The war on drugs is doing nothing more than creating drug addicts and fuelling crime!
Time for a big rethink.
This present set of harmful policies was based on puritanism. It peddled lies and falsehoods that were simply not believed. It tried to frighten people and use punitive means to deal with the problem.
The result is that more and more of our young people are involved with drugs. There are more deaths and wasted lives. There is a huge wave of crime and violence created by drug gangs and addicts stealing to fund their habits. Large amounts of police time is taken up dealing with drug offences. Otherwise responsible citizens are criminalised. The courts and prisons are clogged up with drug offences. Hospitals and A&E are dealing with the fall-out. Huge amounts of money is flowing into the black market to finance organised crime. The drugs on the street are adulterated or of dubious quality and strength – it is killing people.
What madness is this?
Surely it is time for a sensible rethink? This war on drugs has been going on for sixty years and has succeeded in making things much worse!
It is time to treat drugs as a health issue and not a criminal one. We need to send our addicts to rehab clinics, councillors and treatment centres. It is time to enable drugs to be made available in pure form of known strength. It is time to take the initiative away from criminals.
Prohibition does not work!
Portugal has clearly signposted the way forward. By treating drugs as a public health issue, and not a criminal one, they have cut the number of heroin addicts by two thirds! They have slashed the death-rate to a mere 27 deaths in 2016.
Surely it is time for a big rethink!
I think you will find that we already do treat heavy drug users as a public health issue and not a criminal one. Why don’t you go into your nearest chemists shop, hang around the desk for a bit and see just how many addicts come in and go straight to the “quiet” counter out of sight from regular shoppers and receive their daily dose of green liquid in a small plastic cup – Methadone. This been happening for years with all registered drug addicts.
Portugal has simply only caught up to our methods as they were years behind previously.
Portugal was also never anything of any sort of Heroin head quarters compared to UK.
Switzerland tried years ago with “Needle Park” in Basle, but the results were catastrophic with the attraction of addicts from all over Europe for free Methodone.
The area of parkland in central Basle quickly became a high crime zone resulting in public abuse and subsequent closure of the programme.
UK’s main problem currently lies with the abuse of Legal Highs, which are now no longer legally on sale in shops but are available on the internet. These chemicals are 100 times more harmful than any Cannabis. People are overdosing in a stupor close to coma conditions with them, particularly with substances such as “Spice”. This is of course nothing like the normal reaction with Cannabis.
I don’t remember any government information peddling lies and falsehoods about Class A drugs and these substances have always killed people.
Whilst you would not want any drugs from the Opiate, Amphetamine or Barbiturate families to be available in their pure form – an unfortunate term as expressed above – the known strength aspect may lead to difficulties unless you propose a competitive menu offering variable strength rates. Otherwise serious addicts, the real drug heads, will go elsewhere to find strength quantities best suited to their addiction levels.
It should be noted that certain drugs such a Opiates, Amphetamines and Barbiturates if consumed in their pure form with result in almost instant heamorrhage, heart seizure and certain death.
Young persons fooling around with drugs will as yet be some distance for this type of decision making due to the sporadic quality that they will have so far encountered. Heavy addicts with the exception of Crack Cocaine, tend to have suppliers who are not standing on street corners selling £10 deal bags. That’s not to say that £10 deal bags are not dangerous but the imminent dangers are greatly reduced by such small quantities.
Criminals will always be in a position to supply better quality drugs than any government.
I will draw your attention to what is happening in Canada.
Since legislation legalised the sale of government sanctioned Cannabis ( by no means a dangerous drug) from sanctioned sale premises, all Cannabis found on persons’ possession must be contained with the official government stamped plastic bags. It goes without saying that this Cannabis is far too weak for any seasoned smoker so they grow their own much stronger strains and carry it in government bags – the police will never know the difference. The controls are worthless.
