Is this the worst Copper in Britain
Discussion
Mon Ami
I too offer my deepest symapthies to you. I just cannot believe how much support there is for legalising the supply of hard drugs, I suppose it's true what they say about empty cans rattling loudest!
Given the choice, I would rather Billy S never wrote a word and I'd never heard 'Stairway to Heaven' and the likes of Leah Betts and your friends were still with us. Is a bit of (admitedly excellent) literature really worth thousands of victims of drugs and drug related crimes? Somebody tell me I'm wrong...
I too offer my deepest symapthies to you. I just cannot believe how much support there is for legalising the supply of hard drugs, I suppose it's true what they say about empty cans rattling loudest!
Given the choice, I would rather Billy S never wrote a word and I'd never heard 'Stairway to Heaven' and the likes of Leah Betts and your friends were still with us. Is a bit of (admitedly excellent) literature really worth thousands of victims of drugs and drug related crimes? Somebody tell me I'm wrong...
CarZee said:
I think people forget that drugs are *NOT* an altogether bad thing, simply because of the fact that some people come a cropper with them.
Malc - I'm genuinely sorry for the experience you've had. In the circumstances I can see why you feel how you feel.
Would you be prepared to concede that your friends' experiences were more indicative of human falability and cruelty rather than the malevolence of naturally occuring substances?
Also, you're a biker - ever lost a friend in a motorbike accident? Would it make you want to see motorbikes outlawed?
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 7th August 14:46
This is going to get interesting!
Before we get into why drugs "are not an altogether bad thing", I think we need to define what we mean by drugs. Marijuana is not a drug, and I accept that, used in moderation, it is generally harmless and can have some positive effect. I state this from a third party perspective, because I have never touched the stuff, or anything else for that matter. I believe that Billy S, Coleridge and Queen Vic all partook of the stuff, for one reason or another, and for very different reasons they are all people I would include around my fantasy dinner party table.
However, used in excess, I also have no doubt that it can be depressive and can lead towards experimentation in things that are definitely damaging.
Most importantly, I also believe, from experience, that people that sell the stuff also peddle more damaging things and use it as an entry level towards accepting drug culture. For this reason, I believe that growing your own marijuana for your own use is harmless, even beneficial to health in some ways and should be decriminalised. Selling it though should remain strictly illegal.
What I term drugs are addictive narcotics that have an unarguable detrimental effect on a user's health. I would be interested in any argument that cocaine, crack, heroin and amphetamines are not addictive and harmful, because I have seen for myself what they can do to a person.
Dealers should be put up against the wall. Along with Brunstrom, that other idiot who got suspended from his duties in Brixton (can't remember his name - hang on, was it Paddick?), Ken Livingstone, John Prescott and anybody who thinks that T2000, May Day "protestors" or Reclaim the Streets make any form of positive contribution to society whatsoever.
Both of these girlfriends came from middle class backgrounds and were well educated people. Both were also less than streetwise and easily influenced by others. Call it gullible if you like. If drugs were legal I believe that both would have experimented with them and, likely as not, both would have ended up in the same denouement.
In both cases, I believe that the only way they could have been saved would have been for the dealers to have been removed from society before they met them.
I think the bike analogy is a little trite. More than anybody I am a fatalist. I believe that life is short and that none of us have a right to expect to see the next morning. I ride a bike because I love it. I have lost friends who felt the same way and I have lost a far amount of my own right leg. Life is a terminal illness.
If I fall off a bike, I suffer. Nobody else. I make the choice, I know the risks, I face the consequences.
If I had been addicted to drugs for the last 18 years, rather than riding a bike for the last 18 years, I am damn sure that I wouldn't be here now. And if, by some miracle, I was, I wonder how much misery I would be indirectly responsible for, having contributed to the propogation of the world's most obnoxious industry. How many people suffer and die, just so that someone is able to sniff a fortune up their nose? Meanwhile the dealer goes out and buys another new BMW with dark windows and crap wheels.
Sorry if it sounds as if I've come over all "think of the children", and I have no doubt that my own experiences have tainted my views, but this is how I feel.
I choose to disregard the comments of No.1 as I clearly can't argue with someone who infers that I am cerebrally challenged on the basis that I don't share his view on this matter. What's more, IMO, anyone who brings up Leah Betts in a drug debate should hang their head in ignorant shame.
