[BBC News] Man is charged after drugs raid

[manxy]

Oh yes, no doubt you have picked up upon the hyped up dangers to teenagers because of the evil drug ecstacy. News stories of people dying of ecstacy are not that common, and when they do occur is because the pill has been adulterated with some poison, which would not happen if such drugs were legalised and does not mean ecstacy itseld is dangerous. All you have to do is compare the deaths and damage that alcohol causes in our society and realise that comparatively ecstacy is not as dangerous. If people are permissive about the drinking culture they live in then they are complete idiots to condemn other drugs simply because they have been told by their legal system and the police that they are bad.

 

Who exactly has died from using ecstacy?

 

 

(Just replying to a question)

Ecstasy

Deaths associated with different illegal drugs are also difficult to judge accurately. One exception is ecstasy with over 250 ecstasy-related deaths being reported between 1999 and 2004

Another link

[immortalpuppet]

Woo hoo, another debate about an illegal drug.

[gazza]

Well you are right in saying that in our society if you break and law and get caught there will be bad consequences. But this is not the point. Simply because a law exist that I find disagreeable does not mean that that law is still right or should even be heeded.

 

well lets be harsh here,

 

say on my way home one night i stop by your house, i see noboddys in so i rob and trash the place take your car, and urn the place down just for gd mesure,

 

should i be let off because i dont think there should be a law stopping me from doing it, so i decided to not to heeded to it,

 

i really think that you might have a change off tune, and woulden saying o well its a stupid law let him off u want me guts for gatters,

 

i think we all think some laws are stupid but i would say most of still try to not brake them,

 

* i do not or plan to rob trash steal or burn down said persons house, as thay could live on the moon for all i know

 

ps. i hope that never happins to you or anybody eles

[Skeddan]

Feel sorry for this guy getting caught though and think it completely wrong that he is going down. I mean ecstacy is nowhere near damaging to a person's health as alcohol and maybe even cannabis. Placing it in the Class A category is wrong.

 

Though simply generalising about drugs as if ALL illegal drugs are therefore bad and should not be sold or taken is to trust too much in the bad judgement of those who created such laws. The article said it was ecstacy, it is hardly as if heroin or crack has been found. But unfortunately, it is classified 'A' which is just puzzling and really makes little sense of drug laws. I feel sorry for this guy because he is doing the same as an off license, yet gets punished for it because of stupid laws.

LDV - This is interesting, but could you clarify. Is it you think the laws dealing with drugs and ecstasy in particular are 'stupid laws', or 'oppressive laws'? Is it that you think that someone breaking a law you happen to think is not a good one shouldn't be prosecuted, or that you think the law on this is so oppressive and unjust that it is wrong to prosecute at all?

 

If you just think the laws are stupid, I'm with gazza - some laws are stupid but that's no reason to break them.

 

My guess though is that you might mean the latter. If so, it's an interesting view, particularly if there no earthly reason why ecstasy should be illegal, and - as you seem to argue - making it illegal is unreasonable and has no justification. A bit like a law which make turnips illegal, and possession of turnips with intent to supply an even more serious offence. Is that how you see this?

 

Since the UK Science Select Committee seems to recognise that ecstasy is less harmful than methylphenidate (which is regularly prescribed all over the world to millions of young children), and also that ecstasy is a great deal less harmful than alcohol, I wouldn't simply dismiss what you might be saying. I think you could argue that it would be completely wrong for someone to be 'sent down' for this especially if it meant spending years behind bars.

 

(I'd think you might also have to consider the circumstances in whether to punish or not. e.g. Would he be equally happy peddling heroin and angel dust and is really just a profiteering exploitative unscrupulous drug dealer?)

 

Frankly I'm not convinced though. This is selling a home-made psychoactive substance which has no assurance of quality and which might be contaminated, and perhaps recklessly supplying it to people without medical screening to ensure its safe for them to take it (e.g. possible heart problems). It's not the same as a supplying a quality controlled pharmaceutical substance and ensuring that it is medically safe to do this.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well you are right in saying that in our society if you break and law and get caught there will be bad consequences. But this is not the point. Simply because a law exist that I find disagreeable does not mean that that law is still right or should even be heeded.

