The Dutch Problem

[the mo beats experience]

The downtown centre of Amsterdam where all the British go is a seedy shithole, policed by pimps - and the Dutch citizens of the city that I know are embarrassed at what has happened to their lovely city and ashamed of the drug culture, of which they are not usually a part.

 

You will note that they drink and eat elsewhere in the town.

As do the visiters who aren't on stag/hen do's or there "just" for the weed.

[Lonan3]

I must admit that Amsterdam, for me, conjures up images of the Rijksmuseum, Rembrandthuis and Van Gogh Museum, beautiful buildings such as the Het Houten Huys and the Schreierstoren, good food in the Bordewijk, decent beer almost everywhere, relaxing canal trips, the Albert Cuyp day market, the Vondelpark with it's open air theatre.....

In other words, its a beautiful city that really doesn't deserve to be dismissed as a centre of 'pot tourism.' It really is much, much more than just that.

[Amadeus]

Yeah but it's not an introduction... Cannabis has been smoked by people for thousands of years - longer than alcohol. It's use as a modern day recreational drug won't go away by making it illegal as has been proven by all countries outside of the Netherlands. Would you prefer that we introduce an illegal drug thereby making criminals out of a minority of the population, putting them at risk and restricting support? Or would you prefer we legalized it so that users knew what they were taking, so they could be taxed to pay for possible health effects and given advice if necessary without fear of prosecution?

People have done a lot of things in the past - "Cannabis has been smoked by people for thousands of years" doesn't count as an argument for me..

 

Example: Laudanum was a popular "working class drug" during Victorian times - an opium tincture, cheaper to buy than most other alcoholic beverages at the time. Everyone loved it, but research through the years showed that it's rather addictive, and it might not be such a good idea to keep it legal.. (On a side note: If you have any Asterix & Obelix comics at home - have a look at the page with the map of the village and the Roman camps in front of it - one is called Laudanum. Only know that because I had to crunch my way through the Latin version of it - our teacher back then thought it would make Latin more interesting )

 

Or Heroin - for this drug, we - "ze Germans" - can take credit - at least as far as the name is concerned: The Bayer chemical cartel started selling diacetyl morphine under the brand name "Heroin" (meaning 'heroic treatment' from the German word heroisch) as an over-the-counter cure-all medicine in 1898. From 1898 through to 1910 it was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough medicine for children. (from wikiclicky).

 

Feeding Heroin to your children, or taking it instead of Aspirin - sounds pretty mad when you look at what we know about it today, doesn't it?

 

Now, I am not trying to compare Heroin directly with Cannabis - it's more about the current level of research, and that new studies are coming out all the time - just like they did in the past - highlighting possible benefits (I do not doubt that cannabis can be used for pain treatment, etc, in some ways), as well as more negative effects, and as a result of this, I simply do not see any need for more recreational drugs - why the hell do you think you need the right to smoke your brains out? Can't you do anything else?

[Bombay Bad Boy]

[Did Mannin change their pot policy at the same time as the UK or would they still nick you for possession on the island?

Yes, they had to, for reasons which escape me at present. But then Tynwald rushed through an amendment to the Manx Arrestable Offences Act, which brought us back to the cosy current state.

[cheesemonster2005]

Now, I am not trying to compare Heroin directly with Cannabis - it's more about the current level of research, and that new studies are coming out all the time - just like they did in the past - highlighting possible benefits (I do not doubt that cannabis can be used for pain treatment, etc, in some ways), as well as more negative effects, and as a result of this, I simply do not see any need for more recreational drugs - why the hell do you think you need the right to smoke your brains out? Can't you do anything else?

 

I understand that you're totally against it and that you believe the present round of research about its affects. It does have negative effects but so does everything humans enjoy eating/taking/drinking.

 

If it's so bad then what's the point in making it illegal? It's been shown that making the drug illegal has simply increased consumpsion, ignorance and many unknown factors. Today, we have no idea what's inside the joint we smoke and it's true that they keep getting stronger and stronger. By legalising the whole process we can ensure people aren't ignorant by presenting true facts and not half-baked opinions from the likes of druggies, the police and Talk to Frank. Legalised pot would ensure a constant mix of the drug which wouldn't be allowed to get more potent and could be easily analysed for benefits/side-effects. Legalised pot could decrease consumpsion (like it has in Netherlands) and it 'could' reduce access by kids who currently find it easier to find pot at school than alcohol.

 

Even if you think the drug is evil and that it's going to rot your brain and destroy society then surely it's better to have this drug in a legal environment rather than in the present underworld with no controls?