Why? well sit and work out the number of Es that are consumed against the number of fatalities - most of which are caused only indirectly by the drug - in her case it was inexperience (or misinformation) leading to overhydration.
Malc,
We agree entirely that decriminalising the home cultivation of cannabis would be a good thing - and for the same reasons - to keep people who just want to smoke the herb away from dealers who would encourage them to dabble in other things. Personally I think it'll happen in the next 5-10 years.
That said, I've never had a dealer even try to encourage me to dabble in anything I didn't want - or hadn't come to buy.
The motorbike analogy may indeed be trite, but your assertion that
If you were in a fatal accident, would your friends and family not suffer? Would your wife/partner not be left short of money? Would the NHS not have a good go at gluing you back together, incurring potenially enormous medical bills eventually to no avail? What about any other parties who may be involved in the accident? What about your clients and staff? And creditors?
So you see, I don't believe for one minute that in real terms the method of one's premature departure from the mortal coil has as much bearing on the outcome as you suggest.
Why? well sit and work out the number of Es that are consumed against the number of fatalities - most of which are caused only indirectly by the drug - in her case it was inexperience (or misinformation) leading to overhydration.
Malc,
We agree entirely that decriminalising the home cultivation of cannabis would be a good thing - and for the same reasons - to keep people who just want to smoke the herb away from dealers who would encourage them to dabble in other things. Personally I think it'll happen in the next 5-10 years.
That said, I've never had a dealer even try to encourage me to dabble in anything I didn't want - or hadn't come to buy.
The motorbike analogy may indeed be trite, but your assertion that
Mon Ami Mate said:leaves me puzzled.
If I fall off a bike, I suffer. Nobody else. I make the choice, I know the risks, I face the consequences.
If you were in a fatal accident, would your friends and family not suffer? Would your wife/partner not be left short of money? Would the NHS not have a good go at gluing you back together, incurring potenially enormous medical bills eventually to no avail? What about any other parties who may be involved in the accident? What about your clients and staff? And creditors?
So you see, I don't believe for one minute that in real terms the method of one's premature departure from the mortal coil has as much bearing on the outcome as you suggest.
CarZee said:
That said, I've never had a dealer even try to encourage me to dabble in anything I didn't want - or hadn't come to buy.
All I can offer is that both girls started on marijuana and were drawn into more disastrous substances.
Carzee said:
If you were in a fatal accident, would your friends and family not suffer? Would your wife/partner not be left short of money? Would the NHS not have a good go at gluing you back together, incurring potenially enormous medical bills eventually to no avail? What about any other parties who may be involved in the accident? What about your clients and staff? And creditors?
So you see, I don't believe for one minute that in real terms the method of one's premature departure from the mortal coil has as much bearing on the outcome as you suggest.
My friends and family all know that riding motorcycles (and flying aircraft) are foibles of my character that I would not be happy to forego. Each carries risk, but neither is illegal nor necessarily terminal. Neither activity has damaging physical repercussions on other people. Taking drugs does. By supporting the drugs industry you can guarantee you are perpetuating a system that, some way down the line, leads to the physical harm of other people, in one way or another. It doesn't matter if they are mules, dealers, addicts or victims of crimes perpetrated by desperate users.
I find the national lottery distasteful, because the people who are likely to spend most are the people least likely to be able to afford to. I think Virgina Bottomley called it a tax on stupidity.
Drug addiction is much the same. The people most likely to become addicted to drugs are not people who have the spare cash to support an expensive habit. I know this will probably make you throw your hands up in disgust, but I honestly believe that a vast proportion of so-called "petty" crime is committed by desperate drug addicts.
Legalising drugs will just increase the number of people who become addicted to them. These people then find themselves committed to something they can't afford, and will still have to default to breaking into your house/car. And all the while, as the addiction becomes more entrenched, they are less able to hold down a job and a social life. The end result is that they go to prison for the crimes, sign on through not being able to work and suffer failing health. All of which increases the burden on the rest of society, who also suffer the increase in crime. I think.
>> Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Thursday 7th August 16:00
CarZee said:
I suppose that you're prepared to overlook the enormous influence that psychotropics have had on our (arguably) greatest artists?
In the past the benefits to society outweighed the disadvantages. Unfortunately this is no longer the case with lawless dealers and thieving junkies outweighing any positive effects you can see from Liam Gallagher getting out of his head.
