Drugs

[manc_don]

So, it seems like Ireland are on point with their latest legislation, allowing same sex marriages and now looking at legalising drugs.  Personally, I think that this is something that should have happened here as it would allow a) the government to take away profit from the cartels / gangs and allow them to tax it, much like they already do with alcohol and cigarettes b) allow them to get sufficient monies to help those with the addiction.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ireland-to-decriminalise-small-amounts-of-drugs-including-heroin-cocaine-and-cannabis-for-personal-a6719136.html

 

So a question to you DTer's, is this the right route for us?  Will Ireland see an increase in substance abuse?

[rocket_scientist]

Tough one.

 

Watched a thing by John Cooper Clark last night about The Opium Eater by Thomas de Quincey, a hopeless addict. JCC was a smackhead once upon a time of course.

 

I know they're not talking about heroin and diamorphine but cannabis wrecks lives too. In the 70's and 80's, all the rig pigs would be 2 weeks on and 2 weeks on... the bevvy and the joints.

 

Amsterdam is great to visit and has a laid back population. Our people are fucking animals when we get our hands of any kind of intoxicant and the strains of grass they sell these days just tastes shit and chemically.

 

I always had an ambition to be an opium imbiber one day. I would have to be tired of life first and there's no sign of that happening. I'm looking forward to being a grandparent in the years ahead, probably next decade or maybe at the end of this, depending so it would have to be a terminal illness that would tempt me towards the opiates.

 

[Tyrant]

Decriminalising "small amounts" is a no brainer.

 

Whether's Manc's ideological view of how the government would handle it is anything like how things would actually go down is another question. It's almost as if you think the government is here to help poor people. 

[RicoS321]

De-criminalise initially, then legalise and tax. We spend an absolute fortune on policing and locking up adults for taking and selling an arbitrary substance to other adults. Spend the savings on better social education and better provision of social alternatives to boozing.

[Superstar Tradesman]

I agree with it in principle.

 

But, and this is a huge but, because I just don't see it ever happening; the tax revenue would have to go towards helping people with addiction.  Be that medicinal, therapy sessions, clinics, centres, etc.

 

Personally I see it being taxed, the addicts being left to rot (as they already are) and the money finding it's way into the toff's pockets.  Just a new way to dumb down the population and coin in on the less fortunate.

[manc_don]

Don't get me wrong, I know hoping the money would be used correctly by those in charge is wishful thinking because unfortunately, human greed would take over. It shouldn't be a reason for it not to go ahead though. It is ridiculous that drugs are given special status despite alcohol and tobacco being equal if not worse in their effects and consequences.

[rocket_scientist]

I've never bought the government lines about allocating new revenue streams to specific causes.

 

The Exchequer takes in so much, spends it all, borrows zillions, spends that too and pretends that austerity is required for the sake of our great great grandchildren.

 

Like these noble politicians who have siphoned off billions of public funds into their private pockets care about what happens to any other cunt when they're alive let alone when they're gone.

[DoddsyTheDon]

It's one subject I wouldn't envy having to make a decision on to be fair.

 

An all out legalisation of everything in all amounts would be dangerous, but then where do you draw the line with what amount is legal and isn't?

 

Drugs like heroin as well, absolutely destroys people. Sure there are some arguments as to how legalising it could somehow help addicts but would it even slightly make it more appealing for people to try it for the first time if legalised? I can't see how that could be a good thing.

[RicoS321]

Drugs like heroin as well, absolutely destroys people. Sure there are some arguments as to how legalising it could somehow help addicts but would it even slightly make it more appealing for people to try it for the first time if legalised? I can't see how that could be a good thing.

 

Go on. Yer only smoking it.

[Superstar Tradesman]

At least someone is giving it a bash.

 

If it doesn't work then so be it, at least they're attempting to try something new because the 'war on drugs' has failed miserably for decades.

 

I seem to recall Portugal having done this in the not too distant past and had positive results.  I'm sure someone can link those details, I injected one whole hash earlier and can't be bothered.

