Britain's drug wars

Verity

Britain is a Soviet state. Think- what Melanie has reported here - of the sheer, towering, impudent manipulativeness; the improper use of state funds to bring opponents of the government's (publicly-stated) policy over to use powers of leftwing suasion to tart up the opposing case. And other instances Melanie mentions of things that don't quite jive with the stated national agenda - could never, never, never happen in the United States. Such vile manipulation simply could not happen.

The socialists have built a fortress around Westminster, which has become a kingdom with its own rules and its own hierarchy: first the government, then the quangoes, then the Shadow Cabinet - if they must - but certainly without reference to the governed. No one would dare even think about building a fortress around DC. And - major difference - even the Democrats wouldn't think it was a good idea.

British socialists are toxic and vile.

Jonathan

The drug legalisation lobby is not a "manipulative, subversive and lethally dangerous clique", it is in fact the last best hope of mankind, a shining light at the end of a long dark tunnel.

john doe

Ecstasy is a hybrid drug spiked or cut with other substances and is taken more often than not with alcohol at discos, raves and parties. Any deaths that have occurred were due to this mixing combined with either too much or too little water in an overheated environment. Pure MDMA, which is hard to obtain has never killed anybody. Furthermore, several authorised studies are underway, in Switzerland, Israel and the US, investigating the use of MDMA to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.There is plenty of evidence that MDMA has remarkable therapeutic benefits and can relieve acute mental suffering. Demonising MDMA in such a blind manner as Melanie does in the above article is an unfortunate example of the typically prejudiced and bigoted reaction of someone who knows very little about what they are demonising and who shows no sign of wanting to know.

Verity

Jonathan and John Doe - Trainspotters. Be sure to keep your little notebooks in order.

Verity

Jonathan writes: The drug legalisation lobby is not a "manipulative, subversive and lethally dangerous clique", it is in fact the last best hope of mankind, a shining light at the end of a long dark tunnel.

Yes. The light of the oncoming train.

Charlie

The problem with drugs is that they are rarely pure.often the impurities cause problems. In addition many different type of drugs are taken either together or while they are still in the body. The ability of a human to cope with drugs varies with the persons metablic rate and mental strength. An 18st prop forward with a strong mind and high metabolic can probably cope with a a drug intake that would destroy a feeble minded person weighing 8st. Also women have proportionately a smaller liver than men which is part of the reason why alcohol can ruin their lives quicker than men. Talking to a former Commander in the RN he mentioned that he knew stokers who use to say" Sometimes I will drink 16 pints , sometimes I will drink a lot". The difference is that stoking coal into a furnace is hard work and will produce a high metabolic rate in that individual. An unfit person weighing 8st leading a sedentary lifestyle would probably be be hospitalised if they drank 16 pints of beer.

Verity

"Demonising MDMA in such a blind manner as Melanie does in the above article is an unfortunate example of the typically prejudiced and bigoted reaction of someone who knows very little about what they are demonising and who shows no sign of wanting to know."

Awwwww - Melanie, your problem is, you are resisting being brainwashed in an [**codeword alert**!] "unfortunate" manner, and must therefore be ridiculed as there are, as yet, no other legal means of forced "re-education" to help you understand the path chosen by the - uh- (self)-Chosen.

The socialist infestation of Britain and all its nooks and crannies in local governments and police "services" needs a good insecticide, and it's not going to be administered by David Cameron and the selected boys and girls "A"listers. (Sounds like an American debs ball. But that's Cameron's level. Hug a hoodie. Give a Debbie a seat.)

Kevyn Bodman

I am not a 'covert drug-legaliser', the term Melanie uses. I am an overt drug legaliser.
Some drugs are dangerous, they harm the people who take them.
Undeniable and unavoidable.
Alduterated drugs are more dangerous, dealing with criminals is dangerous.

Legalise drugs, you have better quality control, purity and strength are known and the likely effects are more predictable.Take them out of the hands of criminals and the price can go down,and drug turf wars are eliminated. Licence them and tax them and revenue goes to the State.
Burglary, robbery, theft, murder while on drugs remain illegal, just as they are illegal when not on drugs.
Criminalise those behaviours properly; not the taking of drugs themselves.
Drugs are indeed damaging to society, more damage comes from the fact that they are illegal than from their use.
So that's a neccessarily brief overview of the societal issues.
As for individual behaviour, it is no business of yours, or of the State, what substances I put into my body.
Crime should have a victim.If I inject, ingest or inhale but there is no victim then I say there is no crime.

In anticipation of moral outrage and moral arguments in favour of drug bans, please re-direct your efforts to criminalising adultery. It's immoral, it damages families and there are a lot of people doing it.
However, adultery has always been part of human behaviour, you might say.
It's impossible to stop. I disapprove and don't do it, you would say, but it's not a matter for the police.
But if a husband hits his adulterous wife, or vice versa, then that's an assault and a pssible course of criminal action.
Same with drugs.
It's an ineradicable part of human behaviour that itself does not need to be punished.
Deal with criminals instead, and allow drug users to avoid criminals by allowing them to buy their goods from licensed outlets.
And if you've got moral objections stay away, like I stay away from casinos.

Water

"The ability of a human to cope with drugs varies with the persons metablic rate and mental strength. " spot on.

cuffleyburgers

Very rare to see such an utterly wrong headed article in the Speckled Tater.

It is very strong opinion that the best interests of the people of this country would be served by abandoning the so-called war on drugs which is unwinnabel and causing vast collateral damage, as well probably as fuelling demand.

Far better would be a policy of decriminalization, regulation, availability on prescription, taxation etc. This would free up resources to deal with the health care issues.

This would solve at a stoke the issues of prison capacity (around half of places are drug related offenders, but not the real bad guys, just victims basically), law enforcement, casual crime and an awful lot of gang violence, turf wars etc.

It would also enable a sensible policy to be followed in Afghanistan, of buying the poppy crop and using it for production of alredy legla drugs of which there would appear currently to be a shortgae in this country.

As a tax payer I can see that my money is being pissed away uselessly in this stupid stupid policy, the effects are purely negative effect.

Your article doesn't contain nay good sense at all, which is unusual as I say.

Prohibition has never worked.

cuffleyburgers

Verity - old dear; what are you on??

It can't be legal!!

john doe

There is no drug war....just drug persecution. And what's with the ads on this page for liver rotting, brain damaging, family destroying, violence and homicide inducing hard liquor that kills about 8000 people a year in the UK and costs the British taxpayer £217 million a year to treat. The double standard,blind spot and sheer denial here is appalling.

john doe

Verity....'infestation' 'insecticide'...this is the kind of language the Nazis used in Der Stürmer to demonise Jews. I can see where you get your inspiration from. Feel the love. I don't expect a rational discourse from anyone who uses such inhuman, hysterical and hateful language.

Non-Smoker

Hmmm, I wonder what's the attitude of the proponents of drug legalization toward smoking...?
I guess ecstasy is fine by them, but a cigarette is a definite no-no.

Ian C

Verity, your sentiments and motivation is right, as are the realists who want some sort of legalisation in order to get control.

Drugs and their abuse have to become as unnacceptable as paedophilia and murder. We cannot accept they are inevitable.

Drug addiction and abuse is so expensive and destructive that it is not something society can condone or sustain in the long run at the sort of levels we are seeing. In order to get it to become so unnacceptable there are distinct phases that must be gone through to get to the right destination.

1) Nationalise the illicit drugs - buy up all stocks and take profit out of the drug supply chain (10 year project, not forever). Criminalise heavily anyone still trying to operate independently.
2) Run a time limited programme of no-tolerance de-toxification for the currently addicted.
3) Thereafter instant long jail terms for those who have anything to do with illicit drugs, regardless of Class (classification is a waste of energy - meaningless, pointless, without any significant consequence other than in the current muddled attempts at controls).

And the law must be heavily enforced. Once human behaviour is established in this way it will be seen as 'why did we not do this a century ago?' It's a 20 year programme that needs following with determination and specific funding.

London Calling

Who said that the Class War was over?

A...
B...ureaucratic
C...atasprophe

A...ll Drugs are dangerous
B...ritain has an epidemic
C...aused by Colony Stress Syndrome, just like the Bee's.

Whether its High Street Kensington, Kilburn or Kingston Jamaica, Drugs are being used from all walks of life in Britain and globally and anyone taking them couldn’t care less what class they are put in regardless of what category they are moved to and from.

Alcohol is a Drug.

Addiction to Antidepressants, which are drugs.

The question should not just be about classing drugs, but asking the question why Drugs are widely used by the Rich and famous as well as the kids on the streets, and more importantly why do people feel drawn to drugs in the first place.

It hasn’t gone unnoticed that cocaine use, a very expensive drug compared to all the others is mostly used by the middle classes and upper tier, a divine decadence they can well afford.

But what does all this say about our society in general?

Are we so stressed out, that whether its Wine, pot or cocaine or worst Crack, people just want to escape from reality? but in doing so then become addicted to the tranquillity of the mind detached, followed by a craving
in which the body demands more, the black hole of addiction?

These are the question we should be asking?

A...re we being honest about the causes of Drug Taking?

B...ritain needs to open up the debate on our Colony Stress syndrome?

C...ause …effect and cure?

P.S.

Illegal Drugs are mixed with all kinds of hazardous material before they hit the streets, to spread the load and make more money, the top dealers don’t care, they use its purest form before its passed on mixed.

