PDA

View Full Version : Drugs, yes or no?



jiveknight
12th-January-2006, 04:10 PM
Clive Long suggested on the religious beliefs thread that I start one about drugs and my opinions on them.

While I feel very strongly about street drugs and their obvious effect on the society I don't want to get a serious only thread going. So all aspects are welcome - laugh, cry, and maybe even do something about it.

From what I've seen at MJ events and the jivers I have met, I would be very surprised if any jivers did drugs or were in favor of them in any way, but for curiosity's sake I'll make a poll.

Firstly, we do a lot of work promoting the Say No to Drugs, Say Yes to LIfe campaign. In between our other concerts and performances we do such things as events with local councils in town centres and go to schools etc.

I was not ever on heavy drugs myself but as a youngun hung around some that did. For example, one friend was a singer, song writer and artist. He started on grass, went to cocaine, heroine then added acid. The last I heard, over 10 years ago, he was a pusher. Many musicians openly promote drugs as helping their music - which is obvioulsy ridiculous - so we chose to promote Life and against drugs and drug culture.

We have done this campaign all over the place and even in Amsterdam. Actually the general Amsterdam public seemed to be very much in agreement with us because the main people attracted to the "coffee" houses etc, are tourists. We went on TV and they had so many positive calls they had to repeat the show.

We have also visited and helped rehab centres, including one of the biggest, and the most successful one in the US. I met some very interesting people and heard unbelievable very sad stories with thankfully very happy endings.

As in Amsterdam, often the general public, even though in disagreement, go into a sort of apathy about doing anything about the problem and decide to "live and let live" (even the Police in one area said they had "moved on from a Say No campaign to a Know the Score - harm reduction campaign"). Usually when they realised that one day, down the road, this will affect their children or the surgeon operating on them might still be high, or the school bus driver, as it becomes more accepted.

I wrote two songs that forward this message, "Junky Joe" on the PLanet Jive album and "Only Mugs Take Drugs" on the Life is a Game album.

Anyway, that's enough from me. I'm interested in what anyone else thinks, or any drug related stories, or (hopefully not) anyone who needs help with such a problem.

:nice: Cheers! Ian

Dreadful Scathe
12th-January-2006, 04:55 PM
What exactly are street drugs ? I assume you mean illegal drugs rather than caffeine, tobacco etc.. in which case we are talking about everything from cannabis to speed to heroin. I doubt you'll get many votes with the poll worded as it is - as most people, I believe, put cannabis on about the same level as tobacco i.e. in moderation its about as bad for you as cigarettes.

Personally, Im anti-drugs. My body is a temple ;)

WittyBird
12th-January-2006, 04:57 PM
My body is a temple ;)
a funny shape and only worshipped by tourists?

LMC
12th-January-2006, 04:59 PM
I'm anti drugs until I'm in pain.

Then I'll take anything to make it stop. I'm a wuss.

My body may (mostly) be a temple, but it's probably only meaningful in that sense to devil-worshippers.

Rhythm King
12th-January-2006, 05:10 PM
Personally, Im anti-drugs. My body is a temple ;)
:yeah: Of course in my case it would be the temple of Buddha. I too am against the misuse of drugs.

There is increasing evidence that excessive cannabis use can lead to psychosis, so it's probably as, if not more damaging than tobacco, but in a different way. Not to mention the effects of people driving under the influence of drugs.

I know a number of MJ-ers who use cannabis but they always go outside of/away from the venue and I've never seen them do anything to draw undue attention to themselves.

ShinyWeeStar
12th-January-2006, 05:23 PM
NO! No no no no no. Drugs (as opposed to medication) are bad. End of. :na:

TiggsTours
12th-January-2006, 05:24 PM
The only thing I think you missed out of your poll was "I'm against drugs, and don't do anything about it" (rather than can't). I'm sure I could do a hell of a lot more if I really put my mind to it, but I don't, its not that I can't.

When I read this:


as most people, I believe, put cannabis on about the same level as tobacco i.e. in moderation its about as bad for you as cigarettes.

my first reaction was, no, I don't put them on the same level at all! Cannabis is far worse, its been proven to cause all sorts of paranoia problems and damage the brain and, as its generally smoked with tobacco, has the added problem of a normal cigarette!

Then I thought about it, and I thought, actually, I do put them on the same level, as I think each has benefits, and cons, that outweigh each other. With cannabis you don't get the tar, and other rubbish they stuff into normal cigarettes, so I guess just a straight roll-up is the best option if you're going to smoke. But, that said, I think they are all as evil as each other, and are against all 3 equally, as both end up being selfishly inflicted on anyone around you, and there's nothing they can do about it.

This is the only reason I would put cigarettes as higher on the evil stakes than alcohol. Both are equally as damaging to your body, but with alcohol you don't inflict that on others, unless you do something stupid under the influence, like get in a car and drive. Also, alcohol, I don't believe, is as addictive as cigarettes, although it is addictive, not everybody who drinks is an addict, whereas everybody who smokes is, or will become so.

This is the reason that, other than stuff sold in Boots, and supplied by a doctor, alcohol is the only drug that I am not against.

David Bailey
12th-January-2006, 05:32 PM
Then I thought about it, and I thought, actually, I do put them on the same level, as I think each has benefits, and cons, that outweigh each other. With cannabis you don't get the tar, and other rubbish they stuff into normal cigarettes, so I guess just a straight roll-up is the best option if you're going to smoke.
Is "secondary cannabis" harmful? If so, then yes - otherwise, I'd vote cannabis to be less harmful than nicotin, as cannabis' effects are limited to the user.

jiveknight
12th-January-2006, 05:41 PM
:yeah: Of course in my case it would be the temple of Buddha. I too am against the misuse of drugs.

There is increasing evidence that excessive cannabis use can lead to psychosis, so it's probably as, if not more damaging than tobacco, but in a different way. Not to mention the effects of people driving under the influence of drugs.

I know a number of MJ-ers who use cannabis but they always go outside of/away from the venue and I've never seen them do anything to draw undue attention to themselves.

You are right.

There is 10x more toxins in cannabis than in tobacco. THC (delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol) remains deposited in fat cells and organs (brain, testicles, ovaries, spleen, liver and lungs) and don't wash out in blood or urine. It causes more lung damage than tobacco and the risk of lung cancer is 5 to 10 times higher.

Plus, as people get used to the effects they want more and can more onto harder more serious drugs. Especially kids.

On a lighter note, good to see so many temples...

TiggsTours
12th-January-2006, 05:54 PM
Is "secondary cannabis" harmful? If so, then yes - otherwise, I'd vote cannabis to be less harmful than nicotin, as cannabis' effects are limited to the user.
Maybe, I don't know enough about it, but surely if the cannabis is smoked with tobacco?........

Tessalicious
12th-January-2006, 05:54 PM
There is increasing evidence that excessive cannabis use can lead to psychosis, so it's probably as, if not more damaging than tobacco, but in a different way. Ooooh, tough one. Yes, there is a statistical link between regular cannabis use and development of schizophrenic or other psychoses, but there is a lot of debate over whether there is a causal relationship, and if so, whether it is:
taking of cannabis --> biochemical imbalance --> psychosis
or
susceptibility to psychosis --> predisposition to recreational drug use ( --> inter-reinforcement)


In general, I agree with saying no to 'street drugs' - but this is more about the way they are used than the drugs themselves. Sometimes an individual who is unhappy and has nowhere else to turn can find solace in mind-altering drugs - whether these are prescription anti-depressants or cannabis obtained from a dealer has very little to do with the harmful long-term effect of the drug itself.

The problems come from the drugs designed to make you dependent on them - not all of which are illegal - and the social aspect of drug addiction, such as the people involved in the sale of street drugs, and the constant pressure to increase the intensity of usage to harder drugs, more often.

However, drugs such as cannabis, heroin and even cocaine can have legitimate medical uses, which could particularly benefit people with chronic or terminal conditions such as multiple sclerosis, AIDS and cancer, to improve quality of life.

How many of you would attach the same stigma to these uses of these drugs as you would to 'junkie'-type self-administration? Is public opinion about medical use of otherwise recreational drugs a) sufficiently well-informed not to have to be down to 'gut-feeling' and b) rational enough to accept changes in scientific opinion - or are we scientists all wasting our time in trying to work out what uses and dangers these drugs are hiding?

EDIT: Just to address the cannabis v. tobacco issue - the only reason why a 'joint' is worse for your lungs than a normal cigarette is the lack of a filter - and alternative administration methods have been developed for potential medical uses. And, it's the inert metabolites of THC that stay in your system to be detectable days later, not the psychoactive chemical itself.

fletch
12th-January-2006, 06:07 PM
I think you will only get people posting that are against drugs, not for them, for obvious reasons.

5 years ago when I found myself single again, I contacted, what had been my best friend for years and we lost contact, to find that she was now a cocaine addict and her husband was a dealer, she was always anti drugs when we were young, funny how things change.

I would be interested in comments from people who admit they have taken drugs and there views.

El Salsero Gringo
12th-January-2006, 06:11 PM
There is 10x more toxins in cannabis than in tobacco. THC (delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol) remains deposited in fat cells and organs (brain, testicles, ovaries, spleen, liver and lungs) and don't wash out in blood or urine. It causes more lung damage than tobacco and the risk of lung cancer is 5 to 10 times higher.I expect Tessalicious might want to comment on that; her Ph.D topic is concerned with cannabis (derived) drugs for the treatment of MS.

Plus, as people get used to the effects they want more and can more onto harder more serious drugs. Especially kids.Why do you draw a dividing line between tobacco and alcohol on the one hand, and cannabis on the other in that respect? I think you're conflating two (potential) problems, each of which has a different solution: if cannabis is harmful, then it should be banned. If the problem with cannabis is that it perforce leads to other, unarguably health-damaging drug misuse, then that problem could be countered by legalising and regularising it. I'm probably right in guessing that you wouldn't support that.

