Drugs - the solution

[Pat494]

I am flabbergasted by the spread of drugs and organised crime associated with them.
First off I would have to praise the valiant efforts to stop the illegal drugs epidemic. But let's face the facts that drugs are readily available at a price in all the world's cities and even rural areas. This trade is worth billions every year and thus provides a lucrative source of income to those willing to take the risks. It can't be stopped by politicians waving bits of paper and police efforts. I think it is time a different approach is taken to the drugs trade.

I, myself do not use drugs, nor do I recommend others to. But they do, even knowing the health risks and what a total waste of money getting hooked is.

OK so it comes down to
1. Criminalise the drugs trade and pour the billions into the hands of organised crime or
2. Let the Chemists sell the drugs over the counter. At least they would be clean and cheap.

I would have thought the choice is but a simple one. However politicians let's face it won't make the obvious choice and why ? Because of the kick-backs from gangs with billions at their disposal. Bent politicians and police look the other way. Many places are literally in the hands of the criminals and no-one dare oppose them. They have the money to hire the muscle.

To get rid of these monsters politicians must make THE DECISION and soon. It is up to us.

 

[ffsear]

2. Let the Chemists sell the drugs over the counter. At least they would be clean and cheap.

.

I just can't see this working. Booze and fags are the biggest killers. Not because they are more toxic or dangerous. Because they are available on every street corner. Imagine if Heroine and Ketamine were as readily available.?

I also worry about the impact on society of having a million or so drugs dealers being put out of business.

 

[Pat Riley]

To get rid of these monsters politicians must make THE DECISION and soon. It is up to us.

I think you'll find it isn't. Ever, up to 'us'.

And to suggest kick-backs operate on a level necessary to support the current situation is simply impossible. The numbers of politicians/police required to be actively involved to support that scenario would make the UK a hundred times worse than Mexico. People would notice that kinda thing....

How could anyone ever think of legalising something that is so dangerous? Countries and some US states have leaglised weed and that is about as far as any government could go given he thin line between weed and tobacco and then between them and alcohol which has a greater impact on health per capita then the other two put together.

Plus buying your Saturday night stash on a street corner is more fun and a lot healthier than goin inta Boots what with everyone coughing and spluttering their germs over ya.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Drug Laws Don't Work: The Phoney War: (Dispatches), by Nick Davies 2001

the big lie!

 

[tomorton]

Nobody should think the people who burgle your house and steal your car for drug money will not burgle your house nor steal your car for easy money for something else. The problem lies with the people, not the legal framework.

 

[0007]

I hold no brief for the illegal use or supply of drugs. However, I do remember reading a report fairly recently (serious study but can't remember details and provenance) with a conclusion that the business model of the drugs trade is an extremely efficient one and in terms of customer service, supply chain and sourcing there are many lessons that could be learned, although I'm not so sure about their debt collection procedures! IMHO there is no easy answer (is there an answer at all?) to the drugs problem and it is all too easy to blame politicians. But it's not a new problem is it? – It's just that ordinary people can afford to do it these days.

 

[Atilla]

Drug Laws Don't Work: The Phoney War: (Dispatches), by Nick Davies 2001

the big lie!

Watched this program and it's dead on the nail.

Studies by the Dutch back in the 80s showed, it's secondary crime in drugs that does the damage not the drug it self.

1. If one had to go to the doctors for a drug prescription it pretty much removes the attraction from young people. In fact it changes perception in the young as an illness rather than a dare inducing exciting drug to be tried.

2. Back in the 80s it was said one could supply the whole UK demand for £50m if sourced on the NHS from source farmers as opposed to off the streets via criminal channels costing 100x and higher.

3. Drug can be controlled and monitored. Damage from drugs often less than ciggies or alcohol.


Many years ago, a friend form Manchester said it's not the heroin that's the trouble it's when you come out. I thought he was talking rubbish at the time but now I understand his point.

It's taken by people who don't have much or anything to look forward to and when they come off the trip their lot seems so much worse. Moreover, they end up paying more to get their trip. Thus, secondary crime associated problems compound.