For our enemies abroad what better way to destroy our society from inside out, than through dirty drugs…and so far they are winning and we are paying for the terrorism
they then fire back at us?

A world gone Mad?

If the Hat fits...

john doe

Non-Smoker....Your ignorance of the subject is very depressing. Ecstasy..or in its pure unadulterated form, MDMA, is a consciousness altering empathogen and entactogen that has killed nobody and does not cause lung cancer and various other lethal diseases.Tobacco kills millions of people a year worldwide. To compare the two is utterly absurd and quite irrational. Please read up on the subject or,better still,experience the difference yourself. Or are you scared? I think that is the key here...fear. Without the experience, opinions are worthless. It's like demonising a whole country and its people without having visited the place . The addictive narcotics or white powders like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines are another story and speak for themselves with their evident destructiveness...like alcohol and tobacco. But psychedelics like LSD, MDMA, Ayahuasca, Iboga and mushrooms are not addictive substances and not narcotics. This needs to be understood before any discussion can take place without fearful prejudice.

Kevyn Bodman

Non-smoker:
Smoking policy: easy.
Require all public places such as pubs, restaurants etc. to display prominent signs saying whether smoking is allowed anywhere on the premises, in certain designated areas only ,or is totally prohibited.
Then let the market decide; customers can go where they want ,making an informed choice.

A little bit more difficult for offices etc. I'd require a reasonable-sized smoking room with extractor fans, and away from the main area for non-smokers.

The guiding principle is, let people do what they want, not just what you want them to do.

Cigarettes are harmful, undeniable.Smokers know that, it's up to them.

Water

Mel I’m finding my self agreeing with you of late what’s happened?! This said I'm still decidedly against drug legalization of this nature (though there have been some compelling points for legalization) ecstasy all too often kills. You can educate a person, you can warn a person, but if it’s more widely available more people will get hurt.

Also people have the impression that by legalizing it you cut crime, indeed this would be true with regards to the peddlers. Though it is logical to suppose that wide spread usage will increase and as a result the people not being able to fund their inevitable addictions (with regards to drugs such as cocaine and heroine were all drugs to be legalized as people are inferring) would increase. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, with increased numbers of people being addicted (to drugs such as cocaine and heroine) we would have the causal consequence of increased crimes via methods other then illegal peddling to fund addictions. This said the drugs could be made very cheap once legalized but then the argument for taxation seems drastically weakened.

Though with this in mind ecstasy (it seems to be suggested on various websites) is not addictive and I wholly acknowledge this fact but it still kills on occasion.

john doe

As far as MDMA is concerned, it is time for some education. For all you hysterical, totalitarian bigots out there, read this and then we can commence a more serious discussion.

http://www.maps.org/mdma/#healing

Oliver

hmmm, deaths. About 730,000 people consumed ecstacy the past few years and 81 (BMJ) or so have died. Compare that to the deaths from alcohol which last year were about 5000 and I think you will be surprised what chemical is more dangerous.

Water

I'm not surprised in the least, but it kills 81 or 1 they are still dead.

Water

Now I'm no scientist but the following extract is interesting:

Ecstasy Side Effects

Brain imaging research in humans indicates that Ecstasy causes injury to the brain, affecting neurons that use the chemical serotonin to communicate with other neurons. The serotonin system plays a direct role in regulating mood, aggression, sexual activity, sleep, and sensitivity to pain. Many of the side effects users face with Ecstasy use are similar to those found with the use of cocaine and amphetamines: Psychological Ecstasy side effects, including confusion, depression, sleep problems, drug craving, severe anxiety, and paranoia - during and sometimes weeks after taking Ecstasy. Physical Ecstasy side effects such as muscle tension, involuntary teeth clenching, nausea, blurred vision, rapid eye movement, faintness, and chills or sweating. Increases in heart rate and blood pressure, a special risk for people with circulatory or heart disease.

Also, there is evidence that people who develop a rash that looks like acne after using Ecstasy may be risking severe side effects, including liver damage, if they continue to use the drug. Research links Ecstasy use to long-term damage to those parts of the brain critical to thought and memory. One study, in primates, showed that exposure to Ecstasy for 4 days caused brain damage that was evident 6 to 7 years later.
MDA, the parent drug of MDMA (Ecstasy), is an amphetamine-like drug that has also been abused and is similar in chemical structure to Ecstasy. Research shows that MDA also destroys serotonin-producing neurons in the brain. Ecstasy also is related in its structure and effects to methamphetamine, which has been shown to cause degeneration of neurons containing the neurotransmitter dopamine. Damage to these neurons is the underlying cause of the motor disturbances seen in Parkinson's disease. Symptoms of this disease begin with lack of coordination and tremors and can eventually result in a form of paralysis.

The Short-Term Side Effects of Ecstasy

While it is not as addictive as heroin or cocaine, ecstasy can cause other adverse effects including nausea, hallucinations, chills, sweating, increases in body temperature, tremors, involuntary teeth clenching, muscle cramping, and blurred vision. Ecstasy users also report after-effects of anxiety, paranoia, and depression.

Short-term side effects of ecstasy

* Nausea
* Hallucinations
* Chills & sweating
* Increased body temp
* Tremors
* Muscle cramping
* Blurred vision

The effects start after about 20 minutes and can last for hours. These is a 'rush' feeling followed by a feeling of calm and a sense of well being to those around, often with a heightened perception of color and sound. Some people actually feel sick and experience a stiffening up of arms, legs and particularly the jaw along with sensations of thirst, sleeplessness, depression and paranoia. Gives a feeling of energy. Some mild hallucinogenic effects.

Ecstasy's chemical cousin, MDA, destroys cells that produce serotonin in the brain. These cells play a direct roll in regulating aggression, mood, sexual activity, sleep, and sensitivity to pain. Methamphetamine, also similar to Ecstasy, damages brain cells that produce dopamine. Scientists have now shown that ecstasy not only makes the brain's nerve branches and endings degenerate, but also makes them "re-grow, but abnormally - failing to reconnect with some brain areas and connecting elsewhere with the wrong areas. These reconnections may be permanent, resulting in cognitive impairments, changes in emotion, learning, memory, or hormone-like chemical abnormalities.

Long-Term Side Effects of Ecstasy

The side effects of long-term ecstasy use are just beginning to undergo scientific analysis. In 1998, the National Institute of Mental Health conducted a study of a small group of habitual ecstasy users who were abstaining from use. The study revealed that the abstinent users suffered damage to the neurons in the brain that transmit serotonin, an important biochemical involved in a variety of critical functions including learning, sleep, and integration of emotion. The results of the study indicate that recreational ecstasy users may be at risk of developing permanent brain damage that may manifest itself in depression, anxiety, memory loss, and other neuropsychotic disorders. (http://www.ecstasy.ws/e-side-effects.htm)

Neil Saunders

You're not comparing like with like, Oliver.

What would the comparative figures between ecstasy-related deaths and alcohol-related deaths be if BOTH were legal and freely available?

David

Prohibition doesn't work. Didn't under the Volstead Act, doesn't with regards to drugs.

Matthew Blott

I find Melanie Phillip's hypocrosy on this subject staggering. Week after week she bleats about the nanny state interfering in people's lives where it is of no conern she yet wants to criminalise decent citizens because their way of unwinding includes amphetamines and dance music rather than wine and opera. For the record I took plenty of class 'A's during my twenties and I am now a well paid IT consultant and responsible parent. What I choose to do to myself if it doesn't harm others is nobody's business.

To add to my comments I would point out that considering ecstacy is completely unregulated the death rate is miniscule, on a par with deaths by eating peanuts. And most of these are avoidable as they are nearly always due to dehydration and overheating.

Water

As for being bigots I don't know about that, concerned seems about right.

Water

This link of course http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_past_20010928_b.jhtml

Sergey

The problem with MDMA is not its toxicity, which is weak, but its direct and inavoidable effects: release of large quantities of serotonin from brain depo, leading to depletion of this pool and subsequent serotonin deficit. This cause depression, which, unlike alcogol handover, can last weeks and even months. The numbers cited for deaths from MDMA uptake do not include suicides, only direct results of dehydratation, but the former can be order of magnitude more frequent. This drug is incompatible with Prozac and inhibitors of monoaminoxidaze, but exactly these antidepressants are often used by people seeking to get "high" on MDMA. Using it in medicine has nothing to do with legalization of it as recreational drug: even morphine, a class A drug, used in medicine. It can be classified as prescribed drug, which can be used only under strict medical supervision.

Sergey

Physical dependence is not necessary to classify drag as illegal and dangerous. All psychodelic drugs, like LSD, are not physically addictive, but can provoke shisophrenia and other psychoses, lead to dangerous or suicidal behavior. No psychotropic substances, exept for alcohol, which is normal metabolite in human organism, should be used without medical prescription and supervision.

Ian C

The sort of drugs considered here cannot be compared with alcohol (it can be created at home and has been for millennia/will be for many more), nor can ectasy or cannabis be justified because of their medical benefits - in the manner and form in which they are sold for 'kick' and addiction consumption. Where they have medical applications then use of them should be permitted. There is no argument there.

It is the damaging aspects of drug abuse that need full recognition for the disasters they cause, the costs to those close to the abuser and the rest of society as we mop up the pieces. We all know what those costs entail how easy it is to get onto the slippery road that leads to their reality. None would wish it on a child, parent or sibling of theirs.

