The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Now, occasionally something swims through the news channels and grabs me like a shark through a haemophiliac’s swimming pool. For me, I can always sense it's approach because one simply knows that it will be a Daily Mail headline within a few days, and that letters beginning "Sir, I read your paper yesterday and was appalled...." will not be far behind. For the record, I am referring to the study that states that many children aged 11-16 are drug users.
I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a cocaine user and he invented the telephone (makes sense I suppose; you'd have to be high on something to come up with the concept of talking to someone far away by using copper wires...). Anyone can tell you about the vast drug intake of pretty much any musician who has ever lived (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act). There are theories (ones that are actually well supported by evidence as opposed to my usual "bloke said down the pub" sources) that one of the driving forces of early civilisation was drugs. Early man was a hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of people. And don't get me started about the "morally superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum, cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on and so forth.
However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below 16 or 18 and for good reason. One should be an adult before making an informed decision on whether to drink or smoke (yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, but try to forget that you know me for a minute...). And at least one also has the benefit of being able to be well informed about booze and fags should one choose to be.
With drugs, we have no such choice. Let's concentrate on cannabis for the moment. This is a drug that has been used by man since at least 3000 BC (it was mentioned in the records of the Chinese Emperor of the time; curiously it was reputed to be a good cure for absentmindedness...), is or has been used by a huge cross section of the public, and yet public information is limited at best. I'm sure we've all heard about medical journals pointing out the medicinal benefits of cannabis for MS sufferers, or findings that cannabis is less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, or that it is not physically addictive. That is all well and good, but this information tends to be tucked away on page 11 whenever reported and so we still have the ludicrous sight of Ann Widdecombe denouncing it as purest evil whilst a multitude of rabid blue rinsed fanatics applaud her rancid demagoguery.
This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same thing about alcohol or tobacco?
By the same token, the pro-drugs lobby can misuse this lack of information in much the same way. For years I laboured under the impression that it was good for asthma because the smoke cleaned out the lungs and that it has no effect or impairment upon ones driving ability.
All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about it. And yet curiously the most vociferous opponents of an in depth study into the effects of cannabis are the very people who oppose its decriminalisation. Either they know something I don't, or ignorance really is bliss and they're happy to continue to fear something that they don't understand. Fine, but I resent them inflicting their fears on everyone else.
Now then, I'd like if I may to have a look at the harder drugs by which I mean Cocaine, Ecstacy, Heroin, etc. These drugs never receive the benefit of any positive publicity. Indeed, their only mention in the media is when they are coupled with death or degradation, and we are constantly told tales of woe due to the horror of addiction to these drugs, hence their illegality. It is the duty of any society, we are told, to protect people from these drugs.
Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body?
If someone chooses to take these drugs based on the (once again) limited information available, why should they be criminals? I am assured repeatedly by the media that hard drug users end up committing criminal acts. I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course, that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced and substandard narcotics available.
The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users. Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the government, there are formal and informal laws in place to deal with it's consumption (no-one can seriously expect to hold down a job whilst being permanently drunk, but you can't easily get drunk on a regular basis without a job; funny how people, when left to their own devices, figure this sort of thing out for themselves without having to be told by a minister isn't it?)
The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus far failed to materialise (I live in hope though...) I don't want to belabour the point, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be a brief upsurge in the use of many drugs, but as the Post-Prohibition years showed, that would soon level out at a constant. The regulation would also be able to control quality of drug so there would be far less risk of overdose, or tragic deaths due to immensely strong ecstacy tablets.
I don't know what you're thinking whilst reading this, but I find that I'm imagine the splutters of horror that dear Miss Widdecombe or any of her ultra right wing ilk would utter at the above notion. With their protest of "We know what's best for you" they will ignore every point made. So let me put it this way for them; they fear a nation where drugs are freely available because it will cause the breakdown of civilisation. If the nation is made up of high, mellow individuals, then they're not going to be too concerned at whatever the government is up to. Therefore politicians can exercise their power in whatever manner they see fit; safe in the knowledge that everybody is too stoned to argue with them. I wonder if that argument will carry any weight with them....
I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a cocaine user and he invented the telephone (makes sense I suppose; you'd have to be high on something to come up with the concept of talking to someone far away by using copper wires...). Anyone can tell you about the vast drug intake of pretty much any musician who has ever lived (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act). There are theories (ones that are actually well supported by evidence as opposed to my usual "bloke said down the pub" sources) that one of the driving forces of early civilisation was drugs. Early man was a hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of people. And don't get me started about the "morally superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum, cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on and so forth.
