Should drugs be legalised?

[Njugle]

I'd have to say i did think the same thing when i saw that post. There has been a huge amount of information in this thread already. Worth having a look back paulb.

[Fjool]

give us the reasons backed up with both stats and costings that support your view. your turn to prove what your saying. forget the choice bit lets have facts.

If I thought for even a moment that you were prepared to read any of it, I'd probably entertain this request. Instead I'll just point out that I've already written tens of thousands of words on this subject, complete with references and so forth. If you can be bothered to scroll up a bit, the answers you seek are all through this thread.

 

Again; the issue here is not whether drugs cause harm, it is whether prohibition is a good means by which to reduce this harm.

[paulb]

i will do it will just take a while

[Fjool]

That's good to hear. Many people seem to pick a viewpoint and go to great lengths to avoid reading an opposing view. I am glad that you are not one of them. I look forward to some useful debate and the furthering of this topic.

 

Please be sure also to check out the Drugs in Shetland thread, which has a bunch more information in it. These threads are not as distinct as they should be. I've tended to let them overspill into each other somewhat. My bad.

 

Reading back over some of it just now, I was amused to observe how my own views have adjusted slightly over the course of the discussion. That's what it's all about.

[Medziotojas]

Perhaps doesn't merit a thread of its own (so I'll slot it in here; after all it is a drug), but our neighbours pride and joy is under fire:

 

Skull Splitter threatened with the axe

 

ORKNEY Brewery has mounted a defence of its award winning Skull Splitter ale, which could be withdrawn from sale in the UK following a report claiming its Viking branded bottles have an "aggressive" theme.

 

The threat comes following a report commissioned by drinks marketing watchdog The Portman Group.

 

Skull Splitter, an 8.5% ale created over 20 years ago and sold internationally, was singled out in a report by PIPC because "it's name implies violence and also the impact the strength may have on the drinker".

 

 

Yet Aftershock is okay. Of course the brand name Aftershock doesn't imply any adverse side effects

[Fjool]

^ Or, indeed, how about this:

 

Australian bar offers free drinks to knickerless women

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4777706.ece

 

[DamnSaxon]

Another legal substance causing problems ...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/paracetamol-given-to-babies-is-linked-to-global-rise-in-asthma-935408.html

 

Better ban it, then. Who gets headaches anyway?

[paulb]

Paracetamol use in pregnancy and wheezing in early childhood

S O Shaheen1, R B Newson1, A Sherriff2, A J Henderson2, J E Heron2, P G J Burney1, J Golding2, the Alspac Study Team

1 Department of Public Health Sciences, Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ School of Medicine, King’s College, London, SE1 3QD, UK

2 Unit of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, Institute of Child Health, University of Bristol, BS8 1TQ, UK

 

 

Correspondence to:

Correspondence to:

Dr S Shaheen, Department of Public Health Sciences, Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London SE1 3QD, UK;

seif.shaheen@kcl.ac.uk

 

Background: We recently reported links between frequent paracetamol (acetaminophen) use and wheezing and asthma in adults and children, but data are lacking on possible effects of prenatal exposure on wheezing in early childhood.

 

Methods: In the population based Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) women were asked twice during pregnancy (at 18–20 weeks and 32 weeks) about their usage of paracetamol and aspirin. Six months after birth, and at yearly intervals thereafter, mothers were asked about wheezing and eczema symptoms in their child. The effects of paracetamol and aspirin use in pregnancy on the risk in the offspring of wheezing at 30–42 months (n=9400) and eczema at 18–30 months (n=10 216) and on their risk of different wheezing patterns (defined by presence or absence of wheezing at <6 months and at 30–42 months) were examined.

 

Results: Paracetamol was taken frequently (most days/daily) by only 1% of women. After controlling for potential confounders, frequent paracetamol use in late pregnancy (20–32 weeks), but not in early pregnancy (<18–20 weeks), was associated with an increased risk of wheezing in the offspring at 30–42 months (adjusted odds ratio (OR) compared with no use 2.10 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.41); p=0.003), particularly if wheezing started before 6 months (OR 2.34 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.40); p=0.008). Assuming a causal relation, only about 1% of wheezing at 30–42 months was attributable to this exposure. Frequent paracetamol use in pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of eczema. Frequent aspirin use in pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of wheezing only at <6 months.