As a society we have to get tough or drug culture will overrun us all - not just the unfortunate relative few. Perhaps it won't come to this in your or my life time but the effect of allowing continued 'blind eye' supervision is to immunise us all from trying to prevent damaging behaviours of all anti-social types. Drugs are a source of death, theft, personal and family breakdown far greater than any people who contribute to these blogs are likely to be exposed to. Continued ignoring of the problem will result in anarchy and amorality taking over as the standard lifeform.

It is not about wanting totalitarianism. It is about being able to live on the same planet in a decent society - one that needs tough rules and plenty of freedom within their framework, but not freedom to undertake a lifetyle that costs others in easily avoidable ways even. The 'let it all hang out attitudes' expressed here are yet another example of modern day soft-headed thinking - "I'm not affected (for some: I'm to sensible to get addicted) therefore why should we stop others if that's how they get their kicks'. It's irrepsonible, unsustainable and preventable if decent people would but get a grip. It's far too easy to say it's draconian or impinging of freedoms. What about the freedoms of those so malevolently affected?

Matthew Blott

I find Melanie Phillip's hypocrosy on this subject staggering. Week after week she bleats about the nanny state interfering in people's lives where it is of no conern she yet wants to criminalise decent citizens because their way of unwinding includes amphetamines and dance music rather than wine and opera. For the record I took plenty of class 'A's during my twenties and I am now a well paid IT consultant and responsible parent. What I choose to do to myself if it doesn't harm others is nobody's business.

To add to my comments I would point out that considering ecstacy is completely unregulated the death rate is miniscule, on a par with deaths by eating peanuts. And most of these are avoidable as they are nearly always due to dehydration and overheating.

Water

Also as far as side effects are concerned: "Research shows that MDA also destroys serotonin-producing neurons in the brain. Ecstasy also is related in its structure and effects to methamphetamine, which has been shown to cause degeneration of neurons containing the neurotransmitter dopamine. Damage to these neurons is the underlying cause of the motor disturbances seen in Parkinson's disease. Symptoms of this disease begin with lack of coordination and tremors and can eventually result in a form of paralysis." Also Ian C, well said.

Matthew Blott

When I see the sentence "Drugs ... have to become as unnacceptable as paedophilia and murder" I know all reason has gone out of the window. Lord save us from these puritanical zeolots.

Huw Thornton

Matthew Blott -

"For the record I took plenty of class 'A's during my twenties and I am now a well paid IT consultant"

So that's one in the eye for people who say that drugs don't have unfortunate personal consequences!

Some of these substances are dangerous, very dangerous....

Water

Well just for the record I stated the long term effects, so that is hardly beyond the realms of reason for these are bonafide facts.

Verity

Yet one more of my posts seems to have been disappeared.

It seems that posts are being judged by whether they agree with the Weltanschuuag of one politically correct editor. This is getting old. No one is obliged to come here and spend time writing a reasoned post and then having it strangely disappear into a black hole in space if it doesn't suit the temprament of the invigilator.

Water

"Yet one more of my posts seems to have been disappeared." I know this feeling all to well.

Matthew Blott

@ Huw Thornton

I suppose I should have worded that better :-)

Matthew Blott

@ Verity

I haven't had that experience here yet so I'm not sure - it might be a technical issue. But you have a good point, I've blogged on other sites and seen my comment disappear. I think sites should state what their policy (if they have one) is. The Daily Mail website is one of the worst.

Bwilliamson

1/ I agree with Verity. I sent a reasonable posting on Islam the other day and the powers that be vetoed it. It may not have chimed with PC thought but isn't that the point of free speech? It was not racist, merely pointing out unpalatable fact available on websites who have the balls to point out the truth about the appeasement of the encroaching Islamisation of Europe.
2/ The drug debate right now is becoming a political game of who can outdo each other in an attempt to gain public sympathy. Any practical result is neither here nor there as long as the Mail gets a headline. Use of cannabis and ecstasy is so embedded in our culture as to be institutional amongst both young and old. Not one of my acquaintances has never used cannabis and all the talk of super strength skunk flooding our country is baloney. I say legalise it and have an age limit of 18 just like alcohol. Then the police would be freed up from the ridiculous merry go round of prosecuting half the country and thus able to concentrate on the real killers of heroin and crack. They could also watch the below 18 year olds with a more focussed vigour. I've even seen gangs of well heeled school kids at a local train station quite openly passing joints around with seeming immunity from the law which is never around. That is the real crime and any further intervention against adults is yet more of the pettyfogging bureaucracy designed for a few reactionary voters at the ballot box. Even alcohol is now subject fit for anti TV commercials. This from a government who actively promoted drinking by the 24 hour opening law is quite unbelievable.

davod

"Prohibition has never worked"

The problem is that legalization does not solve the problem, just opens up the problem to the whole population instead of a sub-set.

Legislating what we can and cannot do is what democracy is all about. If you do not like it vote the government out at the next election.

Alternatively, go live in a fully libertarian country, if there is such a thing.

Water

It will be a sad day when the Spectator has to put forward a comments policy (though it could be in order). Alternatively a commenting system that functions in a manner similar to that of the Economist.com website maybe a solution, as the posts appear instantaneously on that website.

Water

davod sums it up nicley "The problem is that legalization does not solve the problem, just opens up the problem to the whole population instead of a sub-set."

john doe

The most damaging drug in the UK is.......TV. A rabbi once said it was like having an open sewer running through your living room. It harms the brain, suspends or annihilates critical thought, pollutes the mind, dumbing it down and tranquilising it with endless trivia, cultivating dissatisfaction and envy of the rich or better off. It creates a vacuum in which consciousness explodes, leading to anxiety, depression and paranoia, with millions addicted to prescription drugs...yes drugs...with harmful side effects, even inducing suicide. No wonder kids turn to some uplifting substance to release them from this existential and social hell.

Frank Pulley

Melanie ... please stop threatening to take the dummies away from these infantile brats. You know the tantrums always follow and they'll squeam, and they'll squeam and they'll squeeeeeam!

The depth of the reservoir of useful idiots is unfathomable.

Anyway once the Islamofascists take over, that feller from Norfolk who sells multiple gibbets will make a fortune as the shit-heads, coke fiends, and narco nutters are rounded up for their last fix.

Frank Pulley

David

Prohibition of murder doesn't work either, homicide is on the increase. Perhaps we should legalise it? Same goes with burglary, theft, fraud, and all the other anti-social and downright dangerous behaviour proscribed by common and statutory law. Let's have anarchy, I know how to survive -sure you can?

As for the Volstead Act, it worked fine for most areass of the US. But in Metro Cities controlled by Cosa Nostra, Kosher Nostra, the Murphia, Scotia Nostra (aye them too Jimmy - and a few Anglos, too), associates and other bootleggers various, the police didn't even attempt enforcement. They handed over the trade to the Mob, got paid for turning a blind eye and only acted against the bootleggers when doing so at the behest of the faction of the Mob they were copping from to faciliate suppression of competition.

The consumption of alchohol and all its concomitant problems increased exponentially when the sale of alchohol was legalised again. Whatever pleasure has been derived from it is far outweighed by the misery and harm to family life that is caused by it. Moreover, the Mob profited even more as they had covert shares in all the major breweries and distilleries, then invested the proceeds in Casinos to rip more millions off the gullible and for official pay-offs . The old chestnut/canard that prohibition doesn't work is pure bullshit. It is a deterrent for most law-abiding people who might experiment if it were legal and children must be protected at all costs, both from direct exposure to illicit drugs and from the harm caused by junked-up parents.

The legalisers always point out that alchohol is worse than class A/B drugs. Just watch what will happen if they hand over supply of dangerous drugs to the Pharmas for sale on demand! Or to this bloody government even, with it's avaricious tax extortion scams. This country's resources are being drained by louche libertarians who propagate hedonism as a way of destroying the culture for their idealistic ends. The demand end should be hit hard and with no mercy. NO responsible medic or scientist espouses mind altering drugs or narcotics for 'recreational' purposes. As for the right to 'harm onself' in a free country. No man is an island, though I know quite a few who should be confined on one - preferably one of these 'new' iceberg islands in the Arctic with their cojones pinioned to the snow by means of a large icicle. As for the legalisers within the police service: they are lazy, decadent bastards who should be drummed out of office.

Water

Well Mel despite the cry for censorship I for one am glad you have ignored the ignorance of a few supporting it. But it’s good to see the tangent tantrum trolls making a reappearance. As for those said to be screaming, we’ll when an injustice is taking place it’s good to some people speak up. This said I have never heard of a man screaming with his fingers (it must be a new invention pulled forth from the depths of ignorance). And davod or David or what ever your name maybe, you’ve hit the mark with regards to what you’re saying when it’s placed in context.

Huw Thornton

Matthew Blott -

Thanks for your comment and, for what it's worth, I thought that the points in your original post were well made.

My problem with this theme is that I find it difficult to make a serious comment. The subject itself is of course very serious - but I cannot see any government initiative making things better.

With all respect to Melanie, I cannot see how putting cannabis in one class rather than another has any real effect. Whichever classification is used, in theory the law on the possession or use of cannabis is draconian - but in general it is simply not enforced. The same goes to a lesser or greater degree with all illegal drugs.

And as for those who "want to send a message", I suppose shuffling classifications in law is cheaper and easier to do than organising an anti-Aids type marketing campaign, but for the life of me I can't see it changing the world one way or another.

cuffleyburgers

Frank Pulley

Your hysterical post is utterly wrong.

