News - UK MP wants to police the Internet

[pauldarkside]

Oh indeed, I believe in legalizing all drugs, making them available through the NHS.

Legalise all drugs and make them available through the NHS? The National Health Service?!

[Gfinch]

Legalise all drugs and make them available through the NHS? The National Health Service?!

Yes. Or bring back the death penalty, just for drug pushers.

[format]

Legalise all drugs and make them available through the NHS? The National Health Service?!

Yeah cause the NHS would never give out drugs

[pauldarkside]

Yes. Or bring back the death penalty, just for drug pushers.

Yeah cause the NHS would never give out drugs

Fair enough, so what health benefits are there for someone wanting heroin for example? Apart from, perhaps, helping long term addicts are doubt there are many if any at all. Are the NHS going to give me some pot simply because I fancy a smoke? Not bloody likely, I don't see them dishing out cigarettes!

My comment was in response to the absurdity that the NHS should be invovled in anything other than their current remit; providing healthcare. Providing what are currently illegal drugs to the masses would not benefit the people they're there to support, at least not as far as I can see. If it were under NHS control, I'd imagine we'd still have our current supply chain for those unable to get what they want, so what would be the point?

I'm somewhat for legalising certain drugs and granting access in a controlled environment, as in the Netherlands' solution, providing expenses are not dumped on the tax payer. However, I don't believe the NHS is the right place to do that.

[Gfinch]

Oh indeed, the tax payer should pay nothing towards it. The Government should use some of the £12 Billion that they are going to use to read all our emails, listen to our calls and read our texts.

[pauldarkside]

Oh indeed, the tax payer should pay nothing towards it. The Government should use some of the £12 Billion that they are going to use to read all our emails, listen to our calls and read our texts.

So that £12 Billion doesn't come from taxes?

[Gfinch]

It's 12 billion they've already collected, so it should go to something more useful. I can see why people don't pay taxes

[format]

Fair enough, so what health benefits are there for someone wanting heroin for example? Apart from, perhaps, helping long term addicts are doubt there are many if any at all. Are the NHS going to give me some pot simply because I fancy a smoke? Not bloody likely, I don't see them dishing out cigarettes!

My comment was in response to the absurdity that the NHS should be invovled in anything other than their current remit; providing healthcare. Providing what are currently illegal drugs to the masses would not benefit the people they're there to support, at least not as far as I can see. If it were under NHS control, I'd imagine we'd still have our current supply chain for those unable to get what they want, so what would be the point?

I'm somewhat for legalising certain drugs and granting access in a controlled environment, as in the Netherlands' solution, providing expenses are not dumped on the tax payer. However, I don't believe the NHS is the right place to do that.

I never mentioned the NHS, I was thinking more along the lines of the way cigarettes and alcohol are licensed and taxed.
That aside, cannabis at least has very, very well documented complimentary effects on certain mental and physical illnesses.
There's also been a bit of research in the beneficial effects of LSD and MDMA for (don't quote me on this, I can't recall the specific affliction) Alzheimers too.

I don't understand how it's ok to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes but not cannabis. Where's the logic?

[Saracen]

Fair enough, so what health benefits are there for someone wanting heroin for example? Apart from, perhaps, helping long term addicts are doubt there are many if any at all. Are the NHS going to give me some pot simply because I fancy a smoke? Not bloody likely, I don't see them dishing out cigarettes!

My comment was in response to the absurdity that the NHS should be invovled in anything other than their current remit; providing healthcare. Providing what are currently illegal drugs to the masses would not benefit the people they're there to support, at least not as far as I can see. If it were under NHS control, I'd imagine we'd still have our current supply chain for those unable to get what they want, so what would be the point?

I'm somewhat for legalising certain drugs and granting access in a controlled environment, as in the Netherlands' solution, providing expenses are not dumped on the tax payer. However, I don't believe the NHS is the right place to do that.

What's the conceptual difference between heroin, morphine and codeine?

They are all opiates, they are all based on opium. Heroin is simply a semi-synthesized derivative of morphine. Similarly, while codeine can be extracted from opium poppies (it's a free alkaloid), it is generally synthesized from morphine, just like heroin, though the process is different.

All are opiates, all are addictive (though to different extents), and all have health applications, such as analgesics.

Yet one (heroin) is generally illegal (to possess), another (morphine) is very commonly used in the NHS, especially in hospitals though even some outpatients can get it (generally under pretty extreme situations), and one (codeine) is widely regarded as the most highly used drug in the world, and is available over the counter in just about any pharmacy in the country.

