Chav World 4 U!

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

///Maybe you need to use a bit more imagination then Piccy. Try to imagine yourself being locked up for forty years. It is a good start.///

Personally I’d have far too much to lose if I committed /any/ (planned, serious) crime Sands. My costs would far outweigh /any/ benefits. That’s the /major/ difference between me and a ruthless and greedy criminal mind-set....

So you believe that criminals (many with loads of money, especially the ring leaders) have nothing to lose? Why? Do you think they would enjoy being banged up for forty years? How many of these criminals do you really think exist?

You do have some funny ideas.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

////Try also to imagine being a heroin addict, which is gradually killing you and destroying your whole life. Imagine the realisation what damage it has done to your body and mind and the hell you face in trying to get back to a decent, normal life. And all because some people wanted everybody to have unlimited access to all drugs.///

I wonder how /you/ would know how a heroin addict might feel, especially in the non-existent scenario you describe. But since you seem to have so much insight tell me: How do you think a heroin addict feels within an illegal market system, where they are being criminalized for their use, have no clean supplies, are forced to commit crime and leave mainstream culture – and suffer the health problems of illegal drug taking?

I would think lives would turn to hell whether they had legal or illegal access to drugs. And how would they pay for all these legal drugs? Or do you expect decent hard working people to fund their habit?

And would you expect they would be able to sue the government or private companies when their health deteriorated? Aren't tobacco firms facing a similar problem now?

[Daz Madrigal]

In 1777 Prussia's Frederick the Great, whose economic strategy was threatened by importation of coffee: "It is disgusting to notice the increase in the quantity of coffee used by my subjects, and the amount of money that goes out of the country as a consequence. Everybody is using coffee; this must be prevented. His Majesty was brought up on beer, and so were both his ancestors and officers. Many battles have been fought and won by soldiers nourished on beer, and the King does not believe that coffee-drinking soldiers can be relied upon to endure hardships in case of another war."

Surely a modern leader who urged alcohol consumption over coffee, especially by the military, would have his or her mental competence questioned. But only an eyeblink ago in historical time, a powerful head of government could describe beer in terms that make it sound like mother's milk. And indeed, that nurturing role may be the one alcohol played from the infancy of the West to the advent of safe water supplies for the masses only within the past century.


The Govt. decrees what is best for its own interests and despite the chimera of so-called Democracy..the peoples interest come very low in priorites. If the leader suggests that Coffee is a far greater danger to the public than alcohol then it is so. Just as it decress that soft drugs are much less a danger than alcohol. Its a totally false premise distorted to suit the requirements of whomever is in charge. And I would suggest that King Wilhelm was probably a great deal m ore sensible than Tony Blair.

[sandywinder]

But in the time of Freddie the papers weren't allowed to say what a load of tripe he was talking . The papers today are not so reluctant to tell Prince Charles, say, what he can do with his coffee enemas.

Oh no hang on that's not right, is it? That's what HE is saying.

[Daz Madrigal]

;D

[piccione]

Right Sands - here is the first lot.....

///Most clear people thinking don't continually befuddle their brains with mind-altering substances.///

Correct. /Most/ people don’t. So much for panicking over a drug addiction epidemic.

There was a study in America ending some years back. They had followed 100 children from the age of 3-18, assessing them and their families at all crucial stages of the kids’ lives. When they were 18, they had three groups: 1. non-users, 2. occasional/recreational users (and those who had /tried/ drugs), and 3. a small proportion of problem users. The youngsters with the overall healthiest psychological profile (throughout the years, and at the end, when they were 18), were those in group 2.

///It makes me wonder what it is so wrong with them.///

What’s wrong with compulsive users? That’s the problem Sands. You tend to make your own ‘psychological predisposition’ and perceptions the universal truth for all. According to that logic, schizophrenia doesn’t exist. Neither then should any physical condition exist – as long as /you/ don’t have them.

///Well piccione if you had no drug's problem you would not need a strict policy would you?///

Repressive laws and policies on drugs work for those, and /only/ for those, who have no inclination of, or ‘reason’ for breaking that law, ie the majority of people who'd never contemplate taking drugs in the first place.

