the business of people trying to be anything other than well-behaved and interchangeable consumption/taxation units. The nerve!
Complain about this comment
A nice article but what a shame the small fact about no confirmed deaths directly from this drug was buried away near the bottom. Anyone would think this was a more subtle attempt at more media hysteria to feed even more hysterical politicians. You have to feel sorry for anyone trying to practice objective science in the face of all this.
Drinking too much water can kill, something that has happens a few times a year, so please Gordon, make a stand against the evils of h2o next.
Complain about this comment
Yet again we are in the wash of a media spun moral panic about drugs and yet again politicians from both Labour and the Conservatives are quick to feed the ignorance by calling for quick and unthinking 'action'. Johnson clearly hasn't learned anything from destroying the relationship with the scientific community, and on the other side Cameron has demonstrated he has no sense on the matter either with his swift and stupid setting out of a plan to ban everything that comes along as soon as there's a hint in the media that it might be used by anyone at all regardless of any real measurable risks.
Maybe if someone on either side of the political divide would stand up to the media and defend good science over hysterical witch-hunting we might end up with a little more faith in our politicians.
Complain about this comment
People don't think drugs are safe because they're legal or illegal, but because they see drugs consumed en-masse each and every weekend with little more consequence, in the vast majority of cases, than a sore head in the morning (or afternoon).
All that the legality issue does is make a particular drug harder or easier, but never impossible to get. Hence mephedrone has overtaken the popular illegal alternatives.
The sooner the powers that be wake up to the fact the licensing sale is the only way to control drugs the better.
Complain about this comment
There is only one thing I wonder - Why is every drug made illegal? Why are Fags and Booze the only "safe" ones - Which everyone knows is rubbish... Please Please Please someone explain to me why all drugs are illegal? Its bad advice and poor government to just ban it because its not the MP's drug of choice.
Complain about this comment
Irresponsible? You bet! I hope nobody that she knows becomes hooked on this stuff. If this scientist was so set against the Government that employs her, why didn't she resign along with Professor Nutt? The they'd have time to find another vet. These people are not elected to make decisions about policy - they are employed to advise. If their advice is ignored, it's no good throwing a hissy fit. Don't take the job in the first place. If you advise politicians, there is always a risk that they'll ignore you for 'political' reasons. That's the way of the world.
She has now delayed legislation by a significant period of time. Time in which the peddlers of this poison can crank up production before the inevitable ban. I'm sure the scientists would regard more deaths and more misery as 'interesting data' to be considered at great length whilst they sit on academic committees debating for years before they eventually come to a 'considered decision'. Maybe she can explain to the families of anyone else who dies in the meantime how important her principles are to her.
Complain about this comment
dj-gandy: couldn't agree more. If drug sales were shoveling money into the coffers at westminster we would here little.
Remember the big hoo-ha when Leah Betts (who actually died of water intoxication) took ectasy and ended up in a coma?? Sad as it was, particularly as she was so young, why is it that the government know that around 15,000 people in the uk die each year from alcohol related illness yet do little about it. 'Oh but they raised the price of alcohol' I hear you say! Pffff. Yeah and thats a great solution to the problem. A five year old could have thought of that.
The British government need to be less obsessed with making money and micro-managing the population and instead tackle real issues which money can't always fix.
Complain about this comment
Call_Me_Col wrote:
Surely all the Government need to do is Get DEFRA to ban the fertilser as having poential heath risks
Oh my ITS NOT A FERTILISER so its got naff all to do with DEFRA it could have been labled drain cleaner, rust remover etc but they labled it plant food.
Complain about this comment
Another publicity stunt or addition to the namby mamby state. Why not ban rope, this would lessen the numbers of deaths due to hanging.
Complain about this comment
what a clever idea- make something illegal, thereby reducing purity so it will be cut with far more dangerous things, and also putting it in the hands of organised criminals- increasing crime further.
More to the point surely it's up to the individual to decide what they put in their own body, typical nanny state.
Complain about this comment
I thought we'd established that the government doesn't need to use scientific advice to make their decisions, unless the new rules somehow changed that. Can't the Home Secretary unilaterally declare tapwater a Class A drug if he takes it into his head to do so?
On the other hand, I don't see what's objectionable about a rule that the committee of scientists and the government shall maintain, not undermine, trust, as long as it's understood that each has their own priorities and isn't bound to do what the other tells them or even to refrain from criticising. So perhaps that's where it's gone wrong - the government is telling the scientists what they must think.
Complain about this comment
I don't think anyone who buys Meow is under the impression that it's 100% 'safe' - the incentives are that it's cheap, uncut and can have great results. People are aware that they might have a toxic reaction and choose to take the risk.
Should we ban peanuts for all, as some people have fatal reactions to them?
Look at this quote from a London Marathon site: 'There are also cardiac units at the finish and resuscitation facilities along the course and at the finish.'People encouraged to participate in THIS dangerous activity! New research shows the increased long-term risk of developing heart disease for endurance athletes, plus the possibility of dropping dead on the spot for Jo Lard Public - hmm can't see it being banned though, can you?
Complain about this comment
AS if banning this or any other drug would stop people using it! The Government would do better to scrap the current legislation, and make the sale of (highly taxed) recreational drugs legal. This would slash the rate of crime, and would allow the money previously spent on enforcing the unenforceable to be spent on treatment.
Complain about this comment
So, let me get this right, the government is prepared to break its own laws in order to make new ones criminalising the rest of us. Interesting. In the same way that an MP caught stealing from the tax payer isn't a common thief but a gentleman abiding by flawed rules. The fact that lawyers are "looking" at the legislation to see whether they can make a judgement without a full ACMD panel sounds suspiciously like the same tactics being used prior to the Iraq war, i.e. if the law doesn't work how we like we'll change it on the hoof to fit our needs. They can dress it up in public safety terms as much as they like but they are breaking the law in order to criminalise law abiding young people. You must feel very proud of yourself Mr Johnson. Well done.
I find it extremely depressing that the whole debate on mephedrone is being driven by politicians' fear of what tabloid editors might say if a ban isn't introduced. It makes me wonder why we're going to bother having an election in a month's time as it is the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press that are effectively dictating UK policy on any subject you care to mention. The same Murdoch press who like to name and shame celebrities for breaking the law and yet seem to get away with it themselves when caught illegally tapping people's phones. I am sick and tired of being moralised at by people who are thieves, philanderers, war-mongers and liars. The whole debate on drugs is a complete joke that I believe is being driven either by vested interests (the brewing industry) or extreme cowardice (politicians).
Complain about this comment
Comment number 2 from dj_gandy illustrates the stupidity of some people's understanding towards drug use. A single cigarette or a single drink will not, in itself, kill a person. A single incident of mephedrone use can and has - as will eventually be shown. So, 18 deaths in a short period is a large number of fatalities. Smoking and drinking take a much longer period of time to contribute to their partuicular fatality statistics.
The government are correct to ban substances such as mephedrone until they are proved harmless. After all, we don't license the major pharmaceutical companies' products without documented testing, so why should some dubious back street concoction be treated any differently?
Complain about this comment
If mephedrone becomes illegal then drug dealers everywhere will be back in good business. People seeking an alternative to alcohol will go back to ecstasy and cocaine as drugs of choice, for the effects of mephedrone are only really ertsatz for these chemicals anyway. Instead of a pure drug it will become cut with rat poison or various other cheaper but far more harmful "padding", resulting in the end product of this being FAR more dangerous.
This government is once again buying into tabloid hype. The tabloids are pandering to an audience of small minded conservatives (small "c") who see anything new that allows young people to have fun as "bad" and "dangerous". What happened to priciples in politics? Why let mass ignorance win through? This is not a "scientific" stance, it is merely propaganda and spin.
The only net result of a ban on Mephedrone will be to cause more harm than good, people will revert to the established illegal (and therefore dangerous due to cutting with poisons wonce more) drugs or take a much more dangerous form of this new one.
And all of this while alcohol and tobacco are happily marketed as "safe". It is a ludicrous state of affiars, which make me lose yet more faith in our politicians. It's lose lose for the U.K.. Unless you happen to be an alcoholic... How ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
Oh and why is the BBC also jumping on this bandwagon?
Complain about this comment
40 people die each DAY from the effects of alcohol. FORTY!
The numbers from tobacco are much higher, this need putting into perspective instead of people looking for the next sensationalist story.
Bear in mind the above figures are all proved from toxicology reports carried out on the deceased. By these standards, NOT ONE PERSON has died from Mephedrone by these standards yet!
Complain about this comment
You just have to walk through any inner city area to see how effective New Labour's policies on drugs have been. But spin is always better than proper policy in their eyes. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
@tacrepus ... but a single peanut could! down with nobby's nuts.
NONE of the deaths have been attributed to mephedrone alone ...
Complain about this comment
It's the same old disingenuous argument '..but alcohol and cigs are legal, so why can't we legalise everything..'. You might as well say, 'kitchen knives are legal so why not legalise guns!'. It's a silly argument.
Legalising drugs won't suddenly make everybody stop drinking or smoking. The problems of drugs will be added to the existing problem, making things worse, not better. And they're bad enough as it is, thank you. It seems that some people want complete freedom to do anything they like, and take umbrage when they're told that they can't. Complete freedom is anarchy. Let's not abuse the privileges we have in this country by continually demanding more and more.
Complain about this comment
Just seen Emily Maitlis feeding the moral panic hysteria on the BBC News Channel. Can BBC journos not tell the difference between one mother's anecdotal story about the death of her child from unknown causes from proper scientific evidence?
Do BBC journos not know that it is not appropriate to say that laws must be changed because one mother tells an emotional story?
We should not base the laws that govern our freedoms on such flimsy 'evidence' or hysterical media witch hunts and BBC journos ought to have enough sense to uphold that standard of knowledge and responsibility. The alternative is to either have our various freedoms and rights eroded arbitrarily and without evidence or reason, which only leads to justified resistance and refusal to obey unjust laws.
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo you have the wrong end of the stick completely. The science on drugs is not all about killing people by giving them free licence to do whatever they want. The science is about level headed assessment of risk and harm reduction for those that choose to take the risks.
