[BBC News] Three men arrested in drug raids

[loaf]

Surely it's not crime really that's the main issue, it's whether drug use impairs the productivity of the nation's workforce, whether they can get up in the morning, dig that ditch, drive that truck, safely and productively; keep the economy going.

 

Caffeine is a drug consumed in enormous quantities daily, but since it generally improves productivity in the workplace with few adverse side-effects, there is no legal restriction on it.

[Sebrof]

Surely it's not crime really that's the main issue, it's whether drug use impairs the productivity of the nation's workforce, whether they can get up in the morning, dig that ditch, drive that truck, safely and productively; keep the economy going.

 

Well, there is definitely something in that argument, but the same can be said for alcohol. Yes, it does cause quite a few problems, but greater problems were caused (in the USA) by prohibiting it.

 

It's the same "greater problems" that we have to contend with in the case of illegal drugs. In the view of an increasing number of people, the banning of these drugs probably causes more problems than the drugs ever would.

 

I'd like to see an impartial royal commission set up to examine the matter objectively.

 

S

[loaf]

Well, there is definitely something in that argument, but the same can be said for alcohol. Yes, it does cause quite a few problems, but greater problems were caused (in the USA) by prohibiting it.

Seems that prohibition in the USA was a ham-fisted, hasty exercise in changing public behaviour.

 

You only have to see with smoking that the gradual hiking of taxation, health campaigning, banning of advertising, banning of smoking in public places over here to realise that the government has got much more skilled and subtle at pushing the public slowly towards a particular goal, and furthermore, they've quickly realised that out-and-out prohibition does not stop the habit entirely, it merely hands its control and supply over to criminal gangs.

 

I guess that the government fears that while it seems a reasonable idea to legalise cannabis, for example, and effectively take control of supply and control is that they'll most likely utterly screw it up and the whole thing will blow up in their faces.

[cheeky boy]

Heh. Just clear up the popularity vs legality thing. Your argument seems to be lots of people like doing drugs, so it should be legal. If people like slapping their wifes, should that be legal too? What's the difference?

 

 

Popularity means that someting is popular wih a large proportion of the public and in a democracy, that popularity is supposed to be represented in society

 

e.g Islam is popular as a way of life in the UK and despite the excesses carried out by a few bad apples, islam is allowed to flourish in our country

 

By the same token, don't tar all recreational drug useres withe the same crack/smack-head thieving bastard brush

 

live & let live

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Surely it's not crime really that's the main issue, it's whether drug use impairs the productivity of the nation's workforce, whether they can get up in the morning, dig that ditch, drive that truck, safely and productively; keep the economy going.

 

Caffeine is a drug consumed in enormous quantities daily, but since it generally improves productivity in the workplace with few adverse side-effects, there is no legal restriction on it.

 

And I think you have hit the nail on the head. This is why drugs are illegal.

[steven !]

In Vietnam the VC made sure dope was freely available to the GIs.

 

Hah!

 

Dig that ditch and drive that truck they certainly couldn't do effectively after getting wasted, let alone go shooting some locals.

 

True enough, that stuff simply makes you not want to fight, man.

 

I think we have one heckuva lot to learn about the effect that stuff can have on a society.

 

You thee what I'm thaying.

[sausage]

All that bus waiting has addled your brain. If you re-read the post it may become clearer to you.

 

I've re-read it and it still hasn't so you'll have to help me out. Here's the comment:

 

It is a fact (through personal experience) that drug use, at all levels, leads to other crimes and personal monetary problems.

 

Now if you'd said "drug use, at all levels, can/may lead to other crimes and personal monetary problems" I'd agree completely, but that's not what you've said, so clearly you're saying that it does (in all cases).

I know plenty of people who've taken drugs and like the late Bill Hicks said (I'm not really a fan but it suits) "had a great time, didn't rob anyone, didn't kill anyone" etc etc, or indeed go on to commit any crime as a result of doing so, nor have monetary problems.

 

Now if this is what you're saying then 'It is a fact' that you're wrong about this. If that's not what you meant then you should have written it differently as it seems that others have got the same impression of what you meant, probably because that's what it basically says.

 

And that's what I was trying to illustrate to help explain why it is people are saying it's a bollocks statement to make. That's all.

 

I'm not arguing about all the shit that goes into the drugs getting there in the first place nor the crime of taking them, just that it'd be more correct to say that if you re-write your post it may become clearer for everyone.

 

Thanks Cret for doing the explaining as its Skrappeys brain that is struggling a bit !

 

If I was to say 'It is a fact (through personal experience) that drug use, at all levels, does not lead to other crimes and personal monetary problems this statement would be bollocks

 

Likewise the opposite (what skrappey quoted) is also bollocks.

 

It is quite clear that there are many circumstances where personal drug use does not lead to the aforementioned issues. Furthermore you cannot state that its a fact through personal experiences that drug use at all levels leads to these problems as you cannot possibly experienced/observed ALL levels of drug use everywhere in the world by everyone so making a sweeping statement about drug use at ALL levels based on personal experience is.........bollocks !!!

[Cret]

Unless of course you happen to BE every drug user in the world. And it would take powerful substances probably to at least convince you of that.

 

Anyway - I'm not really wanting to get stuck into this thread - I just was trying to point out most likely why people were accusing it of being a bollocks statement.

 

Just doing my bit for peace & harmony as usual.

[Pat Ayres]

All it takes is for one drug user to commit a crime as a result of taking a drug and it "leads to other crimes". At no point did I say every drug victim is a recidivist and serial criminal. I know why people were accusing it (?) of being a bollocks statement, it's called stupidity and is as endemic as illegal drug use apparently, although they are ALL criminals.

[sausage]

All it takes is for one drug user to commit a crime as a result of taking a drug and it "leads to other crimes". At no point did I say every drug victim is a recidivist and serial criminal. I know why people were accusing it (?) of being a bollocks statement, it's called stupidity and is as endemic as illegal drug use apparently, although they are ALL criminals.

 

Step away from the shovel and quit digging skrappey, put this one down to experience and try not to talk bollocks in the future !!

[Pat Ayres]

I don't accept the position as being bollocks. Just because you say so don't make it so.

Paople take illegal drugs so they are committing a crime, criminals. Where is that statement wrong?

[Fred]

I'm with Skrappey and if you don't like it--fight to change the law.

 

All people that take illegal drugs are criminals,whats the message they pass to family,friends and acquaintances?

 

 

The law doesn't apply to us.

 

So should they be surprised if they get a call from the police that there son has been picked up for stealing a car,his excuse "but dad,you take heroin--so the law does not apply to us"

 

Daughter picked up for shoplifting "but mum you take cannabis,the law does not apply to us"

 

Where do you draw the line?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The law doesn't apply to us.

So should they be surprised if they get a call from the police that there son has been picked up for stealing a car,his excuse "but dad,you take heroin--so the law does not apply to us"

Daughter picked up for shoplifting "but mum you take cannabis,the law does not apply to us"

 

You should let your children come to the conclusions that they do from looking at the laws and understanding why they exist, but never simply to accept the law and obey it. If you are taking drugs and someone says that it is awful because you are breaking the law, I would explain why I am doing it. But I don't believe breaking a specific law will mean that it will lead to other laws being broken.

 

I do not mug people and steal cars because I know it is very wrong, however, with drugs I do not see it as wrong for me to make a personal choice on what I want to do with my body. It would be unfortunate to pass onto children the idea that all actions that are against the law are wrong if carried out, let them think for themselves.

[Fred]

Going by crime reports quite a few people disagree with you about mugging and stealing cars,seems to be a way of life to some.

 

Taking drugs is surely not just a personel choice,all the people involved in the supply chain so that you can take drugs or is it alright to take advantage of illegal activities?

 

I'm all for children thinking for themselves,as long as they are given the chance to learn right from wrong in the first place.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Going by crime reports quite a few people disagree with you about mugging and stealing cars,seems to be a way of life to some.

 

Taking drugs is surely not just a personel choice,all the people involved in the supply chain so that you can take drugs or is it alright to take advantage of illegal activities?

 

I'm all for children thinking for themselves,as long as they are given the chance to learn right from wrong in the first place.

 

It may be a way of life to SOME, but what is certain is that those people who do mug and steal cars know it is wrong, and that awareness is not provided by the existence of positive law.

 

I do not believe that regular drug taking is a good thing, and people are exploited along the way. However, there is so much exploitation of people that takes places in so many trades that it would bizarre to look at drugs alone and say there is a problem there. Besides, the legality of drugs has nothing to do with the supply chain.

 

I would agree, but learning what is right and wrong has to explained but not necessarily in reference to the law. I would tell my kids (and unlikely that I will have any) that I think a lot of crimes should not be crimes at all, and I would explain why. But it is them to make decisions for themselves. It would be a far more interesting world than the one we live in today, where people are not already subservient to an authority which tells them what is wrong and what it right and that authority serves to undermine the individual motivation for really looking at whether it should be right or wrong.