[Alex]

Now, I am not trying to compare Heroin directly with Cannabis - it's more about the current level of research, and that new studies are coming out all the time - just like they did in the past - highlighting possible benefits (I do not doubt that cannabis can be used for pain treatment, etc, in some ways), as well as more negative effects, and as a result of this, I simply do not see any need for more recreational drugs - why the hell do you think you need the right to smoke your brains out? Can't you do anything else?

Why the hell does anyone think they have the right to dictate to other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies? You don't see the need for any more recreational drugs - so what? What right has your (wrong, scared & naive) opinion got to impinge on what anyone else chooses to do? In a free society, just where is the line that Government can step in and ban things that are bad for you? Can they ban alcohol, caffeine, fried foods, tobacco, salt?

 

If I choose to smoke a plant, ingest some pills, snort some powder, that should be up to me, no-one else. How does treating people who choose to do that as criminals help anyone? It's certainly not stopping anyone - hell, cocaine is everywhere now. It didn't used to be, but in the last few years it's become hugely popular.

 

As to the original question - the other countries need to decriminalise and relax their laws. On all drugs. It's the only way. I believe it will happen eventually, hopefully in my lifetime. The Government would benefit, the users would benefit, the general public would benefit - the only ones who wouldn't benefit are the drug dealers. Just as they are the only ones now who benefit from this "drug war" and keeping them illegal.

 

Making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people is not the answer, people have shown that they have no regard for the law where they believe it to be wrong, so the arguments about the harm drugs may cause are totally irrelevant, as people are already taking them. Our Government was created by the people, for the people - and the people want to use drugs. Always have and always will. It is high time the law reflected this.

[sarahc]

Alex - can I put you down as a 'maybe' for decriminalisation?

[modey]

not really new news this is it? click

[P.K.]

Why the hell does anyone think they have the right to dictate to other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies? You don't see the need for any more recreational drugs - so what? What right has your (wrong, scared & naive) opinion got to impinge on what anyone else chooses to do? In a free society, just where is the line that Government can step in and ban things that are bad for you? Can they ban alcohol, caffeine, fried foods, tobacco, salt?

 

If I choose to smoke a plant, ingest some pills, snort some powder, that should be up to me, no-one else.

This all sounds fine as far as it goes.

 

Until, of course, you end up first in A & E, then on the Ward and then Rehab all funded by the rest of us. And if, as is common, your usage is funded by crime we then also have to pay for your court appearances followed by your stay in clink.

 

Why the hell should the rest of us hand over hard currency to pay for your irresponsible use of damaging pills, powders and so on?

[Alex]

Until, of course, you end up first in A & E, then on the Ward and then Rehab all funded by the rest of us. And if, as is common, your usage is funded by crime we then also have to pay for your court appearances followed by your stay in clink.

 

Why the hell should the rest of us hand over hard currency to pay for your irresponsible use of damaging pills, powders and so on?

What you describe is exactly what [one of] the problem with keeping drugs illegal is. We're ALL paying taxes hand over fist to police these laws, prosecute "offenders", keep them in prison.

 

We're also paying a high price in society, as those people addicted to expensive hard drugs like heroin are having to go out committing crimes to fund their habit.

 

If they were legal, heroin would be dispensed by prescription only, to registered addicts only (preferably with "injection safehouses" - where they take the drugs), that way we would seriously reduce drug-related crime, and reduce the amount of addicts taking their drugs on the street or in the kiddies playground, and leaving their dirty needles behind.

 

The softer drugs (cannabis, ecstacy, cocaine, amphetamines etc) would all be regulated and heavily taxed.

 

The money saved from policing the laws, prosecutions & prison sentences, along with the money raised from taxing the drugs would be more than enough to provide proper education on drugs, rehab centres etc etc.

 

It's drugs being illegal that are wasting your tax money. Legalising them would bring a huge influx of money to Govt coffers.

 

Besides all that - most drug users are contributing members of society too you know. They pay taxes/NI like the rest of us and are entitled to health care. If you fall and break your leg drunk after your Wednesday night in the pub are you somehow less entitled to use the hospital's services than a tee-totaller whose broken their leg? Alcohol is as much a drug as cannabis is, and look where prohibition of that got them when they tried it.

[P.K.]

If they were legal, heroin would be dispensed by prescription only, to registered addicts only (preferably with "injection safehouses" - where they take the drugs), that way we would seriously reduce drug-related crime, and reduce the amount of addicts taking their drugs on the street or in the kiddies playground, and leaving their dirty needles behind.

WTF? Currently registered addicts are receiving treatment anyway!

 

None of this will stop dealers trying to ensnare new customers and legalising less harmfull (although still lethal) drugs will just lead on to more and more trying harder drugs until they're hooked on something infinitely worse than cannabis. As the problem then spirals out of control they will want to control drugs again like, errr, Holland?