Humans have been self-medicating since the dawn of our species. That's not going to stop regardless of whatever laws we have and the scientific community knows it. The idea is to make our laws reflect the reality of the harms that the chemicals we voluntarily imbibe do to us as individuals and as a society. When, as now, the laws are universally known to NOT do so then they are a joke and become a harm to society in themselves by criminalising people needlessly and 'encouraging' excessive consumption of dangerous but legal chemicals.
Complain about this comment
This article states that it can go from Far-East labs to the UK drug scene in months.
I happen to know for a fact mephedrone first came up on the political radar in 2004 when it was first mad eillegal in Israel and then Sweden and Denmark followed suit, after several related deaths.
The UK's inefficiency to keep upto date on news of new drugs being sold on our streets is horrendous, I know of people who have been taking and selling this drug for well over a year in the UK.
Also it is a really cheap alternative to cocaine which is over priced and cut so that it is only 14%-15% cocaine in what you buy.
Government dropped the ball here and it makes a clear statement about the failings of our current drug review policies.
Complain about this comment
Lippylippo "It's the same old disingenuous argument"
But from your statements one can only conclude you find children selling drugs to each other appealing. We have free trade in drugs China has 6 more lined up for us at our request all perfectly legal. For many decades we have had safe drugs by today's standards. These drugs while they may be illegal have the testament of time. The ban em and hang em high brigade such as yourself has brought this mess upon us.
You also talk as if we don't have a very real problem in the UK with drugs or do drugs only become real in your mind if they are legal?. please explain how things will get worse I think heroin users dieing of anthrax is a fair warning that things can get worse with an unregulated market.
Complain about this comment
ChunkChunk Monkey wrote:
Just seen Emily Maitlis feeding the moral panic hysteria on the BBC News Channel. Can BBC journos not tell the difference between one mother's anecdotal story about the death of her child from unknown causes from proper scientific evidence?
That's because from the moment the parent is informed they are told its all the fault of a drug, these same people doing the telling are the ones in the uniform who are meant to remove said drugs from society. every death is a failure of policy as it fails to prevent harm.
A lot of people have lost family to drugs controlled under MODA71 the intelligent ones know it was MODA71 that was the cause of death, the dealer was just one of the symptoms of MODA71 as it sickens the fabric of society.
Complain about this comment
So, without proper clinical investigation mephedrone is to be banned? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a drug user so it doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, this merely smacks of another case of the British Government turning our democracy into a dictatorship, and making the rules for us, instead of on our behalf. Who are the government to tell me what I choose to put into my body? I wonder, will alcohol and tobacco now be re-evaluated too? They kill more people every year in this country than all these other "illegal" drugs. Perhaps if mephedrone was a taxable substance, things would be different, eh?...
Complain about this comment
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Legal-Highs-Flooding-Market-From-China/Video/201003415586781?lpos=video_Article_Related_Content_Region_1&lid=VIDEO_15586781_Legal_Highs_Flooding_Market_From_China
Complain about this comment
I don't even know what this discussion is for. I am sure everyone on here knows that the protection of the public is not high on ANY government's list of priorities. Grabbing headlines that they think will make them look 'tough on drugs' is all that matters in this instance. In any other instance, simply replace 'drugs' in that sentence with whatever else they want to appear 'tough on'.
Complain about this comment
hey look, science getts thrown under the bus to score votes. again.
making mephedrone illegal will not change the mount of users. in fact this whole media brouhaha has put the users up, just in time for it to be banned, to be supplied anyway cut with god knows what at what proportion with what chemical synergies by people whoi are decidedly amoral about what happens to the user as long as they get paid.
the american prohibition ended in 1933 and nobody has learned ANYTHING from it.
Complain about this comment
I think this entire saga needs to be listed as the textbook definition of 'kneejerk' reaction.
This ban is an indictment of our inability to properly educate our children in being able to decide for themselves what they should and should not do.
All we have done is criminalise innocent users and leave them to pay more money, directly into the hands of career criminals, and take even greater risks to their health due to the impurities that will no doubt creep in.
Did we learn nothing from prohibition in the US? The war on drugs is no more winnable than the war on terror, and the costs of fighting it outweigh the benefits.
Complain about this comment
So, in summary, today a Postman overrode a Vet?
Complain about this comment
AGAIN trying to ban something won't work!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously are you stupid?, has it worked in the past NO!
EDUCATE THE KIDS ITS NOT HARD.
Get rid of 'RE' or 'Citenzenship' Add a drug class in to the ciriculum, legalize all drugs.
I dont personally agree with mephadrone but i wouldnt say ban it , Banning drugs DOES not work. very few adults or kids will care that its illegal the rest wont give a crap,
1- It will make it safer , yes the drugs will still be there , there will never be a time they wont be there. but you choose how much to sell, you keep it clean, no dealers on the street, less crime.
2- you can put a age limit on it as of now there isnt one so anyone with a 10er in the back of there pocket can go get what they want, you can control this if there legal.
control the drugs, which will make no dealers= less fights, there will probably also be less robberys [not stop all together obviously] but alot do it for money for drugs or there dealers because they've got themselves in crap but if its legalized, its cheaper , they cant tab off on there dealers so theres no problem with having to pay them back.
Basically just legalize all drugs. and control them properly !!
Complain about this comment
I'm sure Mephedrone might be a dangerous substance if abused, as is any addictive substance - I include salt, sugar, nicotine, & alcohol in my list of such substances. The banning of Mephedrone will not save anyone’s life, or make the substance less available. What will happen, as with every other substance that has been classified, is that the black market (or criminals) will fill the inevitable void. You can be assured that the price will rocket & the quality will deteriorate. No amount of legislation or shock horror tabloid headlines is going to change the innate human desire to get off our faces. Until the media, politicians, and the law grasp this fact and structure the system of classification that will allows us to get high safely they will continue to chase thier tails pretending they are doing something to protect ‘innocent children’ whilst all they actually do is increase in profits for criminal gangs – well done politicians!!
Complain about this comment
When the government bans alcohol and smoking we will know they are serious about banning dangerous drugs. Until then all this is pandering to the Daily Mail and nothing else.
Complain about this comment
Ron Paul: The War on Drugs has failed
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/ron-paul-the-war-on-drugs-has-failed/
Ron Paul: End the War on Drugs!
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-30/ron-paul-end-the-war-on-drugs/
Complain about this comment
The Legalise Cannabis Alliance UK
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Cannabis: What if it were legal?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/963653.stm
41% of 15-year-olds in the UK had tried cannabis, with 24% using the drug in the previous month; in Holland 29% had tried the drug, while 15% had used it in the previous month.
In the wake of England's virtually trouble-free defeat at the hands of Portugal during the Euro 2000 football contest, police in Eindhoven, Holland, said the drug had relaxed fans.
There is evidence of the drug helping sufferers of migraines, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and even anorexia - it stimulates the appetite. Prescription for medical purposes could therefore reduce the National Health Service's dependence on other costly drugs.
Complain about this comment
well done government, you have proved that you are completely clueless about the 21st century once again! all this media attention is just causing people who'd never even heard of mephedrone to try it. i've tried meph, i don't like it very much but there are plenty of people out there who do. instead of illegalising why don't you try educating people on effects both positive and negative and dosage!!!! these people are dying because they're oblivious. right now mephedrone is still pure and cheap, it's safer than people buying 5% pure coke.
and the point about how if they illegalise and later find out it isn't so bad, the chances of legalising are minimal. look at marijuana. it isn't nearly as bad as tobacco or alcohol if the government legalised it then not only would it be revolutionary for the medical world but they'd make a fortune on tax and reduce crime.
stop saying drugs are bad and trying to please other close minded people and realise that society is changing! we want information not bias propaganda.
Complain about this comment
So, this blog was meant to be about how the drug laws don't work to rush through the banning of the latest clubbers fix... and then some HO lawyers decide that they can ignore the issue of not having a vet on the ACMD and force it to report without its full and proper compliment. We should expect nothing less from the same government who managed to somehow change the mind of the attourney general that the Iraq war was indeed legal. I bet they'll even use the same disingenous argument "the ends justify the means".
As many others on here have already commented, the 1971 Act doesn't work at all, and never has done. It ignores those "legal highs" such as alcohol, tobacco and that other drug we probably all take far too much - caffeine. I wonder what we'd all do if our morning coffee was taken away from us if it was found to be life threatening (then again, its already proven to be life-threatening when consumed in vast quantities).
The MoD act also doesn't work because it has an arbitrary classification system. If drugs were classified according to real harms, as many point out - alcohol and tobacco would be the most dangerous by a long shot.
Let's also not rush to judge Dr Polly Taylor's move as anything connected with this meaow meaow debate. As Mark's blog pointed out the final version was only published 5 days ago. I think Dr Taylor was entirely within her rights to wait until the government came up with the final version of their principles, and if she doesn't agree with those, she's absolutely right to resign.
I think its about time we individually took up this idea of the precautionary principle in reaction to any new drug classifications. It should go something like this - if any new drug law comes into effect which may cause harm to those of us wishing to express our true right to freedom of thought (in other words, those that think all drugs should be legal), said law should be ignored until it has been proven that it is indeed free of all harm.
In all seriousness, its the 1971 MoD Act itself which causes the most harm. The law criminalises vast swathes of the population, puts thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens in jail, wastes thousands of hours of police time which could usefully be spent elsewhere, provides dangerous criminal gangs with the ability to create massive profits from international drug trade, justifies wars and civil conflict abroad (see Colombia, Afghanistan, etc), endangers the lives of users through an unregulated black market with all the inherent dangers of cutting drugs with poisonous substances and if that isn't enough to demonstrate the dangers of the MoD Act, I challenge anyone to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton wrote: "In an attempt to cool matters, the government has published principles on which its relationship with scientific advisers will be founded. The final version was released five days ago."
You are giving the impression that it was the government who drew up these principles, whereas the government have taken the principles that were drawn up by the ACMD, reworded them to mean something entirely different and have now published without paying attention to anything the original authors requested.
After the last wave of resignations other members of the committee agreed to hold off from resigning until the government responded to the guidelines being drawn up by scientists.