Nobody is advocating making excessive consumption of drugs compulsory.

What a number of sensible people in this thread are proposing is that a rational policy be adopted focussing on limiting the damage caused to society by the fact that these drugs exist and some people use them.

Your suggestion, the reintroduction of naziism, won't really chime with the average freedom-loving spectator reader, and whilst I respect your right to your opinion I don't want you telling me what I can or cannot do, just as I wouldn't to you.

Whatever steps are taken re drugs, one of the objectives has to be to reduce usage. My view is that prohibition does nothing to reduce usage, as anyone who wants this stuff seems to manage to get it, and prohibition maximizes harm in all other respects.

Think about it, if the only place you can get a drink is an illegal drinking den, then when you go there, you are more likely to get bladdered than if you just stopped off in a wine bar on your way home from work, or popped out for a couple in the dog and duck round the corner. You are also more at risk of being poisoned, robbed or stabbed, and when you decide you need help to stop you can't get it without being banged up in jail.

Doesn't sound to me like an intelligent policy, but as I say, you are welcome to your opinions.

john doe

Frank Pulley:

'the shit-heads, coke fiends, and narco nutters are rounded up for their last fix.'
'No man is an island, though I know quite a few who should be confined on one - preferably one of these 'new' iceberg islands in the Arctic with their cojones pinioned to the snow by means of a large icicle. As for the legalisers within the police service: they are lazy, decadent bastards who should be drummed out of office.'

These are the words of a true fascist, spewing out the politics of hate, control and mass executions.And you have the gaul to slam the Islamofascists! You think like one yourself. You should be deported to Saudi Arabia..you'd feel at home there.

Verity

2:29 p.m. John Doe and Cuffleyburgers - Why not scamper on back to CiF, your natural habitat?

Do you socialist types sincerely imagine you are going to change anyone's mind with your paint-by-numbers insults?

Second, why do the English want to fiddle and faff and classify everything? Why not just say: "The substances herein listed are drugs. Use of drugs is against the law and attracts a prison sentence?"

Third, coming off drugs has been glamourised and dramatised, but a famous rock guitarist by the name of Peter (don't ask me which one; they all look alike to me) said that it's easier to come off drugs than give up cigarettes.

London Calling

As Afghanistan supply 90% poppy yield (Heroin) to the world, I would destroy all the poppy fields, not just the small few currently being destroyed by allied forces and Afghan soldiers, bearing in mind though that we are talking about a whole country here full of poppy fields. Help the farmers grow grain or other crop instead and loosen the hold the Taliban have over them. The Taliban use the funds from the sale of Poppy farmers to pay for weapons that are then used against our soldiers.

The Poppy (Heroin) then arrives on our streets around the globe, is mixed with hazardous substances and kills.

We know where the Drugs come from around the world, therefore we should collectively work towards disbanding those who grow and sell it, and destroy it from its source.

Getting off drugs is not easy, especially when the environment you live in is full of people also addicted. Society has some serious complex issues to address to take on the Drugs war, but to date we have dodged the real questions simply by not facing up to the world in which we live and the effect it has on everyone.

Why do you think drugs are so easily available in Prison?

Why do you think those in prison don’t want to come out?

If we want a better future, we have to start again, put aside prejudice and help those who cannot cope, not patronise and criminalize people for what has become their only way of escaping the warped world we help to create.

field

DAVOD SAYS:

" "Prohibition has never worked"

The problem is that legalization does not solve the problem, just opens up the problem to the whole population instead of a sub-set."

MY COMMENT:

No I don't agree. We have effective NON-prohibition already as we can see with people like Pete Docherty and Amy Winehouse who almost have to deal in and take the drugs on the steps of the Old Baily to get any effective sort of sanction applied.

What we have really is the worst of both worlds. We have the veneer of prohibition, and the associated persecution of dealers (and wasting billions on anti-narcotics wars) but we have a de facto free market as far as the consumer goes.

Proper prohibition is not politically possible even if considered desirable. The middle classes would be up in arms as soon as a few of their darlings found themselves locked up with the lowlifes in prison for substantial sentences. Just as in the sixties people won't tolerate their rock and film stars being locked up for any length of time.

However, legalisation - as opposed to prohibition - would bring benefits. It would make it easier to restrict drug use to a minimum age limit. It would ensure the purity of the drugs being supplied - thus avoiding poisoning from other substances and - and it would allow proper health warnings to be given with the drugs. It would also stop the world of criminality sucking in drug users into their world.

Drugs and shamanism have been a part of the human story since day one. As I have said before drug use has been associated with a wide range of artistic achievement (including every single jazz and rock musician you might care to mention).

Incidentally Sergei's idea that alcohol - unlike other drugs - can be administered without medical supervision with no risk is pathetic. Tell that to the loved ones of those who have died from inhalation of vomit, from suicidal depression brought on by alcohol, by acts of alcohol-induced violence. I've seen people literally hallucinate on alcohol as well.
So it is BS if the first order to try and separate out alcohol from this debate.

I believe the state should select a range of drugs e.g. : cannabis, LSD, cocaine, speed, ecstasy, which people seem to like and become involved in production and distribution, with a system of licensed dealers selling them in standardised packaging with health warnings.

Water

London calling stated “If we want a better future, we have to start again, put aside prejudice and help those who cannot cope, not patronise and criminalize people for what has become their only way of escaping the warped world we help to create.” Finally were getting somewhere!

Water

I have to say I still agree with davod in stating: “The problem is that legalization does not solve the problem, just opens up the problem to the whole population instead of a sub-set." Because despite all the potential benefits of legalization these drugs just have too many negative side effects. Were Cocaine and Heroine to be legalized the ripple effect upon society would be horrendous. After the prolonged piece on cannabis legalization I won’t repeat myself as regards certain points against. Though it’s safe to say the law needs support in enforcing drug laws because they really are doing the right thing.

This said there are a few points that weren’t raised in the cannabis thread that have been raised here;

First of all the point made against alcohol by field I totally agree with. Though I totally disagree with regards to the points in support of legalization (whether hard or soft) for the same reasons as those given in the debate on cannabis.

Secondly the point from London calling that “Society has some serious complex issues to address to take on the Drugs war, but to date we have dodged the real questions simply by not facing up to the world in which we live and the effect it has on everyone” is absolutely right and the word escapism spring to mind in terms of issues/facts being ignored.

Thirdly, the ‘second point’ from verity in his/her last point is exactly what we need to the degree that it functions effectively. Some advertising in the media for drugs where consequences are outlined (like that which we get for alcohol around Christmas time) would be a great start. Though his/her ‘third point ‘in the last comment I don’t agree with. Try telling a heroine addict to come of Heroine its definitely not easier then cigarettes.

Verity

9:33 p.m. Water, it was a former - and probably current - heroin addict who made the comment. Not me.

I've always thought claims of addiction were overwrought and self-dramatising.

Water

Well I'm glad to hear it Verity. Though as regards drug addiction being over dramatized I would have to disagree with you on that. In the past I have worked as bailiff and having seen the extents to which Heroine addicts will go to sustain their habits is unbelievable. Sometimes the poor creature will let their children literally emaciate in order to fund their habits, whilst all the while they know what they are doing but so damage is their capacity to reason that their entire physiological organism seizes to function adequately. That for me is reason enough never to legalize it.

field

If you really, really want to reduce ecreational/habit-forming drug use in your society then there are only two ways to go. One is to have prohibition and draconian punishments. But there is another I would recommend to the anti-libertarians who want to see drug use eliminated. This is to have a full on educational
approach (like the Swedes but more so) designed to discourage drug use (unlike our Frank initiatives which sometimes read like consumer guides) - and then combine that with rigorous testing of all school age pupils with special action to deal with anyone found to have taken drugs, including prosecution of parents.

Legalisation plus schools drug testing would be a far more effective approach than prohibition and punishment in my view and would do less damage to our society.

But I still think that looked at in the round it is not clear that drug use (including all types e.g. alcohol) is necessarily bad for a society. When we look at a society like Saudi Arabia where there appear to be few outlets for the excess energy of youth, I don't personally feel very happy with that sort of society.

Verity

Water - Thank you and very interesting. Not to detract from your point, but people also spend money on alcohol (and the National Lottery) that they should be spending on proper food for their children. It's not just drugs. Self-indulgence as an addiction has been promoted by this government.

I think the "difficulty" of giving up drugs has been over-promoted and, indeed, bathes addicts in a false glow of glamour.

I believe the rock star - Pete or Peter something - who said it's harder to quit smoking than give up hard drugs. He should know.

verity

Water: capacity to reason that their entire physiological organism seizes (sic) to function adequately. That for me is reason enough never to legalize it."

Yes, and it's a repetition. For several centuries people in the West, which is what concerns us as we are a Western society, have rolled around in the gutter holding bottles of gin while their children starved.

They tried to escape the awefulness of their lives. There is no such awfulness today. Just self-indulgence, attention-seeking and ever-greater expectations from a society to which they have never contributed a penny in labour.

Water

Hey Verity just some points:

“people also spend money on alcohol (and the National Lottery) that they should be spending on proper food for their children. It's not just drugs.”

This is true and when it happens to the extent that it’s detracting from their children it’s of course deplorable, but there not drugs in the same sense.

“Self-indulgence as an addiction has been promoted by this government.”

