Chav World 4 U!

[Daz Madrigal]

Add two noughts and you've nearly reached your post count, Sandy.

[sandywinder]

///… 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 cigarette 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. >>>

Think about this Piccy. Speeding drivers can be swopped for drug users in the above. They are motivated to speed because they want to get from A to B quicker. Yet it is illegal but they engage in that illegal activity for the sake of getting from A to B quickly. Thta' because the rewards of getting there quicker outweigh the risks and costs of being caught. Yet speeding is dangerous, even though most times it will not cause an accident. But that doesn't mean we should allow all drivers to speed, does it?

////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. >>>

But more government time, resources and effort has been spent on reducing tobacco than on alcohol and it has achieved the result of fewer people smoking.

///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. >>>

But it is not JUST about problem users. All users are potentially problem users just as all people who drive too fast are potential killers.

////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. >>>

But it DOES and has deterred many NEW smokers from starting. And those who do disregard the smoking ban will be fined or put in prison if they continue to disregard the ban.

///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. >>>

But there is still a realistic possibility of supply control. It does however take some intelligence on the part of the authorities to carry this out and this is where I am forced to admit it is an unlikely prospect. On the other hand legalising drugs is just an admittance how awful our authorities are at tackling most problems. They fine shoplifters £80 but if you put your rubbish bin out at the wrong time you can get fined £100.

<<< 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. >>>

But that's because we have had useless authorities in charge of the job. If you had proper management of the problem it could be reduced and made controllable again. If the will-power was there. And one day it could happen.


///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 mentally they are more dangerous. And we don't yet know the long term dangers of many illegal drugs.

<<< 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. >>>

People who use these drugs are largely only concerned about the short term 'benefits' while ignoring the long term costs and dangers.
In short they act like immature children.

////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.....

>>>

Why is it a common misconception? I would have thought it was obvious that the less time people spent in expensive hospitals the cheaper it would be for the government, especially when you add in the cost of those people not working and not paying the tax they would have paid had they been working. And the money people have left from not spending it on tobacco will be spent anyway on other goods which also helps to keep the economy ticking over.

[sandywinder]

///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? >>>

I'm sorry if it doesn't tally with your prejudiced idea that you can't cut the drugs problem if the will power is there.

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

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

Just a bit.

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 one thing there you forgot to mention was that the figures I showed were AFTER 1990 so why you felt you had to hark back to pre 1990 I am left to wonder. You might as well blame Tony Blair for all the actions of Margaret Thatcher.

But the fact is that the drugs problem has reduced, whether you like it or not. Of course the human rights clowns are going to go ballistic at the way these criminals are treated. That's what they do.
And I am not suggesting the same for Britain. I was just making the point that you CAN reduce the problem if you have the will to do so.


////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? >>>

I believe I said up to 40 years imprisonment. That would make people think twice before slling and trafficking drugs. Six month's community sentencing or tagging is not going to deter anybody, is it?

///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..... >>

Drugs are just one commodity. And the laws of demand/supply are the same for all.


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

<< Err /you/ have accepted that yourself. >>>

Not at the current level.

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

<<< Who did? >>> Well you might as well have as whatever you have proposed to achieve it is not exactly memorable.

////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. >>>

Apart from in Singapore. You might as well say we can't stop people selling guns and reducing their supply so let's make them all legal.

Surely you can appreciate that you are talking nonsense?

Or do you suggest we make all guns legal as well?


////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… >>>

A pity you couldn't take any of it then.

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

Why? I'd prefer the Winder model as mentioned several times before.

Or could you not take that in either?


////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? >>.

The fact that these drugs also kill and ruin many lives doesn't matter then? If instant gratification and pleasure at the cost of long term suffering is all that matters to those people then I would say that locking them away until they can get mental treatment was definitely in THEIR best interest as well as society's.

///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..... >>>


Foresight of what? Drugs? They even warned me about alcohol and cigarettes never mind drugs. I must admit to slipping badly with alcohol.

I was around in early 70s but what has that got to do with the lack of state action?

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

Foresight and hindsight. Two of the most common excuses for inaction and failure.

//// 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. >>>

And would now be far worse had legalisers had their way.

<<< So you tell me what the benefits are – as opposed to those of individual users minding there own biz on /clean/ supplies. >>>

Benefits of what? Gosh Piccy you can be cryptic at times.


<<< 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. >>>


So if heroin was made legal those heroin addicts would not rob to buy 'legal' supplies?

Are you joking? And why can't smoking cannabis affect those passive smokers in the same way that cigarette smokers do? Why can't passive cannabis smokers become schizophrenic?

And illegal drugs also causes aggression in many cases. The papers regularly include stories of people high on drugs killing and causing driving accidents. Even the local papers to some extent.

<<< And addiction is a problem in itself. But it would 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. >>

I am all for weaning addicts of drugs. What time-bomb had you in your cryptic mind?

<<< 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. >>>

Err no I have never suggested that. You have even quoted me as saying that drugs are here to stay. Just as murder is here to stay.

<<< Can’t ‘quite’ follow how you can reconcile these two contradictory opinions. Maybe you could clarify.... >>>

Not necessary as no contradiction made. I said we could reduce the problem, not completely eradicate it.


////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! >>>

Maybe you just can't help yourself. Did it occur to you that if you hadn't bought these cigarettes you wouldn't be lighting one up?

Have you tried getting help?

You sound like you need it.

[Daz Madrigal]

No reasoning has its place, Sandy.

If I had gangrene I wouldn't want my leg sawn off with a rusty saw.

In matters of the Universe though it is singularly lacking in any concrete answers.

[piccione]

Blimey Sands....

I'll answer your posts - eventually. If I haven't smoked myself to death that is. Which might actually be the preferable option. ;D

[sandywinder]

Piccione,

Maybe we should just call a truce.

Unless you feel the whole world revolves around drugs?

Hey dovey, I'm holding out an olive branch here. Something a Bible scholar may appreciate.

And I think I've sussed you out at last.

www.anglesey-belles.fsbusiness.co.uk/030604PR.htm




Quick. Where's me gun?

This should do the trick.

[Daz Madrigal]

Well found, Sandy!

Most Dress Designers are gay, in fact its almost obligatory, drug use is rife and to make matters worse he's Welsh!

[piccione]

sandywinder said:

Piccione,

Maybe we should just call a truce.

Unless you feel the whole world revolves around drugs?

Hey dovey, I'm holding out an olive branch here. Something a Bible scholar may appreciate.

And I think I've sussed you out at last.

www.anglesey-belles.fsbusiness.co.uk/030604PR.htm




Quick. Where's me gun?

This should do the trick.

;D

Funny – never bothered to google my own nick name. So this is what comes up right? Well – I /like/ that: “The House of Piccione offers glamour, excellence…”

Before I accept your olive branch Sands we have to agree on a new topic to argue about. Any ideas?
Oh I know:

////Quick. Where's me gun?///

Gun laws and animal rights! ;D

PS: You definitely aimed for the wrong pigeon there Sands. Awww that sweet and innocent thing. Never mind, Nath also tried and failed. I’m a bit of a Scarlet(ish) Pimpernel you see...

[Daz Madrigal]

Yes alright its not THAT amusing....carry on..

[Daz Madrigal]

Not quick enough..I'm off for another sip of the vine.

Cya later..and stay sober!

[piccione]

///Most Dress Designers are gay, in fact its almost obligatory, drug use is rife and to make matters worse he's Welsh!///

;D

Now lets see what we have so far. I am....

1. male
2. Welsh(/man/ -of course, see 1)
3. gay
4. an alcoholic
5. a drug addict
6. 5ft 2in tall (or short, rather)

I’m sure I’ve forgotten something....
Anyway....

1. Given your skepticism in scientific achievements, I suppose this is an assumption of some validity, from your point of view anyway. Unless you’re just trying to confuse me again? I won’t fall for it this time.

2. Father’s side: Eastern European ancestry, mother’s side: Northern European ancestry. Lived in a couple of places abroad, learned a couple of languages. Hmm....I guess that makes it hard to determine.

What about you – any skeletons of ‘impurity’ in your cupboard?

3. Hmm - well I suppose that’s equally hard to determine. Am I platonically gay for liking many members of my own sex, even finding some of them very attractive? Am I platonically gay for disliking many members of the opposite sex, finding some of them utterly unattractive? It gets worse though: I have snogged the odd member of my own sex, and have refused to snog/sleep with individual members of the opposite sex many times.

Jeez – now you’re /definitely/ trying to confuse me!

4. Now this is even harder to determine, but I won’t bore you with the details. Yet I suppose it’s a good sign that I’m still capable of getting hang-overs, and that I don’t suffer withdrawal symptoms when abstinent.

5. I use various legal drugs regularly every single day so yes I guess that makes me an addict. <mental note: cut down on caffeine, try and give up the cigs>

6. Now /that/ I can refute for sure – which would you prefer: metric or imperial?

[Daz Madrigal]

What makes you think I'm sceptical of scientific acievements?

I'm sceptical of the plethora of various theories but certainly not achievements. Why are the theories dressed up as indisputable facts?

Thats my main inquiry, Piccy?

[piccione]

Soz - just posted the reply on the wrong thread (Which God).