One of the major points of contention in the revised guidelines concerns a requirement that ministers and their advisers "should not act to undermine mutual trust", a phrase some scientists believe could pressurise scientists into adjusting their advice to match ministers' views.
The government do not want independent advisors, they want good little obedient wagging dogs that won't bark too loudly. Their drug policy should be consigned to the rubbish bin along with all their policies.
Complain about this comment
I won't profess to know anything at all about mephedrone other than what I have read from users online but I do know about prohibition and the stupidity of it.
I would like to know exactly what people expect the outcome to be from 'banning' a substance?
Ask yourself these questions
Does changing its legal status from 'legal' to 'illegal' change how it is sold or who is allowed to buy it?
Will it make it safer?
Will it prevent young people from buying it online...or street corners?
Will it prevent anybody using it with other more harmful drugs?
Will it educate our young about the dangers of not waiting till they are an adult to try these substances?
All that happens when a substance is added to the Misuse of Drugs Act is that its legal status is changed....nothing more nothing less, no education, no rehab, no help. Just a change in legal status. Please...someone enlighten me, how does that help????
Complain about this comment
Proportionally the amount of people who have died in "methodrone" related deaths.. compared to the legal killers such as smoking and drinking... is miniscule.
How can any government who takes money off people for legal killers (tobacco etc) have any right to criminilse something thats in comparison harmless.
I work in a shop that sells this stuff.. I see people from all walks of life every day buying this stuff, we've never heard of it killing anyone directly.. only when its been used with other stuff...
Well, why dont u government take control of it, like they have tobacco and alcohol.. and make it safer!..
I know .. no one will agree with me on here.. but this is the real world..and i'm commenting it as it really happens!
Complain about this comment
'Scaredofgirls' - I think you'll find the majority of people do agree with you! However, as usual it is the minority that have the loudest voice.
The problem being, we are walking blindly in to a successively increasing dictatorship. By the time anyone realises we've gone too far and the populous is no longer listened to it will be far too late. Evidently the time for science has already passed.
Complain about this comment
apparently we fixed this back then or maybe not.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/may/26/drugs.sciencenews
Complain about this comment
How many of those advocating the continuing legal availability of this or any other drugs are stocking their store cupboards with GM foods? Either the precautionary principle works or it doesn't - you can't have it both ways.
Let's get rid of the smoking ban, speed limits,emissions controls, gun laws and every other piece of public health/safety legislation shall we, so that we can experience risk in an unrestricted range of ways. When someone does categorically link deaths to mephedrone I guess you just turn round to the bereaved relatives and say you're really sorry for opposing banning it, but there was no cast iron proof. Principles without responsibility - must be fun.
Complain about this comment
plan_the_future wrote:
"When someone does categorically link deaths to mephedrone I guess you just turn round to the bereaved relatives and say you're really sorry for opposing banning it, but there was no cast iron proof. Principles without responsibility - must be fun."
What a stupid thing to say. Are you for or against a ban on alcohol? If you are against a ban I suppose YOU would apologise to bereaved relatives of alcoholics would you? Hmm....
It's about time we left behind the emotional blackmail of the prohibitionists and began thinking sensibly about the drug problem... but wait.....WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! Oh please!
REGULATE, TAX & EDUCATE, EDUCATE & EDUCATE AGAIN!!!
Complain about this comment
18 woah....
how many alcohol related deaths are there each week...
government pretty much hand that out!
Complain about this comment
yawn - if i so wished i could leave my home now and return with almost any drug of my choice within a couple of hours, and that includes finding a dealer. I dont do that because i dont want to but it proves at least to me that the drugs law is certainly an ass. you lost guys spend the funds on education and treatment pls , get the uk cleaned up.
Complain about this comment
I don't have problem of clamping down on methadrone and related compounds which means cathinones in general, assuming of course that will include "khat" which contains a cathinone as its psychoactive constituent. Or will this upset our ethnic minorities who use it freely and so will be allowed to continue its use?
Complain about this comment
OMG another drug debate. The more drugs people take the more the government takes advantage of you. Why would anyone pay for that? We need people to stay sober so we can throw off the opressive yoke of tyranny we've been living under for the past 50 years. Don't fall asleep. Wake up! Is your government the biggest drug dealer in the world or is it mine?
Complain about this comment
When quangos were introduced, one of any number of complaints about them was that, although "independent", they would be "loaded" to do the government's bidding.
Wow, has that proved to be such a clear and reasoned prophecy. Dr Taylor, as have so many before her, has made her move in the only way she could and yet our political elite seem to have skulls so thick that even common sense has no chance of penetrating.
Worrying about drugs of choice is not something society should do when those aged eighteen or over consume of their own free will. For those of a lesser age then we must look for the reasons why they have wandered so far from the moral path and deal with the culprits in an appropriate manner.
Any one of us can misuse a substance or abuse it. Whether it's mephedrone or alcohol is irrelevant. What is relevant is why we have such large numbers of people, across our social spectrum, needing to take drugs at all. Is it normal to use substances and are we wrong to divert so much energy in trying to stop it?
Complain about this comment
people smoke weed (herb)
prisons are full of people on petty drugs charges (possession / low level dealing)
drugs are freely available in prison
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal wrote:
Oh my ITS NOT A FERTILISER so its got naff all to do with DEFRA it could have been labled drain cleaner, rust remover etc but they labled it plant food.
But, as they labelled it a fertiliser it does come under the remit of DEFRA, and if they labelled it as a drain cleaner, kids snack etc. it still would.
Stop the legal sale through any means is my personal view. If they want market a legal high, then let them go through years of drug trials and prove it is safe. Then the government can permit sale and tax accordingly.
Complain about this comment
The only people who need any sort of drug are addicts and those with a legitimate medical need. Recreational drug users basically choose to finance crime, risk their health and undermine society for a few moments of pleasure. Asking the advice of such irresponsible people on drugs is like asking alcoholics if we should lower the tax on spirits.
Complain about this comment
#68 Daisy Chained wrote:
"What is relevant is why we have such large numbers of people, across our social spectrum, needing to take drugs at all. Is it normal to use substances and are we wrong to divert so much energy in trying to stop it?"
We have large numbers of people using drugs because as a human race that is what we have always done. The first recorded use of cannabis was in 2700BC, in China so it is not a new phenomenon. Have you seen the amount of people that use a pharmacy nowadays?...It's pills for this and pills for that. Got the sniffles...got a pill for that. It amazes me that people can only see the illegal drug market as being out of control when it only mirrors the legal drug world. We are a race of pill poppers.
Up until the late 1920's substances like cannabis, opium etc were legally available, they were regulated and controlled and were used widely. The act of trying to prevent people from using these and other substances is not a natural one and only a relatively new one, if it was we wouldn't have been using them for centuries. The point is there is nothing inherently wrong about wanting to change ones consciousness, there is however something wrong with some people trying to force others into NOT using certain substances.
Every person on this planet has free-will, and providing the act of using a substances doesn't hurt anybody else then it is wrong of others to try and prevent that action using punishments. Nobody has the right to impose their moral will on others. If the government do not wish people to use certain substances they should educate the population to the possible dangers and then leave it up to the individual to decide to use it or not. Just like they have done with the needle exchange system, it's about the only sensible thing this government has done.
The government is in power to govern, not to lecture on morality, especially the morally bankrupt governments that we have, and they are surprised when no one listens to them and drug usage goes through the roof.
They said cannabis would give you mental illness and they are surprised when the youth turn to spice. They said ecstasy was "evil" suppressed the supply, now the kids are using mephedrone. When mephedrone is banned what's next, MDAI? This is a stupid and dangerous game the government are playing....aren't 300,000+ heroin addicts enough? Don't they think that China (who is producing these chemicals) MAY have ulterior motives for developing these chemicals? I'm not saying they do but, who knows?
The government cannot keep up and they never will, all the time they take the Daily Mail attitude by shouting hysterically at the problem and hope it goes away. We need some adult thinking, debating and decisions on this problem and it ain't gonna happen with any of the politacl parties we have in this country.
Legalise, Regulate, Tax, Educate...and then Educate some more!
Complain about this comment
Shaunie Baby please engage brain before posting...
Recreational drug users basically choose to finance crime.
It's the politicians and Mail readers who have engineered this situation. I like to get stoned occasionally at weekends but DO NOT want to have any dealings with criminals. Prohibition DOES NOT WORK, we all know this.
I'm begining to wonder whether vested interests are at work, after all the politicians have been shown to have no morals whatsoever, so is it possible that they are in some way complicit with organised crime?
Their actions play into the hands of the criminals.
Complain about this comment
#72
As I am almost entirely in agreement with you, I hope your interesting piece wasn't directed at me!
The issue about the young age at which children experiment is a little more interesting than what adults do. Children introduced to alcohol at an early age seem less likely to abuse alcohol later in their lives for example. I'd like to see a lot more research into what benefits "drugs" provide for individuals who have a greater tolerance to certain substances than others and how that tolerance may have been "created".
I am very mindful of the many works that depended on their creator's drug intake.
Complain about this comment
" 73. At 12:33pm on 30 Mar 2010, BAmberGas wrote:
Shaunie Baby please engage brain before posting...
Recreational drug users basically choose to finance crime.
It's the politicians and Mail readers who have engineered this situation. I like to get stoned occasionally at weekends but DO NOT want to have any dealings with criminals."
But you choose to don't you ? Why should we care about your opinion when you think escaping from reality is more important than preventing crime ?
Criminal drug gangs only exist because users pay them to
Complain about this comment
Wheeyy finally you agree that the the misuse of drus act and the law of drugs is no longer fit for purpose.
It's taken years but now finally others are begging to agree with me
Complain about this comment
Hey guess what, 125 people a week die of alchohol. Come on Alan Johnson I've found you another substance to ban, its killing loads more than all the illegal drugs put together and if you add in tobacco well the skies the limit
Complain about this comment
shaunie babes, you should go read up on american history, around 1920 - 1933. also possibly on circular logic and how to stop doing it.