However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below 16 or 18 and for good reason. One should be an adult before making an informed decision on whether to drink or smoke (yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, but try to forget that you know me for a minute...). And at least one also has the benefit of being able to be well informed about booze and fags should one choose to be.
With drugs, we have no such choice. Let's concentrate on cannabis for the moment. This is a drug that has been used by man since at least 3000 BC (it was mentioned in the records of the Chinese Emperor of the time; curiously it was reputed to be a good cure for absentmindedness...), is or has been used by a huge cross section of the public, and yet public information is limited at best. I'm sure we've all heard about medical journals pointing out the medicinal benefits of cannabis for MS sufferers, or findings that cannabis is less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, or that it is not physically addictive. That is all well and good, but this information tends to be tucked away on page 11 whenever reported and so we still have the ludicrous sight of Ann Widdecombe denouncing it as purest evil whilst a multitude of rabid blue rinsed fanatics applaud her rancid demagoguery.
This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same thing about alcohol or tobacco?
By the same token, the pro-drugs lobby can misuse this lack of information in much the same way. For years I laboured under the impression that it was good for asthma because the smoke cleaned out the lungs and that it has no effect or impairment upon ones driving ability.
All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about it. And yet curiously the most vociferous opponents of an in depth study into the effects of cannabis are the very people who oppose its decriminalisation. Either they know something I don't, or ignorance really is bliss and they're happy to continue to fear something that they don't understand. Fine, but I resent them inflicting their fears on everyone else.
Now then, I'd like if I may to have a look at the harder drugs by which I mean Cocaine, Ecstacy, Heroin, etc. These drugs never receive the benefit of any positive publicity. Indeed, their only mention in the media is when they are coupled with death or degradation, and we are constantly told tales of woe due to the horror of addiction to these drugs, hence their illegality. It is the duty of any society, we are told, to protect people from these drugs.
Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body?
If someone chooses to take these drugs based on the (once again) limited information available, why should they be criminals? I am assured repeatedly by the media that hard drug users end up committing criminal acts. I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course, that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced and substandard narcotics available.
The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users. Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the government, there are formal and informal laws in place to deal with it's consumption (no-one can seriously expect to hold down a job whilst being permanently drunk, but you can't easily get drunk on a regular basis without a job; funny how people, when left to their own devices, figure this sort of thing out for themselves without having to be told by a minister isn't it?)
The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus far failed to materialise (I live in hope though...) I don't want to belabour the point, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be a brief upsurge in the use of many drugs, but as the Post-Prohibition years showed, that would soon level out at a constant. The regulation would also be able to control quality of drug so there would be far less risk of overdose, or tragic deaths due to immensely strong ecstacy tablets.
I don't know what you're thinking whilst reading this, but I find that I'm imagine the splutters of horror that dear Miss Widdecombe or any of her ultra right wing ilk would utter at the above notion. With their protest of "We know what's best for you" they will ignore every point made. So let me put it this way for them; they fear a nation where drugs are freely available because it will cause the breakdown of civilisation. If the nation is made up of high, mellow individuals, then they're not going to be too concerned at whatever the government is up to. Therefore politicians can exercise their power in whatever manner they see fit; safe in the knowledge that everybody is too stoned to argue with them. I wonder if that argument will carry any weight with them....
Page:
gerrid wrote:
> Vice wrote:
> They didnt know he had drugs. He had them concealed. He was just
> walking down the street. And he is white, but the police didnt know
> that, and their reason for stopping and searching him was that he
> looked menacing.
Yeah but still they were right to stop him in the first place anyway. it wasn't as if he was innocent.
> Vice wrote:
> They didnt know he had drugs. He had them concealed. He was just
> walking down the street. And he is white, but the police didnt know
> that, and their reason for stopping and searching him was that he
> looked menacing.
Yeah but still they were right to stop him in the first place anyway. it wasn't as if he was innocent.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Prohibition of drugs and alcohol both occurred at the beginning of the
> twentieth century.
Well we cannot change history can we ? My point is that the problems surrounding drugs are too big now, and involve so much, that we cannot use prohibition as a model for the consequences of legalisation - too much has changed since then. Sure, if they'd been legalised 60 - 70 years ago then no problem. But it's 2002, and the situation is not that simple any more.
Seriously, does anyone who wants legalisation believe the people who profit from it will simply stop ? I really don't see it happening.
> Prohibition of drugs and alcohol both occurred at the beginning of the
> twentieth century.
Well we cannot change history can we ? My point is that the problems surrounding drugs are too big now, and involve so much, that we cannot use prohibition as a model for the consequences of legalisation - too much has changed since then. Sure, if they'd been legalised 60 - 70 years ago then no problem. But it's 2002, and the situation is not that simple any more.
