Should drugs be legalised?

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Now thats one for the Human Rights Act lawyers ^^^^

[clanchief]

The film clip shown on the news a few days ago of army guys sniffing huge amounts of white powder- allegedly cocaine - seemed like a set up to me. There was almost as much white powder on view as when my mother was having a good bannock session! I think it was a drunken lark.

 

The army says that they will immediatly sack those involved.

 

I have just read a short article on the army involvement in Shetland during the second world war. Apparently when the Black Watch arrived in the Autumn of 1940, the weather was so cold and miserable the the CO was frequently requested to authorise a daily rum ration. He got so fed up with the paper work involved that he gave permanent permission for the rum ration to be issued. This went on for 12 months until the 3,000 gallons of Navy Rum, signed for by the quartermaster when they arrived, was used up.

 

Now, I am not sure what would be the more dangerous, a soldier full of full strength Navy Rum or a soldier on cocaine?

[Styles]

I mind hearing that a tactic in the Navy some times by some Captains was to get boozed up a fair bit before attacking the enemy ship to ship, as this ment that the crew men had less fear and were more willing to get right stuck in. Dont know about the cordination though!

[clanchief]

I hear today that the Army have announced that the film clip of squaddies snorting white powder was indeed a set up, but they also announced that an earlier random drugs test in the same barracks resulted in teens of soldiers being booted out.

 

In an interview this morning an officer stated that the army were losing too many good soldiers through the Zero Tolerance policy & they must find a way of being more tolerant, while still ensuring safety & high performance from their staff.

 

While this is a very brave statement from this officer (I suspect he is retired) I don't see that the army will ever be able to square this circle.

[junior]

On a similar note, English football clubs recently made steps towards distinguishing between performance enhancing drugs, and recreational drugs. They didn't want to kick people out for using recreational drugs.

 

It seems that recreational drugs (and therefore breaking the law) are becoming more and more acceptable.

[Tomblands]

Have you got anything to support the statement about the English clubs Junior?

[junior]

I can't find a thing I'm afraid. It was across the news within the last few months. It was probably associated with one or two clubs in particular, and was probably triggered by a particular incident. After a brief look I can find nothing on either.

 

Like most of my "knowledge" it comes from unknown TV at an unknown time

 

The line at the time was that the use of recreational and performance enhancing drugs are two entirely different problems. So while the clubs accepted some responsibility for dealing with (sacking) players caught using performance enhancing drugs, dealing with recreational drug use is an entirely different matter, and should be dealt with by people more qualified, e.g. counselors, rehab facilities. In other words "Its not our problem, we don't want to know".

[Ally]

Presumably these tests ignore any experimental drugs the military have secretly slipped into the troop's diet (morning glory, bromide etc)? Don't tell me it doesn't happen! I've seen Jacob's Ladder! I know everything!

[Fjool]

Like most of my "knowledge" it comes from unknown TV at an unknown time

 

Unfortunately, this is true for many folks.

[Roachmill]

Interesting article on The Register:

 

Research from today's Lancet magazine suggests a better way to categorise drugs based on the harm they do to the user and to society more widely.

 

Drugs in the UK are classified as A, B or C, and punishment, as well as treatment, varies accordingly.

 

The researchers looked at 20 drugs and asked two separate groups of experts to rank them according to harm. Drugs were considered for the physical harm caused - immediate effects, consquences of repeated use, and specific problems caused by injecting drugs.

 

Physical and pyschological dependence were considered as was the harm drugs do to society. Harm to society included the impact of intoxification and related health-care costs. Tobacco fared badly under this metric - 40 per cent of all hospital illness and 60 per cent of drug-related fatalities are down to the demon weed.

 

Two groups of experts rated the drugs. One was made up of consultant psychiatrists registered as specialists in addiction with the Royal Society of Psychiatrists. The second group were more varied experts from fields including chemistry, pharmacology, as well as the police and legal services. Both groups broadly agreed in their assessment of the drugs considered.

 

The final list put heroin at the top, alcohol was in fourth place, ketamine in fifth, and tobacco in sixth. Cocaine was at number two followed by barbiturates. Cannabis kept its mid-rank position at number 11. Bringing up the rear were khat or qat in 20th place and alkyl nitrites (poppers) in 19th.

 

Ecstasy was the third least dangerous drug, according to researchers.

 

Researchers did not make any claim for a new way of classifying drugs, but did note: "The results of this study do not provide justification for the sharp A, B, or C divisions of the current classifications in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.

 

"Interestingly, alcohol and tobacco are both in the top ten, higher-harm group. There is a rapidly accelerating harm value from alcohol upwards. So, if a three-category classification were to be retained, one possible interpretation of our findings is that drugs with harm scores equal to that of alcohol and above might be class A, cannabis and those below might be class C, and drugs in between might be class B."

 

The full article is available at Lancet, but you will need to register.®

 

Another study from the "School of Common Sense" me thinks.

[nautim]

Interesting article on The Register:

 

Research from today's Lancet magazine suggests a better way to categorise drugs based on the harm they do to the user and to society more widely.

 

 

 

The researchers looked at 20 drugs and asked two separate groups of experts to rank them according to harm. Drugs were considered for the physical harm caused - immediate effects, consquences of repeated use, and specific problems caused by injecting drugs.

 

**hugely cut **

 

The full article is available at Lancet, but you will need to register.®

 

Another study from the "School of Common Sense" me thinks.

 

If you have a look at the article here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm

you get the graph showing the comparison between the different substances and a link to the Science Select committee report.

 

I skimmed over some of it and there were some interesting comments on classification of different things by the people who I presume are supposed to provide a professionally balanced viewpoint.

[Styles]

Most people have there heads in the sand about drugs. The war is impossible to win and is a total waste of resources and misguided. Be realistic and honest about things.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

There are few points of general agreement with respect to the control of drugs. But one thing which should no longer be in doubt is that laws do not stop the use of drugs. The earliest record of prohibitionist thought can probably be credited to an Egyptian priest who in 200 BC wrote:'I, thy superior, forbid thee to go to the taverns. Thou art degraded like the beasts.' By the 16th century,a German prince was offering financial rewards to anyone who gave information leading to the conviction of coffee drinkers; and a century later the Czar of Russia executed anyone found in possession of tobacco.

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

[Fjool]

The use of drugs will always need to be controlled to some degree; that much is without doubt. Drink driving, a ban on smoking in bars and not selling to minors are examples of plausible drug-control measures.

 

Unconsidered prohibition of randomly selected substances, however, is ludicrous.

[Claudias]

The use of drugs will always need to be controlled to some degree; that much is without doubt. Drink driving, a ban on smoking in bars and not selling to minors are examples of plausible drug-control measures.

 

Unconsidered prohibition of randomly selected substances, however, is ludicrous.

 

Why?