[scotfree]

Decriminalising "small amounts" is a no brainer.

 

Whether's Manc's ideological view of how the government would handle it is anything like how things would actually go down is another question. It's almost as if you think the government is here to help poor people. 

How can you make "small amounts" legal and the ones who sell it with "large amounts" not legal? It has to come from some where.  It's a hard one.

[Tyrant]

How can you make "small amounts" legal and the ones who sell it with "large amounts" not legal? It has to come from some where.  It's a hard one.

 

 

How can you not? Just do it. That way the poor pricks are buy it because they're hooked on it aren't taking up the time of law enforcement thus allowing that time to be spent on the arseholes that cash in by selling it.

[Andrew]

 

How can you not? Just do it. That way the poor pricks are buy it because they're hooked on it aren't taking up the time of law enforcement thus allowing that time to be spent on the arseholes that cash in by selling it.

 

But then you are decriminalising drugs but still keeping the profits in the hands of the criminals and cartels. It's much better to totally legalise and regulate drugs for tax purposes but also to make sure the product is not cut with other harmful substances. The only people who die from ecstasy are those who take badly made pills. If it was legal these would still be alive.

[tom_widdows]

The only people who die from ecstasy are those who take badly made pills. If it was legal these would still be alive.

 

Strange comment this one.

Is this to say that the only people who die from smoking are those who bought the badly made fags?

Or those who die from alcohol are only those who got a bad pint?

 

Pretty much every drug will kill you if taken in enough quantities or in the right conditions. Sometimes its pretty much instant, other times it knocks you down at 50 when you should have lived on till at least 70.

 

I think it will come down to whether or not governments decide the general public can be trusted to have enough self control to not turn into characters from a Hunter S Thompson/ irvine welsh fantasy.

If they use the public's attitude to alcohol as the yardstick I reckon the idea is dead in the water.

 

Personally I'm for legalising them but then again I dont drink, have never smoked and have pretty much zero experience of illegal drugs so what do I know.

 

[rocket_scientist]

It's not that strange a comment. Unless the subject matter is beyond your ken.

 

Adam once said "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?"

 

He turned out weird. Probably always was. But it was a memorable line.

 

"Never trust a man who doesn't drink" is a line from a Scotsman I know. His rationale is that the teetotaller doesn't trust himself. Personally I think it's an attempt at justifying his own predilection for alcohol. My own experience is that people who have never known intoxicants are boring bastards. I can understand choosing not to imbibe or partake after abuse. Can't understand never trying.

[Tyrant]

It's not that strange a comment. Unless the subject matter is beyond your ken.

 

Adam once said "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?"

 

He turned out weird. Probably always was. But it was a memorable line.

 

"Never trust a man who doesn't drink" is a line from a Scotsman I know. His rationale is that the teetotaller doesn't trust himself. Personally I think it's an attempt at justifying his own predilection for alcohol. My own experience is that people who have never known intoxicants are boring bastards. I can understand choosing not to imbibe or partake after abuse. Can't understand never trying.

 

 

If it didn't all (and I mean all) taste fucking rank I'd probably drink.

[tom_widdows]

My own experience is that people who have never known intoxicants are boring bastards. I can understand choosing not to imbibe or partake after abuse. Can't understand never trying.

 

Didn't say I've never tried alcohol. Just said i don't drink. Tyrant hit on one of the reasons I stopped

 

I personally cant understand why some people will drink to the point they cant function properly and then justify anything stupid, dangerous, illegal they did with 'It wasn't my fault, I was drunk'.

 

 

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

Well it's good job that individuals are unique with different tastes etc.

 

Otherwise how boring would it be?

 

Living in a world of sobriety would kill creativity for a start. Some of the best art has come out of altered states.

[tom_widdows]

Personally I believe creativity comes from a combination of genetics, encouragement and personal drive.

