Drugs in Shetland

[KOYAANISQATSI]

fears that crystal meth could join home-grown cannabis and crack cocaine in the ranks of emerging illegal drugs that bring personal and social problems, including crime and health costs.

 

And just what does home grown Cannabis bring to personal, social, crime and health costs in comparison to the alcohol we hold so dear to our culture.

Suck up all the disinformation you crave, beg the cops for more dogs, now sit back and watch your homeland reap the whirlwind you helped create, as your kids blow their fuses on the cooked crap they found in your kitchen cupboard.

A big pat on the back there for all you pro dogs against druggies and give yourselves a big kick up up the ass while your round there, for being such suckers to the system in the first place.

Sorry I would have tried being nicer about this but I've no had a joint all day and it's not like we didn't tell you fricken so.

[Twerto]

not quite how i would put it.. but in essence you are right ^^

[Pooks]

It is shocking. According to that article, the number of "problem users" on the books of the Shetland Community Drug Team (SCDT), is "considerably higher than the national average". And thats just the users who are on their books.. How many could there be in total?

I think that a perspective has to be set here. Indeed there are more drug users in Shetland than we want but the fact that the Shetland Community Drug Team know about these folk is surely a good thing? It is perhaps higher than the national average because people here are looking for help or the SCDT is more approachable than in many other areas.

And the horrendous drug, crystal meth, which is claimed to be the "world's most addictive substance" has now been found in Scotland for the first time. Where? Shetland.

 

In the circles that I move in I can confirm that Crystal Meth has been in Shetland for many years, as it has been in Scotland for many years and in England, Wales, Ireland, France, Egypt and Timbuktoo. The press seem to be throwing Shetland into the equation to bring it to the public eye...which is no bad thing.

 

With Shetland already having an unenviable reputation for drinking and alcoholism and the problems that those can bring, this is a dark side to our beloved Shetland that we can't be proud of and should rightly be horrified.

 

I agree, but you still need to take things at face value. Just because one person has been caught with a nasty drug doesn't mean that the whole island is taking it.

 

We have the nerve to talk about 'unspoilt Shetland' when we're trying to encourage tourists and new residents. As Megan Chapman's father says in the Timesonline article, he'd moved to Shetland from England for a "better way of life and a near-perfect place in which to bring up children" and finds it difficult to have that view now.

 

Shetland is still unspoiled in many other ways. When you are taking a walk along a beach with nobody else there, no needles lying around, and very few footprints before you, do you think that it is the same as Blackpool?

 

I can understand encouraging tourism but are we really encouraging new residents? This could be contributory to where the problem came from in the first place could it not? With the lack of housing at the moment, we shouldn't be encouraging anybody to move to Shetland.

 

Megan Chapman's father may well have moved to Shetland to look for a better way of life, and I sympathise with him in the loss of his daughter, but it can't be forgotten that this could have happened anywhere. Perhaps sooner than it did here.

 

Shetland has been and hopefully will be a great place to bring kids up in, but not with our reputation going the way it is. I think we need to waken up and look at these problems seriously from all angles.

 

It still is a great place to bring kids up in. The reputation at the moment is mostly down to aggressive press. Shetland is an easy target for journalists when it comes to drink and drugs as 'the mainland folk' think things have gotten so bad that a little island is having trouble keeping things going.

 

Something does need to be done but it has nothing to do with reputation or how spoilt the islands have become. It has to do with educating and punishing the people responsible. The police know about a lot of drug incidents and (to my knowledge) can do very little about them.

 

The hype behind Crystal Meth is being pushed in all directions at the moment, just as heroin, cocaine, alcohol and tippex has been in the past. It is a nasty drug, we should get rid of it, in a few months time the press will have cottoned onto something else.

[Styumpie]

I can understand encouraging tourism but are we really encouraging new residents? This could be contributory to where the problem came from in the first place could it not? With the lack of housing at the moment, we shouldn't be encouraging anybody to move to Shetland.

 

I think newspaper storeys like these are the best thing that can happen to the isles. When people from the mainland ask me what it's like "up there" I always make it sound in terms of drugs, drink and violence, grim, very grim, paint a very bleak picture, like to do my bit to help stem the invasion.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

^^It's a pity those who like to frequent the jail dont do the same, instead of advertising it as some free for all Butlins setup.

