But its an impossible battle Pat. In fact there's no widespread support for a "war on drugs". Half the population take drugs and half the other half think they should have the right to do so if they wish.
But its an impossible battle Pat. In fact there's no widespread support for a "war on drugs". Half the population take drugs and half the other half think they should have the right to do so if they wish.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
You are right imo it's not an easy nut to crack but far from impossible. One might think booze and fags was enough for most.
But now the drug dealers target youngsters and get them hooked. I found it hard enough to stop smoking.
The probability is that spineless politicians will try to ignore it. The cops know who the dealers are. Just warn them that they will be rounded up and shot if they persist. Perhaps they will emigrate ?
You can't shoot people for breaking this law or that law. Once you open that door, its impossible to close. Eventually it leads to summary execution for driving a vehicle without an MOT.
J Livermore
Active member
- Messages
- 211
- Likes
- 75
Do you blame liquor stores for alcoholics? What ever happened to the days of self-responsibility? Being an adult means taking responsibility for your own actions. No matter if your choices result in good or bad outcomes.
Yes, people who sell to children should be punished but if an adult is discovered to be not responsible for his or her own actions would you prefer to make them a ward of the state?
Don’t forget, trying drugs for the very first time is a completely voluntary action.
Also, who do you blame if users get hooked on their own supply? Mother nature?
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
I understand your points BUT when drug dealers are killing people albeit gradually just for profit then I think the interests of the victims comes before any do-gooding on the interests of the dealers. The big dealers/organisers are safe in some countries warped by money and violence to give them shelter. There is no way they will be extradited. And even if they were they might serve a few years and be back in business in a short time.
The rotten apples need strong action to weed them out permanently before they take over.
The same sort of muddled do-gooding let Hitler get to power and start WW2 as he said he would. Feebleness is no excuse.
The rotten apples need strong action to weed them out permanently before they take over.
The same sort of muddled do-gooding let Hitler get to power and start WW2 as he said he would. Feebleness is no excuse.
Last edited:
These conclusions are incorrect, they're beyond that.
Like I said earlier, once you've opened that door........ I suggest Pat you're about 3 posts away from demanding the death penalty for failure to operate a vehicle with a valid MOT.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Normally I am such a patient, well meaning sort but it pains me that so many decent people look the other way until it will be too late.
Money rules these days not principles. Even dirty money. In fact a youngster starting out and determined to get rich couldn't find a better career opportunity.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Cut out the cancer in time and all will be well.
Protect businesses and we shall eat, drink and be merry.
The principled do-gooders have a worthy place in society BUT they shouldn't be able to go to the extremes and protect illegal drug dealers etc.. Probably paid. terrified or potty.
It will never be sorted out in this country run by such feeble people and we shall all suffer.
Your point about the MOT is quite unjustified. Friends of drug dealers make it that much harder to make a decent society for all to enjoy.
Protect businesses and we shall eat, drink and be merry.
The principled do-gooders have a worthy place in society BUT they shouldn't be able to go to the extremes and protect illegal drug dealers etc.. Probably paid. terrified or potty.
It will never be sorted out in this country run by such feeble people and we shall all suffer.
Your point about the MOT is quite unjustified. Friends of drug dealers make it that much harder to make a decent society for all to enjoy.
I'm not a friend of any drug-dealing low life scum and I wish you would take back that particularly inaccurate comment.
barjon
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,752
- Likes
- 1,863
No, Pat, if you shot drug dealers they’d be replaced before the sound of the gunshot had faded away.
I spent a goodly part of my career trying to stop drugs coming into our country and catching the smugglers. In terms of kilos seized and smugglers (individual and gangs) brought to book we were very successful. In terms of availability, as judged by street price, we were abject failures. Drugs seized were instantly replaced as were the smugglers, so you could argue that we wasted our time.
My conclusion? Well, if you really want to eradicate the problem you must kill the demand. Otherwise criminality, however hard the sanction, will always find a way to supply it. Don’t forget these people never think they are going to get caught - as murderers thought when the death penalty was around.
To kill the demand you must come down hard on users, whilst at the same time helping them wean themselves off the habit. You must also educate people not to start and hit them before they’ve got themselves hooked. This means “first offence” should be draconian and not a slap on the wrist. Everything, in fact, the reverse of the way we’ve chosen.
There is a drugs problem but there is no solution via police measures. Half the population don;t see drugs as a problem - they have taken or are taking drugs. The other half aren't much affected and don't care much about the drug problem.
The people who've suffered crime due to drugs want a crime number from the police and an insurance pay-out. Most people who suffer the worst violence from drug gangs are other drug gangs, which is a logical reason for so many law-abiding people just not caring much.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
The drug related deaths may rise sharply in the present lockdown
Drug deaths soar to highest level on record
A government adviser blames cuts to treatment programmes as the death toll hit 2,917 in 2018.
www.bbc.co.uk
Signalcalc
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,670
- Likes
- 1,031
The drug related deaths may rise sharply in the present lockdown
Drug deaths soar to highest level on record
A government adviser blames cuts to treatment programmes as the death toll hit 2,917 in 2018.www.bbc.co.uk
Is this a problem?
Who has defined the drugs problem and what is the definition?
I have been thinking if we can equate the death rate amongst drug users with the death rate amongst skiers. Both groups have a costly hobby which isn't directly helpful to their health or wealth, both pastimes have life-changing personal risks, and the people themselves can die from both.
I' m not really worried about the death rate amongst skiers.
Signalcalc
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,670
- Likes
- 1,031
Then we have the skiers that drive, that smoke, probably not obese, but some dare say partake in other risky hobbies such as mountain biking or squash, all are eligable drug problem people also, whatever is the problem with drugs is that we should actually be dealing with.
What is the drugs problem?
Signalcalc
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,670
- Likes
- 1,031
I would define the drugs problem as:
The inability of the authorities, despite $trillions spent over decades to effectively reduce the harm caused by the use of drugs, and may have actually increased the harm caused by drug use (eg criminalising people and all that goes with it).
That then leads onto the definition of the harms caused by drugs/drug use?
The inability of the authorities, despite $trillions spent over decades to effectively reduce the harm caused by the use of drugs, and may have actually increased the harm caused by drug use (eg criminalising people and all that goes with it).
That then leads onto the definition of the harms caused by drugs/drug use?
I'm not convinced the UK spends much money on drugs enforcement. Even so, the solution will not come from more police and longer sentences for dealers. Or even the summary execution of those dumb enough to get caught.
The group most harmed by drug use is drug users. Personally, I don't much care for the idea of paying lots of money to help this group of narcissistic self-abusing dimwits.
Signalcalc
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,670
- Likes
- 1,031
If we remove the law enforcement aspects of the drugs problem, which are potentially making things worse, then we can examine the problems caused by drugs. So depending on the drug type, we can say that people probably fall into the following broad categories with associated risks:
Casual users: casual users are recreational users that look forward to a weekend of parting or a social gathering or just solo/couple use in front the TV/film etc.
Risks: risk of death or illness, risk of implication in someone else's death or illness, for illegal drugs - risk of contact with criminals, risk of contact with law enforcement, risk of prosecution leading onto problems throughout life with criminal record, knock on effects for the family and friends, risk of loss of job and income. Risk of addiction.
Regular users: Those that are recreational users, but use on a more regular basis e.g. 3-5 times a week
Risks: increased risk of all that apply to casual users.
Addicted users: Those that require a drug to physically function, to live and breath and get through the day.
Risks: increased risk of all that apply to regular users. Plus increased risk to the general public through the need to find money to pay for the drugs (if illegal), by burglary and thefts etc, ie increased crime rate.
So, the increased risk to the public and tax payer, which is where law enforcement comes into play is actually amongst the addicted users group, criminalising casual and regular users is creating a worse problem because of the effects of criminalisation.
Then we could categories the drugs themselves into addictiveness:
Therefore given a very rudimentary classification of the impact of drugs on society and where the most resources should be implemented it would appear that law enforcement should concentrate on the most addictive Class A, alcohol and tobacco and everything else should be legalised. Alcohol & tobacco could be made available to everyone on a token system to restrict consumption, Cannabis could be used as a way to wean people off Alcohol whilst providing some of the similar effects, without the associated destructiveness.
Do this for a period of 3-5 years to get some stats, then start drawing some conclusions.
- Casual users
- Regular users
- Addicted users
Casual users: casual users are recreational users that look forward to a weekend of parting or a social gathering or just solo/couple use in front the TV/film etc.
Risks: risk of death or illness, risk of implication in someone else's death or illness, for illegal drugs - risk of contact with criminals, risk of contact with law enforcement, risk of prosecution leading onto problems throughout life with criminal record, knock on effects for the family and friends, risk of loss of job and income. Risk of addiction.
Regular users: Those that are recreational users, but use on a more regular basis e.g. 3-5 times a week
Risks: increased risk of all that apply to casual users.
Addicted users: Those that require a drug to physically function, to live and breath and get through the day.
Risks: increased risk of all that apply to regular users. Plus increased risk to the general public through the need to find money to pay for the drugs (if illegal), by burglary and thefts etc, ie increased crime rate.
So, the increased risk to the public and tax payer, which is where law enforcement comes into play is actually amongst the addicted users group, criminalising casual and regular users is creating a worse problem because of the effects of criminalisation.
Then we could categories the drugs themselves into addictiveness:
- Alcohol, tobacco and illegal Class A being the top addiction drugs (psychedelic drugs are not addictive in my view and should not be in this category), addictive prescription drugs are a big problem for the user and families, but not so much for society as they can be controlled through the health system and addicts do not need to commit crime to feed the habit.
- Everything else is classified an non-risky.
Therefore given a very rudimentary classification of the impact of drugs on society and where the most resources should be implemented it would appear that law enforcement should concentrate on the most addictive Class A, alcohol and tobacco and everything else should be legalised. Alcohol & tobacco could be made available to everyone on a token system to restrict consumption, Cannabis could be used as a way to wean people off Alcohol whilst providing some of the similar effects, without the associated destructiveness.
Do this for a period of 3-5 years to get some stats, then start drawing some conclusions.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Many people especially youngsters have been forced into crime to pay off the parasites.
They are just a burden on society by being imprisoned and cared for.
A 10 pence bullet seems the obvious and cheap answer.
The wets can't stand the thought but it will get worse until there is no other option.
The cost of just trying to cope will cripple economies and as at present be totally ineffective.
They are just a burden on society by being imprisoned and cared for.
A 10 pence bullet seems the obvious and cheap answer.
The wets can't stand the thought but it will get worse until there is no other option.
The cost of just trying to cope will cripple economies and as at present be totally ineffective.
Last edited:
