[BBC News] Police arrest pair in drugs raid

[Overdose]

I watched that, makes Douglas at 3am on a Sunday morning look like a walk in the park....

[John]

Read "One Blood" by John Heale. Makes you so glad you live in Mann.

[Cret]

Awww no - I missed Louis Theroux? Bah!

 

Was that a BBC programme that will be on iplayer?

[bluemonday]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fy...n_Philadelphia/

[thebees]

Slim, not everyone is like that and dare I say, that those people would be like that regardless of drugs or the prohibition there of? Some people are just bad, its no use blaming drugs for their ills. I didnt see the prog, but, I know his angles and the first few minutes of the I-player was enough to see where he was headed, I might watch it when I finish work & get back to you

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Did you watch Louis Theroux last night? Your assertions that drug taking is innocent and victim less looks pretty naive in the face of documentaries like that.

 

I didn't see the programme. But how is not innocent and how are their victims? I would be especially interested in the issue of innocence (discouncting the barmy laws of this country).

[House]

Did you watch Louis Theroux last night? Your assertions that drug taking is innocent and victim less looks pretty naive in the face of documentaries like that.

 

Ahem, the point isn't that drug taking is 'innocent and victimless' - the point is that the illegality of the drugs themselves magnifies the potential negative effects upon both the individual users and wider society.

 

Alcohol and tobacco are both badass motherfuckers in terms of harm right across the board (which is why they both placed far higher than, for example, ecstasy in the 'harm stakes' recently), but no one's suggesting that the best way to deal with this problem is to make both substances illegal, because that would be, quite obviously, really stupid. (See : Prohibition in the States.)

 

Bad people do bad things on drugs, do drugs make good people bad? That's a conundrum all in itself, but you could ask the same question about alcohol.

[thebees]

Watched it. Cause or effect? The police were just as bad as the people on the streets, if not worse. My friend was in Philladelphia last year and said it had a strange air to it, the streets were really clean but there were lots of clearly poverty stricken people there too. I don't think you can blame drugs for the gun culture in America.

[sausage]

Also watched the program on Philadelphia. Sad indeed. However the fact remains, prohibition never has and never will work. Even in countries where the death penalty could be the result, people still choose to involve themselves in supply or consumption of drugs.

 

So two simple questions to be answered on this basis:

 

1) If you put the supply of heroin (or diamorphine the 'legal' equivalent) in the hands of licensed pharmacists or drug dealers with guns, which is likely to result in the most deaths due to gun crime ?

 

2) If you let people take fully licensed quality/dose controlled heroin or diamorphine or you let them take a bag of mystery powder supplied on a street corner, which is going to result in the most deaths ?

 

Think the answers are fairly clear so dont think the scenes on the Louis Theroux program can therefore reinforce an argument that these drugs must be illegal, in fact quite the opposite.

 

Sad but true

[Slim]

Think the answers are fairly clear so dont think the scenes on the Louis Theroux program can therefore reinforce an argument that these drugs must be illegal, in fact quite the opposite.

 

Sad but true

 

Missing my point a little. I'm not arguing for or against the decriminalization of drugs. I'm saying that as of today, drug taking isn't victimless. That may be because it's forced to be a criminal activity, yes, but that's a different debate in my view. For drug taking to be an innocent and victimless activity, it would have to be decriminalised in every part of it's supply chain, which is a huge challenge. These people shouldn't be left alone because they're taking illegal drugs and people have most likely been exploited in the production and delivery of those drugs in some quite horrendous ways.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Missing my point a little. I'm not arguing for or against the decriminalization of drugs. I'm saying that as of today, drug taking isn't victimless. That may be because it's forced to be a criminal activity, yes, but that's a different debate in my view. For drug taking to be an innocent and victimless activity, it would have to be decriminalised in every part of it's supply chain, which is a huge challenge. These people shouldn't be left alone because they're taking illegal drugs and people have most likely been exploited in the production and delivery of those drugs in some quite horrendous ways.

 

You have lost me with this talk of victims. Are you saying that simply being the drugs are illegal there are victims? I doubt you are, but if not then how do you mean?

