Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Legalise Drugs!
Topic Started: Dec 16 2010, 10:45 AM (305 Views)
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Make drugs legally available - MP

All three main parties at Westminster remain opposed to the legalisation of drugs
An ex-minister who had responsibility for drugs policy has called for all drugs to be legally available.

Bob Ainsworth, a Home Office minister under Tony Blair, said successive governments' approaches had failed, leaving criminal gangs in control.

The Coventry North East MP wants to see a system of strict legal regulation, with different drugs either prescribed by doctors or sold under licence.

Ministers have insisted they remain opposed to legalisation.

Media backlash

Mr Ainsworth is the most senior politician so far to publicly call for all drugs, including heroin and cocaine, to be in any way legalised.

He said he realised while he was a minister in the Home Office in charge of drugs policy that the so-called war on drugs could not be won.

The Labour backbencher said successive governments had been frightened to raise the issue because they feared a media backlash.

But he predicted in the end ministers would have no option but to adopt a different approach.

He said: "Politicians and the media need to engage in a genuine and grown-up debate about alternatives to prohibition.

Billions spent

"Leaving the drugs market in the hands of criminals causes huge and unnecessary harms to individuals, communities and entire countries, with the poor the hardest hit."

Mr Ainsworth said billions of pounds was being spent "without preventing the wide availability of drugs".

"It is time to replace our failed war on drugs with a strict system of legal regulation, to make the world a safer, healthier place, especially for our children," he said.

"We must take the trade away from organised criminals and hand it to the control of doctors and pharmacists."

BBC Home Editor Mark Easton said under such a system heroin and cocaine might only be available on prescription from registered doctors, while cannabis might be sold in a similar way to tobacco.

"Under such a system, those who supplied or sold drugs without the requisite licence would still be operating illegally, in the same way as those who sell tobacco, alcohol or prescription drugs without a licence or proper authority would be currently," he said.

However, all three main parties at Westminster remain opposed to legalisation, with a Labour spokesman saying Mr Ainsworth's were "not the views of Ed Miliband, the Labour Party or the public".

Last week, Home Secretary Theresa May said the government's drugs strategy would remain focused on rehabilitation and reducing supply.

Crime Prevention Minister James Brokenshire said: "Drugs are harmful and ruin lives - legalisation is not the answer.

"Decriminalisation is a simplistic solution that fails to recognise the complexity of the problem and ignores the serious harm drug taking poses to the individual.

"Legalisation fails to address the reasons people misuse drugs in the first place or the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes individuals, their families and the wider community."

'Change needed'

However, former chief constable of Cambridgeshire Police, Tom Lloyd, said something had to change.

"We've got so used to 40 years of prohibition which, in my experience of over 30 years of policing, has led to massive cost, a failure to achieve the primary aims, which is the reduction of drug use, and a range of unintended harmful consequences," he said.

Former Criminal Bar Association chairman Paul Mendelle QC called for a full examination of the evidence which supports drugs policy.

"Illegalising [the drugs trade] is the legislative equivalent of putting a sheet over your head and hoping it will go away," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

However, anti-drugs campaigner Debra Bell, whose eldest son William began smoking cannabis at 14, believes that he would have progressed to taking class A substances had they been legally available.

"Just the fact that Bob Ainsworth is talking in this way will send strong signals to some children - a green light - to start experimenting and I really don't think that's the way forward in a civilised society," she argued.

BBC © 2010

Is this bloke for real, all this would do is create more addicts, haveing them controlled by the government or by dealers is irelavent, it will but even more stress on the nhs, and many will still turn to crime to feed their habit , some of

How do complete. numpties get into powerful positions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Migster
Bob Latchford
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I refer all matters on drugs to Bill Hicks. Alcohol and nictotine are legal and they kill more thousands every year. Cannabis has not killed one single person ever. If it was taxed and legal it still wouldn't kill anybody.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Migster
Dec 16 2010, 11:00 AM
I refer all matters on drugs to Bill Hicks. Alcohol and nictotine are legal and they kill more thousands every year. Cannabis has not killed one single person ever. If it was taxed and legal it still wouldn't kill anybody.

But he's not talking just about cannabis , he wants all drugs legal, the mans a complete fool.

Even if you just legalise cannabis more people will take it and a good percentage of those people will go on to take harder drugs.

And just because cannabis hasn't killed anyone does not detract from the fact it has ruined more families lives than alcohol and smoking, I know I've seen it happen many times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 11:12 AM
And just because cannabis hasn't killed anyone does not detract from the fact it has ruined more families lives than alcohol and smoking, I know I've seen it happen many times.

That's complete guff for a start.

The amount of families that alcohol effects far superceeds anything that canabis could do.