I disagree with your claim that responsible citizens are criminalised. If people are responsible and consume drugs solely in their homes they shouldn’t have any problems. It’s those who are found carrying on the street or consuming in their cars that tend to be dealt with. However, simple warnings are given to people carrying small quantities and who are not involved in any other sort of affray. The police aren’t complete bastards about it. Although I do not agree that they should be standing in tube stations with dogs looking at everyone coming and going.
The madness is that people young and old quite like to get hammered out of it.
There’s nothing new about that!
I’d prefer if the authorities firstly got heavy on guns. We’ve been flooded with over three and a half million guns coming from eastern Europe.
Graeme – there are many inconsistencies in your statements. People are still being prosecuted in large numbers. The courts and prisons are clogged. The police use the drug laws to discriminate. Huge profits are going to criminals. The situation varies between area and area. The drugs they are using vary greatly in strength and purity. Of course we do need all drugs to be pure and of the right strength. Most ODs are due to these inconsistencies.
All humans throughout history have used drugs – different cultures different drugs, the move to criminalisation was a terrible mistake.
Opher: Let’s just say you are a concerned adult who wants to say something about drugs. By no means is it evident that you have any contact whatsoever with this world and any inside working knowledge. You are a complete layman in regards to this subject, and it’s very doubtful if you are aware of the extremities of the variable strength of modern drugs. Which is why I took the trouble to clarify the points you previously made.
I do not agree with you and I will tell you why.
Opher: Graeme – there are many inconsistencies in your statements.
1) There are no inconsistencies in any of my statements.
Opher: People are still being prosecuted in large numbers.
2) Those people who are being prosecuted are:
a) Selling drugs, regardless of category class A, B, or C, including the sale of drugs of variable categories to minors.
This would still be a crime were there government licensed conditions.
b) In possession of quantities that are considered above personal usage level, therefore, deemed as sellers.
This would also be a crime were there government licensed conditions.
c) Have used up all their “in possession” warnings for category class C. On the third strike they are charged.
This would no longer be in effect.
d) The manufacture of substances that are considered too dangerous for public consumption, namely Spice.
This would also be a crime were there government licensed conditions as this drug would remain prohibited as it can result in brain damage.
Spice I should add, is one of the most popular drugs consumed in prisons.
Opher: The courts and prisons are clogged.
3) Agreed. Too many people are serving sentences for growing large quantities and/or selling large quantities of Class C drugs.
1) There are persons who are serving sentences for being in possession of large quantities of Class A drugs. Quantities that were there any government licensed conditions it would be considered an illegality to possess. No one person should legitimately be found in possession of 50 kilos of Cocaine for personal consumption usage. A line has to be drawn somewhere. (yes, I’m aware of that)
Opher: The police use the drug laws to discriminate.
1) Not nowadays. The situation has gone well past the old tactic of pulling a Rasta off the street in Notting Hill Gate and shaking him down. I should know, I knew most of them having lived there 20 years.
2) The police are known to cruise around the council estates looking for suspicious looking groups of youths. Invariably their suspicions are proved right and there is evidence of Crack Cocaine dealing.
Crack Cocaine does not discriminate who it kills or who ends up with dreadful addiction to it. The sooner this substance is taken off the streets the better.
Under no circumstances will Crack Cocaine ever be granted a public consumption license due to its properties of almost instant addiction and chronic damage to heart and lungs through rapid poisoning of the blood supply.
3) The selling of Crack Cocaine, a highly dangerous category class A will always carry indiscriminate legal prosecution.
Needless to say it would be an act of complete insanity were any government ever to license any public sale of Crack Cocaine.
Opher: Huge profits are going to criminals.
Yes, agreed.
However, the sale of anything unlicensed by anybody immediately carries with it the distinction of being termed as a “criminal”. Personally, I’m not so sure that going to the trouble of sneaking in bales of high quality Cannabis resin from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Lebanon is a particularly serious criminal act. I would also be secure in the knowledge that many people who go to the trouble of sneaking in large quantities of Cocaine from South America via the Caribbean on their own private yachts are not in fact members of any organised criminal gangs. It is a criminal act, but they themselves are not only just that of a criminal.
Opher: The situation varies between area to area.
