FoxyPV Posted 18 August 2010 Share Posted 18 August 2010 Drugs education? Step one. Obtain pill from dealer. Step two. Place in mouth. Step three. Swallow with water. Step four. Wait 15-60 minutes for effects to take place. Step five: Convince yourself that the drugs aren't working after 10 minutes, moan about how you have been sold a dud and pop another one (or couple) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxyPV Posted 18 August 2010 Share Posted 18 August 2010 As a big "former raver" I doubt not that you've had many, many, many nights on drugs and not even batted an eyelid. Countless people safely use drugs on a daily, monthly, yearly basis and we never hear about them dying. Yes, there are some health risks, but there are with plenty of the things we enjoy. Yet again you end up brought back to statistics about alcohol and yet again nobody will ever ACTUALLY explain to you why, exactly, it isn't completely hypocritical that alcohol is legal and, for example, weed isn't? Alcohol is culturally accepted due to the fact it was safer to drink than water. During the middle ages etc weak volume ale was used as a safe drink rather than dirty water from rivers etc that may have been pollluted with effluent. Linkity link Alcohol is possibly one of the worst things that you can do to yourself but due to this cultural acceptance there is no way will any govt EVER ban it (and more importantly the income it would lose from it being sold) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 18 August 2010 Share Posted 18 August 2010 There's also that crystal meth which is big in the U.S which is supposedly more addictive than anything on the market. I certainly wouldn't want to see that shit being legalised. Drop the textbook for one moment Finners. Drugs education? Step one. Obtain pill from dealer. Step two. Place in mouth. Step three. Swallow with water. Step four. Wait 15-60 minutes for effects to take place. Yeah but all banter aside it's not that funny, is it? I mean that's exactly the point. That's what we have now and like I said, for those lucky enough to have the right group of friends that's fine. But it's when people aren't so lucky that incidents like those you've hinted at become a reality. I don't mean talk to FRANK or your social studies teacher, I mean a wider, cultural understanding. Why does that have to be such a hilarious impossibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James. Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 I've read all the views on here and to be honest I was shocked with James comments. I know he was an ex raver like me and he can't honestly say that legalising ecstasy is a smart move? I've seen people collapse, being stretchered out of raves not even mentioning the amount of times I've had many a night ruined looking after mates who were close to od'ing. To be honest EC I'm equally as shocked at your stance. I would have thought someone who has been involved in the scene would understand that by and large ecstacy is safe (I can just see lots of people shaking their heads violently at that opinion, but it's true). The complications invariably arise when people buy pills that have been cut with crap - you know that. So then you'll also know that decriminalising would guarantee quality and as such make it even safer to take. An interesting irony is that recently Australian police destroyed a factory in Cambodia where they were producing one of the ingredients used to synthesise MDMA. The result of that was hundreds of dodgy pills flooding the market. To be fair they did it to save the local environment but the point is that pills will always be there, isn't it best to ensure they're safe? The fact is, as I said earlier, people will take drugs whether they're illegal or not. Furthermore its so damn easy to get them I don't accept the notion that legalising/decriminalising would make them easier to get hold of - if anything regulating supply could lead to the opposite. I've seen people do too much and I've had to look after friends that got carried away but I've also been to hundreds of parties all over the UK (and Europe) and never, ever, seen someone fuck up properly. In any case this isn't an argument just about legalising drugs so that kids can stroll in to Boots and buy a few Mitsubishis. It's about a big cultural shift in understanding and acceptance that starts with reforming drugs laws. Does it not make you wonder when you have drugs charities supporting the case for change? (e.g. Release)? And the key overriding point in all of this is that the "War on Drugs" has failed and will continue to fail until different options are explored and MP's get some balls to push the debate into the public arena in a sensible and constructive manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 I wandered into this thread full of preconceptions and I must admit my initial, naive and knee-jerk reaction was 'no, no way.. bad idea'. But, having read the informed posts Bellend, James, Steven and Finners have made - and the links they've posted, plus Transform's excellent leaflet - I now really see that there are many positives to be gained from decriminalising drugs. I don't believe there would be a 'drugs free-for-all' and that everyone would suddenly rush out and get stoned as a result of decriminalising drugs. Instead I can see how it would offer a more compassionate approach and by reducing the 'demonisation' of drugs (especially by some factions of the media) allow for more balanced education on their use, misuse, affects and risks. Just my tuppence worth... Far too sensible for this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexikokopops Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 Can I get smacked off my tits on ecstasy pipes yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 August 2010 Author Share Posted 19 August 2010 Under-18 ban 'cut teenage smoking rates' ChildLine calls prompted by parents' drink and drugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fosse Boy Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 Can I get smacked off my tits on ecstasy pipes yet? I think this kind of education programme could do wonders to be honest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 James has helpfully said a few of the things I wanted to say in his last post, so that saves me the effort, hurray. I think there's pretty much a consensus on here that some drugs are very damaging, others less so and some perhaps no more damaging than commonly consumed legal substances. They exist - there's nothing you can do about that. There is demand for them as well, and while that demand exists there will be supply, and despite billions being thrown into the 'war on drugs' as many people are taking them as ever. What this debate is about is supply - is supply in a completely unregulated market, controlled by criminals making vast profits preferable to having the supply controlled by the state or some other non profit making organisation or agency tasked with the welfare of users and with the aim of reducing and stopping their consumption? Would you rather your drug addict child went to a medical centre to have their 'hit' administered by a professional or a crack den? Yes, I am focussing on hard drugs, mainly because they have the greatest negative social impact, but why would you want any drug supply controlled by criminals? De-criminalisation - as practically every one of its advocates has already noted - is unlikely to be a perfect solution and will no doubt lead to problems and issues that may not have even been envisaged. This isn't a reason not for it to be seriously considered, though. Drug abuse is a massive, massive problem as it is - I don't think anyone would pretend otherwise. It's an ACTUAL problem, and I think there's sometimes a tendency when there's concerns over the possible outcomes of a course of action to forget about the ACTUAL problem facing you because you're too worried about the hypothetical ones, which may or may not come to pass. The net result is that you end up with something very bad and you sit on your hands and do nothing about it, which seems to have been reflected in drug policy for as long as I can remember Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houdini Logic Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 But do you not think that incidents like ecstasy overdoses could be confronted by proper drugs education? I felt a hell of a lot safer experimenting with the things I took in uni knowing that I was surrounded by people who, quite simply, knew what they were doing. Two of the biggest problems surrounding drug use in that context are ignorance of the substance and ignorance of the source. Both of which could be cut out with a more regulated narcotics trade by treating drugs, not as some sort of silly, medieval evil but as something to intelligent educate younger generations about. The classic Lea Betts situation was entirely avoidable if the girl just knew what she was doing. As a big "former raver" I doubt not that you've had many, many, many nights on drugs and not even batted an eyelid. Countless people safely use drugs on a daily, monthly, yearly basis and we never hear about them dying. Yes, there are some health risks, but there are with plenty of the things we enjoy. Yet again you end up brought back to statistics about alcohol and yet again nobody will ever ACTUALLY explain to you why, exactly, it isn't completely hypocritical that alcohol is legal and, for example, weed isn't? But I would argue that it's not overdoses that should be the biggest concern but the long term mental effects - anyone who has been involved in the ecstacy scene will know (even if not directly) of the anxiety and depression so often associated with excessive ecstacy use. I just can't understand why people are overlooking these sorts of things and are instead basing their arguments solely on the number of heroin addicts or number of overdoses per capita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 If I become a parent in the future the last thing I'd want to see is my 18 year old son or daughter come home carrying bagfuls of drugs they'd bought. I don't think anyone's suggesting stocking them at Lidl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 I don't think anyone's suggesting stocking them at Lidl. Yeah it'd be ridiculous lining the shelves of every reject, cheapo supermarket with class A substances for God's sakes. I mean I don't just want smack... .. I want M&S Smack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 Yeah it'd be ridiculous lining the shelves of every reject, cheapo supermarket with class A substances for God's sakes. I mean I don't just want smack... .. I want M&S Smack. The Lidl stuff would actually be 61% reformed smack extract - good call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 August 2010 Author Share Posted 19 August 2010 The Lidl stuff would actually be 61% reformed smack extract - good call. They'd have to call it Smeck or something similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox You Forest Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 They'd have to call it Smeck or something similar 'No Thrills' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 August 2010 Author Share Posted 19 August 2010 'No Thrills' No Thrills Smeck - full of artificial flavours and colourings - you wont notice the difference from real smack - but you'll live