Since you ask for opinions, here's mine. I'm against "recreational" drug abuse in the same way I'm against tobacco and alcohol abuse. I don't subscribe to the Daily Mail style division between a packet of B&H and an ecstacy tablet - that one is fine and natural, and the other spawn of the devil (although I recognise that in law, a black-and-white division is necessary.) I'm in favour of anti-drugs campaigns, but I'm wary of anti-drugs campaigns that attempt to demonize and frighten against - and therefore glamourize and generate interest in - drugs. I think it's possible to fall into this trap. A reduction in drug abuse is a worthy goal, and I think there are many ways to achieve this - including working for better social and economic conditions - which have other positive side-effects too.

I also know many current and former recreational drug users who have not descended into a nightmare world of depravity, do not hang around outside school gates tempting little chldren, and for whom a more significant health risk is poor diet or too much alcohol. It would be entirely wrong of me to pretend that those are not potential outcomes - but it would be entirely wrong of you, or of anyone, to pretend they are inevitable.

El Salsero Gringo
12th-January-2006, 06:13 PM
I expect Tessalicious might want to comment on that; her Ph.D topic is concerned with cannabis (derived) drugs for the treatment of MS.Beaten by the bell...

Tessalicious
12th-January-2006, 06:14 PM
Damn, too late to edit, sorry.

Just want to add, on the psychosis note, two things.

First, I'm in an office surrounded by well-respected-in-the-cannabinoid-field scientists who think the psychosis stuff is a load of tosh.

Second, would you rather, as a patient of one of the above diseases, suffer less with an ever-so-slightly higher chance of developing psychosis later on, or suffer more and have the knowledge that if you develop a psychosis you can't blame it on the doctor for those damn drugs he gave you? ;)

fletch
12th-January-2006, 06:21 PM
I believe if alcohol was new discovery it would be banned, you only have to witness Birmingham Broad Street on a Friday night, the fights people been sick, it changes your personality so much.

Its was 2 year on the 2nd of January since I had my last drink, so I make thar 2 years and 10 days and counting:clap:

El Salsero Gringo
12th-January-2006, 06:33 PM
Clive Long suggested on the religious beliefs thread that I start one about drugs and my opinions on them.

...

While I feel very strongly about street drugs and their obvious effect on the society I don't want to get a serious only thread going. So all aspects are welcome - laugh, cry, and maybe even do something about it.

...

Jiveknight,

Something is bugging me about this poll. I know that Scientology has a religious doctrine to be anti-drugs, and as a committed Scientologist you share that belief. There's nothing disreputable about that, and you are to be commended for the work you do in furthering that ideal. What I'm curious about is why you're asking about what people think on the Forum.

Speaking only for myself if I post a poll (at least on a serious topic) it's because I haven't really made up my mind how I feel about the subject. If I hear other people's views, it will strengthen my own convictions, or enable me to change my mind. In my head, at least, I'm saying, "this is what I think - now, please, challenge me - I want you to convince me that I'm wrong. Either I'll change my mind, or I'll learn that my instincts were right." Basically, by asking for discussion on a topic I'm saying that, whatever position I start from, my mind is, honestly, open to be persuaded by rational argument.

I get the impression however that on the topic of drug (ab)use, your mind is already very much made up. Nothing wrong with that of course - there are topics on which I can't be or don't want to be persuaded differently to the way I feel at the moment. But I wouldn't dream of discussing them on a public forum. I think it would be disingenuous to say that I want to hear what other people think when - having a mind set in stone on that issue - I patently don't.

So, have a think, and consider *why* you want to know what we think? I'm sure it's not just as a good opening to introduce a topic on which you have strong feelings and on which you've done good work. But do try to explain please - what *actual* difference it will make to *you* to hear what anyone else thinks about drug abuse? Would you ever be able to feel differently to the way you do at present?

fletch
12th-January-2006, 06:39 PM
This thread is making me think about good friend lost to all sorts of drugs in all sorts of ways:sad: :tears:

Rhythm King
12th-January-2006, 06:40 PM
Damn, too late to edit, sorry.

Just want to add, on the psychosis note, two things.

First, I'm in an office surrounded by well-respected-in-the-cannabinoid-field scientists who think the psychosis stuff is a load of tosh.

Second, would you rather, as a patient of one of the above diseases, suffer less with an ever-so-slightly higher chance of developing psychosis later on, or suffer more and have the knowledge that if you develop a psychosis you can't blame it on the doctor for those damn drugs he gave you? ;)

Point taken, and considered at the time, which is why I put misuse of drugs in my original post, on reflection perhaps I should have put illegal misuse of drugs. I certainly wouldn't deny anybody the use of legal drugs, for pain relief, or whatever, when administered legally for medicinal purposes. There are many such controlled drugs, which are open to illegal misuse.

McJester
12th-January-2006, 06:53 PM
Depending on the drug in question, I'm in favour of "soft" drugs Cannabis, etc and against "hard" drugs heroin, etc

I have used Cannabis for pleasure and for medical purposes. And can say that I do enjoy it occasionally and find that it causes far less problems than other more socially acceptable drugs, eg tobacco and Alcohol, when was the last time you heard about rampaging hashheads running riot at 3 in the morning after the clubs close.
Unlike cigarettes there is very little cases of passive smoking as it is a more solitary habit, well for me anyway.

And as for medical purposes it should be more widely available, when I was having radiation therapy I couldn't keep most food down, the tablets the hospital gave me were useless. A friend gave me some grass and that actually made it bearable and let me eat semi-normally.

As for hard drugs I have never had much to do with them, don't fancy them much either.

Before you ask I do have long hair and only mild hippy / headbanger tendencies.

:hug:
McJester

Missy D
12th-January-2006, 07:39 PM
I am against drugs.

Although this was not the case when i first moved to London. I shared a house with 2 rock bands who often had mad weekend parties. They introduced me and my housemate to cannibus which we started smoking (without tobacco). This just to make me and my friend talk absolute *****, we used to feel really hungy and then sleep the rest of the night. The next day left us feeling really ill.

Next went on to speed well it certaintly had a mad effect on us both. We felt really mad and lively. Once the effect had worn off we felt really depressed and angry.

The last thing we got into was 'acid'. We didnt even know what it was. This so called friend of ours gave us a little piece of paper to eat which we did. And then! everything that should have been white ie:- teeth looked illumious green. My heart raced so fast that i thought i was going to die. We felt so dehydrated but, couldnt drink anything. Everyone around us was laughing. Some idiot had put foil on our tv so there were these jets of lights which scared us so much. We ran downstairs and looked out of the window. The clouds were bright green and had smiley faces on and then turned evil. We heard one of our friends screaming with fear and heard some shouting that he was having a 'bad trip'. We couldnt help him! His screams were piercing! We run out of the house by this time it was dark. The street lights were so bright! The headlights of cars were blinding us. I remember nearly getting hit by a car. We ran to a shop that sold mirrors and the reflection staring back at us was not ours. This went on and on for hours. We stayed on Hampstead Heath all night til morning and eventually went home. I looked in the mirror and i could still see illuminous colours. We had both peed ourselves at somepoint. Finding our beds we layed down but, still couldnt sleep. The house was totally wrecked and there were no sign of anyone. The following day the bands returned laughing. They had video recorded everything and to say it was horrifying was such an understatement. My pupils were so big and I was so out of control. To see yourself in such a state is really scarey especially when you dont know the half of it. They also videod our friend who was having a 'bad trip' and at that point i knew i would never touch drugs again. He got taken to hospital and was never the same. Not sure what this 'acid' did to him but he became very quiet and slightly paranoid.

I often visit a very close friend of mine in a neuro rehabilitation unit and do see patients there as a result of drink and drugs. Its very sad when you see such beautiful young people there who have no quality of life anymore.

Sorry if this does offend anyone!

(Apologies for my bad english etc).

Clive Long
12th-January-2006, 08:26 PM
I am against drugs.

Although this was not the case when i first moved to London. I shared a house with 2 rock bands who often had mad weekend parties.

<< snip some "tough" stuff >>

These is the kind of effects and results that worries me about recreational drug taking.

The destructive effects that such drug-taking can have on lives seems a stupid, senseless waste. I guess people take them to get a buzz, be "in" with the crowd or to escape some pain. Maybe we need to work at understanding better why people feel the need to take "hard" drugs and tackle those issues. I sense that people with high self-esteem are less likely to be regular hard drug users.

I find it difficult to think there is anything positive (in terms of overall quality of life) from taking speed, acid, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin etc.

My attitude to drugs I think are conventional and totally shaped by the messages I get from the "media". Because I am dead square I have never been offered even cannabis.

I cannot understand how making various forms of "street drug" legal (in whatever restricted way) will improve the life-experience of the habitual drug taker. However, how do you stop the vast profits that motivate evil people to deal in illegal drugs?

I believe people can derive benefit (say pain relief) from smoking cannabis - and I feel cannabis is no worse in its side-effects than moderate or excessive use of tobacco or alcohol.

Sorry if this post seems down-beat.

Clive

EDIT: I have great admiration for those people who try to combat the negative effects of drug-taking. As I admire people who care for down-and-outs and battered children and terminallly ill people and .... I wish I had your qualities that you give so much of yourself. I give money - sometimes.

Missy D
12th-January-2006, 08:47 PM
These is the kind of effects and results that worries me about recreational drug taking.

The destructive effects that such drug-taking can have on lives seems a stupid, senseless waste. I guess people take them to get a buzz, be "in" with the crowd or to escape some pain. Maybe we need to work at understanding better why people feel the need to take "hard" drugs and tackle those issues. I sense that people with high self-esteem are less likely to be regular hard drug users.

I find it difficult to think there is anything positive (in terms of overall quality of life) from taking speed, acid, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin etc.

My attitude to drugs I think are conventional and totally shaped by the messages I get from the "media". Because I am dead square I have never been offered even cannabis.

I cannot understand how making various forms of "street drug" legal (in whatever restricted way) will improve the life-experience of the habitual drug taker. However, how do you stop the vast profits that motivate evil people to deal in illegal drugs?

