You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Drug Use In The House of Commons
January 29 2022 12.42pm

Drug Use In The House of Commons

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

 

View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 07 Dec 21 10.19am Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Alcohol is a legal drug that we allow that when abused causes considerable harm that's evident to everybody. We could probably classify some of the softer illegal drugs under that description but seemingly being one of those squares I never took/take anything other than alcohol so I couldn't really say.

The whole drugs issue is one I find very difficult and I'm not one who thinks that they have the answers on it....well over and above some basic platitudes that I think most would agree with.

I think the message to the young...well everybody should be to encourage them to live healthily. To an extent I think this is what we do. The default should be to discourage drugs unless their medical state makes them necessary. A default disclination towards drugs is just a sensible lifestyle choice for the vast majority of us.

As for what society's attitude should be towards class A usage.....I'm caught between my own libertarian sensibility towards personal choice and my personal distain for self destructive behaviour. However, out of the two libertarianism wins out....because in a free society, if we are talking about adults, it has too.

However, that doesn't mean the state shouldn't be going after the criminals benefiting from the personal misery of addicts and the endless grief their drugs cause families.

Should that be far harsher than the soft touch the state has been pursuing for decades now? I know Peter Hitchens thinks so and he's a social conservative I respect. But I honestly don't know.

Should we just say 'feck it' and allow all drugs, taxing it to limit the profits of criminals that way. Again, I honestly don't know....as I don't like the culpability the state would have in increasing drug usage and effectively profiting from tragedies when they inevitably occur....though you could rightly say that happens with alcohol now....but should we be expanding that?

Maybe there isn't an answer that provides the decider with clean hands either way.

I think your first paragraph is important - we need to move away from this all-encompassing description of 'drugs' = bad, as if weed and heroin are comparable substances. It's also created this weird sort of idea that prescribed medicines and caffeine and alcohol and the likes are somehow not drugs.

I'm with you on the libertarian point - the idea that you can police these substances out of existence, or that people are not always going to have an interest in psychoactive substances is demonstrable nonsense, and 50+ years of trying hasn't made a dent - at which point do we try something else?

For anyone who hasn't, it's worth looking at how Portugal have legislated drugs since 2016; [Link] - it's a better approach by moreorless every available metric, yet the rest of the world's governments pretend they don't know this.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 07 Dec 21 10.24am Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by The Dolphin

Given the amount of people with mental health issues nowadays it is fair to say any form of drug is very bad for them - be it weed or harder types.
They get hooked very easily and then make some very stupid decisions based on a useage that will often spiral out of control.
Alcohol for these people isn't as bad but on a one off basis ensures that make very stupid short term decisions.
Both are just as harmful to those people but I would argue that drugs are worse because they will likely be a longer term problem.
Add to that - drugs nowadays are not very pure and can have some other very harmful effects as well.

There is no factual basis to what your saying - alcohol is every bit as addictive, destructive and harmful (I'd argue moreso) than many, many illegal drugs - the idea that if you're feeling down it's fine to drink yourself into a hole, but having a spliff is a hard no, just has zero basis in terms of the actual substances - it's just that we as society view one as acceptable/normal.

To suggest alcohol isn't a likely longer term problem is a strange point - the numbers of people addicted to alcohol in this country is staggering.

On the purity; de-criminalising solves that as the substances can be regulated and produced properly.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View The Dolphin's Profile The Dolphin Flag 07 Dec 21 12.05pm Send a Private Message to The Dolphin Add The Dolphin as a friend

Given my personal experience and my dealing with people who know what they are talking about first hand then I can assure you that my statement is reasonably accurate.
This is not just my own opinion - it is based on the real thing

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 07 Dec 21 1.08pm Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by The Dolphin

Given my personal experience and my dealing with people who know what they are talking about first hand then I can assure you that my statement is reasonably accurate.
This is not just my own opinion - it is based on the real thing

Of course it is your opinion; there is no factual basis to statements like "they will get hooked very easily" - tobacco is infinitely more addictive than most illegal drugs, for example, it's not a reason to outlaw it.

You've summarised that alcohol isn't as bad because it's less likely to be a long-term problem... that's a bizarre claim - how many thousands of people have long-term addictions to alcohol in this country?


The other question is whether what you're suggesting (more lip-service about clamping down and more prohibition) actually achieves what you want to achieve (less addiction/less damaging consequences for users) and the answer is a resounding no.

What is there to suggest that this latest war on drugs will be any more successful than the last 50 years worth?

And if your answer to that is there isn't anything to suggest that, then is it not time to try something different?

Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (07 Dec 2021 1.09pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dreamwaverider's Profile dreamwaverider Flag 07 Dec 21 1.21pm Send a Private Message to dreamwaverider Add dreamwaverider as a friend

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

which is more dangerous :


a class A drug

or

a politician

A politician hooked on class A

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 07 Dec 21 2.50pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

There is no factual basis to what your saying - alcohol is every bit as addictive, destructive and harmful (I'd argue moreso) than many, many illegal drugs - the idea that if you're feeling down it's fine to drink yourself into a hole, but having a spliff is a hard no, just has zero basis in terms of the actual substances - it's just that we as society view one as acceptable/normal.

To suggest alcohol isn't a likely longer term problem is a strange point - the numbers of people addicted to alcohol in this country is staggering.

