Drugs Policy

[guzzi]

For starters, Alias' query should be changed because the blanket bans aren't about public health. They are the cost for government for having a populace that is harder to control and drug-free workforce is a more reliable workforce.

 

LDV I'm not sure I understand your second sentence properly. However, if you are saying that the use of drugs makes a populace more difficult to control, I would have to ask whether you have read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"?

 

The blanket term "drugs" isn't very precise, and different substances have different qualities. Many substances have been used as instruments of control, particularly the ones that carry a heavy physical addictive quality. In fact, despite the social costs, I think alcohol is in many ways an instrument of social control. In the book I mention, as a sideline to the main drug of social control (soma)' alcohol is used to stunt foetuses to limit their intellectual capacity and fit them to a life of drudgery. It might well fulfil a similar function for adults in our present society.

 

Another glass of wine, I think!

[pauld]

i like that post guzzi, for what its worth.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

For starters, Alias' query should be changed because the blanket bans aren't about public health. They are the cost for government for having a populace that is harder to control and drug-free workforce is a more reliable workforce.

 

LDV I'm not sure I understand your second sentence properly. However, if you are saying that the use of drugs makes a populace more difficult to control, I would have to ask whether you have read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"?

 

The blanket term "drugs" isn't very precise, and different substances have different qualities. Many substances have been used as instruments of control, particularly the ones that carry a heavy physical addictive quality. In fact, despite the social costs, I think alcohol is in many ways an instrument of social control. In the book I mention, as a sideline to the main drug of social control (soma)' alcohol is used to stunt foetuses to limit their intellectual capacity and fit them to a life of drudgery. It might well fulfil a similar function for adults in our present society.

 

Another glass of wine, I think!

I am sceptical of any views that sees the government as using alcohol consumption as a method of social control. Rather governments have sought to reduce consumption of alcohol and drugs in order to have a more reliable workforce.

[guzzi]

LDV it isn't necessarily governments who use drugs as instruments of control.

 

Trafficking and prostituting people is very often accomplished with the use of physically addictive substances, as well as sedative and dissociative ones.

 

If you are sceptical whether governments use alcohol as a controlling drug, consider Tony Blair's liberalisation of the alcohol laws. Because governments are composed of politicians, they don't always speak or act in a clear way, consistent with a single policy.

 

Consider also company cultures: there are workplaces where a "work hard, play hard" culture is encouraged. Very often, alcohol and (probably tacitly) other substances are part of that culture, and part of bonding workforces together.

 

If you haven't read "Brave New World" I would recommend it. It really does have a lot to say about social control, and the part that drugs can play in that, and Huxley was both a genius and a well known user of hallucinogenic substances.

 

For what it's worth, my view is that adults ought to be legally free to ingest any substance they wish. However, that does raise all kind of issues, particularly around the protection of the young, and around the legality of supplying substances that are harmful.

[Scotteo]

Once you research why and how most if not all drugs came to be banned you realise just how rediculous the whole situation has become.

 

But the simple matter of fact is that most policitians are too scared and rightly so to face the opposition on the stance on drugs. Just take look at David Nutt (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224162/Drug-tsar-claimed-ecstasy-LSD-harmful-alcohol-sacked.html for those who don't know, article just also happens to be from the dail mail ).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If you are sceptical whether governments use alcohol as a controlling drug, consider Tony Blair's liberalisation of the alcohol laws.

What I meant was that I am sceptical of arguments made to suggest that the government wish to get more people onto drugs. Rather the reverse is true. It makes little sense, giving their interests, to have more people drinking alcohol.

 

Because governments are composed of politicians, they don't always speak or act in a clear way, consistent with a single policy.

No, but were you to look at the government as a whole, there is a consistent response to drugs, in the sense that they wish to reduce drug use.

[Alex]

The current drugs policy is totally wrong IMO and urgently needs looking at. ALL drugs should be decriminalised (there is a big difference in viewing this as decriminalising rather than legalising). The current drugs policy costs a fortune, keeps criminals in business and makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding people. More than that, it actively assists those using addictive substances to force others into servitude or prostitution as once they are addicted, they are outside of society and branded criminal.

 

The people who are more against decriminalising drugs than anyone else are those who are making a fortune off the current market for drugs ie the dealers, smugglers, criminal cartels and gangs.

 

The war on drugs is futile, and since it began drug use has spiralled, as has the social & economic cost of dealing with & fighting against drug use.

 

I think people are in general very ignorant when it comes to drugs, they believe everything the government tell them & are scared of drugs. Most drugs are great! Why do you think people take them? Like everything, they're fine in moderation. Even heroin can be taken with no massive problems, most of the problems come when people can't get any real advice on how to use the stuff - like the plant food sold at the moment (on www.wide-mouth-frog.com/ for example ) - they can't advise people on safe amounts because they're not allowed to sell it for human consumption. Bloody silly.

[Sidney]

If you haven't read "Brave New World" I would recommend it.

I'm intrigued. Just ordered a copy so I'll get back to you when I've read it.

[Terse]

I think people are in general very ignorant when it comes to drugs, they believe everything the government tell them & are scared of drugs. Most drugs are great!

 

Not only ignorant bullshit... but dangerous, ignorant bullshit (unless, of course, you think that long term effects paranoia etc or early deaths are to be welcomed.