Which brings me neatly back to my original question ..... what's the conceptual difference? Heroin isn't illegal as such. It's controlled. So if you have it under authorised conditions, it's legal. Morphine is not something you can walk into a chemist and buy over the counter, but then, nor are the stronger variants of codeine. You can buy, for instance, paracetamol and codeine tablets with 8mg of codeine per tablet (and 500mg of paracetamol), but you need a prescription to get the 30mg (still with 500mg paracetamol) variant.

And, as I understand it, carrying that 30mg codeine prescription into some countries would risk running foul of their drug laws. For instance, some variants of codeine, such as acetyldihydrocodeine, are schedule 1 banned substances under the Controlled Substances Act in the USA, and if you were to sell such drugs, you could find yourself facing a life sentence. As I understand it, ALL variants of codeine, including ones bought here in the UK over-the-counter, are controlled substances in the US (though many not in Canada), though most variants aren't Schedule 1 drugs.

In other words, the legal classification of many drugs is different depending on where you are.

Therefore, to my mind, the legality of any drug is a matter for discussion, and perhaps change, dependent on circumstances. Similarly, whether it is available on the NHS is a matter of medical need ... and to some extent, social values.

There is, for instance, a fair bit of evidence to suggest that cannabis is very effective in the relief of pain in, for example, arthritis. There is, therefore, a case to be made for it being available where medical need exists on the NHS .... just as codeine and even morphine is.

But that doesn't mean that cannabis being available on the NHS should imply it's available on demand, any more than any other drug is available on demand on the NHS, including codeine. Your doctor might prescribe a codeine-based drug in some circumstances. One would be as a mild analgesic, and another would be as a potential anti-diarrhoeal medication. Yet, in weaker forms, you can (and maybe have) bought it in a pharmacy without a prescription too.

So, codeine is an opiate, it's pharmacollogically-speaking of similar derivation to morphine and heroin, and is addictive. Yet it's legal (and easy) to buy, even without a prescription. But cannabis isn't.

The current system has some barriers in place that are more to do with social values, in my view, than on medical application or need, and cannabis is one of them. That's especially true if cannabis were supplied in non-smokable form, such as cannabis cookies or biscuits.

Which brings me on to another whole issue.

Drug addiction is a fact of life. Heroin is a fact of life. We've tried the penal approach, and I have no hesitation in saying that the authorities aren't even drawing in that fight. And yet, low-level drug addiction is what drives a lot of social deprivation and a vast amount of low-level crime.

So might it not be sensible to try a different approach? Try viewing drug addiction as a medical issue, and decriminalising it? If addicts can get their fix on a controlled basis, safely, and helped to fight the addiction, is it not able to be viewed as medical treatment?

And as for cost, well, what costs more - supplying such addicts, or fighting crime, paying out insurance claims, occupying large numbers of prison cells either with people on drugs charges or guilty of persistent low-level crimes caused by drug addiction? I think it's likely that such an approach would not only pay for itself, but help reduce one of the nastier issues facing many modern societies.

If nothing else, it's worth a try, since nothing else has worked. And if you take the criminality out of drugs, and provide safe alternative sources, you take the profits and hence the criminals out of it too.

[Stoo]

I'll just try to steer this back towards 'Government Controlled Internet' - 'Legalisation of Drugs' really is a different subject (although I do admit to wondering what type of drugs half the government is on at the moment..)

[Saracen]

I'll just try to steer this back towards 'Government Controlled Internet' - 'Legalisation of Drugs' really is a different subject ....

Spoilsport .... just as I was getting on a hobbyhorse.

You're right though ..... unfortunately.

[Stoo]

That's okay I'm sure there are plenty more we can expect a Saracen Megapost from

[DeSean]

What's the conceptual difference between heroin, morphine and codeine?

They are all opiates, they are all based on opium. Heroin is simply a semi-synthesized derivative of morphine. Similarly, while codeine can be extracted from opium poppies (it's a free alkaloid), it is generally synthesized from morphine, just like heroin, though the process is different.

All are opiates, all are addictive (though to different extents), and all have health applications, such as analgesics.

Yet one (heroin) is generally illegal (to possess), another (morphine) is very commonly used in the NHS, especially in hospitals though even some outpatients can get it (generally under pretty extreme situations), and one (codeine) is widely regarded as the most highly used drug in the world, and is available over the counter in just about any pharmacy in the country.

