Chav World 4 U!

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Fact is Sands that drugs of various types and potency are as old as mankind. There has always been a close bond between drugs and humans. While drugs weren’t regulated, this happened on a relatively stable (and safe) level. But since the introduction of prohibition availability and variety of drugs have increased dramatically (especially the adulterated variety), pushing the essential demand up further by supplying more choice.

It has nothing to do with prohibition. It has to do with supply. I thought I had already pointed this out to you. You can't be so barking mad to assume that had all these drugs been freely available since year dot, we would not now have a big drug's problem at the very least as bad as it is today. You only need to look at alcohol to see how bleeding obvious that is.

Alcohol is now cheaper than ever in real terms and alcohol related crime and disease has never been higher. And alcohol is not prohibited. It is freely available. Even youngsters can get easy access to it.

I am afraid you just don't have a clue, piccione.

[Daz Madrigal]

Someone once said that people usually stay on drugs simply to feel normal.

I'm guessing that Picciones counterpoint will be some basic need for some sort of drug simply to carry on..which is a bit extreme but maybe plausible in a few extreme cases.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

The nature of drug taking and addiction is rather complex. You won't like it as there are no simplistic answers to this I’m afraid. But since you asked about my understanding....

For a start, our brains have ‘natural’ opioid and cannaboid receptors (and, likewise, /produce/ ‘natural’ opioids and cannaboids). If these receptors weren’t there, opiates and cannabis would have no effect. But they /do/ exist, and humans have always been inclined to ‘exploit’ their existence by ‘artificial’ (external) means, since, for obvious reasons, the ‘natural’ production of opiods and cannaboids is limited.

Yes and we also have biological functions in our guts that react to poisons but that does not mean we should all be continually poisoning our bodies.

Because that is also what many drugs do, including alcohol.

Why do people have hangovers after a night's boozing?

Yet you appear to give the impression that unless we use these drugs we will fall apart. But exactly the opposite happens.

Continued use of drugs not only causes addiction in many cases but also damages the body.

The evidence is out there that many people who use cannabis end up with schizophrenia and other mental problems. So much for the brain receptors.

[Daz Madrigal]

I'm just trying to imagine a ban on alcohol...which would be easy in your case, Sandy.

It doesn't bear thinking about really..the amount of hooch being made out of anything that comes to hand ..whether apples or potatoes brings forth some odd images.

[Daz Madrigal]

Put the tea cups down ya saps! I got an idea!

[Daz Madrigal]

I admit it..ya had us all fooled, Sandy!

[Daz Madrigal]

"I could do without the hangover though.."

[sandywinder]

//// There are various approaches to the nature of addiction – most of them based on the ‘disease’ model – i.e. a requirement for medical treatment: The only ‘healthy’ alternative to drug use is total abstinence. A theory which is condemned to failure because it denies the /reality/ that drug use is a continuum with total abstinence and compulsive use/dependency/addiction being the opposite extremes on the ends of that scale. There are /may/ forms of addiction/dependency/obsessive behavior – in fact they are ‘distraction strategies’ at the very heart of human life. The (extreme) ends the continuum are, or can be, destructive yes, but they are nonetheless an inherently human coping strategy replacing /something/ of more productive value and fulfillment missing in the individual's life. Some people resort to /other/ compulsive behavior and develop for example an obsession with food, or OCDs - combing their hair or cleaning the house for hours and hours every day. To /some/ extend we /all/ are located somewhere on that scale in-between total abstinence -from drug taking or any other activity that /can/ become obsessive/compulsive behaviour (even addictive) and addiction – i.e. we /all/ develop /some/ form of dependency. But mostly they are non-destructive since they don’t take over our lives, and/or they have no impact on society – and are therefore easier to deny or ‘hide’ (from ourselves as well as from others). /Because/ of the ‘natural properties’ we have (natural opioids and cannaboids, and receptors), drug use is a very simple and easy way to achieve distraction. And /most/ people use that ‘facility’ within limits for temporary escapism. ////

Ooh you do go on don't you? But what you say about dependency is , I would have thought, even more reason NOT to make drugs freely available. I repeat nobody NEEDS these drugs. Before you take a drug how does anybody know that they will 'benefit' from them?