Yes and many others to, I don’t deny that. Sometimes a bit of self indulgence doesn’t go amiss either (a Cadburys crème egg won’t kill you on the whole) but when it self-indulgence to the degree outlined above then yes of course it becomes a problem. This said (though I’m not a member of the labour party) the recent work Gordon has done on the subject of drugs at least has been positive (though by no means thorough enough).

“I think the "difficulty" of giving up drugs has been over-promoted and, indeed, bathes addicts in a false glow of glamour.”

None the less I still think it is very hard to give up drugs if you are truly addicted, needless to say certain members in the public eye have received undue attention for this fact. Addiction to drugs is a problem and certainly nothing to be glamorised, in fact I find it quite sickening when drug dealers/addicts are given this pedestal within society. Maybe this attention should be given to reformed characters playing a functioning role within society. With this in mind it’s a wonder that we have music (and things of that nature) that support drug use which isn’t censored but posts on a website are.

“Yes, and it's a repetition. For several centuries people in the West, which is what concerns us as we are a Western society, have rolled around in the gutter holding bottles of gin while their children starved.

They tried to escape the awfulness of their lives. There is no such awfulness today.”

Maybe not with regards to alcohol (though it does have many deleterious effects and maybe cases of starvation take place that I’m not aware of) but children are still starving look at the Birmingham case which was extraordinary.

Though as regards harder drugs its irrefutable addicts do detract from feeding their children and on occasions where the drugs gets harder and harder so does the degree of neglect (on the whole). In such cases where this takes place (as the one I detailed above) malnourishment on the child’s part results as a direct consequence of a parents usage, which is reason enough not to legalize.

“Just self-indulgence, attention-seeking and ever-greater expectations from a society to which they have never contributed a penny in labour.”

Well this is true for many drug addicts and I doubt addicts (other then those in the public eye) are attention seeking for they won’t want to get caught! Though I’m sure there are addicts who work. Many drugs are not cheap after all and not all drug addicts are peddlers or receiving benefits as drugs are expensive.

Water

field raises a good point with regards to Sweden and the educational system. Though I’m adamantly against legalization due to what davod said.

Frank Pulley

Verity

>There is no such awfulness today. Just self-indulgence, attention-seeking and ever-greater expectations from a society to which they have never contributed a penny in labour.<

Entirely right. Moreover, gradually the cult of dangerous drugs has pervaded the work place itself. If criminal sanctions are removed, then responsibility is shifted to employers or managers who have to carry the burden that junkies impose on efficiency and the disturbance to co-workers, through unwarranted absence. Or even worse, the presence, of hyped-up or lethargic imbibers of whatever escapist or superman chemicals they choose to satisfy their need to alter their conceptions of existence and reality or pep up their jaded libidos. What are those who are responsible for order and production in the workplace or essential service institutions to do? Use the Employment regulatory procedures? If so, at what cost? Not to mention the strangulation of efficiency, through the red tape involved in those politically correct procedures. And where would the line be drawn in relation to juveniles as far as schools are concerned? The criminal market would intensify the targeting of youngsters (they already have to a degree), as presumably not even the 'legalise lobby' would legalise supply to children? Or would they? It wouldn't surpise me!

Giving the trade to the Pharmas is a horrifying thought, considering their iniquitous record even with medicinal pharmaceuticals. In the case of cannabis, it would probably not be the Pharmas but the farmers, as the cannabis crop would become even more profitable than rape seed. I suppose at least our island would become greener, rather than covered in the asphyxiating yellow dust of the current season. A dilemma for the looney greens, eh? Choose between biofuel and happygrass? I bet I know which most of them would plump for. Way out, man! (Or whatever current cult exclamation indicates that the 'mind has been blown').

Ian C

"What I choose to do to myself if it doesn't harm others is nobody's business." M Blott.

This where those who have 'used' in the past justify their own behaviour. Would they recommend it to their children? Why, if it harms noone else are they not still doing it? None so blind as those who seek to justify themselves (and try to claim moral high ground while doing so).

There is so much known now about the devastation that drugs cause (yes and alcohol, but two wrongs don't a right make) that to pretend that youas user, are the end of the line with no impact on anyone else is patent self-centred rubbish. The devastation is right up the supply chain to the impoverished producer of the raw material, who is coerced into its production through gun-toting 'market forces'.

To say that your fun has no impact on anyone esle is so blinkered it is ill-educated - however successful you are today. It is causing murder and mayhem out of your sight - so that's alright then?

NOTE
I too have lost other responses in this debate, to the software used on this site. I have emailed P Hoskin who is taking it up with their providers. The Speccy needs to know when it happens to you as they claim not to be editing us out.

Water

field it seems rather hard to find any information on the Swedish drug policy in schools, do you have anymore information (links or things of that nature).

Water

"I too have lost other responses in this debate, to the software used on this site. I have emailed P Hoskin who is taking it up with their providers. The Speccy needs to know when it happens to you as they claim not to be editing us out." Thanks Ian C.

“To say that your fun has no impact on anyone else is so blinkered it is ill-educated - however successful you are today. It is causing murder and mayhem out of your sight - so that's alright then?”

Well said though the typical answer will be what about if we grow it ourselves then it hurts no one? Well if such an answer were to arise I’d ask people to look back at the prior debates and the mental health issues outlined above.

Frank Pulley

Water
If you plough back through Melanie's posts (both on her old blog and this one) you'll find lots of references to the Swedish model and measures (and no, I don't mean Agnetha's cup size - before someone hits that one off the tee).

IanC

You make an interesting observation about the cybermuda triangle on the Speccy blogs. I thought that the disappearance of posts (some of them quite proper, you might be surprised to hear) was a bit haphazard and probably depended on whose turn it was in the barrel, so to speak. If you are experiencing similar losses then obviously the software deficiency is generating unnecessary resentment towards the both the moderators and the magazine itself. A number of people have hinted at this, so perhaps it should be addressed pronto. Having said that I know some of my knee-jerk posts are not going to make it under the radar particularly in the small wee hours, when I'm just exercising my arthritic old fingers to keep them moving and make sure the moderators on their toes.

Btw a bit off topic, but not entirely, if any Coffee House patrons have missed Rod Liddle's column (two components) today, I thoroughly recommend it for getting the giggle glands firing. It's a real gem of concise and deadly serious comedic satire and prose. My cup runneth over. Much as I fight it I cannot resist the impulse to like this scruffy young leftie apostate more and more. I may have to seek counselling.

john doe

The commenters on this thread have consistently grouped all 'drugs' together as if they are the same phenomenon, have the same sub-culture, and have the same physical and psychic effects on the user. This is simply idiotic and indicates a wilful refusal to examine more carefully the differences between these substances, and a profound reluctance to differentiate between obviously harmful ones like heroin and others with potentially healing qualities when used in the right set and setting. Even heroin is used medicinally....the merciful pain killer morphine. So, therefore,the other mind altering substances can also be used therapeutically.This blanket judgement and hysterical demonising is rooted in prejudice and fear. If you have to indulge in this perverse alarmism then focus on the right culprits...heroin, cocaine and speed....and leave the others alone or better still, read up on the subject.It is very tiresome hearing nothing but bigoted sweeping generalisations from those who have no experience with the 'drugs' concerned or who have only read scare stories in the media with an anti-'drug' agenda.
Furthermore, the pharmaceutical companies,tobacco and drinks companies will do everything they can to lobby against the decriminalistaion of LSD, MDMA and other psychedelics such as Iboga, as they have been shown to cure alcoholism, heroin addiction and dependency on various other legitimate substances such as tobacco and prescription drugs. Important treatments using LSD were conducted in the 1950s by Grof in Czechoslavakia and Osmond in Canada, both achieving considerable success with alcoholics and junkies until it was outlawed in the 60s as a result of widespread and irresponsible usage.
As I said, to group these substances together as destructive 'drugs' is brutish, myopic and ignorant.

field

Here's some stuff off the web:

"What’s so special about the Swedish model?

Sweden’s drug policy aims for a ‘drug-free society’. With a zero tolerance foundation, the policy focuses on heavy enforcement against drug users, for example, people can be made to take urine and blood tests on suspicion of drug use, and those caught possessing drugs can be forced into treatment for up to six months whether they are drug-dependent or not. At the same time, drug treatment services are widely available, and Sweden also emphasises drug education.

Sweden does not classify drugs according to their relative harms as New Zealand does, so penalties for cannabis possession are similar to those for heroin. Since the 1960s, Swedish governments have also rejected harm reduction measures, so opioid substitution treatment is very hard to access, and there are only two needle exchange services.

Interestingly, over the same period, alcohol, previously subject to heavy restrictions, has been made more available."

ANOTHER ARTICLE:

• Sweden
•Drug policy. Sweden has adopted a broad concept of prevention, including drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

Three different levels of prevention are conceptualised and included in their prevention policy.

Primary prevention is taken to mean general preventive measures (legislation, drug education) for the public as a whole. Secondary prevention aims directly at risk groups and tertiary prevention is used
to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation for drug abusers.

A central idea behind the Swedish approach to primary prevention is to "vaccinate" young people against starting to use drugs at some later date. According to the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, centralised campaigns
using large-scale mass media have little or no effect. The main function of campaigns must be to support local activities at the community level. Well organized, with many social and community organizations
(an excellent climate for prevention), Sweden has adopted a prevention strategy supported
by large segments of the population. Consequently, many different target groups are involved in preventive
activities: pre-school children, children and youth in elementary and high schools, young men
in military service, students, parents, women, immigrants etc.