Complain about this comment
It could do with a massive overhaul. Cannabis is incredibly expensive and tough to make money off yet ketamine and mephedrone could make pple thousands fairly easy. As a drug user it annoys me that although the government try and regulate on many reasons they have failed to see how the business side of the market works. If i were selling chocolate instead of mephedrone and made that kind of profeit I would be expected to pay tax.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone seen the Ricky Simpson story
Complain about this comment
hey Shaunie babes at 1.19. If good old AJ had engaged his brain then he would have maybe looked at countries like Portugal and the Czech Republic who have realised that legalisation and control and education are the way forward. By banning any substance it allows the underworld to make massive profits and therefore have a vested interest in encouraging use. In the case of cannabis if people were allowed as in Holland to grow a few plants for personal use then the vietnamese gangs that are poisoning people with gritweed (adulterated weed) would not have a market and one arm of organised crime would peter out .
Complain about this comment
Shaunie dear - you don't know how wrong you are. I told you I will have nothing to do with criminals - and I don't.
Quite frankly I couldn't care about your opinion when it's so patently wrong.
Anyhow you want a flame war - go find someone who thinks you have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Complain about this comment
LOL shaunie this is funny.
Criminal drug gangs only exist because users pay them to
I think youll find criminal gangs only exist because of MODA 71! Why because MODA 71 is unique in the fact that it has no legal supply attached to it unlike alcohol and tobacco that have both black/grey and legal markets.
Drugs or wetware are a direct result of the several stats of programing your body has. Without it we would be apes. You have the basic operating system keeps the body functioning, then you have adaptive software this lets you learn and experience things, to do away with drugs wetware you would have to give the learning software something new or destroy it totally.
The delivery and control of this software wetware is in the hands of your chemical hackers so to speak your drug lords.
Complain about this comment
" 78. At 1:42pm on 30 Mar 2010, Daniel wrote:
shaunie babes, you should go read up on american history, around 1920 - 1933. also possibly on circular logic and how to stop doing it."
Most Americans were alcohol users, a supply and distribution system already existed, alcohol was dead easy to make and smuggle, and people had no respect for the law. This is why Prohibtion didn't work.
The UK drugs market on the other hand is more akin to the prohibition of alcohol in Saudi Arabia. Why isn't Mecca full of drunks if prohibition is so unsuccessful ?
Complain about this comment
81. At 1:54pm on 30 Mar 2010, Adie wrote:
hey Shaunie babes at 1.19. If good old AJ had engaged his brain then he would have maybe looked at countries like Portugal and the Czech Republic who have realised that legalisation and control and education are the way forward. By banning any substance it allows the underworld to make massive profits and therefore have a vested interest in encouraging use. In the case of cannabis if people were allowed as in Holland to grow a few plants for personal use then the vietnamese gangs that are poisoning people with gritweed (adulterated weed) would not have a market and one arm of organised crime would peter out . "
There's a name for people who choose to buy from criminals material which they know may poison them - they are called idiots
Complain about this comment
question
If I smoked my home grown all equipment paid for inc VAT how does that make me a criminal.
Is it in the public interest to prosecute an individual in such a case
A recent case I know of the judge informed the accused he was the victim for growing cannabis for personal use only?? a victim of whom?
Complain about this comment
Who will vet the vets ??
Seriously though, didn't the itch give a timetable for leaving, like any responsible person in this particular position would have done ??
Apparently not...
Anyway as is it seems is the way of business these days, whilst it may require a vet to be in the position, doesn't mean the vet has any special powers. Looks like just a consultancy position.
''Any objections ??.No.
Business concluded.''.
...the foolocracy remains.
''I'm A Cab for hire ...that'll be £5,000...I'm Into CB, I'm into CB''..
[surprised nobody has wrote a song about these unenlightened secular times.(
Disclaimer: May I say that anything previous to this (above),has nothing whatsoever to do with any living person other than by pure coincidence, nor with www.wink.co/uk They are a team of solicitors would you credit it !!]
Complain about this comment
http://ukinsaudiarabia.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/living-in-saudi-arabia/
The UK drugs market on the other hand is more akin to the prohibition of alcohol in Saudi Arabia. Why isn't Mecca full of drunks if prohibition is so unsuccessful ?
Few slight differences youll find.
Alcohol carries a punishment of flogging be great to see this in town centres on a Sunday across the UK would you not agree Shaunie?
bit of this before we all pile out on a Friday to the boozer.
7. Murder and sexual immorality such as adultery or homosexual acts carry the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. So does apostasy (renunciation of the Muslim faith). The death penalty is carried out in public, usually by beheading. Serious and/or persistent theft is punished by cutting of the thief’s right hand. This, too, is done in public, usually in front of the main Mosque after mid-day prayers on Friday.
Complain about this comment
The lunatics have finally taken over the asylum. Not one of the deaths have yet to be linked to Mephedrone. This has once again been whipped up by an hysterical media whose sales/viewing figures are more important than reporting the facts. Alan Johnson is so thick it's frightening. That man is not fit for purpose.
I won't go into all the sensible arguments about legalising - I'm sick of doing that.
The reason this drug has become so popular over the last 18 months (YES 18 MONTHS!!!) is that it is difficult, if not impossible to get hold of ecstasy - which in my opinion is less harmful than paracetamol.
CAN WE PLEASE LISTEN TO EXPERTS AND NOT POLITICIANS WHO ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN VOTES!
Complain about this comment
" 83. At 2:09pm on 30 Mar 2010, CommunityCriminal wrote:
LOL shaunie this is funny.Criminal drug gangs only exist because users pay them to
I think you'll find criminal gangs only exist because of MODA 71!"
This is like claiming gangs who specialise in bank robbery only exist because to the theft act, and the cure is to legalise armed robbery.
Complain about this comment
"82. At 1:58pm on 30 Mar 2010, BAmberGas wrote:
Shaunie dear - you don't know how wrong you are. I told you I will have nothing to do with criminals - and I don't.Quite frankly I couldn't care about your opinion when it's so patently wrong.Anyhow you want a flame war - go find someone who thinks you have the slightest idea what you are talking about."
Unless you get stoned all by yourself and grow your own dope you do associate with criminals.
Complain about this comment
84. At 2:17pm on 30 Mar 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
The UK drugs market on the other hand is more akin to the prohibition of alcohol in Saudi Arabia. Why isn't Mecca full of drunks if prohibition is so unsuccessful ?
Alcohol has never been legal in Mecca in recent history.
In the UK drugs used to be legal, during the first world war you could buy a hamper to send to the troups in the trenches which contained cocaine and heroin.
Queen Victoria aledgedly used cannabis to ease period pains.
The UK went to war with China for the right to sell opium.
MDMA (ectasy) used to be perscribed to frigid housewifes so they would have sex with their husbands.
Anyway, in the Koran the followers are banned from doing anything that could be considered damaging to their bodies which included alcohol, tobacco and drugs.
In the Bible in Genesis it says (or words to the effect of) "and I give you all the seed and herb bearing plants for you to consume"
So if a Muslim in mecca drinks they will be eternaly damned.
If a Christian in Camden smokes dope they are mearly following Gods orders.
Complain about this comment
Shaunie Babes - Bit of Latin for you 'petitio principii' - look it up, its what you appear to specialise in and its a very very dangerous trait.
Complain about this comment
In 2009 330 people tried to climb Mount Everest, 5 of them died trying.
That's a fatality rate of 1.5% so when are the government going to ban people from trying to climb Mount Everest ?
Climbing Mount Everest has no purpose, people who do it are doing it for fun and for the experience of having done it so why should we continue to allow them to waste their lives when climbing Everest has been proven to be many times more likely to kill you than using this newly criminalised drug Mephedrone ?
The time has come for us to stop these stupid people from wasting their lives in such a pointless pursuit, we must now spend however much it costs setting up security fences around all of our mountains to stop people from gaining access to them. After all, places like Snowdonia should be considered gateway mountains as anyone climbing them is likely to be influenced by their experience and would be far more likely to go on to climb more dangerous mountains like Everest.
This new approach may be seen as draconian and completely over the top by the usual limp-wristed liberal do-gooders but we can't let those left-wing reactionaries stop us from protecting our children and the wider community.
Mountains must be banned !
Those that can't be banned must have ten foot high security fences erected around them with 24-hour security patrols to ensure that our impressionable young people don't get lured into this pointless and dangerous activity !
Mountains ruin lives and I’d like to ask all of you who disagree with me how you’d feel telling the mother of a mountaineer who got killed climbing how you think these mountains are safe and that everyone should have access to them.
Pathetic arguments about how most people can use these mountains safely just doesn’t wash with me, one death is one death too many and we should therefore be prepared to use any and all means to protect our children by banning mountains and also by bringing in laws that would mean anyone caught trying to climb a mountain would face up to 5 years in prison while those caught encouraging or assisting other people to climb mountains would face up to 14 years in prison.
The madness has to stop !
Ban mountains today !
Complain about this comment
WE ARE MORITIFED AS FRIENDS TO READ IN A TABLOID TODAY ABOUT THE DRUG RUNNERS(SOMALIAN) WHO BOAST AND BOAST OF THEIR RICHES BY SELLING DRUGS IN THE AREA OF WOOLWICH - THEY ARE WELL KNOWN AS THE "WOOLDWICH BOYS" AND ACCORDING TO THEM "GOD HELP ANYONE WHO CROSSES THEIR PATH" EG £500 WILL BUY THE DEATH OF ANY INDIVIUDAL BY KNIFE OR GUN - THE LIST GOES ON. THEY FREELY ADMIT NOT BORN HERE SO WHY ON EARTH DOES GREAT BRITAIN ALLOW SUCH ANIMALS TO ROAM OUR STREETS AND THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY CAN DO NOTHING BUT SEE OUR COUNTRY DETERIORATE INTO LAWLESS BRITON..................................WHY ARE WE BEING SUBJECTED TO NON-CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY BEING ALLOWED THE FREEDOM THAT WE THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE NOT.................ONE STEP OUT OF LINE MINOR AS IT MAY BE THEN THESE NON-BRITISH CITIZENS SHOULD BE DEPORTED BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many of the people on here who think drugs should be illegal smoke tobacco and drink alcohol. Do they realise they are consuming poison (alcohol) and nicotine (tobacco), which is the most addictive substance known to man.