////So are you also arguing that we should allow everybody to drink and drive as they please?////

I said it before Sands (several times actually): Driving under the influence of drugs /is/ a criminal offence, just as driving under the influence of alcohol is. I really don’t get why you keep banging on about it....

///Has Holland not got a drugs' problem all of a sudden? I don't think so.///

Of course Holland has drug problems. Who said they didn’t? For a start they have /prohibition/ on hard drugs (just as the UK, USA and most other countries have). What they, however, do have, unlike the USA is a focus on treatment and maintenance – which means that they have far less drug-related (OD) death than the USA, or the UK for that matter. Same in Portugal were /all/ drugs were decriminalised (/not/ legalised) a few years back.

[piccione]

Sands

///But drugs like heroin are NOT essential. Food is essential, water is essential, but drug's are NOT essential. They are only WANTED by some addicts - although in some cases they are needed for medical purposes, like morphine. So your argument falls down right there. Why do YOU even believe that these drugs are essential?///

I said they are /perceived/ as essential needs by compulsive drug users. The clue is in the word ‘compulsive’. To their mind-set drugs /are/ an essential need, until the time when they are ‘ready’ to disassociate themselves from drug use, ie when their (personal) positives of drug use don’t outweigh the negatives any longer. /Then/ drug use isn’t compulsive anymore, and the cycle of addiction is or can be broken. Don’t forget that /most/ addicts -at that stage- quit, and often on their own.

What reduction in supply (by enforcement), creates is either:

1. Prices remain stable, but drugs become more adulterated (so even /more/ dangerous for users). As it's the case in Singapore actually. Down to 4% 'purity'.
2. Suppliers increase prices for that market to maintain profitability of sales and increased risks. That may have the effect that /some/ users are deterred (those not desperate enough for the drug – they are most likely to switch to other, more available drugs), on the other hand, those that /are/ desperate will apply more desperate means to be able to afford high-priced drugs. But high prices (so /enforcement/) also have the perverse effect of attracting more (new) suppliers to that market /because/ of the high profits.

Drug experts and economist /exempt/ illegal drug supply/demand from the concept of elasticity of demand (of other, legal goods), not ‘just’ because of the illegal trade, but mainly /because/ of the issue of dependency that makes drugs an /essential/ good for most addicts, and for those who have strong personal reasons (benefits of the drug's effect) for taking drugs.

Staying healthy and safe comes at a cost. You have to make sacrifices that not everyone is prepared to make. we all know that to /some/ extend at least. But especially those for whom the ‘beneficial effects’ of drugs by far outweigh any costs, be those social, financial, legal, health-risks.

Ever over-eaten Sands, knowing it isn't good for you but not willing to make the sacrifice at that moment in time, making excuses?

/This/ is the underlying drive that /you/ can’t understand because you are too stuck in your own frame of mind. /You/ are willing to make /obvious/ sacrifices for your health and safety, because you don’t see the effects of drugs as an incentive to take risks. But unfortunately others /do/. If you are in that frame of mind then you deny or ignore risks and costs at the prospect of the benefits that mean so much to you. In a way, this is similar to the mind-set of those criminals who supply drugs, even /if/ the risks are high. And they too –like addicts- are very adaptable and flexible to new market situations, driven by that need or prospect of profit/benefits of the drug.

By far not all experts call for legalisation. Many of those don’t for ‘moral’ reasons, not because the facts are against it. That’s the problem – when it comes down to making or influencing decisions they behave as cowardly and self-interested as the rest who could have an impact. I make a few exceptions – for example for John B. Davies. He’s /not/ a coward. In fact he’s a character and doesn’t mind ‘upsetting’ a few people with the /facts/.....

But whether in favour of legalisation or not: What they /all/ call for is a radical, new approach to punitive prohibition, that is in touch with reality, mostly even to the extend of decriminalisation. They also agree on the fact that repressive enforcement is a waste of time and money, because the illegal trade is far too powerful, corruptive, adaptable and persistent for /any/ long-term enforcement to be effective and affordable/cost-effective. And also that strategies need to focus on the /demand/ side (demand reduction strategies, harm reduction).

///I don't NEED them.///

Yes that settles it then: /Your/ rules and perceptions apply for all.

And you have the audacity to call /me/ a megalomaniac… ;D

Don’t make me laugh!

Ever heard of Heider/Kelley’s Attribution Theory Sands?

[piccione]

Sands

///It has nothing to do with prohibition. It has to do with supply. I thought I had already pointed this out to you.///

You have indeed. You keep harping on about it like a bloody parrot.

Well I /did/ try to explain why it is /not/ the supply....

///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.///

I never said they should be ‘freely available’ (as freely available as they are now, that is – ie on every street corner). Check out /when/ the illegal trade (as it stands now) and the pushing /seriously/ started to develop Sands. It was in the early 70s – with the intro of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The first wave of heroin addiction hit Britain in the 80s – as a result of that prohibition and the development of a pushing, illegal trade.

[piccione]

Daz

///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.///

Initially it’s about the mind-numbing/altering experience, and yes – after a while it is about ‘functioning’. Under prohibition /especially/ this thought process is a fallacy, because the life-style required to maintain drug use (supplies) doesn’t allow ‘normal functioning’.

[piccione]

Sands

///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.///

I doubt any drug user would artificially induce stomach cramps because they get some kick out of it. Whereas with drug use they have an instant ‘positive result’. Heroin is nothing but a powerful pain-killer Sands. It kills /all/ pain – physical and psychological. Even to the extend that users tolerate the side-effects of adulterated drugs and the consequences of the whole illegal market.

As for hang-overs - that's the perfect example of the cost/benefit balance. You ignore or forget about the ultimate negatives - for the positives you get at that moment in time (....not /you/ personally of course).

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

Back to /your/ perceptions. It is easy enough to be aware of the long-term negative consequences of addiction if your are not a user yourself, and if your overall coping with life doesn’t depend on drugs.

But hey – we’ve established that /you/ know so much more about heroin addiction than anybody else does.

////The evidence is out there that many people who use cannabis end up with schizophrenia and other mental problems.///

Y-e-e-e-e-e-s – wipe that froth off your mouth and calm down Sands. We have been through that as well – that /your/ inevitable /causal/ and interpretation of these findings (detached from amount and frequency of use) are far more reliable than any scientific data out there. 'Many' people? Millions of them Sands, I tell you /millions/! I told you it's going to be absolute slaughter out there.....

[piccione]

Sands

////Before you take a drug how does anybody know that they will 'benefit' from them?////

Err – didn’t you say yourself that users/potential users were able to get all the info they need from the net? In fact they can even get detailed instructions on how to cook up certain synthetic drugs themselves.

Britain doesn’t exist in a protective bubble Sands – in case you hadn’t noticed. Even /if/ it were at all possible to prevent all 'natural' drugs entering the country (which it isn’t) - how are you, in your great wisdom, going to wipe out all current (then rather pre-) existing information about drugs? How are you going to prevent people from accessing designer drugs? How are you going to prevent people from trying drugs abroad? Impose an international travel ban on all UK inhabitants? Shut down the net? And again – ban all chemicals involved in synthetic drug cooking? Impose your UK drugs policy on all other countries in the EU, in fact on the whole world?

Look Sands: If we still lived in the late 60s/early 70s, I would most probably agree with your approach of a total, enforced ban (at least with the knowledge we have today of how things developed). But unfortunately that opportunity was missed at the time when it could have been effective, and the development of the illegal trade, as we have it now, been prevented (to an extend). And neither was the public particularly concerned with the developments at the time. /Now/ they are, because in one way or another drugs infiltrate and affect their lives. But it’s a bit to late for ascribing blame as to how things have developed. The whole thing was screwed up /then/ - big time, because of a general lack of concern and foresight.

All we can focus on /today/ is damage and harm minimisation – for individual users and for society on a whole. /Now/ drugs (and all the information about them) are here (to stay, as you agreed). We cannot turn the clock back, and we have to make the most of the situation we have. /Nothing/ will ever be ideal, and /nothing/ we do will ever prevent drug use completely. But if we don’t adapt to today’s situation and reality, we can /still/ make things far worse. We’d be lacking in foresight as much as they did at the time when the big screw-up happened.

(Saying that there are some people who say that the best policy at the time would have been to prevent prohibition....)

