It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Wizard's Politics Web Site

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Which would imply that people will commit crime to fund their habit


- Some (but certainly not the majority - especially when on considers recreational users a) do, so why should 'we' suffer it?

It's not as if you are talking of something of great value.
Compared to the 'street price' medicinally supplied drugs cost a fraction.....and if the state could assume control of this - and it cost the state relatively speaking 'buttons' - why should the rest of us suffer the expense of the criminal activities of those who pay for their habits in this way?

(* I have a theory as to why this is, I'll attach it below)


A quick search on Google turns up some interesting information on Cannabis:



An expert on the health effects of cannabis says that there is growing evidence that the drug is responsible for mental health problems.


news.bbc.co.uk...


- They have been saying that kind of thing since the 1930's and the scare stories since (have you seen 'Reefer madness' etc?
).

.....and it seems that few will consider that rather than cannabis 'creating' a mental health problem that maybe certain 'lifestyles' where it is found attracts those with underlying mental health problems already. Certainly that has been my experience.
If they weren't smoking dope they might well be on prescription drugs or alcoholic.

Nevertheless it's getting pretty tired now.
Cannabis has been around since the year dot, it has been used by many many millions recreationally the world over - especially post WW2 - and there has not been a noteable explosion in mental health problems of the kind one might suspect if this kind of thing were true.

They always make these kind of wild claims......did you know they said similar about ecstasy and had to retract the claims as the data was flawed.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Everything might under special circumstances be toxic to you or toxic if taken to excess or at an unwise time (say a time of enormous stress or a time when you were ill), even water but that's hardly a reason for us to imprison vast amonts of otherwise normal people whos' only crime is to smoke a bit of dope or pop a pill.


There are many problems with drugs that haven't even been discovered.


- This one I find particularly amusing.
Beyond the tinniest fringe drugs what hasn't been around for at least 50yrs or 100yrs?

Cannabis has, speed has, ecstasy has, opiates have......you might (just) have a case with '___' (although plenty of other hallucinogenics have been around for centuries) but if ever there was a drug officially studied and 'tested' to the nth degree it is surely '___'!


and a few facts on coc aine:



Cocaine is bad news for anybody with high blood pressure or a heart condition. Perfectly fit, young people can have a fit or heart attack after taking too much coke.

Too much sniffing coke and you're sneezing lumps out of your nose into a hanky.

People who use crack or coke regularly often develop serious problems with anxiety and paranoia. It's a known cause of panic attacks.

Taking coke when you're pregnant can damage your baby. Coke causes miscarriage, premature labour and smaller babies and may cause congenital abnormalities. Babies born to mothers who keep using throughout their pregnancy show withdrawal syndrome.


www.talktofrank.com...


- Did anyone say coc aine was completely 'wholesome' or advisable in all cases?

Surely in many instances we can say similar with booze or presription drugs. There are issues too with tobacco and alcohol and reproduction. Have you read the side effect warnings now coming with most (legal) drugs.

You take no notice because one would have to be in a very unlucky tiny minority to suffer any real danger......and so it is with most illegal drugs - and that is as things are now never mind if we were to reach a much better situation where the drugs themselves were what they were supposed to be and clean' rather than adultrated with God knows what.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(* This is why I think the current illegal market and effectively the current drug scene is, more or less, tolerated.

First off it is understood that people like to get intoxicated and they like different methods of doing so.
Fundamentally this is the heart of the matter and that is not going to change.

The international drug market is reckoned to be worth approx 100 - 300 billion annually www.statewatch.org....

Governments know that if they decriminalise or legalise this market and that kind of money vanishes from the grasp of the criminal world - the serious criminal underworld, the 'top guys'....who are nicely funded at the moment anyway - then those criminals will turn elsewhere to sustain the lifestyles they wish to keep enjoying and for their families and frineds to enjoy.

.....and who else has that kind of money, where would they have to turn for that kind of dosh?