The sheer hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.
I wish the prohibitionists would just be honest and say their argument is based wholly on moral grounds and has nothing to do with scientific analysis and risk assessment.
Complain about this comment
Unless you get stoned all by yourself and grow your own dope you do associate with criminals.
So it shouldn't be a criminal offence if you smoke your own herb and dont mix with criminals wha hay!!
Thanks Shaunie
Complain about this comment
I've climbed lots of mountains and have never had a problem - maybe a few aches and pains the next day, but nothing more serious than that. So leave my mountains alone. I do know of lots of people who have been killed cycling so in my opinion all bikes should be banned. People riding bikes should be given a mandatory 5 years in prison and anyone selling bikes, depending on the quantity and quality of said bikes should serve a minimum of 15 years to life. Keep our streets safe!!!
Do they have a bike mechanic on the drugs committee - if they do we could have bikes made illegal in time for tomorrows rush hour.
Complain about this comment
" 92. At 3:10pm on 30 Mar 2010, HardWorkingHobbes wrote:
84. At 2:17pm on 30 Mar 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
The UK drugs market on the other hand is more akin to the prohibition of alcohol in Saudi Arabia. Why isn't Mecca full of drunks if prohibition is so unsuccessful ?
Alcohol has never been legal in Mecca in recent history.
In the UK drugs used to be legal, during the first world war you could buy a hamper to send to the troups in the trenches which contained cocaine and heroin.
Queen Victoria aledgedly used cannabis to ease period pains.
The UK went to war with China for the right to sell opium.
MDMA (ectasy) used to be perscribed to frigid housewifes so they would have sex with their husbands."
You'll also find that child prostitution and wife beating were also legal.
Complain about this comment
"94. At 3:24pm on 30 Mar 2010, General_Jack_Ripper wrote:
In 2009 330 people tried to climb Mount Everest, 5 of them died trying.
That's a fatality rate of 1.5% so when are the government going to ban people from trying to climb Mount Everest ?"
You'll find this desire to achieve things, enjoy reality and do something with your life can be easily solved by becoming a cannabis user.
Complain about this comment
Ive got a great new idea for AJ, when theres no one left in the AMCD he just gets cardboard cut outs with bits of string tied to the top of their heads and says "were going to ban this today" then he pulls the string and they nod their heads, oh wait a minute thats what he's got already. I was told recently that the government are growing cannabis in the Uk and selling it for medical use abroad, does this make them producers and dealers or just scumbags yes your right scumbags
Complain about this comment
18 deaths?
And that compares to how many deaths down to alcohol, cars and bikes? I mean, shouldn't we be concentrating on the real risks of death?
No matter how many drugs are classified A or B, the postman will have to ban woodlands and gardens if he wants to stop escape-seekers looking for new highs. I'm amazed that a few plants have yet to be banned.
You're right though, Mr Easton, drawing attention to the fallibility of the Misuse of Drugs Act - and system of classification. We need an honest classification that puts the riskiest drugs at the top (alcohol should be class A), then some sort of legislation to define whether a classified drug is legal or not. Or perhaps we need a tabulation of everything in our lives and the risks they pose so we, the public, if we choose, can assess what we decide to do.
But it's government bowing to media sensationalism that leads to the present unscientific prohibition. It's weird that tobacco and alcohol are vigorously protected by commerical lobbying and that the government reaps huge harvests of tax on people's addictions, while refusing to control the availability and supply of the milder highs.
Complain about this comment
Isnt this discussion fun children, this is what DEMOCRACY is about, everyone has a big discussion and then Alan Johnson makes the rules up to suit him and that scottish man, hang on thats not democracy thats tyrany sorry I got it wrong (ref 98) I probably had too many bycicles today
Complain about this comment
Does Shaunie Babes drink alcohol by any chance? If you do then you are drug user. Do you take prescription medicines? If you do then you are a drug user.
Complain about this comment
58. At 9:22pm on 29 Mar 2010, iNotHere wrote:
I would like to know exactly what people expect the outcome to be from 'banning' a substance?
Ask yourself these questions
Does changing its legal status from 'legal' to 'illegal' change how it is sold or who is allowed to buy it?
Will it make it safer?
Will it prevent young people from buying it online...or street corners?
Will it prevent anybody using it with other more harmful drugs?
Will it educate our young about the dangers of not waiting till they are an adult to try these substances?
Absolutely - and answers should be published at the point prohibition takes place so we all know the full effect of the legislation.
Is it that the ministers responsible are simply thick or just swayed by the popular tabloids, particularly the Daily Mail that always exaggerates by many-hundreds percent and pours hysteria and sensationalism on any story that suggests self-indulgence or hedonism on behalf of the younger generation?
But people have to escape - look at the ways so many live their lives these days. As a think tank recently pointed out, most people go to work to pull in a little money so that can consume. That's their lot in life. People will always look for a more purposeful existence than that. When they can't find it they try to escape. Stupefactives like alcohol give only a very temporary relief and might stifle the normal inhibitions that help us control our behaviour socially.
Prohibition will never work, never has. It costs a fortune to police and puts users under terrible risks. Remember the LSD days when the pushers were peddling strychnene?
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Making it illegal will not stop people taking it or something very similar, it will just move the business in to the hands of the worst people. Making it more dangerous & more unpredictable for all. People are going out to enjoy themselves & they believe that alcohol is not the only option, It happens in every town every week, all over the country & this is not going to change. so banning it as a solution fails straight away & achieves the exact opposite of the bans stated aim
By banning & criminalising everything that comes along all society is doing is saying "we don’t want to know" "do what you want but it cant be part of accepted society because we just cant bear the thought of it". This unwillingness to engage with a very significant number of people in the country creates a lot of suffering. I wonder when our society will be mature enough or brave enough to begin a dialog.
Until then as criminals are the only people prepaid to face facts (though its not their social conscience that motivates them) I say we should look to improve the quality of our criminals with training & funding incentives for good behaviour if necessary.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"100. At 4:38pm on 30 Mar 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
You'll find this desire to achieve things, enjoy reality and do something with your life can be easily solved by becoming a cannabis user."
That's a good enough point to be fair. Cannabis is a de-motivator. But using GOOD cannabis actually compels me to play music, which is a creative act. It's also very hard to enjoy some parts of reality when I'm anxious, which I have always been socially as an intelligent, self-aware Aspergers Syndrome sufferer. I'd possibly be in prison due to anger management issues if it wasn't for cannabis, ironically. The side effects are good and bad - I appreciate art somewhat more, and can concentrate somewhat better at times. I drink a lot less. It messes with my brain chemistry, like any drug, so that has to be managed and well, life certainly isn't perfect, is it?
Unfortunately the government, wider society and the NHS couldn't give two hoots about my important needs due to my condition, but are happy to hand out pills, of course. They then make things harder for me via prohibition, which doesn't stop me looking via illegal dealers, wasting time, money and health when the cannabis is cut with something. I'm not alone.
Mecca doesn't have a CULTURE of drinking or taking drugs. We do. Ever heard the Oscar Wilde quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses"?
I vote Lib Dem due to their policy of legalisation. They have lots of other good policies, but idiots think they have to vote for the other two parties because of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the Lib Dems not having enough people voting for them.
When (political, especially) lying is legal, when promoting idiocy is legal, why on earth not a herb?
Complain about this comment
108. At 6:03pm on 30 Mar 2010, you wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules
Really, what house rule did it break, robots? It DID NOT contain any swearing, it DID contain an allusion to swearing. This is NOT the same, so it did NOT break that rule. Which one DID it break? 'Ojectionable'? That's too subjective. I was QUOTING. If you cannot be objective, you're not doing your job, Mr/Ms. Moderator.
Complain about this comment
Oh and go listen to the Prodigy. They're an important group in musical history, regardless of taste and their use of swear-words. I'd rather hear someone using offensive language to say something important than using flowery, nice, politically-correct language to say something important - or something idiotic, as is often the case. But the latter would get past the moderators. Go figure.
Complain about this comment
for those that think prohabition is the way forward here is the end results.
http://www.projo.com/opinion/editorials/content/ED_mexico30_03-30-10_SPHTMB0_v53.405b040.html
Complain about this comment
Give Love to my friends who toke by themselves
Complain about this comment
Cannabis seizures in Somerset 'more than double'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/8594422.stm
A Wellington father's story of his son's cannabis abuse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/somerset/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8595000/8595506.stm
Anyway with the ban just weeks away I suppose the current dealers will be using the amnesty to rake in the last of the profits,I presume as it went through legit business tax as well. Pity though at the end of today for such a dangerous substance to still be on sale. No dawn raids to upset the supply and rush to save lives, just stop it at the airport that will do for now.
But the there are people in government whose kids sell this drug in Cheshire so cant be upsetting the house.
Complain about this comment
do you think stories like this are good for the drug message to young people?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262369/Oh-dear-Darling-Chancellor-discusses-occasional-drug-use-younger-years.html
even though he says he didn't like it, he still did it, didn't get caught, didn't get criminalised and now runs the finances of the UK...
...or is this sudden story in the mail an attempt to soften the view again on cannabis in the light of the mephedrone scare ..better the devil you know...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The only difference between controlled substances and uncontrolled substances is stigma! Severe and crippling illnesses such as cluster headaches, depression, post truamatic stress disorder... the list continues, can and have been treated with LSD... LIES you think?? look it up.
Shaunie babes, you have this warped image in your head that a chemically sythnthesised compound, once made illegal is automatically only used to detach oneself from reality and escape their perceived troubles momenterily in some sort of stereotypical squaller. Granted, this may be the case for certain users with certain substances, however the reality is that drugs may also be used to change ones perception of themselves and their lives in a similar way to psychotherapy. This kind of change in consciousness can lead to revelations which carry through past the drugs duration and have a very positive effect on their lives.
The ingestion of LSD and other hellucinogens is not nessacerily a blissfully euphoric walk in the park. Infact surprisingly few users would say they maintained a "good" feeling throughout. Instead its a personal exploration of ones feelings and emotions and can have a great impact on the users life. Which i think is a very good thing, as too many people jump through the hoops of life...school..job...family etc without substaintial self examination.
