CaFE Forum

[Percy]

We've lost the war on drugs and no amount of zero tolerance policies will ever save the day - as the Americans found out during their Prohibition era.

As in Prohibition America, organised crime has flourished to supply the incredible demand for the drugs of choice and our society is paying a heavy price.

Over the past couple of years, I've started to change my mind about this whole subject.

I used to be a signed-up member of the zero tolerance brigade but I now doubt that that strategy will ever work.

I've now started to wonder whether legalisation of the common drugs (cannabis, ecstasy, perhaps even cocaine) could be beneficial.

Whether we do anything or not, people will continue to take drugs. Legalisation would seriously dent organised crime and remove many of the problems of contaminated supplies.

I'm not naive enough to imagine that drugs are harmless but there again, legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol are also capable of causing great harm yet we seem content to allow people to make up their own minds about whether to indulge in these vices.
_________________
No tolerance for intolerance. No apology for being free.

[Philosopher's Stoned]

I’ve written quite a bit on this, Sir P: here's my take.

Unlike alcohol and tobacco, must commonly used "Recreational" drugs are pyschotropic: i.e. they have an instant and deep effect on brain chemistry.

Even "Harmless" drugs such as Weed and Es, are increasingly worrying researchers since it is clearly apparent long term use causes significant mental problems.

Not the least being Psychosis: which seems to lead to increasing incidence of serious mental illness such as Schitzophrenia.

Look here for example: an excellent in-depth analysis of the effects and side-effects of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine; Es.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA

Perhaps the most worrying, raised respiration, heart rate and blood pressure.

The inherrant dangers of Cocaine, of course, are well documented.

Perhaps James Hunt is an exemplar of reality.

With Cannabis the main problem seems to be stronger cultivars such as Skunk: there are now defined co-relationships between longer-term usage and serious mental illness.

Now morally, my major concern would be the young: easier access to legal drugs would cause more kids potentially, to start from peer pressure alone.

Plus legalisation automatically implies safety: no matter how many Public Health warning notices are emblazoned all over the packaging!

We must accept, I fear, that as each generation has grown up since circa 1950, their parents and control group (Aunts, Uncles, etc) themselves present with little evidence of discretion in consumption and marked self-discipline and self-control: hence for example, the appalling numbers of truly obese blobs, wobbling around in Britain today!

Behavioural changes of alcohol consumption, with the exceptions of the dypsomaniac, the truly alcoholic, or the binge-drinking king kids slight: and kids binge-drinking is a symptom not a causal factor in itself.

Most of us who appreciate alcohol, use it wisely and to marginally improve our social activities: such as drinking decent wine with dinner. However, I’m sure most of us could still enjoy that dinner and the company of friends with no alcohol: same with a pint or two in the pub at weekends.

We do not need the alcohol to enjoy ourselves: rather we amplify such enjoyment with a moderate libation.

Unfortunately, far too many (And rapidly increasing) numbers of younger people cannot conceive a night of “Clubbing” without boosting their mental state with drugs: clubs themselves of course, are wholly synthetic environments, with over-loud sound, flashing lights, regurgitated music and people standing on the spot jigging up and down rather like Maasai warriors!

Dependency is another major concern: drug takers tend to need to increase their dosage and shorten the period between doses to attain the original “high”: and when a less harmful less addictive substance fails to work, then they tend to graduate to something stronger.

The incidence of dependency and addiction has been well documented, unfortunately, with the introduction of the wonder drugs, Benzodiazipines, from the 1960s onwards. (Diazepam; Librium; Lorenzapam; Attivan: Moggodon et al). Indeed, Temazipan (A mild sleeping drug and a Benzo), was withdrawn in capsule liquid form, as too many druggies were injecting the drug!

No matter how many fags you smoke, this doesn’t normally create mood and thus behavioural changes!

Other than choking, of course.

It is rather convenient for “Experts” to employ alcohol and tobacco as yardsticks, since both are legal.

However I believe this much clouds the issue.

Here is an extract from an earlier piece of last year, which I believe is useful as it analyses the probabilities of post-legalisation realities: namely that drugs would be cheaper and criminality would evaporate.

__________________________________


There seems to be a naïve assumption shared by all proponents of decriminalisation of drugs that once decriminalised then the current covert global network of drugs producers and distributors will sort of melt into the forest like morning mist……………..

Such assumptions are similar to Government’s myopic belief that passing legislation to ban legally owned handguns and certain types of rifles post the Dunblane and Hungerford tragedies would solve gun crime.

Now the main singular difference between the drugs of choice and alcohol (invariably used as the primary benchmark) are that alcohol in moderate quantities does not drastically change behaviour: neither is it addictive, per se.

Alcohol is a poison: and it acts as a depressive, contrary to many people’s belief.

Nicotine, taken by way of smoking, is hugely addictive: more addictive in fact than Heroin. However, once again, tobacco consumption doesn’t particularly alter behaviour.

Increasing numbers of Western people suffer Addictive Personality: and this reality is worsened by a sort of frenetic synthetic lifestyle, detached from core human values and benefits and suffering increasing imposed stresses from work, debt, frustration and social aggression of many forms.

Assuming currently proscribed drugs were to be legalised for both supply and possession, then the whole supply chain from growers to retail suppliers would be formalised. Most present drugs growers (i.e. those which cultivate raw feedstock) would find their rudimentary production methodologies outlawed, with the core exception, perhaps of poppies grown for raw opium.

Government departments such as the FDA in the USA and Defra and NICE in the UK would formalise guidelines for production and purity.

All suppliers in the chain would need to be licensed to ensure both purity and product marketing.

Of course, Big Pharma would take over the business of production and supply through extant distributors, licensed wholesalers and similarly licensed retailers.

Naturally, government would add on whopping taxes, similar to tobacco products: Excise Duty plus VAT on total retail cost.

Thus end product would not be cheap.

Perhaps the largest hurdle to overcome is testing and approval: and every company in the supply chain sharing product liability.

And more critically, who is going to underwrite the manufacturer’s and product liability?

The finally successful multi-billion class actions against US tobacco corporations are the benchmark.

Which major suppliers do you honestly believe would market a product range that they very well knew was highly addictive and ruined the health of the consumer? And would allow an open door to a flood of claims in this highly litigious age?

The alternative – believing that if currently proscribed drugs were to be de-criminalized, then all in the supply chain would not cut marginally pure product in order to maximise profits – is simply cloud cuckoo land!

How in any case, would addicts fund their habit? Working? Honest endeavour?

Of course not: they have sunk to the pits of social and personal despair only and purely because of their addiction: as any case worker involved in drugs counselling could tell you. They have become so socially dysfunctional, that work is simply not tenable: thus women sell their bodies and men steal.

In order to support this dysfunction, wherein the only focus of concern is obtaining the next fix, it would matter not whether their chosen poison or poisons are illegal or legal: their behavioural pattern dictates sacrifice to their pre-eminent and compelling need.

Why is it that those wishing to sanitize deviant habit use fuzzy cuddly and warm descriptors in the vain attempt of trying to legitimise aberrant behaviour? An example being the telling phrase, “Recreational Drugs”!

If a person needs drugs, in order to “enjoy” themselves, then clearly, something is sadly amiss with their psyche.

Would major drugs traffickers simply sit and watch their cash cow vanish?

Of course they would react by trying, as do all businesses, to create competitive advantage: and the one major weapon they have is price: since they would be free of all the added layers of cost.

As government increased and increased tobacco taxes, the direct result was an epidemic rise in smuggling.

De-Criminalizing drugs would be no different.

http://www.drinkanddrugs.net/backgroundinformation/briefings/may1605/backgroundbriefing.pdf
_________________
Oh dear! We've swapped BLiar for a Calvanist called Prudence!

[Percy]

Of course, I totally agree with this statement:

[Philosopher's Stoned]

However, Sir P (Ever been out-howevered? Sounds like a bit from General Melchet and Black Adder! "Never underestimate out howevering, Black Adder!"), if the presently illicit drugs trade were to be legalised, then due simply to the layers of added cost, the criminals would still sell their impure shit and undercut legitimate suppliers.

One of the core problems, I fear, is that politicians and Big Biz, have turned a prototypical Nelson's Eye on this scourge as it developed.

Far too many major banks and investment banks (Including Merril, B of A, et al) in the past, have been involved in "Re-Processing" drugs money.

As have far too many offshore Carribbean banks.

The Cartels in Colombia are not simply going to shut up shop, fold up their tents and retire gracefully from the scene: same with Mexico, etc.

And because of the exploitative mannewr in which coke particularly is prepared, they aint about to go legit, either!

The subtle difference between Alcohol and Prohibition and the illicit trade in proscribed drugs, is that drugs saloons/ bars were never legal: with the possible exception of the "Free" area in Amsterdam.

In the USA bars and saloons were legal, prior to the Volman Act.

The only way for Western society to stamp out this scourge, which as far as I am concerned threatens the very fabric and stability of Western society, is to bear down hard on addicts; and even harder on dealers. Even those who deal only to support their habit.

If you haven't read it, then this is a must.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essex-Boys-Terrifying-Expose-British/dp/1840182857

It culminates in the "Unsolved" murder of two leading figures in the Essex Club Drugs scene. What is perhaps the most frightening component, is the simple fact that two of the scrotes were dealing drugs from inside their prison!

I wrote "Unsolved" because it is strongly alleged that the father of Leah Betts (The lass who died from Ecstasy in a Basildon club), just happened to have a father who was a very well connected senior Met CID Serious Crimes Squad copper and he allegedly, pulled in some favours.............

And good luck if he did: he certainly did society a favour simultaneously!

These thugs (Most with criminal records), were running a big "Door Security" firm: and at the same time controlling the supply of illegal substances at a wide raft of clubs.

Western society has to recognise that the "Dash for Cash" pioneered by such as Reagan and Thatcher, left hundreds of thousands outside the vacuum of the slipstream: kids growing up on sink estates left over from the old Northern industrial areas and towns.

Let 'em alone and dish out their benefits and simply hoik up taxes to pay the miserly dole out.

No hope: no prospects: no future: yet juxtapositioned in a society where image, possessions and money are the present sour denominators of virtue and credibility.

Indeed, Paddy Ashdown wrote a book all about this just after he became LibDem leader.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beyond-Westminster-Finding-Hope-Britain/dp/067171340X

I was in correspondence with him shortly after the book was published and he is one of the few who personally answers a decent letter.

Therein, he tabulates his meetings with young drugs "Mules" in such as Manchester: an essential read to obtain perspective on the drugs problems.

Personally, I have absolutely no time for those who extol the virtues and benefits of "Recreational Drugs": their minds have been warped.

They urgently require re-education.

The only alternative is to decide druggies are beyond hope and suffer hugely addictive personality: and dump 'em all on a deserted island from whcih they cannot escape.

And leave them to it................

You see, what really worried me are the stories my son tells me: he is a very good amateur golfer; has been a member of one of the best clubs since he was 14 (Now 40) and capped for the county twice.

He tells me how City dealers earning loads of money often stop in competitions to snort a line or two between holes.............

And how so many City workers now use Cocaine on a daily basis, apart from other shit they ingest.

Legalising drugs won't work: it will simply exacerbate an problem which is growing exponentially even in "polite" as well as deprived society.

And for me, it's the growth in users amongst those who would appear to have everything, that indicates a deep-rooted social ill.
_________________
Oh dear! We've swapped BLiar for a Calvanist called Prudence!

[Percy]

However...

Where should I start?

PS - you said:

[Philosopher's Stoned]

[Percy]

To be fair, the Swiss project that I linked to was more recent (and different from) the 2005 experiments that you refer to above.

Also, the 2008 referendum result shows that the public are in favour of doing SOMETHING about this terrible social problem, as opposed to politicians repeating the 'zero tolerance' mantra then doing nothing, as usual.

Once again, I completely agree with you about the need to take drugs. There must be something wrong. For example, I've never felt the need to take drugs though many of my peer-group were taking them when I was younger.

What I am trying to say here is unless we are prepared to do something different then nothing will ever change and we'll carry on having the same conversation. From time to time, young people like Leah Betts will die while the criminal dealers and their gangs will continue to prosper on the proceeds.

I realised some time ago that it's no good trying to tell young people that cannabis, ecstasy and even cocaine are 'dangerous' because the facts don't really bear that statement out. Crossing the road, for example, is probably statistically more dangerous than taking an ecstasy tablet.
_________________
No tolerance for intolerance. No apology for being free.

[Philosopher's Stoned]

[Philosopher's Stoned]

I'm now about to do a TG, Sir P!

Apols.

Which age group are the main binge drinkers?

The serious ones we see in the media: women puking in the gutter and totally senseless.

Imagine if this group were exposed to legalised drugs.

Absolute, total social chaos!
_________________
Oh dear! We've swapped BLiar for a Calvanist called Prudence!

[Tony]

Not sure what a TG is...?

Personally, I think that the problem has been completely mis-diagnosed.
And I'm going to be completely controversial here.

Ditch the nanny state. Stop worrying about people we don't know, and ultimately when push comes to shove, don't care about. Legalise drugs, bring the industry under the normal sales legislation and customer protection umbrella and allow people to do and take whatever they want.
Who should take responsibility for them? Parents and family, where the responsibility lay when they were produced in the first place.
I am neither going to help nor protect anyone who is going to totally fuck up their own lives by deliberately poisoning themselves and I shouldn't be expected to care about them either... unless they are my children. If the parents are gone then it is up to the rest of the family. If there is none, then maybe that is where support groups come in. Otherwise keep out of it.
Yes, there is peer pressure, but that is also where parents have their responsibility to pick up the pieces, or to prevent them from cracking up in the first place.
Too many people couldn't give a shit about their kids and then wonder why they go off the rails.
Maybe I'm fortunate, but I don't actually know anyone whose children do drugs.
Everyone should have a right to destroy their own lives in whatever way they wish. Once they ignore whatever help and advice is available to them they should be allowed to get on with it.
Hospital treatments should be the bare minimum and with no resuscitation in the event of the body giving out.
I think that might give a few cause to rethink their life strategy. It would also solve a lot of problems.
As the Swiss found to their cost, once you accommodate the problem, instead of dealing with it, then you multiply it. Put health warnings on the packets, make the users fully aware of what their rights are and what the consequences are and then maybe you will see a drop off in drug use... and apply the same rules to alcohol and tobacco.
_________________
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

[Tony]

As for the manufacturers and suppliers, make them responsible for their products' safety. If they kill people then criminally prosecute, but no suing for compensation from the victims... they knew what they were doing so no more bullshit like legal action by numpties against tobacco companies.
_________________
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

[Tony]

[Tony]

And if anyone should be idiotic enough to suggest that it's the government's job to care then they should ask why it is that they employ people in the military to fight in other countries... and doing so knowing that many will be killed in the process.
_________________
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

[Philosopher's Stoned]

Your perspective and position, T, is very much that of the NeoCon Libertarian.

With which I enjoy a modicum of sympathy.

However, two issues herein:

Social Conscience and Collective Morality:

Without falling into the Nanny State trap most Western Governments now suffer, any administration must perforce reflect the collective morality of its society.

And for me, that's two of Britain's currently critical realities: neither society nor Government present with much morality.

A society and government with zero collective morality and social conscience is extremist; like Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany.

Social Impact:

One of the core difficulties with the zero state intervention philosophy of Far Right Liberatarianism, is it ignores impact of the loose cannons.

Pyschotropic drugs alter not only mood, but also impair judgement of what is right and wrong; what is latently dangerous; and most critically in considering this facet, what is acceptable behaviour.

And the more virulent the substance, then the more extreme and anti-social the behavioural reality.

Such as Angel Dust (PCP) causes huge social order problems; so does crack cocaine.

Finally, I believe you under-estimate the problems of Product Liability.

Legally, it would be wholly impossible and unrealistic to ring fence one group of products from all others, and hold the manufacturers, suppliers et al safe from litigious attack.

Now how, for example, would you separate standard pharmacological drugs and common OTC remedies from what were previously proscribed drugs?

If the previously proscribed drugs were now "Legal" then there would be no difference between these and all other common drug remedies!

Now whilst Big Pharma would simply love this (As they could go merrily on their way killing and poisoning millions with no sanction!), it is obviously not practicable.

Perhaps you will suggest defining currently proscribed drugs as some other category: which would really open a can of legal and regulatory worms!

Imagine the legal wrangles about whether or not a drug fell into which class etc.........

No; the core reality with all of this, has been Governments failing abysmally to control crime of all sorts: drugs included. At a time when society has been busy destroying itself and drunk and besoted with individual freedoms, thanks to the insane Liberals.

So, having failed as governments, it is now to be the easy option.

"We cannot control all this as we are wholly incompetent: so we will liberalise it."

Which is rather like government saying "We can no longer control the roads (Which is true) 'cos there are too many cars and not enough coppers."

"So, we will make it a Free For All: and simply just let people get on with it!"

Mad Max meets reality.



Which will lead to total social chaos and anarchy.
_________________
Oh dear! We've swapped BLiar for a Calvanist called Prudence!

[Tony]