Drugs are also a lot stronger than in the past and thus more damaging and addictive. There was no such thing as crack until fairly recently. Even cannabis has been selectively bred to be far stronger.
Mon Ami Mate said:
All I can offer is that both girls started on marijuana and were drawn into more disastrous substances.
But I bet both girls 'started' on alcohol or cigarettes before marijuana, yet you wouldn't say they progressed from those onto harder drugs, would you?
It's a tenuous argument at best, but forgetting even that, if the drug was legal, they'd have no need to come into contact with dealers dealing in harder substances anyway, so that exposure would be significantly reduced.
Don't think for one second that I'm advocating the sale of these drugs in Boots next to the asprin, because that isn't my argument at all, but I don't think their being illegal helps anyone, anywhere except the dealers.
FastShow said:
Don't think for one second that I'm advocating the sale of these drugs in Boots next to the asprin, because that isn't my argument at all, but I don't think their being illegal helps anyone, anywhere except the dealers.
I don't agree with this at all. The physical effects of drug addiction on Sarah (the second girl) were disastrous. She lost her mind. This would have happened whether the drugs were legal or not. Hard drugs kill people.
thanuk said:This is simply not true.
Drugs are also a lot stronger than in the past and thus more damaging and addictive. There was no such thing as crack until fairly recently. Even cannabis has been selectively bred to be far stronger.
There are strong cannabis variants, but they're not widely available in this country. In fact the quality and strength on aggregate has declined significantly in the last 20 years. Same with LSD.
Ecstacy is nowhere near as strong as it used to be - hence it's 5x cheaper than it was 10 years ago. And people take 5x as much in a night.
Cocaine and Heroine are no stronger - pharmaceutically pure forms of both can be found, but usually only by chance - they're being cut with junk as much as they ever have been if not more so.
thanuk said:
Drugs are also a lot stronger than in the past and thus more damaging and addictive.
OK, this is a bit vague, I should have said 'some drugs...'
thanuk said:
There was no such thing as crack until fairly recently.
True
thanuk said:
Even cannabis has been selectively bred to be far stronger
True. Non-availability in your area doesn't make it false. I certainly know people who use absolutely mind-blowing stuff. Unfortunately they're now all jibbering idiots
Mon Ami Mate said:This is going to be a heavy paragraph to disect, but...
My friends and family all know that riding motorcycles (and flying aircraft) are foibles of my character that I would not be happy to forego. Each carries risk, but neither is illegal nor necessarily terminal. Neither activity has damaging physical repercussions on other people. Taking drugs does. By supporting the drugs industry you can guarantee you are perpetuating a system that, some way down the line, leads to the physical harm of other people, in one way or another. It doesn't matter if they are mules, dealers, addicts or victims of crimes perpetrated by desperate users.
Riding a motorcycle may not be illegal, but breaking the speed limit is. You accept the risk you take when you do so, but in so doing, you are also accepting that you potentially expose others to greater risk of injury if something goes wrong.
Taking drungs is not necessarily terminal - even heroine or crack cocaine. Nor is the act of taking drugs (potentially) damaging to anyone by the consumer. Paying a black market dealer for the drugs does, however, have potential consequences as you state.
However, if one cannot countenance that ones rec.pharms. budget may end up funding some quite unsavoury things, then perhaps one should ask what other things we partake of that could also make us complicit in human rights abuse. Nike trainers - sweatshops and child labour. Optimax - do I need to talk about conflicts over oil and exploitation of vulnerable nations? Your bank - underwriter to a private abortion clinic. Your taxes - they pay for all sorts of things that are not for the greater good in yuour mind or mine.
What about the (slightly tangential) fact that the CIA supported the Taliban and Mujahadeen by facilitating the trafficking of opium, hence while the US fights it's frankly comedic war against drugs at home, it's stoking the fires of production in the countries of origin?
Mon Ami Mate said:Obviously the Stupidity Tax analogy won't stand too much scrutiny, but I do see the point you are making.
I find the national lottery distasteful, because the people who are likely to spend most are the people least likely to be able to afford to. I think Virgina Bottomley called it a tax on stupidity.
Drug addiction is much the same. The people most likely to become addicted to drugs are not people who have the spare cash to support an expensive habit. I know this will probably make you throw your hands up in disgust, but I honestly believe that a vast proportion of so-called "petty" crime is committed by desperate drug addicts.