Which brings me neatly back to my original question ..... what's the conceptual difference? Heroin isn't illegal as such. It's controlled. So if you have it under authorised conditions, it's legal. Morphine is not something you can walk into a chemist and buy over the counter, but then, nor are the stronger variants of codeine. You can buy, for instance, paracetamol and codeine tablets with 8mg of codeine per tablet (and 500mg of paracetamol), but you need a prescription to get the 30mg (still with 500mg paracetamol) variant.

And, as I understand it, carrying that 30mg codeine prescription into some countries would risk running foul of their drug laws. For instance, some variants of codeine, such as acetyldihydrocodeine, are schedule 1 banned substances under the Controlled Substances Act in the USA, and if you were to sell such drugs, you could find yourself facing a life sentence. As I understand it, ALL variants of codeine, including ones bought here in the UK over-the-counter, are controlled substances in the US (though many not in Canada), though most variants aren't Schedule 1 drugs.

In other words, the legal classification of many drugs is different depending on where you are.

Therefore, to my mind, the legality of any drug is a matter for discussion, and perhaps change, dependent on circumstances. Similarly, whether it is available on the NHS is a matter of medical need ... and to some extent, social values.

There is, for instance, a fair bit of evidence to suggest that cannabis is very effective in the relief of pain in, for example, arthritis. There is, therefore, a case to be made for it being available where medical need exists on the NHS .... just as codeine and even morphine is.

But that doesn't mean that cannabis being available on the NHS should imply it's available on demand, any more than any other drug is available on demand on the NHS, including codeine. Your doctor might prescribe a codeine-based drug in some circumstances. One would be as a mild analgesic, and another would be as a potential anti-diarrhoeal medication. Yet, in weaker forms, you can (and maybe have) bought it in a pharmacy without a prescription too.

So, codeine is an opiate, it's pharmacollogically-speaking of similar derivation to morphine and heroin, and is addictive. Yet it's legal (and easy) to buy, even without a prescription. But cannabis isn't.

The current system has some barriers in place that are more to do with social values, in my view, than on medical application or need, and cannabis is one of them. That's especially true if cannabis were supplied in non-smokable form, such as cannabis cookies or biscuits.

Which brings me on to another whole issue.

Drug addiction is a fact of life. Heroin is a fact of life. We've tried the penal approach, and I have no hesitation in saying that the authorities aren't even drawing in that fight. And yet, low-level drug addiction is what drives a lot of social deprivation and a vast amount of low-level crime.

So might it not be sensible to try a different approach? Try viewing drug addiction as a medical issue, and decriminalising it? If addicts can get their fix on a controlled basis, safely, and helped to fight the addiction, is it not able to be viewed as medical treatment?

And as for cost, well, what costs more - supplying such addicts, or fighting crime, paying out insurance claims, occupying large numbers of prison cells either with people on drugs charges or guilty of persistent low-level crimes caused by drug addiction? I think it's likely that such an approach would not only pay for itself, but help reduce one of the nastier issues facing many modern societies.

If nothing else, it's worth a try, since nothing else has worked. And if you take the criminality out of drugs, and provide safe alternative sources, you take the profits and hence the criminals out of it too.

Excellent post.

Edit -> Sorry for off topic post, I just had to say it.

As for the original story, I think the government needs to remember that government action is expensive, has side effects, and rarely achieves 100% of its stated aims. In this case, it seems like a daft idea, but I can't imagine it having too much of a negative impact on freedom of speech in the medium term. The problem, as always, is the function creep later on when governments in 10 years change the systems being talked about now to suit their own objectives. Same goes for ID cards, DNA databases, communication history databases and so on.

This government is far to ready to try to intervene in the lives of its citizens. This ties in with the drug debate above. I am quite unusual politically, as I am all for goverment intervention in certain circumstances, for people who really need help (the destitute, the disabled, the ill, etc), but I cannot abide this meddling in the lives of people who don't really need that intervention. If there really are many people with kids who want the government to make the internet safe for them, then they really need to get their act together as parents. The government will have more trouble with policing the internet than it will in any rough inner city suburb in this country.

[Aez]

speaking of which, i was suprised to find this link not posted on hexus yet.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5439604.ece


"THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant."

* Police can snoop in your computer in various ways, such as by installing a keylogger, sending you viruses, and other methods.

* The police themselves will decide whether or not such snooping is justified. No need for a warrant.

* Other countries will be able to request such snooping, and British Police will then spy on you for them.

[Zak33]

I think that the Internet should be MORE HEAVILY POLICED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP IMAGES LIKE THIS FROM RUINING MY LIFE AND MY ABILITY FOR RESTFULL SLEEP



/walks out.

[Biscuit]

man i feel sorry for that guys kids... i hope it was their birthday party!