Anybody remember the billionaire couple who were regular users for years. They didn't have any criminal issues as they could afford their habit and life styles. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/36...ing-s-wife-died-in-squalor-from-drug-overdose

Another friends mother is on pain killers. Apparently she's taking more and more and doctors trying to limit usage. However, she is now 81 and says pain is worse. How can people determine how much pain one is in and how much one should use. The woman is 80+ and it should be about quality of life not prolonged pain and suffering.

There was an article about how doctors limit drugs to cancer sufferers with a view to extending suffering.

People I think have opinions which are thoughts and not tested. Where drug prescriptions or free needles given out with special centres for taking drugs - as in Amsterdam, helps and prevents the spread of secondary issues.


Anyhow, developments with cannabis is encouraging and I'm glad to see legalising and controlling its sale will improve health and safety for all. This will also be a revenue gain for government. It shoud remove the addictive and dangerous skunk and promote hash which is natures natural pain killer with less of the addictive element. Hash can also be further modified removing such elements.


I think drugs should definitely be legalised and controlled.

 

[YouAreNotFree]

Nobody should think the people who burgle your house and steal your car for drug money will not burgle your house nor steal your car for easy money for something else. The problem lies with the people, not the legal framework.

Most of the evidence is to the contrary. You need a more optimistic view of humanity.

***Posted whilst under the influence of drugs***

Alcohol that is. Much prefer to to be weed of course. Sometimes it is but not tonight

 

[Pat Riley]

Solution. Government gives drugs away free to all those that wish to use them.

No market. No drug pushers. No crime.

Free drugs. Drug addicts all o/d. No drug addicts.

Mop up residual casual users with random anti-aircraft gunning.

 

[tomorton]

Unrestricted drug supply to users just means lots of people who can't hold down a job. Which means lots of crime, not to pay for the drugs they use but to pay for the other things they can't afford.

The problem is not drugs its the people who use them. They're not the victims.

 

[Atilla]

Of all the ailments, crime and conditions that humanity faces; how or why treating a little bit of recreational drug use be any different or much of a challenge???


I would go as far as to say it would probably reduce a lot of crime, extortion and prostitution, coupled with enhancing the quality of lives in a much more fruitful and entertaining way, alleviating the side effects of artificially produced drugs?


It will for sure erradicate all the associated secondary crime coupled with creating a new market, enhancing government revenue.

What it did for music, drugs may well stimulate and develop the creative brain in far more imaginative ways that we may ponder why and what we did for so long?


We are in the cusp of a new era

 

[tomorton]

The people who use illegal drugs and use illegal means to fund their habit are not law-abiding folk who simply prefer a rather stronger form of red wine. They are wasters who would use any means to obtain what they want. They might want some drugs or they might want a nice TV or they might want some food: it doesn't matter whether its legal to just take it or not, they just want it. And if they don't have to take your car to pay for their drugs, they will take your car to pay for their new (stolen) TV.

 

[Atilla]

The people who use illegal drugs and use illegal means to fund their habit are not law-abiding folk who simply prefer a rather stronger form of red wine. They are wasters who would use any means to obtain what they want. They might want some drugs or they might want a nice TV or they might want some food: it doesn't matter whether its legal to just take it or not, they just want it. And if they don't have to take your car to pay for their drugs, they will take your car to pay for their new (stolen) TV.

You say "The people who use illegal drugs and use illegal means to fund their habit are not law-abiding folk".

1. This is because Cannabis is a banned substance. Hence, people who use it in the wrong place become illegal drug user.

2. Not everyone uses illegal means to fund their habit. Most work for it. This would be the status if banned drugs were available in controlled formats via chemists. Quite a few would not resort to illegal means to fund their habit paying reasonable prices or getting it on the NHS if they were in need due to medical reasons or simply addicted...

3. Law-abiding folk only in the eyes of the law. People break the law in all sorts of ways. If banned substance usage like Cannabis were legalised then they would be law abiding folk.