I believe people can derive benefit (say pain relief) from smoking cannabis - and I feel cannabis is no worse in its side-effects than moderate or excessive use of tobacco or alcohol.

Sorry if this post seems down-beat.

Clive




:yeah:

I agree with everything you have said Clive.

I was young and stupid when i moved to London and wanted to fit in with these bands. I was unaware of what the drugs did and it scares me to think what could have happened. My daughter visits the Neuro Rehab with me and although i cant keep her locked in, I hope she has the sense to say NO to drugs.

The 2 bands i used to live with are still going although with a different line up. One comitted suicide, one is living on heroine on the streets and the other is in rehab all the time.

I do meet up with many youngsters who confide in me about drink, drugs etc. its so sad that just like me they just want to fit in with the 'in' crowd.

Cruella
12th-January-2006, 10:03 PM
I am against drugs.
......informative post..
.
Thank you for this post Missy D. I am going to show it to my 13 year old. As a parent of 2 boys one of my biggest fears is the drug scene and them getting involved in it.:sad: They are both very sensible and thoughtful but i know from my childhood how easy it is to get sucked in to the 'wrong' crowd. I was also a very sensible child, but i remember trying cannabis and speed because my mates were doing it. Luckily i only tried cannabis a few times and speed once. I can't really remember either doing much for me and wondered what all the fuss was about. I then got a new boyfriend and started hanging around with a different crowd. Drugs were readily available then and i would imagine that 20 years on they are even easier to access. I think information is key, so this post is a great explanation of how the drugs made you act and feel. Thank You.:flower: :hug:

tomboh
13th-January-2006, 02:05 AM
This thread interests me: when I started dancing I got the impression that it attracted a comparatively "straight" crowd. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but with one exception all social groups I'm part of have huge amounts of tolerance of many different lifestyles, even if they choose not to practice those lifestyles themselves. So, for me, it's unusual to encounter less broad minded groups of people. Note, I don't mean "narrow minded" - it's hard to describe more precisely.


I am against drugs.

Although this was not the case when i first moved to London. I shared a house with 2 rock bands who often had mad weekend parties. They introduced me and my housemate to cannibus

...

Next went on to speed

...

The last thing we got into was 'acid'

That's a very scary story, and I hope my response doesn't demean you in any way. But that's just your experience.

As a child I decided I had no interest in drugs. I'd seen Grange Hill and took in the "drugs are bad, mmkay" message without understanding the differences between different drugs.

Since then, I've tried various things with small groups of very close friends who I trust. I've had some wonderful times with splendid people.

Of course, I recognise the problems that many people experience with drugs. But I wonder whether drugs cause problems rather than exacerbate them. I've had a few weird experiences myself, but nothing too bad. Lovely people always make up for them.

I don't use drugs often and I don't actually have a strong opinion on this discussion. I just wanted to present another side to this story.

I can't imagine mixing illegal drugs, alcohol or tobacco with dancing, which I prefer to do completely sober. But all these things have their place for many people who enjoy using them and hold down stable jobs and social lives.

As with everything in life, look and think before you leap. Talk to people about their experiences. Use the Internet or a library. And only do things when you really want to.

jiveknight
13th-January-2006, 11:55 AM
I get the impression however that on the topic of drug (ab)use, your mind is already very much made up. Nothing wrong with that of course - there are topics on which I can't be or don't want to be persuaded differently to the way I feel at the moment. But I wouldn't dream of discussing them on a public forum. I think it would be disingenuous to say that I want to hear what other people think when - having a mind set in stone on that issue - I patently don't.



I see what you mean.
True, my mind is obviously made up about drug abuse, particularly harder drugs, but

A, I really am interested in other people's views,

B, I don't mind a debate, and

C, I don't claim to be an expert in the subject and like to learn more. I know less myself about the medical side for instance and find Tessalicious's information interesting (although I am not really going for a cannabis v tobacco thing).

My own main area is doing what I can to help show people the potential harm to them, their kids and the society around them as harder drugs become more acceptable and used and this is based on first hand experience and observation - but not being a scientist, I have some knowledge of the actual chemical structure, but not a personal life of study and analysis. So its very interesting to hear more.

Basically If I saw some people shoot their head off with a gun, I wouldn't discuss the type or size of bullet necessary to harm - but if I saw another kid put a gun to his head again I would attempt to stop him. Very bad analogy, but I'm in a hurry, sorry...

cheers! :cheers:

ps. All, I am on tour so will have to pop to internet cafes etc, so my input may be more sparse for a couple of days. :)

stewart38
13th-January-2006, 12:09 PM
This is the only reason I would put cigarettes as higher on the evil stakes than alcohol. Both are equally as damaging to your body, but with alcohol you don't inflict that on others, unless you do something stupid under the influence, like get in a car and drive. Also, alcohol, I don't believe, is as addictive as cigarettes, although it is addictive, not everybody who drinks is an addict, whereas everybody who smokes is, or will become so.

This is the reason that, other than stuff sold in Boots, and supplied by a doctor, alcohol is the only drug that I am not against.

I wonder how many 1000s over the weekend will be in A&E due to being under the influence of drink (being hit or drinking too much) . How many under the influence of smoking :whistle:

I think drink is probably less addictive then cocaine but not by much

I love drug debates there always so black and white

here is what id do i legalise all drugs for a year, see what happens . Id tax it and provide proper places for help if people need it

After a year of chaos id re think or be in hiding :sad:

fletch
13th-January-2006, 01:44 PM
here is what id do i legalise all drugs for a year, see what happens . Id tax it and provide proper places for help if people need it



:yeah:

I seem to remember watching a documentary about drugs, before and just as they were made illegal the problem seem to easier to contain and manage before they were made illegal and crime crept in.

And while were at it lets legalise prostitution:what:

:flower:

Gadget
13th-January-2006, 02:44 PM
My own main area is doing what I can to help show people the potential harm to them,~ Approaching the problem from only the one position is not well balanced view point. Personally, I would be more interested in trying to solve the problems (or aleviate the pressure) that can lead to self abuse.

Pointing out what is happening, what can happen and what is likley to happen is well intentioned enough. But in steering someone off one path, are you then obliged to help them follow another path? After all, they followed it to this point; without knowing the footsteps that led here, is it not likley that they could follow an equally self-destructive route?

I also am unsure of where/how you can draw the line; yes, the goverment draw it for us, but should some legal drugs be illegal? Should some illegal ones be legal?
Beta-blockers, Viagra/Cialis, Caffine, Niccotene, MSG, Pain killers, Ralgex, Appetite supressers, etc. Are these any worse than cannabis? Over use and abuse of anything is bad. Anything that releaves pain, takes away some of the pressures of life or causes pleasure can become addictive. Any addiction can become destructive. {Including dancing and this forum :what:}
Education will point out what varous addictions will do to you, but dosn't that simply offer a cheeseboard of doom to watch for rather than just chedder and edam?

ducasi
13th-January-2006, 03:09 PM
I think drink is probably less addictive then cocaine but not by much :what:

You serious?

fletch
13th-January-2006, 03:13 PM
:what:

You serious?

And your point is?

Dreadful Scathe
13th-January-2006, 03:26 PM
And your point is?

I imagine ducasis point is disbelief that cocaine is not much more addictive than alcohol. I have trouble believing that too!

fletch
13th-January-2006, 03:41 PM
I imagine ducasis point is disbelief that cocaine is not much more addictive than alcohol. I have trouble believing that too!

Why? what is YOUR experience for it?

stewart38
13th-January-2006, 04:46 PM
I imagine ducasis point is disbelief that cocaine is not much more addictive than alcohol. I have trouble believing that too!


I think the addiction rate for alcohol is about 10% for cocaine its around 13%

If alcohol was 'discovered' now it would of course be banned. It hasnt so its not worth a debate. Please not i dont want booze band !

Im sure if people do google searches they will find other quotes re percentages

Many people take cocaine for decades and it has no impact on other areas of their lives

The problem with debates about drugs is most people no nothing about them apart from Big guy mugging someone to get a fix of crack. Think if it was legal he/she may be able to buy it in a shop

Dreadful Scathe
13th-January-2006, 05:15 PM
Why? what is YOUR experience for it?

I only know a few people who have ever taken cocaine but being heavily influenced by TV and Films it always appeared addictive :). As for alcohol - I dont think I know anyone who has never drank alcohol, even Muslims Ive met and I don't know any alcoholics. Then again I suppose you can be addicted without being an alcoholic.

I found this link (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol) that has quite a lot on addiction - well worth a read.

ducasi
13th-January-2006, 05:20 PM
I think the addiction rate for alcohol is about 10% for cocaine its around 13%
...
Im sure if people do google searches they will find other quotes re percentages
According to this page (http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/debate/myths/myths7.htm),

we discovered that the addiction rate for cocaine may be as high as 75%. Conversely, the addiction rate for alcohol is about 10%. I've no idea where they get their figures from, but I'd believe these figures more than yours.