Also I concur that much petty crime is driven by the need for drugs money. In that respect, Brunstrom proposes an answer - give the stuff away in a controlled manner.
There's a poppy field just near me that I've been wondering about actually...
Mon Ami Mate said:All entirely plausible, but are we missing the point here? People are frequently (not always) driven to hard drugs as an escape from a miserable existence. Fix the miserable existence problem.
Legalising drugs will just increase the number of people who become addicted to them. These people then find themselves committed to something they can't afford, and will still have to default to breaking into your house/car. And all the while, as the addiction becomes more entrenched, they are less able to hold down a job and a social life. The end result is that they go to prison for the crimes, sign on through not being able to work and suffer failing health. All of which increases the burden on the rest of society, who also suffer the increase in crime. I think.
Impossible? So is quelling demand for narcotics - why treat the symptom rather than the root problem?
re. Crack - can't argue with you on that one - crack is a much bigger problem that heroine is or ever was/will be. It's much easier to 'take', it's much easier to become addicted and it's much more expensive.
No, but it makes the point moot if most people can't get the stuff.
You won't find anyone who'd call the stuff I've smoked 'weak' and if I'm a gibbering idiot, perhaps you'd sanity check me and confirm that I'm doing a reasonable job of covering the fact up.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 7th August 16:48
thanuk said:
thanuk said:
Even cannabis has been selectively bred to be far stronger
True. Non-availability in your area doesn't make it false.
No, but it makes the point moot if most people can't get the stuff.
thanuk said:
I certainly know people who use absolutely mind-blowing stuff. Unfortunately they're now all jibbering idiots
You won't find anyone who'd call the stuff I've smoked 'weak' and if I'm a gibbering idiot, perhaps you'd sanity check me and confirm that I'm doing a reasonable job of covering the fact up.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 7th August 16:48
CarZee
Empty tins and all that was partly tongue in cheek and certainly not meant as a personal insult to yourself or any other PH'ers supporting the legalisation of drugs. I can understand much of what you say about legalising it, however, I still don't think it makes sense.
Most, if not all, drugs are addictive, some more so than others. But they also have varying degrees of harmfulness. From what I understand (and I'm prepared to be corrected on this), nicotine is a very addictive drug, yet on it's own, has limited harmful effects. It's only when combined with tabacco and other drugs and chemicals to form cigarettes that real problems occur. Heroin and Crack are also highly addictive, but don't need anything else to kill you. I'm sure you're right in saying that taken sensibly, they are great fun, but there are too many people out there that don't have the strength of mind or sense take these drugs in small quantaties and so become severely addicted, going to any extemes to get their next fix. If these became freely or legally available, what would the result be? I imagine it would only speed those addicts into an earlier grave. OK, so it might spare many of the victims of drug related crime, but at the same time, could it encourage other who currently have the will power not to take drugs because they know they can't afford to feed their habbit, to start taking them just because they are cheaper and legal?
Also, you commented on Mon Ami's hospital bills should he take a tumble on his bike - surely someone has to pick up the cost of these freely available drugs and pay the subsequent healthcare costs of the adicts?
Empty tins and all that was partly tongue in cheek and certainly not meant as a personal insult to yourself or any other PH'ers supporting the legalisation of drugs. I can understand much of what you say about legalising it, however, I still don't think it makes sense.
Most, if not all, drugs are addictive, some more so than others. But they also have varying degrees of harmfulness. From what I understand (and I'm prepared to be corrected on this), nicotine is a very addictive drug, yet on it's own, has limited harmful effects. It's only when combined with tabacco and other drugs and chemicals to form cigarettes that real problems occur. Heroin and Crack are also highly addictive, but don't need anything else to kill you. I'm sure you're right in saying that taken sensibly, they are great fun, but there are too many people out there that don't have the strength of mind or sense take these drugs in small quantaties and so become severely addicted, going to any extemes to get their next fix. If these became freely or legally available, what would the result be? I imagine it would only speed those addicts into an earlier grave. OK, so it might spare many of the victims of drug related crime, but at the same time, could it encourage other who currently have the will power not to take drugs because they know they can't afford to feed their habbit, to start taking them just because they are cheaper and legal?
Also, you commented on Mon Ami's hospital bills should he take a tumble on his bike - surely someone has to pick up the cost of these freely available drugs and pay the subsequent healthcare costs of the adicts?