The problem with drugs comes from the fact that its underground. The drugs sold on the street are cut with all sorts of garbage, to the point that its not the drugs that usually kills, but the other rubbish.

The price and the distribution aren't regulated, so addicts are forced into crime to pay for their fix. Should the drugs be distributed in an organised and regulated fashion, the amount of crime committed to pay for drugs would drop. This means more police available for other duties.

Legalising drugs does not mean sticking them on supermarket shelves, but making them available, via persription, to those who need them, and cutting off the illegal trade at the knees, because who's going to go to a street dealer to get rubbish at an inflated price when they can recieve a purer and cleaner product for a nominal price from their doctor or pharmasist.

The drugs debate is far more difficult and far more complex than "drugs are bad, m'kay" and it needs an adult and unemotive debate if we are at all serious about combating the misery that drug abuse currently brings.

All we have at the moment is the same effect the Prohibition had in America in the 20s and 30s, and we all know how successful that was.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 12:19 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 11:12 AM
And just because cannabis hasn't killed anyone does not detract from the fact it has ruined more families lives than alcohol and smoking, I know I've seen it happen many times.

That's complete guff for a start.

The amount of families that alcohol effects far superceeds anything that canabis could do.

The problem with drugs comes from the fact that its underground. The drugs sold on the street are cut with all sorts of garbage, to the point that its not the drugs that usually kills, but the other rubbish.

The price and the distribution aren't regulated, so addicts are forced into crime to pay for their fix. Should the drugs be distributed in an organised and regulated fashion, the amount of crime committed to pay for drugs would drop. This means more police available for other duties.

Legalising drugs does not mean sticking them on supermarket shelves, but making them available, via persription, to those who need them, and cutting off the illegal trade at the knees, because who's going to go to a street dealer to get rubbish at an inflated price when they can recieve a purer and cleaner product for a nominal price from their doctor or pharmasist.

The drugs debate is far more difficult and far more complex than "drugs are bad, m'kay" and it needs an adult and unemotive debate if we are at all serious about combating the misery that drug abuse currently brings.

All we have at the moment is the same effect the Prohibition had in America in the 20s and 30s, and we all know how successful that was.

Totall propaganda rubbish.

First, drugs distroy more families than alcohol in my experience , I have witnessed it personaly in both family and friends, and I have on known a fraction of this where alcohol is concerned.

Second. You say that drugs will only be made avail yo those that need them and a person will get them on prescription, well we already do this in the form of methadone and I can asure you that many will still go for the hard stuff and it will make no difference go this.

If you legalise drugs then it will open up a Market for it through a sort of licence, yes I agree some of the harmful ingredients will be gone but you will be free to buy it legally otherwise the dealers will still be around if you can't get officially.

Problem with things like cannabis is that it's relatively harmless taken socially but the body gets used to it and after awhile you take more of it or do it more often to get the same high and that's when people take harder drugs to get that high again.

At the moment there is a section of society ghat won't take drugs because they are illegal, making it legal will only make more people take drugs.

I hate this fallacy that all cannabis smokers are peace loving hippies sitting around a camp fire playing jimmy Hendrix tunes with big happy grins on their faces.

The real world of drugs is a little darker than that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 01:31 PM
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 12:19 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 11:12 AM
And just because cannabis hasn't killed anyone does not detract from the fact it has ruined more families lives than alcohol and smoking, I know I've seen it happen many times.

That's complete guff for a start.

The amount of families that alcohol effects far superceeds anything that canabis could do.

The problem with drugs comes from the fact that its underground. The drugs sold on the street are cut with all sorts of garbage, to the point that its not the drugs that usually kills, but the other rubbish.

The price and the distribution aren't regulated, so addicts are forced into crime to pay for their fix. Should the drugs be distributed in an organised and regulated fashion, the amount of crime committed to pay for drugs would drop. This means more police available for other duties.

Legalising drugs does not mean sticking them on supermarket shelves, but making them available, via persription, to those who need them, and cutting off the illegal trade at the knees, because who's going to go to a street dealer to get rubbish at an inflated price when they can recieve a purer and cleaner product for a nominal price from their doctor or pharmasist.

The drugs debate is far more difficult and far more complex than "drugs are bad, m'kay" and it needs an adult and unemotive debate if we are at all serious about combating the misery that drug abuse currently brings.

All we have at the moment is the same effect the Prohibition had in America in the 20s and 30s, and we all know how successful that was.

Totall propaganda rubbish.

First, drugs distroy more families than alcohol in my experience , I have witnessed it personaly in both family and friends, and I have on known a fraction of this where alcohol is concerned.

Second. You say that drugs will only be made avail yo those that need them and a person will get them on prescription, well we already do this in the form of methadone and I can asure you that many will still go for the hard stuff and it will make no difference go this.