 

Having had to assist and treat people who were intoxicated from Alcohol, legal highs and on a couple of occasions suspected illegal drugs I struggle to believe the likes of Hendrix came up with their best material with the assistance of such substances.

 

For every artist 'hailed' for their creativity under drugs there others who are just 'hailed' for being creative

[rocket_scientist]

Your "personally" means fuck all because you "personally" are so divorced from creative it's not true.

 

In fact, it's impossible to conceive anyone less creative.

 

Until you think outside your thimble, let alone your box, you can't understand other boxes.

 

If, and you never will, get outside your own box, you might see other boxes but you'll never appreciate the limitation of boxes. The wise and the robustly functioning imaginations don't live in boxes. The cat from Norway got stuck in the doorway. The cat from Greece called the police. The cat from Japan had a very big fan.

[rocket_scientist]

The cat from Spain flew an aeroplane. The cat from Brazil caught a very bad chill. The cat from France liked to sing and dance.

[rocket_scientist]

The cat from Fife moaned like fuck and caused strife.

 

The cat from Glesga was a wido bastard who thought he was gallus and funny but in reality was a fucking prick.

[Andrew]

Strange comment this one.

Is this to say that the only people who die from smoking are those who bought the badly made fags?

Or those who die from alcohol are only those who got a bad pint?

 

Pretty much every drug will kill you if taken in enough quantities or in the right conditions. Sometimes its pretty much instant, other times it knocks you down at 50 when you should have lived on till at least 70.

 

I think it will come down to whether or not governments decide the general public can be trusted to have enough self control to not turn into characters from a Hunter S Thompson/ irvine welsh fantasy.

If they use the public's attitude to alcohol as the yardstick I reckon the idea is dead in the water.

 

Personally I'm for legalising them but then again I dont drink, have never smoked and have pretty much zero experience of illegal drugs so what do I know.

 

Not sure if you fully understand where I am coming from but I think a good comparison, as it is with the war on drugs in general, is the deaths from alcohol poisoning in probation USA. The American government poisoned alcohol and let there people die because there wasn't't a safe regulated legal market and there was demand for the product. The demand for drugs is never going to go away so why not regulate and make it as safe as it can be? The dark web has shown that a regulated user based system works most of the time and has helped prevent deaths - no reason this can't be brought into a legal regulated market.

[tom_widdows]

The cat from Fife moaned like fuck and caused strife.

 

The cat from Glesga was a wido bastard who thought he was gallus and funny but in reality was a fucking prick.

 

[tom_widdows]

Not sure if you fully understand where I am coming from but I think a good comparison, as it is with the war on drugs in general, is the deaths from alcohol poisoning in probation USA. The American government poisoned alcohol and let there people die because there wasn't't a safe regulated legal market and there was demand for the product. The demand for drugs is never going to go away so why not regulate and make it as safe as it can be? The dark web has shown that a regulated user based system works most of the time and has helped prevent deaths - no reason this can't be brought into a legal regulated market.

 

I think i see where you are coming from but regulating something and then putting it into the hands of governments and/or private companies may reduce/ remove the drug being contaminated with detergents, weedkiller and all manner of toxic substances but at the same time may turn it into a 'profit driven business' where use is encouraged.

 

The destructive properties of tobacco and alcohol are well documented but the breweries, distilleries, tobacco companies etc all still advertise and encourage the use of their products all with clear consciences.

I went to an event where the speaker was the head of one of scotland's biggest brewers and whilst he seemed to support the minimum pricing he was totally against lowering the drink drive limit, his reasoning seemed to be that it would criminalise regular people who just wanted a wee drink during the week only to get pulled over on the commute to work the next day. When asked if this view was in any way influenced by his profits being hit he turned on the politician mode.

Seems these companies (along with the casinos and bookies) are perfectly happy to profit from misery and its all ok as long as they put 'please drink responsibly' or 'when the fun stops, stop! on their adverts.

How long would it take for 'please inject/ snort responsibly to appear on posters?