Okay, No.1 - now we're getting somewhere. 
Thankfully, however, I have much better things to do with this glorious evening than argue out an intractable problem, plotting decreaing circles until we eventually all disappear up out own backsides.
So, I'll resume this tomorrow morning when I don't have anything better to do
But now, I'm off to get completely off my tits
Thankfully, however, I have much better things to do with this glorious evening than argue out an intractable problem, plotting decreaing circles until we eventually all disappear up out own backsides.
So, I'll resume this tomorrow morning when I don't have anything better to do
But now, I'm off to get completely off my tits
At the risk of being completely off-thread 
I think the basic point of the discussion is that regardless of whether or not you think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised or are a good thing or a bad thing the basic point remains that Brunstrom is going about the job of directing the policing of N. Wales in a completely unbalanced and obsessive manner. His "addiction" to nailing speeding motorists compared to his laissez-faire attitude on the dealing and consumption of drugs, mugging, breaking and entering etc etc is quite beyond belief. My understanding has always been that good policing is about applying the law in an equal and measured way across the board, not about having 1 particular bee in your bonnet (as he clearly has) to the dereliction of all other issues. The fact that Brunstrom is fixated on speeding at the apparent expense of other areas of policing tells me that he is unfit for the job of chief constable and should be removed forthwith!
As for me, I'm now going to tie several sets of kitchen knives to the front of my car.
I think the basic point of the discussion is that regardless of whether or not you think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised or are a good thing or a bad thing the basic point remains that Brunstrom is going about the job of directing the policing of N. Wales in a completely unbalanced and obsessive manner. His "addiction" to nailing speeding motorists compared to his laissez-faire attitude on the dealing and consumption of drugs, mugging, breaking and entering etc etc is quite beyond belief. My understanding has always been that good policing is about applying the law in an equal and measured way across the board, not about having 1 particular bee in your bonnet (as he clearly has) to the dereliction of all other issues. The fact that Brunstrom is fixated on speeding at the apparent expense of other areas of policing tells me that he is unfit for the job of chief constable and should be removed forthwith! As for me, I'm now going to tie several sets of kitchen knives to the front of my car.
cazzo said:
In his BBC Wales Today interview, Mr Brunstron made no apologies for his hard line on speeding.
He said: "It is against the law and there is no excuse for drifting over the limit any more than there is for drifting a knife into someone."
So when the law says : every first-born male child must be surrendered for ritual sacrifice - we should just blindly go along with it "because it's the law and there's no excuse for breaking it"?
B***ocks"! Bad laws eventually get repealed (well, they used to!) but the actions we as individuals take while subject to them may not be undone so easily.
On the subject of drugs, I fail to understand the mentality that says dealers are evil but addicts are hapless victims. If you're so stupid that you don't understand what you're getting into, particularly with the wide availablity of information, then frankly you deserve what's coming to you and it's no-one elses fault but your own. By failing to allow the 'Darwin Factor' to take its course, we perpetuate a society where gormlessness is the norm and draconian restriction of freedom is required to protect the lowest common denominator from themselves.
>> Edited by Skywarp on Friday 8th August 02:06
Skywarp said:
cazzo said:
In his BBC Wales Today interview, Mr Brunstron made no apologies for his hard line on speeding.
He said: "It is against the law and there is no excuse for drifting over the limit any more than there is for drifting a knife into someone."
If you're so stupid that you don't understand what you're getting into, particularly with the wide availablity of information, then frankly you deserve what's coming to you and it's no-one elses fault but your own. By failing to allow the 'Darwin Factor' to take its course, we perpetuate a society where gormlessness is the norm and draconian restriction of freedom is required to protect the lowest common denominator from themselves.
>> Edited by Skywarp on Friday 8th August 02:06
Not sure if you read my earlier posts or not, at best I see your comments as crassly insensitive and grossly ill informed.
>> Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Friday 8th August 08:00
Wow!
Top thread and some top arguments being made. I meant to contribute last night but got sidetracked...
I find it uneccesary to justify the legalisation of recreational drugs because they are just that. The numbers they are consumed in and the tragic cases that surround them are of a percentile that is way smaller than the vast majority of over the counter drugs. When I refer to recreation I suggest Cannabis, Speed, LSD and Ecstacy.
