Drugs in Shetland

[Ertieiddabanks]

 

even you little spliff has a 10% chance of causing psychological dependence. oh i forgot to mention my wife informs me it increases your blood pressure and heart rate so tying that in with your Tobacco use it will not be long before she or one of her friends is sticking things in places you dont want to think about.

 

 

.

 

Not sure you've got your facts right there, I think you'll find cannabis is not addictive at all, however some people have addictive personalities and will have problems with everything from smoking dope to watching tv. Also it certainly does not cause high blood pressure and heart rate, if it did it would defeat the purpose of smoking it.

[Fatal Paper Cut]

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.

 

As far as I'm aware, it is still perfectly possible to buy generic painkillers in the form of paracetemol, etc. And I'm fairly sure it's still possible to abuse them by taking the whole bottle if a person so wished.

[paulb]

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.

 

As far as I'm aware, it is still perfectly possible to buy generic painkillers in the form of paracetemol, etc. And I'm fairly sure it's still possible to abuse them by taking the whole bottle if a person so wished.

strong pain killers.

if paracetemol was a new drug it would not have got a licence for sale.

[trout]

I've not read today's deluge of conversation on this thread but as an answer to the above post:

 

^^ if drink was invented today it would be prohibited.

 

The list is too long to detail here as to why purely as I'm in the process of making my tea!

[Ghostrider]

The list is too long to detail here as to why purely as I'm in the process of making my tea!

 

TEA!!.....My god man, its the devil's brew if ever there was one, the old ministers a century and a half ago preached against its sinful and decadent qualities....and actively encouraged the "good" abstainers to denounce and reveal the "bad" partakers....

 

Hold on a minute, something about that sounds awfully familiar....it seems the attitude lives on, only the substance changes with time. Availability, time and familiarity makes everything acceptable eventually....the ultimate democracy in action, too many use whatever it is, despite all consequences, for the opponents to do a damn thing about it, and in time the opponents get used to it.

[Fatal Paper Cut]

Hold on a minute, something about that sounds awfully familiar....it seems the attitude lives on, only the substance changes with time.

 

Yes, its a familiar story and not just limited to substances. Marijuana, opium, tea, rock 'n roll, jazz, video nasties, the internet, comic books, punk rock and video games to name but a few have all been cited as bad influences upon our youth that'll inevitably lead to moral decay and the collapse of society. Even the waltz was once seen as a risqué dance likely to dangerously enflame the passions of young men and lead to the ravishing of half the genteel young women of Europe.

 

It's almost always the same. Someone invents or develops something new. Young people take it up in droves because they identify with it in some way. Someone else, usually our Elders & Betters finds out about it, doesn't like it and proceeds to tell us all we should ban it immediately for all our sakes or possibly risk eternal damnation and/or anarchy in the streets.

 

After all, we can hardly be expected to know any better can we?

[paulb]

have a study of the effects of opium in the 19th century.

tell me did the free trade that we imposed on others reduce the number of users.

did they not become addicted.

why do you feel that we would cope any better than our 19th century ancestors did.

why did we have to ban our nice little earner we owned most of the trade and it earned us a fortune.

what effects on society did it have.

if all the above are positive i will change my view.

most of the drugs that your wanting un banned were at one point or another in the past. they proved dangerous and were banned.

[ArabiaTerra]

why do you feel that we would cope any better than our 19th century ancestors did.

We wouldn't. If opiates were flooded onto the market at rock bottom prices freely available to anyone (Edit: Like now for example) and all other drugs remained illegal then I'm sure it would be a disaster as it was in China in the 19thC. But nobody is suggesting that or anything even remotely close to that.

 

I would suggest legalising Cannabis, Amphetamines and Ecstasy (subject to the same type of controls which alchohol and tobacco are now but with increased penalties for those found supplying them to minors), making cocaine and hallucinogenics (LSD and Magic Mushrooms etc) available only in licensed premises which have medical support staff on hand (as part of the license requirements) and restricting heroin to prescription only for registered addicts. Try that for 20 years or so and see how we get on.

 

Edit: I would also like to see the cocaine made in such a way that it was impossible to make crack from it. Which is something only proper drug companies could do.

[paulb]

time to show us the research that shows your views would be safe. i can supply as much as you want that shows the drugs you want unbanning are dangerous. lets not go back to the medical drugs arguements again. just show me the evidence and i will be happy.

[Fjool]

i can supply as much as you want that shows the drugs you want unbanning are dangerous.

You're missing the point really. Nobody has argued otherwise. All drugs, used improperly, impurely or such and such (insert criteria here), are dangerous. The argument that they are somehow 'safe' does not form the basis of any revisionist approach.

 

What is being argued is that they are less safe under prohibition. This has been demonstrated many times. We're not just talking medically either; but there are social and economic arguments which also apply.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

the drugs you want unbanning are dangerous

 

By making drugs a thing that may only exist outside of the laws of society consequently it is controlled by operations outside of the laws, the only illegal drugs that are under control therefore are those that are seized.

It is harder to limit damage control over something which can only be partaken in outside of the laws.

"Unbanning" would give the contol of drugs to within societys scope to deal with each individual issue, instead of just screaming BAD at it and hoping that the next generation will learn from the beatings handed out to the people of the present who made a choice to take a substance which another group of people said they were not allowed to.