If you legalise drugs then it will open up a Market for it through a sort of licence, yes I agree some of the harmful ingredients will be gone but you will be free to buy it legally otherwise the dealers will still be around if you can't get officially.

Problem with things like cannabis is that it's relatively harmless taken socially but the body gets used to it and after awhile you take more of it or do it more often to get the same high and that's when people take harder drugs to get that high again.

At the moment there is a section of society ghat won't take drugs because they are illegal, making it legal will only make more people take drugs.

I hate this fallacy that all cannabis smokers are peace loving hippies sitting around a camp fire playing jimmy Hendrix tunes with big happy grins on their faces.

The real world of drugs is a little darker than that.

Nick, I'm not doubting your experiances, but they are by no means indicative of the world as a whole.

Alcohol causes far more problems than even the hardest of drugs. The World Heath Organisation conducted a study earlier this year, which Reuters picked up on here, but I'll quote out the part that is most appropriate.

Quote:
 
The World Health Organization estimates that risks linked to alcohol cause 2.5 million deaths a year from heart and liver disease, road accidents, suicides and cancer -- accounting for 3.8 percent of all deaths. It is the third leading risk factor for premature death and disabilities worldwide.

In an effort to offer a guide to policy makers in health, policing, and social care, Nutt's team rated drugs using a technique called multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) which assessed damage according to nine criteria on harm to the user and seven criteria on harm to others.

Harms to the user included things such as drug-specific or drug-related death, damage to health, drug dependence and loss of relationships, while harms to others included crime, environmental damage, family conflict, international damage, economic cost, and damage to community cohesion.

Drugs were then scored out of 100, with 100 given to the most harmful drug and zero indicating no harm at all.

The scientists found alcohol was most harmful, with a score of 72, followed by heroin with 55 and crack with 54.

Among some of the other drugs assessed were crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine or speed (23), cannabis (20), benzodiazepines, such as Valium (15), ketamine (15), methadone (14), mephedrone (13), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7) and magic mushrooms (5).


I don't have a direct link to the study (which is a shame), but this is just one of a number of studies that have found the same. Its not propaganda.

That's not to denegrate your experiance nick, but just to point out that your experiances are not indicative of the true situation.

People will always take drugs. This is something that is unavoidable. What we need to do is to provide a safe, healthy, crime free environment, as well as spending far more than the tuppence ha'penny we have on education of the long term effects of drugs, and especially in a manner that doesn't preach to people.

As I said, the drug debate is extreamly complex, and one that will not be solved with a carte blanche "ban them" or "legalise them" approach.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyle-KRO
Member Avatar
Ian Handysides
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they like without requiring the approval of the state; if as a result of this some then infringe upon another's life and/or liberty, only then should they be dealt with accordingly.

I don't subscribe to the slippery slope spin, i.e. "cannabis will eventually lead one to heroin", or the "Joe never did drugs, because they weren't legal, but now that they are legal he (and everyone else) is an addict."

More people will certainly experiment (like they currently do with things such as Alcohol and tobacco), but I'd imagine the vast majority would find it to be not for them and move on.

Drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, gambling, etc. have the capacity to help destroy ones life, but it shouldn't be down to the state to prevent it; in my opinion it should come down to the individual, his/her family, friends, and supporter, and the community with which they live.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blueblood
Johnny Vincent
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 01:19 PM
"drugs are bad, m'kay"

:LOL:

Professor David Nutt believes that Alcohol and Tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs such as ecstasy, LSD and Cannabis but what does he know?

Doc you always base your opinions on what you saw in some council estate in brum and then take your experiences as fact. This isn't the case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 02:16 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 01:31 PM
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 12:19 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 11:12 AM
And just because cannabis hasn't killed anyone does not detract from the fact it has ruined more families lives than alcohol and smoking, I know I've seen it happen many times.

That's complete guff for a start.

The amount of families that alcohol effects far superceeds anything that canabis could do.

The problem with drugs comes from the fact that its underground. The drugs sold on the street are cut with all sorts of garbage, to the point that its not the drugs that usually kills, but the other rubbish.

The price and the distribution aren't regulated, so addicts are forced into crime to pay for their fix. Should the drugs be distributed in an organised and regulated fashion, the amount of crime committed to pay for drugs would drop. This means more police available for other duties.

Legalising drugs does not mean sticking them on supermarket shelves, but making them available, via persription, to those who need them, and cutting off the illegal trade at the knees, because who's going to go to a street dealer to get rubbish at an inflated price when they can recieve a purer and cleaner product for a nominal price from their doctor or pharmasist.