I think people should be left alone if taking illegal drugs because the laws are completely pointless and make little sense in eradicating or responding to drug usage in society. Nobody should simply follow the law because it is the law. But breaking the law does not need to involve victims, unless the victim is seen to be the arrested drug dealer or user.

 

As for exploitation, I can see that the drug dealer who supplied an addictive drug does have to exploit the users addiction to make money. And I don't think it is wrong to say that those who are in this situation are victims. These users do have free will and must choose to stop themselves. But given their circumstances and long-term drug use I would think this would be an extremely difficult thing to do. But in this instance we are only talking about addictive drugs, crack, heroin, amphetamines. What of Ket, E, GHB, Mushrooms, Cannabis, and others?

 

I do accept that their are 'victims' of drug taking, one example may be mothers or fathers who neglect their responsibilities or cannot function as they should as parents due to a heroin addiction, this may be a likelihood. Drug taking in society is not a good thing. In our society the extent to which drugs are used show it to be a bad thing, but drugs can be taken without causing any problems.

[Slim]

You have lost me with this talk of victims.

 

I'm talking more about victims in the supply chain rather than directly involved with the drug taking itself, although there's plenty of crime directly related to drug addiction such as theft. Smuggling, money laundering, extortion, gang related violent crime all the way up the supply chain.

 

That weed came from somewhere illegally, someone was probably forced into getting it to your door somewhere along the way. Recent quote from the news:

 

"The battle for the city's drug trade and smuggling routes into the United States has killed 1,100 people since January"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA533665.htm

 

I accept that decriminalising may reduce this kind of crime, but that's not what we're talking about with these cases originally quoted.

[pongo]

That weed came from somewhere illegally, someone was probably forced into getting it to your door somewhere along the way

 

I believe that most weed sold in Britian and Northern Europe is grown in Britain and Northern Europe these days. Although I'm quite certain that fairly nasty people are involved, that would mostly be down to it being a criminal activity and therefore run by gangsters. Much like booze during prohibition. Really a case of demand and therefore supply.

 

Back in the 80s and earlier, cheap dope generally meant hash. That tended to come from near and middle eastern war zones So in the early to mid 80 lots of it came from the Lebanon. Later from Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the days before hydroponics - grass was either fairly low quality - or else it often came from Africa or the West Indies and was relatively more expensive. Better quality grass was more rare than cheap hash.

 

Even when drugs are transported long distances - they tend to mostly come in big containers apparently.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You have lost me with this talk of victims.

 

I'm talking more about victims in the supply chain rather than directly involved with the drug taking itself, although there's plenty of crime directly related to drug addiction such as theft. Smuggling, money laundering, extortion, gang related violent crime all the way up the supply chain.

 

That weed came from somewhere illegally, someone was probably forced into getting it to your door somewhere along the way. Recent quote from the news:

 

"The battle for the city's drug trade and smuggling routes into the United States has killed 1,100 people since January"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA533665.htm

 

I accept that decriminalising may reduce this kind of crime, but that's not what we're talking about with these cases originally quoted.

 

Ah, I think I see what you mean. But smuggling does not necessarily imply a victim, money laundering does not necessarily imply that there is a victim of any real concern (to me anyway) but may have, though I see where you are coming from with gang related crime and extortion. Though I have not given this particular area of thing a great deal of thought, all things being equal legalisation might work, though I think it would take intervention by the State to circumvent the current supply chain and also take control of property where drugs could be harvested. I don't think this is possible.

Though I think much of this issue is to do with this concentration of power in the hands of a few men who control the drug trade. Not quite sure how they could be stopped

 

Though talking about drugs in such a manner in relation to victims and coercion is really only demonstrating how an illegal profit making system works. With it being illegal, maybe there is more likelihood of having the supply limited to the few.

But I think your point about victims, coercion, and exploitation is only an extreme example of these factors arising from profit making exchanges. Those people working in these poor countries, say in factories or employed on forms, cerrtainly will be subject to forms of coercion and exploitation every day. But maybe legalisation would remove the violence and use of physical force.

[bluemonday]

So naughty people will obey laws telling them to stop using violence and physical force.

 

Ok.