They can't possibly know, yet the dangers of become hooked on them DO exist, so why would you suggest that it is a good idea to let everybody try drugs and see for themselves? It just makes no sense at all. At least not to me.

//// At the heart of all addiction is a wish for /constant/ distraction from lack of ‘healthy’ life fulfillment. It’s a self-taught or/and ‘externally induced’ behaviour pattern that needs to be ‘unlearned’ in order to overcome addiction. Simply taking away the drug makes no difference whatsoever. ////

On the other hand if they didn't have access to drugs in the first place they wouldn't NEED to be 'unlearned'.

//// Some people become ‘addicted’ to treatment/institutionalisation as a replacement for their drug taking after having gone through detox/rehab, and when /that/ distraction is taken away from them they relapse into drug use. The simplistic approach that addicts (or those ‘prone’ to addiction because of the above – i.e. NEW users) will stop using/not start if drug availability is ‘complicated’ is based on complete ignorance and/or misunderstanding of why people become addicts in the first place. ////

But who is suggesting that it IS simplistic and you can just wave a magic wand and everybody will be OK? Not me. That is why I think it is better not to allow people access to these dangerous drugs in the first place.

//// Non-availability may repel /some/ recreational users (at least for a while – they too will find other sources), but certainly not addicts. Against all warnings from experts, this attitude is at the heart of all repressive drugs policies, and an /obsession/ with denial in itself. What we can’t understand/can’t relate to, or object to, we try and fight by the means most convenient to us. And if it doesn’t work – well it’s somebody else’s fault – just /never/ that of our fundamentally flawed approach. ////


Again this is not being suggested. Effective treatment needs to be far more than just getting people off drugs. In a lot of cases this is the easy part of treatment. The real problem is keeping them off.This is where more resources are needed. A more holistic approach is needed. That is the same for obese people and anorexics,etc as well.

/// The fact that there /are/ occasional/recreational drug users shows that the drug itself (and its chemical properties) isn’t the original cause for addiction. ////

No it does not do anything of the kind. Because all people are different. What causes addiction in one person does not do so in another.

/// Such users are able to use drugs in a controlled way, in certain social settings, and would not allow the drug/s to take over their lives, because they have /other/ more important and higher valued life-fulfillments and commitments.///

Well lucky them. But what about all the ones, who don't?

It is the same with gambling and supercasinos. I am against them because while many will not be affected a lot of people will have their lives and families destroyed completely unnecessarily.


/// Addiction is caused by the welcomed /effect/ or experience the drug creates for the individual user in certain (life) circumstances. And a vicious circle builds up from there: The drug will help to fill a void (of whatever kind/origin) but –ultimately- will make that void worse. So more drug taking is required to blank out and avoid coping with that increased void. The actual /physical/ addiction of /some/ illicit drugs turns into a welcomed ‘excuse’ for denial and avoiding responsibility. At /this/ point people are addicted. And ironically it’s also at /this/ point where prohibitionist’s and addict’s views meet: It’s the drug that does it. It isn’t the user, or the user’s personal ‘properties’. ///

Fair enough as long as you accept that not all people are equally susceptible. Either genetically or through life's ups and downs.


/// Physical withdrawel from heroin, albeit very painful and hard, is relatively short and /never/ /ever/ physically dangerous or life-threatening. Do you think that if someone was /desperate/ to kick the habit they would not sacrifice 10 days of physical suffering (which can be made much more bearable with medication)? It's not the detox that is the obstacle - it's what follows afterward - the life without the constant and powerful painkiller. ///

Yes I have already touched on this.

/// Until that vicious circle is broken, giving up/taking away the drug will /not/ make any difference other than making the individual more desperate for the drug. In many cases ‘detoxed’ users return to heavier use, ‘traumatised’ by the horrific experience of having been without the drug for a while, and having been faced with reality. Breaking that cycle is made infinitely worse and more difficult by prohibition/the black market: The fact that addiction drives users into committing crimes, leaving their original social networks (if they had any) behind, living a subcultural existence, health impacts of illegal drug taking etc etc. ///

And this.

/// Dealing with and overcoming feelings of shame, guilt, failure, inadequacy etc are at the centre of rehab programmes, because once the drug is gone, these are the feelings (ex-)users suddenly are confronted with in exceedingly ‘high doses’ – and which they had so far managed to blank out by taking drugs. Addicts who will find or have an adequate support network and who are able to fill the void with a productive life of one form or another are those who are the ones who will overcome their drug habit.

During the Vietnam war 1000s of American soldiers got hooked on smack. Those who returned home to supportive networks and a fulfilled life kicked the habit almost instantly (without ‘external’ input or help), most of those not returning home to such circumstances remained users/addicts.

Ultimately addiction is a choice - based on the positive effects (outweighing negatives) that a drug has for the user at that particular point in time. The addict may not make a /conscious/ choice, and will get caught up in that vicious circle. However that doesn’t mean that addiction doesn’t allow change. Most addicts manage to give up /at some point/, and most of them do so on their own.


They manage to give up when the time is ‘right’ i.e. when their circumstances have changed and when they are ‘ready’ to face life without the drug, ///

The snag here is you are sentencing people to years of misery and pain by not stepping in and helping them.


/// and when they have accepted that they are not helpless victims of that drug – which is /exactly/ what repressive drugs policies are enforcing them to believe.///

If you are suggesting that regressive drugs policies ALWAYS mean getting people to give up drugs without any assistance then yes but making drugs far less available does NOT mean this.

In fact if there are far less people with drugs problems - because new users can't get access to them - the state can afford to spend far more money on treating people with these problems much more intensively and efficiently for their long term good.

At present because of soft policies there are just far too many people with drug problems, and new ones cropping up every day, for the state to cope with.

You have to admit that.

[Daz Madrigal]

If I was teetotal that would turn me to drink, Sandy.

Mind you ..its a slow news day.So far there have been several more bizarre theories on the death of some cricketer whilst the entire country is busy handwringing and asking...whadda we do know?

Its just sad that anything that pours scorn on this Govt almost seems worthwhile...but not perhaps the death of innocent hostages.

[sandywinder]

///As prices rise (as with cigarettes) the demand for them have reduced. Of course you will come out with the usual nonsense that it is all down to social acceptability again but that has been shown to be complete nonsense.///

<<< The fact that so many smokers have announced that they will give up for the ban shows that it isn’t the prices of cigarettes that puts them off. Besides – in other European countries, where smoking is far more ‘affordable’, we have the same trend towards reduction in demand (and towards a ban of smoking in public places). >>>


But no way near as much as has happened in Britain. And I never said that price alone was the only factor. Of course other factors, such as scientific evidence (that Daz loves to scoff at) has played its part, as has state PROHIBITION of tobacco use in public buildings.


/// Despite not having broken the law (so far) by smoking in public places, smokers have gradually been ‘socially pressured’ into not smoking in public. This ‘social pressure’ has worked (apart from in pubs because of the traditional ‘accepted’ link between smoking, alcohol and socializing), because most smokers move in ‘mainstream’ culture, not in subcultures. It has instilled feelings of guilt – and ‘fear’ of being ‘excluded’. ///

In other words the state's interference (through taxes, adverts, prohibitions, scientific knowledge,etc) has helped by making tobacco unacceptable.

/// ‘Mainstream society’ smokers abide by the rules of the law and share the same ethics and value base. I doubt that any smoker who is a full and accepted participant in mainstream society is willing to submerge into an illegal subculture of 'public smoking' after July, for the sake of their habit – addictive as it may be- cutting themselves off from their existing networks. ///

Exactly. Now you are learning. State intervention and prohibition CAN work if it does so effectively and intelligently.



/// Those who /are/ likely to disregard the ban are those who don’t have this stand in mainstream culture – i.e. those who have far less to lose. ///

And this is because the state is banning tobacco in public.

Who says prohibition never works, eh? You just have to do it properly. I am the first to agree that this would never have worked if the state had just banned all tobacco products from day one.


In the same way, to reduce the problem of already banned drugs like heroin and cannabis, we also have to do the job properly. Unfortunately it has been badly mishandled in the past (and the present) as alcohol prohibition was in America.


/// Demand reduction, long before the ban was announced, shows that /other/ factors than ‘prohibition’ encouraged this decrease. My point exactly about illegal drugs.... ///

Yes I totally agree. The job has to be done professionally not by simply imposing a blanket ban overnight.

/// Besides Sands, some are reluctant to call (compulsive) smoking an ‘addiction’ and prefer the term ‘habit’ (albeit one that is hard to break). That’s because, although tobacco is highly physically addictive, it doesn’t not have the mind-altering or sedative potencies illegal drugs have. ///

Some people who need a fag first thing in the morning or every few hours would argue with that.


/// Most ex-smokers, after having overcome physical withdrawal symptoms (which -like with heroin- don’t actually last very long), tend to struggle with ‘giving up the habit’, since it has become an integral part of their lives to light a cigarette. ///


Then again many give up quite easily.


/// An addiction is a behaviour that ‘takes over one’s life’ in the sense that it’s so important and dominant that everything else becomes insignificant and meaningless. It takes over to such an extend that it becomes destructive. Smoking never does that. It may become /physically/ destructive, but until that point a smoker’s life fully functions. ///

I suspect this is a generalisation although I agree that it is not as dangerous as many illegal drugs, hence the need to restrict access.


/// And so is gambling. Don’t worry – the treasury will find alternative sources of income, now that the public has decided that smoking is ‘out’....///

And the NHS should need far less money anyway if they do not have to treat so many people with cigarette induced diseases.

And workers should also need less time off work and so be more productive for the benefit of the country.

[sandywinder]

//// Yes drugs are here to stay. Nobody is disputing that. What I am disputing is that the problem is not IMPOSSIBLE to keep under control.///

<<< I’m saying the same. I just believe that /your/ approach will not be able to achieve that – as history proves.... >>>

No it does not. All that has been proven is that the method the Americans and British have used was not the way to go about it. I have never disputed that.

However in other countries like Singapore, strict policy has reduced the problem.

www.drugfree.org.sg/Drugs/index.asp?name=Singapore%20Drug%20Situation%20in%202005





/// I’d be interested to learn one thing Sands: Since you agree with the fact that ‘drugs are here to stay’, how can you /realistically/ believe that the presence of (any amount of) drugs will decrease demand? ///


Well if only a very few people are willing to risk harsh sentencing, I would say that it was blooming obvious. If you are honest and don't want to be socially outcast (as with your argument about cigarettes if you can recall) then you will be so scared about drugs you will not want to risk trying them to start with. So demand is bound to fall. That is simple logic.


/// Of course – that goes back to your lack of understanding about that demand, and the nature of drug addiction. ///

Odd I thought you were the one who hadn't a clue about 'demand'.
And my thoughts have not changed one iota.


////Many things in this world are 'here to stay'. Rape and murder to name but two. That does not mean we should just accept them and legalise them, does it?///

<<< Yes I /fully/ understand that you’re comparing apples with pears. Jezus Christ. Your illogical thinking knows no bounds.
Unless you’re having a laugh.... >>>

No I am saying a crime is a crime like apples and pears are both fruit. But I doubt you will see the connection.


////People who suggest acceptance of a problem are not only defeatist they are dangerous and cowardly as well.///

<<< What ‘acceptance’? A different approach (since the original one –throughout- HAS NOT WORKED) isn’t defeatist' or ‘acceptant’ but pure and simple the most reasonable and sensible- and /realistic/. It’s rather those too stuck in their conveninet ways (for /whatever/ reason) who are in avoidance mode. >>>


Acceptance that drugs are here to stay.

Acceptance that there is no way to reduce the problem.

Acceptance that we should make drugs legal because our hopeless authorities have been quite unable to treat the problem seriously so far.

That acceptance.

///Prohibition is an entirely different argument, which is always thrown in to muddy the waters. I have never argued for banning alcohol or cigarettes, have I? That is completely different to legalising harmful substances that are already banned. But I am not surprised you just threw it in anyway.///

<<< You are the one who keeps banging on about cigarettes and alcohol. I am talking about prohibition of drugs (as we have now) controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. You’re also the one who keeps disregarding the fact that it’s the illegal trade that makes these drugs so dangerous, >>>

No they are dangerous any way. Cigarettes and alcohol are also dangerous. Just because they are legal has not stopped them being dangerous. In fact because they have been so cheap (And alcohol still is) they have been MORE dangerous than ever. And legalising all drugs will make them more dangerous to society as a whole. And that is why I keep going on about cigarettes and alcohol. Because they are linked just like apples and pears are both fruit.


<<< and again, using the consequence of the black market to ‘support’ your argument. But we’ve been through all that – you refusing to make that link. If you have so much faith in criminal ‘manufacturing’ processes, why not let them take over your gas supply? >>>

It is silly to say we should legalise drugs because drugs are contaminated by criminals. It is criminals who use these drugs . Stupid criminals at that. Nobody is forcing people to use them. Nobody needs to use them

You might as well argue that the state should provide everybody with guns because some guns will go off accidentally and hurt the people using them. It is a nonsense argument. So I am not surprised you have used it.


///In the last forty years the drugs problem has got steadily worse in this country. And it was certainly not by zero tolerance but by acceptance and a lack of enforcement of the law by successive incompetent governments, and you want this to continue.///

<<< I want the hypocricy to end. It was prohibition that made it worse.... >>

Nonsense. But for prohibition cannabis, heroin etc would have become today as huge a problem at least as cigarettes and alcohol and you KNOW it. Why can't you just admit it? What logic have you to suggest otherwise?


////And you won't do that by sending a green light to schoolchildren that these drugs are safe and acceptable and readily available at a cheap price.///

<<< No - what /I/ want is /all/ current and potential drug users (i.e. ‘the public’) to be told the full /truth/ about drugs and our drugs policies instead of a pack of lies and distortions. The current system treats /all/ of us like kids. >>>

Then stop acting like bloody kids and stop wasting your precious but sad little life on drugs.

We have already had education and that has not worked. If you seriously believe that telling young kids it is OK to use drugs then you are much barmier than I thought.


<<< I think there are many people who like being patronised, and who are only too happy to collude with these lies. >>>

These would be the sensible people who have more intelligence to embark on a lifetime of misery through illegal drug use. There are more of us than you think who are happy to live their lives without the crutch of drugs like cannabis and heroin.

<<< PS: We have been through that NY ‘zero tolerance’ approach a while back on another thread. Since you chose to completely disregard the points I made there is little point in going through them again....>>>

Have you seen my graph of Singapaore?

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

It seems odd that everyone I know seems totally intent on befuddling their brains as soon as they leave the Office.

Yes Daz but you only know the person in thee mirror.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

Someone once said that people usually stay on drugs simply to feel normal.

I'm guessing that Picciones counterpoint will be some basic need for some sort of drug simply to carry on..which is a bit extreme but maybe plausible in a few extreme cases.

Well if one wishes to live in a world of unreality then perhaps so. But I am quite satisfied at moaning about the real world. ;D

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

I'm just trying to imagine a ban on alcohol...which would be easy in your case, Sandy.

It doesn't bear thinking about really..the amount of hooch being made out of anything that comes to hand ..whether apples or potatoes brings forth some odd images.

Well no you can't just BAN alcohol. It would be stupid to think you could. You could however make it increasingly more expensive (as with tobacco) so that people drink LESS of it and so it is not as big a problem, especially for thee poor.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

I admit it..ya had us all fooled, Sandy!

How did that stag manage to lift that bloke's hat?