1) Obviously. The more people, the more drugs. A no-brainer.
2) I would expect to score something much more quickly in the west end of London, than I would in say, Harrogate.
Opher: The drugs they are using vary greatly in strength and purity.
By that I take it that you refer to as found with each individual drug as opposed to drugs in general.
1) Some drugs can not be taken in the purest form. Heroin and Cocaine.
If you were to snort pure Heroin you would die in thirty seconds from heart seizure.
If you were to snort pure Cocaine firstly your nose would heamorrhage with blood and then you would have heart seizure.
2) There are various types of Heroin for example. Not all Heroin is the same. There is what’s known as “Black Tar” Heroin, a very impure form that causes dreadful suppurating sores and skin ulcers and blood poisoning.
3) Were the government to license the public consumption of Heroin they would have to offer different strength levels to accommodate all users. Long term addicts will be used to much stronger doses than new users. It would require very stringent efforts to prevent new users from obtaining higher strength supplies.
This is why most Heroin users die from overdose because they have used the same quantity of an unknown batch as they had for their previous batch. Similarly with users who had stopped and re-start, where they cannot tolerate the high dose strength that they had last used. They inject the amount they last used and die.
That entire model of strength and purity would be a nightmare for any legislation to control. You are asking for the impossible.
Opher: Of course we do need all drugs to be pure and of the right strength.
Agreed. But as explained some drugs cannot be used in a pure state. What you mean is that they should be cut with substances which are harmless and contain no harmful impurities.
Any “right strength” is problematic. How do you determine what “right strength” is?
Each addict adjusts to their own preferences. They take a taste they perform remedial action from there, by reducing or increasing the volume of Heroin they will cook in their spoon in preparation. No two addicts are the same. No two addicts take the same quantities over the same period of time. Some prefer a major hit, some regular smaller hits. This is why they cut Heroin.
Heroin had been freely available on prescription to registered addicts in UK up to 1967.
Heroin, Opium and Morphine were made illegal to possess, distribute, import and export in 1920 unless under license.
New inexperienced users would not have much idea where to start and it would be extremely dangerous for them to use any Heroin supply that was pure and of the correct strength.
It’s a bit like a double whisky for me and a lemonade shandy for the boy. You must understand this.
Opher: Most ODs are due to these inconsistencies.
Most OD’s occur for a host of reasons. Many addicts mix drugs. Many addicts have addiction to several drugs. In most cases it’s not the drugs themselves that kill people, but the manner and frequency in which they are taken.
Opher: All humans throughout history have used drugs – different cultures different drugs, the move to criminalisation was a terrible mistake.
Yes, in terms of history.
Different cultures – yes, undoubtedly.
Criminalisation: Now that depends. Back in throughout history times they didn’t have automobiles, engineering machinery at work etc., so we did not have to be quite so careful about the well being of ourselves or our fellow man.
Following the recent case of the child requiring daily supply of cannabis tincture, there was a programme on that featured a few adult men from the Bristol area who were consummate smokers. Apparently they went to the police and said we grow cannabis for self use and that’s it and police said OK, go ahead and both parties agreed to a limit of nine plants per household, which seems a civilised approach.
Graeme – let’s clear up a few points for you.
I grew up in the sixties and lived in London in the midst of the drug culture of the 60s Underground. I have a couple of good friends who died on the drug scene, have a good few who I would class as casualties and have known many more who have been using drugs most of their life.
I am a biologist with good knowledge of biochemistry and was a drug educator for over thirty years and part of the County Specialist team. As such I trained other drug educators.
I have worked with the police, have friends who have had dealings with the police and have a close family member who is in the police.
I know what I am talking about when it comes to drugs.
Opher – you must be taking the piss here. Have you any idea how ridiculous you’re coming over? Have you any idea as to the ineptitude of your previous statements?
It’s interesting to note that you were only too willing to instantly shout from the rooftop all your qualifications that to be honest don’t really amount to very much. It’s also interesting to note that you didn’t even stop for breath and even begin to think of considering what I might or might not have done with part of my life that may have enhanced my working knowledge of this subject. Did nothing of what I had previously said in any way perhaps trigger your train of thought to make such an enquiry? That is interesting and says a great deal about you.