Hence to all intents and purposes 'we' pay for and suffer our streets, towns, cities, kids and families being risked or even sacrificed maintaining this illegal market nd the accompanying insane and totally unwinnable 'war on drugs' - with the bonus of it creating well paid jobs, careers, additional Police and military 'need' for coastal protection etc etc for those who get to be involved in it - to effectively protect the worlds' ultra weathy individuals and corporations (cos, as I said, they are the only ones left with that kind of money).

Enjoy.)

The drug issue is and has been very much a 'class' and race issue (check out the 'early days', some of the early prohibition laws in the states were nothing less than the basest racist fear writ large and into legislation).
We didn't used to have all this stuff 'illegal' you know.....funny that it was when Britian was supposedly at her height too, hmm?


[edit on 7-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
It's not as if you are talking of something of great value.
Compared to the 'street price' medicinally supplied drugs cost a fraction.....and if the state could assume control of this - and it cost the state relatively speaking 'buttons' - why should the rest of us suffer the expense of the criminal activities of those who pay for their habits in this way?


If the drugs are cheaper then people will use more of it to get a better high each time they use the drug, a common problem with drugs such as coc aine is that the drug 'appears' to have a lesser effect each time it is used, so the user will use stronger doses each time.




- Did anyone say coc aine was completely 'wholesome' or advisable in all cases?


No, but why should we legalise something we know is harmful.


funny that it was when Britian was supposedly at her height too, hmm?


So the lower classes were dosed up to their eye balls so they couldn't care less how 'crappy' their lives were.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
If the drugs are cheaper then people will use more of it to get a better high each time they use the drug, a common problem with drugs such as coc aine is that the drug 'appears' to have a lesser effect each time it is used, so the user will use stronger doses each time.


- Yes I suppose that is the myth put about just because a handful can always be relied upon to over do it.

You - again - could draw reasonable parallels with alcohol.
Few who can afford gallons of booze actually do indulge in amounts like that.


No, but why should we legalise something we know is harmful.


- Because instead of pretending that legislating it as illegal means it isn't happening anyway we would be starting the process of gaining and exercising some actual control in a totally uncontrolled area of life that is happening across the UK now.


So the lower classes were dosed up to their eye balls so they couldn't care less how 'crappy' their lives were.


- Actually no.
People couldn't afford medicine so the pain-killing qualities of laudanum and other opiate derivatives were much valued.

By and large people drank they didn't use drugs.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
This morning on SkyNews a Home office minister was interviewed and asked the question (along the lines of)
Why not simply legalises drugs?

And she replied, because all drugs are harmful in one way or another

Just a point for thought


So legalised drugs would be cheaper to drive out the drugs dealers:

www.sky.com...


coc aine has plummeted to £39 a gram in some areas, with the cost has halved in the last ten years.

missed some lines

Ecstasy has fallen by 70% over the last decade, and heroin now costs an average of just over £35 a gram, compared to more than £80 in the mid-nineties.


But something tells me none of us are going to agree on the drug issue.
I'm happy with my ideas and the ideas behind my other thoughts on my web site.




[edit on 12-1-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
she replied, because all drugs are harmful in one way or another

Just a point for thought


- ...and what? So is living, it ends up killing us one way or another.



So legalised drugs would be cheaper to drive out the drugs dealers


- Decriminalised or legal, cheaper clean drugs would IMHO drive out the illegal trade. Of course.
For instance do you know many (any) people who buy illegal booze?
No.
Of course not, why would people bother with a 'product' that might make them blind, deaf or paralysed when there is a pretty safe (though not 100%) legal option readily available.


But something tells me none of us are going to agree on the drug issue.
I'm happy with my ideas and the ideas behind my other thoughts on my web site.


- Sadly it seems so.
I would just ask you to consider this though.

Knowing what we know and having a clue about the way the world actually is (as opposed to how we would like to imagine it to be) what would you rather was out there for your children (when you get to that one day hopefully)?

A 'market' in the hands of the criminal world where young people can be exposed to God knows what or a legal regulated and controlled 'market' where the risk is far far less compared.

It is no good claiming that you would raise your kids to reject experimenting with new things even new things like drugs, they might but as many many decent caring parents who have brought their kids up very well know and have found out it is simply part of growing up and many kids just will experiment....and what if they like it?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Decriminalised or legal, cheaper clean drugs would IMHO drive out the illegal trade. Of course.


But your basing your ideas on that of alcohol which has a totally different view in society


- Sadly it seems so.


Right back at ya



A 'market' in the hands of the criminal world where young people can be exposed to God knows what or a legal regulated and controlled 'market' where the risk is far far less compared.


The best way is not always the easy way.

So if we legalise drugs the drugs will become:
- Cheaper
- Safer

But... how can the Government compete against drug dealers who offer cheaper prices...why would the dealers price be cheaper...because the Government is going to want a profit from the drug industry.....

The extra rehab, distribution, marketing, potential for a government vs drug dealer warfare etc is going to costs many millions if not many billions.

Government costs are going to be higher, people are going to want stronger drugs not the 'weak' stuff the Government will push, which will turn the junkies to the dodgy dealers who sell illegal hardline stuff that blows their mind...and proberly kill them.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
But your basing your ideas on that of alcohol which has a totally different view in society


- Well if alcohol is held in different view in society - and with many of the present generation(s) I would seriously question that - it didn't used to.
Illegal stills etc (look up the story of when gin was 'invented', mother's ruin and all that) were common once upon a time and are not now.

There is no reason why this 'trade' could not be legitimised (to exert some control over it rather than the none we now have)....as the US experience post prohibition proves.
In fact the whole prohibition story shows us exactly what we are doing with our current policies and the monsters we are creating and building up.


The best way is not always the easy way.

So if we legalise drugs the drugs will become:
- Cheaper
- Safer


- Yes; and you also get the added benefit of not having people - especially our young people - having to mix in or with criminal circles where they can be targeted to try various other drugs when all they were originally interested in was a bit of dope.

The Amsterdam experience whilst not perfect shows they have a registered heroin addict 'population' with a rising age (ie younger people are not coming into it in any significant way) we on the other hand have a registered heroin addict population with a falling age (our young people are getting into it).

...... or find themselves abetting or involved in other general crime etc.


But... how can the Government compete against drug dealers who offer cheaper prices...why would the dealers price be cheaper...because the Government is going to want a profit from the drug industry.....


- The last I heard was that a £500wk heroin habit would cost the NHS less that £5wk in diamorphine ie at those kind of rates no profit whatsoever for the illegal competition.


The extra rehab, distribution, marketing, potential for a government vs drug dealer warfare etc is going to costs many millions if not many billions.


- No we save many millions with a sensible drugs policy.
We save in things like the insurances we would not have to pay so much for either domestically or via the produce we buy as shops cover themselves against drug crime thefts.


Government costs are going to be higher, people are going to want stronger drugs not the 'weak' stuff the Government will push, which will turn the junkies to the dodgy dealers who sell illegal hardline stuff that blows their mind...and proberly kill them.


- Wizard mate, not everyone wants to get off the planet when high, that kind of talk is just a myth.
Some do (just as once in a while people like to get totally off their t*ts on booze sometimes) but my experience is that most recreational drug use is sociable.

Why do you imagine the gov regulated outlets dispensing 'weak' drugs? It will be like cigs when it happens IMHO. You will be able to buy say coc aine by strength. Say 25%, 50% or 75% pure.

In Amsterdam the decriminalised dope one can buy there is far from weak. Some of it beats most dope available here hands down in terms of strength......and many people find that too much for what they want to do and do not just by the strongest they can lay their hands on.

...and once again the truth of this is that it is not the actual drug which is toxic to most. It is the crap that is not the drug that is mixed with it or a user taking unwittingly too pure a dose that kills.


[edit on 12-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- The last I heard was that a £500wk heroin habit would cost the NHS less that £5wk in diamorphine ie at those kind of rates no profit whatsoever for the illegal competition.


That implies Heroin would be banned...but wait a second why would the junkies want diamorphine instead of Heroin....



Why do you imagine the gov regulated outlets dispensing 'weak' drugs? It will be like cigs when it happens IMHO. You will be able to buy say coc aine by strength. Say 25%, 50% or 75% pure.


Will they


In Amsterdam the decriminalised dope one can buy there is far from weak. Some of it beats most dope available here hands down in terms of strength......and many people find that too much for what they want to do and do not just by the strongest they can lay their hands on.


I heard they decrimilised dope in Alaska but it went head over heels and drug related crime increased.....


..and once again the truth of this is that it is not the actual drug which is toxic to most. It is the crap that is not the drug that is mixed with it or a user taking unwittingly too pure a dose that kills.


A list of effects from coc aine:

- get headaches
- feel dizzy
- feel restless
- become violent or aggressive
- find it hard to concentrate
- lose interest in sex
- not feel like doing anything
- have chest pain
- have a heart attack
- have convulsions (fits)

nothing to do with purity or quality, the reaction is simply from the drug.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
That implies Heroin would be banned...but wait a second why would the junkies want diamorphine instead of Heroin....


- err, diamorphine is the medical name for heroin.

You see when people talk about these drugs as somehow able to 'just kill you like that' they tend to forget that they are all almost invariably used medically too and are not in fact lethal in themselves.

So hell yes, ban street heroin as the too pure or filthy crap it usually is and get addicts onto cheap clean safe doses of diamorphine and save us all a world of trouble.


Will they


- Well if it was to work like the situation in Amsterdam with the dope, yes. You can buy all sorts at a great variety of strengths.

Why not?

Just as not every alcoholic drink ones buys is ultra high in alcohol content.


I heard they decrimilised dope in Alaska but it went head over heels and drug related crime increased.....


- Were you watching the 'What if?' show last night?

If so you will know that rather than simply reversing policy Alaska is probably one of the most cannabis tolerant states in the USA.

But Alaska is a daft example anyway; it's a bit like trying to make meaningful conclusions from the communities out on the rigs in the north sea.

How wasted would you feel like getting living and doing nothing but working up there....and how much trouble can you imagine such a life-style helps generate? I'd like to see what they mean by 'drug crime' anyways; hjow much was booze involved for instance.....most likely people bored to death up to all sorts because of it.

Beware the stats!

......and if you really want to talk crime and it's links to drugs there's no link that comes close to the all round damage alcohol does the world over.

Cannabis is generally not something to induce violent behaviour.


A list of effects from coc aine:

- get headaches
- feel dizzy
- feel restless
- become violent or aggressive
- find it hard to concentrate
- lose interest in sex
- not feel like doing anything
- have chest pain
- have a heart attack
- have convulsions (fits)

nothing to do with purity or quality, the reaction is simply from the drug.


- Firstly coc aine - and its derivatives - is used medically, so like all medical drugs whilst it is known there may be side-effects that alone is hardly a reason for a doctor not to use it or any other drug, right?

Like I said before Wizard have you seen the lists of possible 'side effects' from legal drugs they are having to produce now with the stuff you get?

When did those real and researched possibilities stop you from taking....*whatever*? (do I really need to reproduce the list that now comes with Paracetamol or do you take the point?)

I don't doubt that there will be some people at the margins who might suffer from some of these effects - just like what happens with legally prescribed drugs - or for those that over-do things - just as happens with booze or legally prescribed drugs.

Anyone can take an alergic reation to almost anything and it might even kill you.

.....and what?

That still does not come anywhere close in my opinion to justifying what we now have.

A system that is totally out of control which is costing us all vast fortunes and which criminalises enormous numbers of otherwise law-abiding peaceful people. A system creating the richest mafias the world has ever seen = the corruption of our entire economic system.

Sorry but I think that is insane and we can do better; not perfect (we'll never manage that) but a damn sight better.

Harm reduction should be the priority and the key IMHO.


[edit on 13-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
OK Interesting debate going on here so I guess I'll weigh in. I believe all "Hard" Drugs should be kept Criminal but I do believe the sentancing should be drastically altered. One idea would be to give them some Options. Everyone likes to have options even though they all aren't that desirable because they involve things they do not want to do like Mandotory Rehab, Councilling and Group Therapy. There is even some drugs in the pipeline that could remove the addiction by popping a pill(so to speak) They want to have it so they wont even get high anymore but Thats a baaad idea because thats messing with important emosional elements in your brain. Maybe even a Boot camp type setup for the younger offenders allthough they should not be scared into shape but reasoned with, as I believe it was discovered that Scare tactics don't really work. It may work somtimes but if done multiple times it ain't working.

Like when dealing with truely addictive drugs/personalities, there are ways to tell you know I was termed one got addicted to a bunch of drugs B4 is started smoking pot, when I did that I got to know a whole different crowd and THEY the stoners SAVE MY LIFE so in my opinion Pot should be Decrimanlised and everything else put through a Criminal Health agency or some such, NOT the regular prison system because its the prisons that turn relatively non-violent drug addicts who shoplifted or did a bne to get his next fix into a hardend criminal. I grew up in a relatively rough neighborhood and everyone around here who knew someone who was in jail or was in jail refered to it as Criminal College. They call the Fed prison Criminal University. Minimum security joints are called Club Feds which is where I believe the Majority of drug addicts belongs(just with a wee bit more security like locked gates
)

OKAY I'm done. If anyone wants some scientific links just say the word



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
OK Interesting debate going on here so I guess I'll weigh in.


- Welcome to the debate sardion2000, nice to see a new point of view.


There is even some drugs in the pipeline that could remove the addiction by popping a pill(so to speak) They want to have it so they wont even get high anymore but Thats a baaad idea because thats messing with important emosional elements in your brain.


- Too bloody right!
I don't take drugs, I don't smoke and I rarely drink but I would not want a chemical lobotomy for me or my family regardless of what was going on.
If some folks have misgivings about long used (and presumably long tested) vaccines I'd be damn sure I'd be against that crap.

That kind of thing strikes me as certain parts of 'the authorities' getting pretty desparate and resorting to typically inhuman responses not for the first time.


Maybe even a Boot camp type setup for the younger offenders allthough they should not be scared into shape but reasoned with, as I believe it was discovered that Scare tactics don't really work. It may work somtimes but if done multiple times it ain't working.


- I agree. Boot camp works for some people but very definitly not all.


Like when dealing with truely addictive drugs/personalities, there are ways to tell you know I was termed one got addicted to a bunch of drugs B4 is started smoking pot, when I did that I got to know a whole different crowd and THEY the stoners SAVE MY LIFE so in my opinion Pot should be Decrimanlised


- I think this is a major first step. It at a stroke removes the greatest number - by far - from the criminal 'market'.


and everything else put through a Criminal Health agency or some such, NOT the regular prison system because its the prisons that turn relatively non-violent drug addicts who shoplifted or did a bne to get his next fix into a hardend criminal.


- ....and the drug testing regime has had the effect of shifting drug users off of 'soft' drugs like cannabis (which can be detectable for 2 - 8wks) on to 'hard' drugs which pass out of the system in around 48hrs.

I see that as a very backward move.
Whatever the intention the effect was greater harm not harm reduction.


I grew up in a relatively rough neighborhood and everyone around here who knew someone who was in jail or was in jail refered to it as Criminal College. They call the Fed prison Criminal University.


- I think it scandelous the number of people in prison for nothing more than smoking dope.

It's a stupid waste of a lot of public money and a blot on our society.


Minimum security joints are called Club Feds which is where I believe the Majority of drug addicts belongs(just with a wee bit more security like locked gates
)


- Yes, help those receptive to help and enable others to live productive lives.


OKAY I'm done. If anyone wants some scientific links just say the word


- Cheers. Nice one.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Ok I'm not going to continue the little drugs debate we had going on, I guess I've have to agree to disagree.

However I have updated the site on a couple of areas Education and Africa



[edit on 23-5-2005 by UK Wizard]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join