Should drugs be legalised?

[sheepshagger]

It is perfectly possible to be safely addicted to heroin for decades, with no ill effects;

 

My point being it may be possible just not very probable

[MJ]

Just found interesting article about cannabis and gum disease in New Zealand

 

They found heavy cannabis smoking was responsible for more than one-third of the new cases of gum disease among the group by the age of 32

For the study heavy cannabis users were defined as those who used the drug for an average of at least 41 occasions a year between the ages of 18 and 32

Research published earlier this year found people who smoked one cannabis joint a day had a higher risk of lung cancer than those who smoked 20 cigarettes a day.

 

A separate study found that bullous disease - a form of emphysema - occurs 20 years earlier in cannabis smokers than in tobacco smokers

 

Not a fan of ecstasy either, or the people who say it's harmless. Only personally known 1 person die from alcohol poisoning, 3 after taking ecstasy (1 first time user, 2 regular), okay alcohol kills more long term, but then it's used by far more people. Even a couple of years of long term use of ecstasy can cause epilepsy and mental health problems.

You can see it happening to an individual as they slide down the ladder of "Mental Health and Wellbeing". But the same could be said of pretty much every recreational drug if used over an extended period.

It's going to sound kookie but the way we used to describe it is the way the spark goes out of a person's eyes.

 

Not a fan of legalising the illegal drugs in UK but I really do think that users shouldn't be criminalised.

 

It's an easy cycle to get into, it's just bloody hard to get out of, not just for "addicts". It's like that whole thing about going into a pub and not drinking alcohol. Giving up smoking and going round to a friend's who does, only a couple of days in.

 

And Frankie I think everyone's personal experiences are different. Fortunately most folk I've spoken to are sick the first time they try smack. I wasn't. Orgasm's are different for everyone too, infact not getting into that one, that's more for you and your partner, learning yoga helps though.

 

Which is a thought why aren't the free yoga classes for those trying to give up substance misuse?

[Fjool]

You are discussing different elements of the debate here though, SS. The original point of mine which you've quoted is dealing with the toxicity of the substance vis a vis its contraband status. Make it illegal and you make it more likely that someone will have problems. If someone is going to use heroin safely, it will only be when pure and handled responsibly. No, it is not very likely, I agree; but part of that is because of the way it is currently handled.

 

I don't have the context for the quote you've provided from the Horizon programme - I still need to watch it - but, for the sake of a level argument, I can only assume that the person in question was also talking about medically pure heroin. If they were talking about street heroin then this is even less of a surprise and ties back directly to what I was saying originally. Of course you cannot take it safely; the law currently makes it as difficult as possible to take it safely. This is the major achievement of our current policy.

 

If the programme you've quoted is talking about diamorphine, and not street heroin (there is no point discussing this otherwise), then we must ask ourselves what we're trying to achieve by first acknowledging that heroin users are likely to have problems, and then by making those problems worse by increasing the danger of heroin.

 

Despite it being addictive and a bad idea to take heroin, the chances of an individual having problems with heroin goes up, not down, due to prohibition.

[Fjool]

Research published earlier this year found people who smoked one cannabis joint a day had a higher risk of lung cancer than those who smoked 20 cigarettes a day.

Just out of interest... were the cannabis smokers smoking cannabis which had been produced to the same standards as tobacco? If not, then the study is quite flawed is it not? Considering that it is not rare to find bits of plastic mixed in with badly produced cannabis resin, then it's no surprise that the toxicity is higher. Combine this with deliberate anti-drug efforts to contaminate crops with various chemicals and you quickly get something much more toxic than it should otherwise be.

 

Also, where was the control to determine the effect of smoking just cannabis, rather than cannabis and tobacco as it is often consumed. I'd be surprised if those cannabis smokers only smoked one joint, and never touched tobacco otherwise. This would be rarer.

 

These studies, as I've read them, are arguments for making cannabis safer, not for criminalising its use.

[MJ]

After fighting with the WHO European Health For All (for a 'report' on booze in Scotland), I've given up and looked into those studies.

Also fae the beeb

The lung cancer study was conducted on 79 patients in New Zealand. The risk of the disease rose 8% for each year of smoking one joint a day, and 7% for each year of smoking a packet of cigarettes a day.

 

Researchers at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand admitted it was a small study, but said nonetheless "it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk".

 

This was also thought to be the issue in a second, smaller study of 10 patients who were treated for chronic respiratory problems at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne.

 

All admitted intense cannabis use for at least a year. They had developed bullous lung disease, a condition where air becomes trapped in the lungs, at an average age of 41, compared to 65 for tobacco smoking patients.

 

Okay after reading that I wouldn't personally describe either of those reliable studies.

 

(As aside Anyone know how to get usable es etch aye tee out of WHO European Health For All? God I miss having council researchers)

[Medziotojas]

Not a fan of legalising the illegal drugs in UK but I really do think that users shouldn't be criminalised.

 

If users aren't criminalised (and I don't think they should be [unless they commit some other crime]), but criminals are still left to deal dodgy drugs willy-nilly, then I can only see a significant increase in problems. Wouldn't it be better to legalise drugs and teach our children to make healthier choices?

 

It seems clear from the graph on the previous page, that were alcohol reclassified today, it would be class A and therefore rendered illegal. Sending out mixed messages to young people will only serve to muddy the issue.

[MJ]

But isn't that the problem with alcohol? Even our own politicians don't know the law when it comes to alcohol age limits in Scotland, just look at darling Ms Jamieson's (former justice minister) comments while acting in that role (should Wendy resign I should imagine she'll stand). Some bits seem to have been cleared up in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 which comes into force in 2009. But even then it's a wee bit contradictory

 

from http://www.infoscotland.com/alcohol/displaypage.jsp?pContentID=70&p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show&

 

People who are 18 years of age or older can buy alcohol in the same way as other adults. However, the licence holder can refuse to allow anyone under 21 on the premises if they wish (they can refuse entrance to anyone they like so long as it's not on the grounds of race, gender or disability).

 

People over the age of 16 can buy beer, wine or cider with a meal as long as it's served with a meal and consumed in an area used solely for eating meals.

 

It is illegal for people under the age of 18 to buy or be sold alcohol in any other circumstances.

 

Children who are 14 or over are allowed on licensed premises but can't buy alcohol or have it bought for them.

 

Children under 14 are not allowed in the bar area of a licensed premises.

 

Children under 14 are allowed in the bar of a licensed premises only where a Children's Certificate is displayed as long as they are accompanied by an adult for the purposes of consuming a meal supplied by the premises and away by 8pm.

 

It's illegal for any child under the age of 5 to be given alcohol.

 

I take it that giving children under 5 alcohol for medical purposes will now be illegal, the same for buying alcohol for children over 14 with a meal, but 16year olds will still be able to buy their own. Haven't yet got into the infant bit so can tell if under sixes are still allowed in bars.

Had fun researching age limits for a Northsound programme once, funny how the police and the lawyers seemed to disagree on some of them.

[MJ]

what I meant is that we send out far too mixed a message about alcohol to our children. Horrified to hear my nine year old declare that she can't wait till she's 14 so she can go to an up helly aa hall and get drunk.

 

Half the time we're telling kids they can't drink, then 'sneaking' it to them at big celebrations eg weddings & new year.

 

How many people insisted on buying you your 'first legal' pint?

 

How many folk were sober on their 18th?

 

Most humans have a natural curiosity, some of us just want to know why there is so must hype about this drug or the other, some of us are even daft enough to try them. If drugs like heroin are made legal what's to stop ejits going OTT on their legal age, like they do now with booze.

 

Used to think cannabis was safe, all the stuff fae peanut pete about only lethal dose etc. But visit any mental health project or hospital and you can see what damage can be done. It doesn't matter your age or your social background, it could have been the first or the thousandth time you used cannabis, it's still a trigger.

 

And maybe as a parent who did some bloody daft things as a teenager I'm a wee tad worried about my daughter.

[Evil Inky]

If drugs like heroin are made legal what's to stop ejits going OTT on their legal age, like they do now with booze.

Heroin is so easy to get hold of that someone who is inclined to experiment with it probably will, regardless of its legal status.

[MJ]

Realy? I'd never have guessed!

[Evil Inky]

Realy? I'd never have guessed!

If making heroin illegal doesn't make it more difficult to obtain, why do we bother ?

[Medziotojas]

^Not to mention that if it were legalised then it wouldn't be full of contaminants. Users would also know exactly how much they were taking therefore reducing the risk of overdose.

 

There's no ideal solution to the problem, but prohibition clearly isn't working.

[MJ]

Unfortunately it's the whole supply and demand thing. If you help cut off the demand then there's less need for supply. Decent accessible treatment programs (and I don't mean methadone), NHS re-hab for those who need it, actual real education in schools - ADDICTS doing the "this is why not" (walking skeletons with ulcers are not pretty), real support for families when asked for are just a few things that could help reduce the demand.

The other big thing is FOLK HAVE TO GRASS. It doesn't sound nice. It isn't nice. They could be your friend, your cousin even your brother.

If you know what smack can do, the smack dealer is doing that to someone's family, it's not just the addict, it's their parents, their siblings, their kids, it is EVIL.

It isn't just 'bad' people who become addicts, or folk from broken homes or the homeless or soothmoothers or any of the pictures you may have in your head, 'normal' people for whatever reason get involved, it wrecks lives and sometimes you wish it would just kill them.

Sorry I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Evil Inky]

If you know what smack can do, the smack dealer is doing that to someone's family, it's not just the addict, it's their parents, their siblings, their kids, it is EVIL.

It's odd, isn't it, how we tend to blame smack dealers for the effects of heroin addiction, but we don't blame people who work in pubs for the effects of alcoholism ?

[Fjool]

If drugs like heroin are made legal what's to stop ejits going OTT on their legal age, like they do now with booze.

What's to stop someone from using heroin under the present system? Certainly not a lack of the substance, nor the price, nor the scare stories; people are still using heroin despite these approaches. We don't presently have any way to ensure that dealers are not selling to children, adulterating with other substances, or abusing the power they have over their addicts.

 

You are absolutely right about the mixed message of alcohol; it is our approach to the drug alcohol which puts the lie to the rest of the drug warnings we attempt to communicate. Until the ABC classifications are removed and each substance treated according to the facts, not tabloid newspaper reports, then we have no chance of a sensible system.

 

Used to think cannabis was safe, all the stuff fae peanut pete about only lethal dose etc. But visit any mental health project or hospital and you can see what damage can be done. It doesn't matter your age or your social background, it could have been the first or the thousandth time you used cannabis, it's still a trigger.

Say some studies, yes. But then there are lots of things which are a 'trigger'. You mentioned peanuts... are these to be banned because, to some people, they are a trigger to a very serious and occasionally fatal immune response?

 

No substance is without risk and yes, cannabis has its risks; smoking anything is bound to be bad for you, never mind the psychological effects of adding chemicals to your brain. However, these are not good reasons for prohibiting cannabis. They are good reasons for educating people against their use, but not for spending billions on unwinnable wars against something people ultimately choose to do. If we want to reduce drug use, we must reduce the desire to use drugs.

 

Fighting the supply is approaching the problem from the wrong end entirely - and it clearly doesn't work. It just selects a collection of super-rich, powerful drug barons from the scum who have no morals and qualms about doing whatever it takes to profit from this 'war' on drugs.

 

I am a parent myself and do not wish my children to come to a sticky end; whether it is caused by drugs, driving too quickly or becoming a BASE jumper. However, I would stress that it is only by honesty and education that children will be served best - banning things, wagging one's finger and saying 'No!' in a stern voice will only work for a little while; past this point they are free people and will cheerfully (or sullenly) ignore any authority, be it parents, teachers or the law.