The drugs debate is far more difficult and far more complex than "drugs are bad, m'kay" and it needs an adult and unemotive debate if we are at all serious about combating the misery that drug abuse currently brings.

All we have at the moment is the same effect the Prohibition had in America in the 20s and 30s, and we all know how successful that was.

Totall propaganda rubbish.

First, drugs distroy more families than alcohol in my experience , I have witnessed it personaly in both family and friends, and I have on known a fraction of this where alcohol is concerned.

Second. You say that drugs will only be made avail yo those that need them and a person will get them on prescription, well we already do this in the form of methadone and I can asure you that many will still go for the hard stuff and it will make no difference go this.

If you legalise drugs then it will open up a Market for it through a sort of licence, yes I agree some of the harmful ingredients will be gone but you will be free to buy it legally otherwise the dealers will still be around if you can't get officially.

Problem with things like cannabis is that it's relatively harmless taken socially but the body gets used to it and after awhile you take more of it or do it more often to get the same high and that's when people take harder drugs to get that high again.

At the moment there is a section of society ghat won't take drugs because they are illegal, making it legal will only make more people take drugs.

I hate this fallacy that all cannabis smokers are peace loving hippies sitting around a camp fire playing jimmy Hendrix tunes with big happy grins on their faces.

The real world of drugs is a little darker than that.

Nick, I'm not doubting your experiances, but they are by no means indicative of the world as a whole.

Alcohol causes far more problems than even the hardest of drugs. The World Heath Organisation conducted a study earlier this year, which Reuters picked up on here, but I'll quote out the part that is most appropriate.

Quote:
 
The World Health Organization estimates that risks linked to alcohol cause 2.5 million deaths a year from heart and liver disease, road accidents, suicides and cancer -- accounting for 3.8 percent of all deaths. It is the third leading risk factor for premature death and disabilities worldwide.

In an effort to offer a guide to policy makers in health, policing, and social care, Nutt's team rated drugs using a technique called multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) which assessed damage according to nine criteria on harm to the user and seven criteria on harm to others.

Harms to the user included things such as drug-specific or drug-related death, damage to health, drug dependence and loss of relationships, while harms to others included crime, environmental damage, family conflict, international damage, economic cost, and damage to community cohesion.

Drugs were then scored out of 100, with 100 given to the most harmful drug and zero indicating no harm at all.

The scientists found alcohol was most harmful, with a score of 72, followed by heroin with 55 and crack with 54.

Among some of the other drugs assessed were crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine or speed (23), cannabis (20), benzodiazepines, such as Valium (15), ketamine (15), methadone (14), mephedrone (13), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7) and magic mushrooms (5).


I don't have a direct link to the study (which is a shame), but this is just one of a number of studies that have found the same. Its not propaganda.

That's not to denegrate your experiance nick, but just to point out that your experiances are not indicative of the true situation.

People will always take drugs. This is something that is unavoidable. What we need to do is to provide a safe, healthy, crime free environment, as well as spending far more than the tuppence ha'penny we have on education of the long term effects of drugs, and especially in a manner that doesn't preach to people.

As I said, the drug debate is extreamly complex, and one that will not be solved with a carte blanche "ban them" or "legalise them" approach.

Let's break down those studdies then.

How many people take hardened drugs to those that drink?

You will find more people drink alcohol than take hard drugs so stats will show a greater death rate for alcohol than they do for drugs

Now if you legalise drugs more people will take them and soon will be on a par with drinkers.

Then you will see that drugs is by far the greatest killer.

To become an alcoholic there is generally a trigger in peoples lives that makes them turn to drink to cope with life.

A drug addict is someone who gets addicted because the body can't do without the drug.

With alcohol you can just stop.

With drugs it takes time for the body to adjust through weening of the drug, you can't just stop.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
terminator666
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
What would happen with regards to driving; operating machiney;working etc if drugs were made legal? At present there is no spot test for driving under the influence of cannabis. That's not a good thing in in itself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'll answer some of these point by point.

Now if you legalise drugs more people will take them and soon will be on a par with drinkers. - not necessarily. That's a common suggestion that has no evidence in reality.

To become an alcoholic there is generally a trigger in peoples lives that makes them turn to drink to cope with life. - again, not necessarily. That is the stereotype, but many alcoholics begin with social drinking.

A drug addict is someone who gets addicted because the body can't do without the drug. With alcohol you can just stop. - totally wrong. Addiction is a dependancy on a certain chemical. This includes alcohol. Alcoholics cannot "just stop" any more than drugs addicts or smokers can.

With drugs it takes time for the body to adjust through weening of the drug, you can't just stop. - same with booze. Its a chemical depandancy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Des
Malcom Page
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
i definately think al drugs should be sold through chemists.
Biggest advantage is it cuts criminals off from 90% of their revenue streams, also junkies would have to get prescription regularly so Doctors would take an interest in their overall health care and finally Government would accrue another MASSIVE slice of Tax that at the moment thaey havent got.

