Drug Use In The House of Commons
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 The Dolphin  06 Dec 21 6.21pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
I have seen what drug use does very close to home and even weed - given it's cheap crap nowadays - is bloody dangerous and addictive and it should be stamped out.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
PalazioVecchio  south pole 06 Dec 21 6.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Decriminalise Class A drugs? which is more dangerous :
or a politician
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle Online  06 Dec 21 6.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Depends on how many secondary infections the politician causes.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| PalazioVecchio south pole 06 Dec 21 8.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
BlueJay  UK 06 Dec 21 8.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by The Dolphin
I have seen what drug use does very close to home and even weed - given it's cheap crap nowadays - is bloody dangerous and addictive and it should be stamped out. I've always found the idea of routinely inhaling smoke (be it cigarettes, weed or whatever) to be an odd choice to make and clearly not great for health. That said I've known plenty of weed smokers over the years and most are decent, educated people whose habit doesn't particularly seem to impact them or others. We just hear about the negatives and drop outs. I would certainly say that I've seen alcohol mess up a good few lives and routinely result in violence, but I still enjoy the odd pint so its all about balance. Clamping downs on the person habits / choices isn't all positive. If the bar is set so low it's just going to cause more harm than good. All of these 'war on drugs' pushes never really lead anywhere. Sure for opiates that people can get hooked on super quick there should be efforts to stamp it out, but often its ironically doctors handing those out anyway (especially in the States). It's more distraction than attempt to help solve a problem. Lots of aspects of modern society for the working man are depressing and hamster wheel like, so to be honest, I'd find it unusual if a good chunk of people weren't chucking back a few pints or relative equivalents.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 06 Dec 21 9.37pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Drugs are a money making machine, legal or illegal. Money is the god of atheism and so drugs are in its modern day bloodstream. No serious efforts beyond lip service are going to be used even though drugs lie at the heart of many social problems. Much easier to destroy lives based upon hurty words than get involved in real problems. Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Dec 2021 9.37pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 06 Dec 21 11.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Alcohol lies at the heart of significant problems too, but clamping down on it would likely cause more problems than it solves. While there are certainly some addictive hard drugs that are more likely to cause significant problems and require action (ironically often prescribed to begin with), there is a generalised, glib 'drugs are bad mmmmkay' that is at its core an unworkable denial of reality and to an extent human nature. Certainly drink and drugs can be all but stamped out, but its no coincidence that the countries that are best at it are authoritarian and most often in the middle east. In life I think we often have to decide whether we want other people to be the problem, or the government. No doubt the same can be said of words, as they are mechanisms that can be used by government against basically anyone once they're in place. Sensible limits of course exist when people or groups provide staging grounds for, or promote violence but not many groups or people tick those boxes really.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 07 Dec 21 12.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 07 Dec 21 6.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
I would be more pl55ed off, if there were expenses claims for 10grams of coke. And i have no doubt taxpayers funded these drugs in some way. If Labour were an effective opposition, Boris would be drinking in the last-chance saloon. Edited by Forest Hillbilly (07 Dec 2021 8.44am)
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 07 Dec 21 10.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
I've always found the idea of routinely inhaling smoke (be it cigarettes, weed or whatever) to be an odd choice to make and clearly not great for health. That said I've known plenty of weed smokers over the years and most are decent, educated people whose habit doesn't particularly seem to impact them or others. We just hear about the negatives and drop outs. I would certainly say that I've seen alcohol mess up a good few lives and routinely result in violence, but I still enjoy the odd pint so its all about balance. Clamping downs on the person habits / choices isn't all positive. If the bar is set so low it's just going to cause more harm than good. All of these 'war on drugs' pushes never really lead anywhere. Sure for opiates that people can get hooked on super quick there should be efforts to stamp it out, but often its ironically doctors handing those out anyway (especially in the States). It's more distraction than attempt to help solve a problem. Lots of aspects of modern society for the working man are depressing and hamster wheel like, so to be honest, I'd find it unusual if a good chunk of people weren't chucking back a few pints or relative equivalents.
Good post - as you say, alcohol is every bit as destructive (I'd argue more) than a lot of illegal substances, and in terms of toxicity, cigarettes are right up the list - there is no logical reason that you would permit alcohol and tobacco, and ban something like cannabis - it's an emotional decision based on decades of propaganda. Your final paragraph is essentially how I see it - we pour billions into these 'wars on drugs' to achieve the grand total of f*ck all - since the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, drug use is up significantly, the drug market has grown significantly and the number of users in prison has grown - it demonstrably doesn't work, and the Government know this very well, but people's prejudices mean we can't even entertain an evidence-based solution on the matter. You will never stop the supply and you will never stop the demand - all you can do is to try protect the people using them and take the money out of the criminal's pockets.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The Dolphin 07 Dec 21 10.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 07 Dec 21 10.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
I am not saying this is a fact but I saw a report that after Canada had legalised cannabis it had no impact on the illegal drug trade and may have made it worse. It seems that only a mild version is legal in Canada not Skunk well many people having tried the mild variation have now migrated to Skunk via their local illegal dealer. It's too early to say if this is an actually trend but is sounds plausible.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.