Topic: War on Drugs

[Enemy]

Thanks for that, Slick_Beef.  What about medicinal marijuana, any mention of that?

A few states (outside of CA) have tried this and reversed it because crime levels went through thr roof (robbery in the facilities etc.) and it so ridiculously overprescribed that it was a joke. I have no problem with medical marijuana at all, in fact there are some marijuana-based products in the UK approved for use in MS sufferers and nothing else, cases are being made to treat people with chronic pain with the same drugs and it's probably only a matter of time before it is an acceptable treatment for more conditions.

[Rigga]

Cheers, Enemy, my aunt has cancer and MS and was offered a spray thing a couple of years ago but wouldn't use it because of the law.  Her opinion was that if it's against the law it must be bad for you.  Reefer Madness!  My GP has tried getting it for me (chronic pain), and my cognitive therapist and orthopaedic surgeon both condone, if not encourage, my use of it.  Although, I admit, there was a time I'd have said anything to have it prescribed, so I can understand the ridiculous overprescription you spoke of.  Hopefully it's just a matter of time.  They can't ignore the experts forever.

[Mumm-Ra]

A few states (outside of CA) have tried this and reversed it because crime levels went through thr roof (robbery in the facilities etc.) and it so ridiculously overprescribed that it was a joke.

Which states have reversed it? I know a few politicians got nervous about authorising things that were illegal under federal law. Never heard much about robberies though

[The China Fox]

Decriminalizing is not the same as legalizing. You can't go into a shop in Portugal and buy an eigth, nor could you in the UK under these proposals. It would remain illegal to buy drugs, as it is in Portugal. It just means that users are treated as people with issues rather than criminals, so the state can focus on rehabilitating them rather than taking them to court, whilst the police have more time to go after dealers.

(this isn't aimed at you mate)
It still means that the law is inconsistent. Drugs which have been proven to be among the most harmful and addictive, nicotine and alcohol, are still fully legal and yet those which have been scientifically proven to be less addictive/harmful (e.g. cannabis, ecstasy, khat, LSD) are illegal. Amphetamines (even if in some cases supplanted by modafinil derivatives) are still used by huge numbers of military personnel in the course of duty.

The drug laws thus make little rational sense, and one would have to come to the logical conclusion that they are in place due to a reluctance to change the status quo, a fear of the media backlash, and the cultural ingrainedness of alcohol and tobacco products, plus the minefield of what to do with the truly dangerous drugs such as heroin and crack.

[redpirate]

If the 'war on drugs' boils down to the authorities vs dealers, who's winning then?

The dealers. Always have and always will. The authorities are fighting an unwinnable battle.

[Enemy]

Which states have reversed it? I know a few politicians got nervous about authorising things that were illegal under federal law. Never heard much about robberies though

Perhaps not reversed/repealed entirely but certainly not the full measures they were going for to begin with -

Montana -"House Speaker Mike Milburn, carrying the measure himself, said medical marijuana use has gone far beyond what voters approved and argued it is too late to attempt to rein it in. He said the medical marijuana law has led to an abundance of the drug in attracting a criminal element and an illegal trade that has moved into schools and even beyond state borders."

Also within Denver, CO they have repealed certain parts of the law because it was getting out of hand too (robberies in dispensaries etc).

I don't quite understand why it is you need a 'medical marijuana dispensary' as opposed to just getting your medication from the same place as everywhere else: the pharmacy. If CA were serious about it being for medical use they wouldn't have basically opened smoking dens in the back of the dispensaries where you can go and blaze up etc. Just proves to me that they don't care about the medical benefits as much as they do the 'coolness' factor.

[Corkboy]

Enemy, you really have to research a little more before posting.

Perhaps not reversed/repealed entirely but certainly not the full measures they were going for to begin with -

So not reversed, then?

Montana -"House Speaker Mike Milburn, carrying the measure himself, said medical marijuana use has gone far beyond what voters approved and argued it is too late to attempt to rein it in. He said the medical marijuana law has led to an abundance of the drug in attracting a criminal element and an illegal trade that has moved into schools and even beyond state borders."

Here's a link to the Montana legislature. Mike Milburn's bill to repeal medical marijuana "died in process".

Also within Denver, CO they have repealed certain parts of the law because it was getting out of hand too (robberies in dispensaries etc).

Really? Perhaps you could provide a link to some backup, I can't find any mention of that.

I did, however, find this piece from the Denver Post saying...

