Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pennine Ten Foot Drifts

The War On Drugs - is it 'working', and why is it a 'war' anyway ?

Drugs - is the current approach the best approach ?  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the war on drugs working ?

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      47
  2. 2. Should all drugs be legalised and availability and quality managed by the government

    • Yes
      31
    • No
      17


Recommended Posts

That's actually what I quite liked about it. The fact that they all happily admitted they had tried it when young as part of discussions and didn't worry about saying that. It should be scandalous news and it wasn't.

 

Apart from Labour's Jim Murphy of course who, ahem, 'couldn't remember'. Classic Jim / Labour; when put on the spot not sure whether he should have tried it or not in terms of gaining perceived political advantage. 'Erm, I don't remember if I've tried it. Let me ask my spin doctors whether I tried it or not, then I'll get back to you'.

 

Labour probably have the most dangerous stance on the issue of drugs of all the parties as well. Let's not forget the David Nutt fiasco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yougov poll on marijuana.

 

Do you think the use of marijuana should be legalized?

32% Yes, it should

49% No, it shouldn't

18% DK

 

Would you support or oppose the UK government making recreational marijuana use legal nationally, but taxing marijuana sales and limiting the sale of marijuana only to people 21 years old or older?

40% support

46% oppose

 

Lib Dem voters only ones which support in majority (ex DK) in both cases.

 

The party of 'People taking personal responsibility for themselves' is the most opposed to people taking personal responsibility for themselves when it comes to using marijuana or not / most nanny state.

 

Tory voters:

23% Y

64% N

-

30% S

59% O

 

UKIP voters actually the most liberal after the liberals (only big 4 cross-tabbed), although No/opposed in both cases.

 

London and Scotland the most liberal. London narrowly supportive in both cases. Scotland narrowly against.

 

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/tqjafeezuf/Results_150310_Marijuana_W.pdf

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt we'll ever see full legalisation to be honest, even decriminalisation is a big ask. Although I hope it can at least be made available on medical prescription for those who need it.

Edited by Nick L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt we'll ever see full legalisation to be honest, even decriminalisation is a big ask. Although I hope it can at least be made available on medical prescription for those who need it.

 

Mainly Tory voters against.

 

Odd, as going back, I found a poll which suggests Tory voters drink the most by a measurable margin.

 

EDIT

 

London and Scotland the least into drinking by a measurable margin while at the same time the most liberal about pot.

 

 

post-9421-0-75772400-1426792870_thumb.pn

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly Tory voters against.

 

Odd, as going back, I found a poll which suggests Tory voters drink the most by a measurable margin.

 

EDIT

 

London and Scotland the least into drinking by a measurable margin while at the same time the most liberal about pot.

 

No offence, but that did surprise me a little! Old stereotypes die hard I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence, but that did surprise me a little! Old stereotypes die hard I guess.

 

It's both true and not true.

 

Scotland has one area - an area that used to build ships (and do coal mining) - that has a problem. The rest of it is as healthy as anywhere else.

 

It's called 'skewing the average'. Similar to the way the UK average wage looks good because of skew by a small but very wealthy group.

 

But yes, a useful stereotype for some.

 

http://archive.today/zSz77

 

Demise of shipyards blamed for nation's ill health
 
Chief Medical Officer Sir Harry Burns said the loss of so many jobs along the River Clyde and elsewhere left a void in the lives of former shipworkers which has since been replaced by ill health...
 
..Sir Harry told the Society for Acute Medicine conference at the SECC: "Scotland is not an inherently unhealthy place, nor are Scots inherently unhealthy."

 

 

 

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's both true and not true.

 

Scotland has one area - an area that used to build ships (and do coal mining) - that has a problem. The rest of it is as healthy as anywhere else.

 

It's called 'skewing the average'. Similar to the way the UK average wage looks good because of skew by a small but very wealthy group.

 

But yes, a useful stereotype for some.

Drinking is a lifestyle choice though. Ultimately, up to the individual concerned if they chose to partake in different activities which lead to poor health.

Correlation rather than causation. Losing their jobs didn't make them more unhealthy and (more significantly) we are now a generation after all the closures. Fair enough, those men/women concerned were up a creek without a paddle but their sons and daughters have not been so disadvantaged.

I'm also surprised that Scotland isn't higher...

Surprised also that the more you drink, the less likely you are to be in favour of legalisation of cannabis. Perhaps, indicative of the hypocrisy that is displayed whenever (most) drinkers/smokers talk about drugs and are very against.

I'm not in favour of full legalisation (of all drugs) as I've said before but to smoke and drink heavily and then have a go at all weed/ecstasy/coke users and paint them - and the substances they use - with the brush is rather annoying. Just because the drugs they use happen to be legal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drinking is a lifestyle choice though. Ultimately, up to the individual concerned if they chose to partake in different activities which lead to poor health.

Correlation rather than causation. Losing their jobs didn't make them more unhealthy and (more significantly) we are now a generation after all the closures. Fair enough, those men/women concerned were up a creek without a paddle but their sons and daughters have not been so disadvantaged.