•Mass media campaigns. The modest, supporting role of mass media and large scale campaigns in Sweden has already been mentioned. In the early eighties, the Swedish Ministry of Health conducted
two national campaigns against alcohol and drugs. " Action mot droger2' (Action against drugs) started as a continuation of an earlier campaign to stop the sale of alcohol to minors (45).

"Action mot droger' was aimed mainly at cannabis abuse, trying to stimulate discussion about lifestyles and forces underlying drug abuse. To meet this goal, a snowball strategy was developed in which mass media
were the starting point for local activities. This required a strong link between the central coordinating
body and the many target groups, which at the regional level, consisted in social advisors to the largest county councils, as well as county school boards. In cities and local communities the link was forged by coordinating the social service, schools, police and sports and cultural organisations. The supportive role of the mass media consisted of two television and radio programmes in which parents
discussed their opinions about drug use with young people. Six programmes called "Teenagers need parents" were later broadcast by Swedish radio. The campaign included press conferences, advertisements
in newspapers and magazines.

•School and community drug prevention. As a result of the mass media campaigns, a wide variety of instructional materials on drugs and alcohol were developed and distributed through national, regional and local channels. These materials not only dealt with drug information, but were more
broadly designed to encourage pupils to face up to feelings of inferiority, insecurity and fear of expressing emotions and values. Different materials were published for elementary and primary schoolchildren
and for junior and senior high school students. It was later decided to organise a special campaign
on hashish use in cooperation with the National Association for Home and School. Parents of
14 year olds in Sweden were chosen as the target group of this campaign, and a small but striking
book called "The Hash Book", was produced and mailed to them (46). To facilitate work with the
book a school curriculum was developed and the material sent to key persons in education. To support
the campaign, and to improve its effectiveness, the National Association for Home and School
arranged a major national conference, followed by local conferences for school class representatives.
The idea was that all ninth grade classes should hold discussions with parents and teachers about
drugs in general and hash in particular.
•Education and training for health professionals. For many years, Sweden has developed research
in the field of substance abuse at the major universities. As a result of a curriculum reform in 1983, a
two-week training course is now given four times a year at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, in
which attention is paid to all substances, including psychoactive medicines. For one week medical students
are introduced to clinical and ambulatory treatment settings, and meet self-help groups. At the pre-clinical level, introductory information on substance abuse is given during the basic courses on
social medicine and medical psychology. Sweden also has specific training programmes for public health professionals (psychologists and social workers) who can participate in certain non-medical parts of training programmes for physicians. Opportunities for education and training in substance abuse problems in Sweden are still increasing.

Water

Frank Pulley thanks for your advice as ever though the references provided do not suffice hence why I asked for more.

Water

This said I agree with one thing you said in that you "may have to seek counselling".

Water

Thanks Ian C much appreciated.

Water

“The commenters on this thread have consistently grouped all 'drugs' together as if they are the same phenomenon, have the same sub-culture, and have the same physical and psychic effects on the user.”

Certain commentators may have done though I must add that I have alluded to another thread which acknowledges most of what you have said.

john doe

"Sweden does not classify drugs according to their relative harms as New Zealand does, so penalties for cannabis possession are similar to those for heroin"

Absurd. The Swedish model is not something to emulate. It is turning into a police state.

"Interestingly, over the same period, alcohol, previously subject to heavy restrictions, has been made more available."

Just about sums up the whole sorry scenario really, as millions of intemperate depressed Swedes booze themselves to an early death and addle their brains in the process. Some model!

Ian C

It is simply a question of what are the choices? 1) Liberal let it all hang out policy, that tries (but, as we know, fails) to keep a lid on it or 2) Zero tolerance. There can be no half way house.

If you allow 'grow your own' then intellectually you cannot argue against other forms of supply. I will let my friends have some and they will send someone over to get some as a special friend and so on to a full blown market. This is one of the identifiable subjects on which there is simply no room for liberalism because it leads to instant excess permissiveness and all that goes with it. Zero-tolerance after a period of allowing those with a bad habit to get off it is the only way to change behaviour - like all other taboos.

If the penalty is hard enough and enforced, the next generation will not do it and won't even think about it. EG Drink driving - my children won't contemplate it as my generation did. and enough of us have done drugs/seen what they can do to be able to understand that they must be eliminated from a civilsed society.

Medical arguments for their application are a different matter.

Verity

4:46 p.m. Water - That case in Birmingham is not typical of our society and you cannot place the blame on anyone but that grotesque creature who was their mother and the man. They're converts or, as the Muslims say, "reverts", to Islam. She put her happy little five year old girl in a hijab! This is nothing to do with society as a whole. You can prove anything with unique examples, but you can't argue that is typical, unlike spending money you cannot afford on plasma TVs and lottery tickets and junk food.

I wish people would stop comparing alcohol to drugs. Alcohol metabolizes naturally and most people, except British louts, don't end up drunk. What is more, it is taken at specific times, as a rule. No one expects to sit at their desk in the call centre with a glass of wine, although it might cause some of them to be more agreeable. But drinking happens around lunch time on occasion, and around dinner time, as a rule. It's controlled by society's mores.

Frank Pulley

Water

"This said I agree with one thing you said in that you "may have to seek counselling".

Well, when I decide it's finally necessary, I'll know where to come won't I? A person of such broad experience, intellectual ability and good manners such as yourself would be ideal. On the other hand as you seem too idle to do your own Googling (as I was suggesting rather than giving you references), perhaps it's not such a good idea after all. :-)

john doe

Verity:

"most people, except British louts, don't end up drunk."

For goodness sake, have you ever been abroad? You have no idea how rampant and widespread alcohol abuse is in the world. You are talking nonsense and need to get around more before pontificating on what you don't know.

And,by the way, and you won't want to hear this, most people who use cannabis do not harm themselves or others, manage to function well in society, do not commit crimes and are not violent.

Water

Hey Verity

All I said was people are still starving and that was an example… nothing more (remember the context please). There religion has nothing to do with this for me; it was just an example of bad parenting not a bad religion.

This said all the other points still stand because I was typing about hard drugs and the neglect that occurs as a direct consequence, though my reservations with alcohol still remain for the reasons above and on the other thread.

Water

Ian C another good point.

Water

Frank Pulley “Well, when I decide it's finally necessary, I'll know where to come won't I?” not really as I’m absolutely fine though long as you can acknowledge your own needs that fine by me.

As for Googling I’m not idle but thank you for your concern. I was just asking for some info seeing as Ian seems to know what he’s talking about. Also if you had read correctly you would have seen I was talking to Ian C and not yourself when asking for extra links. Maybe this is something that they will teach you at therapy i.e. minding your own business.

Verity

John Doe - How very astute of you! No. I've never been abroad. That must be the reason I don't agree with you. Sheer ignorance.

Verity

Water - Don't make assumptions about meanings I did not convey. I wrote that that woman who [apparently] starved her little daughter to death and starved her other children to the point of death's door was a Muslim convert. You wrote, with a sense of patronising moral superiority: "it was just an example of bad parenting not a bad religion."

Well, yes, I would say that starving six children in today's Britain of plenty could be classified as "bad parenting". But nowhere did I suggest that Islam is a "bad religion". The woman is an untethered individual who may or may not be evil, but she converted to a religion which, in the strains that have been imported into Britain (not universally) is largely authoritarian and intolerant.

Water

Hey Verity

I’m not writing with a sense of moral superiority it’s just the case that it isn’t a bad religion when practised properly and I did not want the lines blurred. This said I’m glad you cleared that up because there was a margin for misconstrual.

This said as for me being “patronizing” this was not indeed the case, though you can interpret the scenario how you wish I don’t aim to change your point of view as regards that. In all fairness you have said something’s that are very condescending such as saying “British socialists are toxic and vile” because I’m sure all British socialists are not toxic and vile. This said I am no socialist but that is a little condescending you have to admit.

“The woman is an untethered individual who may or may not be evil, but she converted to a religion which, in the strains that have been imported into Britain (not universally) is largely authoritarian and intolerant”

Yes but this has nothing to do with drugs and seems tangential. I was merely highlighting that people do starve hence I was merely pointing out the context of my initial use of the example and nothing more. Because after I highlighted the initial point that people do starve I then went on to show the relation between that and how children are neglected when hard drugs/addiction come into peoples lives, nothing more.

Verity

Water - just to be clear, let me repeat it: socialists are toxic and vile. Socialists want control over the lives of others. In my experience, most people prefer to order their own lives and find the notion of ceding control to bossy, manipulative power-seekers with self-aggrandising agendas simply ridiculous.

You brought up the little girl who starved to death in Birmingham. I did not. I pursued your argument and now you are unhappy with the result. You even got my quote about religion wrong.

Water

Hey Verity

All socialists are not all ‘toxic’ and ‘vile’ though there are definite examples of such cases. But on the whole this is to sweeping a generalization by my measure.

Also I did not misinterpret your quotation. My intent with regards to the manner in which I construed your quotation was made explicit in the last comment by me, thus no error was made when that is acknowledge.

This said I did bring up the girl in Birmingham, though I did not agree with the context you placed the statement in because that was contextually in concise as regards the manner in which I initially framed it. Thus if the context is upheld so it the validity of its initial use.

Frank Pulley

John Doe

>"The commenters on this thread have consistently grouped all 'drugs' together as if they are the same phenomenon, have the same sub-culture, and have the same physical and psychic effects on the user."