[lastpubrunner]

A bit about me :

 

I write as someone with 30 years experience in the Licenced trade. My family owns a large pub with a function room with a fire certificate for 250 people. The pub frequently holds events until 2.a.m.. I am a holder of a personal licence. The pub is our home, as well as a business and I have run it since 1981.

 

When we purchased the pub, my father decided to run it along fairly strict lines - no swearing , no fighting and no recreational drugs. Since the place was run by our family, we decided to make other families welcome. We currently have customers who first came into the pub at less than a month old. I mention this, because I believe that youngsters need to be educated into the use of alcohol at a very early age. NO, I don't mean that THEY should actually drink it; I mean they should be in an environment where alcohol is used in a responsible manner. In our experience, when our younger customers become old enough to drink, they don't feel the need to go out and get drunk - unlike those who enter pubs for the first time at a 17 or 18. For our 'youngsters', alcohol is no big deal; but for many teenagers this is not the case.

 

In otherwords, people should be 'taught' how to use alcohol and how to behave whilst doing so.

 

Any Landlord worth his salt, will 'weigh up' every customer (without even consciously doing so) and assess their current state of sobriety. This is absolutely vital; our pub is 15 mins from the nearest police station and if we have trouble, we have to 'sort it out ourselves'. There hasn't been a fight in our pub for nearly 20 years, because we are always alert to any possible trouble. A Landlord should be on the lookout for potential trouble makers at all times and ready with an appropriate coping strategy.

 

There are two types of drunk; those that want to fight and those who 'love' everyone. The problem with those who 'love' everyone, is that they invariably try to chat up someone else's girlfriend/wife and endup in a punchup anyway. Both types find it difficult to control their 'functions' and if they are sick, it is nearly always on the carpet and not on the part of the floor which is tiled.

 

Quite simply, a Landlord should not serve anyone who is drunk. Indeed, a good Landlord would not even allow a drunk into a pub. Drunks offend the sober customers and at the end of the night, they tend to be hard to get rid of. A Landlord who serves drunks can have his/her licence revoked.

 

In 'my' pub, we 'know' our customers and we get to know those that we don't.

 

Unfortunately, in many (most) pub/clubs/bars, the serving of alcohol is seen as a mere transaction. Those selling have no interest in the 'state' of those purchasing.

 

Many years ago, drink could only be purchased in the 'local'. Most people behaved, 'cos they didn't want to be 'barred'. The 'local' was much more a part of the community. Nowadays, there are far more opportunities to buy drink and most landlords have no qualms about selling it those already inebriated.

 

I feel that alcohol has had 'bad press'. Yes, alcohol IS a drug, but this doesn't mean that it is inherently bad. The key is moderation. As for alcohol being addictive, well just what does 'addictive' mean ? I drink no more than 1 pint a week (YES - HONESTLY !!!). For me, being around alcohol is rather like living in a Sweet Shop and not eating chocolate. Frankly, I'd rather have a cup of tea (caffeine free actually). I think that some people are 'addicts' as a personality type and 'need' to have some sort of addiction.

 

YES, I believe that some people are 'addicts' for alcohol, but certainly not ALL people, or even most people. When comparing alcohol use and heroin use, there is an important aspect that many people overlook. When people mention the drunken yobs that they see on the streets, they fail to recognise that they are in fact only a TINY proportion of all those who will have had alcohol that night. In other words, 90+ % of users are in fact, normal & decent lawabiding citizens. Unfortunately, drunks tend to be noticeable, particularly in a small place such as Lerwick.

 

I firmly believe that when taken in moderation and not too frequently, alcohol does little harm. The problem is, however, irresponsible landlords and shops which will sell the stuff to just about anyone.

 

Heroin is a totally different case. Most studies state that virtually all users find heroin to be addictive. In other words, proportionally, heroin is far more addictive. And don't forget, alcohol is sold in controlled amounts (in terms of measures) and in a (should be!) controlled environment and will have undergone strict testing procedures. This is quite unlike the sale of 'hard' drugs where users could make purchases of substances which are of uncertain quality and concentration and may well be adulterated. In other words, buying a nip of Famous Grouse, or a pint of Guinness is a far safer proposition than buying heroin.

 

The use of heroin is more of an 'underground' matter; users tending to taking it in their own homes and frequently in isolation. Alcohol useage is usually on a more social basis and thus becomes more 'visible'.

