Chav World 4 U!

[piccione]

Sands

////There should be more education in schools of the dangers. There should be more TV advertising campaigns to warn of the dangers of alcohol abuse. They should ask 'soap' program makers to feature people dying of liver disease and alcoholics.////

Like drug policies, drug education (about illegal and legal drugs) should equally have harm minimization at its centre. So not on the basis of ‘Illegal drugs are dangerous and /if/ you take drugs /…/ will or might happen to you…’, but ‘/when/ you take drugs make sure you do /…/ to keep yourself as safe as possible.

The vast majority of young peeps /will/ take or try drugs (legal and/or illegal) at some point in their life. To deny that is foolish and dangerous.

Related to this:

////…when it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S child it is OK for them to become drug addicts or alcoholics but when it is your own you are not quite so keen.////

Wouldn’t you prefer your kid/s to be able to fully trust you as a parent, for support and guidance (/not/ cohesion), using legal or illegal drugs /safely/ and without being alienated from their family – which incidentally would put them at even greater risk of compulsive use, rather than using drugs behind your back and /potentially/ getting themselves into trouble?

Of course to be able to provide such support and guidance a parent needs to be very clear about the actual /facts/ of drug use. Personally I think it’s an essential part of parental responsibility to have that well informed knowledge.

Although somewhat simplistic this site is a fairly good starting point. So are the Lifeline mags. They are less simplistic but rather blunt and honest (written by ‘insiders’) – about the positives as well as the negatives of drug use.

www.talktofrank.com/article.aspx?id=116

“1. My child is experimenting with drugs, will they become an addict?
It's natural to feel anxious and concerned. The most important thing is not to panic.
There's no strong evidence to suggest that young people who experiment will become regular drug users. It's actually a small minority of people who use 'soft drugs' (like cannabis) that'll move onto other drugs.
Arm yourself with the facts (explore our site), so you can begin to have an open conversation with your child about drugs.”

[sandywinder]

oldpunkette said:

Sandy, this is probably going to horrify you. If I had the choice and had to decide whether my daughters were going to drink alcohol or they were going to smoke spliff, but not both, I would choose for them to smoke spliff every single time.

As you (or was it Billy) pointed out, the genie is out the bottle and it will not go back. Cannabis use is far too widespread now for the police to clamp down on it in any meaningful way. They can't even clamp down on the supply line because, increasingly, people are growing their own at home. A mate of mine who is a polis was up in the Police helicopter above Glasgow one night, and he said that even he was astonished at the number of attics and out-houses that could be seen from the air that were lit up like the Blackpool illuminations, because cannabis was being cultivated there. (Apparently you have to keep the lights on.)

So what you are saying OP is that the police KNOW where all these cannabis growing places are and YET do absolutely NOTHING about them.

And then people have the nerve to say that fighting against the drug problem is not working.

If I stood in a boxing ring and didn't defend myself and stood there being hit, would I expect to win the fight? I don't think so.

It should be quite obvious to everybody that the authorities waved the white flag many years ago, when they could have nipped the problem in the bud. Now it is much harder but still not IMPOSSIBLE if they had the will to do it. But they do not.

They have also given up on illegal immigration as well.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

///Interesting article, Piccolo.///

Yes it is interesting but it wasn’t actually a ‘find’ Daz. I’ve had it on file for while after having /specifically/ looked for it a few years ago....

///The majority are obviously no-hopers…///

I’d be very interested to learn how /you/ know that when no-one else knows /for sure/ how many non-addicted/recreational opiate users there are. /Estimates/ based on a number of sample studies account for around 85-90% of ‘invisible’ i.e. occasional/recreational users (IV-use and smoking) in Britain who do /not/ enter’ the system’ (as ‘problem users’), and who indeed ///…hold down very good jobs whilst on heroin..////. Even if this is an over-estimate, the number of non-addictive, recreational users by far outweighs that of ‘problem users’.

There is a book (by Virginia Berridge) on the extensive use of opiates in Britain at the beginning of the 19th century. Society didn’t fall apart due to this excessive use, because opiate use itself does not ///….causes crime, death, homelessness, family break-up and heartbreak/// (punky’s words). The criminalization of (compulsive) street heroin use (‘brown’) is the major cause for that – i.e. social issues of stigmatisation, exclusion, costs of addiction etc as well as the dangers of adulterants and unsafe methods of use. The Swiss ‘experiment’ (and others) showed quite clearly that such issues can be substantially reduced by controlled distribution of ‘clean’ heroin.