I know you may be thinking... LSD??? but that sends people crazy...
Significant events in peoples lives do not always have a positive impact... for example certain kids may find school and university difficult and detrimental in a similar way to a man taking LSD who looks at his life and thinks... "what have I been doing my whole life im a disaster" and cant handle it.
Please exuse the bad spelling in places
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It seems that the moderators have been directed to toe the governments line after removing my suggestion that Shaunie Baby is mis-informed.
Clearly he is permitted to espouse his mis-informed opinion, whereas I am prevented from sharing the truth.
There has always been a struggle between the truth and misused power.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
OMG what did I say?
120. At 10:01am on 31 Mar 2010, you wrote:
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
All i did was suggest that cannabis is safer than mephedrone
that ketty kat is a new mix of mephedrone and ketamine.
or that soon all powders will be seen the same?
Complain about this comment
re 120 thanks :)
When the drug laws don't work
Posting:16th april the ban arrives http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8595842.stm
How can this drug be compared in the classification system with cannabis?
Should it not be a class A drug as this gives the message that it is no more dangerous to the public than cannabis?
To many inconsistencies in MODA71 now for it to be effective in delivering a balanced system of harm and a coherent message of harm.
Cannabis has no related deaths recorded its got no overdoses recorded yet mephedrone has 20+ related deaths, my son told me about a new mix going around his friends Ketty kat no prizes for guessing what Ketty is.
One powder becomes another they all become the same they get you of your face so who really cares.
these are interesting as well.
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/briefing-notes-20100306
this one I liked in particular
Human Rights and Drug Policy: Controlled Essential Medicines
PDF Document - 159K
Complain about this comment
95. At 3:31pm on 30 Mar 2010, annie wrote:
WE ARE MORITIFED AS FRIENDS TO READ IN A TABLOID TODAY ABOUT THE DRUG RUNNERS(SOMALIAN) WHO BOAST AND BOAST OF THEIR RICHES BY SELLING DRUGS IN THE AREA OF WOOLWICH - THEY ARE WELL KNOWN AS THE "WOOLDWICH BOYS" AND ACCORDING TO THEM "GOD HELP ANYONE WHO CROSSES THEIR PATH" EG £500 WILL BUY THE DEATH OF ANY INDIVIUDAL BY KNIFE OR GUN - THE LIST GOES ON. THEY FREELY ADMIT NOT BORN HERE SO WHY ON EARTH DOES GREAT BRITAIN ALLOW SUCH ANIMALS TO ROAM OUR STREETS AND THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY CAN DO NOTHING BUT SEE OUR COUNTRY DETERIORATE INTO LAWLESS BRITON..................................WHY ARE WE BEING SUBJECTED TO NON-CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY BEING ALLOWED THE FREEDOM THAT WE THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE NOT.................ONE STEP OUT OF LINE MINOR AS IT MAY BE THEN THESE NON-BRITISH CITIZENS SHOULD BE DEPORTED BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
and I'm moritifed (sic) about the tabloid press influencing you to the point where you feel you can only deal with the situation by writing a barely coherent shouted tirade on an internet message board, paying no attention to grammar, punctuation, citation of sources and going off-topic by turning it into a race issue, based again not on actual cited sources, but your own paranoid hearsay.
should the government continue to pander to the wishes of the likes of annie here, I'm afraid we're going to be locked in a cycle of panic and prohibition. in the meantime, chemists round the world are rubbing their hands at the prospect of the money they will make by flooding the UK with untested, unknown and currently unlegislated substances. that money will never be seen in the UK again. it's like paying twice.
Complain about this comment
84. At 2:17pm on 30 Mar 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
"Why isn't Mecca full of drunks if prohibition is so unsuccessful ?"
Methinks because they're all in Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and London enjoying a large scotch in the hotel bar......
Saudis respect the law because the punishment there is so extreme - so I suppose we should replace 'respect' with 'fear' in that sentence. Do you want to live in a state where you fear the law?
Complain about this comment
The Government does a knee jerk because a couple of teenagers MAY have died of a legal high. By the time they have read a statement a couple of people have died from another couple legal highs - alcohol and tobacco. They do not care about that because they get tax and that is their tipple.
People of today (I am 39) can read and understand that taking drugs have risks. That includes alcohol and tobacco. I use to go to raves and have experimented which most drugs. Some have problems with some drugs, others don't. See alcohol for a case study.
Teenagers are just going to either buy the stuff that is going to be impure or switch to something else. The police will spend more money on trying to make an unworkable law work. The politicians (who are composed of a large number of lawyers) win a few points to keep middle classes happy and the show moves on.
Bit depressing really.
How about a novel solution?
Make all drugs legal. Spend the money saved on Education on the effects (good and bad - be real), along with treatment for people who have a drug problem - including the two big ones - alcohol and tobacco.
But they will not do that - Think of the lose of work for the police, lawyers (politicians mates). We could even close a couple of prisons. We could even enable drug addicts to maintain a reasonable existence whilst getting treated.
I just think that the politicians like the status quo. They are not really interested in helping people. Just making things good for themselves and their friends.
Complain about this comment
91. At 3:07pm on 30 Mar 2010, Shaunie Babes wrote:
"...Unless you get stoned all by yourself and grow your own dope you do associate with criminals..."
But Shaunie - they're only criminals because they're selling something that is wrongly illegal - it should not be illegal - it should be a controlled substance in the sense that it is regulated, taxed and sold by respectable vendors.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
EDUCATE, REGULATE AND TAXATE
Complain about this comment
All I can say is teach the children objectively and let people make their own choice about what they put into their bodies.
Complain about this comment
Way to go USA
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T4RL20100330
Complain about this comment
128. At 4:06pm on 31 Mar 2010, CommunityCriminal wrote:
Way to go USA
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T4RL20100330
Yee-bleedin-ha - it's not often that we can claim the US is leading modern thinking, but on this point - I can think of no better way to put it than the way you already have done
Way to go, U.S.A.
Two steps forward, one back - better than one forward and two back which is the way the UK is headed.
Complain about this comment
It's very good to see so many people here who understand the problem: prohibition makes the situation unmanageable and increases the risks to everybody involved. Think of the potential revenue from controlling the drug trade as opposed to forcing it into the hands of criminals. And the thousands of people of this country unnecessarily criminalised by these prohibitive laws, and the vast amount of police time that could be given over to tackling real crime.
LippyLippo, you just don't get it. At all. For your information, here is a very well researched and presented document on the possibilities for a regulated drugs industry when the ridiculously wasteful and counter-productive war on drugs is finally over: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm.
Complain about this comment
Wow, I knew it was on the agenda but thought they'd put it back a few years.
Could this be the beginning of the end of the whole protection racket? If so I predict it will happen quickly, like the collapse of communism.
Complain about this comment
indeed Euforiater the sick are no longer criminals people like myself who have tried all the pharmaceuticals and found no relief or far to many side effects can be treated. Pain management isn't a crime anymore.
could this be another reason for the not so special friendship with the USA, the outcome will have to be taken note of. Our so called lethal cannabis markets will be questioned and rightfully so.
Complain about this comment
#129 Steve
Yeah its good to see. If California create a legal model for tax and regulation of cannabis other states will follow and in the end federal legalisation is a real possibility.
And if that happens theres a good chance in a few years it will happen here also.
Complain about this comment
Hi there, this is my very first post on the BBC forums, and it is spawned from an extremely anxious feeling caused by the release of new legal high know as Naphylone, or 'Rave' energy-1 or N R G.
It is being marketed as the replacement for mephedrone, despite being almost 10 times stronger.
I myself am a recreational drug user, and have used mephedrone without any complications.
This new drug, however, is worrying me. From reading accounts from other drug users on drug forums, Naphylone has caused several users to phone for emergency medical assistance, with heart rates as high as 150BPM, with a pounding headache, purple knees/hands, apparent increase in body's core temperature, as well as tingling in the left side of chest and down the left arm - early signs of a heart attack, all from doses ranging from 30-80mg.
Inexperienced users who have become accustom to mephedrone may take this new substance without any background knowledge, and end up in a bad way.
I really feel that the media and government combined have opened a catastrophic can of worms by banning mephedrone in the way they have.
I just wanted to try and get this information out there.
I am in no way attempting to scare people, merely air my concerns.
Complain about this comment
I'm not surprised if it's true. But as I say in my post in "Nutt gets the Sack", the thing they never mention is the obvious solution; legalise a range of the most harmless and time-tested drugs, thereby providing a natural competitor to more harmful ones. Think of how the advert for "yoghurt with good bacteria" can apply to the drugs situation.
Complain about this comment
"126. At 2:45pm on 31 Mar 2010, Steve wrote:
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK"
Bought any hand grenades lately ?
Complain about this comment
"130. At 7:00pm on 31 Mar 2010, Hypergluco wrote:
It's very good to see so many people here who understand the problem:"
(mainly drug users)
"prohibition makes the situation unmanageable and increases the risks to everybody involved."
If a few druggies die from their own actions who cares ? -Darwin in action
Complain about this comment
The rise of mephedrone is a direct result of current drug laws. Do you think people would be trying random research chemicals if they could just get hold of ecstacy?
This whole debate has just put into sharp focus how little the government, the general public and the media understand about drugs...both in their trade and their consumption. The longer the continue a one size fits all approach the less anyone on the ground will listen.
We need a new way.
Complain about this comment
"Shaunie Babes wrote:
126. At 2:45pm on 31 Mar 2010, Steve wrote:
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK"
Bought any hand grenades lately ?"
-You think people couldnt get em if they wanted them? Last time i checked guns were illegal. Still see them poppin up.
Complain about this comment
Shaunie here is a little list of a few people who have died so our government can say they are tough on drugs and the root causes of drugs. Drugs that should be controlled by our government.
Drugs that shouldn't be distributed by random people in random streets in EVERY town city and village in the UK.