My Dad said this to me in the 6o`s he always had kind of radical views but do you know what I think this should happen.

KRO
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
terminator666
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Addiction to alcohol and drugs is more mental then physical-A drinker who stops drinking is likey to drink again as is a junkie who quits is also just as likely to start again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pestcontrol
Unregistered

dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 02:31 PM
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 02:16 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 01:31 PM
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 12:19 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 11:12 AM
And just because cannabis hasn't killed anyone does not detract from the fact it has ruined more families lives than alcohol and smoking, I know I've seen it happen many times.

That's complete guff for a start.

The amount of families that alcohol effects far superceeds anything that canabis could do.

The problem with drugs comes from the fact that its underground. The drugs sold on the street are cut with all sorts of garbage, to the point that its not the drugs that usually kills, but the other rubbish.

The price and the distribution aren't regulated, so addicts are forced into crime to pay for their fix. Should the drugs be distributed in an organised and regulated fashion, the amount of crime committed to pay for drugs would drop. This means more police available for other duties.

Legalising drugs does not mean sticking them on supermarket shelves, but making them available, via persription, to those who need them, and cutting off the illegal trade at the knees, because who's going to go to a street dealer to get rubbish at an inflated price when they can recieve a purer and cleaner product for a nominal price from their doctor or pharmasist.

The drugs debate is far more difficult and far more complex than "drugs are bad, m'kay" and it needs an adult and unemotive debate if we are at all serious about combating the misery that drug abuse currently brings.

All we have at the moment is the same effect the Prohibition had in America in the 20s and 30s, and we all know how successful that was.

Totall propaganda rubbish.

First, drugs distroy more families than alcohol in my experience , I have witnessed it personaly in both family and friends, and I have on known a fraction of this where alcohol is concerned.

Second. You say that drugs will only be made avail yo those that need them and a person will get them on prescription, well we already do this in the form of methadone and I can asure you that many will still go for the hard stuff and it will make no difference go this.

If you legalise drugs then it will open up a Market for it through a sort of licence, yes I agree some of the harmful ingredients will be gone but you will be free to buy it legally otherwise the dealers will still be around if you can't get officially.

Problem with things like cannabis is that it's relatively harmless taken socially but the body gets used to it and after awhile you take more of it or do it more often to get the same high and that's when people take harder drugs to get that high again.

At the moment there is a section of society ghat won't take drugs because they are illegal, making it legal will only make more people take drugs.

I hate this fallacy that all cannabis smokers are peace loving hippies sitting around a camp fire playing jimmy Hendrix tunes with big happy grins on their faces.

The real world of drugs is a little darker than that.

Nick, I'm not doubting your experiances, but they are by no means indicative of the world as a whole.

Alcohol causes far more problems than even the hardest of drugs. The World Heath Organisation conducted a study earlier this year, which Reuters picked up on here, but I'll quote out the part that is most appropriate.

Quote:
 
The World Health Organization estimates that risks linked to alcohol cause 2.5 million deaths a year from heart and liver disease, road accidents, suicides and cancer -- accounting for 3.8 percent of all deaths. It is the third leading risk factor for premature death and disabilities worldwide.

In an effort to offer a guide to policy makers in health, policing, and social care, Nutt's team rated drugs using a technique called multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) which assessed damage according to nine criteria on harm to the user and seven criteria on harm to others.

Harms to the user included things such as drug-specific or drug-related death, damage to health, drug dependence and loss of relationships, while harms to others included crime, environmental damage, family conflict, international damage, economic cost, and damage to community cohesion.

Drugs were then scored out of 100, with 100 given to the most harmful drug and zero indicating no harm at all.

The scientists found alcohol was most harmful, with a score of 72, followed by heroin with 55 and crack with 54.

Among some of the other drugs assessed were crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine or speed (23), cannabis (20), benzodiazepines, such as Valium (15), ketamine (15), methadone (14), mephedrone (13), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7) and magic mushrooms (5).


I don't have a direct link to the study (which is a shame), but this is just one of a number of studies that have found the same. Its not propaganda.

That's not to denegrate your experiance nick, but just to point out that your experiances are not indicative of the true situation.

People will always take drugs. This is something that is unavoidable. What we need to do is to provide a safe, healthy, crime free environment, as well as spending far more than the tuppence ha'penny we have on education of the long term effects of drugs, and especially in a manner that doesn't preach to people.

As I said, the drug debate is extreamly complex, and one that will not be solved with a carte blanche "ban them" or "legalise them" approach.

Let's break down those studdies then.

