Government pledges to take "swift action" over mephedrone (From The Argus)

Or we could be much more sensible and take the opportunity to legalise everything

Saw the BBC cameras out on Ditchling Road yesterday and the interviews with the kids on BBC today. It is being sold in schools by kids and used by Year 7/8 and above. Even the school kids interviewed saw it as a menace. Schools are fast becoming the places where our kids get quick courses on smoking, cannabis and follow on drugs.

I agree with "censored" the entire drugs policy in Brighton, and by extension the country has FAILED. It doesn't work. Simple, end of story. It will never work, not ever. No matter how many times you make something illegal someone will find a way around the law. If young people could buy a little weed or hash in a Dutch-style coffeeshop they would not even be exposed to the "hard" stuff most of the time. Take it from me, I was raised in the town of Helmond in the Netherlands until I was 19. My first encounter with hard drugs was in the UK where I came to university! Drugs policy in the UK is a complete joke run by ostriches who have their heads in the sand and cannot see sense even if it's staring them in the face. Take a look at this link from a local Dutch newspaper to see how SENSIBLE people discuss drugs. It's in Dutch but google translate will help with that! http://www.ed.nl/reg
io/helmondstad/62608
65/Tweede-coffeeshop
-streng-voor-klanten
.ece

Agree with both censored and jumperb. Legislation against drugs is a war that can never be won. It just produces an arms race - once mcat is outlawed another similar chemical will take its place until that is legislated against and so forth. A little hash/weed does, of course, have its health risks but they are well understood and minimal by comparasion. The chemical compounds that this arms race produces are little undertood and long term effects never will be as the nature of our legislative approach means kids will move onto the next legal high long before.

I second the above, look at all the other drugs that are already banned (or illegal), yet people are still taking them, have been for decades and still come to harm. How much simpler could it be?

Surely everyone knows the dangers now, be it a legal or illegal high. Im not just referring to this one by the way. The government is never going to make 'drugs' legal as that send the message that its safe to take, even though it isnt. Do people really honestly think relaxing laws would cut down the number of deaths? If anyone thinks that please explain why you think it would reduce harm.

cheezburger wrote:
Surely everyone knows the dangers now, be it a legal or illegal high. Im not just referring to this one by the way. The government is never going to make 'drugs' legal as that send the message that its safe to take, even though it isnt. Do people really honestly think relaxing laws would cut down the number of deaths? If anyone thinks that please explain why you think it would reduce harm.

Why? One reason would be often it the chemicals that the actual drug, for example cocaine, is cut with that do the most damage. A reduction in dangerous cutting agents would indeed lead to less harm being caused. Often the problem is that people THINK they know the dangers but they don't as they dont truly know what they are taking. This is not to mention the social damage caused by criminal fraternity who control the supply

Spanners wrote:

cheezburger wrote:
Surely everyone knows the dangers now, be it a legal or illegal high. Im not just referring to this one by the way. The government is never going to make 'drugs' legal as that send the message that its safe to take, even though it isnt. Do people really honestly think relaxing laws would cut down the number of deaths? If anyone thinks that please explain why you think it would reduce harm.

Why? One reason would be often it the chemicals that the actual drug, for example cocaine, is cut with that do the most damage. A reduction in dangerous cutting agents would indeed lead to less harm being caused. Often the problem is that people THINK they know the dangers but they don't as they dont truly know what they are taking. This is not to mention the social damage caused by criminal fraternity who control the supply

But if coke was legal how would that lead to it being cut with less harmful substances? People cut it with stuff to make it go firther, i.e. more to sell. How would that be different if it was legal? People would still try to make as much money as possible.

If you think that legalising it means you could get 100% in Tesco then that is just not going to happen. Dealers would still sell it but try to undercut shops, see? Also they wouldnt have to pay tax on it.The only ever real way to be sure of the purity, and to remove the need for dealers, is to give it away for free. And that clearly would be insane.

The main point is that if you have a coffeeshop system that is rigidly controlled then the kids are less likely to come into contact with the harder stuff, not just that but chances are they won't see the need for it. Ultimately it's not going to cure the problem completely but it's a much more sensible way of dealing with the problem. Bring it all out into the open and let's deal with it. If we can't stop people doing it then let's at least make sure they won't die! I would much rather the council made money from the taxation and it would create an entire industry over-night. The smoking laws would need to be relaxed but the Dutch manage to pull it off. My main point in the original post is that the current system just doesn't work and we need a radical root and branch re-think of the whole thing. The Dutch model seems to work better than most others.

The media are not helping here .. they continue to refer to these items as LEGAL HIGHS and endorse the drug promoters use of those words.

LEGAL KILLERS, LEGAL EPILEPSY CAUSING, LEGAL HEART DAMAGE, LEGAL DEATH are all better and more honest descriptions... how about it Argus?

jumperb wrote:
The main point is that if you have a coffeeshop system that is rigidly controlled then the kids are less likely to come into contact with the harder stuff, not just that but chances are they won't see the need for it. Ultimately it's not going to cure the problem completely but it's a much more sensible way of dealing with the problem. Bring it all out into the open and let's deal with it. If we can't stop people doing it then let's at least make sure they won't die! I would much rather the council made money from the taxation and it would create an entire industry over-night. The smoking laws would need to be relaxed but the Dutch manage to pull it off. My main point in the original post is that the current system just doesn't work and we need a radical root and branch re-think of the whole thing. The Dutch model seems to work better than most others.

The Dutch model involves coffee shops, but they also have a terrible heroin problem. So clearly thats not an ideal situation.

On the subject of making it legal and 'safer' it reminds me of a story the other day. Alcohol is legal, and widely available, and supposedly controlled. But the other day there was a report of fake alcohol being sold to off licenses because it was cheaper than their cash and carries. This fake alcohol could blind. Off licenses are supposedly strictly controlled. So how would this be any different if it was a drugs cafe selling fake drugs because it was cheaper?

cheezburger wrote:

Spanners wrote:

cheezburger wrote: Surely everyone knows the dangers now, be it a legal or illegal high. Im not just referring to this one by the way. The government is never going to make 'drugs' legal as that send the message that its safe to take, even though it isnt. Do people really honestly think relaxing laws would cut down the number of deaths? If anyone thinks that please explain why you think it would reduce harm.

Why? One reason would be often it the chemicals that the actual drug, for example cocaine, is cut with that do the most damage. A reduction in dangerous cutting agents would indeed lead to less harm being caused. Often the problem is that people THINK they know the dangers but they don't as they dont truly know what they are taking. This is not to mention the social damage caused by criminal fraternity who control the supply

But if coke was legal how would that lead to it being cut with less harmful substances? People cut it with stuff to make it go firther, i.e. more to sell. How would that be different if it was legal? People would still try to make as much money as possible.

On the purity issue in general why could it not work like alcohol ? Harveys don't cut their Best with methanol and Jacobs Creek don't cut their wine with petrol. Why ? Because production and sale is controlled. Also, aside from any legality issues, for any brand being seen as high quality gets you market share. Bringing, say weed, out of the black market means it would be subjected to usuakl rules of supply and demand couled with consumer choice. Our dutch friend, I'm sure, could point to certain marjuana production companies that have excellent reputations for quality/quality control and have been very successful in their legal supply of coffeeshops as a result.

cheezburger wrote:

jumperb wrote: The main point is that if you have a coffeeshop system that is rigidly controlled then the kids are less likely to come into contact with the harder stuff, not just that but chances are they won't see the need for it. Ultimately it's not going to cure the problem completely but it's a much more sensible way of dealing with the problem. Bring it all out into the open and let's deal with it. If we can't stop people doing it then let's at least make sure they won't die! I would much rather the council made money from the taxation and it would create an entire industry over-night. The smoking laws would need to be relaxed but the Dutch manage to pull it off. My main point in the original post is that the current system just doesn't work and we need a radical root and branch re-think of the whole thing. The Dutch model seems to work better than most others.

The Dutch model involves coffee shops, but they also have a terrible heroin problem. So clearly thats not an ideal situation. On the subject of making it legal and 'safer' it reminds me of a story the other day. Alcohol is legal, and widely available, and supposedly controlled. But the other day there was a report of fake alcohol being sold to off licenses because it was cheaper than their cash and carries. This fake alcohol could blind. Off licenses are supposedly strictly controlled. So how would this be any different if it was a drugs cafe selling fake drugs because it was cheaper?

Well you are correct here in that no model is perfect including the Dutch one. Even you must accept that the percentage of fake/cut booze to the real thing is extremely low comparative to the drug trade

If its legal in the UK and therefore has to be a certain standard, then it would have to have its production controlled too, which means factories in Colombia, Afghanistan, pakistan etc. So that needs it to be legal world wide. Thats not going to happen.

censored wrote:
Or we could be much more sensible and take the opportunity to legalise everything

no way thats stupid.... you would be sending a message to kids that yeah its ok to take drugs.. and its irelavant the purity,,, you take drugs then your putting your life at risk tuff.. next people will want boots to sell pure organic Coke .. how pathetic ,

cheezburger wrote:
If its legal in the UK and therefore has to be a certain standard, then it would have to have its production controlled too, which means factories in Colombia, Afghanistan, pakistan etc. So that needs it to be legal world wide. Thats not going to happen.

of course it doesn't ! Grow houses for marjuana are found and shut down all the time all over the UK. You are not seriously suggesting a large scale legal industry could not do what an average stoner can manage with a hundreds quids worth of hydroponics, are you ?

Spanners wrote:

cheezburger wrote:
If its legal in the UK and therefore has to be a certain standard, then it would have to have its production controlled too, which means factories in Colombia, Afghanistan, pakistan etc. So that needs it to be legal world wide. Thats not going to happen.

of course it doesn't ! Grow houses for marjuana are found and shut down all the time all over the UK. You are not seriously suggesting a large scale legal industry could not do what an average stoner can manage with a hundreds quids worth of hydroponics, are you ?

You are talking about cannabis, i wasnt.

I believe that the only reason the Government encourage the justice system to "go hard" on drug takers and dealers is because they hate the thought that there is no tax paid by dealers or purchasers. How can this government be trusted when it sacks it's advisors because the advice given did not suit the government.

It appears you are being deliberatley obtuse and attempting use one substance to formulate an argument on drugs policy in general. And my comments on cannabis still apply - you don't think large scale industry could grow coca leaf in the UK if it wanted to (and was allowed to of course) ? With modern growing techniques you can grow anything you want - be it oranges in England, strawberries in febuary or coca leaves. It is just a matter of the right equipment and therefore cost

Spanners wrote:
It appears you are being deliberatley obtuse and attempting use one substance to formulate an argument on drugs policy in general. And my comments on cannabis still apply - you don't think large scale industry could grow coca leaf in the UK if it wanted to (and was allowed to of course) ? With modern growing techniques you can grow anything you want - be it oranges in England, strawberries in febuary or coca leaves. It is just a matter of the right equipment and therefore cost

If you can't logically debate your point without insulting people then you're just wasting your time and anyone who reads it.

I'm not even going to bother going into why so much about the current drug policies we have are a complete joke. I just can't see why nobody with power realises that the laws and attitude they have now is NEVER going to work.

isn't this plant food, the sort of stuff you buy at a garden centre, not a dealer.

stan bailey wrote:
isn't this plant food, the sort of stuff you buy at a garden centre, not a dealer.

No. You won't find it in nans potting shed or in the kit of any gardener. It has no effect on plants. It is just sold as that to get around stupid laws the uk has.

Skippah wrote:

stan bailey wrote:
isn't this plant food, the sort of stuff you buy at a garden centre, not a dealer.

No. You won't find it in nans potting shed or in the kit of any gardener. It has no effect on plants. It is just sold as that to get around stupid laws the uk has.

what next, slug pellets. No wonder allotments have become so fashionable

cheezburger wrote:

Spanners wrote: It appears you are being deliberatley obtuse and attempting use one substance to formulate an argument on drugs policy in general. And my comments on cannabis still apply - you don't think large scale industry could grow coca leaf in the UK if it wanted to (and was allowed to of course) ? With modern growing techniques you can grow anything you want - be it oranges in England, strawberries in febuary or coca leaves. It is just a matter of the right equipment and therefore cost

If you can't logically debate your point without insulting people then you're just wasting your time and anyone who reads it.

Where is the insult ?! Bless you cheezburger, I had no idea you were so sensitive ! Still I have "logically debated" with you and you have not answered my arguements with anything that hangs together - instead you seem to think the whole world need be involved in one countries drugs policy.

Get half the government and civil service of it first, then you'll be getting somewhere!