///…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.///

See above. I never said that it was ‘a good idea to let everybody try drugs’. You know that very well. I’ve said many times that I’d prefer our resources and energy to be invested into demand and harm reduction. Don’t know why you keep deliberately twisting my arguments. Is that some kinda weird distraction strategy to avoid addressing the /real/ issues?

////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.////

I agree – as long as addicts are ‘ready’ to give up. Otherwise you’re setting them up to fail. And each failed attempt is another step towards /never/ being able to quit. Hence why addicts need to be kept as save as possible while still using (with support towards quitting) /until/ they /are/ ready. Abstinence isn’t just about quitting the drug. It’s about far more complex (inter-related) issues that need addressing – and about developing long-term, productive strategies and life-fulfillments that /replace/ the need for drug use. DTTOs are the cynical prove of just how ‘successful’ imposed/forced detox is – even if the Home Office tries to tell us otherwise, with their political agenda.

///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.///

And /how/ exactly does that contradict my statement? In fact it /supports/ it.

///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.///

Yes I agree – and /at this point in time/ we’d still have the situation where we /could/ prevent this from happening (as the government at the time could have prevented or at least markedly reduced the impact of drugs and an illegal market in the early 70s.)

But the government /today/ obviously has other plans.....

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

Well yes of course I accept that. That’s my whole point!

////[Physical withdrawel from heroin, albeit very painful and hard, is relatively short and /never/ /ever/ physically dangerous or life-threatening….]

Yes I have already touched on this.////

Have you? I must have missed that....

////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.////

Since, through the persistence of internal and external illegal markets, drugs will /always/ be accessible, one way or another, your starting point is a fallacy. But we have been through the causal factors (supply and demand) and your insistence of knowing better (despite all evidence against it).

Anyway - sticking with your fallible approach for now – tell me: How come you’ve got so much money ‘left over’ for treatment? Who is going to carry the massive cost for your high-powered /constant/ law enforcement and its administration? That sure must cost a lot of money, given how rich, resourceful and flexible the illegal trade is. One only needs to look at the US enforcement budget (which by far isn’t enough, considering the low success rate), plus all the err ‘expenses’ incurred by mass imprisonment etc etc. Or were you thinking of a conscripted enforcement army and exiling prisoners to Australia?

I’m sure a conscripted army is a plausible option, since understandably not /that/ many people are keen on fighting at the forefront when it comes to ‘upsetting’ the powerful and ruthless international illegal drug trade. Have a look at the personnel turn-over figures of drug law enforcement agencies. I suppose you could always lure them with a rich pay package. But then, that would again eat into your treatment budget.

Nah – stick with conscripts. I’m sure you’ll stick /your/ neck out as a leading example.

On the other hand, if you reduced enforcement drastically by legalisatin, you would indeed free a lot of money to go into treatment, prevention strategies etc.

There is a distinct lack of long-term support for detoxed users. And in fact rehab isn't as 'free' as so many people seem to think.

[piccione]

Sands

///… 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.///

Yes they are /contributing/ factors. As I said – prohibition and social pressure work for those who are fully socially integrated and have absolutely no inclination or strong personal reason for risking excluding themselves socially and legally, since they have too much too lose in comparison to the gain (ie having a fag in a public place). Drug users, on the other hand, /do/ have that motivation, since they ‘agree' to’accessing an illegal market and engage in illegal activity for the sake of the drug. That’s because the rewards of the drug outweigh the risks and costs - legal, social, health costs etc. As for the latter – illegal drugs have a far worse public reputation for health impacts than tobacco has. If drug users/potential drug users regarded these warnings as such a deterrent, no-one /would/ be using illicit drugs.

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

The state and the public have made illegal drugs /far more/ unacceptable and declared them /far more/ dangerous than alcohol and tobacco by controlling them under the Misuse of Drugs Act as /illicit/ substances.

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

Problem users are not part of mainstream society Sands.

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

Those who are inclined to disregard the smoking ban couldn’t care less whether smoking was banned or not. They do it anyway. Just as drug users do.

///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.///

It was totally mishandled at the point when at least /some/ supply control was a realistic possibility. That point is long gone. Done and dusted. Of course you can waste your time hankering after past, missed opportunities if you like. It’s /your/ life...l.

And don’t get back to me now saying that if it was possible in the past, it is possible /now/. I have explained why it isn’t. There was /one/ point in history (before the illegal trade developed) when at least /some/ supply control might have been possible. But that point is no more. Gone. Deceased. Like Monty Python’s dead parrot.

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

and

////Then again many give up quite easily.///

Yes exactly. It’s a question of individual mind-set. Those who are determined to give up make it, those who do it half-heartedly won’t. A few days of /physical/ withdrawal will not put anyone off who is determined to give up, ie for whom the costs have started to outweigh the (personal) benefits of smoking.

///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.///

I didn’t say that many illicit drugs were (physically) more dangerous than tobacco, I said that they had a stronger effect.

But thanks for making my point that public and 'official' perceptions of illicit drugs are that they are far more dangerous than cigarettes. Which isn’t actually true for most illicit drugs but it goes to show that public health warnings do f*ck all if the personal benefits of use outweigh personal costs.

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

That is a common misconception, but maybe gambling will eventually redress the balance of taxes lost through decrease in tobacco sales.....

[piccione]

Sands

///Have you seen my graph of Singapaore?///

Err…yeah…I have indeed....
And I’m still marveling at this - not /quite/ so sure whether you’re taking the piss or whether you actually are – could be – might be…/serious/....

Nah – you can’t be – or can you?

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

Jezz Sands – you /are/ serious aren’t you…?

Right <cough> where shall I start....

Does the name Lo Hsing Han mean anything to you?
No? I hadn’t thought it would.....

He is a military-junta-backed Burmese (I'm sure you are aware of the regime in Burma), and one of the world’s most notorious and influential drug lords – and a /very/ close business buddie of Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean PM (50s till 1990 - you /might/ want to check out his track record regarding supression of opposition and free speech) - the ‘inventor’ of the Draconian Singaporean drug law and enforcement.

In fact Lo and his son have /many/ buddies in the Singaporean gov. That’s why he is allowed to travel freely in and out of Singapore whenever he so wishes (despite having been denied a visa for the US because of his ‘drug-related activity’). In fact he has several business bases in Singapore and is involved in close joint ventures with the Singaporean gov. Not private companies – no: the 'drug opposed' /government/. And to show his gratitude for their hospitality and friendship, he supplies the majority of heroin to Singapore to provide the law enforcement with some ‘hanging material’.

‘Incidentally’ Lo himself never gets caught, the v-e-r-y l-u-c-k-y b@st@rd! Other large-scale traffickers are just as lucky....

Instead it’s the small-time dealers and heroin addicts who hang on their behalf (possessing more than 15g of heroin – which is the cut-off limit for a prison sentence, and a capital offence). The burden of proof lies –of course- with the accused. Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita in the world – and increasing. And it’s all done very secretively, which has the great advantage of being able to get rid of some ‘volume’ when the prisons start getting a tad overcrowded with addicts (over the 15g limit) and small-time dealers. One more or less don’t matter really. Keeps the stats down....

But not only that: the Singaporean gov is the second largest investor into business ventures in Burma – or should I say ‘’Myanmar’, working closely with the SPDC, the military junta, who /actively/ support and protect the substantial drugs trade for tax revenue. Quite a nice profit, given that Burma is one of the largest suppliers of heroin in the world.

Now as for the ‘low heroin user rates’: Treatment programmes are compulsory in Singapore for first offence concvicts (with a relapse rate of 70% - so err ‘very effective’). After 6 months of treatment addicts are electronically tagged for another 6 months, then on supervision orders for 2 years. Once a user relapses s/he goes down for 7-13 years (plus corporal punishment, plus huge fines). So they would /obviously/ not show up in the ‘official’ stats because they are hidden away in prisons. I say ‘official’ but no-one really knows for sure, since, for some obscure reason, the gov is very stingy with such ‘official information’. Funny that....

Heroin use has indeed declined - at leat 'officially' (even though it remains the drug of choice), but therefore Singapore has a substantial problem with synthetic drugs (amphetamines in particular). Which goes back to my point of ‘demand flexibility’ when prefered supplies are short.

So there. That’s the ‘wonderful’ Singaporean drugs system for you – even condemned by the gov of the United States of America. And that means something.....

And you bring /that/ up as a 'perfect' example, top of the list of all human rights watch organisations, as the 'ideal' - right? Are you really sure you're not a closet fascist, after a totalitarian regime Sands? Or /at least/ a police state?

////Well if only a very few people are willing to risk harsh sentencing,…///

I think I have answered that. Btw – what sentencing did you have in mind for users? Are we talking Singaporean style?

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

I bow to your superior knowledge of the drugs market Sands, as err amply displayed on this thread. Really – you are the man to save the world.....

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

You can’t predict who will become a murderer – and neither can you predict who will become a trafficker.

///Acceptance that drugs are here to stay.///

Err /you/ have accepted that yourself.

////Acceptance that there is no way to reduce the problem.////

Who did?

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

I don’t call for legalisation to excuse ‘the hopeless authorities’, but because, in the long-run, there is nothing any authority –even the most capable - can do to reduce supply – as long as there is an illegal market.

///That acceptance.///

Sorry – question not answered. So – /what/ acceptance?

////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.////

Yes thanks for pointing out the fruit connection. Probably the most valuable statement in this para. As for the rest – been through all that…

////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.////

So the Singaporean model for addicts it is then.....

////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.////

Blimey Sands you are one of the greatest skewers of logic I have ever come across – I give you that. First murder and rape, now gun crime. Tell me – where is the personal, /in itself/ (not socially harmful) benefit of gun crime? Are you saying that a drug addict would get the same kick out of gunning someone down as out of jabbing smack?

///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...///

Well inevitable after the /initial/ failure of doing someting about it. Where you around in the early 70s to protest Sands, or your parents, having the foresight? They would have been the exception. /My/ parents weren't that exception.....

But it's easy enough to complain now, with hindsight eh?

//// 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?////

You are the one complaining about the 'massive' social problems heroin addiction has created. So you tell me what the benefits are – as opposed to those of individual users minding there own biz on /clean/ supplies. Cigarettes affect non-smokers (apparently, even though /that/ is still disputed, at least to an extend). Alcohol misuse affects us all because it fuels aggression in some. Heroin use doesn’t. It’s a narcotic. It fuels crime /under prohibition/ yes. And addiction is a problem in itself. But it would be far less of a problem for the individual user and for society if users had clean and safe supplies and could be supported in weaning off without a time-bomb ticking.

The problem is that, despite having acknowledged that drugs are here to stay, you have this idealistic dream of no-one using any drugs at all. Can’t ‘quite’ follow how you can reconcile these two contradictory opinions. Maybe you could clarify....

////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.////

On top of you being the biggest skewer of logic I’ve come across, I also give you that you’re the biggest skewer of arguments. So well done.

////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.///

Uhum – yeah. Here we have that clear, expertise understanding of addiction again. Sands’ perception for all, and it would a-l-l be so much easier. Why can’t people see that eh?

And why the f*ck did I just light a cigarette, after you having told me how unhealthy it is! Jeeezzzzz!

Rest to follow.....

[Daz Madrigal]

Why hasn't Ecstasy been mentioned here.

Chavettes pic suddenly jogged the memory..wouldn't it be beneficial for Society in these trouble times to be all 'luvved up'?

Can we all agree - even Sandy - that the dangers of the drug were grossly exaggerated and had much more to do with the propaganda about needing to drink lots of water (most of the deaths occurred due to water poisoning).

[piccione]

Sands

///

So you agree with me then?///

No. But I’m getting tired of explaining again and again /why/ I don’t agree. I’ve tried several times, and all you do in response is repeat your mantra without any valid support.....

///I did not say they WOULD turn to crime. Why would anyone with lots of money turn to crime?///

The ones with ‘lots of money’ (e.g. celebs, who can afford their drug taking) are not those who are condemned for their addiction though are they. In fact the opposite is true – they even make money out of it. Some hypocrisy and double standards going on there.

////No. They turn to that lifestyle BECAUSE the effect of the drugs encourage that lifestyle.///

They turn to the /drug/ for its effect. The life-style comes with it because of the drug’s illegal status.

///But drugs like heroin ARE far more dangerous than tea, coffee or alcohol. Most people who drink alcohol do so without it causing any health or social problems. The same can not be said for drugs like heroin. So it IS the drug that is the problem.///

No heroin (like alcohol) becomes addictive and a problem when someone likes the effect of the drug so much that they use it all the time – ie when they value the effect of the drug over anything else in your lives. /Physically/ the impact of alcohol is much worse. It causes brain and liver damage for a start. Heroin doesn’t (albeit adulterants and unsafe methods of use can have a physical impact). /Any/ heroin addict can /safely/ detox on their own if they want to. An alcoholic can’t. Sudden alcohol withdrawal in a regular, heavy drinker is highly dangerous. It can cause seizures and other life-threatening reactions. Alcoholics need to detox under medical supervision – heroin addicts don’t.

///How do you expect a brain dead heroin addict to pay for drugs?///

Unlike the effects of alcohol, the effects of heroin after a shot are very short-lasting. And since alcohol has a direct, physically damaging impact on the brain, alcoholics are far more ‘brain dead’ than heroin addicts. But /their/ drug is /legal/ and alcoholics are not the major cause of crime related to alcohol consumption. It’s those who misuse alcohol ‘recreationally’ that account for alcohol related violence etc.

///Or are you suggesting the honest, intelligent taxpayer should provide everybody with free drugs now?///

So you’d scrap all addiction maintenance and treatment programmes yes?

I’m not suggesting to fund the habit of non-problem users. Non addicts can afford their habit without committing crime. Yet I’m suggesting that they should be able to access /clean/ supplies to keep harm at a minimum. I’m also suggesting prevention strategies so that they do not develop the wish or need to access drugs in the first place. I’m also suggesting (extended, long-term) treatment (incl. ‘preparation' and ‘aftercare’) for addicts (who /have/ a 'dependency they can't afford), similar to those we now have with methadone and subutex.

////NO that is simply nonsense because there will be FEWER addicts, as fewer new people will take up drugs and fewer people will risk using them (as is the case with cigarettes). Why can't you see this obvious logic?////

Because there /is/ no ‘obvious logic’ to this. But we have been through that. It goes back to your ‘far superior’ understanding of the supply/demand connection – in fact ‘far superior’ to that of economists and drug experts.

///[No. I addressed this in my post about the nature of addiction.]

Well it must have been really earth shattering because it made absolutely no impression on me.////

That’s because you are too stuck in your thinking, insisting that /your/ perceptions are shared by everyone else, and that becoming a drug addict is a rational, calculated decision. That’s bound to end up in a cul-de-sac with no other way but hitting the brick wall…

////In the last twenty years or so, exactly the opposite has happened in Britain and now we have the worst drugs problem in Europe.////

There are some who directly blame Thatcher’s politics for the first great wave of heroin addiction in Britain in the 80s, but that’s illogical since the same trend (around the same time) occurred in other parts of Europe. The source of the screw-up, as I said, is not to be found /anywhere/ in the last 20 years. Having stuck with the lies over decades didn’t exactly help obviously. But one great contributing factor for the extend of the problem in Britain is that Britain has one of the worst youth policies in Europe. It’s the countries that operate integrative, non-punitive youth policies, and that encourage community cohesion (incl. young peeps), which have fewer drug problems amongst young people.

////Yes it has. It is obvious if you were only to stop and think about it.
The penalty for murder is higher than shoplifting. So how many more ceases of shoplifting are there than murder?////

High sentencing incapacitates those who already have committed crime, but it doesn’t prevent new criminal activity. Are you seriously suggesting there are more shoplifters than murderers because the sentence for shop-lifting is lower?

It wouldn’t have /anything/ to do with the moral threshold for shop-lifting or any other petty crime being much lower would it.

Like addiction most crime is not based on a rational, calculated thought process weighing up the consequences of the crime. And even with many /calculated/ crime, rational thinking (of the consequences) is very much err ‘diluted’ by the prospects of high profits. /Especially/ when the profits are as high as they are in the illegal trade.

///And you argue that the people at the top are NEVER caught and only the minnows get put away.

Yet only yesterday there was a case of exactly this happening.///

I wonder why the Singaporean drug enforcement doesn’t nick Lo....

It’s not that they’d lack the opportunity. It’s because the gov /actively/ encourages his ‘activities’ in Singapore and Burma. In fact they are right in it up to their necks.

The whole point is Sands that drug lords have rather a lot of money, connections, influence and power. It’s the same with criminal activity in legal markets: Those at the top (white collar criminals) are far less likely to be nicked than the employee who helps him/herself from the petty cash tin.

This is a /world-wide/ phenomenon – encouraged by the fact that the public outcry over white collar crime is as good as non existent and that most white collar crime is covered-up. That’s because white collar crime tends to be ‘cleaner’ (on the surface anyway) and ‘closer to the bone’ than that of the ‘independent’ individual criminal committing an /obvious/, socially condemned crime (such as robbing a bank). How many people make fraudulent insurance claims, but don’t actually see it as a crime?

We have the odd occasion where a big biz is busted for fraud (like Enron for example), or when a bigger fish in the drug trade gets raided, but these are mere 'safe' ‘gestures’ to maintain the impression that law and order principles apply to /everyone/, whereas in reality those who have money, influence and power are pretty invincible. It’s the same for drug lords.

The truth is Sands that the /major/ crimes don’t show up on any crime stats. They are not even acknowledged and remain completely unpunished.

////The only answer is to privatise the drug/crime system.///

///At the moment within the current publis sector system there is NO CONTROL at all. I saw a program on Monday about an open prison where it is all a huge joke.

We need a system where there are independent state inspectors checking on these prisons. At the moment the pathetic bureaucracy, apathy and lack of incentives ensures that drugs are common in this prison.

And what happened to the whistleblower who exposed this charade?

He was put back into a closed prison and given an extra 3 months.

The bloke should have got a medal.////

Yes this is exactly what I meant above. Look at what happens to /most/ ‘independent’ whistleblowers sticking their necks out. They get penalized and/or sacked. In the private as well as in the public sector. So most people choose to shut up, even if reluctantly, to maintain their job security and promotion prospects.

/Officially/ the drug supply in prisons is due to ‘visitors’. Jeez they must be smuggling in wagon loads of the stuff – without being found out…

////[And you also think that private agents are the better people and will not be corrupted?]

Only if they are ALLOWED to get away with corruption.////

That applies for both public bodies /and/ subcontracted private businesses.

////If someone ran a school where teachers beat up their kids every day would you just shrug it off and say the we should just bother to educate our kids or would you expect the controls to be tightened up and the teachers punished?////

There are many (public and private) care homes where abuse of residents is a daily occurrence and no-one gives a sh*t – at least not until 'something' happens which makes ignoring the issue ‘safely’ impossible.

///Or would you just punish the kids (as the government did with the whistleblower) for exposing the truth?///

Eh?

///A RISK FREE BONUS. Sorry Piciconne but not ALL people are as crooked as you think.////

I see. So private company directors /are/ the better people in your opinion. Unlike ‘the state’ private businesses aren’t corruptible...

Universal truths of human nature are just that Sands - /universal/.

Btw Sands there /are/ several private prisons in the UK since the 90s, housing around 10% of the prison population. As well as subcontracted services provided by private companies within the public prison sector.

Private prisons in Britain are renowned for their persistent staffing problems and shortages: They have a lower staff-per-prisoner ratio than public prisons, a very high staff turn-over, due to underpaid and inexperienced staff (and lack of training, to save costs). As a result of this private prisons have for instance higher levels of assault. The staffing issue also increases the risk of escapes.

Are you happy to pay that price for the sake of ‘cost-effectiveness’?

The US have a long history of private prisons, and they have the same staffing problems as in the UK. US private prisons house less serious criminals. Housing serious criminals /obviously/ has a severe impact on the overall costs, due to increased security etc - so the claim of cost-effectiveness of private prisons in the US is based on a miscalculation on those two accounts for a start.

There are many other concerns over privatisation of prisons. If all these (and the above) could be eliminated /effectively/, /in principle/ I’m not against privatisation of prisons. But I doubt they can be eliminated. And I have major concerns over the fact that in the US the private prison sector has emerged as a powerful (and purely self-interested) lobby, influencing the criminal justice system, for instance in terms of promoting a highly punitive system.

But somehow I doubt that issue would concern you very much. As long as it feeds /your/ agenda, self-interest isn’t anything to worry about – am I right?