What use is your biology knowledge? We’re talking about 21st century drug use and 21st century drug culture. Not the 1960’s with some Hash joints that never killed anybody. 1960’s LSD was a different matter as some people couldn’t handle it. Today, there are fifty more different types available with all different chemical compounds. Acid to get you seriously high, Acid to help you come down off Speedball Cocaine and relax a bit and Acid to get you tripping all the way to Neptune and back. In the 1960’s there was LSD, but just one type, available in liquid, paper dot or paper tab format. It was all Lysergic acid diethylamide. Today there’s hundreds of drugs with a whole variety of Chem-Spiders, bioavailabilty levels and Monoisotopic mass densities. Some are absolutely lethal if abused.
You have no idea whatsoever of what the actual content of many drugs available today would be.
If you were any kind of drug educator it would be on a level of advising children not to take drugs. There ends. County Specialist what? You were a million miles away from any drug people.
You “trained” others! What about?
Did you have a box of drugs available that you could show people what they look like, smell like, taste like, burn like, how they react to heat, how they react when mixed with water, how they react when they get too warm etc? What are you talking about?
I’m sorry Opher, but you’re coming across very dad’s army like here. I just know for a fact that you haven’t ever experienced anything that’s come onto the drug market since the 1960’s. You wouldn’t recognise it. There’s more to it nowadays than a piece of Lebanese hash. A great deal more to it.
I don’t think you would know the difference between Aspirin, Amphetamine and China White. Valium or Steroids. Afghani Heroin from Pakistan Heroin. STP and DMA. Mescaline and MDMA. A speedball from a Nepalese temple bomb.
You wouldn’t know what a safe dose was to take.
You wouldn’t know if it’s to be shot, smoked, snorted, or swallowed.
What colour is Cocaine before it is cut?
If I were to ask you to cut some Cocaine, what would you use and how would you go about it?
If you put powdered Cocaine in your pocket for too long what would happen to it?
If you were a Heroin addict and were going to cook some Heroin for one fix, how many grains would you need?
We all very possibly had friends who died and were casualties. That is not part of the subject matter. We weren’t discussing who you knew.
You have friends who have dealings with the police? So what, what about it. That does nothing to enhance your personal knowledge.
If you knew what you are talking about, you would have written a whole other piece entirely. It was your complete lack of one single accurate detail which flagged up to me that this guy really hasn’t got any idea of what’s trying to say here. And you’re reply previous proved that to be proof positive. Your last reply is beyond the pale. It is solely the ramblings of an absolute nincompoop.
The last thing a person such as yourself with a complete lack of knowledge of 21st century drugs should be doing is writing about the case for legalisation.
Drugs? Names familiar … I think. I just might have done some of them! I shouldn’t jest as it is a serious issue.
I’m of the opinion that anybody whose introduction to drugs that was solely based on exposure in the 1960s would be seriously struggling to come to terms with the vast array of all the different types around today. I can remember when it would be a really big deal if someone scored an once of Red Leb. Oh, wow, far out! Everyone would gather round to touch it, smell it and bask in its illicitness. Some people couldn’t handle it and made right dicks of themselves staggering around with wobbly legs and giggling like girls. I don’t know why as all it did for me was make me want to listen to some music undisturbed by some idiot blabbering a load a silly hippy nonsense in my ear. Hash enabled me to concentrate a bit better and I could get absorbed in the music better. I could not imagine a more innocuous drug now. The smoking of the paper wrapper is more harmful.
Cocaine never did any relaxing for me. I never wanted to listen to music with Cocaine. It’s only good for drinking with and shagging.
Amyl Nitrate or Poppers – the same. Gives you a bad headache after a while. Can’t be much good for you.
LSD depends on where you are and what you are doing. It’s not that great if you’re in a busy place and much better if you’re at home and relaxed. Sometimes I longed for it to end as it can get very boring after a while because you understand why everything looks orange and appears to be moving very fast.