Seriously, does anyone who wants legalisation believe the people who profit from it will simply stop ? I really don't see it happening.
Vice wrote:
> So ure calling the police racists because they saw ure friend was
> black and knew immediately he was up to no good. Yet the police still
> had every rite to be suspicious due to ure friends possesion of drugs.
> So the police are hardly racist.
They didnt know he had drugs. He had them concealed. He was just walking down the street. And he is white, but the police didnt know that, and their reason for stopping and searching him was that he looked menacing.
> So ure calling the police racists because they saw ure friend was
> black and knew immediately he was up to no good. Yet the police still
> had every rite to be suspicious due to ure friends possesion of drugs.
> So the police are hardly racist.
They didnt know he had drugs. He had them concealed. He was just walking down the street. And he is white, but the police didnt know that, and their reason for stopping and searching him was that he looked menacing.
Stardust wrote:
> Except it is not a usable model - prohibition removed the rights of
> people to consume something they all had been able to do in the past,
> where as drugs legalisation involves giving the right to consume drugs
> to all.
Prohibition of drugs and alcohol both occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century. Before that time people had as much right to consume drugs as they did alcohol. Opium, ether, cannabis, cocaine, whiskey: it was all legal and widely consumed. Cocaine was used as a folk remedy for centuries, as were many other narcotics. Drugs were almost as important as spices in the expansion of world trade. The two prohibitions were in fact identical in cause and effect. Both removed a right that had existed since time began. Both pushed production and supply into the arms of criminals. Both increased crime and violence, and decreased personal liberty. One was repealed with beneficial effects; the other remains on the statute books to the detriment of both nations who supply drugs and the nations who consume them.
> Except it is not a usable model - prohibition removed the rights of
> people to consume something they all had been able to do in the past,
> where as drugs legalisation involves giving the right to consume drugs
> to all.
Prohibition of drugs and alcohol both occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century. Before that time people had as much right to consume drugs as they did alcohol. Opium, ether, cannabis, cocaine, whiskey: it was all legal and widely consumed. Cocaine was used as a folk remedy for centuries, as were many other narcotics. Drugs were almost as important as spices in the expansion of world trade. The two prohibitions were in fact identical in cause and effect. Both removed a right that had existed since time began. Both pushed production and supply into the arms of criminals. Both increased crime and violence, and decreased personal liberty. One was repealed with beneficial effects; the other remains on the statute books to the detriment of both nations who supply drugs and the nations who consume them.
Light wrote:
> The whole economy relies on that? I'd be interested to know if you
> have any figures to back that up, or links to articles? It would
> certainly be something to think on.
Amsterdam's economy is based around tourism, shipping, and diamond cutting. Whilst I know Amsterdam is one of Europe's more pleasant cities, I think the main attractions to the younger people going there are not these, http://europeforvisitors.com/europe/articles/amsterdam.htm is a good a guide as any for info - notice in particular that the Netherlands generated approx $1 billion from it's sex industry last year ! I honestly cannot be bothered to find the articles on the web as most of my info comes from books - never quite been bothered enough to read pages and pages on the internet yet.
> Why not? That is exactly what happened after prohibition, which is the
> only example of a similar occurence. Their was a brief rise in alcohol
> use and problems, then it settled down and lowered. No offence, but
> all you offer is (admittedly well thought out) conjecture.
Except it is not a usable model - prohibition removed the rights of people to consume something they all had been able to do in the past, where as drugs legalisation involves giving the right to consume drugs to all. The banning of alcohol lead to one of the most vicious times in American history and caused the deaths of thousands who got caught up in the ensuing fighting. It was a reaction against a decision.
> If that's the case, how come there is no booze racket in America?
> Sorry to bang on about it, but prohibition gave a cast iron example of
> the sort of thing we can expect.
Because prohibition was different - and the problem less widespread. Whilst the gangsters were undoubtedly powerful, they relied on a small number of men and operated on a national scale. Drugs are a global problem, and are spread by millions of sellers and producers who will not go quietly into that good night... bear in mind that the gangsters problem went away because those in charge were taken down, in the end, and they had little to fight back with. The people in the drugs trade - those at the very top of the chain, have considerably more resources today, as do the individual drug dealers themselves. What happened after prohibition was that people went back to doing what they used to do anyway, but legalisation would mean a different thing altogether.
> Again, post prohibition. At the moment, do you know anyone who buys
> booze that was produced from a home made still? The closest parallel
> is Booze cruises to the continent, which is once more getting the drug
> (alcohol) from a non-home made source.
If prohibition was a suitable model to use then you'd have a point, but I really don't think prohibition is - it's dated, a different situation, and doesn't take into account things like the media, lobby groups e.t.c.
> That didn't seem to worry the Dutch. Most of their weed is homegrown,
> and they have managed the combat the above mentioned problems
> effectively
Sure, but they've not got the drugs problem we do - do you honestly believe those who make money from drgus will go down the job center ? They won't, they'll come out fighting and you'll see todays rising gun crime figures sky rocket.
> Once more, post prohibition provides the example. You're absolutely
> right in that initially it will be difficult due to protests, problems
> with organised crime etc. But the problems are not insurmountable, and
> history teaches us that it has been done before.
Same as I've said before for prohibition as a model, but history also teaches us that a large group, whose position of power is challenged ( in this case the drugs dealer, traffickers e.t.c) rarely surrenders that position easily.
> Sorry, but b: is an *incredibly* disingenuous point. Hemp was grown in
> the UK right up until about a century ago. Henry VIII actually ordered
> more of it grown. To compare a natural plant to a GM crop is
> stretching the truth to breaking point.
Maybe, but we've changed. Wasn't that long ago we used to hang people was it ? Go back a couple of hundred years and we're burning witches, give it a hundred years and we're grabbing a chunk of Africa and sending parts of the population across the Atlantic. My point is that what we've done in the past cannot be used to justify doing something again. Those who did so in the past did not benefit from our hindsight - but we can, and we shouldn't repeat those mistakes. The GM crop comparision was made because drugs - like GM crops - provoke outrage in many quarters, and because it does so there are typically a minority in that outraged group prepared to go past the waving placards stage.
TV pictures of police officers in riot gear defending class C drugs does not make for political points... nor will it please individual officers. Sure, the Police officials may welcome declassifying drugs, but I doubt most support this view as they've seen the reality of the drugs problem in the country. By asking the police to defend such things any government is putting itself in grave danger.
> As to political duck shoot; only 50% of people in this country vote.
> Let's say the other 50% think that the govt won't do anything relevant
> for them. If this 50% (most of whom are 18-25, co-incidentally the
> biggest users of recreational drugs) voted because of the drugs issue,
> they would overwhelm the vote of the anti drugs lobby.
And the same could have been said for France, until Mr Le Pen decided he was going to have a go for power - voting went up massively. People are discouraged to vote because they know that, with today's parties, little will be different, but if a part tried to get into power on the strength of change like this then it'd be shot to pieces. On paper it looks possible, but only on paper.
> Then why aren't the cafe's in Amsterdam big targets? And why are you
> so adament that there will be huge protests? I haven't seen the good
> burghers of Lambeth marching to the stations demanding that they
> change their policy. I really don't understand why, when over 75% of
> the population admit to having tried cannabis and only 10% saying that
> they are opposed (Source: Guardian/ICM poll), there would be massive
> demonstrations.
I believe this is because they've had them so long that, by the time recreational drugs use boomed in the West (1960's onwards) there was no established drugs dealers e.t.c to displace. In the UK, it will displace a lot of them. In most cases these are violent, armed, people, with friends, best case scenario is you push them into selling more hard drugs, worst case doesn't bear thinking about. I'd be wary of any newspaper poll as a source of information as the persons doing it can easily tailor it beforehand to give an answer the paper requires which is in line with the paper's owners views and political wishes. You haven't seen anything in Lambeth because, on a local scale, not enough people care, it's when you want the same in every town and city that the trouble begins. I'm adamant that their would be massive protests because it has been seen time and time again that change on a national scale is rarely welcomed, and the power of the media over many people is scary.
In fact, I'd venture to say that is the failing point of the argument that some drugs will be legalised - could any government survive the media assault ? ITV, BBC, and SKY, will all come out on the side of non legalisation, as will the Sun and Mirror, and many local papers also, you'll have sob stories from god knows how many victims families on every night, more interviews with ex drug users than you can shake a big stick at, enough facts and figures to overload a calculator, the it'll be a political free for all on a local, national, and international scale.
All of a sudden we'd look rather stupid for accusing Afghanistan of growing drugs, not to mention the exploits of our armed forces, sorry *technical advisors* abroad in South America and elsewhere.
Okay, so you're all tired of reading now ?
> The whole economy relies on that? I'd be interested to know if you
> have any figures to back that up, or links to articles? It would
> certainly be something to think on.
Amsterdam's economy is based around tourism, shipping, and diamond cutting. Whilst I know Amsterdam is one of Europe's more pleasant cities, I think the main attractions to the younger people going there are not these, http://europeforvisitors.com/europe/articles/amsterdam.htm is a good a guide as any for info - notice in particular that the Netherlands generated approx $1 billion from it's sex industry last year ! I honestly cannot be bothered to find the articles on the web as most of my info comes from books - never quite been bothered enough to read pages and pages on the internet yet.
> Why not? That is exactly what happened after prohibition, which is the
> only example of a similar occurence. Their was a brief rise in alcohol
> use and problems, then it settled down and lowered. No offence, but
> all you offer is (admittedly well thought out) conjecture.
Except it is not a usable model - prohibition removed the rights of people to consume something they all had been able to do in the past, where as drugs legalisation involves giving the right to consume drugs to all. The banning of alcohol lead to one of the most vicious times in American history and caused the deaths of thousands who got caught up in the ensuing fighting. It was a reaction against a decision.
> If that's the case, how come there is no booze racket in America?
> Sorry to bang on about it, but prohibition gave a cast iron example of
> the sort of thing we can expect.
Because prohibition was different - and the problem less widespread. Whilst the gangsters were undoubtedly powerful, they relied on a small number of men and operated on a national scale. Drugs are a global problem, and are spread by millions of sellers and producers who will not go quietly into that good night... bear in mind that the gangsters problem went away because those in charge were taken down, in the end, and they had little to fight back with. The people in the drugs trade - those at the very top of the chain, have considerably more resources today, as do the individual drug dealers themselves. What happened after prohibition was that people went back to doing what they used to do anyway, but legalisation would mean a different thing altogether.
> Again, post prohibition. At the moment, do you know anyone who buys
> booze that was produced from a home made still? The closest parallel
> is Booze cruises to the continent, which is once more getting the drug
> (alcohol) from a non-home made source.
If prohibition was a suitable model to use then you'd have a point, but I really don't think prohibition is - it's dated, a different situation, and doesn't take into account things like the media, lobby groups e.t.c.
> That didn't seem to worry the Dutch. Most of their weed is homegrown,
> and they have managed the combat the above mentioned problems
> effectively
Sure, but they've not got the drugs problem we do - do you honestly believe those who make money from drgus will go down the job center ? They won't, they'll come out fighting and you'll see todays rising gun crime figures sky rocket.
> Once more, post prohibition provides the example. You're absolutely
> right in that initially it will be difficult due to protests, problems
> with organised crime etc. But the problems are not insurmountable, and
> history teaches us that it has been done before.
Same as I've said before for prohibition as a model, but history also teaches us that a large group, whose position of power is challenged ( in this case the drugs dealer, traffickers e.t.c) rarely surrenders that position easily.
> Sorry, but b: is an *incredibly* disingenuous point. Hemp was grown in
> the UK right up until about a century ago. Henry VIII actually ordered
> more of it grown. To compare a natural plant to a GM crop is
> stretching the truth to breaking point.
Maybe, but we've changed. Wasn't that long ago we used to hang people was it ? Go back a couple of hundred years and we're burning witches, give it a hundred years and we're grabbing a chunk of Africa and sending parts of the population across the Atlantic. My point is that what we've done in the past cannot be used to justify doing something again. Those who did so in the past did not benefit from our hindsight - but we can, and we shouldn't repeat those mistakes. The GM crop comparision was made because drugs - like GM crops - provoke outrage in many quarters, and because it does so there are typically a minority in that outraged group prepared to go past the waving placards stage.
TV pictures of police officers in riot gear defending class C drugs does not make for political points... nor will it please individual officers. Sure, the Police officials may welcome declassifying drugs, but I doubt most support this view as they've seen the reality of the drugs problem in the country. By asking the police to defend such things any government is putting itself in grave danger.
> As to political duck shoot; only 50% of people in this country vote.
> Let's say the other 50% think that the govt won't do anything relevant
> for them. If this 50% (most of whom are 18-25, co-incidentally the
> biggest users of recreational drugs) voted because of the drugs issue,
> they would overwhelm the vote of the anti drugs lobby.
And the same could have been said for France, until Mr Le Pen decided he was going to have a go for power - voting went up massively. People are discouraged to vote because they know that, with today's parties, little will be different, but if a part tried to get into power on the strength of change like this then it'd be shot to pieces. On paper it looks possible, but only on paper.
> Then why aren't the cafe's in Amsterdam big targets? And why are you
> so adament that there will be huge protests? I haven't seen the good
> burghers of Lambeth marching to the stations demanding that they
> change their policy. I really don't understand why, when over 75% of
> the population admit to having tried cannabis and only 10% saying that
> they are opposed (Source: Guardian/ICM poll), there would be massive
> demonstrations.