 

Conclusions: Frequent use of paracetamol in late pregnancy may increase the risk of wheezing in the offspring, although such an effect could explain only about 1% of the population prevalence of wheezing in early childhood.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Keywords: paracetamol; aspirin; pregnancy; wheezing

sorry about the long quoe its from a subscription site the url would not do the trick.

thats something ive not heard of before.

this accounts for 1% of childhood ashma. maybe worth midwives pointing it out to future mums. im having difficulty locating the report on child use but i will look in a bit. the boy dogs off for the snip i will look after.

[DamnSaxon]

Hurrah! At last!

[Medziotojas]

Interesting, but the last paragraph says it all really.

 

The conclusions are unlikely to be embraced by the government or the Conservative party, both of which are opposed to relaxing restrictions on cannabis use.

 

[DamnSaxon]

^^ This is true, but the fact that our politicians need a kick up the ass only slightly lessens my pleasure at seeing a bit of sense at the international level.

[Medziotojas]

Scotland and Alaska?

 

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/SNP-boost-as-study-claims.4694150.jp

 

PLANS to impose minimum prices on alcohol in Scotland received a boost yesterday after a study found higher taxes led to a reduction in drink-related deaths.

Researchers reviewed the impact of two tax increases on alcohol in Alaska on the number of deaths from alcohol-related diseases including liver disease, oral cancers and alcohol poisoning.

They found that the first tax rise was immediately followed by a 29 per cent reduction in alcohol-related deaths – 23 deaths a year. The second tax rise was followed by a further 11 per cent drop in deaths.

 

How can these figures possibly relate to Scotland? It's hardly comparing like with like.

[Medziotojas]

From Moneyweek, 7th November 2008:

 

the best blogs

 

What the bloggers are saying

 

War on drugs:

the drugs won

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2568686/losing-the-war-on-drugs.thtml

The government claims that drugs seizures rose to record levels in 2006/2007. But, writes Fraser Nelson, that is "extraordinary stastical manipulation". The Home Office boasts a record 186,028 seizures by police and customs, up 15% on 2005. But what about the amounts seized? "Here is where one smells a rat".

 

Kathy Gynell at the Centre for Policy Studies reveals "what the Home Office is really up to". A look at the underlying data shows the quantity of Class A drugs seized "are plummeting", with the lowest heroin and crack haul since 1998. The number of seizures is up only "because more users are having their tiny stash confiscated... the average size of the seizure has more than halved". It's a classic Gordon Brown scam, "choose an indicator for success, then manipulate" it and make it hard to find other data you deem "less important". But a better measure of success is the street price of various drugs (see chart). This is falling, showing how easy it is to buy drugs. "Labour has fought the war on drugs - and the drugs won."

 

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/121/1fullsizewt7.gif

[justlookin]

Hereis a post i found,my appologies for its length but its an interesting read and well written.

 

 

 

As the British government ignores all of the experts and continues with its irrational war against cannabis it begs the question "whats it all really about"?

 

Is it as the government would have us believe? That cannabis is a dangerous drug which is harming literally millions of people around the world?

 

No its not. If that were the case the United States, which is head and shoulders the largest user of cannabis products in the world, and a country where almost 50% of the population admit to experimenting with cannabis, would be in the grip of a mental health epidemic. So are they?

 

No they're not. In fact the news today shows the state of Michigan, which is about to go to the polls to legalise medical marijuana (Michigan will become the 13th state to do so), currently shows a 2 to 1 lead in favour of legalising marijuana for medical use and I think its fair to suggest if the British press were to ask their readers what the general consensus of opinion was concerning cannabis the outcome would be similar.

 

In light of this disparity between what the British government are telling us the voters, and what the actual evidence from around the world would suggest, the British Cannabis Lobby is inviting its members to speak out, over what it sees as a "disinformation campaign" being run by the very seat of legal power in the UK, (The Home Office), to protect its major financial partners in the alcohol and the tobacco industries.