Mescaline, another sort of LSD but not quite, is much more enjoyable as it has qualities that respond to and enhance endorphin levels making you incredibly happy.
Heroin, I never injected and only snorted and smoked. Either way I was always sick because I didn’t take it regularly enough. It’s extremely mellow and dreamlike and sends you into an unfathomably deep trance. It’s a very heavy drug and not to be messed with. Injection of it is filthy.
Opium is similar when smoked but so heavy you fall into near coma conditions. Did it in Kathmandu and never again. It’s a real druggies drug. No fun at all.
MDMA or Ecstacy is just a cross between Amphetamine mixed with Cocaine and lasts a little longer because its digested as opposed to snorted. It’s alright, a happy up drug, the kids love it and think it’s the real deal. It’s not. It’s fairly junior level.
Anybody who has problems with it would have problems with Aspirin. Reports make out kids have died on it. I don’t think so and they must have had faulty hearts from the off.
Then there’s the gear that’s hit the scene in the last thirty years, STP and Crack Cocaine are brain damage, lethal shit that will have you whacking your head off a lamp post without knowing it.
Ketamine is a heavy duty barbiturate. You will not be going to any party on it.
All the other new gear NPS like A2, Kratom, 5-IAI, BZP, GBL, Sence, Spice, MDAT, Blessed, Diablo, Nemesis, Raz, Benzo Fury, Salvia Divinorum, Legal E, Happy Caps, Doves, Snow Blow, Magic, Party Pills are completely problematic as few people really know what they are, what they do, and how much to take without turning blue, drowning in vomit or jumping off a building. No so-called drug counsellor, call them what you like will know jack about any of them. These are drugs from the world of Blade Runner. These are concoctions of reactionary substances previously unknown to mankind. If you haven’t done them, you know nothing and I mean nothing. The velocity of the kick off some of these is G-force levels. I’ve seen guys take on five others and hold their own. Let me just say that they do not make for any happy families. People are in jail because they did them, not for selling them or anything. They went so out of control mental for so long causing so much damage to other people and of less importantly to property, that the only safe place is a cell.
There’s no counselling or treatment to counter control people who love to cross that line into oblivion. Anyone who thinks there is is an arsehole and legalisation of any of that stuff would be the biggest mistake since Nagasaki.
Friend of mine, a Social Worker Team Leader (excuse me) thought he was all sussed with drugs and whatever. I asked him when he last saw Harry. Hadn’t a clue what I meant. I asked him when he last did Horse, again not a clue. My experience is most people who say they know about drugs and want to “help”, are progressive do-gooders who cause more confusion and pass more misinformation than is good for anybody. I’ve met some drug councillor types in my time and most haven’t so much as smoked a doobie since The Beatles. They are of no use to man or beast.
If anybody suggested to me that they thought it would be a good idea to legalise any drugs with the exception of Cannabis – in any of it’s forms, be it grass, hashish or oil, which are all mild and relatively weak but not entirely absent progenitors of psychosomatic symptoms – I’d have to refuse the idea point blank. For all the obvious reasons.
Firstly – as I thought was obvious – my experience with drugs started with the sixties and has continued since then.
Thank you for your contribution.
Drugs are a real problem but it is obvious that prohibition doesn’t work. They are ridiculously easy to get hold of and criminalisation is totally ineffective. Do you really believe that decriminalising them would increase their use or risk? I do not for one minute!
All the evidence suggests that decriminalisation decreases both use and risk!
IMO drugs should be a health issue!
Call it whatever issue you want. But I’m afraid a name change won’t help anybody.
There’s nothing healthy about drug abuse. Drugs have nothing to do with any health.
What you’re advocating is just lilly-livered liberal bullshit.
These idiot people who think turning an addictive abuse problem into a health issue are kidding nobody on but themselves. This is why they keep seeing the same addicts come back and forth all the time until the addict expires. You rarely find any junky over fifty years old.
