A sensible discussion about current drugs policy.

[Magilla]

The problem with people like you is that you've no sensible policies on any subject be it drug abuse, immigration or anything else, if you had your way anarchy would be the order of the day until of course the inevitable day arose that you needed the help of the straight living, responsible, law abiding people.

 

Nonsense, I've outlined my view, it's clearly workable because it works in other countries. The problem is that you are unable to grasp or understand what I've said.

 

I wonder what your attitude would have been if a child of yours had been in a pram on the pavement that George Michael mounted whilst high as a kite on the drugs that you wish available for everyday use.

 

The reality is that even if my child had been killed because of George Micheal's drugged driving, then the current laws would have made no difference, they would still be dead!

 

Maybe the combination of prescription drugs & cannabis are what made him pass out. Perhaps if cannabis were legal and it was recognised that people take it, some advice could have been offered regarding the mixing of drugs and averted the crash in the first place.

 

Maybe, maybe not, either way you can't account for idiots who insist on driving when intoxicated since they can already get whatever drugs they want freely.

[spindrift]

George Michael's been moved from Pentonville because that prison is awash with drugs.

 

In fact prison officers deliberately allow cannabis smoking in prison because it keeps the inmates calm, although it stays in the urine for 30 days so they can fail drugs tests.

[Bassman62]

George Michael's been moved from Pentonville because that prison is awash with drugs.

 

In fact prison officers deliberately allow cannabis smoking in prison because it keeps the inmates calm, although it stays in the urine for 30 days so they can fail drugs tests.

Pretty sweeping remarks "awash with drugs"

 

"In fact prison officers deliberately allow cannabis smoking in prison"

 

And you know it for a fact do you? please substantiate your claims.

 

I'll check with my Wifes nephew who happens to be a prison officer, although I rather suspect you'd rather believe the hearsay/pro drug legalising gossip.

[Bassman62]

Any reasonable person can quite clearly see the extremities were given to illustrate the point.

No they were extreme to defend a weak point.

[spindrift]

The supreme irony is that by far the most common way for drugs to get into prisons is via the staff. Many get caught, most do not. Even those guarding people in prison for drug offences are caught up in the same madness, the irony is delicious!

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/panorama/raphaelrowe/2009/08/on_the_trail_of_drug_smugglers.html

 

 

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/Prison-officer-hid-heroin-clothing/article-1497892-detail/article.html

 

Ha ha ha!!!

[spindrift]

Doctor admits defeat:

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23881069-we-cant-keep-up-with-changing-party-drugs-admits-doctor.do

 

 

 

Banned drugs are being re-packaged to evade laws on illegal “party drugs”, a doctor warned today.

 

Dr James Bell said new breeds of killer drugs such as ecstasy and mephedrone, known as “meow meow”, make it difficult to control potentially lethal substances.

 

The head of the party drugs clinic at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust said that the authorities were merely playing “catch-up'”as new forms of banned drugs rapidly appear on the club scene.

 

He said:

 

“As soon as you ban one, another pops up that isn't banned. The creators of these new drugs take the basic molecules of drugs like ecstasy and mephedrone and just tweak them. They are essentially the same drugs. There are several hundred potential compounds. It has become an established market. It's very difficult to control.”

 

 

From today's paper.

[Magilla]

No they were extreme to defend a weak point.

 

It was so weak that you couldn't actually refute it in any meaningful way!

 

Oh, it wasn't weak, just 'inconvenient'

[Hairyloon]

Any reasonable person can quite clearly see the extremities were given to illustrate the point.

No they were extreme to defend a weak point.

How can a question defend a point?

I would simply like to know how you differentiate between recreational use of a substance and abuse of it.

[hard2miss]

Then you should look at the wider picture, doctors will still continue to prescribe anti depressents and tranquilisers etc but most competent doctors will monitor and not dish them out willy nilly as in the past.

Surely you can see the distinction of being on a controled prescription programme for medical needs as opposed to a just for kicks ever increasing habit the very often leads to addiction.

If you cared to take the blinkers off we have been talking about a monitored prescription program from the first page. Remember, you was against it ?

 

I think you have been against that much in this topic that you may have forgotten.

 

We were saying that it would be far better that people get the drugs on a sort of monitored prescription program, with purer drugs that they would find far cheaper and safer than the black market and we would find it far cheaper and safer for the community to run such a program than the current way of tackling the problem.

 

You notice the word problem ? because I am not promoting it for the benefit of drug takers as such and admit that its a problem.As soon as yourself and others start re looking at this problem and find a far better solution we are going to have more of the same, a problem that is growing and effecting more and more year on year.

Lets cut the cost to tackle it, both in money and social costs by legalising it and having some sort of state monitoring of the situation, where money can come in instead to finance the problem.

[Bassman62]

If you cared to take the blinkers off we have been talking about a monitored prescription program from the first page. Remember, you was against it ?

 

I think you have been against that much in this topic that you may have forgotten.

 

We were saying that it would be far better that people get the drugs on a sort of monitored prescription program, with purer drugs that they would find far cheaper and safer than the black market and we would find it far cheaper and safer for the community to run such a program than the current way of tackling the problem.

 

You notice the word problem ? because I am not promoting it for the benefit of drug takers as such and admit that its a problem.As soon as yourself and others start re looking at this problem and find a far better solution we are going to have more of the same, a problem that is growing and effecting more and more year on year.

Lets cut the cost to tackle it, both in money and social costs by legalising it and having some sort of state monitoring of the situation, where money can come in instead to finance the problem.

I think that you honestly believe that drug abusers will be satisfied with the rationed fixes they get on the NHS.

It'll just allow them more money to buy extra drugs illegaly.