I am glad someone mentioned Leah Betts because she is probably the greatest case for legalisation that has ever happened. This is an 18 year old girl, who wanted to try Ecstacy as all her friends were (substance makes no difference peer pressure will exist regardless of the legal stance). She took 1/2 of a pill and then due to her fathers ignorance on the subject, media hysteria and thinkofthechildrenism about dehydration she worried, rather a lot. Over the course of the next 4 hours she proceeded to consume 15 litre of water and quite literally drowned from the inside out. This is ENTIRELY attributable to misinformation and hysteria, if she had safe and sensible access to information and pharamacuetically pure chemicals then she would be here today. Her father unfortunately is and is spreading the word. The word that killed his daughter.
Soft drugs do not lead to hard drugs. In the largest study conducted to date Herion users in 97% of cases smoked cigarettes but only 23% of cannabis users went on to use other drugs. If you are looking for a gateway drug, go to the local newsagent.
Herion and Cocaine on the other hand are more difficult case to make. Pharamcologists and Medical Specialists have stated time and again as absolute medical fact that the effects of Herion and Cocaine if consumed in a pharamcuetically pure form are absolutely 100% reversible. They both cause absolutely no damage at all to the body in the long term as chemicals in isolation. Ajax and brick dust, laxatives and out of date non descrpt pills that these are cut with do on the other hand.
There are 38,000 registered Heroin addicts in the UK. The government in response to a growing Herion problem in the 70's prescribed Methadone - a chemical more physically addictive than heroin. Nice one. More money is spent on these 38,000 addicts than is on the rehabilition of over 200,000 alcholics for a problem that doesnt need to exist. Just to dispell a few media bollocks myths. Heroin is not instantly addictive in the slightest. Its downright horrible actually. 100% of users projectile vomit on first use and this particular effect can continue for some time. It causes constipation, very very very bad constipation and biologically speaking it takes 6 months to develop a proper biological addiction. Before commiting these people who have chased or mainlined to eternal damnation consider what has got them to that stage, knowing that what they experience wont be nice, and its not a drug dealer that has pushed it onto them but a society that cant support its members. Drugs are not the cause of misery, they are the product of it.
Coke is the most difficult one, its been used for 1000's of years by all manner of people. Again its effects are reversible and its not harmful in pure form. The addition of Bicard of Soda has given it a bad name and I am still somewhat over awed by the fact that in the 70's there was a chap in NYC that coke wasnt good enough for so he invented crack.
Crack is a different animal all together. It does have a massively high addiction rate on first hit, certaintly more than 95% its effects are enormous on anyone who tries it. However, should this be a reason for it to be illegal, not really, its a victimless crime, if you want to do it, knowing all the risks then be my guest.
It comes down to one thing. Should one person have the right to enforce their views over another if what they are doing has absolutely no bearing on anyone but themselves? It has been proven in Holland that the uptake doesnt increase through legalisation, we have more hard drug users than anyone else in the world. Prohibition didnt work either, this is exactly the same and puritanical americans in the 30's thought much the same about booze as many of you do about drugs. Why are we leaving these people out in the cold when all that is required is a little tolerance?
Oh, and the clincher for me, if we did legalise drugs we could abolish fuel and road tax and still have money left over...
I'm shit at english!
Top thread and some top arguments being made. I meant to contribute last night but got sidetracked...
I find it uneccesary to justify the legalisation of recreational drugs because they are just that. The numbers they are consumed in and the tragic cases that surround them are of a percentile that is way smaller than the vast majority of over the counter drugs. When I refer to recreation I suggest Cannabis, Speed, LSD and Ecstacy.
I am glad someone mentioned Leah Betts because she is probably the greatest case for legalisation that has ever happened. This is an 18 year old girl, who wanted to try Ecstacy as all her friends were (substance makes no difference peer pressure will exist regardless of the legal stance). She took 1/2 of a pill and then due to her fathers ignorance on the subject, media hysteria and thinkofthechildrenism about dehydration she worried, rather a lot. Over the course of the next 4 hours she proceeded to consume 15 litre of water and quite literally drowned from the inside out. This is ENTIRELY attributable to misinformation and hysteria, if she had safe and sensible access to information and pharamacuetically pure chemicals then she would be here today. Her father unfortunately is and is spreading the word. The word that killed his daughter.
Soft drugs do not lead to hard drugs. In the largest study conducted to date Herion users in 97% of cases smoked cigarettes but only 23% of cannabis users went on to use other drugs. If you are looking for a gateway drug, go to the local newsagent.
