Chav World 4 U!

[piccione]

Sands

////So nothing like a monopoly as you argued.////

It’s a monopoly as an /illegal/ market /on a whole/ (since there /is/ no /legal/ market) - which makes it non-comparable to any legal markets. I would have thought that to be pretty obvious....

The ruthless (unregulated, because illegal) competition /within/ this market is another factor to worry about. It’s not exactly a healthy competition.

////I very much suspect that drug sellers and most other drug takers don't give a toss about who suffers from the trade.////

Yes – that’s the very /nature/ of an illegal (criminal) market.

////You know so would I.////

Awww – you disappoint me know. I was hoping to actually learn something of use from you for a change.....

///But then again each person is different anyway.////

Absolutely.

////There is only one safe dosage.

ZERO.////

....but since that ain’t gonna happen, the second best is /clean/ supplies, accurate information and specific instructions and advice about safe dosage.

[piccione]

Sands

///You also forget that there is just as much (if not more) scope for corruption in BANKING (which is also international). Yet we manage to have a PRIVATE system of banking which works pretty well even if we do get people whingeing about the charges. So how did this happen piccione when EVERYBODY is as corrupt and as corruptable as you believe?///

Noooo - corruption within international banking is ‘minute’. That’s /obviously/ the reason why major leading, international financial institutions felt obliged to set up the International Financial Institution Anti-Corruption Task Force in 2006. (That’s how long it has taken them…)

But again, since promoting the interests of global private cooperations and controlling the geo-political agenda in underdeveloped countries is to the benefit of a few powerful nations (ie those controlling these financial institutions), it is not so much our concern is it – since we are part of those pocketing the profits.

[piccione]

Sands

///Yes you do change your mind quite a bit. Unfortunately it is usually over trivial matters rather than from learning sensible lessons.///

Err – and what ‘sensible lessons’ could I learn from you Sands?
I’m waiting - patiently. Take your time....

///A pragmatist is someone who accepts practical ideas but you have failed to accept any one of the practical ideas on the subject I have made.///

‘Practical ideas’…?

;D

Thanks for the a good laugh Sands. At least you can tell a good joke....

///You are not an pragmatist but an idealist. You think that if drugs are all made legal everything will be fine. It is nonsense.///

When did I say ‘everything will be fine’? /You/ are the one err ‘anticipating’ to wipe out the whole black market, the international illegal trade /and/ all drug demand with one master strike.

That reminds me Sands – which superhero are /you/…?

///Illegal drugs are the base of corruptability. Let us deprive the people of them.///

Yes - /illegal/ drugs are the base of corruptibility. In fact the base of corruptibility lies within human nature – but illegal markets (ie high profits) /enforce/ that corruptibility.

[piccione]

Sands

///Well it is not all as cut and dried as that Daz but let's have a quick look at how the lenient policy of drugs in the past has affected Switzerland up to 2005.////

The Drug Prevention Network of the Americas (DPNA) – closely interlinked with the Drug Free America Foundation (DFAF).

Melvin and Betty Sembler (DFAF) are very ambitious and determined to make their political impact on national and international drug policy – by all means. Because of their ‘Straight’ past, and the organisation it then became (DFAF), being a bit err ‘dodgy’, the DPNA is their ‘official mouthpiece’.

Jeez Sands and you wonder why I can’t take the sources and err ‘facts’ you come up with seriously....

I think this article is self-explanatory....

www.thestraights.com/people/stephaniehaynes.htm

Google ‘Straight Inc’ if this isn’t enough for you.

The ‘uncomfortable’ truth runs a bit deeper than this: Straight was heavily supported, lobbied and lauded by many prominent Republicans and high rank officials responsible for US drug policies and law enforcement. The 'unethical' and 'unprofessional' methods applied by Straight (to put it mildly – some speak of the Great American Holocaust when the name ‘Straight’ in mentioned…) were even more draconian than those applied in Singapore. In fact it’s not an exaggeration to speak of ‘mass suicide’ of young people who were unfortunate enough to be ‘treated’ (ie /abused/) in a Straight scheme.

