No link between tough penalties and drug use states report

[anonymous-user]

nightflight said:

No, I meant hang the dealers, and you wouldn't actually have to do that many. Stop it at the source. It works in other parts of the world.

Riiiight. There are no drugs in Thailand are there? Start hanging them and they are just replaced by people who will do whatever it takes to not get caught. Next thing you need a paramilitary police force and secure compounds for judges to live in. Restrict the supply of Heroin and you get a Meth epidemic. Junkies will get high you can't stop them. Far better to license it, quality control it, tax it and treat those who need it but that would lose the votes of people who can't see that the 'war on drugs' was never winnable in the first place.

[vetrof]

g3org3y said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29824764

What do the drug addicts of PH reckon? Time to decriminalise?

Why ask only the tiny minority who are addicts?

[MrBrightSi]

Hilts said:

Can someone explain the difference between alcohol, tobacco and drugs?

Well, there isn't one when all of them are included in our GDP.

When are people going to realise people will consume substances regardless of their legality, controlling them and offering support for those who are functioning addicts is the best way i feel.

As someone else posted, you will share your day with plenty of recreational drug users, anyone who supports pubs yet is against softer drugs is a bit odd, worked in night clubs for a few good years in my teens early twenties and pissed up people on the weekend are not exactly what you'd call the best side of us.

It's all ok or none of it is, we draw lines in the sand only because it lines pockets.

[daveinaravecave]

Making a drug legal takes an untaxable product and makes it taxable, taking money away from the dealers who may use it to fund other things, and putting it in the hands of legal business owners. It would stop people growing stuff in their own homes taking away fire hazards. It would also allow Police budgets to use their resources elsewhere, or used for the health service instead. Factories and shops could be opened, creating jobs to grow and sell. Cannabis users are estimated to be at about 3 million in the UK I think, so about 5% of the population. With VAT at 20%, that's a lot of tax to be made.

Then there's the medical benefits. Have a read of this: http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsidee...

Have a read of this too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/marijuana...

Huffington Post said:

Marijuana Industry Could Be Worth $35 Billion In 2020, If All States And Feds Legalize It

If all 50 states legalized marijuana and the federal government ended prohibition of the plant, the marijuana industry in the United States would be worth $35 billion just six years from now.....

.....If the federal government doesn't end prohibition and the trajectory of state legalization continues on its current path, with more, but not all, states legalizing marijuana in some form, the industry in 2020 would still be worth $21 billion, GreenWave projects.....

.....some of these states are already considering legalization this November -- voters in Oregon, Alaska and D.C. are considering measures to legalize recreational marijuana, while Florida voters will weigh in on medical marijuana legalization.....

....."Since 'chronic pain' is the most common ailment among medical marijuana users, it is likely that recreational users can already purchase marijuana without great difficulty in states where medicinal use is legal," the report reads. "Accordingly, it can be argued that a merged market already exists in medical marijuana states. Less currently popular, but arguably providing more economic stimulus, would be a regulatory regime providing for only adult recreational use."

I'll keep smoking it whether it's legal or not. It's good for headaches as it's a painkiller, it's a muscle relaxant after running or working out, it helps with anxiety and insomnia. While alcohol gives me a 2 day hangover when I do decide to have a drink, cannabis makes me feel fresh the next day.

I'm not sure about the other drugs because I think that more research needs to be done, perhaps by using some of the tax generated.

[Sir Humphrey]

Hilts said:

Can someone explain the difference between alcohol, tobacco and drugs?

Easy:
Prohibition of tobacco has never taken place, very little problem beyond individual's health
Prohibition of alcohol has been tried and was ended because it led to powerful and dangerous gangs and didn't stop people from drinking
Prohibition of drugs is still around because if you make it illegal people won't take it and nobody realises that powerful and dangerous gangs are around because of it.

[JuniorD]

Cigarettes and alcohol are legal yet criminal gangs make a fortune out of these commodities. Legalise drugs and there will still be illegal criminal channels.

Given the you misery involved in the drug trade from the source to the end user and beyond, I personally think it should be an offence punishible by huge fines or imprisonment to possess or use illegal drugs of any class. As for dealers, would be happy enough for capital punishment. It may not be a solution or even a strong enough deterrent, but the fewer of these people on the streets, the better, even if only temporarily.

[aw51 121565]

daveinaravecave said:

... cannabis makes me feel fresh the next day. ...

From very limited experience, "feeling fresh" is downplaying it .

Anyhoo ... I'd suggest legalising cannabis with a sensible taxation rate thus HMG benefitting - as well as yer general punter benefitting from QC assuring a product of known quality - plus availability from recognised outlets selling the QCed stuff...

My drug of choice (how's THIS for being frank??) is alcohol - and I can buy it from any mainstream outlet and know that it is safe to use... I couldn't do this with a "drug" (such as cannabis, which is arguably more socially acceptable than cocaine or anything else filed under "drug" ) not available on the high street...

But - to appease the deniers - what about alcohol's nack of splitting families up, encouraging domestic violence and other nasty attributes? Yet it is legal and available at the corner shop for those of us aged 18 or over in the UK...

[dandarez]

Hilts said:

Can someone explain the difference between alcohol, tobacco and drugs?

Julie (18) is buried in local cemetery. She died almost a year ago this week. She took just one (her first) bloody ecstasy tablet at a local evening dance. The family was devastated. You can argue all you like about whether it was pure etc. My argument is this, my mum became alcoholic - she eventually died of cancer (all related) but she never dropped dead after her 'first' drink, her 'first' fag! Come to that, I know of nobody who has, even after their second or third. Yeah, down the line with abuse of alcohol the problems come. With drugs they can come instantly with catastrophic results. Julie could have got sloshed out of her mind that night on alcohol, the likelihood is she would still be here today.

My nephew over 20 odd years ago was given and took cannabis in his first week at Southampton Uni. His uni life lasted hardly a fortnight - he went off the rails. His family support saved him although it scuppered many years of their lives... and even to this day he his still not right.

You want drugs, and it seems many liberalisers do, then I'd advocate if you 'drive' and you're caught on them, you get a ban just like the drink drivers. I've met enough druggies in my life (the 60s was full of them) and was offered many, but luckily I never felt the need. My mind is my own, I don't need it altered. Sadly, it seems many can't live with their own minds. Sad.

For once and only once Cameron has it right. Not that he has had a war on drugs though.

There is and never has been a war on drugs.

Just looked in the local rag for proof this minute.
Here you are:
Steven Charlett, 26, of Stowford Road, Oxford, admitted possessing cannabis, a Class B drug, in Oxford on October 6. Also admitted failing to surrender to the custody of Oxford Magistrates’ Court on October 6. Fined £65 and ordered to pay a victims’ surcharge of £20 and £100 in costs.

So, basically he got done 65 quid for the possession. War on drugs, don't make me laugh, I got worse than that for doing 37 mph! But then, the liberalisers and their ilk think my over the 30 limit was far worse, almost a hanging offence for some of them.

[stitched]

dandarez said:

Julie (18) is buried in local cemetery. She died almost a year ago this week. She took just one (her first) bloody ecstasy tablet at a local evening dance. The family was devastated. You can argue all you like about whether it was pure etc. My argument is this, my mum became alcoholic - she eventually died of cancer (all related) but she never dropped dead after her 'first' drink, her 'first' fag! Come to that, I know of nobody who has, even after their second or third. Yeah, down the line with abuse of alcohol the problems come. With drugs they can come instantly with catastrophic results. Julie could have got sloshed out of her mind that night on alcohol, the likelihood is she would still be here today.

My nephew over 20 odd years ago was given and took cannabis in his first week at Southampton Uni. His uni life lasted hardly a fortnight - he went off the rails. His family support saved him although it scuppered many years of their lives... and even to this day he his still not right.

You want drugs, and it seems many liberalisers do, then I'd advocate if you 'drive' and you're caught on them, you get a ban just like the drink drivers. I've met enough druggies in my life (the 60s was full of them) and was offered many, but luckily I never felt the need. My mind is my own, I don't need it altered. Sadly, it seems many can't live with their own minds. Sad.

For once and only once Cameron has it right. Not that he has had a war on drugs though.

There is and never has been a war on drugs.

Just looked in the local rag for proof this minute.
Here you are:
Steven Charlett, 26, of Stowford Road, Oxford, admitted possessing cannabis, a Class B drug, in Oxford on October 6. Also admitted failing to surrender to the custody of Oxford Magistrates’ Court on October 6. Fined £65 and ordered to pay a victims’ surcharge of £20 and £100 in costs.

So, basically he got done 65 quid for the possession. War on drugs, don't make me laugh, I got worse than that for doing 37 mph! But then, the liberalisers and their ilk think my over the 30 limit was far worse, almost a hanging offence for some of them.

Drugs are no more 'good' than alcohol is 'good'
However prohibition in the states was abandoned as.
1> Unlicenced and untested alcohol was often dangerous far beyond the norm, methyl alcohol anyone.
2> Only criminals dealt in alcohol but as it was deemed by most to be socially acceptable to drink then violent vicious gangs of thugs were seen more as jack the lads.
3> They were running out of dosh and needed a tax boost.