Herion and Cocaine on the other hand are more difficult case to make. Pharamcologists and Medical Specialists have stated time and again as absolute medical fact that the effects of Herion and Cocaine if consumed in a pharamcuetically pure form are absolutely 100% reversible. They both cause absolutely no damage at all to the body in the long term as chemicals in isolation. Ajax and brick dust, laxatives and out of date non descrpt pills that these are cut with do on the other hand.
There are 38,000 registered Heroin addicts in the UK. The government in response to a growing Herion problem in the 70's prescribed Methadone - a chemical more physically addictive than heroin. Nice one. More money is spent on these 38,000 addicts than is on the rehabilition of over 200,000 alcholics for a problem that doesnt need to exist. Just to dispell a few media bollocks myths. Heroin is not instantly addictive in the slightest. Its downright horrible actually. 100% of users projectile vomit on first use and this particular effect can continue for some time. It causes constipation, very very very bad constipation and biologically speaking it takes 6 months to develop a proper biological addiction. Before commiting these people who have chased or mainlined to eternal damnation consider what has got them to that stage, knowing that what they experience wont be nice, and its not a drug dealer that has pushed it onto them but a society that cant support its members. Drugs are not the cause of misery, they are the product of it.
Coke is the most difficult one, its been used for 1000's of years by all manner of people. Again its effects are reversible and its not harmful in pure form. The addition of Bicard of Soda has given it a bad name and I am still somewhat over awed by the fact that in the 70's there was a chap in NYC that coke wasnt good enough for so he invented crack.
Crack is a different animal all together. It does have a massively high addiction rate on first hit, certaintly more than 95% its effects are enormous on anyone who tries it. However, should this be a reason for it to be illegal, not really, its a victimless crime, if you want to do it, knowing all the risks then be my guest.
It comes down to one thing. Should one person have the right to enforce their views over another if what they are doing has absolutely no bearing on anyone but themselves? It has been proven in Holland that the uptake doesnt increase through legalisation, we have more hard drug users than anyone else in the world. Prohibition didnt work either, this is exactly the same and puritanical americans in the 30's thought much the same about booze as many of you do about drugs. Why are we leaving these people out in the cold when all that is required is a little tolerance?
Oh, and the clincher for me, if we did legalise drugs we could abolish fuel and road tax and still have money left over...
I'm shit at english!
I think the people that are advocating decriminalisation of illegal drugs need to take a step back, and look at a possible problem.
At the moment theres all these "class a" drugs rolling around, illegal of course.
So because you cant stamp out the problem, you make it legal to own/supply the stuff.
Hypothetical scenario.
What happens when some chemist in Bogota comes up with a drug thats so powerful it addicts you at the very first useage?
One that you REALLY cant go without?
One that you HAVE to have?
Usage skyrockets, as the buzz from this new "wonder" drug cannot be beaten, the high lasts for days, as do the downers( theres always the downers), before long you have a proportion of society that are SLAVES to it. No rehab available, no way out of it, this stuff is just so dammed addictive.
The side effects from its usage are impaired mental functions (at all levels), altered heart rythms and breathing difficulties when attempting to come off it.
Long term effects are unknown at this time.
Now, this drug is illegal due to its side effects and its addictiveness.
The usage steadily increases, as it takes only ONE use to become addicted.
Someone tell me that a drug that causes these problems should be legal.
At the moment theres all these "class a" drugs rolling around, illegal of course.
So because you cant stamp out the problem, you make it legal to own/supply the stuff.
Hypothetical scenario.
What happens when some chemist in Bogota comes up with a drug thats so powerful it addicts you at the very first useage?
One that you REALLY cant go without?
One that you HAVE to have?
Usage skyrockets, as the buzz from this new "wonder" drug cannot be beaten, the high lasts for days, as do the downers( theres always the downers), before long you have a proportion of society that are SLAVES to it. No rehab available, no way out of it, this stuff is just so dammed addictive.
The side effects from its usage are impaired mental functions (at all levels), altered heart rythms and breathing difficulties when attempting to come off it.
Long term effects are unknown at this time.
Now, this drug is illegal due to its side effects and its addictiveness.
The usage steadily increases, as it takes only ONE use to become addicted.
Someone tell me that a drug that causes these problems should be legal.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff