Legal highs

[Knoxville]

Nasty, nasty stuff. Legal highs have been around for donkeys years, M-CAT is just another in a long list of compounds that fit through a loop hole. They can be just as dangerous as the real thing if not more dangerous and to be steered well clear of in my opinion.

[nvening]

Well I dont know what experience you have had of drug users as you seem to state they hardly existed at your school/ college and from what your saying i guess you have not ever mixed with any.

Also I don't know what you think students at universities are up to on a daily basis - its definitely not just alcohol - and that's where any person interested in science worth his 2p will end up. The fact is that actually these people are educated beyond what the talk to frank advert almost guarantees will happen to you if you go within 300 yards of a drug.

You mention a "heart pumping" drug, I'm guessing your talking about MDMA? If you could now go and find me the case where someone's heart has stopped from using MDMA I will gladly agree with you.

[Terbinator]

Well I dont know what experience you have had of drug users as you seem to state they hardly existed at your school/ college and from what your saying i guess you have not ever mixed with any.

Also I don't know what you think students at universities are up to on a daily basis - its definitely not just alcohol - and that's where any person interested in science worth his 2p will end up. The fact is that actually these people are educated beyond what the talk to frank advert almost guarantees will happen to you if you go within 300 yards of a drug.

You mention a "heart pumping" drug, I'm guessing your talking about MDMA? If you could now go and find me the case where someone's heart has stopped from using MDMA I will gladly agree with you.

Okay, maybe you read my post wrong or it was poorly worded, there are plenty of drug users around here, not to start a class war type thing but you only have to look at my location. Of course I know what Uni students are like, I like to think they know of the effects drugs both known and the new comers will do to them - it wouldn't be no stretch of the imagination to be reasonably accurate.

My point is that yes they may know stuff about drugs beyond what the Frank adverts have on offer but when they refuse to acknowledge what they're being told in bite-size, sometimes hard hitting chunks, is there any hope for further education.

I never referred to a specific drug, I referred to the advert - I cant remember which drug it may/may not of been.

[format]

I never referred to a specific drug, I referred to the advert - I cant remember which drug it may/may not of been.

They are far from an accurate portrayal.

[SeriousSam]

To be blunt it doesn’t matter whether or not you make M-Cat illegal because people will still take it and deaths will still be attributed to it. The whole “drugs” discussion is currently a waste of time because it has nothing to do with fact, and all to do with emotion, scaremongering, economic coercion and political expediency. Of course nobody should be surprised by this because that is how our “democracy” currently works, or should I operates as it clearly doesn’t work.

The most obvious example of this is the drug scheduling laws which are an utter farce, as they have absolutely no basis in fact or logical consistency. Another would be the much vaunted “war on drugs” which has failed from day 1 and in fact is less effective now than it ever was. Of course our governments will defend them to the hilt irrespective of the real truth because they have to be perceived to be doing something to appease the “drugs are evil” brigade. Never mind the fact that we are popping more prescription drugs than ever, most of which are worse than illegal drugs in terms of side effects, addictiveness and long term toxicity. That’s just good for the economy as it keeps the money rolling in from the pharmaceuticals.

Ultimately the only way to sort the situation out is to legalise everything and then use a combination of education, positive peer pressure and legal penalties to “manage” the misuse of them. Parallel to that you then tackle the real problems that cause people to take things to excess and in turn harm themselves and others. It will take a long time to work and in some cases it may get worse in the short term, but as history has consistently shown us “prohibition” does not work and in fact makes things worse for society as a whole.

[TooNice]

Of course nobody should be surprised by this because that is how our “democracy” currently works, or should I operates as it clearly doesn’t work.

I'll agree that we do not get to vote for many a lot of things, but do you think that >50% of the voting population would be in favour of legalising all drugs? Some of the drugs?

[format]

I'll agree that we do not get to vote for many a lot of things, but do you think that >50% of the voting population would be in favour of legalising all drugs? Some of the drugs?

Do you think the heroin junkies of this country care whether it is legal or not? Likewise, do you think the kind of people who would take heroin care whether it is legal or not?

Portugal have recently decriminalised (which admittedly is a little different from legalisation) all drugs, and it's worked wonders for them.

Sam you are spot on btw.

[TooNice]

Do you think that whether an activity is legal or not has absolutely no impact on whether people do it or not? That it won't be a deterrent for at least some before they choose to take that first hit?

I doubt it. It may not stop everyone who wants to 'try', whether to fulfil their curiosity/rebellious act/whatever may cause someone wanting to try heroin in the first place. But I'd say that the legal factor is one part of a bigger equation.

I think that the likelihood of getting caught red handed is another big part of the equation. You could say that piracy being illegal hasn't stopped lots of people from doing it. Yet I expect far more people would own firearms if it was legal, not necessarily to cause harm but if only to see what it's like to shoot into a non-living thing. I don't think picking people who've entirely lost themselves present much of an argument, laws against killing may not stop a dedicated serial killer (etc. etc.), yet few people would agree on scrapping them.

The law is quite often (with exceptions, and sometime lagging behind times) based on whether society find something acceptable. It's clearly not based on whether the activity represent a drain on society (or we'd also be criminalising gambling, drinking, smoking etc. etc.). Hence my last question.

Do you think that >50% would be in favour of legalising everything/some/none of the things? [I may buy the middle option, but certainly not the first]

[scaryjim]

... there are plenty of drug users around here, not to start a class war type thing but you only have to look at my location. ...