Prohibition does not work. I choose not to do drugs but am fully aware where I could get any drugs I wanted.
If they were legalised and sold at retail outlets then as the raw product is so cheap then even with high tax the dealers would be severely undercut, as opposed tobacco and alcohol where the tax is so high smuggling becomes attractive.
The tax raised on these products would be astronomical, the drugs, which would be taken anyway, would be safer and we might be able to deal with the actual junkies who, though they only make up a tiny proportion of drug users, create a disproportionately large number of the social problems associated with drugs.
But I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime.

[hidetheelephants]

vetrof said:

g3org3y said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29824764

What do the drug addicts of PH reckon? Time to decriminalise?

Why ask only the tiny minority who are addicts?

I've never taken any and I think the current laws are farcical; 4 decades of the dangerous drugs act has achieved nothing except lining the pockets of drug dealers and costing the tax payer countless billions in customs and police action that could have been better directed at other crimes. Until the drug laws are redrafted around facts, science and harm reduction I anticipate no improvement in the net cost to society of 'fighting the war on drugs'.

[vetrof]

The point I was making was that the vast majority of illegal drug users are not addicts and that it is counter-productive, hypocritical and oppressive to legislate something on the basis of the negative effects it has on a tiny minority.
By that kind of logic alcohol, surfing, motorcycling, skiing, peanuts, crossing the road, flying, gambling, swimming, sunbathing, etc should all be banned because a minority of people will come to harm participating.

[NorthDave]

Its bound to change - we generally follow the US and they are becoming much more friendly to weed.

Personally I dont see the problem with someone being able to wander in to a pharmacy and coming out with a bag of weed. I've yet to be beaten up by a pot head on a rampage (unless I am stood between them and the chocolate in a 24/7 garage!)

Not sure about the rest. I think E, Coke etc is too addictive and shouldn't be available. It would be good if the tax from weed was used to help addicts of other drugs though.

The one thing I am not sure about is whether certain people are preprogrammed to get high. If you take Heroin out of the mix whether they will just move on - I suspect they will. This to my mind means they need to be helped otherwise it is just a losing battle.

[Esseesse]

dandarez said:

Hilts said:

Can someone explain the difference between alcohol, tobacco and drugs?

Julie (18) is buried in local cemetery. She died almost a year ago this week. She took just one (her first) bloody ecstasy tablet at a local evening dance. The family was devastated. You can argue all you like about whether it was pure etc. My argument is this, my mum became alcoholic - she eventually died of cancer (all related) but she never dropped dead after her 'first' drink, her 'first' fag! Come to that, I know of nobody who has, even after their second or third. Yeah, down the line with abuse of alcohol the problems come. With drugs they can come instantly with catastrophic results. Julie could have got sloshed out of her mind that night on alcohol, the likelihood is she would still be here today.

My nephew over 20 odd years ago was given and took cannabis in his first week at Southampton Uni. His uni life lasted hardly a fortnight - he went off the rails. His family support saved him although it scuppered many years of their lives... and even to this day he his still not right.

You want drugs, and it seems many liberalisers do, then I'd advocate if you 'drive' and you're caught on them, you get a ban just like the drink drivers. I've met enough druggies in my life (the 60s was full of them) and was offered many, but luckily I never felt the need. My mind is my own, I don't need it altered. Sadly, it seems many can't live with their own minds. Sad.

For once and only once Cameron has it right. Not that he has had a war on drugs though.

There is and never has been a war on drugs.

Just looked in the local rag for proof this minute.
Here you are:
Steven Charlett, 26, of Stowford Road, Oxford, admitted possessing cannabis, a Class B drug, in Oxford on October 6. Also admitted failing to surrender to the custody of Oxford Magistrates’ Court on October 6. Fined £65 and ordered to pay a victims’ surcharge of £20 and £100 in costs.

So, basically he got done 65 quid for the possession. War on drugs, don't make me laugh, I got worse than that for doing 37 mph! But then, the liberalisers and their ilk think my over the 30 limit was far worse, almost a hanging offence for some of them.

A great post.

dandarez said:

the 60s was full of them

I wonder if pert of the problem now (this apparently drive to legalise drugs) in part is persistent because those who 'experienced' the 60's & 70's have been and are now those that are at the stage in their careers that they're in charge of things.

[Gecko1978]

fblm said:

nightflight said:

No, I meant hang the dealers, and you wouldn't actually have to do that many. Stop it at the source. It works in other parts of the world.

Riiiight. There are no drugs in Thailand are there? Start hanging them and they are just replaced by people who will do whatever it takes to not get caught. Next thing you need a paramilitary police force and secure compounds for judges to live in. Restrict the supply of Heroin and you get a Meth epidemic. Junkies will get high you can't stop them. Far better to license it, quality control it, tax it and treat those who need it but that would lose the votes of people who can't see that the 'war on drugs' was never winnable in the first place.

few years back I read a novel about a proper wear on drugs (it might have been Fortsyth) anyway they took a real tough stance used modern technology an weapons an attacked the cartels supply routes proper no holds barred sinking ships at sea type stuff (fiction of course) but the second part of the book was written from the perspective of what then happened in the home counties as drugs were harder to find as supply dried up prices rose gangs got more bloody and violence on the streets (imagin if there were no heroin tomorrow under £500 a hit how long before people become really desperate).