But Mel and Betts are free to continue their ‘work’ under a different name (even to promote their ‘practices’ under Straight). They are reckless, self-interested criminals Sands, protected by and involved in the highest ranks of US drug policy making! Which (like banking) relates back to my point that white collar crime tends to be ignored/covered up – even protected, depending on who is involved, and who could ‘suffer’ when it’s exposed....

In the light of all that it’s hardly surprising that the DPNA article focuses on alcohol abuse (which is a problem in /all/ European countries), and on the failed open-air needle parks in Switzerland, but – conveniently – fails to mention that the number of new heroin addicts has dropped in Switzerland, and that the maintenance programmes have substantially reduced drug-related death (ODs) and petty crime committed by heroin addicts.

Btw – drugs are not legalised in Switzerland, but the Swiss have shifted their focus on demand reduction, maintenance and treatment. With success.

I wouldn’t rely on criminal minds to tell me otherwise.
In fact it’s a ‘Straight’-forward class A offence under the Misuse of Media Act.....

[piccione]

Sands

////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?////

I’m saying that the prospect of enormous profits are a great enough incentive for many to accept the risks – especially since that can be decreased, due to the flexibility of the illegal trade.

That's how the 'ring leaders' made all their money in the first place.

(I think that's all your posts answered.)

[piccione]

Daz

///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).///

Yes – ecstasy-related death are/were very rare in relation to the huge amount consumed over the years. Complications (and death) arise from the user being overheated – and as you said, poisoning themselves by drinking excessive amounts of water to avoid dehydration, when in fact they should be drinking little amounts at regular intervals, and eat salty snacks.

This is what I mean about prohibition: The message is – don’t do it, it’s dangerous and illegal. End of (…or topped off by a media panic when /one/ death occurs). No correct and vital infomation.

The message /should/ be: ‘Ideally you should not take drug X at all because of […], but if you do, then do […] to keep yourself safe’.

I wonder which of the two approaches really /is/ reckless and irresponsible...

[marv]

piccione said:

Sands

////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?////

I’m saying that the prospect of enormous profits are a great enough incentive for many to accept the risks – especially since that can be decreased, due to the flexibility of the illegal trade.

That's how the 'ring leaders' made all their money in the first place.

(I think that's all your posts answered.)

Freakonomics is well worth reading in this regard. An economist actually went out and studied a drug operation in real time. Perhaps surprisingly, he found that most gang members make less than minimum wage and still live with their parents because they can't afford to live anywhere else: they would literally be better off doing almost anything else. Some work this out for themselves and get out. Some are killed: it is literally a cut-throat business. What keeps the rest going is the prospect of making it to leadership level where they can rake in profits to the level of winning the lottery every week an enjoy a much greater immunity to arrest.

[Daz Madrigal]

Yes that may be so but upon perusing the thread title we're reminded that we are not dealing with the everyday run-of the mill bloke here (or woman..odd that we dont hear of female drug barons?).

There must be the added ingredient of danger and excitement to add to the igredients and as we know some people are drawn to experiences that are more adrenaline filled. Why else would people join drug gangs and occasionally perform renditions of the OK Corral on the back streets of England.

A less academic reasoning would simply suggest that drug dealing is a handy way of avoiding hard labour. The type of which most of us have to do - often somewhat tardily.

[sandywinder]

///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. >>>

Did I ever say it was an 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. >>>

Wow one hundred. And from that you believe that anyone who takes drugs under 18 has a healthy attitude? But I note you don't say how this healthy profile was measured.

Come on.

///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. >>>

Nonsense. If you willingly use something that is damaging to your health there is something wrong with you.

///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. >>>

Which fits the vast majority of people. So repressive laws CAN and DO work.

///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? . >>>

So if we legalise drugs like Holland has, it will make no difference at all, apart from encouraging even more young people to take them up.

[Daz Madrigal]

Yeah Sandy.

You have a point here...I always moan when people lazily compare countries. Sweden is supposedly wonderful and liberal unless you happen to live there. Switzerland has an armed populace but they are too boring to get workesd up enough to fire the darn thangs.

Same thing with drugs.

Look at 24 hr drinking,,,since when have the English drank like the mediterraneans..Piccione of all ppl should know the flaw in that argument.

Nevertheless I believe the future lies in legalisation...its merely a question of time.

[sandywinder]

///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. >>>


But for people who have not had access to these drugs they can not possibly be essential. Allowing them unrestricted access, as you propose, is just going to make them essential to more people.



<<< 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'. >>>

But the more adulterated the become the less effect they have on the user and the less likely they are to continue with them.

What you are suggesting is we should allow blackmail to win the day. Drugs' dealers could equally say 'if you don't allow us to sell our drugs we will poison our clients'.



<<< 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. >>>

Yes higher prices WILL deter people from starting such habit. That's the point. It does not mean however they are going to jump off a cliff or poison themselves.

<<< But high prices (so /enforcement/) also have the perverse effect of attracting more (new) suppliers to that market /because/ of the high profits. >>>

Now you are just getting desperate. If the risks are much higher then the cost of getting the drugs will be much higher and why should sellers necessarily make MORE profits out of selling FEWER drugs? Your logic is badly flawed there.

<<< 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. >>>

But your solution is to encourage MORE people to be dependent on these drugs by allowing them free access. You are not solving a problem you are merely suggesting making the problem far WORSE.


<<< 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? >>>

Yes I have over eaten but only because I knew it could not possibly become a habit that I would get addicted to. I have eaten food from
a very early age, so know what effect it has on my digestion.

<<< /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. >>>

True, stupidity is not exactly my idea of a healthy lifestyle, whether it be taking drugs or jumping off a cliff.


<<< 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.>>>

But many, especially the young, should be stopped from taking stupid risks for THEIR sake. Instead you wish them to be able to take more risks that could ruin their lives.

Some youngsters like to play 'chicken' where they run across the road ahead of cars.

Now in my opinion we should be deterring them from taking these risks. You, on the other hand. would no doubt think it is up to them to experiment and decide.

<<< But whether in favour of legalisation or not: What they /all/ call for is a radical, new approach to punitive prohibition, >>>

And so do I. I suggest ENFORCING this punitive action PROPERLY.

<<< 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). >>>

Yes and many others think we should actually be more efficient and purposeful at stopping drugs.

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

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


Now you are stooping to taking my words out of context. A low blow.

Why not include the FULL statement?

I don't NEED them. You don't need them. Nobody NEEDS them. Certainly NO 12 year old kid needs them.

I do need food. I do need water. But I don't need the internet or the TV or coffee or alcohol or cigarettes and neither does anybody else.

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

And possibly an underhand megalomaniac?

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

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.

We have had a drugs problem long before the 70s. You may not have been around in the swinging sixties though. Drugs were being pushed in large quantities long BEFORE this act, which was brought in BECAUSE drugs were getting to be a big problem.

How long ago were speed limits introduced? Are you suggesting that because drivers are still speeding today in large numbers, we should not have any speed limits?

The answer to a crime is not to make the crime legal, it is to properly enforce the law.

[sandywinder]

////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. >>>

But I did get addicted to drugs. Did you? If not then you can not know what it is like. True I was never addicted heroin but unless you do get addicted to a drug, you can not appreciate why I have such feelings about stopping others from falling into a similar hole.

Nor can you really appreciate what addiction is like.



////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..... >>>

news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2368994.ece


More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction - and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers.

I'd say that that counts as many, wouldn't you?

11,000 cannabis addicts under the age of 18.

[sandywinder]

////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). >>>

They may always be accessible to some, but they will not always be accessible to many, if a genuinely strict competent policy is applied. And if the risks are high many potential users will be dissuaded. This is only common sense. However this appears to have bypassed your mental processes.

<<< 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? >>>

Have you not seen the massive cost of drug crime to the economy? We are talking billions of pounds every year that would be saved by having fewer addicts and so fewer people in prison. And then how much do we pay in benefits to people addicted to heroin,etc? And how much would they be paying in taxes if they were working instead of relying on handouts to feed their addiction?

Only a small percentage of this money would be needed to spend on gradually reducing the problem of drugs.

<<< 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 recommend you read this:

www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/prisonValue.php

<<< 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. >>>

Well you are going to have to dig deep because you are going to have a heck of a lot more new addicts on your hands. And we are going to still need those policemen to stop crime which is not going to stop just because you have legalised drugs. I do hope you hadn't assumed it would. And where is the money going to come from to pay for all this drugs explosion?

[sandywinder]

That's taken me up to #176.