 

people will still die on drugs but before you can practice any damage control, adult individual choice must be acknowledged as a right.

[Ghostrider]

most of the drugs that your wanting un banned were at one point or another in the past. they proved dangerous and were banned.

 

I've yet to meet a reasoned logical argument to "un ban" them, and I don't think anyone who advocates "un banning" them will get all that much support. What is wanted, is a side step away from blanket prohibition to regulated and controlled manufacture, distribution and usage. The model and framework for such already exists, albeit extremely imperfectly, for the manufacture, distribution and usage of alcohol and tobacco. If 10% of the resources and energy that is poured in to the futile and already lost "fight" against "drugs" were to be re-directed in to fine tuning and applying common sense to the alcohol and tobacco legislation so that it worked as intended, there is no reason why it could not be extended with certain modification to encompass all substances.

 

Certain inalienable facts exists, that despite an immense amount of energy and resources having been thrown at it over several decades, the illegal drugs issue has at best not diminished, and at worst has grown significantly. People have become users and eventually addicts without fully knowing what they were getting in to due to a lack of information and mis-information, numerous people have been injured, disabled or have died as a result of using contaminated substances and/or equipment, and/or unusually high strength raw material. What more do you need to be convinced that the present system does not work, and if anything, makes the issue considerably worse?

 

The Government has a duty of care towards the population, a percentage of the population are not going to stop using mind altering substances, regardless of any consequences. Death is no deterrent, this much has already been proven by the status quo over decades, and you don't have amore ultimate deterrent to use. It needs to be established that the percentage of the population who will use, do so in a way that minimises harm and inconvenience to the remainder of the population who don't, and in a way that causes minimum harm to themselves, while at the same time being self-financing.

 

The only way to achieve that is with legislation and licenced manufacturers and distributors, exactly like alcohol and tobacco, and with strictly controlled limitations on who, where and when can indulge in the poison of their choice. It would achieve consistency of quality, supply and price, and the tax levied upon it would pay for its policing. Police, court and prison time and resources would be far more effectively employed rounding up the few who, having been given the means and facilities to use the substance of their choice in a safe controlled manner without bothering those who did not want to be bothered, chose not to do so. Than as at present of rounding up a handful now and again, few if any of them have, or are likely to bother anyone, just because they had a few grams of this or that in their pocket. That achives nothing, it affects no-one except the individual concerned, all your other users and dealers carry on as before.

 

The only way to make the current blanket prohibition work is to guard every inch of the UK coastline, strip and cavity search every individual arriving in the UK, strip down every imported item to its tiniest component parts, open and check every item of mail, etc etc....Then you'd have to have the witch hunt for the locally grown stuff, that would take a thorough search of every building, shelter etc in the country, then you'd have to ban meths, lighter fuel, glue....ad infinitum.

 

In theory its nice to say "ban it", but, as some AHS teacher I've long forgotten, was wont to frequently say 30 or so years ago...."the theory was good, but somehow in practice it didn't seem to want to work out...."

[Fatal Paper Cut]

A few years ago, I watched a documentary about drugs and how society might deal with the issue better. Apparently, in parts of England, there are a few medical practices that are licensed by the Home Office to offer a pure form of heroin to addicts, rather than the usual methadone.

 

The trouble with methadone is that since it's taken orally, its very common to find that an addict will get his regulated dose from their GP or chemist, swallow it and then throw it back up into a plastic back as soon as their off the premises. Which they'll then sell on in order to buy more heroin.

 

That's where the specially licensed GP's come in. The GP administers the heroin by injection. That way, there is no way the addict can sell it on. In addition, since the heroin is clean, rather than cut with all sorts of other substances, it's not actually harming the patients body. The facility is available out of hours and on weekends, so should a patient need a dose outside of working hours, they can get one.

 

The amount of heroin on the premises is kept deliberately low, so its not worth stealing. It is kept very securely, though.

 

Several of the patients that featured in the documentary were able to hold down full time jobs, since their addiction wasn't controlling their lives. One woman was a practising solicitor. None of her family of friends suspected she was a heroin addict.

 

One of the fringe benefits of this scheme was that since the local addicts were receiving a regular treatment, the number of thefts and burglaries were down purely because none of them were stealing to fund their habit through the usual illegal route.

[justlookin]

Shetland has some great gardeners. I would like to see some of them put their green fingers to some good use. There's a niche in the market here and it could be taken advantage of, by our incompetent council.

Growing marijuana would be extremely profitable here. There's a huge demand for a steady safe supply.

If it were possible, I'd love to see a day in Shetland where everyone on the isles who smokes Cannabis, didn't go to work. It'd be much better on a national scale but, start small and all that. I think it would surprise even the smokers.

 

Does anyone know how to put suggestions forward to the council? A more sensible question would be, are there any councilors with a modicum of wit or foresight that would take a brilliant money making venture such as this seriously?

Money making venture is not why i suggest it...more of a service to the community(wot can i say, I'm all about unity). but those who are able to change things are focused on only the money so you need to hit the right nerve with the narrow minds.

 

Check this website out if you haven't already. Some great information and kept up to date.

 

http://www.ukcia.org/

[Fjool]

I'd love to see a day in Shetland where everyone on the isles who smokes Cannabis, didn't go to work.

I don't understand this bit.