Many people take cocaine for decades and it has no impact on other areas of their lives Indeed, but that doesn't mean they're not addicted.

stewart38
13th-January-2006, 05:40 PM
Some other views

--------------------------------

I'm a 30 year old professional who uses coke from time to time. I like to party every now and then, for special occasions. Sometimes it's very infrequent, with several months in between, other times you might have a more hectic month. The media are hypocrites. Cocaine use by the press, and by people in TV in general is rife. However, I'm glad it's illegal because it would get out of hand - like drink is for wider society today. But generally speaking, the addictiveness and social corruption that is portrayed as going hand-in-hand with cocaine is one of those urban myths. Most users do it very casually, in modest amounts every now and then and it is not a problem.
Andy, London, UK

Although I do not condone drug use of any kind, cocaine is so over rated . I have seen more deaths, violence and anti social behaviour from effects of alcohol. But this is a nice taxable drug so nothing is ever done about it. I would like to see figures comparing deaths from drug related abuse compared with deaths from alcohol related abuse, I think the figures speak for themselves. Let's face it, at around 60 a gram who can afford cocaine, apart from the rich and socialites. You can get 24 cans of Carling for 10..
TC, UK

I occasionally take cocaine, and so do most of my friends. I know several people who have had problems with drink, but no one who has become addicted with cocaine, mainly because its to expensive to take regularly.
Neil, Birmingham
----------------------------

stewart38
13th-January-2006, 05:44 PM
50% have said im against street drugs and cant do anything about it


I say legalise and see what happens :yeah:

with a one way ticket if it doesnt work out

stewart38
13th-January-2006, 05:47 PM
From a good source

Tobacco

It is estimated that each year in the U.K. over 120,000 people die from tobacco-related diseases, particularly from cancer, respiratory diseases and heart disease. [1]

Alcohol

Estimates of annual alcohol-related deaths in England and Wales vary from 2,355,000 to 4,750,000. This includes deaths from cirrhosis of the liver and other health problems from long-term drinking, deliberate and accidental overdose, traffic deaths, fatal accidents while drunk etc. [2]

Solvents

A national register of solvent-related deaths recorded 63 deaths associated with volatile substance abuse in 2001. This number is similar to previous years, and deaths have remained stable at 75 per year since a peak of 152 in 1990.[3]

Ecstasy

Deaths associated with different illegal drugs are also difficult to judge accurately. One exception is ecstasy with over 200 ecstasy-related deaths being reported from 1987 to the present day. [4]

AIDS

Deaths from AIDS among injecting drug users who have contracted HIV by sharing injecting equipment are also difficult to judge exactly. However, by March 1999 in the UK almost 3,500 drug injectors had tested positive for HIV and over 1,000 had been diagnosed with full-blown AIDS.

Other Drugs

In relation to the whole range of problems which can happen to those who use drugs, death is by far the least likely outcome, but one which, not surprisingly, attracts most attention and causes most concern. Like all data about illegal drug use, information about deaths comes from a variety of sources that combine to present a patchy and incomplete picture. Hence this is a highly simplifed overview of what we know about deaths from drug use and how these compare to deaths caused by alcohol and tobacco.

Sources of data

Data is held by The Office of National Statistics (ONS) and the General Register Offices (GRO) for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Data is also collected by the national programme on Substance Abuse Deaths (np-SAD), based within the Department of Addictive Behaviour and Psychological Medicine at St George's Hospital Medical School (SGHMS), London. It was set up initially to track and monitor the deaths of drug addicts who had been notified to the Home Office. St George's Hospital Medical School also collate the annual survey of solvent deaths. Individual researchers and/or agencies may also collect data on an ad hoc basis, eg, DrugScope has been informally tracking ecstasy deaths since 1989.

ONS figures for drug related deaths in England and Wales for 1993 was about 860 deaths rising to just over 1,620 in 2001. (In recent years an additional 140-175 drug-related deaths have been reported each year in Scotland). These figures include accidental and deliberate overdose with medicines (excluding paracetamol which is related to roughly 1000 deaths a year. Most of which suicide). However, the most recent statistics show that deaths involving drugs of misuse have dropped to 1565 in 2002 although the number of deaths involving specific drugs like cocaine and amphetamines (including ecstasy) have risen over the last 10 years.

With many of these deaths people had also been using other drugs and indeed may not have died if they had not been taking more than one drug. [4]


spot the error :wink:

TheTramp
13th-January-2006, 06:06 PM
The actual number of deaths by each of the above methods is unimportant.

What's important is the number of deaths per number of people who are involved with each method of dying....

120,000 out of 20,000,000 (number picked out of thin air) means that one in 166 people die.

If 100 people die from using illegal drugs, but there are only 10,000 people using them (I know, it's a low figure), then that's 1 in 100. Which is almost twice as bad. Even though only 100 people have died.

I still think that the biggest cause of death is old age. Why aren't we pushing for less people to be doing this. If we could get rid of old age, lots less people would die... :whistle:

jiveknight
13th-January-2006, 06:12 PM
But in steering someone off one path, are you then obliged to help them follow another path? After all, they followed it to this point; without knowing the footsteps that led here, is it not likley that they could follow an equally self-destructive route?


Absolutely! Normally if they are taking drugs this is a symptom of a problem they are not confronting or think they are unable to handle so you would have to find out why they took them in the first place to help them change that path for themselves.

But, there are many things one can do to help though - including just making kids aware of what it can actually do so they can see for themselves that it is not cool and not a good idea and also making parents aware of what actually goes on. It often starts nowadays at school around the age of 12, this is not often realized and so could be noticed too late. One can also directly help on rehab, and all the gradients inbetween.

The first step of course in handling the problem is seeing there is one, and many people don't "see" the effects of it around them.

Clive Long
13th-January-2006, 07:01 PM
<< snip >>

That's a very scary story, and I hope my response doesn't demean you in any way. But that's just your experience.

As a child I decided I had no interest in drugs. I'd seen Grange Hill and took in the "drugs are bad, mmkay" message without understanding the differences between different drugs.

<< the challenging bit >>

Since then, I've tried various things with small groups of very close friends who I trust. I've had some wonderful times with splendid people.

Of course, I recognise the problems that many people experience with drugs. But I wonder whether drugs cause problems rather than exacerbate them. I've had a few weird experiences myself, but nothing too bad. Lovely people always make up for them.

I don't use drugs often and I don't actually have a strong opinion on this discussion. I just wanted to present another side to this story.

<< snip >>

Hi,

How do you think you have avoided the destructive impact of "recreational" drug taking (quotes because I'm not sure of the right word for non-prescription / medical drug taking) that many of us seem to believe or have witnessed as the consequence of rec. drug taking? That is the challenge in this topic for me.

Maybe a valid defence for the free availability of "recreational" drugs is a bit like someone saying "I've smoked for 50 years and it's done me no harm. Hence, you have no right to stop me smoking". (OT: does anyone know the numbers comparing the tax revenues generated on tobacco or cigarette and alcohol sales against the estimated cost on the NHS of smoking-related or alcohol-related diseases or "family costs" (e.g. alcohol-fuelled violence)?)

Legislation (I believe) has to "draw a line" somewhere to be effective. Now, I believe, few things in life are black and white (a disdain for line-dancing is fine :devil: ) but if we accept or can show that "recreational" drugs are destructive to some that take them and not destructive to others, then it seems to me the only possible legislative position is to make dealing, possession and use of such substances illegal for all.

I'm not saying zero-tolerance to drugs is right, only that it is the only position a society can take, unless "society / legislation" accepts you can do whatever you like with your life. But I don't like that extreme position because it leaves people open to exploitation by some very nasty individuals before they are equipped to make a rational choice for themselves.

So I take the position we accept a few "low-harm recreational" drugs. However, am I a hypocrite or inconsistent in accepting sales of alcohol? Probably.


Clive

El Salsero Gringo
13th-January-2006, 08:33 PM
but if we accept or can show that "recreational" drugs are destructive to some that take them and not destructive to others, then it seems to me the only possible legislative position is to make dealing, possession and use of such substances illegal for all. Clive, that's just silly. Under that regime, you'd ban, alchohol, tobacco, air travel, contact sports, making the Hajj to Mecca and loud music. All of which can be dangerous. I don't really think you've expressed yourself very well! Want to try again?

Clive Long
13th-January-2006, 11:47 PM
Clive, that's just silly. Under that regime, you'd ban, alchohol, tobacco, air travel, contact sports, making the Hajj to Mecca and loud music. All of which can be dangerous. I don't really think you've expressed yourself very well! Want to try again?
I have expressed myself well (or as well as I can).

I made the point I am inconsistent in my attitude to alcohol so you haven't written anything original.

You haven't addressed my central concern about how you effectively legislate in such murky areas. You have just taken the opportunity to go off on one of your show-offy "parades".

It's a Cambridge thing isn't it? I've seen it in others from your alma mater.

Twit.

El Salsero Gringo
14th-January-2006, 12:13 AM
It's a Cambridge thing isn't it? I've seen it in others from your alma mater.

Twit.Clive, I didn't have you down for stereotyping (Is that one considered acceptable? there are so many that aren't) or for insults. Never mind. I still don't see why just because something is harmful for some it must necessarily be banned for everyone. The bit you refuse to tell us about - and you should, because otherwise you're just jogging around the real question - is how to discriminate which (if any) harmful-for-some-but-not-for-all substances should be banned. Current legislation seems to be based on historical precedent (anything used before 1800 is fine) and Daily Mail hysteria. It's still a nonsense to say that "the only position to take is to ban them all."

David Bailey
14th-January-2006, 03:26 PM
I've been watching the debate on this thread for a while now, and it's very interesting. I started off from a liberal / consistency "decriminalize everything and the problem will go away" point of view.

Then I read Missy D's scary post, and now I just don't know - I've had zero contact with any drugs or drug culture, so I'm not sure how much my opinion is worth.

Like it or not, "street drugs" are criminalised, and soft drug-taking clearly can sometimes lead to hard drug-taking, if only because both may be supplied by the same person.

Yes, nicotine and alcohol are probably the most destructive (in terms of damage to people and property) drugs around, much more so than any other drug. But arguably, these are both becoming less socially-acceptable (and in the case of nicotine, more tightly-controlled) over recent years. It's not inconceivable that nicotine could be effectively banned from public use in the near future, for example.

And yes, both marijuana and ecstasy are (I believe) less dangerous than either the booze or fags - and both marijuana and ecstasy are in common use, and you don't see headlines about 100,000 deaths per year from E-related diseases.

I admit I like the idea of taxing and regulating some street drugs in the same way as we do for nicotine - but I've no idea if it'd work, so it'd take a very brave politician to see it through...

But we're not talking about "fairness" or "consistency", but effectiveness. I really don't know what an effective anti-drugs policy could be, but I'd be interested in seeing some constructive ideas.

Ballroom queen
14th-January-2006, 07:36 PM
what do you mean by "drugs without a licence"? (option 4 in poll)

I regularly supply drugs without a licence and drugs for use outside their licence.