 

Why do you think people take them?

 

Because they're dumb enough to believe the twats who say things like 'Most drugs are great!'

 

Like everything, they're fine in moderation. Even heroin can be taken with no massive problems, most of the problems come when people can't get any real advice on how to use the stuff - like the plant food sold at the moment - they can't advise people on safe amounts because they're not allowed to sell it for human consumption.

 

Which means they don't know if any particular amount is dangerous or not - but they're happy to sell it to you anyway. Cunts!

[Alex]

*shrugs* Whatever Terse, although I have to say that I know by personal experience, how do you know? Have you taken into account the reasons these things were banned, the increase in use since the bans, the fact that millions of people use them regularly with no ill effects (only nice ones), and no early deaths or paranoia to be seen? In studies recently alcohol is presented as the most harmful drug, yet that’s legal. Tobacco smoking directly causes cancer amongst other things, yet that’s legal. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm). Most people who die from heroin die from overdosing, which is a direct consequence of it being illegal – they don’t know what they’re buying, and it’s cut so much, that overdoses happen when they buy some that’s fairly uncut & take their usual amount.

 

Your last point, the “cunts” state “one gram feeds 10 plants” which is the best they can do (ie 1 tenth of a gram = one dose).

 

Mainly, IMO, as grown adults people can do whatever the hell they like to their own bodies.

[Terse]

*shrugs* Whatever Terse, although I have to say that I know by personal experience, how do you know?

 

I've never tried mind-altering drugs, probably because I've had to help mend the shattered minds and lives of some young people who were stupid enough to believe the mantra of those who told them that drugs were fun or drugs were harmless. Personally, I'd like to wring the necks of the bastards who push them onto vulnerable youngsters.

 

Mainly, IMO, as grown adults people can do whatever the hell they like to their own bodies.

 

Fine. But define 'grown adults.'

There is no magical number - no moment in time when the tick of a clock turns a child into an adult - because everyone is individual. There may well be a few teenagers who can genuinely cope with mild 'recreational' drugs without too many harmful results - but they are the exception rather than the rule - just as there are people in their 20s or even 30s who can be severely scarred by exposure to them.

I know its unfashionable to deplore drug-taking - the fashionistas insist that its "fine, darling... and poor Amy would have been okay if it hadn't been for that dreadful alcohol," but I have learned enough to know that minds of all ages can be irreparably damaged by so many substances.

[pauld]

hey alex, the writing really is blue, your not tripping.

[Alex]

I've never tried mind-altering drugs.

 

You're the perfect example of those ignorant idiots who are too scared to see what's under their noses then.

 

 

Fine. But define 'grown adults.'

 

18 years old = a grown adult.

 

Thousands of people's lives are destroyed by the current drug law, being thrown into prison for merely possessing & having a criminal record for the rest of their lives. Again, I'm talking about decriminalising, therefore being in more of a position to help those who need it when it comes to problems with drugs. Imagine the sums of money that could be made from taxation of drugs that could be ploughed back into helping those who have issues with drugs. Imagine the billions that would be saved in stopping the unwinnable fight. Millions of people use alcohol with no earth-shatteringly bad affects, whilst some people are badly affected by its use. It's the same for other substances.

 

People have used mind-altering substances for thousands of years. Yet since we decided to ban these (not even 100 yrs ago), they've become quite a problem. Go figure eh?

 

There may well be a few teenagers who can genuinely cope with mild 'recreational' drugs without too many harmful results - but they are the exception rather than the rule

 

This is TOTAL bullshit. Millions of people in the UK alone indulge in mind-altering substances regularly and have no problems. It's a small minority of people who have issues, most people do not.

[pauld]

you are trying to say the same as these professors alex.

The constable is speaking from personal experience and not surprisingly his views are biased toward that personal experiences.

 

He makes valid points, but as the professor says "its about the harm overall" thats important.

 

 

 

 

 

The two experts were both on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, of which Professor Nutt, 58, was chairman.

Dr King's departure leaves Mr Johnson facing the prospect of a mass walkout, with others on the Council expected to make a joint statement sometime today.

Professor Nutt had clashed with the Government by making clear his controversial views, including one claim that Ecstasy was no more dangerous than 'riding a horse'.

He was dismissed on Friday for saying cannabis only created a 'relatively small risk' of psychotic illness and was less damaging to health than nicotine or alcohol.

Dr King, who worked for the Forensic Science Service (FSS) for 30 years, has been associated with the drugs advisory panel for 15 years.

He was head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit for 10 years before his retirement from FSS in 2001, when he became a co-opted member of the Home Office advisory panel.

Dr King, who became a full member last year, said the Government's attitude to the panel has been shifting in recent years and home secretaries now had a 'pre-defined political agenda' when they asked for its expert advice.

'It's being asked to rubber stamp a pre-determined position,' he said. 'If sufficient members do resign, the committee will no longer be able to operate.'

Dr King said he believes the panel needs to become 'free from Government interference' in the same way as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice), the organisation which advises on medicines and clinical practice.

'I don't see why drugs can't be done the same. It can be totally depoliticised. It's all about harm. It's a scientific issue,' he said.

[The Dalby Spook]

 

 

 

M'kay