Actually, Salford doesn't have a particularly high prevalence of opiate / crack use: see http://www.nta.nhs.uk/areas/facts_an...7/default.aspx for details. It's roughly 90th out of 149 local authority areas. In the North-west it's 9th out of 22. Higher than the national average, sure, but not particularly high.

I only really have one thing to say about the legality or otherwise of recreational drugs, which is: the current system fails because it fails to control the supply of certain dangerous, recreational drugs that are legal, widely available, and heavily abused. Yes, I *am* talking about tobacco and alcohol.

As long as they remain as loosely controlled as they are now, the rest of drug policy will *never* make sense. We need a complete overhaul of strategy, including the legalising of at least some of the drugs that are currently illegal (personally I'd start with cannabis and magic mushrooms and work from there), along with much tighter controls on the supply of alcohol and tobacco, and heavier taxation on *all* recreational drugs.

I fail to see the rationalisation that it's OK to get mashed on alcohol but not on, say, 'shrooms. If it's OK to get mashed at all, then we should surely be allowed the poison of our choice, and be able to buy it from reputable, licensed retailers who won't cut it with god knows what or flog us fake pills containing ketamine and paracetmol (I know of at least one case where someone had made "fake ecstasy" using these ingredients and a pill-making machine). So, give me properly licensed headshops that are allowed to stock pretty much what they want; tax the industry appropriately to generate revenue which can then be ring-fenced for health (to deal with the inevitable outfall of people who can't control themselves) and policing (to crack down on the inevitable - but hopefully reduced - black market in controlled substances); and give people back just a little more control over their own lives.

[Lee H]

As long as they remain as loosely controlled as they are now, the rest of drug policy will *never* make sense. We need a complete overhaul of strategy, including the legalising of at least some of the drugs that are currently illegal (personally I'd start with cannabis and magic mushrooms and work from there), along with much tighter controls on the supply of alcohol and tobacco, and heavier taxation on *all* recreational drugs.

I fail to see the rationalisation that it's OK to get mashed on alcohol but not on, say, 'shrooms. If it's OK to get mashed at all, then we should surely be allowed the poison of our choice, and be able to buy it from reputable, licensed retailers who won't cut it with god knows what or flog us fake pills containing ketamine and paracetmol (I know of at least one case where someone had made "fake ecstasy" using these ingredients and a pill-making machine). So, give me properly licensed headshops that are allowed to stock pretty much what they want; tax the industry appropriately to generate revenue which can then be ring-fenced for health (to deal with the inevitable outfall of people who can't control themselves) and policing (to crack down on the inevitable - but hopefully reduced - black market in controlled substances); and give people back just a little more control over their own lives.

Well said but with the current way things are governed I can't see this happening anytime soon. Imagine the millions of pounds that would be saved if there was no "war on drugs" and the extra revenue generated from legalising the lesser evils within these groups and putting a tax on them. I'm sure this would help drag the country out of the debt quagmire we're in at the moment, and probably mean people might be happy instead of complaining all the time if they're slightly mashed

We tried to have a debate on the harms vs the effects etc, but that just resulted in the government going "laa-laa-laa" sticking their head in the sand and sacking David Nutt in the process.

[scaryjim]

... that just resulted in the government going "laa-laa-laa" sticking their head in the sand and sacking David Nutt in the process.

I know, my boss (a former member of the ACMD) fired off a response to the Guardian which they used in one of their articles Perhaps a change of government might allow a change in policy, but it seems highly unlikely

[SammEl]

Threads like these make me laugh.

Oh no, a death or two. Honestly, big bloody deal.

If anything, this drug is SAFER than most LEGAL drugs, how many people die from drugs used by people everyday due to complications? Yeah, I bet a lot, thousands a year infact.

This is why I hate the news, because they make stupid things like this seem the biggest problem, when infact this is nothing at all.

Same with cannabis, the amount of ****e they come up with about it - Honestly, anyone who knows cannabis knows it's basically safer than water, and I bet more people die from consuming too much water than cannabis.

[mikerr]

Honestly, anyone who knows cannabis knows it's basically safer than water.

Roll another joint...

Would you drive after smoking cannabis?

[chuckskull]

Very sorry to hear about your mates Tak. Dangerous stuff, real shame it claimed two young lives.

As for cannibis, which seems to keep cropping up in this discussion. IMO; 18 to buy, taxed, illegal to drive while under the influence. Have so much that you're puking everywhere or being a nuisance 'high and disorderly' charge. Legalize it, tax it, spend money on some of that deficit and less cuts to NHS, police, schools etc. Don't see it happening though.

[format]

As for cannibis, which seems to keep cropping up in this discussion. IMO; 18 to buy, taxed, illegal to drive while under the influence. Have so much that you're puking everywhere or being a nuisance 'high and disorderly' charge. Legalize it, tax it, spend money on some of that deficit and less cuts to NHS, police, schools etc. Don't see it happening though.

This - but I sadly can't see it happening in the next 20 years due to the ignorant 'moralists' that seem to abide in great numbers in this country

[scaryjim]

cannabis, magic mushrooms - maybe even Acid (no physical *or* mental addiction, altrhough I've known a few people swear off it after a bad trip...) - there's plenty of recreational drugs available that are relatively safe (certainly compared to tobacco and alcohol) and could probably be safely legalised in a controlled manner.

As I said earlier, I really don't get why we're perfectly happy for people to use alcohol for chemical escapism but not other substances...