Who did that on this thread? All that those who don't agree with decriminalising the supply and use of illicit drugs have pointed out, in essence, is that dangerous drugs are regulated by law and it is an offence to contravene those laws. Medically prescribed pharmaceutical drugs are also regulated, but some can be sold over the counter without prescription if they are less harmful. That is all.

Those who break the law should be prosecuted; those whose job it is to enforce the law should do so promptly and effectively. Those whose job it is to mete our punishment should do so according to parameters of punishment laid down in the statutes, taking into account the antecedents of the accused and any mitigating factors. The punishment should also reflect the harm that is being done to society by wilful abuse and supply of dangerous drugs. I don't suppose for one moment that I shall ever to persuade legislators to include among the penalties the placing of drug traffickers on an arctic island with their cojones pinned to the snow by an icicle (or even an Antarctic one come to that), but I can live with that provided that they use what powers they already have.

Your strange obsession with the various combinations of happy juices and their mythical mystical properties should disqualify you from ever being allowed in any capacity to tinker with the laws of the land. Particularly once they have reclassified ganga as they should.

You also say: >".Furthermore, the pharmaceutical companies, tobacco and drinks companies will do everything they can to lobby against the decriminalisation of LSD, MDMA and other psychedelics such as Iboga, as they have been shown to cure alcoholism, heroin addiction and dependency on various other legitimate substances such as tobacco and prescription drugs .."<

What a load of codswallop. As any alcoholic will tell you if he is honest, the only thing that can cure alcoholism is death. In my experience the same goes for those who abuse diamorphine for 'recreational' (Jesus Wept!) purposes. The addiction to either can sometimes be suppressed for periods, but not cured. The urge remains and is almost always eventually sated. Ask Georgie Best's liver surgeon or the relatives of thousands of horse addicts.

I can't imagine anyone with a grain of intelligence, common sense, or common decency wanting to make it easier for people to become addicted, which is what would happen if the ‘legalise’ lobby had their way. Except, of course, those already involved in the illegal supply or those already abusing drugs. Or lazy police chiefs, who get distracted from their golf by subordinates filling their statistics with drugs busts.

Ian C and Verity have already nailed the other fantasies and pseudo intellectual and cod scientific mumbo-jumbo you have spewed all over this thread.

Like many others who proselytise in this field of criminality, you label anyone who believes in upholding the law as a fascist.

Ian C

Veruty - socialism (as opposed to socialists) is toxic and consequently vile. Socialists are the misguided in search of the unachievable - they can become pretty noxious in the process but not all.

Water - thanks for your kind comments!

Water

Ian C no probs I only say it because it's true. Also (for what it's worth) the distinction in the last post between socialism and socialists is very agreeable.

Dipper

Of course before evil socialism came along every one lived in a wonderful world and they were all really really happy and spent all day being nice to each other.

And I thought the purpose of the law was to stop people doing evil to each other. Is it really the role of the state to stop people doing evil to themselves? Perhaps in a socialist state ...

Ian Campbell

If I understand you correctly, Dipper, there is some uncertainty in your mind about the difference between the
the role of the state stopping people doing evil to themselves and doing evil to others.

In the case of drug use one of the points I was trying to make was that the selfish behaviour of fun-seeking through the (ab)use of drugs is always doing harm to someone, somehwere, even if it is not in your face and you can't see it.

But because you don't see it, legislatin against drug use can be mistaken for an illiberal socialist type state of 'busybodyism' if this is not understood.

john doe

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article3998870.ece

What a ghastly mess the UK is as a result of culturally sanctioned alcohol abuse. And it's not just the prols and plebs who are the victims of this horror. And once again, cannabis and other illegal substances have nothing to do with the disgusting and loathsome behaviour described in the article above.

Water

This is true as well as many other forms that a state can possibly undertake in upholding the ‘law’. None the less it’s more then likely that a socialist state would function along the lines of socialism. Though a particular socialist state may not be corrupt or evil in its adoption of socialism hence why all socialists are not corrupt.

john doe

Frank Pulley:

Prescription drugs for depression and anxiety like the SSRIs are dangerous and peddled by pill pushing doctors irresponsibly. These same doctors own shares in the Pharma companies that produce these poisons. Why aren't you concerned about these dangerous drugs?

And please enough of icicles and cojones? You're repeating yourself.

And anyone who upholds the law even when it is unjust is a fascist.

Water

"And anyone who upholds the law even when it is unjust is a fascist" I don’t know if they automatically qualifies them as a fascist, though they may indeed be wrong/mistaken (then again they could be a fascist for it’s logically possible though not always true).

Frank Pulley

John Doe

You say: >"Prescription drugs for depression and anxiety like the SSRIs are dangerous and peddled by pill pushing doctors irresponsibly. These same doctors own shares in the Pharma companies that produce these poisons"<

I couldn't agree more and in previous comments have expressed similar thoughts with characteristic vehemence. And I was arguing for renewed efforts, not that the towel should be thrown in as you seem to be.

However, there are laws and regulations in place that proscribe the behavioiur you describe too. They too also should be rigorously enforced, but once again they are not. You talk of drugs wars: where is society's army? Cherry picking, I have to report.

As for the iced cojones, the repitition was to place it back into the jest context that it was originally intended for and from which you removed it, for your own sub agenda. As you well know! And I note that Melanie's neat literary allusion about cannabis cake in her latest post was also misrepresented for your own ends in your comment there. Many previous M'Lord!

Water

"No wonder the legalisers are purring at the appointment of Professor Nutt" and rightly so for he seems to be thinking along the right lines though the ACMD will most likely act against him seeing as seniors prior to his appointment waned it “ downgraded”.

“Nutt is also on record as wanting to completely overhaul the whole system of drug classification which he says doesn’t deter anyone from taking drugs.” It will be good to see what (if anything) comes of this as it seems as though the board is pitched its posts against him.

davod

To follow up on my earlier post regarding legalizing opens up drugs to the whole population instead of a sub-set.

Maybe someone can come up with a rough idea of numbers involved based upon a comparison of legalized substances:

How many on illegal drugs now, how many addicts?

How many legal smokers now, hpw many addicted?

How many alcoholic drinkers now, how many alcoholics?

I realise this is a simplistic approach. However, based upon the technical nature of some of the posts, I am sure some of you will know where to go for the corect sor of questions and where to find the answers.

Nothing is new under the sun and I bet the answeres are already available.

Water

davod it will be interesting to see where such figures would be sourced from. Though as you say they will be very much a rough indication of holistic addiction, as many addicts aren't going to attend any form of rehabilitation, not to mention those that are in denial.

Here are some figures from the BBC website they shows the amount of cocaine seized (admittedly they are rather old). On a very, very rough level it gives you some idea of supply/usage if not addiction:

2003/04: 20,727 kg
2002/03: 8,767 kg
2001/02: 6,075 kg
2000/01: 7,420 kg
1999/00: 2,525 kg
Source: HM Revenue & Customs

Commondog

My one and only encouter with cannabis was when a - former - friend of mine offered me a Maryland Cookie which he had baked himself.

I clearly remember how impressive they looked with their generous chocolate chips; also etched on my memory is the inane grin on his face, and the sudden silence of his wife, as I dunked and ate the offering.

It wasn't a nice experience and why anyone would want to partake of the stuff on a frequent basis is beyond me. It's for losers.

Main reason for telling this is because I really would like to be comment number 101 on this one.

Steve Rolles

Are we seeing the rather unpleasant historical blanket-demonisation of illegal drugs and drug users now being transferable directly onto anyone who challenges the desperate failings of contemporary drug prohibition?

Some misconceptions need to be challenged here. 'Legalisation' is a process and does not specify a policy end point. This leads to substantial problems with the debate around alternatives to prohibition with the void in understanding being filled with misconceptions about 'legal' drugs being freely available, usually conjuring up images of heroin and crack being available in sweet shops or school vending machines.

In fact the reform position is somewhat distant and more sophisticated than that. Although there are some libertarian advocates who do indeed advocate a market forces only model they are a small minority and seen as an extreme and unhelpful position by the majority of reformers who advocate strict regulation and control of the drugs market, within a legal framework.

Such a system would involve a spectrum of regulatory models being deployed for different drugs in different environments - ranging from maintaining absolute prohibition for some drugs or preparations, through prescription models (as we already have for opiates), pharmacist dispensary models, licensed vendors and licensed premises. In addition to these models can be introduced a range of additional controls as appropriate, most of which are already familiar in other arenas of social and public health policy. These include, price controls, packaging controls, controls on locations of consumption, age of purchaser controls, hours of opening, controls on marketing and promotion, controls on intoxication of purchaser, tracking of purchases/purchasers, volume rationing, delay between purchase and pick up, licesning of users/purchaser (potentially linked to a test or risk education / training program), conditional membership of a group or club to allow access, and so on.

These are precisely the sorts of public health based interventions and controls that are impossible when market control has been abdicated to violent criminal profiteers as happens under the rigid prohibitionist system we have at present for most (but obviously not all) drugs. We need to remind ourselves that drugs are freely available now, under the current anarchic criminal infrastructure. Anyone who wants to use them can and does, and there is no evidence to suggest the law acts as a deterrent, especially for the populations most vulnerable to problematic use. Whilst demand remains high (and we need to accept this reality at least in the short mto medium term) and the profit opportunity remains, history shows clearly that there is nothing enforcement can do other than make this situation more dirty dangerous and violent.

