Drugs in Shetland

[Evil Inky]

the substances that you suggest are made legal so the sensible drug user can take are toxic and kill. so proposing that they become legal is like suggesting that we allow the sale of arsnic after all it our right to do what we want.

We already allow the sale of toxic chemicals, for example, drain cleaner, bleach and rat poison. Would you ban the sale of these items ?

[Fjool]

the substances that you suggest are made legal so the sensible drug user can take are toxic and kill.

Bleach is toxic and can kill; we do not prohibit the sale of this. How about lighter-fuel, glue and paint-thinner? The inherent toxicity of a substance is not the only basis upon which a substance is 'controlled'. If someone wants to drink bleach, or take heroin, they will do so regardless of the legality of acquiring it.

 

The fact that heroin is presently illegal has not made it hard to obtain. Indeed, it is almost easier for a young person to obtain heroin than it is to obtain a bottle of vodka. Heroin is neither rare nor expensive; by these measures prohibition has failed. People continue to use and become addicted to heroin. So by which measure do you consider the current policies a success?

 

The revisionist approach is not to stop trying to reduce the levels of drug use; quite the contrary. The money and effort we spend on enforcement would be much better spent primarily on education and rehabilitation. Prohibition aims to reduce supply. I believe, however, that we must first reduce demand instead. Prohibition policies are driven from the wrong end.

 

One should not argue for prohibition as if we are presently in a drug-free utopia and seeking to make drugs available for all. Drugs are already easily available. And relatively cheap despite all the enforcement efforts. Instead, we're talking about accepting the fact that drugs exists and, in doing so, looking for pragmatic and workable solutions to reduce the scale of the problem.

 

We both agree that the issue of drug use needs to be addressed. The less drug use, and drug problems, the better for society. Unfortunately, policies of prohibition have failed, are failing and will continue to fail; they are based on fear, rather than an objective look at the evidence.

 

I used to believe in prohibition too.

[paulb]

the diffrence between social adicitive drugs and drain cleaner is you are very unlikely to become addicted to it. but with your aguement we should allow anybody the right to swig it.

 

the easy rule of thumb is would yoiu be happy for your child wife/husband/partner or other close relative to be an addict if you dont then you are denying there right to choose. should we even go further and allow our drug addicted relative to supply the other members of the family.

 

i wonder how many are still keen on there nearest and dearest becoming addicts. should we not protect our children from harm. we would be criminaly stupid to permit those close to them to harm themselves. and if we feel that way we should provide that protection to others.

 

why should we allow them to be harmed then try to fix them up stop it and lock up the pushers for life. no excuse if you are supplying your killing or is that there choice to let the pusher do what they want its fine.

 

why do you think society has laws its not for the fun of it. they are there to protect society

[paulb]

the substances that you suggest are made legal so the sensible drug user can take are toxic and kill. so proposing that they become legal is like suggesting that we allow the sale of arsnic after all it our right to do what we want.

We already allow the sale of toxic chemicals, for example, drain cleaner, bleach and rat poison. Would you ban the sale of these items ?

 

it does if there is a precived risk of abuse. thats why you cant buy glue or lighter fluid under 16.

 

thats why the stopped the sale of good strong pain killers because there was a risk of abuse.

[ArabiaTerra]

the easy rule of thumb is would yoiu be happy for your child wife/husband/partner or other close relative to be an addict if you dont then you are denying there right to choose. should we even go further and allow our drug addicted relative to supply the other members of the family.

I'm getting tired of saying this, so I'm going to shout:

 

EVERY ALCOHOL DRINKER IS NOT AN ALCOHOLIC, EVERY DRUG USER IS NOT AN ADDICT.

 

should we not protect our children from harm.

Which, by any and every measure you can use, prohibition is currently failing to do.

 

why do you think society has laws its not for the fun of it. they are there to protect society

And these laws have completely failed in that purpose. If prohibition worked then there would be less drug use now than there was 30 years ago when it was introduced.

 

Prohibition has failed, completely, totally and utterly. How can you not understand this?

[Evil Inky]

the easy rule of thumb is would yoiu be happy for your child wife/husband/partner or other close relative to be an addict if you dont then you are denying there right to choose.

I wouldn't be happy for my child, wife or husband to be an alcoholic, but I don't want alcohol to be made illegal. So it's not really an easy rule of thumb at all

[Fjool]

the diffrence between social adicitive drugs and drain cleaner is you are very unlikely to become addicted to it.

So addiction is your main reason for a drug's illegality? If so, how does this tie in with nicotine, alcohol, caffeine... all addictive; yet cannabis, ecstasy and LSD are not. How does this make sense? Don't take my word for it; do some research.

 

Part of the problem is that we have an entirely arbitrary approach to classification. Some substances which should be more tightly controlled are promoted by government. Others, which are much less damaging, are prohibited and lied about. There is no logical basis for the current legislation.

 

If our policies were based on fact, then I would support them. However, they are based on misinformation, misunderstandings and mistakes. How can you possibly convince a generation of children that they should avoid heroin, when it is treated under the same system which considers alcohol acceptable, and cannabis to be the devil's tool.

 

There is no credibility.

[Ghostrider]

i wonder how many are still keen on there nearest and dearest becoming addicts. should we not protect our children from harm. we would be criminaly stupid to permit those close to them to harm themselves. and if we feel that way we should provide that protection to others.

 

Of course children need to be protected, and that is the point, the current system or regulating substances which can be harmful to children, and everyone else for that matter, is not working.

 

Some folk will use harmful substances regardless of the consequences, and go to extreme lengths to do so. Is it not better they are left to get on with their own demise in peace, than have the present system of supply of the substance of their choice which inevitably involves numerous others, some of which unfortunately are innocent bystanders and/or children.

 

There comes a time in life though that you have to let your children make their own decisions and do with their own bodies as they please, whether you approve of their choices or not. I've smoked between 20 and 60 a day ever since I was 14, and fully intend to do so until they put me in the ground, which probably will be before I'm 60, but so be it, I never harboured plans for an old age. I doubt it has ever been a source of delight to my mother, but it was and is my choice, and neither she nor heaven or hell or anything else short of death is going to stop me.

 

Users of harmful substances should be strongly discouraged in the case of the weaker substances, and banned in the case of stronger ones, from partaking in front of children. It is the immature and impressionable among the population that deserve and need protection, the rest of us have no use for a "Nanny State" "looking after us" and thinking for us. Given the status quo I cannot see how the situation could be made worse if it was an entirely free for all, but if they must interfere for God's sake put something is place that does effectively protect the vulnerable, which by definition will have to acknowledge that a significant percentage of the adult population, through choice, are going to use such substances, regardless of any consequences, and incorporate how that can be done within the regulations to protect the vulernable.

[paulb]

EVERY ALCOHOL DRINKER IS NOT AN ALCOHOLIC, EVERY DRUG USER IS NOT AN ADDICT.

they have the protential to become one.

i would rather live in a

nanny state

than in a society that allowed you to kill yourself.

i agree that the goverment is two faced by allowing cig sales and booze sales and earning taxes from it.

though they seem to be relizing that its costing the country more than its gaining.

im sure that this will be expanded to alchol one day.

 

it seems that if you are happy with the option of free choice then we must remove all those laws that protect us. were do i buy a machine gun i really want to shoot bunnies but hey if i run a muck then thats life. no more driving on the left pick your side of the road and hope. thats the same option as drug use. you are risking all by choosing this route for society.

i may seem right wing but i have as much right to say that strict inforcement would work. how many would use if not an addict if they faced say 5 years for using. how about the death penalty for supply. works in singerpore

Singapore's drug laws are among the world's harshest. Anyone aged 18 or over convicted of carrying more than 15 grams of heroin faces mandatory execution by hanging.

 

no repeat offending and a use for all the hemp that is siezed a few meters of rope.

 

if caught with drugs placed in a forced rehab program.

freedom was never freedom never since man started living in groups have we lived how we wanted. why do you think that you can now.

[khitajrah]

EVERY ALCOHOL DRINKER IS NOT AN ALCOHOLIC, EVERY DRUG USER IS NOT AN ADDICT.

they have the protential to become one.

 

That's about as logical as saying that every man has the potential to become a rapist, therefore they should be locked up before they hurt anyone.

[paulb]

its done with mental health. so why not buy a drink and do a months probation. why do you think shetland banned the sale of booze between the wars.it hurts society yes lets ban everything

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I would rather live in a nanny state than in a society that allowed you to kill yourself.

 

Your uniform for the brave new world is ready sir

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6660/imageswt3.jpg

[Fjool]

it seems that if you are happy with the option of free choice then we must remove all those laws that protect us.

See... this is the bit you don't get. The prohibition laws don't protect us; they make the problem worse.

[paulb]

I would rather live in a nanny state than in a society that allowed you to kill yourself.

 

Your uniform for the brave new world is ready sir

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6660/imageswt3.jpg

 

so your option i

 

(*** Mod - Hot-linked image of Rachel Whitear removed (please refer to our T&Cs. If folks want to see the image, a google search will provide it. ***)

[paulb]

it seems that if you are happy with the option of free choice then we must remove all those laws that protect us.

See... this is the bit you don't get. The prohibition laws don't protect us; they make the problem worse.

 

thats because it was never inforced propery.