Drug prohibition costs lives

[gimp27]

I find it rather worrying that you hold these views whilst you appear to be involved with drug users seeking treatment.

 

The reality is that for the great majority of users, their use is indeed recreational and doesn't significantly negatively impact on their lives.

 

As a professional person one might think that you would actually review all the available evidence and instead of calling for people to be criminalised for telling the truth, you would call for drugs to be decriminalised.

 

Sadly, this is the difference between seeing a social disease, and posting ill thought opinions, because you appear to have some sort of tabloid knowledge of the subject.

You are naively assuming that recreational users are simply a section of society that has the odd spliff or whatever on occasion, then goes back to their day to day life without consequence. That is most definately not how it is, in your small head or anyone elses. The rate of "moving on" to more harder substances is rife within the UK, and yet the assumption that "recreational use" should be seen as the norm is just ludicrous.

As far as your opinion on whether or not a person is capable of reviewing evidence regarding the use of illegal substances, its all out there for you to have a look, never mind what I may think.

I made a point that education should be at the top of the list, as world eradication is nigh on impossible, but I stand by my principal of never promoting the thought of legalising any form of brain toxins.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2015 at 19:43 ----------

 

It is, but the peril faced by takers of drugs such as cannabis and MDMA is lower than the peril faced by people consuming alcohol. Children should be educated about this.

 

 

 

 

 

What kind of drug dealers have you met? All that I have met (and I have met loads) would be devastated if they caused the death of someone. Drug dealers aren't all scum you know.

 

 

 

 

I have a few issues with this if I am honest. May I start by asking what field you work in please?

 

What drug was this person who was grabbing his mother by the throat supposed to be under the influence of? Has he had any history of mental illness? What other factors contributed to him being in this state? It is naive to just blame it on the drugs.

 

The drugs are recreational, this word does not mean safe.

 

 

 

They will move on to a new money maker, just like they did after bootlegging. I would guess it would be counterfeit goods.

 

 

 

No it doesn't at all. Shisha is a legal drug that is not in widespready use, as was until recently khat.

 

Legalisation is no guarantee that the drug will be safer no, however, it is the next best thing to a guarantee. There is no guarantee that the chicken you purchase from Tesco was killed and packaged in a more hygienic environment then if you bought some meat from some guy in a car, but it would be a fair assumption that it was.

 

Your belief that it would improve safety is misguided and not even an argument that those who want to keep drugs illegal use.

 

Cognitive behavioural therapy. Not as exciting as you may think, and sadly the chap had chronic psychosis, which although not directly attributed to cannabis use, it does increase the symptoms, and not aide them as suggested.

[RonJeremy]

What kind of drug dealers have you met? All that I have met (and I have met loads) would be devastated if they caused the death of someone. Drug dealers aren't all scum you know.

 

I have met a few. One or two of them have been decent people, one or two have been violent nightmares.

 

I will defer to you as you seem to have more experience. I would suggest that my point was valid to some extent, but perhaps most drug dealers are lovely people, and my impression is that of your average Daily Mail reading moron.

It remains that I still think they would be safer sold over the counter by accountable people. Brewers, distillers, off licences, pub landlords etc are all drug dealers, but because their drug is legal and socially acceptable, they are paragons of society.

 

Monkey104 - I saw your signature and laughed a lot at what you were saying. I try not to insult here but ... WTF ??

[Halibut]

Sadly, this is the difference between seeing a social disease, and posting ill thought opinions, because you appear to have some sort of tabloid knowledge of the subject.

 

On the contrary, I worked in psychiatry for nearly twenty years and have a number of friends still in the profession, have read quite widely around the subject and know many people who have used or still use drugs recreationally. I've also known people who've run into problems with addiction.

 

You are naively assuming that recreational users are simply a section of society that has the odd spliff or whatever on occasion, then goes back to their day to day life without consequence. That is most definately not how it is, in your small head or anyone elses.

 

It absolutely is how it is, in the lives of a great many peope I know and know of. It's an undeniable truth that the great majority of drug users do not go on to drug addicts, just as the great majority of drinkers don't become alcoholics.

 

It's not very scientific, but I'd estimate I know around 100 people who use various drugs on an occasional, or indeed regular, basis. How many of these are addicts? If you discount fags and booze, precisely nil thankfully.

If what you are saying were true they're all going to be hopelessly addicted so some seriously dodgy stuff soon. But they aren't.

 

The rate of "moving on" to more harder substances is rife within the UK, and yet the assumption that "recreational use" should be seen as the norm is just ludicrous.

 

In the absence of any evidence, I'll assume that's just your opinion, and weight it accordingly.

As far as your opinion on whether or not a person is capable of reviewing evidence regarding the use of illegal substances, its all out there for you to have a look, never mind what I may think.