"Do medical marijuana dispensaries draw crime to their surrounding communities? While recent headlines insinuate this, a coherant examination of crime statistics proves otherwise."

[Mello]

Decriminalizing is not the same as legalizing. You can't go into a shop in Portugal and buy an eigth, nor could you in the UK under these proposals. It would remain illegal to buy drugs, as it is in Portugal. It just means that users are treated as people with issues rather than criminals, so the state can focus on rehabilitating them rather than taking them to court, whilst the police have more time to go after dealers.

Definitely a better solution than throwing people in prison.  It still doesn't fix the problems associated with the black market though.

[pantbash]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/18/lib-dems-vote-decriminalising-drugs

Good on the Lib Dems.
Not really surprising that this was not really covered by the larger news organisations.
I might get off my arse and write to my local MP to tell them to wholeheartedly support the Lib Dems in this.


I'm expecting the other party conferences to champion something along these lines
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14968473

[Mashy-rawr!nooo]

Looks like something that will never end. People want more, they want highs. Aslong as theres a demand.

Cannabis legal would be interesting. I'd like to see it in action. It is working anywhere else?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The Lib Dem thing is not news because it has been their policy for some time now and setting up a panel to look at it in more detail doth not headlines make

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

It is one of the reasons they are unelectable.

[CHOPPER]

Supply and demand people, supply and demand.

[Slick_Beef]

Definitely a better solution than throwing people in prison.  It still doesn't fix the problems associated with the black market though.

I guess the idea is that the police do have more time to tackle dealers, but in practical terms, here in Portugal drugs are as abundant as they are in Liverpool. Still, I absolutely agree with the idea of not treating users as criminals and the UK would do well to adopt it.

[And Could He Play]

15 years for that fucks sake.

Ironic thing is , they put the heroin addicts in prison, they can easily get access to it in jail, easily. Plenty of clean people go into jail and come out drug addicts, defeats the object really.

[pantbash]

Ex Mi5 chief in sensible policy suggestion shocker.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9641000/9641412.stm


Although all the commentators on that program still seem to have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to "Skunk".

[-Q-]

It'll drive you mental if you think about it too much. It's all so obviously wrong, every educated person that writes about it, every think-tank that is compiled, lays out why this war is pointless and futile, and yet here in the States there's literally no mainstream discussion about changing anything. And there won't be for 10 years. And when there is, it'll be instantly drowned out by:

"Oh so you want your kids to be buying crack at the corner shop?"

 

Sad but true.  Reason is so often trumped by emotion in our culture.

However, two GOP Presidential candidates, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have called for drug legalisation. #libertarian

[jambutty]

Legalise pot and hard drug use will go down, imo. 

[Ferg]

15 years for that fucks sake.

Ironic thing is , they put the heroin addicts in prison, they can easily get access to it in jail, easily. Plenty of clean people go into jail and come out drug addicts, defeats the object really.

I've got a mate who's always in and out of jail, and he says "I could do with a break from the Brown."
And he comes out in a worse state than when he went in!

[TravisBickle]

Legalise pot and hard drug use will go down, imo.

 Why's that?

[rednich85]

I'd really love to be able to grow a couple of plants in my loftn without fear of being locked up.

I'm use weed for both recreational and medicinal purposes.

I've been locked up and have had a court appearance for possession, a whopping 4 joints. I'm really lucky I had a sensible judge who understood I wasn't Tony Montana.

I'd love to grow my own stuff, just enough to do me and a mate or two. I wouldn't dream of selling it.

I have a condition and weed helps me more than almost every precription drug I've had. Its not addictive either.

[TravisBickle]

Its not addictive either.

 Weed may not be physically addictive but I know plenty of people who have an emotional dependence on the stuff. I grew up with one kid in particular who became utterly dependant on it. For example, he'd have a bad day at school and would go right to the smoke. Felt a bit down and he'd hit the bong. The bloke was deemed insane by several different doctors when I last saw him so his general mental wellbeing may have played a part in that case but there were others like him.

[rednich85]

Weed may not be physically addictive but I know plenty of people who have an emotional dependence on the stuff. I grew up with one kid in particular who became utterly dependant on it. For example, he'd have a bad day at school and would go right to the smoke. Felt a bit down and he'd hit the bong. The bloke was deemed insane by several different doctors when I last saw him so his general mental wellbeing may have played a part in that case but there were others like him.

Yeah, that kid would have become dependant on something....weed got there first.

I don't want to sound disrespectful because I have a mate...actually one of my best mates, who is a shell of the lad i've known for nearly 16 years. Drugs have done him in all together.

[TravisBickle]

Yeah, that kid would have become dependant on something....weed got there first.

I don't want to sound disrespectful because I have a mate...actually one of my best mates, who is a shell of the lad i've known for nearly 16 years. Drugs have done him in all together.

 Aye, I can relate to that, mate. I first met the bloke I mentioned at the age of eleven and you really couldn't have come across a nicer, more friendly kid. He started smoking weed at fourteen and within six months he was starting to lose it... Constantly getting angry, smashing his own stuff up over the smallest of things and that sort of behaviour. I was mates with him for the next two years and he'd completely lost it by that time... Dropped out of school, in shit with the police etc. I remember refusing to have anything to do with him when he nicked the disability benefits his dad used to get to buy weed. Utter scumbag thing to do.

[-Q-]

The only question you have to ask is, does anyone have the right to tell someone else what they can and can not put into their bodies and use force to stop them?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The only question you have to ask is, does anyone have the right to tell someone else what they can and can not put into their bodies and use force to stop them?

Yes.  Next question.

[rednich85]

Yes.

Like cigarettes?

[-Q-]

Yes.  Next question.

Where does it stop?
Do we have the right to stop fat people eating burgers and pies?

[Corkboy]

Yes.  Next question.

Whoah, there Silver. We're talking informed and consenting adults here. Why does anyone have that right?

[rednich85]

Or just the harmful drugs they don't get tax on?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Whoah, there Silver. We're talking informed and consenting adults here. Why does anyone have that right?

You're all so funny and predictable.

Police are allowed to use force to prevent suicides.  So preventing someone from drinking hydrochloric acid or arsenic by force would fit Q's question.  There is the precedent. 

Or do you think the Police should just say "Go on then, it's your decision after all"

[RedRabbit]

Or do you think the Police should just say "Go on then, it's your decision after all"

On this note, and slightly off-topic, but what if I had a certificate saying I was of sound mental health and was not looking to claim from any insurance policy would I have the right to climb a hill and shoot myself? Would the police have to try and stop me? I'm not doing anything illegal, or am I?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

On this note, and slightly off-topic, but what if I had a certificate saying I was of sound mental health and was not looking to claim from any insurance policy would I have the right to climb a hill and shoot myself? Would the police have to try and stop me? I'm not doing anything illegal, or am I?

They have the power to temporarily detain you for your own safety. 

[Corkboy]

You're all so funny and predictable.

Police are allowed to use force to prevent suicides.  So preventing someone from drinking hydrochloric acid or arsenic by force would fit Q's question.  There is the precedent. 

Or do you think the Police should just say "Go on then, it's your decision after all"

Informed consenting adults? Yes. Either they are deemed incompetent or they can do as they wish.

Suicide is no longer a crime, right?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Informed consenting adults? Yes. Either they are deemed incompetent or they can do as they wish.

Suicide is no longer a crime, right?

It's not criminalised, but I think it is still seen as unlawful killing, hence the power to detain you for your own safety.

[RedRabbit]

They have the power to temporarily detain you for your own safety. 

Ok. Cheers.

So, their beliefs of what is best for me overrides my beliefs of what is best for me. Doesn't seem very fair, but I suppose is understandable. There's nothing stopping me walking up the hill again as soon as they release me. I'd be very pissed off if they did it twice.

[Corkboy]

It's not criminalised, but I think it is still seen as unlawful killing, hence the power to detain you for your own safety.

It's a weird one, because suicide is not something that society wants society to know about. We keep it away from our kids and we talk about it in hushed tones. I had a relative who did it about twenty years ago and it was very weird the way people dealt with it. So committing suicide may be legal but you certainly can't do it in public or threaten to do so in such a way as to shock or disturb other people.

[jambutty]

Why's that?

Because, imo. people would rather do a soft legal drug than a hard illegal one.

[TravisBickle]

Because, imo. people would rather do a soft legal drug than a hard illegal one.

 I disagree. Using your logic, there should be barely any illegal drug use going on because anybody who fancies getting fucked-up has the option of alcohol available to them. If you legalised pot, the same people who take cocaine now would still be taking it then. It's not because they have no legal alternative - they do - they just find that high attractive, despite the risks it poses to them.

[1021]

Are people seriously questioning the merits of preventing people from committing suicide.
By virtue of you sticking a gun to your head, trying to drink acid, climbing onto a ledge with the intention of jumping etc. means you aren't of sound mind, there is no rational reason to do it.