(and I'm not breaking the law either)

Baruch
15th-January-2006, 01:56 AM
Yes, nicotine and alcohol are probably the most destructive (in terms of damage to people and property) drugs around, much more so than any other drug. But arguably, these are both becoming less socially-acceptable (and in the case of nicotine, more tightly-controlled) over recent years. It's not inconceivable that nicotine could be effectively banned from public use in the near future, for example.
Nicotine is certainly becoming less socially acceptable, but I see no evidence of the same being true of alcohol. There is a deeply-ingrained binge-drinking culture in the UK, and I don't see any signs of that lessening.

Maybe the solution is to follow Denmark and increase the price of alcoholic drinks significantly so people can't afford to drink to excess.

jiveknight
15th-January-2006, 11:13 AM
what do you mean by "drugs without a licence"? (option 4 in poll)

I regularly supply drugs without a licence and drugs for use outside their licence.

(and I'm not breaking the law either)

Hi,

That's "without licence" not "without a licence".

What do you do for a living or in supplying then?

Cheers! Ian

Dreadful Scathe
15th-January-2006, 11:29 AM
Nicotine is certainly becoming less socially acceptable


Remember though - smoking is banned in ALL enclosed public places from the 26th March.


About time too :)


Maybe Andy McGregor will come up here to dance more ;)

David Bailey
15th-January-2006, 01:32 PM
Nicotine is certainly becoming less socially acceptable, but I see no evidence of the same being true of alcohol. There is a deeply-ingrained binge-drinking culture in the UK, and I don't see any signs of that lessening.
I dunno - OK, you see lots of coverage in the news about drunken women, yob culture, streets full of vomit, extended hours leading to the collapse of civilisation as we know it, and so on.

But the very fact that you do see this can be regarded two ways:
- Alcohol consumption is on the rise, and we're drowning in a sea of booze
- Alcohol consumption is now seen as much less socially-acceptable, and so excesses make better copy for news coverage than, say, 20 years ago.

I think it's a mixture of both, personally. Alcohol consumption is probably on the rise at the moment - at least, deaths from it seem to be (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091). And yes, drinking is more socially-acceptable than smoking at the moment I think.

Baruch
15th-January-2006, 01:52 PM
- Alcohol consumption is now seen as much less socially-acceptable, and so excesses make better copy for news coverage than, say, 20 years ago.
I don't agree with this one. I certainly don't see any signs around here of it being less socially acceptable. People in all walks of life seem to think of going out for a drink as "getting hammered" and think nothing of doing so. I find myself pretty much in the minority, as I like the occasional drink but in moderation.

Ballroom queen
15th-January-2006, 09:51 PM
Hi,

That's "without licence" not "without a licence".

What do you do for a living or in supplying then?

Cheers! Ian

oops, thanks.:flower:


Work it out !!!:rofl:

jiveknight
16th-January-2006, 04:32 PM
Some other views

--------------------------------

I'm a 30 year old professional who uses coke from time to time. I like to party every now and then, for special occasions. Sometimes it's very infrequent, with several months in between, other times you might have a more hectic month.

----------------------------

I understand these people's views but my question would be if it was someone you really cared for; your brother or sister or wife, would you accept that justification or be a tad interested in finding out a bit more about it?


Once we were performing for a ball at a famous, very posh school. When we went into the room they had given us to change there were a few young girls in ball gowns cutting coke on a mirror. We scared them away as we entered. I went to where the teachers and parents were having a dinner upstairs and told one who appeared to be responsible. He just looked at me and one of the parents said "well, it is the end of term".

Jazz_Shoes (Ash)
16th-January-2006, 11:04 PM
Interesting thread. I used to think that all people who took drugs were BAD people, all junkies wasting their lives, I guess the media taught me that, and all the anti-drugs talks in school. But then one of my best friends started smoking hash, i'm still not pleased about this, especially as she's younger than me! Then I made new friends, and was a still little shocked to hear some of them liked a bit of hash now and then, but because I knew them first as my friends it didn't seem so bad, I couldn't hold that against them so I just accepted it, and now don't think of it to be too big a deal. However, one of them did 'come off it' she looked awful at the time, vomiting every morning, but she looks 100 times better now, those dark circles have gone from her eyes :nice: So, I guess it's become more accepting to me, but maybe that's a bad thing?

Dreadful Scathe
17th-January-2006, 11:49 AM
Back to the evil drug tube of choice for many - cigarettes. Are there many people who are against the total ban in Scotland from the 26th of March? Its not going to come into England and Wales for a bit yet anyway and that doesnt look like it will be a total ban. Its a bold move but important for the nations health i think.

Some of the arguments against it are interesting. From the bbc web pages (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A5533229)...Ive criticised most of a letter



Smokers, should have the same freedom of choice as non-smokers.

The right to breath in fumes caused by someone else? I suppose anyone can still breath in exhaust fumes easy enough, so that right hasnt been lost :)



My heart goes out to the old and infirm, whos only pleasure is their local pub, for a pint and a ciggie/cigar with friends. These poor souls will be forced onto the streets in all weathers, for their smoke, causing illness and perhaps death in some cases.

You can avoid death by cold weather by wearing a scarf, which would cost less than a packet of fags. Maybe people will find that they actually are there for the social occasion, like spending time with friends and actually smoke less because of the ban. Wouldnt that be good? Maybe these 'Poor Souls' can think for themselves and like the idea of a ban - who knows.



Young adults will face having their drinks “spiked” when they have to leave their drinks unattended to go outside for a smoke, which will lead to more cases of date rape and perhaps death.

More death caused by the ban, perhaps....but wait....Are all smokers stupid? The quote here says that drinks will be spiked "when they have to leave their drinks unattended" not if but when - I don't know anyone that daft? Sure, people may forget but



More home smoking and increased consumption of alcohol, where children will be exposed to more smoke and drunk adults will become inevitable when smokers are forced out of pubs and clubs and into the home to legally enjoy their smoke.

As if smokers dont subject their children to smoke already. Maybe some smokers do smoke only in public places but I'd be surprised if that was the case for most. This person clearly sees smoking and drinking as bad things - the children at home will suffer because of this you know. Seems to me that they've made a good argument in support of the ban, especially as they want to protect children are are surely aware children quite often venture into public places. The assumption that people ONLY go to pubs/clubs to smoke doesn;t seem very logical to me.

:)

Dreadful Scathe
17th-January-2006, 12:50 PM
weird - editing gone awry...

I'll finish that sentence above.... Sure, people may forget but drinks shouldnt be left when you go to the bar, the toilet, the dance floor or anywhere else without a friend watching them. Surely ? :)

Tessalicious
17th-January-2006, 01:10 PM
...stuff about smokers in pubs...From my experiences in Eire last year, where the smoking ban has been in place for some time now, the general practice is for the 'smokers' corner' to congregate just outside the door, with their drinks, which serves several purposes (according to everyone I spoke to).

First, the smoke is not in the bar causing problems for non-smokers.

Second, the smokers continue to drink because they are allowed to take their drinks outside, because they aren't going far, so the landlords are still happy.

Third, individual smokers from different social groups within the pub end up meeting and chatting, which makes for an added layer of sociability that can then be transferred back inside the pub later.

Fourth, new patrons can see that the group of smokers outside means that the pub really is sticking to the no-smoking laws, and even though they have to walk through the gauntlet of smoke to get inside, they can be confident that the atmosphere in the pub will be much nicer.

I personally can't wait until they bring in the smoking ban in England - although I see the points made in the letter DS quoted, I have never been a pub-goer simply because I can't bear that feeling of not being able to breathe. It might even reduce the effect of the 24-hour licencing on binge-drinking, which has to be a good thing.

jiveknight
17th-January-2006, 01:32 PM
oops, thanks.:flower:


Work it out !!!:rofl:

Don't tell me...you work for a Columbian drug barron called El Capo de Coca, but he's seems a nice chap...:D

WittyBird
17th-January-2006, 01:37 PM
Don't tell me...you work for a Columbian drug barron called El Capo de Coca, but he's seems a nice chap...:D

well in that case can you sort me out with some - I am still in bed and could do with getting up and finding some motivation and inspiration

jiveknight
17th-January-2006, 01:48 PM
However, one of them did 'come off it' she looked awful at the time, vomiting every morning, but she looks 100 times better now, those dark circles have gone from her eyes :nice: So, I guess it's become more accepting to me, but maybe that's a bad thing?

IMO its the gradual accepting of it that will continue it and help it spread into all walks of life. The people who take them are not bad, to the contrary, they need help in stopping.

IMO its not something one can remain undecided or on the fence about forever. If you don't decide you have tacit agreement. If you can't decide whether to cross a street you have by forfeit decided not to as you will remain on the same side. Glad your friend stopped. :clap:

El Salsero Gringo
17th-January-2006, 01:57 PM
I understand these people's views but my question would be if it was someone you really cared for; your brother or sister or wife, would you accept that justification or be a tad interested in finding out a bit more about it?The limited experience I have of people with drug problems (yes, I do have some) - as well as addiction and other problems generally - is that people can't be helped unless and until they want to be helped.

One of the hardest things to do for someone you love is to stand by them while they make a complete hash of things when you know - just know - that if they would only do what you told them, take your advice, follow your example, realise how right you were and wrong they'd been, everything would be better. Up until the point where *they* come to realise that they need help and are prepared to ask you for it I'm not sure that there's very much you can actually do.

I believe that that is why organisations such as AA place importance on standing up in a meeting and announcing that one is an alcoholic. It signifies that you accept that you have a problem. But people need to come to that stage on their own, regardless of how much further they have to fall to get there.

stewart38
17th-January-2006, 01:58 PM
Hi,



Maybe a valid defence for the free availability of "recreational" drugs is a bit like someone saying "I've smoked for 50 years and it's done me no harm. Hence, you have no right to stop me smoking". (OT: does anyone know the numbers comparing the tax revenues generated on tobacco or cigarette and alcohol sales against the estimated cost on the NHS of smoking-related or alcohol-related diseases or "family costs" (e.g. alcohol-fuelled violence)?)