Drugs that should be on prescription and rehab treatments only.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8579889.stm
Afghanistan has just announced bumper opium and cannabis crops returning to world NO 1 in supply. Never mind all the people that have died of illegal drugs since 2001 what about the Men and Women who are out there putting their lives on the line and for what? Change in Afghanistan also REQUIRES change here in the UK or its all been pointless. Politicians give this messed up message that we are fighting for our security, were not the greatest threat to our country now is failing to make the changes that we are FORCING down other peoples necks at the end of a gun.
If you don't want afghan heroin supply our addicts with a legal supply.
Create a set of recreational drugs that are safe and have proven the test of time through research. Introduce Via GW cannabis strains high in CBD's distribute the seeds, not just the one spray fixes all - Sativex which is concentrated THC and CBD more potent than any skunk type cannabis.
As I said never mind the user what about the lives and families of those you expect to enforce such policy.?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
i think 141 isnt gonna be allowed. probably my views on cannabis?
in reply to comment 140:
i cant stand the idea our troops are dying over drugs or for another country other than their own. i believe the war in afghanistan is right but only to protect britain from terror attacks and to do that they need to get rid of al queda permanently but even that is a stab in the dark. i believe they can only be contained not killed completely.
theyve joined the army to fight for queen and country, you go to war to protect and fight for your country and people. in this case it would be fighting for your right to not get blown up whilst on a bus. this country needs to close its doors and get rid of the terror threat currently in place here by not allowing the terrorist to gain access to this country in the first place! forget the drugs they are not the most important thing at this current time in the war! thats what i say on that matter.
but dying over drug farms i cant stand the idea of that.
and yes you are right all drugs should be legal and sold in a safe moderation but even that will inveitably carry risks just as tobacco and alcohol do now. people should never assume any drug is safe because it is legal or unsafe because its illegal. experts have rated alcohol as dangerous as class A, no suprise they've all being sacked?
Complain about this comment
Shaunie dear, you really need to acquaint yourself with some facts before you have another knee jerk or you might injure yourself. There are no recorded instances of anyone having died from taking Cannabis, even though there are anecdotal reports of minor injuries when it is dropped on your head from a great height.
By the way what is your problem dear? I expect you are one of the Mail readers who complain about nanny states and government control freakery, yet are convinced that you know better than me. You're not getting it are you, butt out of my lifestyle and consider getting a life of your own.
You'll thank me for this advice in the long run.
Complain about this comment
al qaeda are in west africa using the cocaine trade to erode Italy parts of the coast of Italy are no go areas now.
Yup Queen and country is what our soldiers are there to defend but to be used to bring about control of a drug through occupation is failing.
BAmberGas Shaunie is a funny troll having a foot stamp :)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Shaunie Babes wrote: "If a few druggies die from their own actions who cares ? -Darwin in action."
And this oh such caring attitude comes from somebody who DOESN'T take illegal substances....who wants drug users to be like him and stay straight?????
NO CHANCE MAN!
I've spent my whole adult life with stoners and they've got more compassion for their fellow man in their little fingers than most prohibitionists.
Strange that isn't it?
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK!
Regulate, Tax & Educate
Complain about this comment
No law will stop people wanting to get high
Selling small amounts of drugs in clubs is not shocking. It’s a responsible idea http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article7083395.ece
Complain about this comment
For information, I sent the following letter to the Home Secretary yesterday, tendering my resignation as a member of the ACMD:
1st April 2010
Dear Home Secretary
Resignation from Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
With regret and sadness, I am tendering my resignation as a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
I was honoured to be appointed to this position and I had hoped that my substantial experience of managing drug prevention and treatment services might help influence the Committee, and thereby the Government, to think about drugs as more of a Public Health issue rather than focussing narrowly on the Criminal Justice aspects. This has not been the case.
My main interest and competence is in the field of prevention and early intervention with young people. I have grown increasingly disillusioned not only with the lack of attention paid to this by politicians and the media but also by the ACMD’s apparent lack of interest in the subject (with a few individual exceptions). At our meeting earlier this week, the update report on ‘Pathways to Problems’, published on the same day, received scant attention. Indeed, there was no time for questions on the report due to the haste with which we were being pushed to make a decision about classifying Mephedrone; this so that the Chair could come to meet with you later in the day and you could do a round of press announcements.
Re-Mephedrone; we had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people’s behaviour. Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure. The report was tabled to the whole Council for the first time on Monday; the Chair came to brief you before the whole Council had even discussed all of the report. In fact, I still haven’t seen the final version.
When, as Home Secretary, David Blunkett announced that the entire classification system would be reviewed, I welcomed it and was disappointed when the idea was shelved. This needs urgently to be revisited. We need to review our entire approach to drugs, dumping the idea that legally-sanctioned punishments for drug users should constitute a main part of the armoury in helping to solve our country’s drug problems. We need to stop harming people who need help and support.
At the end of last year, I decided not to resign over the sacking of David Nutt, preferring instead to see how things panned out and to hope that the ACMD could develop a work programme which would help prevent and reduce harm, particularly to young people. I have no confidence that this will now happen, largely though not totally due to the lack of logic of the context within which the Council is constrained to operate by the Misuse of Drugs Act. As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people.
Yours sincerely
Eric Carlin
Complain about this comment
Wow sorry thought that was a april fool. seems not..
http://ericcarlin.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/my-acmd-resignation-letter-to-the-home-secretary/
Eric Thanks for making a stand.
Complain about this comment
Yes Eric, thanks for your integrity, It's appreciated by far more people than you can imagine. Unfortunately politicians as a group (as always apologies to the shining few who do not) pander to the latest opinion polls, at least successful politicians do - those that don't are filtered out at the polls. As Shaunie Babes has unwittingly shown us, these opinions can be strongly influenced by the repetitive propaganda of the tabloids. But when the scientific community - who base their conclusions on facts using the scientific process - make a stand, people start to sit up and take notice. Underneath the headlines, we all instinctively know that science has got us where we are today and we mustn't start slipping back to the era of superstition.
Incidentally, here's some more good news on that front:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm
I was disgusted at the stunt Gordon Brown pulled with cannabis classification - this a man who tried to claim some solidarity with
Nelson Mandela because, apparently, he reads the same poem - "Invictus", yet in the next breath ignores scientific evidence to condemn 3 million of his own population as criminals.
I believe that there are several reasons why prohibition is clinged to despite 40 years of increasing drug use, prohibition crime and
the general disrespect for the law which follows. Incidentally you'll notice that the tabloids make sure it is always reported as "drug crime", never by its proper name - "prohibition crime".
The greatest driving force behind the whole prohibition fiasco is the requirement to keep cannabis illegal, there are just so many vested interests in this, and not just organised crime. A particular problem here is that pharmaceutical companies, (whose greatest enemy is free medicine), have their own army of research scientists, employed to look for its harms. And he who pays the piper calls the tune. So you get hundreds of studies to try to make a link between various physical harms and cannabis use but nothing about the benefits. These studies are quoted constantly by cannabis probition-apologists but none of them ever mention that despite all this effort they've never managed to make a strong case for cannabis CAUSING these harms.
To understand this you need to understand the link between people taking a lot of paracetamols and people having a lot of headaches. I think you all realise that there is a large correlation between the two but paracetamol does not CAUSE headaches.
Likewise we've been told that marijuana has a myriad of carcinogens in it (as, I would guess, anything that goes up in smoke) but we never heard the results of the attempt to link it with lung cancer which has undoubtedly taken place. Funny, that.
All in all I can't see anything but trivial harms coming of sensible cannabis use, far outweighed by the improvement in life experiences. (That's why people take it, folks).
If there is a really harmful drug out there it needs to be highly pleasant to use, highly addictive and cause long-term problems. My
guess is that if we go on as we do this drug will eventually be synthesised (perhaps even in one of these Chinese labs they keep
telling us about) and then the ensuing disaster will be traceable to this government's refusal to take the sane alternative - legalise cannabis, and most probably ecstasy. The more harmful and addictive drugs can be handed over to the medical people who will know how best to get people off them. Currently this is on the domain of organised crime, for which I'm sure they are grateful.
The rest of prohibition is just a collection of people protecting their empires, whether it be the various bureaucrats with a nice fat budget, the armies of researchers trying to get onto the gravy train, alcohol companies and so on. And it's all paid for by the taxpayer.
The recent methedrone fuss brings to mind phrases such as "Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" and the whole prohibition caper reminds me of a bee banging into a window pane several times before finally changing direction. The only difference is that we've been banging into this particular window pane for the last 40 years and failing to realise that this window is not going to break.
My advice to politicians is that the tide is turning and if you're coming to the end of your political life, then sure, be "tough on drugs" for this election, but if you're planning to be in public life for long, time for a re-think. People aren't going to stay ignorant forever, and those politicians who refuse to follow their consciences are not going to be allowed to forget it..
Complain about this comment
Eurofighter very well put this now needs to become a main political issue, the days of hiding our heads in the sand and pretending drugs are evil are over.
Labour want to talk on immigration I think the public should ask to talk honestly and openly on drugs and all the lies before the old school basic drugs are replaced by an empire of designer drugs. We had 6 main importers of mephedrone now this has gone public the will be 60 importers of the next legal high. Its going to become a very big business with a 21st century communications and transport network, 21st century synthetic chemistry understanding of the receptors in the brain and how to attach various chemicals to these receptors.
we need to address this with safe alternatives before we see one of these synthetic research chemicals that kills or heavily addicts 100's of people. Ive read through the thoughts of such chemists on blogs around the Internet, while I don't really have to much of a clue about the actual chemistry they are playing with I do understand enough to see the explosion that is just around the corner 100s of synths are being looked at by these chemists.
maybe a better way to look at this is as a health issue mephedrone was the drug equivalent of swine flu, millions of people had it a few died of it and then we vaccinated against it, wasted millions of pounds over it whilst waiting on the next pandemic.
whats the saying 'prevention is better than cure'
Complain about this comment
Yes,here we go again,these politicians really are a complete bunch of idiots,just a load of pawns in a game,and completely irrelevant to anything that is really happening.
I dont know anything about Mephedrone,I've never taken it and probably never will,but I read the article about the two lads who apparently died recently from taking this drug,neatly tucked away at the end of the article was a paragraph that stated that these boys had been drinking quite heavily before they took the Mephedrone,which would suggest to me that the mixture of the alcohol and the drug may well be the cause of death and not the Mephedrone on it's own,but it suits these politicians to jump in and appear to be tough on drugs,it's good headline stuff for the simple minded Sun reader types.