On the purity; de-criminalising solves that as the substances can be regulated and produced properly.

This could be a first but I make you right.
There are more alcoholics than junkies and the secondary effects of alcohol far outweigh the drug issues. How many stoned people fight for anything other their next fix. Some drunk people ,even if not alcoholics create mayhem and lots of police time.
The difference is that its taxable and from where I see it if drugs were legalised the problems associated with it would gradually decrease both personally,financially and socially.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 07 Dec 21 3.02pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

Of course it is your opinion; there is no factual basis to statements like "they will get hooked very easily" - tobacco is infinitely more addictive than most illegal drugs, for example, it's not a reason to outlaw it.

You've summarised that alcohol isn't as bad because it's less likely to be a long-term problem... that's a bizarre claim - how many thousands of people have long-term addictions to alcohol in this country?


The other question is whether what you're suggesting (more lip-service about clamping down and more prohibition) actually achieves what you want to achieve (less addiction/less damaging consequences for users) and the answer is a resounding no.

What is there to suggest that this latest war on drugs will be any more successful than the last 50 years worth?

And if your answer to that is there isn't anything to suggest that, then is it not time to try something different?

Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (07 Dec 2021 1.09pm)

I get the legalise argument.

As I say I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I kind of wimp out on this one....I just don't like the realisation that all the solutions still seem to have significant problems.

How do you deal with the inherent issues with legislation from within my previous post?

Also, how do you answer Hitchen's point that proper enforcement against drugs has never really been tried?

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 07 Dec 21 3.09pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I get the legalise argument.

As I say I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I kind of wimp out on this one....I just don't like the realisation that all the solutions still seem to have significant problems.

How do you deal with the inherent issues with legislation from within my previous post?

Also, how do you answer Hitchen's point that proper enforcement against drugs has never really been tried?

How hard do you make enforcement though?
Is it worse than mugging or stabbing.
Is it worse than drink driving or TDA.
Prohibition could be an example of how hard to go but with my other post I'm being hypocritical with my thoughts about alcohol once prohibition was cancelled. Difficult one to call.
Maybe concentrate on heroin and work backwards, I don't know.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View The Dolphin's Profile The Dolphin Flag 07 Dec 21 3.17pm Send a Private Message to The Dolphin Add The Dolphin as a friend

I will bow out - it is a pointless argument.
I have seen enough suffering from drugs and I hope none of you see the same in your lifetimes

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 07 Dec 21 3.47pm Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I get the legalise argument.

As I say I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I kind of wimp out on this one....I just don't like the realisation that all the solutions still seem to have significant problems.

How do you deal with the inherent issues with legislation from within my previous post?

Also, how do you answer Hitchen's point that proper enforcement against drugs has never really been tried?

I think you broadly answer it in your own post - you will never eradicate problem users, the same way you never eradicate problem drinkers, but you ensure the support structures are there for the people who need them - treat addiction as a health problem rather than a criminal one - there's quite a lot in the Portgual study I shared about that, and we manage to do it to some extent already with alcoholics and people trying to quit smoking.

Problematic use of drugs (legal and illegal) is strongly correlated with poverty and deprivation - creating a society where not so many people feel the need to alter the reality to quite that extent they do and quite as often as they do is a much more worthwhile ambition than more prohibition.

Given the amount of money thrown at this over the decades and the number of people convicted, I would challenge that assertion - how much more does he want us to spend? how many more people in prison?

You are someone who puts a lot of stock in human nature - basically every culture in human history have used psychoactive substances, so there is nothing unusual or unnatural in people's desire to do these things (there are many examples of animals seeking natural 'highs' in the animal kingdom) - knowing that as a reality; we either try to fight it, or we accept it and adjust our approach - I think it's fairly obvious what makes more sense.

The reality is that any level of evidence-based approach to this problem would conclude that Portugal's (and other's) approach has been astronomically more successful in 5 years than the war on drugs has in 50 - the question is why do we continue to bang our head against the same wall?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 07 Dec 21 3.49pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by The Dolphin

I will bow out - it is a pointless argument.
I have seen enough suffering from drugs and I hope none of you see the same in your lifetimes

I'm sure you have, but many have had devastating experiences with alcohol too, or partners with drink problems who routinely take out their anger on them when under the influence. Or drink drivers, violent drunks of a weekend, the list goes on and I don't think we need to turn it into a competition or claim that one causes more misery than another because it's all very situational and down to how the individual behaves - and how seeing that impacts our outlook.

Edited by BlueJay (07 Dec 2021 3.56pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 07 Dec 21 4.02pm Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

I'm sure you have, but many have had devastating experiences with alcohol too, or partners with drink problems who routinely take out their anger on them when under the influence. Or drink drivers, violent drunks of a weekend, the list goes on and I don't think we need to turn it into a competition or claim that one causes more misery than another because it's all very situational and down to how the individual behaves - and how seeing that impacts our outlook.


Edited by BlueJay (07 Dec 2021 3.56pm)

Precisely - and it's not to detract from what Dolphin has experienced, but it's what I mean when I say our current position on drugs is an emotional one, rather than being based on any logic or evidence.

We know this stuff doesn't work, but it feels safer to use words like 'clamp down' and 'crackdown', and that holds weight when people have suffered.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Drug Use In The House of Commons