 

I read recently, that studies have shown that those using cannabis may have a lower risk of getting cancer than those using tobacco, but it is still a far higher risk than it is for those who don't smoke.

 

I only drink in moderation and IF I continue to do so, I believe that it will not affect my physical or mental wellbeing.

 

In a place such as Shetland, it SHOULD be a straight-forward matter for the police to control both drink & drug abuse. There are only a limited number of places to buy alcohol and surely it can't be so difficult to find the drug pushers ?

 

I was talking to my brother who is a policeman in Manchester. He knew a girl with two young kids who is a drug user. She went to live in Shetland last year. She knew that she'd get a place to live and decided that being a 'down and out' drug user in Shetland was a better proposition than being the same in Manchester. The drugs would be the same, but the scenery was nicer.

 

[mod]Deleted double post[/mod]

[Fjool]

Excellent post, lastpubrunner. For the majority I totally agree with what you are saying about moderation, addiction, responsibility and so forth. However, I would add a couple of things:

 

When people mention the drunken yobs that they see on the streets, they fail to recognise that they are in fact only a TINY proportion of all those who will have had alcohol that night.

Could the same not be said for users of other drugs too though? There are certainly many who use various illegal chemicals and never cause a problem.

 

Heroin is a totally different case. Most studies state that virtually all users find heroin to be addictive. In other words, proportionally, heroin is far more addictive.

Smoking tobacco is reportedly more addictive than heroin, but other factors mean that, overall smoking causes less problems for the addict and those around them. Despite being tremendously addictive, most people do not smoke. Likelihood of addiction is only part of the story.

 

There are other factors which must be considered in such comparisons. Withdrawal from alcohol addiction is considerably more serious than from heroin, for example. Violence and rowdy behaviour are also more likely with alcohol use, but not heroin (issues caused by illegality aside). And so on... looking at one particular aspect is only ever going to tell part of the story.

 

It is only because society has come to understand and integrate alcohol use that the concept of a 'pub' can exist. The truth is that we have scant evidence about what would happen if society turned its back on alcohol as it has done for heroin, but the results weren't good the last time.

 

It is true that being taught about responsible use of alcohol is important, but it is only because we have a licensed system that this is possible. Black-market alcohol would have no such social mores, nor quality control, nor support for those who do have problems.

 

alcohol is sold in controlled amounts (in terms of measures) and in a (should be!) controlled environment and will have undergone strict testing procedures. This is quite unlike the sale of 'hard' drugs where users could make purchases of substances which are of uncertain quality and concentration and may well be adulterated. In other words, buying a nip of Famous Grouse, or a pint of Guinness is a far safer proposition than buying heroin.

You compare apples and oranges here. Yes, legally produced alcohol is safer; it is measured and regulated. I totally agree that it should be. However using this as an argument against heroin is slightly flawed because one is made safer, the other less safe: the dangers of heroin, as you state, are exaggerated because of its illegality, so we simply cannot compare these situations accurately.

 

Look at Switzerland where alternative approaches have been considered: heroin use, and the problems caused, has fallen dramatically. The substance is cleaner, safer, more affordable for the addict, and so on. The social emphasis of heroin as a 'looser drug' has had far more effect than direct prohibition. Social perceptions have demonstrably more effect than legislation.

 

In the situation where a reliable supply of chemically pure diamorphine is used, a person can function as an addict just as a smoker does (not suggesting that they all will, however, just that it is possible). It is not the case that heroin will automatically cause problems for a person. Nor is the chemical alone entirely responsible for the trouble; there are a whole raft of reasons why heroin takes its toll on a user, and society.

 

Not that I am suggesting that people start using heroin, but rather that they reduce their use of alcohol instead. We worry about 'sending the wrong message' by decriminalising cannabis for example but, instead, we send the message that alcohol is totally safe.

 

In a place such as Shetland, it SHOULD be a straight-forward matter for the police to control both drink & drug abuse. There are only a limited number of places to buy alcohol and surely it can't be so difficult to find the drug pushers ?

You bust one, and another crops up to fill the vacuum. The profits involved will always outweigh the risks in some people's eyes. Until the emphasis is on reducing demand, prohibitive measures will always be foiled by those who value a quick buck, over their own safety, or the safety of others.

[Fifi]

I think that a perspective has to be set here. Indeed there are more drug users in Shetland than we want but the fact that the Shetland Community Drug Team know about these folk is surely a good thing? It is perhaps higher than the national average because people here are looking for help or the SCDT is more approachable than in many other areas.

That could be possible. But I would guess that, while there are drug users here who have actually taken the step to seek help, there would be those who haven't.

In the circles that I move in I can confirm that Crystal Meth has been in Shetland for many years, as it has been in Scotland for many years and in England, Wales, Ireland, France, Egypt and Timbuktoo. The press seem to be throwing Shetland into the equation to bring it to the public eye...which is no bad thing.

All it's saying is that the police here have found it. They're not denying it's been around.

...you still need to take things at face value. Just because one person has been caught with a nasty drug doesn't mean that the whole island is taking it.

Who suggested the whole island was taking it? I agree you can't take the press as gospel, you need a healthy dose of scepticism. Apologies if I came across as 'outraged of Surbiton'. Just a concerned parent and concerned for the young folk here, in a place I care about, when they've got their whole lives ahead of them.

Shetland is still unspoiled in many other ways. When you are taking a walk along a beach with nobody else there, no needles lying around, and very few footprints before you, do you think that it is the same as Blackpool?

I've lived here long enough, Pooks, to know that Shetland is unspoilt in many ways. However, you have to be realistic. Like any place, Shetland has its good points and bad points. Thankfully, many good points!

I can understand encouraging tourism but are we really encouraging new residents? This could be contributory to where the problem came from in the first place could it not? With the lack of housing at the moment, we shouldn't be encouraging anybody to move to Shetland.?

It may have passed you by, but for various social and economic reasons, some of the more rural areas of Shetland are suffering from depopulation and a need for regeneration. I agree housing is a major issue and something that would need to be looked at carefully. In terms of blaming incomers for Shetland's drug problem - well that just beggars belief.

Megan Chapman's father may well have moved to Shetland to look for a better way of life, and I sympathise with him in the loss of his daughter, but it can't be forgotten that this could have happened anywhere. Perhaps sooner than it did here.

I agree. Perhaps he naively thought that by bringing his family here for the quieter life, low-crime rate, etc, that he could escape the vices which are everywhere, rural idylls included.

It still is a great place to bring kids up in. The reputation at the moment is mostly down to aggressive press. Shetland is an easy target for journalists when it comes to drink and drugs as 'the mainland folk' think things have gotten so bad that a little island is having trouble keeping things going.

I agree you can't just go by the spin the media put on things. But there is a concerning drug problem here. As there is a hard-drinking culture. And an unenviable suicide rate. According to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/hsq0806.pdf, Scotland tends to have much higher rates and in the periods that they refer to, the highest local area suicide rates for men were in Shetland. I'm not trying to make it sound as though it's all bad by any means - there are huge plus points for Shetland as well. But you can't paint a totally saccharine picture either.

Something does need to be done but it has nothing to do with reputation or how spoilt the islands have become. It has to do with educating and punishing the people responsible. The police know about a lot of drug incidents and (to my knowledge) can do very little about them.

Why not? I've no idea what the answers are but I agree with you about education.

The hype behind Crystal Meth is being pushed in all directions at the moment, just as heroin, cocaine, alcohol and tippex has been in the past. It is a nasty drug, we should get rid of it, in a few months time the press will have cottoned onto something else.

I have no idea, but I was under the impression the concern about crystal meth was on various counts, including how addictive it was and the very nasty physical and mental effects.

[Ghostrider]

I can understand encouraging tourism but are we really encouraging new residents? This could be contributory to where the problem came from in the first place could it not? With the lack of housing at the moment, we shouldn't be encouraging anybody to move to Shetland.?

It may have passed you by, but for various social and economic reasons, some of the more rural areas of Shetland are suffering from depopulation and a need for regeneration. I agree housing is a major issue and something that would need to be looked at carefully. In terms of blaming incomers for Shetland's drug problem - well that just beggars belief.

 

It has to be said, broadly speaking, that there are two very distinctly different groupings of "incomers" to Shetland. One are the welcome sort, those who are responsible, self sufficient individuals who's lives, and Shetland in general benefit from their contribution. The other sort are the "free lunch" type, they come here because they perceive they can better sponge of the state here than elsewhere, or they come here for their own safety, believing they are unlikely to be followed, or they see this as an "easier" marketplace or an "easier" enviornment to pursue particular habits than elsewhere.

 

Within the latter grouping there is a higher proportion than elsewhere of "problem" characters, and that "problem" for some of them is that they are drug users and/or dealers in one defition of the word(s) or another. Since the mid-70's at the very least the belief in certain circles on the mainland that Shetland is Freebie Heaven, a soft touch and an easy ride has existed, and there's been a small but steady stream off the boat and through the court ever since. I'd like to say quosh the myth on the mainland, and the problem will diminish, but maybe it's no myth, maybe our Housing, Social and Criminal Service provisions are a doddle compared to the mainland, having never seen the mainland ones in action, I wouldn't know.

 

I don't think anyone is saying incomers are blame for Shetland's so called "drug problem", but the facts on the ground are rather indisputable that a small number of incomers, who came just becasue they felt like it, and because they could, are responsible for a measurable increase in the "problem".

 

Personally I don't think it matters all that much who does or doesn't come here, or what they do, or how much bent out of shape the public in general get over it. Education may "save" a very small number of naive or "sheltered" teens, but beyond that drugs are here to stay for a very long time, if not permanently. Anything mood altering or mind-bending will always hold a fascination to some, and the profits possible will always make greedy people willing to supply it. A small number of people will become addicts, a small number will totally destroy their lives with it, a small number will die, that's a tragedy, but get used to it, it's going to happen and there's not much anyone can do to stop it, or ensure anyone else, especially their own kids isn't one of those "statistics". Remember when you were a teen, or immediately pre-teen, wasn't your mind already made up on many things, did you heed your parents' advice often? at all?? Weren't parents to be ignored if at all possible, and told what they wanted dto hear when they wouldn't be ignored? Then you went off and did your own thing anyway?

 

It was the norm 30 years ago for a teen, I doubt it's any "better" these days.

[Pooks]

In no way was I blaming incomers in their entirety for Shetland's drug problem, I was simply suggesting that some incomers certainly haven't helped the situation (Ghostrider had a far better way of putting it).

 

Depopulation in rural areas isn't going to be helped by importing a lot of people if the jobs aren't there to help the regeneration. If you can persuade somebody that already has a booming business to shift to Shetland where it is liable to cost more to run then I bow down to you! There are some people who come to Shetland with the intention to start new business and provide jobs for local people but very few seem to succeed. The population of Shetland was slowly diminishing until the oil boom in the 70's, it suddenly shot up and it is now slowly starting to taper off again. When you consider that the oil and fishing industries are slowing down this comes as no surprise.

 

The suicide rate in Shetland is particularly high but I don't think it has a particular impact from drug users. Most drug using deaths seem to be just that - overdoses. Alcohol (also a drug...I know...) probably does contribute but most suicides seem to happen in the 'dark' months. Considering we barely see sunlight here in the winter months (depending on their job, some people don't see any) it is more likely to be people who are suffering from some sort of SAD.

 

I agree that there is a drug problem and it needs to be dealt with better but that can be done without scare stories from the media. Making Shetland out to be the drug capital of the UK will only draw more drug users/dealers to Shetland rather than lowering the amount we already have.

[Fifi]

Good post, Ghostrider. I agree with a lot of what you say. Regards the inevitablity of addiction and how we as parents/society are powerless to stop it, I can understand what you're saying, but it just sounds so bleak and sad. Does society just give up on trying to prevent young folk from becoming addicts? There were some interesting points made earlier regarding what makes someone an addict. Some people do seem to have an addictive personality. Hereditary factors? Social and economic factors?

 

Regarding heeding parents' advice or not as a teenager, I unfortunately lost my father at the age of 15. He was an addict although he never took the first step to recovery, which would be to admit it. He was addicted to alcohol and died as a result of a fire in his own bakery and alcohol very possibly may have been a factor in that. My brother is also an alcoholic as well as other addictive tendencies and this has caused devastation in the knock-on effects on himself and our family. At rock-bottom, he had to admit he couldn't go on and sought help. He is in recovery but it is very much one day at a time and he has had lapses and repeated cycles of devastation. My fear would be that this could be passed on to my family. If it is something in the genes and it does turn out to be an inevitability, it's a grim one.

[Fjool]

Does society just give up on trying to prevent young folk from becoming addicts?

Not at all. However it is important to realise that addiction is only part of the picture. Some people are gambling addicts, others are addicted to sex. It is not necessarily the case that a particular substance or situation is to blame. By placing all our worries onto particular chemicals, as we currently do, we're missing the full story. Heroin, crystal-meth, etc; they exist and will continue to exist. Even if you could uninvent them, people would switch to glue or auto-erotic asphyxiation to get their kicks.

 

Reducing the number of users can only be one part of the process. Reducing the harm caused to those who insist on using is also tremendously important. Driving the issue underground and discouraging those who develop a problem from seeking help will only compound the problem. Making these substances more dangerous (and then fretting about how dangerous they are) is counter-productive.

 

The wider aim should be to reduce the harm caused and, as we currently handle things (placing all our fears in a chemical and then turning our backs on it), we make things worse.

[Fifi]

^^ I was meaning addiction in its wider sense, not just drugs. As for multiple addictions and addictive personalities, I have experience of that having one in the family as I said.

[DamnSaxon]

It's good to see our moderators keeping cool heads on this topic and being, so, er, moderate.

 

... it is important to realise that addiction is only part of the picture.

This is very true. In fact, drug use, even unto addiction, may be no problem at all: far more significant is the individual. I know a respectable professional who still takes an LSD trip once a year with an old university friend, as well as smoking pot ad lib. No problem. Or an addict couple I know - work, own house, pay tax, no problem. And I've met (though not associated much with) people who were loud and aggressive on nothing but fresh air - problem, and a few who were more woolly and spaced out naturally than I ever got on pot - though mostly they were no problem at all, you did wonder sometimes how they managed to keep their lives together.

 

It isn't only Shetland papers who play up drug stories - check out the local Nottingham rag on http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk and you'll see all the same stuff, over and over - plus some sickening violence, which seems to be becoming endemic in cities around the country (I need only say 'Rhys Jones'). That many of these violent thugs are 'on drugs' isn't the problem - remember my friends above - the problem is that they're violent thugs.

 

Reducing the number of users can only be one part of the process. Reducing the harm caused to those who insist on using is also tremendously important. Driving the issue underground and discouraging those who develop a problem from seeking help will only compound the problem. Making these substances more dangerous (and then fretting about how dangerous they are) is counter-productive. The wider aim should be to reduce the harm caused and, as we currently handle things (placing all our fears in a chemical and then turning our backs on it), we make things worse.

A prohibitionist approach like the UK's is unbelievably stupid. Young people want to experiment with 'getting out of it' - okay, give 'em heavy duty problems like imprisonment and criminal records, drive them into the company of really unpleasant criminals who can make more profit out of selling them more dangerous drugs cut with God knows what which will really damage them, that'll teach 'em a lesson. Result, when the UK started getting aggressively prohibitionist in the early 70s, there were about 3000 heroin addicts in the country, now after 35 years or so of this stupid approach there are about 300,000. Spectacular results, truly spectacular. What was it you were trying to do?

 

Compare with Amsterdam - okay, it all sounds terribly hippy and liberal to let people buy pot in cafes, but there the average age of users of all drugs is going up (presumably as the hippies age) and there's no real problem any more. Okay, it's technically still illegal for the hash cafes to buy stock in, but the police know what's going on and turn a discreet other cheek because there's no problem. The main problems they do have there are the stupid Brits going over, bingeing on everything in sight and ending up rolling in their vomit in the gutter - pretty much their normal behaviour, really.

 

I do like the sound of lastpubrunner's place, and that's one fine attitude. (My Dad was a licensed victualler too). To keep alcohol, or any other drug, use under control, you need to educate people who are probably going to use it anyhow in keeping their use - and, even more important, themselves - under control. You'll never do that by driving the whole thing underground and handing the whole profitable business over to criminals.

 

Wake up, Britain, for God's sake. I don't give a Saxon damn whether the defective little thug who blew Rhys's young life away was 'on drugs' (what a weasel phrase that is) or not. I do care, very much, that we're seeing so many kids growing up with such appalling contempt for human life that they could even contemplate doing such a thing, no matter what state they're in. Legalise the drugs so we can all control our usage, and maybe the police will have a bit more manpower to sort out the thugs who are the real problem. And like a certain well-known Glaswegian baggage handler, I'm sure a lot of us old tokers would be very happy to give them a hand anytime.

 

If we're not too stoned, of course, (man)

[Styumpie]

Great post Saxon I fully agree with you.