Its an illness for sure one of your own making sadly but like catching the cold from going out with wet hair (I know this in realityh has F all to do with getting a cold) once your sick we don't just say well hard luck you did it to yourself.

so lets treat users but also change attitudes just like driving though a highsteert on a saturday is now not fun avioding drunks in the road etc we need to make drug use leess acceptable same with binge drinking same as smoking. thats a better way of beating it than just legalisation or hanging all dealers

[grumbledoak]

The current approach does nothing apart from keeping the supply of one set of addictive commodities legal and another set illegal, thus keeping one group of people rich and another group of people involved in serious organised crime. You can guess the skin colours of the legally rich group and the violent deaths group.

Personally I believe that it should be someone's own decision what they put in their body. Even ignoring that, it is clear that we have two choices:
a) deal with the problems of addictive substances, or
b) deal with the problems of addictive substances supplied by serious organised crime

It's a tough one, obviously.

Edited by grumbledoak on Friday 31st October 09:41

[MrBrightSi]

dandarez said:

Julie (18) is buried in local cemetery. She died almost a year ago this week. She took just one (her first) bloody ecstasy tablet at a local evening dance. The family was devastated. You can argue all you like about whether it was pure etc. My argument is this, my mum became alcoholic - she eventually died of cancer (all related) but she never dropped dead after her 'first' drink, her 'first' fag! Come to that, I know of nobody who has, even after their second or third. Yeah, down the line with abuse of alcohol the problems come. With drugs they can come instantly with catastrophic results. Julie could have got sloshed out of her mind that night on alcohol, the likelihood is she would still be here today.

My nephew over 20 odd years ago was given and took cannabis in his first week at Southampton Uni. His uni life lasted hardly a fortnight - he went off the rails. His family support saved him although it scuppered many years of their lives... and even to this day he his still not right.

You want drugs, and it seems many liberalisers do, then I'd advocate if you 'drive' and you're caught on them, you get a ban just like the drink drivers. I've met enough druggies in my life (the 60s was full of them) and was offered many, but luckily I never felt the need. My mind is my own, I don't need it altered. Sadly, it seems many can't live with their own minds. Sad.

For once and only once Cameron has it right. Not that he has had a war on drugs though.

There is and never has been a war on drugs.

Just looked in the local rag for proof this minute.
Here you are:
Steven Charlett, 26, of Stowford Road, Oxford, admitted possessing cannabis, a Class B drug, in Oxford on October 6. Also admitted failing to surrender to the custody of Oxford Magistrates’ Court on October 6. Fined £65 and ordered to pay a victims’ surcharge of £20 and £100 in costs.

So, basically he got done 65 quid for the possession. War on drugs, don't make me laugh, I got worse than that for doing 37 mph! But then, the liberalisers and their ilk think my over the 30 limit was far worse, almost a hanging offence for some of them.

Won't somebody think of the children!!!!!!

On the one hand speeding fine is farcical blah blah liberals want me hung.

But this one kid did their first marijuana and died maybe. We should kill all dealers!!!

If you honestly think this then I feel for your closed mind.

As someone said if people banned things on the idiot minority I bet even Internet forums would be purged to protect small minds like yours.

Let's put it this way plenty of functioning people with jobs all that say it's ok. But people on your soapbox with no experience of it know the truth. Good job.

[Negative Creep]

dandarez said:

My nephew over 20 odd years ago was given and took cannabis in his first week at Southampton Uni. His uni life lasted hardly a fortnight - he went off the rails. His family support saved him although it scuppered many years of their lives... and even to this day he his still not right.

So he went from a model student to a complete wreck in less than 14 days after smoking a spliff? I'm sorry, but there is far more to that story than you are telling us because cannabis simply doesn't affect you in that way and timeframe

[jogon]

Similar issue with Ecstacy, if they were legal they would be regulated with guidelines to consumption, as it currently stands it's just like the knock off booze that can turn you blind or worse.

This is why the entire industry needs taking out the hands of criminals.

[vetrof]

dandarez said:

Julie (18) is buried in local cemetery. She died almost a year ago this week. She took just one (her first) bloody ecstasy tablet at a local evening dance. The family was devastated. You can argue all you like about whether it was pure etc.

So she took an unknown ammount of an unknown mix of chemicals, of unknown strength, from an unknown supplier and you think this is the way it should remain? Interesting logic.

[Esseesse]

This is the one topic I can think of that PH stops being very conservative leaning.