I'm not saying zero-tolerance to drugs is right, only that it is the only position a society can take, unless "society / legislation" accepts you can do whatever you like with your life. But I don't like that extreme position because it leaves people open to exploitation by some very nasty individuals before they are equipped to make a rational choice for themselves.

So I take the position we accept a few "low-harm recreational" drugs. However, am I a hypocrite or inconsistent in accepting sales of alcohol? Probably.


Clive


If you make the ASSUMPTION 70% of crime is to feed a drug habit (I dont know the figure im sure someone will find it.

If you make them non legal they become cheeper crime falls

You tax them say on the same level as smoking and provide proper support

you 'give it a go' a 'social experement' and if it doesnt work you go back to where you were.

Thats simplistic and it would need to be well thought through

Has a thread about this before, not sure if Tony Blair read it :sad:

stewart38
17th-January-2006, 02:02 PM
I believe that that is why organisations such as AA place importance on standing up in a meeting and announcing that one is an alcoholic. It signifies that you accept that you have a problem. But people need to come to that stage on their own, regardless of how much further they have to fall to get there.


I think you have watched too much day time TV :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
17th-January-2006, 02:05 PM
TV :whistle:I don't have one

jiveknight
17th-January-2006, 04:58 PM
The limited experience I have of people with drug problems (yes, I do have some) - as well as addiction and other problems generally - is that people can't be helped unless and until they want to be helped.

One of the hardest things to do for someone you love is to stand by them while they make a complete hash of things when you know - just know - that if they would only do what you told them, take your advice, follow your example, realise how right you were and wrong they'd been, everything would be better. Up until the point where *they* come to realise that they need help and are prepared to ask you for it I'm not sure that there's very much you can actually do.



Absolutely. You're right. I have met so many people who have tried to help a loved one only to have it go wrong. Sometimes they feel they have failed to help and end up feeling it's not possible to help. It takes a lot to stand by them. Has this ever happened to you,I mean felt like you failed to help someone?

Barry Shnikov
17th-January-2006, 09:58 PM
Although the poll answer is "I am totally for drugs without licence" in fact I am for drugs with a licence, as in 'only available from licensed premises'.

My conclusive argument in favour of all drugs is as follows:

THE CURRENT SYSTEM ISN'T F*CKING WORKING and never will.

On the other hand, it is draining resources from the richer nations, crippling lives in third world countries and disrupting international trade to an unbelievable extent.

Barry Shnikov
17th-January-2006, 10:00 PM
people with drug problems (yes, I do have some)

?????

(Extra three question marks courtesy of the 'two characters is too short for a message' rule, which certainly doesn't encourage brevity...:what:

Barry Shnikov
17th-January-2006, 10:01 PM
I don't have one


...but you should see the size of his fridge

tomboh
18th-January-2006, 02:11 AM
The people who take them are not bad, to the contrary, they need help in stopping.

All of us? Without exception? I've met older people who smoke a cigar every Christmas, and from a social or psychological perspective I don't see how this differs from infrequent drug use.

I don't know what causes some people to suffer addiction while others don't, I just know it happens.

I still feel uncomfortable using the word "drug" to describe lots of different things, but we've ended up with that terminology so I'll go along with it for the sake of discussion.

stewart38
18th-January-2006, 11:19 AM
Although the poll answer is "I am totally for drugs without licence" in fact I am for drugs with a licence, as in 'only available from licensed premises'.

My conclusive argument in favour of all drugs is as follows:

THE CURRENT SYSTEM ISN'T F*CKING WORKING and never will.

On the other hand, it is draining resources from the richer nations, crippling lives in third world countries and disrupting international trade to an unbelievable extent.

:yeah:

jiveknight
18th-January-2006, 12:21 PM
I've met older people who smoke a cigar every Christmas, and from a social or psychological perspective I don't see how this differs from infrequent drug use.

I still feel uncomfortable using the word "drug" to describe lots of different things, but we've ended up with that terminology so I'll go along with it for the sake of discussion.

Personally I wouldn't consider a cigar to be a "street Drug" which is basically what we were talking about. Although I see what you mean. :)

Generally I am refering to the *abuse* of drugs whereby they are *pushed* on people, (especially the young but not only), by overt or covert means, to get them hooked so that the dealer etc makes money. :mad:

This, in general, ruins lives. Not only the person who gets hooked but also his family and friends his business etc (I have meant previously very successful business people who started taking "recreational" coke and it ruined their business and family - its not just "down and outs").

This can spread through their friends, and as it becomes more accepted also affects the general society in many different ways. The obvious ones are the increase in crime, general anti social behavior and an increasing atmosphere of a dangerous environment in many areas which can lead to more heavy police presence etc which in turn leads to a more strained atmosphere and so on.

Some people have more will power and maybe try a little bit and not get hooked, occasionally, (and probably there wasn't a pusher connected to them directly who aimed to hook them) so they got away with it. Like myself to some degree.

But it is the greater percentage, with the pusher and his minions at their heels, who get hooked and these need help -
but even better than that is an awareness of drugs, what they can do in reality so that the person is more able to make a decision better to his survival.
As is often the case, IMO it is up to the "strong willed" to help these guys in some way.



Drugs are essentially poisons. The degree they are taken determines the effect. A small amount acts as a stimulant. A greater amount acts as a sedative. A larger amount acts as a poison and can kill one dead. This is true of any drug. Each has a different amount at which it gives these results.

The ancient Greek and Roman definitions, "pharmakon" and "venenum" both mean both medication *and* poison.

Nowadays, rather than poison we normally talk about "side effects". In the case of medical use of prescribed drugs, side effects are produced, but often the beneficial effects of these medications, when used as directed, outweigh any negative side effects that they cause.

With drug abuse, people don't start or continue with drug use desiring to destroy their bodies, their ability to function and everything else in life they care about. But these commonly accompany abuse of drugs when addicted.

It is this I hope to help improve where I can. :nice:

I go on a bit, eh? :cheers:

jiveknight
18th-January-2006, 12:25 PM
THE CURRENT SYSTEM ISN'T F*CKING WORKING and never will.

On the other hand, it is draining resources from the richer nations, crippling lives in third world countries and disrupting international trade to an unbelievable extent.

YOU'RE F*@KING RIGHT!

What do you think would work?

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 02:40 PM
YOU'RE F*@KING RIGHT!

What do you think would work?

On ordinary civil rights principles, people should be able to do whatever drugs they like. Any decision to interfere with that right has to be justified. The justification for the current status quo appears to be: we must intervene in the ordinary workings of the recreational drug market in order to a) prevent crime b) to prevent addiction c) prevent health consequences and so forth.
My argument is that licensing drugs in the same way alcohol and to a lesser extent tobacco would a) not (in the long term) increase drug usage above the current levels; b) produce income (in the form of excise); c) reduce incidental crime producing safer towns and cities; d) reduce the drain on the exchequer in the form of interdiction and prosecution; e) produce incidental health and social benefits as drug users come out of the criminal environment.

There's only one downside which is that for a while the UK would become a bit of a mecca for 'heads'.

LMC
18th-January-2006, 04:40 PM
On ordinary civil rights principles, people should be able to do whatever drugs they like.

As long as they inject them rather than smoking them, fine. Otherwise they are impinging on MY civil right not to inhale a mind-altering substance. It's bad enough being inflicted with other people's nicotine, let alone heroin or crack cocaine.

The reasoning for illegality of most street drugs seems to be related to the risk of addiction and the physical and psychological effects - someone driving while stoned on cannabis would be just as bad as someone driving while drunk - and less easy to test "on the spot"? And why would ketamine be made illegal (as it recently has been) unless there were serious adverse social and health effects for users? At least its illegality might discourage some "recreational" users or those just curious.

I agree that the current situation is not working. But I don't believe that licensing is the answer either - what incentive would users have to rehabilitate?

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 08:29 PM
I agree that the current situation is not working. But I don't believe that licensing is the answer either - what incentive would users have to rehabilitate?

Your point about smokin applies equally to cigarettes, so it shouldn't be an issue soon as the HofC votes on the subject.

1. Who cares whether users rehabilitate? We're all entitled to go to hell in our own fashion.

2. Who the hell is rehabilitating now? Only the unbelievably wealthy (and I can't be the only one who thinks the 'rehab' of such as Kate Moss is just getting away from the cameras for a sufficiently plausible amount of time to allow them to re-emerge with a contrite expression and a dooby hidden behind their back).

The question is this: apart from the drain on the health service, about which there are other arguments, what business is it of the state if X chooses to sniff cocaine and/or inject heroin?

El Salsero Gringo
18th-January-2006, 09:07 PM
Your point about smokin applies equally to cigarettes, so it shouldn't be an issue soon as the HofC votes on the subject.

1. Who cares whether users rehabilitate? We're all entitled to go to hell in our own fashion.

{...}

The question is this: apart from the drain on the health service, about which there are other arguments, what business is it of the state if X chooses to sniff cocaine and/or inject heroin?That's a political rather than moral question. Libertarians and "small statists" fall on one side of the divide and social liberals, socialists and communists are on the other. Given that we have a welfare system, (and even, you could argue, a free education system) the state already indicates that it has some care for the well-being of its citizens. You can put forward a cogent argument that the citizens have a respective duty to look after themselves for the benefit of the state.

That's not my own point of view - but it's not clear cut in either direction.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 09:14 PM
That's a political rather than moral question. Libertarians and "small statists" fall on one side of the divide and social liberals, socialists and communists are on the other. Given that we have a welfare system, (and even, you could argue, a free education system) the state already indicates that it has some care for the well-being of its citizens. You can put forward a cogent argument that the citizens have a respective duty to look after themselves for the benefit of the state.
The ancient crime of 'mayhem' was instituted to ensure that persons were not maimed to an extent that made them unfit to serve as a soldier. The infamous case of R v Brown led to the House of Lords declaring that one cannot 'consent' to GBH (gay sado-masochists had argued that the crime of injuring a person cannot be committed where the person has freely consented to the injury being committed). So certainly the law (currently) says that you have in some ways no right to allow yourself to be injured.
I take your point about the state caring for its citizens. So I will rephrase myself.