If you fall and break your leg drunk after your Wednesday night in the pub are you somehow less entitled to use the hospital's services than a tee-totaller whose broken their leg?

Of course not as I have been indulging in a perfectly legal pastime. Plus, assuming I have got really bladdered, I will need less painkillers than someone sober thus accruing a saving. I did break my arm on an evenings drinking after falling out of a wheelbarrow and I didn't actually make the hospital until the following lunchtime and then under my own steam - even under moments of stress there's no need to be uneconomical. However should a heroin addict turn up with the same injury they would cost an awful lot more than me to treat what with all those complications that addiction brings, police presence, statements, rehab bah-di-blah-di-blah.

[cheesemonster2005]

WTF? Currently registered addicts are receiving treatment anyway!

 

None of this will stop dealers trying to ensnare new customers and legalising less harmfull (although still lethal) drugs will just lead on to more and more trying harder drugs until they're hooked on something infinitely worse than cannabis. As the problem then spirals out of control they will want to control drugs again like, errr, Holland?

 

I don't know where people get their view of the 'evil drug dealer'. Many might be evil but the majority are just common ordinary people with jobs who sell a bit onto their friends. They don't try to make you progress to cocaine, then 'e', then heroine, then smack. Dealers I've known or dealt with are either workers supplementing their income (often taxi drivers) or students.

 

If you fall and break your leg drunk after your Wednesday night in the pub are you somehow less entitled to use the hospital's services than a tee-totaller whose broken their leg?

Of course not as I have been indulging in a perfectly legal pastime. Plus, assuming I have got really bladdered, I will need less painkillers than someone sober thus accruing a saving. I did break my arm on an evenings drinking after falling out of a wheelbarrow and I didn't actually make the hospital until the following lunchtime and then under my own steam - even under moments of stress there's no need to be uneconomical. However should a heroin addict turn up with the same injury they would cost an awful lot more than me to treat what with all those complications that addiction brings, police presence, statements, rehab bah-di-blah-di-blah.

 

Some people say we shouldn't provide medical treatment to smokers as the damage was self-inflicted (despite the huge taxes from tobacco). Others say alcohol addicts shouldn't get liver transplants because they have also done the damage themselves. What people fail to realise is that tobacco and alcohol users virtually fund the Manx and British NHS. It would be the same if pot were legalised although of course much much less expensive than the social costs of alcohol (of which I'm a happy user).

 

The present situation is a joke and even coppers, lawyers, judges, doctors and teachers accept this. It costs the UK, Irish and Manx governments millions every year on the stupid 'war against drugs', locking up drug users and drug addicts, trying pathetically to reduce consumpsion and detect drugs at ports and cities. It's a bigger waste of money than the MEA.

 

If you smoke pot or have used any other currently illegal drug you'll want drugs legalised. If you hate drugs and think they destroy people's lives and society then the best solution is legalisation as it would be beneficial for all, non-costly and help save lives. No arguement really. The majority of people in most countries now support the legalisation of drugs yet governments aren't listening because they're not allowed to change the status because of international treaties (mostly supported by the USA).

[P.K.]

The present situation is a joke and even coppers, lawyers, judges, doctors and teachers accept this. It costs the UK, Irish and Manx governments millions every year on the stupid 'war against drugs', locking up drug users and drug addicts, trying pathetically to reduce consumpsion and detect drugs at ports and cities. It's a bigger waste of money than the MEA.

You're right of course. If only those who need a way out of reality via drugs had more self-discipline then they wouldn't end up with the rest of us having to fund all the health treatments and prosecutions that we impose upon them in an effort to prevent them from harming themselves via drugs. Just let them kill themselves via their habit and the problem solves itself, doesn't it? But that only works if you can guarantee that the crazies won't commit mayhem amongst the innocents whilst under the influence or looking for funding.

 

Errrr... Oh dear. There can never be guarantees from those under the influence, can there?

 

Never mind, why not try saving whales or something - allegedly very rewarding....

[cheesemonster2005]

You're right of course. If only those who need a way out of reality via drugs had more self-discipline then they wouldn't end up with the rest of us having to fund all the health treatments and prosecutions that we impose upon them in an effort to prevent them from harming themselves via drugs.

 

So you don't drink alcohol then? If you don't then fair enough but if you do how is this in anyway different to someone who smokes a few joints once in a while?

 

People can be responsible drinkers if they drink in moderation, on occasion and without social problems. Equally people can be responsible pot smokers if they follow the same pattern. Of course on the other side there are those with addictions to alcohol and pot and it can screw up their lives but at least the pot smoker won't knock you out over a disagreement about the football results or because you looked at him/her the wrong way.

[P.K.]

Around here people buy pot from the same dealer who does all the rest. Work it out for yourself......