If any young person could walk into a shop and get a pack of Coke for the weekend really easy then they would. They might think twice however were they to go through the hassle of trying to score it. It’s readily available to some, but not to most, as not by any means is everybody living on a drug infested council estate.
I didn’t think there was anything obvious at all about your experiences and got the distinct impression that your “experience” ceased some fifty years ago.
Please explain your continued experience. I’d be very interested to know of all the drugs that you have had personal experience of.
There are two obviously far more experienced people here with considerably more knowledge than you. They have buried your argument as they know from personal experience – none of which you have anywhere near their level – just how bad an idea it would be to legalise Class A drugs.
I see you made zero attempt to clarify any knowledge of any level of detail regarding any single point raised. The reason for that is that technically you know nothing about drugs other than that as expected from any layman.
You are in no fit state to be offering advise, training or anything to do with drug abuse. The schools board would allow your involvement as they are particularly desperately short of active participation but don’t be so naive as to think that gives you licensed qualifications or such. Far from it. Your presence among seasoned experienced users would be a waste of space.
Read the detail of the content again within the previous post.
Today’s drug world is nothing like the one you dabbled in with relatively safe drugs fifty years ago.
So, run that past me again – You do not believe that decriminalising them would increase their use or risk.
You must be fucking bonkers mad man. By automatic definition you would be making it very easy to get hold of a whole variety of dangerous drugs.
Have you any idea what would happen to society if there was a measured increase in just the consumption of Valium, a prescribed drug used for stress and anxiety issues?
NO! NO! NO! ALL that evidence that suggests that decriminalisation decreases both use and risk – you have confused that with studies on Marijuana only!
Just Marijuana! And only Marijuana! For god sake, how could you fuck that information up so badly? Where did you ever read any evidence that suggests if Cocaine was legalised then consumption would fall? You’re barking fucking mad man.
And these results stem from Holland, where they have had a legalised and government managed retail sector of Marijuana for decades.
Use and risk go hand-in-hand, there isn’t any separation. No use = no risk. Use = risk.
So there’s not one without the other is there?
Marijuana is so commonplace throughout Dutch society that it is no longer any big deal. People smoke it, eat it, and cook with it. It’s freely available in licensed premises. The paraphernalia to consume Cannabis through water pipes are also easily obtained as the habit of smoking of tobacco decreases. Water pipes reduce the risk to health as they take the heat out of the hot smoke.
However, there is also alternative information available to you following your argument that decriminalisation reduces use.
Why therefore did Holland restructure their laws about Marijuana consumption two years ago, and effective in all towns and cities except Amsterdam?
The new rules dictate that all persons not full-time resident in any particular area – easy proved as they all must carry ID cards in Holland – cannot gain access to any Hash Cafe to either buy or smoke. This was intended also to reduce the amount of Hash tourists entering Holland from Germany, Belgium and France.
Amsterdam however maintained it’s status as the Hash Tourist capital of Europe.
It used to be West Berlin before the wall came down, although not legal, the Berlin authorities turned a blind eye to it to enhance to image of the “West being the Best” and to maintain local population figures of your within the sector.
You really do have a great deal to learn about all this Opher.
You need to find out a great deal more what all these new drugs can do to people before you stupidly, and it really is stupid, call for their legalisation and ease of supply.
If I gave you one single hit of Black Tar Heroin followed by a Cocaine Speedball several hours later, you’d take back every single word you’d said here because you’d be so out of it that you wouldn’t even be able to unzip your trousers to take a slash. You’d be sitting in your own piss for the next eight hours, drooling down your shirt in a semi-coma. Trust me.
Graeme – what a silly and ignorant rant – I won’t even bother.
Opher said the following : “Drugs are a real problem but it is obvious that prohibition doesn’t work. They are ridiculously easy to get hold of and criminalisation is totally ineffective. Do you really believe that decriminalising them would increase their use or risk? I do not for one minute!
All the evidence suggests that decriminalisation decreases both use and risk!”
There’s some worrying level assumptions been made there with that statement.
I don’t think anybody indicated that decriminalisation would increase use.