I'm also surprised that Scotland isn't higher...

Surprised also that the more you drink, the less likely you are to be in favour of legalisation of cannabis. Perhaps, indicative of the hypocrisy that is displayed whenever (most) drinkers/smokers talk about drugs and are very against.

I'm not in favour of full legalisation (of all drugs) as I've said before but to smoke and drink heavily and then have a go at all weed/ecstasy/coke users and paint them - and the substances they use - with the brush is rather annoying. Just because the drugs they use happen to be legal...

 

Exactly. I wonder how many MPs who peddle the "drugs is bad" line then scuttle off to the commons bar for skinful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation rather than causation. Losing their jobs didn't make them more unhealthy and (more significantly) we are now a generation after all the closures. 

 

You'll need to take up the matter with Scotland's chief medical officer and team rather than me!

 

Children born into poverty in deprived areas are more disadvantaged than others. Such big problems don't correct themselves naturally with the passage of time, but can affect subsequent generations.

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of rising use of LSD and Ecstacy amongst the young and Cannabis use at a 5 year high, we have heard Durham police publicly state that growers of cannabis for personal use will not be a 'priority'.

This petition too:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/25/cannabis-legalisation-petition-government-website

I wouldn't overstate the significance of this petition. You could get 200k people to support most things but the door keeps being knocked.

Not making growing and having 'personal' amounts of cannabis a 'priority' (translates to - turn blind eye?) is of far greater significance IMO.

This regional autonomy could be the way we legalise this drug and look at our drug policy on others.

Perhaps, following the US's lead ie individual states legalise and the results analysed.

Of course, we are miles away from legalisation but maybe a smidgen closer to decriminalisation. Idk.

Anyway, thought this was topical and wondered if people made anything of these changes by the police?

Was a topic of much conversation amongst people my age, less so for 'adults' for want of a better word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like they are finally being realistic. What's the point of wasting valuable police time on paper work and processing for cases that might never reach the courts. If they do, it will be a slap on the wrist at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the 'war on drugs' will only be won once it gets some positive results; thus, so far, it has been all but useless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government should flood the market with scagg ,to get rid of the lowlife druggie scum that plague a town near me :0..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very surprised that we stand so far behind the U.S. ( the folk who drove us into prohibition in the first place??) with all of this? With the DEA reigned in proper medical studies are now able to run without govt. fetters on supply. The positive impacts of treatments from cannabis products can surely not be ignored esp. when compared to the cost implications/side effects of many of the current the NHS prescription drugs ? I mean the Cancer management of Cannabis ( from tumor elimination from cannabis oil to appetite inducer to pain management to mood enhancer to sleep inducing etc) must be far cheaper than the current suite of chemo drugs and the plethora of supporting meds? Surely if we have double blind studies showing near miraculous impacts we should not be turning our backs on such research?

 

Currently we are awaiting amendments to federal law taking cannabis from schedule 1 ( no medical benefits) down to schedule 2 ( due to the increasing weight of medical research showing  wide ranging medical applications). Once this is through the senate/house of reps then wide scale 'recreational use' legislation will follow.

 

With the lessons from Portugal surely our Govt. is already taking a softly,softly approach to decriminalizing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very surprised that we stand so far behind the U.S. ( the folk who drove us into prohibition in the first place??) with all of this? With the DEA reigned in proper medical studies are now able to run without govt. fetters on supply. The positive impacts of treatments from cannabis products can surely not be ignored esp. when compared to the cost implications/side effects of many of the current the NHS prescription drugs ? I mean the Cancer management of Cannabis ( from tumor elimination from cannabis oil to appetite inducer to pain management to mood enhancer to sleep inducing etc) must be far cheaper than the current suite of chemo drugs and the plethora of supporting meds? Surely if we have double blind studies showing near miraculous impacts we should not be turning our backs on such research?

 

Currently we are awaiting amendments to federal law taking cannabis from schedule 1 ( no medical benefits) down to schedule 2 ( due to the increasing weight of medical research showing  wide ranging medical applications). Once this is through the senate/house of reps then wide scale 'recreational use' legislation will follow.

 

With the lessons from Portugal surely our Govt. is already taking a softly,softly approach to decriminalizing?

 

Well said GW.

 

I think it is just a matter of time in this country now as the overwhelming evidence suggests it is virtually harmless and has many medical benefits which are only just being discovered although probably wont happen with a conservative government?

 

Also In a time when the government is trying to balance the books it would make even more sense to save money policing such an out of date stance and look to gaining tax revenue from it? The common fears about schizophrenia being related to the drug have been quite widely disproved with rates in population being stable throughout even with increased use etc the only thing I would say is it should be age restricted to 18 years of age as some evidence suggests a slight risk to under 16's although far smaller than alcohol!

Edited by Nights King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said GW.

 

I think it is just a matter of time in this country now as the overwhelming evidence suggests it is virtually harmless <snip>

 

Overwhelming- really?  What about the percentage of young people who end up with severe mental health issues and psychosis?

Government should flood the market with scagg ,to get rid of the lowlife druggie scum that plague a town near me :

 

Yay - while we're at it, why not have a genocide too?  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overwhelming- really?  What about the percentage of young people who end up with severe mental health issues and psychosis?

 

Yay - while we're at it, why not have a genocide too?  :rolleyes:

 

The same percentage of people that don't smoke it.  :rofl:

 

Also what is the evidence are you basing this on? There is no conclusive proof of this whatsoever and you yourself said "young" people? Surely it would be better if it was legalized, controlled with age restriction and proper education was given about the possible risks to those with predetermined mental health backgrounds or those under 16? The media like do like to parade a sick person though and blame it on cannabis because it provides good news material.  Even a BBc documentary made not long ago came out with minimal risks which tend to be to children under 15.

 

Why don't we ban drinking after all that is much more likely to cause mental health disorders? If you drink too much it can do you a lot of damage physically and mentally and does so to millions each year with many deaths associated to it which is something you can't say about cannabis as its never killed a single person.

 

Why can't it be a persons own choice? 

 

http://www.schres-journal.com/article/S0920-9964(13)00610-5/abstract

 

http://www.leafscience.com/2014/03/18/drug-made-cannabis-treat-schizophrenia/

 

Also we can see the results of legalization in some states of america to see how devastating it has been - http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/09/13/7-ways-marijuana-legalization-has-already-benefited-colorado-in-only-8-months/   :rofl:

Edited by Nights King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government should flood the market with scagg ,to get rid of the lowlife druggie scum that plague a town near me :0..

 

It's these juvenile attitudes that are allowing the damaging approach to drugs in this country to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's these juvenile attitudes that are allowing the damaging approach to drugs in this country to continue.

lighten up Nick ...:)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regardless of the potential link between cannabis use and mental health issues, shouldn't it be up to the individual whether they choose to smoke it or not? The government is perfectly happy to allow us to choose to drink or smoke fags. The arbitrary line that's drawn between legal and illegal makes no logical sense.

 

I can't see weed ever being legalised here though.


And regardless of the potential link between cannabis use and mental health issues, shouldn't it be up to the individual whether they choose to smoke it or not? The government is perfectly happy to allow us to choose to drink or smoke fags. The arbitrary line that's drawn between legal and illegal makes no logical sense.

 

I can't see weed ever being legalised here though.


lighten up Nick ... :)..

 

Erm...no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regardless of the potential link between cannabis use and mental health issues, shouldn't it be up to the individual whether they choose to smoke it or not? The government is perfectly happy to allow us to choose to drink or smoke fags. The arbitrary line that's drawn between legal and illegal makes no logical sense.

 

I can't see weed ever being legalised here though.

And regardless of the potential link between cannabis use and mental health issues, shouldn't it be up to the individual whether they choose to smoke it or not? The government is perfectly happy to allow us to choose to drink or smoke fags. The arbitrary line that's drawn between legal and illegal makes no logical sense.

 

I can't see weed ever being legalised here though

 

Erm...no?

whatever ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever ..

 

If you're going to make a daft, controversial comment in a serious thread, it's going to be commented on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to make a daft, controversial comment in a serious thread, it's going to be commented on.

that's the plan Nick ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regardless of the potential link between cannabis use and mental health issues, shouldn't it be up to the individual whether they choose to smoke it or not? The government is perfectly happy to allow us to choose to drink or smoke fags. The arbitrary line that's drawn between legal and illegal makes no logical sense.

 

I can't see weed ever being legalised here though.

And regardless of the potential link between cannabis use and mental health issues, shouldn't it be up to the individual whether they choose to smoke it or not? The government is perfectly happy to allow us to choose to drink or smoke fags. The arbitrary line that's drawn between legal and illegal makes no logical sense.

 

I can't see weed ever being legalised here though.

 

Erm...no?

 

I'm not so sure nick, With USA leading the way and public opinion changing an so often against the waste of public money being used to prosecute people enjoying themselves as well as medical breakthroughs being discovered I think it will change eventually

 

The funny thing is the USA globally pushed it's original ban on the substance in the first place only to break the rules first.  :rofl:

Edited by Nick L
Fixed double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure nick, With USA leading the way and public opinion changing an so often against the waste of public money being used to prosecute people enjoying themselves as well as medical breakthroughs being discovered I think it will change eventually

 

The funny thing is the USA globally pushed it's original ban on the substance in the first place only to break the rules first.  :rofl:

 

Well, you say the US is leading the way, that's not entirely true. A select few states have made sensible changes, but weed is still very much illegal in federal law. The federal government is making baby steps (such as making it easier to research the medical benefits of cannabis) but there is a long way to go.

 

Meanwhile, in the UK, we have made virtually no progress. With the witch that is Theresa May in charge of the Home Office, I can't see it changing any time soon.

 

Kudos to Durham Police though, I'd much rather they target crimes that have victims rather than someone having a small bag of plant material.

Edited by Nick L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...