What allows the state to determine that, in caring for its citizens, it can substitute its own judgment concerning welfare for that of the citizen, and thus prevent them from using recreational drugs?

El Salsero Gringo
18th-January-2006, 09:16 PM
What allows the state to determine that, in caring for its citizens, it can substitute its own judgment concerning welfare for that of the citizen, and thus prevent them from using recreational drugs?Remember that in a parliamentary democracy, the state has no judgement other than the judgement of the electorate.

jiveknight
19th-January-2006, 01:52 PM
1. Who cares whether users rehabilitate? We're all entitled to go to hell in our own fashion.

2. Who the hell is rehabilitating now? Only the unbelievably wealthy (and I can't be the only one who thinks the 'rehab' of such as Kate Moss is just getting away from the cameras for a sufficiently plausible amount of time to allow them to re-emerge with a contrite expression and a dooby hidden behind their back).

The question is this: apart from the drain on the health service, about which there are other arguments, what business is it of the state if X chooses to sniff cocaine and/or inject heroin?

1. This depends whether you care what happens to your fellow man or not.
True it is their responsibility that they get addicted but when they are being covertly pushed into hell they don't necessarily understand what they are getting into. Also it will eventually effect you, even if you're not bothered what happens to those around you. You are not just responsible for yourself and your own actions but also your environment, your family and on out into the society.

2. Many, many people are getting rehab'd. And without just the replacement of drug from street drug to methodone - which is not the solution as it is more difficult to get off, it just changes the supplier.

Your probably right about the fact that if licenced in the UK it would attract all the "heads" just like Amsterdam. I don't think local legalizing would help because of this and because the top dealers would just take advantage of this. Maybe, if right in the begining, they were never made illegal anywhere on earth, there would have been no money in pushing it and criminals wouldn't have bothered with it and thus unpushed hardly anyone would even know about them. But right now it is illegal and the money is huge so it is *pushed*. But whether illegal or not - kids get it pushed on them, it ruins them, they need help - someone has to help them rehab and someone has to try to educate them *before* the pusher gets to them.

I have done events in schools to 12 year olds and seen the young guy who is the connection to the pusher. I have seen a beautiful Swiss town on a lake which had no drugs to speak of when I first went there 15 years ago. I returned and now a lot of druggie kids hang about and drugs like ecstasy are "usual" and all the additional stuff like graffitee, more crime, apathy etc.
That's just in a few years, the next generation there who knows. But I care.

Barry Shnikov
19th-January-2006, 07:02 PM
1. This depends whether you care what happens to your fellow man or not.
I have done events in schools to 12 year olds and seen the young guy who is the connection to the pusher. I have seen a beautiful Swiss town on a lake which had no drugs to speak of when I first went there 15 years ago. I returned and now a lot of druggie kids hang about and drugs like ecstasy are "usual" and all the additional stuff like graffitee, more crime, apathy etc.
That's just in a few years, the next generation there who knows. But I care.

I take your point. What I mean is that I don't care whether my fellow man does drugs or not. I do care if he a) encounters problems as a result and if he b) causes problems as a result. But that is not the same thing.

My point is that the present system (drug interdiction and prohibition) is not working and, IMHO, in principle is not capable of working. If that is right then it is the cause of the misery you see and not helping to alleviate.

Licence drugs and the profit incentive - not immediately - will disappear. No-one will 'mule' drugs to England when the financial returns have been slaughtered by Roche, ICI, du Pont and so forth making branded recreational drugs. Coke might finally become the real thing. Likewise, who is going to get into a drug gang, with all the danger to life and limb involved, when their potential customers can just walk to the corner shop and select a packet of cocaine (carrying the label 'Cocaine ruins your septum!!!' no doubt) for a couple of quid. There will be no point 'pushing' drugs on youngsters because even if they're hooked they can buy the stuff at a discount from Booker McConnell.

It's a sort of latter day puritanism that prevents 'the industrialised nations' from doing this rather than any sober consideration of the benefits and disadvantages of the current approach.

El Salsero Gringo
19th-January-2006, 07:29 PM
Licence drugs and the profit incentive - not immediately - will disappear. No-one will 'mule' drugs to England when the financial returns have been slaughtered by Roche, ICI, du Pont and so forth making branded recreational drugsThat is true up to a point. But remember that there is still plenty of crime associated with smugling of tobacco and alchohol as things stand at the moment - and that will be the case as long as there are excise duties to be evaded.

Barry Shnikov
19th-January-2006, 11:47 PM
That is true up to a point. But remember that there is still plenty of crime associated with smugling of tobacco and alchohol as things stand at the moment - and that will be the case as long as there are excise duties to be evaded.
That's quite true. But it isn't an argument against licensing drugs for recreational use.

LMC
20th-January-2006, 11:14 AM
I can't remember the number of working days lost last year to alcohol - but it was a LOT - and that's only the known ones. Binge drinking is an accepted social problem, and drunk people are more likely to commit criminal or reckless acts because their judgement is impaired.

The social costs of illegal drugs are enormous. But they pale into insignificance when compared with the social costs of alcohol - and that's just the costs we know about. If cocaine and heroin were legalised, then use would become more socially acceptable - as is the "use" of alcohol. If the drugs were exorbitantly taxed in order to cover social costs (as with nicotine and alcohol) you'd get a black market spring up - the same as there is for fags and booze - and smuggling high values of cocaine and heroin is far less noticeable than a truckload of bottles and cigarette cartons. Addicts who could not hold down a job would still be committing crimes to get the money to pay for their habit.

If drinking wasn't so entrenched in UK culture and alcohol wasn't so easy to make at home that it would be pointless and impossible to control then making alcohol illegal would actually be a logical step.

Drugs being illegal is a deterrent. It's not 100% effective, but what deterrent ever is?

El Salsero Gringo
20th-January-2006, 11:21 AM
That's quite true. But it isn't an argument against licensing drugs for recreational use.It weakens the argument that says that by legalising street drugs, and taxing them (like tobacco) we could reduce drug-related crime to zero.

Barry Shnikov
20th-January-2006, 01:09 PM
It weakens the argument that says that by legalising street drugs, and taxing them (like tobacco) we could reduce drug-related crime to zero.
Did I say 'zero'? Anyway, I would argue that smuggling to beat excise is not what people now think of as 'drug related crime'. FAOD 'drug crime' would be possession of drugs, with or without intent to supply. 'Drug related crime' is crime perpetrated either a) as a result of the need to finance a habit and b) because criminalising drugs criminalises the users and reduces their inhibition against crime generally.

El Salsero Gringo
20th-January-2006, 01:17 PM
Did I say 'zero'? Anyway, I would argue that smuggling to beat excise is not what people now think of as 'drug related crime'. FAOD 'drug crime' would be possession of drugs, with or without intent to supply. 'Drug related crime' is crime perpetrated either a) as a result of the need to finance a habit and b) because criminalising drugs criminalises the users and reduces their inhibition against crime generally.I agree. I just wanted to point out that there would still be cocaine smuggling problems.

LordOfTheFiles
20th-January-2006, 01:18 PM
I agree. I just wanted to point out that there would still be cocaine smuggling problems.

There are always problems whenever I try to smuggle cocaine

Gadget
20th-January-2006, 01:40 PM
If drinking wasn't so entrenched in UK culture and alcohol wasn't so easy to make at home that it would be pointless and impossible to control then making alcohol illegal would actually be a logical step.
Prohibition?
Did it actually achieve anything?

WittyBird
20th-January-2006, 01:42 PM
There are always problems whenever I try to smuggle cocaine
Maybe you should make sure your nose is clean before walking through customs :D

Dreadful Scathe
20th-January-2006, 01:55 PM
Prohibition?
Did it actually achieve anything?

Yup plenty.

The establishment of organised crime in many states in America :) Al Capone - a very famous bootlegger.

The death or maiming of many people who resorted to drinking alcohol distilled in lead radiators and dodgy substance concoctions.

The alcohol problem increased as stronger spirits were more profitable on the black market and were pushed more.

...and when prohibition finally ended organized crime adjusted by selling illegal drugs instead. They had a distribution network and profits to support after all.

So no negatives at all then ;)


I'll get the wiki reference in before David "Wiki" James :)

here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition)

What I find funny was Whisky was available as prescription only during prohibition in the US. Thus the "for medicinal purposes" statement I imagine ;)

LMC
20th-January-2006, 01:55 PM
Prohibition?
Did it actually achieve anything?
No, hence the conditional statement. Plus, although I rarely drink, I enjoy the occasional G&T, whisky or wine. I would love for binge drinking to become as socially unacceptable as smoking in a hospital.

My problem with legalisation is that although *some* people can "enjoy" drugs in the same way as most people enjoy a drink, the ratios (if not the actual numbers) of addicted users vs occasional users are far higher than for alcohol.

Dreadful Scathe
20th-January-2006, 02:00 PM
as socially unacceptable as smoking in a hospital.

and illegal from 26th March in Scotland :)

http://www.clearingtheairscotland.com/

Gadget
20th-January-2006, 02:06 PM
Yup plenty.~
All the things that the current 'black market' drugs are accused of. So by leagalising them, wouldn't abuse of them (tollerance of them, proffits from them...) be similar to the legalisation of alcohol?

Dreadful Scathe
20th-January-2006, 02:12 PM
All the things that the current 'black market' drugs are accused of. So by leagalising them, wouldn't abuse of them (tollerance of them, proffits from them...) be similar to the legalisation of alcohol?
Probably, but there are a lot of drugs and some are worse than others in the effect they can have on people. So yes, legalising drugs would solve at lot of problems but would create a new set instead.