longer, just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 You'd get fucked off the amount of E numbers they threw in more than the actual product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 'No Thrills' Genius! Also dragging this back to real issues (by which I mean semantics:) Don't try and patronisine me. The difference is I've seen first hand peoples lives destroyed by drugs yet you base your opinions on web links Destroyed by drugs, or people destroying their own lives with drugs? People have to take a degree of responsibility for themselves with that sort of thing. Same way countries where guns are legal don't necessarily have higher homicide rates, what's to suggest legalising drugs will have any impact on this whatsoever. People are occasionally feckless and useless, same way they're occasionally hotheaded and murderous. People will find the means in the end, restricting freedoms and encouraging crime in a vain attempt to stop people doesn't really seem worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandannieldanok Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 I share Mark Corrigan's stance on drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw_fox Posted 19 August 2010 Share Posted 19 August 2010 Don't know if it has been mentioned already but you need to move beyond just thinking what it could mean for individuals and think about what it could mean for the illegal drug trade. I had a brief experimentation with drugs at university and met some characters that were dealers! Most of the lower levels were just people trying to get by and worked hard for their money, so were some of the growers. However there is a far nastier side to all this when you move a few levels up. For example, some of the larger grows (of weed) are controlled by organised crime from other parts of the world. For example most of the shitty grade damp cabbage like skunk is grown by people smuggled from south east asia by organised crime there. These people are made to pay of debts to the gangsters of thousands of pounds which they have to pay off by 'working' at the grow house. This includes putting their lives at risk by being made to pirate live electricity without the right tools or expertise. These are the people that are caught when the places are raided and all the high level gangsters get away scot free as they don't go anywhere near the grow houses. These are the same gangsters that run prostitution rings and extort their immigrant communities and bleed them dry. Clearly prohibition has failed, and like in early 20th century America with alcohol, it has just meant that the sale and VAST profits because of the prohibition get pushed into the hands of gangsters, feeding organised crime and corrupting our society. And it DOES corrupt our society. I know for a fact that a certain place I used to live had a port where major caches of drugs were imported through, as the HMCE officials were being paid off (I'm talking containers full of imported jamaican weed). How can their middling salaries compare with the thousands the drugs gangsters are willing to pay them? Legalise so that society can starve organised crime of business and we can take the profits ourselves and pay for the mess that drugs DO create in our communitites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmund Posted 20 August 2010 Share Posted 20 August 2010 Same way countries where guns are legal don't necessarily have higher homicide rates Rubbish. I take it you've never heard of South America. To be honest EC I'm equally as shocked at your stance. I would have thought someone who has been involved in the scene would understand that by and large ecstacy is safe (I can just see lots of people shaking their heads violently at that opinion, but it's true). The complications invariably arise when people buy pills that have been cut with crap - you know that. So then you'll also know that decriminalising would guarantee quality and as such make it even safer to take. An interesting irony is that recently Australian police destroyed a factory in Cambodia where they were producing one of the ingredients used to synthesise MDMA. The result of that was hundreds of dodgy pills flooding the market. To be fair they did it to save the local environment but the point is that pills will always be there, isn't it best to ensure they're safe? I understand what you're saying and I agree with the fact that if controlled it would be cleaner. But I'd say that good quality jack and jills are still just as dangerous especially when consumed with large amounts of alcohol. Especially with the binge drinking culture which exists in this country. It only takes someone with a weak heart to bosh one pill and game over. Obviously less dangerous than that cut with say rat poison but then it would mean educating people how to properly take them (dosage). That would mean teaching kids to take drugs in a Biology lesson which in a way would be encouraging them to take them and make them curious to try the product especially as the government deem it legal. Hypocrite or not I'm sure if you were a parent you wouldn't want your kids rushing off their tits week in week out? At school we learnt about the drugs but teaching kids correct amounts and correct ways of taking them as Finnegan suggested is just crazy. The fact is, as I said earlier, people will take drugs whether they're illegal or not. Furthermore its so damn easy to get them I don't accept the notion that legalising/decriminalising would make them easier to get hold of - if anything regulating supply could lead to the opposite. True but I'm almost certain there would be an eventual rise in drug consumption eventually. Not overnight but steadily. You can educate people as much as you like but it will have zero effect if a craze or certain culture arises. You've only got to look at cigarettes. People back in the day didn't realise the health implications and they were more of a fashion accessory than anything else. People today know exactly what smoking can do to your health, they even print pictures of clogged up arteries on packets yet people still do it. Why would that be any different for some of the harder drugs? I don't want to bring up the old cliche peer pressure bollocks but a lot of people will be influenced by friends easily. I'm sure half of the kids who smoke do so to fit in or look cool. A mate at school never inhaled yet would still smoke with us purely because we did. Ketamine and Mandy is rife at the moment. I could guarantee that would double in next to no time, mainly being funded by student loans if available to buy legally. And if you say they have to regulate supply surely that's sending out the wrong message? On one hand your saying it's legal yet on the other hand you have to regulate supply? Why? Simple. Because there are health risks. The problem with this whole debate is each drug has to be approached on it's own. We all know cannabliss is somewhat different to heroin as ecstasy is to ketamine. For example I'm all for the legalisation of cannabliss but I don't think crystal meth should be available in the same vein. If you mean regulate the harder drugs then I agree and like I've said before in a controlled environment and for free. I agree that cleaner(harder) drugs for addicts should be available at no cost but I just don't think they should be freely available for all to try. I see your point but I just can't see a happy medium answer to how you go about flooding a market with clean drugs yet at the same time keep promotion of consumption down. It's hypocritical. In any case this isn't an argument just about legalising drugs so that kids can stroll in to Boots and buy a few Mitsubishis. It's about a big cultural shift in understanding and acceptance that starts with reforming drugs laws.Does it not make you wonder when you have drugs charities supporting the case for change? (e.g. Release)? And the key overriding point in all of this is that the "War on Drugs" has failed and will continue to fail until different options are explored and MP's get some balls to push the debate into the public arena in a sensible and constructive manner. I agree to a certain extent, especially in regards to reforming laws. The problem is it's not as simple as legalising all drugs overnight. Each drug needs to be assessed individually and like you say needs to be brought into debate, especially involving those who will be most affected by the change in law. I'm also going to leave it there on the subject. I don't think there is a clear right or wrong answer on the matter as this subject is far to complex to be summed up in a few posts and this debate could go on forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexikokopops Posted 20 August 2010 Share Posted 20 August 2010 Hooray, everyone's getting along. Now lets all smoke some crack and have a good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw_fox Posted 20 August 2010 Share Posted 20 August 2010 Hooray, everyone's getting along. Now lets all smoke some crack and have a good time. that crack is incredibly morish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 20 August 2010 Share Posted 20 August 2010 Rubbish. I take it you've never heard of South America. I said don't 'necessarily'. You're being a bit dense. Switzerland? There's no correlation. USA's is about the same as ours. Half the countries in South America don't even have a police force. If someone says there's no correlation between legalisation of guns and murder rates, "there are some countries where guns are legal and the murder rate is high" means literally nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houdini Logic Posted 20 August 2010 Share Posted 20 August 2010 I'm not sure why people are looking at other countries for statistics, because its simply the people, or more importantly the attitude of the people, that makes a country what it is. Do you think it would have been a sensible idea to base our new alcohol laws on what happens in countries in the continent? Of course not because as a nation are very different from our friends in France or Spain or Switzerland or America, and this is essential to bear in mind when saying 'maybe there wouldn't be an increase in drugs use'. I'm a simple person and I work on the following logic - If these drugs were decriminalised do I think they would be more accessible? Yes If they were more accessible in this country, do I think that more people would experiment, even if just socially out of curiousity? Yes If more people are taking drugs do I think this would mess up or kill more people than current? Yes So, is decriminalisation a good idea? No What about the drugs being 'cleaner'? Define 'cleaner' in the sense of mental health? Will cocaine be less addictive and keep you in a job and will ecstacy no longer cause fits of anxiety and depression during a comedown? For those that like statistics - I would like to see the amount of heroin addicts 'saved' from using cleaner drugs compared to the amount of people overdosing because they are used to street grade, watered down, not so clean drugs What about the money the government could make? I'd rather pay twice what I currently pay in taxes to keep this shit off the streets. What about the drug cartels? You really think these will disappear if drugs were decriminalised? Or would they become dirtier, more aggresive and more underground? Aren't diamonds legal... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.