<<< Needle Park in Zurich existed as an open air drug scene from 1986 until February 1992. Within this six year period the City Government, City Parliament, governmental and non-governmental organizations implemented a wide range of permissive and restrictive drug policies, from extensive harm reduction to closing the park. Police statistics and several studies suggest that tolerating an open air drug scene can have unforeseen and unfortunate consequences. Low drug prices, lack of law enforcement and lack of social control seem to attract drug users towards the open drug scene and the increase in problems appears to have been more rapid than the increase in the population of addicts. >>>

<<< Most Zurichers, including the police, initially regarded the congregation of illicit drug injectors in one place as preferable to scattering them throughout the city. But the scene grew unmanageable, and city officials closed it down in February 1992. A second attempt faced similar problems and was shut down in March 1995. >>>

It was an unmitigated failure Piccy.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

///I see now Piccy that your megalomania knows no bounds.///

Well Sands if you think that critical analysis of reporting and data makes me a ‘megalomaniac’ I’m quite happy to accept your ‘professional’ diagnosis. As soon as you come up with a realistic, informed, supported, consistent and unbiased argument I’ll be happy to consider it /seriously/. Or do you expect me to be convinced by selected 'bite-sized' biased reporting – from the err ‘experts’ of the Readers Digest....?

On the other hand I could argue that your point-blank refusal to consider any arguments and sources that do not support your agenda qualifies you as the first candidate for the ‘ideological detoxification’ programme. I’ll put in a good word for you since I should hate to see you being criminalized for your addiction....

////…and the scientists who link cannabis to schizophrenia and other mental problems are all wrong////

Now where did I say that Sands? It’s /your/ interpretation of that link I disagree with – and you’re hardly a ‘scientist’ are you....

Link….////About five years ago, Julie Lynn-Evans became aware that cannabis was not the mild and harmless drug that she had always thought it to be…////

Err Sands…we’ve been through this article /ages/ ago - when /you/ posted the link.....

Is this a sign of desperation - or ‘merely’ one of dementia....?

The reason for the term megalomania is that you reject out of hand any supporting evidence I provide but expect me to swallow all the twaddle that you spout.

Now have you a very good reason for me to believe that your information is far more credible than that of many other sources?

I think we would all like to know.

Maybe it is you who needs the 'ideological detoxification' program to get rid of your omniscient beliefs.

But as I am not a patronising pillock I will not suggest it.

[oldpunkette]

Sandy,

I don't think the idea of having some kind of open area for drug addicts sounds workable, and from your post it hasn't worked. (Apart from anything else, would you want to live near a park that had that in it, or walk your dog near it?)


I have long been of the opinion that heroin users should receive heroin through their GP/chemists in the way that they currently receive methadone (which is a waste of time imho). I'm not suggesting a free-for-all in a public park, but a medicalisation of the problem.

However, if what Picci is saying is true, that the majority of heroin users use ocassionally and recreationally . . . and I have no reason to doubt this, I just haven't ever come across it . . then that raises further questions.

[oldpunkette]

sandywinder said:

So what you are saying OP is that the police KNOW where all these cannabis growing places are and YET do absolutely NOTHING about them.

And then people have the nerve to say that fighting against the drug problem is not working.

If I stood in a boxing ring and didn't defend myself and stood there being hit, would I expect to win the fight? I don't think so.

It should be quite obvious to everybody that the authorities waved the white flag many years ago, when they could have nipped the problem in the bud. Now it is much harder but still not IMPOSSIBLE if they had the will to do it. But they do not.

They have also given up on illegal immigration as well.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They bust the odd house (recently up here there have been Vietnamese gangs busted who were growing cannabis on an industrial level), but the ordinary joe soap with a few plants in his attic - the police are not interested.

You say that it could be possible, if difficult, to now start policing cannabis production and use. I honestly can't see how within existing police resources.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

////So people have the propensity for it. Cannabis use is one factor likely to bring it on, but just one. Cannabis use does not CAUSE schizophrenia.

The vast majority of happy hash-heads don't become mentally ill as a result.////

<sigh of relief>

Now doubt punky Sands will tell you that you are a ‘megalomaniac’ for saying that.
Join the club....

For some reason Sands has a complete ‘blocker’ regarding the fact that these findings are related to /heavy/ cannabis use.

No I do not call OP a megalomaniac because she can appreciate the arguments of people who do not always agree with her views.

And I have never said that anybody who smokes cannabis is automatically going to become addicted. But many do. And many of these are young, impressionable, vulnerable people who need our protection not our neglect.

And by legalising drugs and so encouraging their use and abuse we are indeed neglecting the responsibility, some of us at least have for them.

[sandywinder]

oldpunkette said:

piccione said:

///I have heard it said that there are people who only take heroin recreationally at the weekend (most recently by a Professor at a Yooni, so it must be true)…////

Yes it /is/ true punky. ‘Chasing the dragon’ is used as a means of ‘come down’ after use of psychedelics and stimulants in /some/ clubbing scenes. Having said that, most psychedelic users do not want to be associated with regular (IV) opiate users, /even/ if they recreationally use ‘brown’ as a ‘come-down’ drug.

I had a junkie friend once, called Kevin the Junkie. He had started off taking smack to come down off of e's, but he ended up sleeping in a skip.

But he had his freedom OP.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

////There should be more education in schools of the dangers. There should be more TV advertising campaigns to warn of the dangers of alcohol abuse. They should ask 'soap' program makers to feature people dying of liver disease and alcoholics.////

Like drug policies, drug education (about illegal and legal drugs) should equally have harm minimization at its centre. So not on the basis of ‘Illegal drugs are dangerous and /if/ you take drugs /…/ will or might happen to you…’, but ‘/when/ you take drugs make sure you do /…/ to keep yourself as safe as possible.

The vast majority of young peeps /will/ take or try drugs (legal and/or illegal) at some point in their life. To deny that is foolish and dangerous.

But that is because our authorities have given up in trying to stop the problem . The police KNOW who these drug producers and sellers are but allow them to go about freely.

Now if you put all of these in prison for 40 years is ANYBODY really saying that it would not vastly reduce the drug problem?

Are they? Because if they are they are as mentality stable as many drug users are.

I would appreciate an answer to this question rather than some more irrelevant twaddle.

[motorist]

sandywinder said:

Now if you put all of these in prison for 40 years is ANYBODY really saying that it would not vastly reduce the drug problem?

It would reduce it, but who would say it would do so vastly?

Firstly, a number of those arrested would get off because of lack of evidence or somesuch. Knowing who's doing it is not the same as having enough evidence to convict them

Secondly, even these people would likely just be cogs. They would be replaced with drug peddlers not formerly known of and the police would be back to not knowing who any of them are

[oldpunkette]

sandywinder said:

piccione said:

Sands

////There should be more education in schools of the dangers. There should be more TV advertising campaigns to warn of the dangers of alcohol abuse. They should ask 'soap' program makers to feature people dying of liver disease and alcoholics.////

Like drug policies, drug education (about illegal and legal drugs) should equally have harm minimization at its centre. So not on the basis of ‘Illegal drugs are dangerous and /if/ you take drugs /…/ will or might happen to you…’, but ‘/when/ you take drugs make sure you do /…/ to keep yourself as safe as possible.

The vast majority of young peeps /will/ take or try drugs (legal and/or illegal) at some point in their life. To deny that is foolish and dangerous.

But that is because our authorities have given up in trying to stop the problem . The police KNOW who these drug producers and sellers are but allow them to go about freely.

Now if you put all of these in prison for 40 years is ANYBODY really saying that it would not vastly reduce the drug problem?

Are they? Because if they are they are as mentality stable as many drug users are.

I would appreciate an answer to this question rather than some more irrelevant twaddle.

Sandy, in the USA over recent years there has been a policy of using prison more and more for longer sentences (e.g 3 strikes and you're out policies, etc.).

So drug dealers there are getting locked up for long periods of time.

But they are replaced by others as fast as they are locked up.

Locking up the gangsters and dealers doesn't seem to have much effect on the overall trade.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

////…when it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S child it is OK for them to become drug addicts or alcoholics but when it is your own you are not quite so keen.////

Wouldn’t you prefer your kid/s to be able to fully trust you as a parent, for support and guidance (/not/ cohesion), using legal or illegal drugs /safely/ and without being alienated from their family – which incidentally would put them at even greater risk of compulsive use, rather than using drugs behind your back and /potentially/ getting themselves into trouble?

Of course to be able to provide such support and guidance a parent needs to be very clear about the actual /facts/ of drug use. Personally I think it’s an essential part of parental responsibility to have that well informed knowledge.

Although somewhat simplistic this site is a fairly good starting point. So are the Lifeline mags. They are less simplistic but rather blunt and honest (written by ‘insiders’) – about the positives as well as the negatives of drug use.

www.talktofrank.com/article.aspx?id=116

Can anybody give me ONE positive fact in favour of child drug use?

As for MY children (eldest 17), I have hopefully drummed it into their heads of the stupidity of using illegal drugs in a way that will NOT encourage them to do the exact opposite.

So far at least it has worked (not that I can be 100% certain of course).

Although my eldest does drink occasional alcopops he does not smoke. Even a simpleton, as piccione likes to think I am, can tell that.

[oldpunkette]

There are no positive facts about child drug abuse, whether it's cannabis, smack or alcohol.

Kids should not be doing any of it. But they do.

So I say give them proper information, including information about harm reduction, and stop kidding ourselves that we can make it go away for them.

[sandywinder]

oldpunkette said:

Sandy,

I don't think the idea of having some kind of open area for drug addicts sounds workable, and from your post it hasn't worked. (Apart from anything else, would you want to live near a park that had that in it, or walk your dog near it?)


I have long been of the opinion that heroin users should receive heroin through their GP/chemists in the way that they currently receive methadone (which is a waste of time imho). I'm not suggesting a free-for-all in a public park, but a medicalisation of the problem.

However, if what Picci is saying is true, that the majority of heroin users use ocassionally and recreationally . . . and I have no reason to doubt this, I just haven't ever come across it . . then that raises further questions.

I won't speak for Mr/Ms P but I don't think that heroin use is a serious problem for only a MINORITY. Cannabis yes but heroin no.

I have no problem with the medical profession treating any drug addict but the purpose of the treatment should be one of gradual withdrawal and cure rather than one of sustainment.

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

piccione said:

////…when it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S child it is OK for them to become drug addicts or alcoholics but when it is your own you are not quite so keen.////

Wouldn’t you prefer your kid/s to be able to fully trust you as a parent, for support and guidance (/not/ cohesion), using legal or illegal drugs /safely/ and without being alienated from their family – which incidentally would put them at even greater risk of compulsive use, rather than using drugs behind your back and /potentially/ getting themselves into trouble?

Of course to be able to provide such support and guidance a parent needs to be very clear about the actual /facts/ of drug use. Personally I think it’s an essential part of parental responsibility to have that well informed knowledge.

Although somewhat simplistic this site is a fairly good starting point. So are the Lifeline mags. They are less simplistic but rather blunt and honest (written by ‘insiders’) – about the positives as well as the negatives of drug use.

www.talktofrank.com/article.aspx?id=116

Can anybody give me ONE positive fact in favour of child drug use?

As for MY children (eldest 17), I have hopefully drummed it into their heads of the stupidity of using illegal drugs in a way that will NOT encourage them to do the exact opposite.

So far at least it has worked (not that I can be 100% certain of course).

Although my eldest does drink occasional alcopops he does not smoke. Even a simpleton, as piccione likes to think I am, can tell that.

Well you've been lucky, Sandy.

It may have something to do with the area that they live in, the environs and school etc or it may have to do with the type of people they are. Possibly fairly conservative and conventional.

I mean you can't generalise.

There was little chance of me avoiding the stuff but then I was fortunate in that I found it slightly irritating. Not the drug itself but the reaction to it..lots of childish giggling at things not particularly amusing apart from the ocassions what I partook of the substance and was hystericaly witty and amusing. Or thats how I remember it anyway. I dunno I was rolling on a pub floor at the time.

I've always been over sensitive to drugs and the side effects put me off pretty quickly.

Its unusual in my experience that ppl under 50/60 havent at least tried it a few times.