 

well lets be harsh here,

 

say on my way home one night i stop by your house, i see noboddys in so i rob and trash the place take your car, and urn the place down just for gd mesure,

 

should i be let off because i dont think there should be a law stopping me from doing it, so i decided to not to heeded to it,

 

i really think that you might have a change off tune, and woulden saying o well its a stupid law let him off u want me guts for gatters,

 

i think we all think some laws are stupid but i would say most of still try to not brake them,

 

* i do not or plan to rob trash steal or burn down said persons house, as thay could live on the moon for all i know

 

ps. i hope that never happins to you or anybody eles

 

Should you be let off?? This is not the issue. I recognise that we live in a society where if laws are not heeded AND you get caught, then you get into trouble. That is obvious. But if the law appears senseless and I do not agree with it, then I will have no qualms about breaking it IF I will not get caught. But with reference to your story about the burglary and arson. Why would you wish to do this? Are you held back from robbing me because of the consequences of breaking the law or because you have a conscience, are moral, and do not need to take anything from me?

 

I don't go about breaking MOST of the laws because many of these laws follow my conscience and morals. I don't murder, don't set things on fire, assault people, rape people etc. Some laws I don't break because I am scared of getting caught, but this amounts to only one or two laws. Drugs laws don't make much sense when you see the harm of alcohol and tobacco but such drug laws should not be heeded if they make little sense, but if you are going to break the law be careful not to get caught.

 

Ecstasy

Deaths associated with different illegal drugs are also difficult to judge accurately. One exception is ecstasy with over 250 ecstasy-related deaths being reported between 1999 and 2004

 

Sorry if I sound cold but that is a relatively low number of deaths compared with alcohol! Moreover, I think I would be right in saying that the deaths caused were MAINLY due to adulterated pills as opposed to the actual ecstacy. And the most important thing of all is that I do not think anybody (including the state) should dare tell others what they can or cannot take. It is their bodies, if they want to abuse them then let them. Better efforts can be made to determine why there is such a large requirement for alcohol in our society than banging up people for something that in comparison is much smaller problem.

[Onchanguy]

Its class A because it effects different people in different ways, so some people could take it some all day and be fine (ie know their limit like alcohol) but somebody else could suffer seriously, vomiting, heart attack, stroke etc..

 

But that is the same with all drugs. Some people have a severe reaction to quite mild drugs and even this mild drugs can be toxic in large amounts.

 

What you had was a lot of media hype about raving and that the people attending rave were on a new drug. And then you had a few deaths related to the taking of ecstacy but not always actually due to the ecstacy. So the government wants to have control over that situation which they do not understand nor care to and satisfy the ignorant concerns of the general public and media and then ban it. It is the same with LSD and Magic Mushrooms. Why magic mushrooms are Class A I really do not know, such gross stupidity and so unjust.

 

Whether Ecstacy is dangerous or not is irrelevant.

Whether or not it should or should not be it is classified as a Class A drug.

If you choose to transgress the law and get caught then take the punishment. End of.

 

Well you are right in saying that in our society if you break and law and get caught there will be bad consequences. But this is not the point. Simply because a law exist that I find disagreeable does not mean that that law is still right or should even be heeded.

 

So we only have to obey laws and regulations that we agree with? How long would society last before it descended into anarchy?

 

I'm sure every law on the statute book would be broken by someone who didn't agree with it.

 

So it's OK if I go around groping women or stealing from shops because the urge takes me? It's alright for me to steal cars and joyride or commit arson because I don't agree with the law?

 

What a stupid attitude. Laws are put in place to protect people and raise us from the level of savages. If we didn't have laws then society would end and we would all end up murdering, raping and pillaging to survive.

 

Take a look at news bulletins to see what happens to societies when they decide not heed laws and live as decent citizens.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - This is interesting, but could you clarify. Is it you think the laws dealing with drugs and ecstasy in particular are 'stupid laws', or 'oppressive laws'? Is it that you think that someone breaking a law you happen to think is not a good one shouldn't be prosecuted, or that you think the law on this is so oppressive and unjust that it is wrong to prosecute at all?

 

If you just think the laws are stupid, I'm with gazza - some laws are stupid but that's no reason to break them.

 

It is not a reason to break them, but if the laws made no good sense then I see no reason to change one's behaviour because of that law. I am not arguing for example that if I thought laws on murder were stupid I will go out and kill people. Simply that senseless laws need not be respected. Not talking about motivation at all.

 

My guess though is that you might mean the latter. If so, it's an interesting view, particularly if there no earthly reason why ecstasy should be illegal, and - as you seem to argue - making it illegal is unreasonable and has no justification. A bit like a law which make turnips illegal, and possession of turnips with intent to supply an even more serious offence. Is that how you see this?