 

And it would seem the government is merely using cannabis as a "smoke screen" to hide the true facts that Great Britain is in the teeth of a mental health epidemic as this story would suggest in respected title "The Telegraph", in which its been pointed out that it is in fact the United Kingdom which is facing an epidemic of Dementia and other mental health issues, not as a result of cannabis use, but because the nation is being force-fed on a diet of alcohol.

 

Image

In this the first of a series of articles written by British cannabis users, Norris Nuvo from South Wales explains how using cannabis allows him to walk in another mans shoes, and also why the British government don't want him to do it.

 

As a regular smoker of many varieties of cannabis for over forty years I feel that I may speak out as a voice of experience and calm amongst the furore of fear about cannabis use spread by misinformation and political manipulation. First I have to talk about the idea that psychotic states and cannabis are linked, it may take me some time to explain all this so please bear with me………….

 

Cannabis is a psychoactive drug in that it changes perception. The varied substances in cannabis can affect the world-perception and interpretation of information in the user. Now think about this, the information on which we make decisions can be altered and therefore when we act upon this information the way that we react will be altered, as would any resulting action.

 

Wow! That’s sounds scary!

 

And maybe it is! However, this is nothing new; alcohol acts in a similar way in making us think and act differently, but the similarity stops there. The psychoactive effect of alcohol makes us loud and uninhibited, it makes us more brutish and self-centred and it makes us more predatory. Cannabis in my experience is almost opposite in its psychoactive effect. The user becomes more introspective, thoughtful and has a desire to share with others. So is this a bad thing?

 

Well a lot of words have been spewed across the media about mental illness and psychosis, but what is meant by this? What is this paranoia? When I say this I mean the paranoia that is supposed to accompany cannabis use, not the long-term illnesses such as schizophrenia or extreme bi-polar states that make up the vast majority of psychiatric patients.

 

Any experienced toker will know of the short-term so called paranoid feelings that sometimes accompany a spliff, [depending on mood, location, peer-group and so on], but is this a mental illness, is it truly paranoia? Of course not, it is a mild and temporary state of mind which will go away pretty soon after the spliff has gone out.

{sidebar id=2}

I do not think that this state should be labelled as a mental illness but rather as a temporary metal state brought about by a level of self-actualisation triggered by cannabis.

 

This awakened state can be frightening to the inexperienced or emotionally heavy users, but is the state of mind sought by the experienced user.

 

Now us human being all do things at some time which we are ashamed of, selfish things, unfair things and things we would not like made public: from simple acts like unfairly blaming a loved one for something they did not do, or secretly guzzling chocolate while supposedly dieting to real heavy stuff like stealing and violence. We all carry these guilt-inducing secrets in some degree and equally guilty thoughts too; who has not revelled in thought of revenge or had secret dark desires.

 

So, on a day to day basis we walk around with this unconscious burden, this knowledge that we are not really the nice stable and confident person we pretend to be: let’s face it, we are all scared and worried about so many things; the pressures and guilt that we carry would drive us insane if examined without the normal cushion of forgetfulness and self rationalisation, a self imposed censor if you like. Cannabis bi-passes this censor and opens doors to a different perception of world and self.

 

Anyone who has ever smoked a joint will recognise that feeling of reflection after the first joint of the day; that moment when you think, “Was I really that rude in the supermarketâ€, or “ there was no need for me to be so argumentative with my partner this morning†or, “I really was a selfish sausage over that issueâ€. That moment of self insight that makes us more connected to others, that little bit of truth maybe, I mean lets face it we all spend our time in a world of lies most of the time, from the little white ones we all tell, to the wonderful illusions of the ad-men, to the dark massive lies and deceit of government and corporations. It is so commonplace that we hardly notice, it is enmeshed into our daily lives; but our subconscious takes it all in.

 

To the inexperienced user this can be terrifying. Self-consciousness and a confused ego can generate a mild level of fear and make inconsequential molehills into towering peaks. The minor fears may fill the mind, and/or a genuine fear maybe magnified beyond belief; in my case it used to be the fear of getting busted and losing my job.

 

You light the spliff and conscience is awakened. Yes, a conscience. Now imagine a society with a conscience!…….. Wow!……. Good isn’t it!…….The weed kicks in and we now filter the day’s events without the veil of lies and begin to see it through the eyes of conscience.

 

Now I know this sounds scary to those who have not imbibed of the plant but believe me it is not that bad at all, you just have to learn to ride it and control it. If you have little to be worried about, little to be ashamed of and an open mind to psychological experience then you will get past these early and often off-putting effects, they are mostly produced by inexperience and using too much weed in a toke; or by uncool events or bad surroundings while using. Most of the bad feelings aroused by cannabis are due to inflexible thought habits and too rigid a hold on the so-called normal world.

 

However I do suggest that if cannabis makes you feel too frightened or you feel that you are ‘losing it on weed’, to quote FRANK, then just stop smoking it. Yes it’s that easy, if weed makes you feel bad then don’t smoke it!

 

Then there is another level to all this isn’t there? Don’t you think? The ones who fear the weed most make most noise about keeping it illegal, and yet most of them have never tried it, or will not admit to it.

 

The conventional, the conservative, the ignorant and the ones who live by a rigid order, in fear of chaos. I think that the people who lead the most rigid of lives, dominated by a lot of rules and guidelines, those to whom order means everything, people for example like the Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Jobsworth Brigade, those people are the most terrified of self examination and the most worried about losing inhibition or control. They fear the weed!

 

These are often the same people who rant in fear about immigration and sovereignty, about ‘out of control youth’ and about the ‘drug epidemic’! . They fear ‘the different, they fear change and do not like confrontation or people acting ‘out of the ordinary’.

 

Conformity is their king-pin, it dominates all that they do in the belief that conformity equals predictability and if everything can be predicted it can be controlled. They have created our world to their controlled patterns by making us all competitive on every level; everything in its place, a natural order of things. But what happens if people become unpredictable? Or, god forbid, begin to care about each other rather than the created imagery and psychologically imposed racial, religious and ideological differences drummed into us by the press and media corporations [who also fear change]! What then? What if we all took a toke and listened to that conscience that is awakened, what if we stopped competing and began cooperating instead? What then?

 

How could they control a society in which the individuals actually cared for each other, how could they manipulate a country full of people with a conscience: how would they fool us if we put the prejudices they feed us to one side and talked to each other with the blinkers removed? They fear the weed!

 

Cannabis changes how you view the world around you, it changes the way you think and if you think differently then you are more likely to act differently and be less likely to conform and therefore be less predictable. The whole political and socio/economic structures of western capitalist societies rely on human predictability to function, if people become unpredictable then how can the ad-men and politicos target them in so many ways. The non-conformist frightens the controlling factors of state and is viewed in a negative way.

 

Forces such as a national curriculum and ‘family values that uphold and enforce social normality are built in to our culture to try and sell the idea of individuality to the population while all along other forces are in place to homogenise the people so that they all think and act in an orderly way according to the script of the ruling body.

 

The city landscape has been moulded to a ‘norm’, which has resulted in most towns in the UK looking the same, same shops, same goods on sale and a population of identical people buying what the ad-men tell them to. They want to do the same to the people, and to their minds too

 

As I became an experienced toker I allowed changes to take place. I let the mental barricades fall and I viewed the world with a different mindset, began to take notice of my conscience. The feelings of paranoia faded away and I began to enjoy introversion and self-evaluation. I lied a little less to myself and therefore became a better and more real person; I began to consider my impact on other people and became less of a loudmouth, I learned to listen to others and became able to ‘walk in another man’s shoes’. SOURCE

 

Written by NorrisNuvo

[Medziotojas]

^Twaddle! It's almost good reason for the 'no campaigners' to say 'no'!

 

Smoking dope will change your political beliefs.

 

If cannabis were improcurable (is that even a word?), I'm sure this person would still hold the same beliefs.