It is also seems to me that almost every week we are treated to the sight of a funeral cortege carrying the coffin of some young soldier,killed in combat in Afghanistan,maybe the government should jump in quickly and ban war,seeing as how it's killing our young people,oh,but I forgot,they cant do that because they're in the pockets of the arms industry,just like they're in the pockets of the drinks industry and the pharmaceuticals industry for that matter,what a bunch of low lifes they really are,meaningless self important,self seeking individuals who'll do anything to maintain the status quo in their favour,regardless of what is right for the country and our youth.
The election is just around the corner,for christs sake lets not vote for any of them,it only encourages them.
Complain about this comment
very sad story this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8600847.stm
Complain about this comment
Someone once said to me...."One of the best reasons for ending the War on Drugs is a lesson that every military commander knows, and every good parent learns: don't give orders that you know will not be obeyed. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and hasn't worked with other drugs either. It will be a massive step forward for respect for the law if we quit trying to ban something that people are simply unwilling to give up."
Complain about this comment
while the source may not be wonderfull it is the future..
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2914372/NRG-1-is-25p-a-hit-and-will-kill-many-more-than-meow.html
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re 156 new that wouldnt get through but wanted to give you a clue to this energy 1 the future is looking less and less bright is it not Mark?
13 times stronger than cocaine...
This is all starting to make old school drugs look like candy for babies.
Complain about this comment
All this talk of NRG-1 seems to me to be a bit of an advertising campaign....and I don't believe a word of it. The hint that it isn't as dangerous as they are making out is that it is used in France as an appetite suppressant...scare stories to get the kids interested..and the media have fallen for it hook line and sinker....just as they did over the "boy rips off own scrotum" rubbish. The sellers of mephedrone had nearly 3 years of mediocre sales...then the media advertise it and sales go through the roof then it's banned.
The sellers of these drugs are just getting the advertising in earlier this time but the result will be the same, the government will jerk their knees as they always do and ban it....so then onto the next substance whatever that may be.
Sorry I don't buy the hype...and if the Sun are saying it is then it certainly ain't.
See the mess the government have us in now? If they had not acted so childishly over cannabis and ecstasy we could've had relatively safe substances available that people would have had no need for these new synthetic drugs. But no make cannabis out to be a lot worse than it is so kids won't use it....that's a laugh in itself. Now we see the consequences of demonising cannabis....well done UK government and the media....big round of applause goes to the media cos without them this explosion of synthetics wouldn't have happened....we owe it all to you...thank you!
Complain about this comment
indeed INotHere.
we are dealing with 21st century marketing media and supply.
This drug is used to look at the addictive qualities of cocaine and other amphetamines. I had a look around the web sites and a few of the chemists sites. they expect death and psychosis themselves from the way the chemical is put together.
Complain about this comment
..and it's just been confirmed:
Here
I just hope the new government isn't quite as moronic.
Complain about this comment
I see that mephedrone was placed on the 'controlled'list for a reason that doesn't exist anymore. Would've been surprised if it had had anything thing to do with their deaths.
Bloody Government.....Shall I say it...told ya so!
Complain about this comment
But wait....more than 24 hours have passed since the toxicology results....where's the media hysteria and the outrage that a drug was 'banned' due to a lie??
Where are the calls for alcohol sales to be restricted further....more importantly where are the calls for the media to get on its knees and apologise most humbly for the disgraceful and disgusting way they used these poor kids and their families for their own sick ends??
Complain about this comment
Age Of Onset Of Schizophrenia Not Associated With Marijuana Use, Study Says
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8213
David Nutt's Blog -Evidence not exaggeration
http://s321561233.websitehome.co.uk/
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
PROPOSAL FOR A NEW LINE OF REASONING ON DRUG POLICIES
published Monday 14 June 2010 09:49, by encod . update Wednesday 9 June 2010 11:15
http://www.encod.org/info/PROPOSAL-FOR-A-NEW-LINE-OF.html
Complain about this comment
What do you make of this then ???????? http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8735000/8735625.stm
Complain about this comment
Oregon Board of Pharmacy
800 NE Oregon St., Suite 150 Portland, OR 97232-2162
News Release
For Immediate Release
June 16, 2010
Contact: Paige Clark, R. Ph.
State Board of Pharmacy reclassifies marijuana
To implement S.B. 728, Board makes marijuana a Schedule II drug
Portland — The Oregon State Board of Pharmacy acted today to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule I Controlled Substances,” in accordance with a bill the legislature passed last year.
The new law, ORS 475.059 established by Senate Bill 728, requires marijuana’s removal from a list of controlled substances that have a “high abuse potential and no acceptable medical use in the United States.”
The Board placed marijuana into “Schedule II Controlled Substances,” which contains substances that have a “high abuse potential with severe psychological or physical dependence liability,” but are accepted for medical use in the US and are available by prescription. The Oregon Controlled Substances Act provides three additional schedules for substances that are progressively less serious or dangerous, Schedules III, IV and V.
The Board reviewed scientific and medical literature and heard testimony from experts and members of the public before voting to move marijuana into Schedule II. This action is consistent with Oregon’s assertion that marijuana does have an acceptable medical use.
Contact:
Gary A. Schnabel, Executive Director, Oregon Board of Pharmacy
[Personal details removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Dont realy know were to put this so i suppose as its an alterante to stree drugs ill put it here its also very funny its more expensive than street cannabis.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE65K06Y20100621
i use about £10 a day 1 gram sativex cost £11 a day £125 per 10ml
Complain about this comment
It's reckoned that a substantial percentage of all property crimes are related to the need to pay-for a drug habit. This crime has a far more serious effect on the community than does the drug use itself.
If we want to see a test-case that shows the effects of prohibition, we only have to look at the alcohol ban in 1920's America. The key effect was the rise of alcohol-supply gangs, and in some areas the almost total transfer of local power from government to these gangs.
Whilst criminals are in-charge of the drug supply-chain, it becomes advantageous to get users to switch from mild or nonaddictive drugs to the most expensive, and most addictive, drugs. That way, profits are maximised, and the dealer has a guaranteed demand. Thus, users who would otherwise have stuck with relatively safe recreational drugs end-up being persuaded to try -and get addicted to- very harmful drugs like heroin or cocaine. When the addict runs-out of money, then they are invited to partake in crime to pay for their fix.
Thus, prohibition is of no use unless the supply-chain can be controlled. If it cannot (and so far all attempts have failed) then prohibition leads-to a far worse situation than would the legalisation of drugs.
Complain about this comment
It is a clash of philosophies of truth.
And this fact the government will work with tools so adamant about to break and, on the other hand, coordinates as flexible tools that become volatile enough to accommodate themselves perfectly to the unfortunate user demand and dependents.
Anxiety of the public dissatisfied with the answers to the questions indirectly fighting against the scientific community that tries to meet up with the experiences of finding long-term - a period out of sight ...
Where gear is changed, and as the technology advances, the issue of drugs is not far behind: it takes less time for life, with respect to the subject and about the lives destroyed.
Jayme Mece
Complain about this comment
It is self-evident that, with any new drug, it takes time to assemble the hard science on which to judge its relative harm. Despite all the press stories, there is actually no confirmed case in Britain of mephedrone having contributed to any death in any way. That's not to say that it isn't dangerous: today the ACMD is reported to have identified at least 18 deaths in England and a possible seven in Scotland where cathinones, of which mephedrone is one, have been implicated. In seven cases, there was evidence of mephedrone at post-mortem. But, as yet, no inquest has concluded that mephedrone killed someone.
Thanks, Martha, Job Search Expert from resignation letter sample
Complain about this comment
Lots more people smoke pot than use cocaine, we could cut off more than half of the drug war if we legalize marijuana. In fact we could tax the crap out of it, it would still be much cheaper than it is now, we could use the taxes to pay for the other parts of your drug war.
BR, Joann Reamer, Expert Clinical Manager Jobs from clinical research jobs
Complain about this comment
Designer drug abuse out of control: U.N. drugs board
In Europe alone there are 15 other designer cathinones -- the class of drugs that includes mephedrone -- currently being monitored by the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and in Japan 51 drugs have been recently placed under control.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-narcotics-designer-drugs-idUSTRE72126J20110302?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Complain about this comment
http://drugstrategyblog.homeoffice.gov.uk/?p=2
Home Office Drug Strategy blog
Skip to contentHomeMaking a comment Welcome to the Drug Strategy blog!
Posted on March 7, 2011 12:01
they would rather we didn't discuss drug problems just how best to implement a fix....ask an addict Id say...
Complain about this comment
Thought i would repost this comment the government dont want to talk to key partners....
David Oliver - Head of Drugs and Alcohol Unit said...
I hope that those who have taken the time to comment understand the need to keep this blog focused on its aim as a forum for key delivery partners to share ideas about the implementation of the drug strategy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we please have a key definition of key delivery partners?
As Community Leaders seem to be barred from this discussion. Especially those with alternate views about the situation at ground zero and how best to intervene on the addicts behalf.
I have an excellent record with wallasey police force introducing them to mephedrone long before the press had even had a sniff of it. In-fact the CSO that took back the information was laughed at by his seniors and fellow officers as it being a misspelled wind up of methadone.
Just because we are not paid oodles of money for our opinion it does not make it worthless.
Today our new CCTV camera was fitted due to the HUGE problem we have been fighting for years Heroin and Crack Cocaine. At least our conservative councillors listen to the trouble we have with drugs. Isn't it time you did from your Ivory Towers?
Complain about this comment
Home Office reply to Sativex scheduling request.
http://cid-b0414da877bbb909.photos.live.com/browse.aspx/Sativex%20reply
busy day today government still undecided as to removing disabled and sick cannabis users from illegal markets.
Complain about this comment
Government just took another bashing about drug policy.
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/house-of-lords-condemns-government-drug-policy/
Complain about this comment
When the drug laws don't work listen to the scientists. They are never wrong. Oh and by scientists I do not mean medical doctors. Just in case that wasn't clear.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS