UK Government drug Policy

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

 

Yet another example of this government being incapable of taking tough decisions and hoovering around for the cheap vote. The chief scientific advisor to the government makes a very reasonable case that the drug classifications for cannabis and ecstacy are inconsistent with the observed facts. Yes, there are risks associated with taking them, but they are 'no worse than riding a horse'. I don't take either, but I find it ridiculous to assert that an individual is within their rights to mountain climb, and drink, and smoke, but not to pursue a recreation differentiated solely by the fact it comes in chemical form only.

 

Anyway, as the articles says, rather than tackle the facts the government fires him. In itself a remarkable move from a government which rarely fires anyone for anything.

 

And with all this in mind I deliberately going out to buy some high cholesterol fish and chips, and drink eight pints of real ale. And if I go astray afterwards and wind up in the park I may be having unprotected sex with one of the 750 criminals the government announced they have lost.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Junkies are the most pathetic people you could ever meet.

[Gfted1]

In the past, Prof Nutt has also claimed that taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse.

 

Now I dont care what a person ingests as long as it doesnt affect another, but the above is a scary stratement to put out there to the public. Ecstasy is pretty much a stew of several man made chemicals and IMO, is in an entirely different class then reefer.

[213374U]

hoovering around for the cheap vote

Excuse me?

 

In other news: politicians appoint and sack scientific advisors based on anything but competence. More after the break.

[Hurlshort]

Yep, ecstasy can be pretty nasty stuff. Anything you can OD on with a handful should be closely regulated.

 

I could go either way on marijuana. I don't even like the nuisance that is tobacco, so I have trouble supporting another type of smoking, but it's pretty difficult to justify why pot is illegal but alcohol is an american foundation.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Alcohol and tobacco have been established for a long time. If they were new substances, they'd both be illegal. In fact, it's been tried.

[Gorgon]

It's fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to personal liberty that the government has to interfere with what you chose to use as recreational drug. If it wasn't illegal we could use all those resources that are pissed away every year on things like rehabilitation and providing real unbiased information about the dangers of a given drug. The world would not end if you let people be responsible for their own lives.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Gorgon

[Trenitay]

I think it's worse when it affects innocent bystanders.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Junkies are the most pathetic people you could ever meet.

 

Smoking weed doesn't make you a junkie. Neither does extasy or acid although I don't use either.

 

Alcohol and tobacco have been established for a long time. If they were new substances, they'd both be illegal. In fact, it's been tried.

 

Cannabis as a recreational/spiritual substance has been around for thousands of years. It hasn't been considered illegal for a century. There's no reason for most hallucinogens to be illegal. From shrooms to peyote to amanita-genus mushrooms (that are very poisonous, finnish/siberian witch doctors used to feed them to reindeer who's metabolism is strong enough to handle the poisons and then drink the reindeers piss that had all of the hallucinogens from the mushroom but none of the poison) have been used for thousands and thousands of years.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Wrath of Dagon]

Haven't been illegal? Depends on what country you're talking about. Hallucinogenic drugs have not been acceptable in Western culture until recently, although they haven't always been illegal. They were outlawed because of the harm they were causing. I'm specifically talking about opiates here, I'm not sure about other types of hallucinogens, but it's all part of the drug culture so far as I'm concerned, and destructive.

[Hurlshort]

It's fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to personal liberty that the government has to interfere with what you chose to use as recreational drug. If it wasn't illegal we could use all those resources that are pissed away every year on things like rehabilitation and providing real unbiased information about the dangers of a given drug. The world would not end if you let people be responsible for their own lives.

 

As Awsomeness pointed out, it is a different matter when it affects people other than yourself, and the argument can be made for pretty much any substance that they can negatively affect the lives of other people.

[Gorgon]

I'm not sure I take your point. Excepting maybe drugs that make the user psychotic with long time use, such as meth and ppc, the drugs themselves don't hurt anyone. The majority of the violence comes from users who produce crime to support their habit, as well as the providers who war over production facilities and create political and social instability (for instance south American cartels or the Taliban) and low end dealers beefing over territory. It seems to me one could make a whole lot of criminals of various bent unemployed with one fell swoop. Educators should be tasked with providing medically accurate information about harmful drugs, and there should be a legal age just like there is with alcohol, adults should be left alone to make their own informed choices.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Gorgon

[Lare Kikkeli]

Haven't been illegal? Depends on what country you're talking about. Hallucinogenic drugs have not been acceptable in Western culture until recently, although they haven't always been illegal.

 

If by western you mean american which has only been a culture for a counple of hundred years. A lot of different hallucinogens have been used by different cultures all over the world. One good modern example would absinthe, or cannabis in India.

 

They were outlawed because of the harm they were causing. I'm specifically talking about opiates here, I'm not sure about other types of hallucinogens, but it's all part of the drug culture so far as I'm concerned, and destructive.

 

You're honestly not comparing weed or magic mushrooms to heroin, are you? Shows what you know...

 

Opiates are completely different from hallucinogens. Weed or shrooms dont get you addicted physically, so they're pretty safe to use now and then. Naturally you can mess up your life with weed, but hey some people obsessively collect star wars memorabilia, some people smoke weed all day. I personally know many stoners who light up frequently yet have a day job, a relationship and sometimes even a family. It's really no different from going to the bar and getting drunk once or twice a month. I mean look at The Netherlands, weed and shrooms are legal yet they're in no worse shape than any western country.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Hurlshort]

I'm not sure I take your point. Excepting maybe drugs that make the user psychotic with long time use, such as meth and ppc, the drugs themselves don't hurt anyone. The majority of the violence comes from users who produce crime to support their habit, as well as the providers who war over production facilities and create political and social instability (for instance south American cartels or the Taliban) and low end dealers beefing over territory. It seems to me one could make a whole lot of criminals of various bent unemployed with one fell swoop. Educators should be tasked with providing medically accurate information about harmful drugs, and there should be a legal age just like there is with alcohol, adults should be left alone to make their own informed choices.

 

Drugs and alcohol lead to excessively bad decision-making, is what I'm getting at. Now I understand your argument that it is the choice of that adult to make bad decisions, but the problem I see with that is when it affects innocent bystanders who are not choosing drugs or alcohol. Examples are victims of drunk drivers or children of addicts.

[theslug]

I'm going to trust in Dr. Drew since he's specialized in drug addiction and say that drugs are bad. The majority of psychotropics have no business being in people's lives unless prescribed by a licensed physician. Marijuana I have some sympathy for because Joe Rogan taught me it was some kind of paper vs hemp conspiracy a long time ago but even then the marijuana now is potent and dangerous.

[Gorgon]

I still have an old pair of hemp pants, the fibers are so tough you can weave it into fabric.

 

Too much of anything is a bad idea, and we are already dealing with the effects of alcohol abuse, like Hurlshot said, disfunctional families, drunk drivers etc. But whats to be done about that, bringing back prohibition ?.

 

If we didn't use so many resources policing drugs we could more effectively do something about those secondary effects. As it is we are presenting an easy avenue for people to make money illegally which we do our best to band aid with policing. Making most drugs legal is the better structural choice, but the public does not agree, certainly not those who typically vote.

[Nightshape]

Haven't been illegal? Depends on what country you're talking about. Hallucinogenic drugs have not been acceptable in Western culture until recently, although they haven't always been illegal. They were outlawed because of the harm they were causing. I'm specifically talking about opiates here, I'm not sure about other types of hallucinogens, but it's all part of the drug culture so far as I'm concerned, and destructive.

 

You're wrong.

 

You're also ignorant.

[Nightshape]

This thread requires some bill hicks quote.

 

 

I loved when Bush came out and said, "We are losing the war against drugs." You know what that implies? There's a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it.

 

You never see a positive drug story on the news. They always have the same LSD story. You've all seen it: "Today a young man on acid...thought he could fly...jumped out of a building...what a tragedy!" What a ****. He's an idiot. If he thought he could fly why didn't he take off from the ground first? Check it out? You don't see geese lined up to catch elevators to fly south; they fly from the ****ing ground. He's an idiot. He's dead. Good! We lost a moron. ****ing celebrate. There's one less moron in the world.

Wouldn't you like to see a positive LSD story on the news? To hear what it's all about, perhaps? Wouldn't that be interesting? Just for once?

 

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration

[Meshugger]

Damn, Nightshape beat me to it.

[Walsingham]

Further quote from Prof. Nutt:

 

"Until Gordon Brown took office there has never been a recommendation about drug classification from the council that has been rejected by government," he said.

 

"Gordon Brown comes into office and soon after that he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal... it has to be a Class B drug. He has made his mind up.

 

"We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, 'No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it's still a Class C drug.'

 

"He said, 'Tough, it's going to be Class B.'"

 

But don't worry. It's not as if we've got a shortage of government money or anything. It's perfectly sensible to spend that excess money fighting a battle we evidently can't win, for no scientific reason.

[Wrath of Dagon]

One good modern example would absinthe, or cannabis in India.

...

It's really no different from going to the bar and getting drunk once or twice a month. I mean look at The Netherlands, weed and shrooms are legal yet they're in no worse shape than any western country.

Absinthe is not a hallucinogen, that's an old wifes' tale. Like I said, alcohol would be illegal if it wasn't so established in Western culture. I don't know much about pot, but I suspect it has long term effect on the brain since pot heads have that look about them.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Absinthe is not a hallucinogen, that's an old wifes' tale. Like I said, alcohol would be illegal if it wasn't so established in Western culture.

You're right, my mistake, absinthe did no have a lot of hallucinogenic effects due to the small amount of wormwood used.

 

I don't know much about pot, but I suspect it has long term effect on the brain since pot heads have that look about them.

 

First of all lol @ that jibe againts pot heads. I've got long hair and I sometimes wear stoner and metal band shirts which are the only two signs that show I'm a stoner. I'm generally succesful, have no problems with daily routines yet smoke like a dragon. Same with most of my friends (which include an actor, a sound engineer, a cameraman, musicians and many people in non-creative industries). Cannabis has been legalized for medicinal use in multiple (not sure how many exactly) states in the US, as well as multiple european countries including Finland. It's got minimal side effects when compared to commonly used opiate-based painkillers and works really well for chronic pain and Multiple sclerosis treatment, as well as depression and multiple other ails and illnesses.

 

The EU conducted a research a few years ago and it showed that cannabis is the least harmful of all recreational drugs including alcohol and cigarettes, and recommended that it be legalized and taxed.

[Gorgon]

It's possible to abuse cannabis like everything else. If you need a joint to fall asleep and one to steady yourself in the morning that's a definite warning sign. Those are the people walking around in a perpetual zombie state wearing dirty clothes, not taking proper care of themselves.

 

There are however, more moderate and functional users than you could possibly imagine. I'd say more than half the people I know. It probably varies a lot geographically though.

[Walsingham]

I think we're in danger of conflating a couple of things.

 

 

1) Abuse with substance abuse

 

Gorgon makes an excellent point that it is posible to form a dependance on many things, and to harm others as a consequence. He also points out that it is instructive to consider how much of this abusive and or reckless behaviour is a consequence of the criminlisation of the substance and the high price of the substance.

 

2) Marijuana, and ecstasy with heroin and crack

 

Ironically this is precisely what I'm complaining about the government doing. Regarding all drugs as critically dangerous drives law enforcement and countermeasures into a 'broad front' approach which is inefficient, and ineffective. Putting cannabis and ecstasy on too high a footing robs resources from the serious drugs. It also risks discrediting advice on the serious drugs.

 

3) HM Govt with the US govt

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I am a modest expert <sic> on the history of organised crime and its countermeasures. There is an acre of difference on every level between the two govts. I wouldn't expect the US govt to take scientific advice on threat levels because they've never done so in the past. In the UK this used to be the procedure, but this particular administration is ignoring it.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Walsingham

[Gfted1]

3) HM Govt with the US govt

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I am a modest expert on the history of organised crime and its countermeasures. There is an acre of difference on every level between the two govts. I wouldn't expect the US govt to take scientific advice on threat levels because they've never done so in the past. In the UK this used to be the procedure, but this particular administration is ignoring it.

 

 

And this at a time when we are relaxing our enforcement on cannabis. I wouldnt be at all surprised to see it fully legalized in my lifetime.