How many people take hardened drugs to those that drink?

You will find more people drink alcohol than take hard drugs so stats will show a greater death rate for alcohol than they do for drugs

Now if you legalise drugs more people will take them and soon will be on a par with drinkers.

Then you will see that drugs is by far the greatest killer.

To become an alcoholic there is generally a trigger in peoples lives that makes them turn to drink to cope with life.

A drug addict is someone who gets addicted because the body can't do without the drug.

With alcohol you can just stop.

With drugs it takes time for the body to adjust through weening of the drug, you can't just stop.

There are many misconceptions about certain drugs, the worse in my opinion is heroin for long term addiction and possibly life addiction, cocaine and crack are short term very intense but after a month or so or even the realisation that enough will never be enough addicts can usually just stop unless of course they turn to crime to fund there addiction.

I would have to say that booze ruins more lives than most drugs, not many people can hold down a job with a drinking problem and yet i know people chasing the dragon who are mechanics etc.

There are also certain amphetomines that are about as dangerous as an asprin of course crystal meth is extremly dangerous, hemp/ cannabis oil is supposed to be a wonder drug that cures cancer but because the giant pharma companies can not patent a plant it is made illegal.

I base my opinion on having been a private hire driver and i would rather pick up a druggie than a drunk any day of the week.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
terminator666
Dec 16 2010, 03:14 PM
What would happen with regards to driving; operating machiney;working etc if drugs were made legal? At present there is no spot test for driving under the influence of cannabis. That's not a good thing in in itself.

There should be.

Working for the railways, all our workers, including office workers, are subject to drugs and alcohol tests, and we can be dismissed should we be in work under the influence.

More companies should move to the same processes.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kyle-KRO
Dec 16 2010, 02:17 PM
People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they like without requiring the approval of the state; if as a result of this some then infringe upon another's life and/or liberty, only then should they be dealt with accordingly.

I don't subscribe to the slippery slope spin, i.e. "cannabis will eventually lead one to heroin", or the "Joe never did drugs, because they weren't legal, but now that they are legal he (and everyone else) is an addict."

More people will certainly experiment (like they currently do with things such as Alcohol and tobacco), but I'd imagine the vast majority would find it to be not for them and move on.

Drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, gambling, etc. have the capacity to help destroy ones life, but it shouldn't be down to the state to prevent it; in my opinion it should come down to the individual, his/her family, friends, and supporter, and the community with which they live.

I agree with a lot of what you say there, I tried it didn't like it , and also if you chose to take drugs alcohol and smoke it shouldn't be down to the state to pay for health requirments.

I do believe though that if you legalise drugs they will become more of a killer than alcohol or smoking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 03:18 PM
I'll answer some of these point by point.

Now if you legalise drugs more people will take them and soon will be on a par with drinkers. - not necessarily. That's a common suggestion that has no evidence in reality.

To become an alcoholic there is generally a trigger in peoples lives that makes them turn to drink to cope with life. - again, not necessarily. That is the stereotype, but many alcoholics begin with social drinking.

A drug addict is someone who gets addicted because the body can't do without the drug. With alcohol you can just stop. - totally wrong. Addiction is a dependancy on a certain chemical. This includes alcohol. Alcoholics cannot "just stop" any more than drugs addicts or smokers can.

With drugs it takes time for the body to adjust through weening of the drug, you can't just stop. - same with booze. Its a chemical depandancy.

Your wrong about alcohol , there is no proof or study that says you can be addicted to alcohol just by drinking itsocialy.

Take myself I drank heavily for many years dinner times and knight times seven days a week ( people on can vouch for the amount of alcohol I drank) but as soon as I got my first car I cut my drinking down by three quarters with no withdrawal , well I do now get hangovers if I drink too much which I never had before.

Drugs are a different kettle of fish allthough you can't get addicted to recreational drugs like extasy but the body gets used to them and some people who have an addictive personality could go on to harder drugs.

This is what these so called experts don't take into account.

Would you take that chance if your Kids started off on something they have said is safe and of no harm.

Don't forget they said that about loads of things that turned out to be quite the opposit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
blueblood
Dec 16 2010, 02:29 PM
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 01:19 PM
"drugs are bad, m'kay"

:LOL:

Professor David Nutt believes that Alcohol and Tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs such as ecstasy, LSD and Cannabis but what does he know?

Doc you always base your opinions on what you saw in some council estate in brum and then take your experiences as fact. This isn't the case.

I'd rather listen to people who have experienced things than listen to so-called experts that have based there conclusions on speeking to recreational drug users.

All I would say is I've never seen a body disintegrate after starting to drink acohol for a year.

I wish I could say the same after I saw my Mates son after he started on heroin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 04:18 PM
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 03:18 PM
I'll answer some of these point by point.

Now if you legalise drugs more people will take them and soon will be on a par with drinkers. - not necessarily. That's a common suggestion that has no evidence in reality.

To become an alcoholic there is generally a trigger in peoples lives that makes them turn to drink to cope with life. - again, not necessarily. That is the stereotype, but many alcoholics begin with social drinking.

A drug addict is someone who gets addicted because the body can't do without the drug. With alcohol you can just stop. - totally wrong. Addiction is a dependancy on a certain chemical. This includes alcohol. Alcoholics cannot "just stop" any more than drugs addicts or smokers can.

With drugs it takes time for the body to adjust through weening of the drug, you can't just stop. - same with booze. Its a chemical depandancy.

Your wrong about alcohol , there is no proof or study that says you can be addicted to alcohol just by drinking itsocialy.

Take myself I drank heavily for many years dinner times and knight times seven days a week ( people on can vouch for the amount of alcohol I drank) but as soon as I got my first car I cut my drinking down by three quarters with no withdrawal , well I do now get hangovers if I drink too much which I never had before.

Drugs are a different kettle of fish allthough you can't get addicted to recreational drugs like extasy but the body gets used to them and some people who have an addictive personality could go on to harder drugs.

This is what these so called experts don't take into account.

Would you take that chance if your Kids started off on something they have said is safe and of no harm.

Don't forget they said that about loads of things that turned out to be quite the opposit.

I'm not wrong here Nick, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

Whilst personal experiances are of value, to dismiss controlled scientific studies is no better than denying that the earth is round because you cannot see it.

You see the debilitating effects of heroin on a body more easily, because it takes more out of the body quicker. This doesn't make it less addictive a drug (which is all based on the individuals genetic makeup anyway) it just means that the manner in which the drug takes from the body happens at a more rapid pace than with other drugs such as alcohol.

Cigarettes, for example, can take a long time to have a terminal effect on a body, but the addictive nature of the nicoteen is just as strong to someone that is addicted than heroin.

In addition, heroin will is more addictive a drug in the manner that people who use it will get addicted more easily than other drugs, but for those that are addicted it is just as difficult to give up alcohol than it is to give up heroin, for the same reasons. The dependancy on the chemical.

I'm understanding that you have a personal viewpoint on this, especially with the story about a mates son, but as I've said before, your experiances are not indicative of what the studies show, and these are full scientific studies, not some random facts that they've pulled out of the ether.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alfred E nueman
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 

Facts on Cannabis and Alcohol

Marijuana is far less toxic and less addictive than alcohol.
Long-term marijuana use is far less damaging than long-term alcohol use.

Alcohol use contributes to aggressive behavior and acts of violence, whereas marijuana use reduces the likelihood of violent behavior.

Alcohol use is highly associated with violent crime, whereas marijuana use is not.

Alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic violence and sexual assault and marijuana use does not.

Alcohol use is prevalent in cases of sexual assault and date rape, whereas marijuana use is not considered a contributing factor in cases of sexual assault and date rape.

Alcohol use contributes to reckless behavior and serious injuries, and it is highly associated with emergency room visits, whereas marijuana use does not contribute to such behavior and injuries, and is seldomly associated with emergency room visits.



Also, processed maryjane is a benevolent and proven medicine when applied to the elderly ( in tablet form) who suffer from arthtritus and joint pain. It is safer in that regard than legalised chemical concoctions manufactured by the HUGE pharmaceutical industry.
Them being biggest opponents of organic weed being legalised for medicinal purposes.


PS. Anyone who has been a guest of Her Majesty or has worked in such places, will realise why there is such disregard for stopping the influx of maryjane.
It is a controlling agent against violent behaviour and although illegal it's use is tolerated.


**thumbup
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
On the gateway drug theory, wikipedia has an interesting section, with links to real studies, that show the critiscm of the theory.

Now, no-one is saying that someone who uses a particular drug will not go on to use harder drugs, because there is plenty of anacdotal evidence to prove otherwise. The arguement is that there are other factors at work that make this the case, and simply using one drug does not provide a craving for another drug.

Have a read here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alfred E nueman
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The alleged gateway theory found great support in the 60s and 70s.

By having canabis as a Class A drug, along with Heroin and Cocaine, the dealers were more inclined to move their clients onto the more expensive and damaging drugs.
They were the supermarkets that sold it all, so better to sell the more expensive stuff.

Like prostitution, that the dealers and the pimps control.
The country loses out on tax and there is no medical safeguard for client or working girl.
In countries where it is legal, strict medical control exists, taxes are paid - in the billions - and pimps, thugs and flesh dealers have virtually gone.

I think that is the hope with legalising a whole tranch of socially acceptable drugs. Isolate the hardcore dealers and syphon away the pensioner and stressed out student from that world.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
.Jake
Member Avatar
Nikola Zigic
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
My sister was heavily involved with drugs, alot of weed and she had the occasional sniff of cocaine, she died 3 times from the cocaine but managed to bring her round with the elctric pump things. Not sure what view I have on this though. I can see why you should legalise them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pestcontrol
Unregistered

dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 04:02 PM
Kyle-KRO
Dec 16 2010, 02:17 PM
People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they like without requiring the approval of the state; if as a result of this some then infringe upon another's life and/or liberty, only then should they be dealt with accordingly.

I don't subscribe to the slippery slope spin, i.e. "cannabis will eventually lead one to heroin", or the "Joe never did drugs, because they weren't legal, but now that they are legal he (and everyone else) is an addict."

More people will certainly experiment (like they currently do with things such as Alcohol and tobacco), but I'd imagine the vast majority would find it to be not for them and move on.

Drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, gambling, etc. have the capacity to help destroy ones life, but it shouldn't be down to the state to prevent it; in my opinion it should come down to the individual, his/her family, friends, and supporter, and the community with which they live.

I agree with a lot of what you say there, I tried it didn't like it , and also if you chose to take drugs alcohol and smoke it shouldn't be down to the state to pay for health requirments.

I do believe though that if you legalise drugs they will become more of a killer than alcohol or smoking.

So what you are saying is that it is ok for the state to take tax and NI and all manner of stealth taxes and then they can also pick and choose who recieves treatment because of life style choices?.

If somebody smokes and dies it is always the smoking that has killed them or at the very least contributed to there demise which in my opinion is complete nonsense anyway first they came for the smokers then it will be the drinkers and then it will be the fatties and one day it will be you.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 04:35 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 04:18 PM
thehod
Dec 16 2010, 03:18 PM
I'll answer some of these point by point.

Now if you legalise drugs more people will take them and soon will be on a par with drinkers. - not necessarily. That's a common suggestion that has no evidence in reality.

To become an alcoholic there is generally a trigger in peoples lives that makes them turn to drink to cope with life. - again, not necessarily. That is the stereotype, but many alcoholics begin with social drinking.

A drug addict is someone who gets addicted because the body can't do without the drug. With alcohol you can just stop. - totally wrong. Addiction is a dependancy on a certain chemical. This includes alcohol. Alcoholics cannot "just stop" any more than drugs addicts or smokers can.

With drugs it takes time for the body to adjust through weening of the drug, you can't just stop. - same with booze. Its a chemical depandancy.

Your wrong about alcohol , there is no proof or study that says you can be addicted to alcohol just by drinking itsocialy.

Take myself I drank heavily for many years dinner times and knight times seven days a week ( people on can vouch for the amount of alcohol I drank) but as soon as I got my first car I cut my drinking down by three quarters with no withdrawal , well I do now get hangovers if I drink too much which I never had before.

Drugs are a different kettle of fish allthough you can't get addicted to recreational drugs like extasy but the body gets used to them and some people who have an addictive personality could go on to harder drugs.

This is what these so called experts don't take into account.

Would you take that chance if your Kids started off on something they have said is safe and of no harm.

Don't forget they said that about loads of things that turned out to be quite the opposit.

I'm not wrong here Nick, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

Whilst personal experiances are of value, to dismiss controlled scientific studies is no better than denying that the earth is round because you cannot see it.

You see the debilitating effects of heroin on a body more easily, because it takes more out of the body quicker. This doesn't make it less addictive a drug (which is all based on the individuals genetic makeup anyway) it just means that the manner in which the drug takes from the body happens at a more rapid pace than with other drugs such as alcohol.

Cigarettes, for example, can take a long time to have a terminal effect on a body, but the addictive nature of the nicoteen is just as strong to someone that is addicted than heroin.

In addition, heroin will is more addictive a drug in the manner that people who use it will get addicted more easily than other drugs, but for those that are addicted it is just as difficult to give up alcohol than it is to give up heroin, for the same reasons. The dependancy on the chemical.

I'm understanding that you have a personal viewpoint on this, especially with the story about a mates son, but as I've said before, your experiances are not indicative of what the studies show, and these are full scientific studies, not some random facts that they've pulled out of the ether.

I won't disagree about the speed in which the body gets addicted to things or the studies realy but what I will say is that these experts don't seem to look far enough down the line or the consequences of legalising drugs.

Yes alcohol kills

Yes smoking kills

Yes both of those cause more death than drugs but that's only because far fewer people take hard drugs.

Legalise them and the twenty years down the line more will die quicker adding to an already burdened nhs.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Forum Design by Hirsty.