 

Yes based on my political views which see it as wrong that people cannot do what they wish with their bodies and from the convention perspective that such laws are such utter hypocrisy when we live in a culture that abuses alcohol constantly.

[gazza]

Should you be let off?? This is not the issue. I recognise that we live in a society where if laws are not heeded AND you get caught, then you get into trouble. That is obvious. But if the law appears senseless and I do not agree with it, then I will have no qualms about breaking it IF I will not get caught.

 

but theres allways a chance you could get caught

 

But with reference to your story about the burglary and arson. Why would you wish to do this? Are you held back from robbing me because of the consequences of breaking the law or because you have a conscience, are moral, and do not need to take anything from me?

 

well i have no morals really whats a consience do we have them, i dont know what u have got so coulden say that i want anything,

not the consequences of the law, do the crime do the time,

 

i woulden do it, cause i prob got a lot better things to do then do that in my story like type on a computer

 

but the point is there are ppl out there that have no morals or consience, arent bothered if thay get caught,

and would happly take everything you have,

 

but because theses ppl think its a stupid law we should feel sorry for them,

[Skeddan]

Yes based on my political views which see it as wrong that people cannot do what they wish with their bodies and from the convention perspective that such laws are such utter hypocrisy when we live in a culture that abuses alcohol constantly.

IMO it would be wrong for the law to allow someone to sell themselves into slavery (even if this money provided for their family), so I don't go with the unrestricted freedom as you might have it. I agree it might be hypocritical with alcohol, but maybe then all this means is that alcohol laws need to be changed.

 

Is 'doing whatever they wish with their bodies' going to let people put nasty possibly poisonous chemicals in food and drink and let them sell these, or to make these without proper safety control? Why not if the buyer takes it knowing it might not be safe - and they should be able to do whatever they want? Nah - I don't agree there. Be nice if everyone was contentious and moral - trouble is they're not - there'll always be a few greedy unscrupulous bastards.

 

If you argued that ecstasy should be legalised, and that proper quality controlled manufacture and supply ought to be allowed if the person's GP had no reasonable objection on medical grounds to this, then OK.

 

(Come to think of it, maybe there'd be a good reason to change the law in IoM to this - it would improve the club scene, bring in tourism, IoM would become a rave centre of Europe, there'd probably be direct flights to Ibiza, and there'd be a lot less crime that with drunken yobs. Ramsey could be transformed - and the Pier as well. Freedom to Flourish and Freedom to Feel Good : everybody's freeeee to feel good.... plink plink ).

[manxy]

If you argued that ecstasy should be legalised, and that proper quality controlled manufacture and supply ought to be allowed if the person's GP had no reasonable objection on medical grounds to this, then OK.

 

(Come to think of it, maybe there'd be a good reason to change the law in IoM to this - it would improve the club scene, bring in tourism, IoM would become a rave centre of Europe, there'd probably be direct flights to Ibiza, and there'd be a lot less crime that with drunken yobs. Ramsey could be transformed - and the Pier as well. Freedom to Flourish and Freedom to Feel Good : everybody's freeeee to feel good.... plink plink ).

 

Hahah, great to see the pier mentioned

[House]

Well you are right in saying that in our society if you break and law and get caught there will be bad consequences. But this is not the point. Simply because a law exist that I find disagreeable does not mean that that law is still right or should even be heeded.

 

well lets be harsh here,

 

say on my way home one night i stop by your house, i see noboddys in so i rob and trash the place take your car, and urn the place down just for gd mesure,

 

should i be let off because i dont think there should be a law stopping me from doing it, so i decided to not to heeded to it,

 

i really think that you might have a change off tune, and woulden saying o well its a stupid law let him off u want me guts for gatters,

 

i think we all think some laws are stupid but i would say most of still try to not brake them,

 

* i do not or plan to rob trash steal or burn down said persons house, as thay could live on the moon for all i know

 

ps. i hope that never happins to you or anybody eles

 

The obvious difference with your (somewhat flawed) example is the victim and then lack of victim.

 

If the person who likes ecstasy, takes ecstasy, gets the nice/negative effects ('cause like any drug it's not all good), then goes home and carries on about their business, there has been no victim and therefore I contend that there has been no crime.

 

If you rob someone's house or steal someone's car or set their property on fire, then there is a very obvious victim, someone you've hurt by your actions.