David Bailey
20th-January-2006, 02:18 PM
All the things that the current 'black market' drugs are accused of. So by leagalising them, wouldn't abuse of them (tollerance of them, proffits from them...) be similar to the legalisation of alcohol?
Yep, that's exactly the argument.

Some obvious counter-arguments are:
- drugs aren't alcohol
- there's a massive cultural difference between banning something and keeping something tolerated
- just because one vice is legalised, doesn't make it right to legalise everything.

Personally, I think that there are two slow trends in the UK:
- decriminalise some illegal drugs (eg. cannabis, possibly ecstasy, etc.)
- strongly-regulate other legal drugs (e.g. nicotine).

So one could imagine these converging at some point - in, say, 20 years - where you can buy nicotine and "herbal" cigarettes, but only actually use them in your own home alone.

Or, in other words, the Government will get to both "tut-tut" in disapproval over such sinful behaviour, whilst simultaneously raking in oodles of cash in revenue.

jiveknight
20th-January-2006, 07:06 PM
I take your point. What I mean is that I don't care whether my fellow man does drugs or not. I do care if he a) encounters problems as a result and if he b) causes problems as a result. But that is not the same thing.

My point is that the present system (drug interdiction and prohibition) is not working and, IMHO, in principle is not capable of working. If that is right then it is the cause of the misery you see and not helping to alleviate.

Licence drugs and the profit incentive - not immediately - will disappear. No-one will 'mule' drugs to England when the financial returns have been slaughtered by Roche, ICI, du Pont and so forth making branded recreational drugs. Coke might finally become the real thing. Likewise, who is going to get into a drug gang, with all the danger to life and limb involved, when their potential customers can just walk to the corner shop and select a packet of cocaine (carrying the label 'Cocaine ruins your septum!!!' no doubt) for a couple of quid. There will be no point 'pushing' drugs on youngsters because even if they're hooked they can buy the stuff at a discount from Booker McConnell.

It's a sort of latter day puritanism that prevents 'the industrialised nations' from doing this rather than any sober consideration of the benefits and disadvantages of the current approach.

I get what you mean. (Sorry to have quote yourwhole thing, but in some odd twist of fate I am sitting in Mc Ds in Southampton after a say no drugs gig, using their internet thing and its bloody difficult to use - I see that's your location btw.)

I guess if there were no legal or excise financial attatchments to drugs anywhere and everywhere there would be no money in pushing at all, so to some degree theoretically it could work. But it would need huge international coordination - which if it were possible right now thet coordination couldbe used to hold down the drugs anyway This also assumes that no one in government anywhere is making millions from the drug industry..

Barry Shnikov
21st-January-2006, 12:58 AM
I guess if there were no legal or excise financial attatchments to drugs anywhere and everywhere there would be no money in pushing at all, so to some degree theoretically it could work. But it would need huge international coordination - which if it were possible right now thet coordination couldbe used to hold down the drugs anyway This also assumes that no one in government anywhere is making millions from the drug industry..
I admit it's a bit of a pipe dream. What frustrates me is that it is only puritan ideology that is preventing this from being properly discussed as a solution to the current problems. It's one of those things you just can't say, if you're a career minded politician. You might as well start using the word 'Yid' in TV interviews.
In any event one of two things will happen. Either this solution will start to be seriously discussed, or people will move away from drugs for social reasons unconnected with government attitudes toward drugs.
I should have said one of three things. The third is that the current situation will go on indefinitely.
PS are you appearing around Southampton round about now?

jiveknight
22nd-January-2006, 10:31 PM
I admit it's a bit of a pipe dream. What frustrates me is that it is only puritan ideology that is preventing this from being properly discussed as a solution to the current problems. It's one of those things you just can't say, if you're a career minded politician. You might as well start using the word 'Yid' in TV interviews.
In any event one of two things will happen. Either this solution will start to be seriously discussed, or people will move away from drugs for social reasons unconnected with government attitudes toward drugs.
I should have said one of three things. The third is that the current situation will go on indefinitely.
PS are you appearing around Southampton round about now?

It should be able to be discussed, I agree, and it has logic on its side.
In the countries that have tried it on their own though it has increased the problem - probably made worse because, as you pointed out, the users from neighbouring countries will take advantage of it. If they spent some time and money on actually finding out *why* people take them and making public aware of the *real* dangers it would be a start.

We are near Southampton next Wed, 25th, the Concorde club in Eastleigh - its a jazz club though, only a small dance floor. (We'll probably do a Say No to Drugs gig there too).

David Bailey
22nd-January-2006, 11:14 PM
It should be able to be discussed, I agree, and it has logic on its side.
In the countries that have tried it on their own though it has increased the problem
Really? I wasn't aware the evidence was that clear-cut, do you have a cite I could follow?


If they spent some time and money on actually finding out *why* people take them and making public aware of the *real* dangers it would be a start.
People take them to feel good, I assume, and as for publicizing the dangers, I think the UK government's been doing that for the past few decades at least.

Clearly, many people aren't inherently good at balancing risk/benefit equations rationally - look at how many people play the Lottery, for example - so deterrence isn't the complete answer, any more than stiff sentencing stops criminals. People think good things will happen to them (e.g. Lottery wins) but bad things won't (e.g. drug addiction).

Barry Shnikov
23rd-January-2006, 01:35 PM
In the countries that have tried it on their own though it has increased the problem - probably made worse because, as you pointed out, the users from neighbouring countries will take advantage of it.
Without being difficult, have you a reference for that? I'm not sure that it's true.

If they spent some time and money on actually finding out *why* people take them and making public aware of the *real* dangers it would be a start.Well, no disagreement there. But that would be needed whether the country adopted my suggested policy or not. Just because we licence recreational drugs doesn't mean we then wash our hands of addicts and leave them to their fate.

We are near Southampton next Wed, 25th, the Concorde club in Eastleigh - its a jazz club though, only a small dance floor. (We'll probably do a Say No to Drugs gig there too).
Doubt if I can make Wednesday but I'll keep my ear to the ground.

jiveknight
24th-January-2006, 08:01 PM
[QUOTE=Barry Shnikov]Without being difficult, have you a reference for that?
./QUOTE]

Mainly I was speaking from my own experience. For example, Amsterdam, Holland, through observation, talking to different people - public and people working with drug problems etc. I went there both as simply a musician and also doing the Say No to Drugs campaign. The place is full of "tourists" who go there because they can get grass and its all become freer (unfortunatley a lot of British). From the memory of a Vietnam vet in a hostel to the opinions of the local public and to a prison for drug offenders where we performed. But for stats I'd have to check it out.

But IMO its not so much whether its legal or not but what can be done about it now. People would probably still take something and there would be addicts.

Unfortunately the young are not really made aware of the dangers.

Barry Shnikov
24th-January-2006, 09:44 PM
But IMO its not so much whether its legal or not but what can be done about it now. People would probably still take something and there would be addicts.
Unfortunately the young are not really made aware of the dangers.
I applaud the efforts of those who are trying to do something about drugs. Just as there are volunteers who work with alcoholics now, I would envision (and hope) that volunteers would work with addicts after my proposed universal legalisation of recreational drugs. It's not 'either...or' to my mind.
I think a lot of young people know exactly how dangerous drugs are, but they know that it is a statistical risk and persuade themselves that 'it won't be me'. They are so anxious to rebel and thus prove their independence from their parents.
Perhaps we should invent some new 'rites of passage' to replace, e.g., going to a pub, buying fags, skipping school and so forth.

El Salsero Gringo
25th-January-2006, 07:04 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm)

Dreadful Scathe
26th-January-2006, 06:06 PM
50 years from now people will look back at the blanket smoking ban the same way. How did they ever allow such a horrible substance? tsk :)

jiveknight
26th-January-2006, 06:41 PM
Perhaps we should invent some new 'rites of passage' to replace, e.g., going to a pub, buying fags, skipping school and so forth.

That sounds like a good idea. But what? We can add learning to dance for a start.:)

Barry Shnikov
26th-January-2006, 10:00 PM
That sounds like a good idea. But what? We can add learning to dance for a start.:)

Ooo, no. We don't want dancing to be a rite of passage. Like circumcision for pygmies or being hung from hooks under your pectoral muscles, rites of passage are fearful and painful. But they have the distinct advantage that once you've been through it, you are an adult. Doesn't matter how old you are, or what other factors are involved. You are an adult.

We don't really have anything like that. Plenty of things that you can't (legally) do until you are 16, 17, or 18, but no ceremony marking the transition. (18th birthdays don't count, you have a birthday every year.)

Crazy Russian
27th-January-2006, 12:33 PM
What about:

"Choose life,

Choose a job,

Choose a career,

Choose a family,

...and so on...

Choose your future,

Choose life."?

"Drugs: yes or no?" I don't know. I would replied: "Yes and No". I want to try, taste and experience everything. I will certainly become a junkie... when I am 60 years old. But not now. Because if I taste for example heroin now it will destroy all my life. Mark Renton said that to forsake heroin was the greatest challenge one could throw down to one's life. I'm not going to dispute with him. You know, it is difficult to judge not being on the stuff.

Life can be so sh...ty sometimes. But there are so good things which can urge you to keep on living . It necessary to spend some time to find them. And, of course, right company is also very important. Irvine Welsh's "Trainspotting" answers all the questions... :) Read it again.

So "Choosing life" or "Drugs"? As to me... I chose neither. I chose something else. What? That's a secret! :) :) :)

jiveknight
30th-January-2006, 03:50 PM
As to me... I chose neither. I chose something else. What? That's a secret! :) :) :)

You crazy Russian :wink:

I've never read it, I guess I should, (although I have briefly met Ewan McGregor if that's any good :D ).

Is there modern jive where you are in Russia then?

cnacn6o (attempt at Russian with English keyboard)

Crazy Russian
1st-February-2006, 12:24 PM
Is there modern jive where you are in Russia then?

You know, I asked so many people... And no one knows what modern jive is. Me too... :) I don't even have such word as "jive" in my dictionary...:)