The current response is demonstrably a failure. Not only has it failed to prevent the increasing supply availability and misuse of drugs, it creates a raft of secondary criminal justice problems relating to the sprawling multi billion pound illegal market.

Educating people about the risks of drugs and encouraging healthy and responsible lifestyle choices is a laudable aim and righly the goal of our policy makers. However using criminal justice enforcement as the primary tool for doing this is both demonstrably ineffective (note the experience of the past two generations) and also unethical out of sync with social and legal responses to comparable public health concerns. Scarce drug policy resources would be far better spent of evidence-based and targetted education and prevention programs, along with treatment for those in need, than futile and counterproductive enforcement approaches that actively increase the harms they are intended to address.

Pragmatic regulation of drug markets based on evidence of effectiveness and established public health principles is not incompatible with a strong anti-drug message. It is a matter of how that message is sent out - using public education (which can work if done properly) or mass criminalisation (which has never worked anywhere). Calls for a mature debate on regulatory alternatives to the all to failings of the current legal framework are nothing to do with socialism, libertarianism, or Melanie's imagined legaliser illuminati conspiracies. They are the rational response to the generational and systematic failings of an absolutist policy prohibition.

For the record I work for Transform Drug Policy Foundation, a charity and policy think tank that actively advocates for the approach I have briefly described above - a more just and effective drug policy. We evidently don't fit in with the conspiratorial silliness Melanie describes and therefore never seem to warrant a mention in her anti-reform tirades. If anyone is interested in a rational exploration of this debate, and pragmatic ways forward, please visit www.tdpf.org.uk

And just to note, if the Home Office, UKDPC or ACMD are in fact dens of covert 'legalisers' its news to me. If only. Melanie, how about engaging with the actual policy debate?

Trisha

I've just read the response to this post from the UK Drugs Policy Commission and I nearly fell off my seat laughing when I read that it concerns itself with "informed dialogue".

David Raynes

Oh dear Steve (Rolles) I was wondering how long it would take to flush you out. Transform is a broken flush, leglisation is not on anyone's agenda in the UK now. Your legalisation model is absolute claptrap, if the supply of drugs cannot be stopped now, it certainly cannot be stoped under your model, just why would trafickers give up? After all there is illegal traficking in just about anything you care to name from Coca Cola to aircraft parts to mobile phones. More than 20% of the UK tobacco market is counterfeit smuggled or both. You know this, I have told you that many times, you have never challenged my figures. It has been worse, much worse. Use-reinforcing substances are the criminals dream, legal or illegal. All that your legalisation model would do would be to make drug taking a desireable adult behaviour. Any age restrictions would mean and create a specific market to the young to be fulfilled by criminals. Illegal sales could always undercut legal sales on price. Legalisation of any currently illegal drug (assuming, big assumption, it could be done with public liability & product insurance) could only lead to more use and more total harm. Why do I say that? EVIDENCE STEVE. The evidence of the alcohol/tobacco model-worldwide. In those countries where alcohol is consumed less because of religious or social taboo, there is MUCH LESS total harm from alcohol. In countries where for social/cultural reasons there is less consumption of tobacco, there is less harm from tobacco. Transform also speaks with forked tongue, your sidekick has happily espoused statements about legalising all drugs and done it in my presence. Argued it in fact without the qualifications you put on it now. As for "Melanie's imagined legaliser illuminati conspiracies". Forgetting the illuminati and your sneering, there IS and ARE international conspiracies including covert activity amongst like minded people to legalise drugs. The conspiracies are in many cases specifically against the UN Drugs Conventions, some people in DrugScope took part in that while being funded by the UK government and knowing (they must have known ) it was against UK Government policy to change those Conventions. I have the evidence of this activity or I would not say it publicly. I have said it publicly several times now. No one has ever denied it. They cannot because the evidence I have is too strong. Was that corrupt? Was THAT a conspiracy? The networks of which your organisation and others are part are totally penetrated now. If this were not true, disgraced ex UK drugs Czar Mike Trace could not have been exposed for his clandestine links or covert activities and forced to resign from his new post at the UN. Did not Melanie expose him? Did we ALL "imagine" that? I like you and enjoy your company and intellect Steve and you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Frank Pulley

Well said David Raynes! Characteristically your experience allied with common sense is a refreshing. The pseudo intellectual clap-trap from counter-culture mechanics such as Mr Rolles will not fool the broad swathe of the law abiding public and those in public service who deserve much better support in enforcing the very necessary statutes relating to and regulating all forms of drugs, not just the so-called 'recreational' drugs of the criminal scourge.

Relentless and sustained public opprobrium of the drugs culture is necessary and heavy duty enforcement and penalties at both supply and demand end. It is crass to say that enforcement doesn't work and that 'the war' is lost. It would be ten times worse without the current effort (which is already half-assed) and ten times better if both the government and politically correct police chiefs stopped tinkering with the law and drugs enforcement policies and just on with the job. Melanie's article is timely. The modified Marxists are at it again this month on BBC - several programmes on the 40 year anniversary of 1968 and all that, justifying their 'revolution' and blaming police conspiracies for the violence and disorder of those drug fuelled riots. Just saintly protesters, peacefully exercising their political rights, of course. Tariq Ali spouting his usual self justification. Newsnight is akin to Radio Tass circa 1952 on occasions. If you missed it, Wednesday's programme is worth watching on the Newsnight website, just to keep your finger on the pulse. I think the Gramsci inspired disciples are getting worried at the new climate of public opinion and are juicing up their act again. More power to your elbow, mate.

Steve Rolles

Hi David – Transform do not claim that moves towards legal regulation and control of currently illegal drug markets would be a panacea for the drug problem – it would primarily reduce the problem created by illegal markets (although it woud free up substantial resources for other interventions – education, treatment, prevention etc – that can obviously have very positive impacts).
Of course illegal markets would not disappear entirely, but they would be substantially reduced, as the examples of alcohol and tobacco you raise clearly demonstrates. You note that illegal markets exist for those and other legal products but as you also point out the illegal component is only a small fraction of the total market, whereas with prohibited drugs it is 100%. If we could reduce the illegal market by, say - using the example of tobacco – 80% that would be about £260 billion a year of illegal market turnover (going by UNODC estimates) reclaimed by the state and brought within the law. Illegal drug markets are violent, dirty, destructive, corrupting and dangerous - any reduction in them is undoubtedly a good thing and you appear to concede that we could eliminate the majority.
It is the supply / demand economics of prohibiting something for which enormous demand remains that dramatically inflates the price and attract the type of violent profiteers who now control the global market in dangerous drugs. Supply and demand are the only laws illegal drug markets adhere to. If a legal supply was available within some appropriate legal framework drugs would be like other market products, with normal profit margins, rather than the extraordinary profit margins that run to several 1000 percent illegal drugs offer. This is what makes heroin and cocaine for example – essentially low value processed agricultural products – worth more than their weight in gold by the time they hit the UK streets. This isn’t claptrap – its simple economics and your example helps illustrate it. Thanks.
Also of note is the fact that smoking has been falling steadily in the UK since the 1970s (whilst use of almost all illegal drugs has rocketed). This is not because of punitive prohibitions, criminalisation or attempts to secure our borders to prevent this highly addictive killer drug entering the country. It is due to a combination of effective public health education and sensible regulation of marketing, permitted locations of use, and price controls. These public health based responses have helped foster social norms about what is acceptable and responsible behaviour. Alcohol policy would do well to follow suite and there are some welcome signs of movement at long last (there is a rich irony as someone has pointed out – in this very page carrying alcohol adverts). Transform has long campaigned on these issues too. Calling for more effective regulation of alcohol and tobacco is part of our call for reform and is absolutely in line with calls for effective regulation of other drugs even if it involves moving in the other direction (away from an unregulated free-market model towards a regulatory centre ground) to that required for illegal drugs (away from an unregulated illegal market towards a regulatory centre ground). The aim of both moves, of course, is to minimise total harm to individuals and society.
Yes, some people discuss drug policy and law reform behind closed doors; It remains a taboo issue in some political arenas. Indeed it is partly because of the hysterical demonization, by Melanie et al, of anyone who dares to suggest absolute prohibition maybe isn’t the optimum policy framework for managing drugs in society, that they feel the need to hide behind the bushel. I, and my organisation are in the happy position of not having to do that. We can speak for the numerous public figures and the substantial minority in the drugs field who are understandably fearful of being called Libertarians, Marxists, Liberals, Socialists, Junkies, Hippies, Subversives, shit-heads, coke fiends, narco nutters, brats (and that’s just from this thread) etc. simply for having a debate on drug policy alternatives to prohibition. We aren’t hiding and we aren’t part of any conspiracy. So why not stop trying to associate the reform position with sinister Machiavellian politics, and let have a rational adult debate about the policy options and which one is going to deliver the best outcomes. Stop name calling and finger pointing and have the debate with US.
We want to see the UN drug conventions reformed and modernised and operating more in sync with the rest of the UN family (specifically the Human rights bodies, WHO, UNAIDS and the UNDP), not undermined or eliminated. Even the head of the UNODC admits they are from another era and not ‘fit for purpose’. No conspiracy – just a debate about how to make the international drug control system more effective, including allowing the flexibility for sovereign states to explore regulatory policy options if that is what they democratically determine.
Note: I am not default agreeing with any of the other posters. Drugs are harmful – that is why they need to be regulated by the state and not left in the hands of gangsters and street dealers. Find out more here: www.tdpf.org.uk