 

On the other hand, if an adult makes a choice to ingest something for a particular effect - the same way a smoker reaches for a cigarette, a drinker reaches for a glass of wine, or an obese person reaches for a bar of chocolate - then yes we're perhaps correct to advise them about the potential negative effects of their actions, but what law on earth and of decent human conscience have they actually broken?

 

This is where the smoking ban comes into play, people are free to smoke still, but just not where they could end up with folks who have no desire to smoke, smoking along with them.

 

So to come full circle, if a person wants to take ecstasy or cocaine or heroin and in doing so they hurt no one else and commit no crime against any other person or their property, who the fuck are we to tell them how to live their lives?

[House]

Woo hoo, another debate about an illegal drug.

 

Bloody forums eh? People talking about stuff, total ballache!

[gazza]

If you rob someone's house or steal someone's car or set their property on fire, then there is a very obvious victim, someone you've hurt by your actions.

 

On the other hand, if an adult makes a choice to ingest something for a particular effect - the same way a smoker reaches for a cigarette, a drinker reaches for a glass of wine, or an obese person reaches for a bar of chocolate - then yes we're perhaps correct to advise them about the potential negative effects of their actions, but what law on earth and of decent human conscience have they actually broken?

 

This is where the smoking ban comes into play, people are free to smoke still, but just not where they could end up with folks who have no desire to smoke, smoking along with them.

 

So to come full circle, if a person wants to take ecstasy or cocaine or heroin and in doing so they hurt no one else and commit no crime against any other person or their property, who the fuck are we to tell them how to live their lives?

 

 

what if its somebody dropping a pill into a drink, that person that took that drink did not take it on there own accord,

so theres a victim, and u cant say that is no the point of your remarks, because it is,

 

also what if a 13 year old lad takes them for a laugh, and dies, id say his family are victims

[homarus]

Well you are right in saying that in our society if you break and law and get caught there will be bad consequences. But this is not the point. Simply because a law exist that I find disagreeable does not mean that that law is still right or should even be heeded.

 

well lets be harsh here,

 

say on my way home one night i stop by your house, i see noboddys in so i rob and trash the place take your car, and urn the place down just for gd mesure,

 

should i be let off because i dont think there should be a law stopping me from doing it, so i decided to not to heeded to it,

 

i really think that you might have a change off tune, and woulden saying o well its a stupid law let him off u want me guts for gatters,

 

i think we all think some laws are stupid but i would say most of still try to not brake them,

 

* i do not or plan to rob trash steal or burn down said persons house, as thay could live on the moon for all i know

 

ps. i hope that never happins to you or anybody eles

 

The obvious difference with your (somewhat flawed) example is the victim and then lack of victim.

 

If the person who likes ecstasy, takes ecstasy, gets the nice/negative effects ('cause like any drug it's not all good), then goes home and carries on about their business, there has been no victim and therefore I contend that there has been no crime.

 

If you rob someone's house or steal someone's car or set their property on fire, then there is a very obvious victim, someone you've hurt by your actions.

 

On the other hand, if an adult makes a choice to ingest something for a particular effect - the same way a smoker reaches for a cigarette, a drinker reaches for a glass of wine, or an obese person reaches for a bar of chocolate - then yes we're perhaps correct to advise them about the potential negative effects of their actions, but what law on earth and of decent human conscience have they actually broken?

 

This is where the smoking ban comes into play, people are free to smoke still, but just not where they could end up with folks who have no desire to smoke, smoking along with them.

 

So to come full circle, if a person wants to take ecstasy or cocaine or heroin and in doing so they hurt no one else and commit no crime against any other person or their property, who the fuck are we to tell them how to live their lives?

The vast majority of people I've come across on coke have acted like obnoxious cunts as a rule ! How does this square with your observation that cocaine use is victimless?

[keyboarder]

So to come full circle, if a person wants to take ecstasy or cocaine or heroin and in doing so they hurt no one else and commit no crime against any other person or their property, who the fuck are we to tell them how to live their lives?

 

It's against the law and until it isn't against the law your argument will remain tired and misdirected. As well as a bit boring. Why don't you lobby your mhk, or even strive to become one and then you will be able to do something a little more constructive to bring about a change in the law? I personally prefer the entertainment drugs to remain illegal, more fun that way, lol,lol... ; )) People who want to play Mr Big in a Noriega Style only have themselves to blame however deserving of our ineffective pity they may be. Especially on the IOM. Idiots . (With a poor sense of self preservation, lol, lol. )