Risk factors are not manipulated at all by legislation, therefore, remain static.
Legalities have no correlation towards the influence of risks with drugs.
Flagged up in today’s UK news was report of a court case of an illicit pill factory which was caught with 1.6 million “Blue Plague” pills also known as “Street Valium” which sell for £1 each.
Up until 2016 these pills were classed as a Legal High, but due to their dangers were made illegal.
Had these pills still been legal, they would still be dangerous. So what difference would their legalisation make? This is what I don’t understand about the call for legalisation. It simply makes dangerous substances very easy to obtain.
I also don’t understand why anyone could think that making drugs like this legal would reduce the risk.
The only difference would be is that the gang who made them would not have received sentences totalling 19 years and 1.6 dangerous pills would not be available for sale.
Chas – my point is really that these things are so easy to get hold of. Making them legal would not make them more easily available. It would enable those on sale to be tested for strength and purity though. It would make them safer. It would enable them to be regulated. It would take the money out of the hands of criminals.
All prohibition has achieve is to make drugs more attractive – to give them a rebelliousness.
Although I don’t indulge myself at all these days, I seldom drink anything either, I know for a fact with some people and I’d hasten a guess for the others that it’s safe to say that most people stopped caring about prohibition a long, long time ago. People involved in drugs know tons of people with drugs so there’s never any shortage to the extent that you’d never know they are prohibited. They’re everywhere if you know where to look and you know the right people. For those that don’t know about drugs then they might not realise that there’s so much drugs around.
There’s no such thing as rebelliousness with drugs today. That’s a very old fashioned idea. People couldn’t care less what the authorities think, or anybody else. Nobody does drugs in the 21st century to be seen as a rebel! That’s something from a Marlon Brando film in 19-fifty something!
I don’t agree that these kind of drugs are so easy to get hold of. A person would need to know where to go to get them. A lot of dealers don’t do cheap pills because of the size of the bag would need to be to be. They don’t do £1 deals. They like small slim wraps that sell for £30, £60 and not a deep bulging pocketful at £1 each.
How does strength and purity testing make them safer when if I swallow 14 of them I’m still going to OD.
Besides, the authorities already do testing and if pills and tabs are found to be dodgy they put the word out. They also put the word out if a particularly strong batch of heroin comes in as many users won’t be expecting that and would need to adjust their dosage intake. News like that travels very fast on the drug grapevine.
So testing for strength is already happening.
If Barbiturates were legalised for non-prescription sale, a large section of society at large would fall apart. There’d be entire towns all mogged out on bombers. Lol.
All they need to do is legalise Cannabis. The rest is dangerous if abused and they always will be abused because people love to get out of it. Legalisation wouldn’t help anybody.
All that said, none of what I’ve said has stopped the crims making big bucks. That’s the hard part and I haven’t the answer.
Chas – I’m not talking adults being rebellious ; I’m talking young kids.
Drugs are so readily available I can’t see how you think legalising them would make them more available? I don’t think they could be.
Yes you could do more and more but people die because the strength isn’t consistent. They don’t know they are doing as much as they are. They take one shot and it’s not the same as the next. It’s a lottery. If the strength was regulated it would cut down on ODs. People would know what they were taking. Likewise with purity. Who knows what is in the stuff they are buying. It contains all manner of shit.
I could walk out of here tonight and buy a hundred downers. So could anybody else. They are out there already. It’s only falling apart for some sods.
For some reason you seem to be consistently reflecting on drugs use by children. By Kids I take it to mean under 18. The thing is they aren’t the ones doing the strong drugs. Kids are in the main weed smokers. Very few are into psychedelics and cocaine is too expensive. All class A’s are too expensive except Crack. Not by any stretch are most kids doing that. But there are some that do and that’s bad enough as it is.
It’s when they get a bit older at 18+ that they get more experimental and the problems arise. None of these Legal Highs ever existed not that many years ago. Many of these things as previously mentioned are seriously stronger than probably any drug you might have taken, unless you have injected Heroin or Speedballs.