Are you aware of what you are actually alleging?

Do you not understand what is meant by legalising drugs? Bringing it under control would remove secondary crime? People wouldn't be criminals. People would not have criminal records for using drugs. Police wouldn't waste time making innocent people criminals. People can grow their own plants too.


Whether drugs were legal or not does not change ones temperament for other stuff like TVs or Video Games or what ever these so called wasted people do now.

You suggesting if they weren't chasing drugs and seeking money to buy drugs they are going to do other menacing acts? If anything once they were able to get their drugs via normal legal channels they would if anything be more chilled out and less inclined to commit other offenses. I don't understand what you mean... How so? What else would they be doing that's worse then now?

 

[Pat Riley]

Unrestricted drug supply to users just means lots of people who can't hold down a job. Which means lots of crime, not to pay for the drugs they use but to pay for the other things they can't afford.

The problem is not drugs its the people who use them. They're not the victims.

Fair enough and a good point.

Random anti-aircraft gunning of anyone without a job - on drugs or not.

And to counteract the potential drop in employment caused by the shrinking consumer base into which to sell product & service you could enforce immigration from drug-free and hard-working cultures. Bring em over in chains if need be.

 

[tomorton]

Drug users would be committing criminal acts of robbery, theft, shoplifting, vehicle taking, mugging etc. etc. whether or not they had a habit to feed, whether or not their habit was legal. Making drug use legal might prevent law-abiding working folks getting done for cannabis possession but they're not the ones the ones mostly getting arrested and imprisoned for it, nor of any great concern to my safety and security.

The blight of secondary crime in our society is down to the criminal scum who will always use criminal means to get what they want - whether its your mobile, your car or whatever, whether its by force, deception or stealth. We won't eliminate secondary crime by legalising drugs.

 

[tomorton]

Fair enough and a good point.

Random anti-aircraft gunning of anyone without a job - on drugs or not.

And to counteract the potential drop in employment caused by the shrinking consumer base into which to sell product & service you could enforce immigration from drug-free and hard-working cultures. Bring em over in chains if need be.

You say this is a solutuion - I'm sure you're being ironic, not serious.

But I don't say there's a solution, I say there's no solution, and certainly not through anything as unimaginative as legalising or criminalising drugs or anything else.

 

[Pat Riley]

No irony intended and obviously not bein serious either. It's one of those things which are so serious and so dire and so completely devoid of any immediate solution that ya have ta make light of it or you'll start takin everything too seriously. I'll duck out of this one as my take on these things may not be ta everyone else's taste.

 

[new_trader]

You say this is a solutuion - I'm sure you're being ironic, not serious.

But I don't say there's a solution, I say there's no solution, and certainly not through anything as unimaginative as legalising or criminalising drugs or anything else.

Really? So, you don't think the US Government's utterly failed experiment with prohibition in the 1920's serves as a good test case where the very opposite of what you think is actually true.

http://www.thefinertimes.com/20th-Century-Crime/organised-crime-in-the-1920s.html

After thirteen long years the government finally saw that prohibition was not working, it had infact created more of a problem than it solved, finally the government abolished the prohibition laws.

 

[tomorton]

Prohibiton was a failure. But don't forget at the other end of prohibition the US government legalised alcohol. That did nothing to eradicate organised or secondary crime either, so legalisation was a failure too.

We can't solve the problems our society has simply by legalising or criminalising things. In the real world these don't change things, they're just labels.

We have to have a more inaginative and deeper response in order to win this. Just because prohibition didn't work that doesn't mean legalisation would. We've tried prohibition of drugs and that's failed too. Let's not go down the legalisation cul de sac again as well.

 

[Pat Riley]

Apart from the organised crime which grew in support of illegal alcohol production & distribution, prohibition was a success in just about every other measure. Death from alcohol related disease, mental institution admissions, domestic abuse, non-organised (street) crime all fell during that period. That the bad outweighed the good (from political/public/media) perspective was sufficient to damn the entire 18th amendment.