I made a point that education should be at the top of the list, as world eradication is nigh on impossible, but I stand by my principal of never promoting the thought of legalising any form of brain toxins.

 

How do you explain the Portugese situation?

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2015 at 19:53 ----------

 

I have met a few. One or two of them have been decent people, one or two have been violent nightmares.

 

I will defer to you as you seem to have more experience. I would suggest that my point was valid to some extent, but perhaps most drug dealers are lovely people, and my impression is that of your average Daily Mail reading moron.

It remains that I still think they would be safer sold over the counter by accountable people. Brewers, distillers, off licences, pub landlords etc are all drug dealers, but because their drug is legal and socially acceptable, they are paragons of society.

 

Monkey104 - I saw your signature and laughed a lot at what you were saying. I try not to insult here but ... WTF ??

 

You're quite right to think that Ron, because it's true.

[*_ash_*]

Sadly, this is the difference between seeing a social disease, and posting ill thought opinions, because you appear to have some sort of tabloid knowledge of the subject.

 

Good god man! (or woman)

 

Do you preview your posts before typing?

 

Pot bleedin kettle or what!!

[RonJeremy]

Does anyone think some or all of the following should be legalised and sold regulated?

1. Marijuana/cannabis ?

2. Ecstasy/MDMA

3. Opium

4. Cocaine

5. Heroin

6. Crystal Meth

7. Amphetamines/speed

8. Have I missed anything major?

[milquetoast1]

What's more important, a reduction in drug use or a reduction in the harm caused by drug use?

 

This is key. Here's what Ben Goldacre has to say:

 

Drugs instantiate the classic problem for evidence based social policy. It may well be that prohibition, and the inevitable distribution of drugs by criminals, gives worse results for all the outcomes we think are important, like harm to the user, harm to our communities through crime, and so on. But equally, it may well be that we will tolerate these worse outcomes, because we decide it is somehow more important that we publicly declare ourselves, as a culture, to be disapproving of drug use, and enshrine that principle in law. It’s okay to do that. You can have policies that go against your stated outcomes, for moral or political reasons: but that doesn’t mean you can hide the evidence, it simply means you must be clear that you don’t care about it.

 

For you, me, and dare I say most of the people who's opinions I actually respect on this forum, it about harm. For many, and unfortunately our Government, it's about disapproving what other people do, ban, ban, ban.

 

I just wish our Government could at least be honest about it, admit it's about making judgements on what people do for political reasons, and not pretend it's about evidence on what's for the health of society.

[RonJeremy]

This is key. Here's what Ben Goldacre has to say:

 

Drugs instantiate the classic problem for evidence based social policy. It may well be that prohibition, and the inevitable distribution of drugs by criminals, gives worse results for all the outcomes we think are important, like harm to the user, harm to our communities through crime, and so on. But equally, it may well be that we will tolerate these worse outcomes, because we decide it is somehow more important that we publicly declare ourselves, as a culture, to be disapproving of drug use, and enshrine that principle in law. It’s okay to do that. You can have policies that go against your stated outcomes, for moral or political reasons: but that doesn’t mean you can hide the evidence, it simply means you must be clear that you don’t care about it.

 

For you, me, and dare I say most of the people who's opinions I actually respect on this forum, it about harm. For many, and unfortunately our Government, it's about disapproving what other people do, ban, ban, ban.

 

I just wish our Government could at least be honest about it, admit it's about making judgements on what people do for political reasons, and not pretend it's about evidence on what's for the health of society.

 

It would be a very brave government which legalised drugs in the UK. Think of how many people read and believe the newspapers they read.

There would be Headlines:

Cameron soft on drugs.

Cameron caves in to drug dealers

Cameron legalises Cocaine for his posh mates

 

Milliband loony left legalises drugs

Milliband out of touch with middle England

Milliband legalises marijuana for grass roots labour

 

It would be electoral suicide. Sensible policy, but so open to Daily Mirror/ Daily Mail abuse

[monkey104]

Content removed.

Edited January 6, 2015 by monkey104

[RonJeremy]

Content removed.

 

Shame - would have liked to have read that

[onewheeldave]

It would be a very brave government which legalised drugs in the UK. Think of how many people read and believe the newspapers they read.

There would be Headlines:

Cameron soft on drugs.

Cameron caves in to drug dealers

Cameron legalises Cocaine for his posh mates

 

Milliband loony left legalises drugs

Milliband out of touch with middle England

Milliband legalises marijuana for grass roots labour

 

It would be electoral suicide. Sensible policy, but so open to Daily Mirror/ Daily Mail abuse

A lot of voters have functioning brains these days though, and can integrate facts, reason and actual evidence into their opinions.

 

A lot of voters are also aware of the corruption and ineptitude rife among our politicians.