So how do you legislate for that? How do you control the strength? The stuff is designed to be rocket fuel in the first instance, so there’s the problem. If they find stuff gets messed with a made too weak they move on to something else or the lab boys cook up stuff even more powerful. There’s another world that didn’t used to happen anything like as often now. Young people, all the Rave culture types have the means and the tools and knowledge to cook their own drugs now. Nobody is buying a quarter of Leb hash anymore.
Not all kids are causing a nuisance and I think it’s an extremely exaggerated to say there is a huge crime wave of violence. Occasionally things might flare up in an area with fights over territory but generally it’s low key – it has to be that way to maximise business. People don’t tend to buy drugs from dealers that are firing guns at each other. It’s not a successful business model. What we see on TV always looks like Armageddon. There is evidence of insane behaviour from time to time with innocents being mowed down in drive-by gang related shootings – but that’s more a gun issue. The drugs are only the support act. Thugs with guns being thugs make drugs look very innocuous.
Attitudes changed long ago. Kids get educated about drugs much younger and I don’t mean the sort of education you’d be thinking of. Kids these days have been aware of them from the off. Their parents do them openly, there’s 4 million cannabis users in UK. It’s just normal activity these days and really no big deal at all. Weed is everywhere and it’s nothing like it was in the 70’s and 80s. There’s a hundred more types of drugs as well. There’s over 40 different types of weed these days, from scrub weed quality to super strength that could have you on your back in no time.
I never said I think legalising them would make them more available. From what information from me did you come to that conclusion? I don’t think they’d be more available. I don’t think they’d be any less available either.
Your still going on about consistency. Consistent for who? The beginner or the hard core user? People die because they are careless and take too much. If it’s too weak then they take more. By reducing strength it would cause more problems than solving any. If the government were to decide on the strength they would err on the lower scale. And as I said before very few young kids do heroin by injection. They snort and smoke, so quantities taken are already out of control. There’s really no fixed and careful application of quantity. Purity is strength, strength is purity. These stories you hear about putting bad stuff in drugs is just not true, that’s tabloid rubbish. No dealer wants dead customers.
Yes, you could walk out and buy a hundred downers. But you’d need to know where to go. It would more than likely be someone’s house or sold from a car. But kids really aren’t interested in downers. Downers are always in the main used by seasoned Speed freeks. They use them to get some sleep.
But back to your main point introduction.
It’s drugs that create addicts and not domestic health programmes. Nobody is interested in drug prevention except the social workers. People who want to take drugs could not care anything about any policies. People who are addicted to drugs could care even less.
Until such time that all drugs are free then people will steal in order to buy them.
It’s not a war on drugs, it’s actually a war on the price of drugs.
The law can only be a step of two infront of human nature and human nature enjoys drugs even the oldest alcohol is still going strong and wrecking lives. Adjust the law and human behaviour adjusts its self to match the new situation.
Personally I think the law has caused the problem. Drugs are a big health issue. I think education and rehabilitation should be deployed. Criminalising people simply does not work. It’s put huge amounts into the hands of criminals.
I can’t agree with you it is neither the law nor the drugs that cause the problem the origin of it and all problems lies within human nature. Perfecting the world means perfecting the humans within it and we know that human nature is the same as it was thousands of years ago. The progress we have made is purely technological .
Well I’d agree with you that we’ve made very little improvement over time – but we have made improvement. We are nowhere near as cruel or vicious.
I believe in education.
As for drugs – there has not been a civilisation that has not used drugs of one form or another. Human beings (like many other animals) like changing their consciousness. What society should do is to reduce the harm and not criminalise it.
Drugs are largely a health and education issue.
Unfortunately the draconian harsh policies, coupled with lies and propaganda, have created a huge underground criminal activity, put huge amounts of money into big criminal gangs, have clogged up courts and prisons, criminalised large numbers of people, created a far more dangerous situation for users, cost a fortune, failed to convince users and has failed terribly. The money would have been better spent on health education, as well as drug and alcohol rehabilitation.