I believe this is because they've had them so long that, by the time recreational drugs use boomed in the West (1960's onwards) there was no established drugs dealers e.t.c to displace. In the UK, it will displace a lot of them. In most cases these are violent, armed, people, with friends, best case scenario is you push them into selling more hard drugs, worst case doesn't bear thinking about. I'd be wary of any newspaper poll as a source of information as the persons doing it can easily tailor it beforehand to give an answer the paper requires which is in line with the paper's owners views and political wishes. You haven't seen anything in Lambeth because, on a local scale, not enough people care, it's when you want the same in every town and city that the trouble begins. I'm adamant that their would be massive protests because it has been seen time and time again that change on a national scale is rarely welcomed, and the power of the media over many people is scary.
In fact, I'd venture to say that is the failing point of the argument that some drugs will be legalised - could any government survive the media assault ? ITV, BBC, and SKY, will all come out on the side of non legalisation, as will the Sun and Mirror, and many local papers also, you'll have sob stories from god knows how many victims families on every night, more interviews with ex drug users than you can shake a big stick at, enough facts and figures to overload a calculator, the it'll be a political free for all on a local, national, and international scale.
All of a sudden we'd look rather stupid for accusing Afghanistan of growing drugs, not to mention the exploits of our armed forces, sorry *technical advisors* abroad in South America and elsewhere.
Okay, so you're all tired of reading now ?
gerrid wrote:
> My friend got arrested yesterday for posession of a Class B Drug. The
> police stopped him and searched him because he 'looked suspicious'.
> They said he had his hood up. What they meant was that they couldn't
> tell if he was black or white. I almot garauntee that if they could
> see he was a white boy, he would not have got stopped.
So ure calling the police racists because they saw ure friend was black and knew immediately he was up to no good. Yet the police still had every rite to be suspicious due to ure friends possesion of drugs. So the police are hardly racist.
> My friend got arrested yesterday for posession of a Class B Drug. The
> police stopped him and searched him because he 'looked suspicious'.
> They said he had his hood up. What they meant was that they couldn't
> tell if he was black or white. I almot garauntee that if they could
> see he was a white boy, he would not have got stopped.
So ure calling the police racists because they saw ure friend was black and knew immediately he was up to no good. Yet the police still had every rite to be suspicious due to ure friends possesion of drugs. So the police are hardly racist.
Light wrote:
> I do agree that a lot of the appeal of drugs lies in their illegality,
> and that legalising them will stop that. Which is kind of my point;
> legalising will lower drug use in the long term, so if you're anti
> drugs then surely that is a good thing?
Yeah i know it's a good thing that's why argued for it's legitimacy
> I do agree that a lot of the appeal of drugs lies in their illegality,
> and that legalising them will stop that. Which is kind of my point;
> legalising will lower drug use in the long term, so if you're anti
> drugs then surely that is a good thing?
Yeah i know it's a good thing that's why argued for it's legitimacy
My friend got arrested yesterday for posession of a Class B Drug. The police stopped him and searched him because he 'looked suspicious'. They said he had his hood up. What they meant was that they couldn't tell if he was black or white. I almot garauntee that if they could see he was a white boy, he would not have got stopped.
Is Stardust one of Belldandy's alter egos? Only time will tell.
To get back on topic, taking drugs is a matter of personal choice - it has nothing to do with government. Drugs may have an adverse effect on your health; but so do fried breakfasts, lack of exercise, reading in the dark and drinking heavily - none of which are regulated by government.
To get back on topic, taking drugs is a matter of personal choice - it has nothing to do with government. Drugs may have an adverse effect on your health; but so do fried breakfasts, lack of exercise, reading in the dark and drinking heavily - none of which are regulated by government.
Stardust wrote:
>
> OK, so there are "Cannabis Cafe's" and so on abroad, and, I
> believe, a few in this country, but again that is not tackling the
> problem, it's ignoring it. You can argue that there have been no
> problems abroad with offering the drug more freely, but in Amsterdam's
> case you are looking at a place whose economy relies on young people
> going there because most of what Amsterdam offers cannot legally be
> found elsewhere.
The whole economy relies on that? I'd be interested to know if you have any figures to back that up, or links to articles? It would certainly be something to think on.
>
>
> I do agree that a lot of the appeal of drugs lies in their
> illegality,
> and that legalising them will stop that. Which is kind of my point;
> legalising will lower drug use in the long term, so if you're anti
> drugs then surely that is a good thing?
>
> It won't work that way.
Why not? That is exactly what happened after prohibition, which is the only example of a similar occurence. Their was a brief rise in alcohol use and problems, then it settled down and lowered. No offence, but all you offer is (admittedly well thought out) conjecture.
Across the country you have thousands of
> people who make a living selling these "lets legalise them"
> drugs, and whose status, and wealth, depends on selling it. Sure, a
> small minority grow it themselves, but most will be buying it from
> somewhere, someone. Say you legalise, these people will not surrender
> what they have had just like that. By legalising you'd more than
> likely be looking at a set price of the drugs in question, and you
> need to produce that drug somewhere to maintain supplies of it, then
> you also need somewhere to provide the drugs, as well as the issue of
> how you distribute it to people.
If that's the case, how come there is no booze racket in America? Sorry to bang on about it, but prohibition gave a cast iron example of the sort of thing we can expect.
>
> Let's start with the current drugs dealers. They will undercut the
> government supplied drugs price, the larger firms will target the
> distribution centres, they will increase the purity above the
> government supplied drug so as to offer a better quality product for
> the same price, and most importantly they will continue to offer it to
> anyone who comes to them with the money. If the government legalised
> any drugs you do not seriously think you're going to be buying them
> like regular medicine do you ?
Again, post prohibition. At the moment, do you know anyone who buys booze that was produced from a home made still? The closest parallel is Booze cruises to the continent, which is once more getting the drug (alcohol) from a non-home made source.
>
> Then, where does the government get the drugs from in the first place
> ? Two options - abroad (bad idea, the UN would crucify us for
> starters) or here, in the UK. I'm sure there are farming communities
> just crying out for fields full of weed, not to mention the issues of
> contaminating the countryside in various ways, and effects on
> wildlife.
That didn't seem to worry the Dutch. Most of their weed is homegrown, and they have managed the combat the above mentioned problems effectively
Plus you'd need some kick-a$s security in place to guard
> against the massive protests, - if some drugs are legalised you'll see
> groups who make the animal rights extremists look like kindergarten
> kids - the drug dealers, and the users themselces. Adding into all of
> that the government of the time will be politically dead in the water
> for;
Once more, post prohibition provides the example. You're absolutely right in that initially it will be difficult due to protests, problems with organised crime etc. But the problems are not insurmountable, and history teaches us that it has been done before.
>
> a)Legalising in the first place
> b)Growing drugs in the countryside - you did see what happened with GM
> crops didn't you ?
> c)A heck of a lot more...basically it'd be political duck shoot
> time.
Sorry, but b: is an *incredibly* disingenuous point. Hemp was grown in the UK right up until about a century ago. Henry VIII actually ordered more of it grown. To compare a natural plant to a GM crop is stretching the truth to breaking point.
As to political duck shoot; only 50% of people in this country vote. Let's say the other 50% think that the govt won't do anything relevant for them. If this 50% (most of whom are 18-25, co-incidentally the biggest users of recreational drugs) voted because of the drugs issue, they would overwhelm the vote of the anti drugs lobby.
Incidentally, I realise how mired in impracticalitis that above paragraph is, but the fact remains that if a government could utilise the apathetic non-voters (and I believe the drugs issue would do that) then they would be guaranteed another term in office.
>
> Finally, where do you sell them from ? Supermarkets ? No way that's
> going to happen. Chemists ? doubtful - they're already targeted by
> drug users anyway. Cafe's ? Maybe, but again these are just one big
> target, and whilst it may be possible to locate a few quietly, do it
> on a nationwide scale in major towns and cities and the poll tax
> protests will seem like a minor disturbance.
Then why aren't the cafe's in Amsterdam big targets? And why are you so adament that there will be huge protests? I haven't seen the good burghers of Lambeth marching to the stations demanding that they change their policy. I really don't understand why, when over 75% of the population admit to having tried cannabis and only 10% saying that they are opposed (Source: Guardian/ICM poll), there would be massive demonstrations.
>
> Blimey, got carried away there, but I guess it's because there's more
> interesting stuff on this forum than the others - which from what I've
> seen so far seem to be lots of people arguing about which console/game
> is better !
Indeed! It's certainly nice to know that it's possible to debate here without one or other party resorting to name calling and petulance (naming no BellDandy names), and you definitely make some interesting points. I don't agree with most of 'em, but I'm sure the same could be said of you! And I'm always impressed with anyone who puts their neck on the line by saying what they think and then defending it.
>
> OK, so there are "Cannabis Cafe's" and so on abroad, and, I
> believe, a few in this country, but again that is not tackling the
> problem, it's ignoring it. You can argue that there have been no
> problems abroad with offering the drug more freely, but in Amsterdam's
> case you are looking at a place whose economy relies on young people
> going there because most of what Amsterdam offers cannot legally be
> found elsewhere.
The whole economy relies on that? I'd be interested to know if you have any figures to back that up, or links to articles? It would certainly be something to think on.
>
>
> I do agree that a lot of the appeal of drugs lies in their
> illegality,
> and that legalising them will stop that. Which is kind of my point;
> legalising will lower drug use in the long term, so if you're anti
> drugs then surely that is a good thing?
>
> It won't work that way.
Why not? That is exactly what happened after prohibition, which is the only example of a similar occurence. Their was a brief rise in alcohol use and problems, then it settled down and lowered. No offence, but all you offer is (admittedly well thought out) conjecture.
Across the country you have thousands of
> people who make a living selling these "lets legalise them"
> drugs, and whose status, and wealth, depends on selling it. Sure, a
> small minority grow it themselves, but most will be buying it from
> somewhere, someone. Say you legalise, these people will not surrender
> what they have had just like that. By legalising you'd more than
> likely be looking at a set price of the drugs in question, and you
> need to produce that drug somewhere to maintain supplies of it, then
> you also need somewhere to provide the drugs, as well as the issue of
> how you distribute it to people.
If that's the case, how come there is no booze racket in America? Sorry to bang on about it, but prohibition gave a cast iron example of the sort of thing we can expect.
>
> Let's start with the current drugs dealers. They will undercut the
> government supplied drugs price, the larger firms will target the
> distribution centres, they will increase the purity above the
> government supplied drug so as to offer a better quality product for
> the same price, and most importantly they will continue to offer it to
> anyone who comes to them with the money. If the government legalised
> any drugs you do not seriously think you're going to be buying them
> like regular medicine do you ?
Again, post prohibition. At the moment, do you know anyone who buys booze that was produced from a home made still? The closest parallel is Booze cruises to the continent, which is once more getting the drug (alcohol) from a non-home made source.
>
> Then, where does the government get the drugs from in the first place
> ? Two options - abroad (bad idea, the UN would crucify us for
> starters) or here, in the UK. I'm sure there are farming communities
> just crying out for fields full of weed, not to mention the issues of
> contaminating the countryside in various ways, and effects on
> wildlife.
That didn't seem to worry the Dutch. Most of their weed is homegrown, and they have managed the combat the above mentioned problems effectively
Plus you'd need some kick-a$s security in place to guard
> against the massive protests, - if some drugs are legalised you'll see
> groups who make the animal rights extremists look like kindergarten
> kids - the drug dealers, and the users themselces. Adding into all of
> that the government of the time will be politically dead in the water
> for;
Once more, post prohibition provides the example. You're absolutely right in that initially it will be difficult due to protests, problems with organised crime etc. But the problems are not insurmountable, and history teaches us that it has been done before.
>
> a)Legalising in the first place
> b)Growing drugs in the countryside - you did see what happened with GM
> crops didn't you ?
> c)A heck of a lot more...basically it'd be political duck shoot
> time.
Sorry, but b: is an *incredibly* disingenuous point. Hemp was grown in the UK right up until about a century ago. Henry VIII actually ordered more of it grown. To compare a natural plant to a GM crop is stretching the truth to breaking point.
As to political duck shoot; only 50% of people in this country vote. Let's say the other 50% think that the govt won't do anything relevant for them. If this 50% (most of whom are 18-25, co-incidentally the biggest users of recreational drugs) voted because of the drugs issue, they would overwhelm the vote of the anti drugs lobby.
Incidentally, I realise how mired in impracticalitis that above paragraph is, but the fact remains that if a government could utilise the apathetic non-voters (and I believe the drugs issue would do that) then they would be guaranteed another term in office.
>
> Finally, where do you sell them from ? Supermarkets ? No way that's
> going to happen. Chemists ? doubtful - they're already targeted by
> drug users anyway. Cafe's ? Maybe, but again these are just one big
> target, and whilst it may be possible to locate a few quietly, do it
> on a nationwide scale in major towns and cities and the poll tax
> protests will seem like a minor disturbance.
Then why aren't the cafe's in Amsterdam big targets? And why are you so adament that there will be huge protests? I haven't seen the good burghers of Lambeth marching to the stations demanding that they change their policy. I really don't understand why, when over 75% of the population admit to having tried cannabis and only 10% saying that they are opposed (Source: Guardian/ICM poll), there would be massive demonstrations.
>
> Blimey, got carried away there, but I guess it's because there's more
> interesting stuff on this forum than the others - which from what I've
> seen so far seem to be lots of people arguing about which console/game
> is better !
Indeed! It's certainly nice to know that it's possible to debate here without one or other party resorting to name calling and petulance (naming no BellDandy names), and you definitely make some interesting points. I don't agree with most of 'em, but I'm sure the same could be said of you! And I'm always impressed with anyone who puts their neck on the line by saying what they think and then defending it.
Page: