Chav World 4 U!

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

////Yes drugs have been allowed (by the soft, liberal, namby-pamby legal system we have)…////

Ah - you mean like the ‘soft, liberal, namby-pamby’ Californian approach.....

CA has always been famous (or should I say ‘infamous’) for its exceedingly harsh drug law enforcement. And it was a /disaster/! Not only was skunk developed in California (under that harsh law), not only was it the drug 'capital' of the 60s - it also has a reputation for its exceedingly high drug use and violent crime that came with it.

Look it up Sands. You’ll find a /flood/ of sources on the ‘successful’ CA drug law enforcement. Even those who have been promoting and supporting it all along are giving up. In 2001 CA introduced ‘Proposition 36’ – to finally spend some otherwise wasted money on treatment rather than /just/ on pointless enforcement.

Here is an article that gives you an overview of the history of CA drug enforcement:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/04/ING44OD4AU1.DTL

The US have a track record for large-scale, ‘successful’ drug raids in /many/ major cities. And all these ‘success’ stories have one outcome in common: The demand did not decrease, nor did the supply (if so, then only temporarily until /other/ markets opened – and by that time users had found alternative supplies anyway), but the (violent) crime rates soared. Not only does it lead to users becoming increasingly desperate for money, it also leads to increased gang violence over turf.

I see you quote California which just happens to border Mexico. Did it ever occur to you how difficult it is to keep drugs out of the country when you have a corrupt Mexican government allowing drugs access to the USA? New York has no such land border and its zero tolerance stance worked.

Britain however does not have any land borders with any other soft country. So it should be relatively easy to keep drugs out of the country. But then we have to respect the human rights of all the travellers to and from our country.

I see the link you provided was not exactly written from a neutral position, so am I right to dismiss it as airily as you dismiss my sources? Or does dismissal only work the one way, when it does not favour your stance?

www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4490

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands


////Then think what effect that would have on people scared of being locked up for 40 years, if that is possible. Compare THAT risk against the risk of being given 'community sentencing' or tagging, both of which would not frighten a butterfly. And that is when the police actually get out of their warm, cosy offices and go into the streets to do the job we are paying them to do. Then try to imagine what effect 40 years in prison would have on would-be dealers. Would they be so keen to do it? Of course not.////

Crikey Sands – I must admit I envy you....

It must be /fantastic/ being able to ‘make sense’ of life and reality by the means of such simplistic conceptual thinking. Instant gratification. Almost like that of compulsive drug users after the next fix....

////Try to imagine that Piccione. Just try.///

I couldn’t possibly. My imagination doesn't stretch /that/ far.....
Unlike you I have the great misfortune of living in the /real/ world.

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.

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.

On second thoughts, maybe it is all to much for you.

[piccione]

Sands

///No you still can't see the wood for the trees. The drugs market was allowed to grow because the laws were not enforced and the penalties were never high enough to deter it. Adding to the problem was the opening up of a drugs highway with mass immigration from West Indies and Pakistan. Most clear-thinking people can see just how obvious this is.///

Most ‘clear’ thinking people employed by the likes of the DEA, desperately defending their disaster approaches - yes. Everyone else doesn’t.

Why is it Sands that those countries with the strictest drugs policies have the greatest problems with drugs? Even the people /living/ in such repressive systems have begun or are beginning to see the light. Maybe you should go and live in Detroit for a while.

///Of course demand will be reduced if the cost of purchasing drugs are far more expensive. You just can not rewrite the whole law of economics to suit your woolly arguments.///

I’m not rewriting anything. In fact I’m sticking right with the ‘law of economics’. Whether the reduction of supply of a commodity (followed by increase in price) will fall is a question of ‘elasticity of DEMAND’. If a commodity is non-essential, consumption /will/ fall, because its demand /is/ ‘elastic’. If the good /is/ essential, high prices will have little impact on its demand. To some extend demand for all or most goods is somewhat elastic, for various reasons. But /not/ that for illicit drugs. Because it’s been a /highly/ essential commodity (at least drugs are /perceived/ as such by humans) , and because supply is guaranteed by the high profits of illegal markets. Supply reduction may shift demand (to other markets, other drugs etc) until new markets emerge, but the demand will /not/ decrease. This is what has happened /consistently/ throughout prohibition. To understand why drugs are an ‘essential’ commodity, one has to /truly/ understand the nature of addiction/drug use. But there lies the crux. After decades of brain-washing many people can’t or won’t.

This goes back to the various points you made about my ‘lack understanding’ of heroin addiction per se, the positives for the user etc etc.

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

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

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

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

At the heart of all addiction is a wish for /constant/ distraction from lack of ‘healthy’ life fulfillment. It’s a self-taught or/and ‘externally induced’ behaviour pattern that needs to be ‘unlearned’ in order to overcome addiction. Simply taking away the drug makes no difference whatsoever. Some people become ‘addicted’ to treatment/institutionalisation as a replacement for their drug taking after having gone through detox/rehab, and when /that/ distraction is taken away from them they relapse into drug use. The simplistic approach that addicts (or those ‘prone’ to addiction because of the above – i.e. NEW users) will stop using/not start if drug availability is ‘complicated’ is based on complete ignorance and/or misunderstanding of why people become addicts in the first place. Non-availability may repel /some/ recreational users (at least for a while – they too will find other sources), but certainly not addicts. Against all warnings from experts, this attitude is at the heart of all repressive drugs policies, and an /obsession/ with denial in itself. What we can’t understand/can’t relate to, or object to, we try and fight by the means most convenient to us. And if it doesn’t work – well it’s somebody else’s fault – just /never/ that of our fundamentally flawed approach.

The fact that there /are/ occasional/recreational drug users shows that the drug itself (and its chemical properties) isn’t the original cause for addiction. Such users are able to use drugs in a controlled way, in certain social settings, and would not allow the drug/s to take over their lives, because they have /other/ more important and higher valued life-fulfillments and commitments.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately addiction is a choice - based on the positive effects (outweighing negatives) that a drug has for the user at that particular point in time. The addict may not make a /conscious/ choice, and will get caught up in that vicious circle. However that doesn’t mean that addiction doesn’t allow change. Most addicts manage to give up /at some point/, and most of them do so on their own. They manage to give up when the time is ‘right’ i.e. when their circumstances have changed and when they are ‘ready’ to face life without the drug, and when they have accepted that they are not helpless victims of that drug – which is /exactly/ what repressive drugs policies are enforcing them to believe.

[piccione]

Sands

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

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

Despite not having broken the law (so far) by smoking in public places, smokers have gradually been ‘socially pressured’ into not smoking in public. This ‘social pressure’ has worked (apart from in pubs because of the traditional ‘accepted’ link between smoking, alcohol and socializing), because most smokers move in ‘mainstream’ culture, not in subcultures. It has instilled feelings of guilt – and ‘fear’ of being ‘excluded’. ‘Mainstream society’ smokers abide by the rules of the law and share the same ethics and value base. I doubt that any smoker who is a full and accepted participant in mainstream society is willing to submerge into an illegal subculture of 'public smoking' after July, for the sake of their habit – addictive as it may be- cutting themselves off from their existing networks. That’s because they have life fulfillments that are far more valued and important, and which they would /not/ sacrifice.

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

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

Besides Sands, some are reluctant to call (compulsive) smoking an ‘addiction’ and prefer the term ‘habit’ (albeit one that is hard to break). That’s because, although tobacco is highly physically addictive, it doesn’t not have the mind-altering or sedative potencies illegal drugs have. Most ex-smokers, after having overcome physical withdrawal symptoms (which -like with heroin- don’t actually last very long), tend to struggle with ‘giving up the habit’, since it has become an integral part of their lives to light a fag. If a smoker has serious life problems, they will be aware of them, whether they smoke or not. The OCD-er will distract from their problems by focusing on their obsession – which can be quite a ‘mind-altering’ experience as well, if you spend hours and hours each day on one single activity. And this obsession will impact on the functioning of the OCD-er's life, because it leaves them with little time to do anything else.

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

///Yet tobacco is also addictive.///

Tell me about it.

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

[Daz Madrigal]

If they've got a regular and reliable supplier and they have the addiction fairly moderated then they can get by reasonably easily and for long periods. As with William Burroughs.

I suppose Ginger Bakers another example until he cam off it. I do recall him laughing at the suggestion of going to Drug Rehabilitation in an interview. According to him you wither wanted to quit or you didn't and if you weren't sure then it was a complete waste of time. He quit..and quite a few of the clever ones do. But then they can afford it.

I'm not an expert on heroin addiction!

[piccione]

////Because my facts are not acceptable because of their dubious source. Of course it would never enter your head that you own 'facts' are also coming from biased sources, would it?///

It’s not so much your sources I object to Sands (although some of them were ‘a bit’ dodgy). /Most/ sources are biased to a greater or lesser extend. It’s the /amount/ of reading from a variety of sources that does it – and the ability of critically applying the findings of these sources to /reality/ and /historical facts/.

[piccione]

Sands

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

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

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

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

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

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

/// I do not CARE if the aim of cleaning up our streets from the filth of drugs is political or social or whatever.///

I don’t care so much about the ultimate /aim/ being political or social either – as long as the /strategy/ is clear about the distinction.

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

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

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

You are the one who keeps banging on about cigarettes and alcohol. I am talking about prohibition of drugs (as we have now) controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. You’re also the one who keeps disregarding the fact that it’s the illegal trade that makes these drugs so dangerous, and again, using the consequence of the black market to ‘support’ your argument. But we’ve been through all that – you refusing to make that link. If you have so much faith in criminal ‘manufacturing’ processes, why not let them take over your gas supply?

///Hey guys we have not managed to stop people killing each other so why not just make that all legal as well?///

Don’t be so ridiculous Sands. It makes you look desperate and foolish.

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

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

////The way to cure a problem is not to encourage it but to discourage it effectively.

Yes - /effectively/. That is exactly my point.

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

No - what /I/ want is /all/ current and potential drug users (i.e. ‘the public’) to be told the full /truth/ about drugs and our drugs policies instead of a pack of lies and distortions. The current system treats /all/ of us like kids. I think there are many people who like being patronised, and who are only too happy to collude with these lies. I'm not. I prefer information, attitudes and policies that are in touch with /reality/ - so that we can finally start trying to put out the fire with water rather than with petrol.

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

[piccione]

Sands… <phew>

///Sorry if you think I am ignoring ANY aspect of drugs so I am pleased to remedy any frightful omission on my part.////

How very kind of you. I accept your apology.

///The first part of which is that addiction is BAD for everybody whether it is alcohol, tobacco, heroin or anything similar.///

Yes so far I agree....

////I know that first hand because I got addicted to tranquilisers prescribed by my GP. And believe me if you have ever been an addict you KNOW that it is not a straightforward health problem.////

Truly sorry to hear that and yes I do know....

////Doctors have for years stopped prescribing such addictive drugs….///

No they haven’t. As I said before, the prescription of barbs is very limited. Benzos are still being prescribed. As are many psycho-active drugs. That’s what psychiatrists do (and GPs for that matter). Sometimes it works, and ‘sometimes’ the patient’s lack of response to a drug is ‘remedied’ by increasing the dose....

///…but you now want everybody (including children) to have easy access to them. This is what I can not accept. I would not wish anybody to go through the hell of what I went through and that was with CLEAN supplies. So don't give me all this balderdash that drugs are only a problem because they are are adulterated.///

Benzos, when taken ‘uncontrolled’, have a higher (physically) addictive potential than even class A drugs (except heroin, which is equally addictive - next to other err complicating factors). Many people get hooked after a period of treatment. And when did I /ever/ say that I /want/ ‘everybody to have easy access’. It’s what they have /now/ - and under highly dangerous conditions- becasue of the black market. I want them to not /wanting/ to access them in the first place, since if they /want/ to they always will have that access. And if they /do/ access drugs I want them to be able to do so under the safest possible conditions.

///IT IS A LIE.///

There we are. Sands the expert (eagerly following Home Office propaganda) says it's a lie. What can I say....

Btw I didn’t say that it was the /only/ problem. I said it was /one/ major /factor/. So calm down....

Well I see – /that/ was your effort of addressing the issue of adulterants.

I hereby officially withdraw my acceptance of your apology....

[piccione]

///Beats bread crumbs in Trafalgar Square, Piccy.///

No good to me Sands. That’s not where I live.

Besides I have a wheat intolerance. You wouldn’t want to kill me now…surely…

[piccione]

Daz

////Sadly it was immediately refuted by a much larger study which suggested the precise opposite. Err..thats fairly normal when it comes to science as I have found out to my cost by wasting several weeks discussing various contrasting studies re. Global Warming.////

The studies (either way) are relatively new, and there are not enough of them yet. To be fair they are talking about ‘suggestions’ rather than stating ‘facts’. Neither ‘side’ /can/ as of yet be sure. If THC indeed has anti-tumor properties, this advantage will have to be considered against the fact that cannabis is mostly /smoked/ - together with tobacco.

And no matter what benefits tobacco /may/ have, they will /never/ outweigh the costs. So ultimately, and unfortunately, they are of little relevance for us smokers....

////More interesting to me is Prof Hans Eysenck's theory that smoking a limited amount - maybe 5/6 cigs a day instead of 20 - is better for the smoker than giving up because the added stress put on someone who is say..under pressure at work or worried would be greater if the person were not to smoke. Smoking gives an automatic distraction and has a soothing quality that aids concentration.///

Ah – Mr Eyseneck – the ‘awkward and controversial’ psychologist....

I too have a lot of time for him since he /was/ ‘controversial’ and ‘awkward’ and did some thinking for himself rather than follow the herd. It’s always a positive thing when someone comes along to cause some chaos amongst the complacent flock. Which doesn’t mean I agree with everything he said.

Eyseneck was also one of those saying that smoking was a ‘habit’ rather than an addiction. I agree with him that the term ‘addiction’ is over-used (…like so many other ‘buzz words’ /these/ days, alas, and I won’t even start (again) on ‘sexism’, or ‘racism’…).

An addiction – although an inherently human phenomenon – is a behaviour that takes over to the point of destructiveness of daily functioning. Some might argue that it /is/ destructive because of the likelihood of (future) health impacts, but then we could extend that to driving, most sports etc etc. – which would mean that every regular activity involving /some/ kind of risk is ‘addictive’.

Unfortunately the theories of such unique, independent thinkers tend to be exploited and distorted by those with an explicit (and badly hidden) agenda. And many of Eyseneck’s theories /were/ exploited in later years - e.g. by Murray/Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve.

His theory about smoking a limited amount of cigarettes a day being better than giving up altogether is still supported by quite a few people – even by many GPs. But on the other hand it has equally many opponents disputing the ‘calming’ effect as a delusion of the habit - especially since the effects of smoking are very diverse, depending on dose and circumstances. What /would/ support Eyseneck’s theory are more recent studies suggesting that lower doses have a soothing effect, whereas higher doses stimulate and agitate.

PS: Sands – I’m giving up for tonite, for /obvious/ reasons.

Jezus Daz why did you ever have to mention Kate and Pete. I hate their guts - for /obvious/ reason....

[Daz Madrigal]

piccione said:

Daz

////Sadly it was immediately refuted by a much larger study which suggested the precise opposite. Err..thats fairly normal when it comes to science as I have found out to my cost by wasting several weeks discussing various contrasting studies re. Global Warming.////

The studies (either way) are relatively new, and there are not enough of them yet. To be fair they are talking about ‘suggestions’ rather than stating ‘facts’. Neither ‘side’ /can/ as of yet be sure. If THC indeed has anti-tumor properties, this advantage will have to be considered against the fact that cannabis is mostly /smoked/ - together with tobacco.

And no matter what benefits tobacco /may/ have, they will /never/ outweigh the costs. So ultimately, and unfortunately, they are of little relevance for us smokers....

////More interesting to me is Prof Hans Eysenck's theory that smoking a limited amount - maybe 5/6 cigs a day instead of 20 - is better for the smoker than giving up because the added stress put on someone who is say..under pressure at work or worried would be greater if the person were not to smoke. Smoking gives an automatic distraction and has a soothing quality that aids concentration.///

Ah – Mr Eyseneck – the ‘awkward and controversial’ psychologist....

I too have a lot of time for him since he /was/ ‘controversial’ and ‘awkward’ and did some thinking for himself rather than follow the herd. It’s always a positive thing when someone comes along to cause some chaos amongst the complacent flock. Which doesn’t mean I agree with everything he said.

Eyseneck was also one of those saying that smoking was a ‘habit’ rather than an addiction. I agree with him that the term ‘addiction’ is over-used (…like so many other ‘buzz words’ /these/ days, alas, and I won’t even start (again) on ‘sexism’, or ‘racism’…).

An addiction – although an inherently human phenomenon – is a behaviour that takes over to the point of destructiveness of daily functioning. Some might argue that it /is/ destructive because of the likelihood of (future) health impacts, but then we could extend that to driving, most sports etc etc. – which would mean that every regular activity involving /some/ kind of risk is ‘addictive’.

Unfortunately the theories of such unique, independent thinkers tend to be exploited and distorted by those with an explicit (and badly hidden) agenda. And many of Eyseneck’s theories /were/ exploited in later years - e.g. by Murray/Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve.

His theory about smoking a limited amount of cigarettes a day being better than giving up altogether is still supported by quite a few people – even by many GPs. But on the other hand it has equally many opponents disputing the ‘calming’ effect as a delusion of the habit - especially since the effects of smoking are very diverse, depending on dose and circumstances. What /would/ support Eyseneck’s theory are more recent studies suggesting that lower doses have a soothing effect, whereas higher doses stimulate and agitate.

PS: Sands – I’m giving up for tonite, for /obvious/ reasons.

Jezus Daz why did you ever have to mention Kate and Pete. I hate their guts - for /obvious/ reason....

Considering the fact that I haven't yet managed to cut down to a 'few cigarettes' a day because..well it seems fairly pointless to me, its obvious to me, you and everyone that the negative health outlook outweighs any posivies by a large margin. Although there ARE as few rather unusual people out there who only smoke very occasionally.

The there are some rather strange characters like George Galloway who seems to think that spending all day puffing away on a big havana isn't as dangerous as smoking a few woodbines.

Maybe he should inform the 'Thought Police' next time they escort him out of a restaurant for lighting up.

The authors of the Bell Curve had more of a political agenda..whereas Eysenck just reported his findings whatever the result - whether PC or not - and seemed genuinely bemused by the fuss made...or at least appeared to be genuinely bemused.

He took hold of the feminist theory that you can give girls guns and toy soldiers whilst equally giving boys dolls and blew it into pieces although for some bizarre reason there are still people who go along with the feminist doctrine.

Its Nature not Nurture.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

///No you still can't see the wood for the trees. The drugs market was allowed to grow because the laws were not enforced and the penalties were never high enough to deter it. Adding to the problem was the opening up of a drugs highway with mass immigration from West Indies and Pakistan. Most clear-thinking people can see just how obvious this is.///

Most ‘clear’ thinking people employed by the likes of the DEA, desperately defending their disaster approaches - yes. Everyone else doesn’t.

Why is it Sands that those countries with the strictest drugs policies have the greatest problems with drugs? Even the people /living/ in such repressive systems have begun or are beginning to see the light. Maybe you should go and live in Detroit for a while.

Most clear people thinking don't continually befuddle their brains with mind-altering substances. It makes me wonder what it is so wrong with them.

Why do countries with strict policies have the most problem?

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

If only a very few people drove after consuming alcohol there would be no need for strict laws to try to stop that either.

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

And how many countries can you name with relatively SOFT drug's policies (like Britain who ALSO have a big drug's problem?

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

[Daz Madrigal]

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

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands


///Of course demand will be reduced if the cost of purchasing drugs are far more expensive. You just can not rewrite the whole law of economics to suit your woolly arguments.///

I’m not rewriting anything. In fact I’m sticking right with the ‘law of economics’. Whether the reduction of supply of a commodity (followed by increase in price) will fall is a question of ‘elasticity of DEMAND’. If a commodity is non-essential, consumption /will/ fall, because its demand /is/ ‘elastic’. If the good /is/ essential, high prices will have little impact on its demand. To some extend demand for all or most goods is somewhat elastic, for various reasons. But /not/ that for illicit drugs. Because it’s been a /highly/ essential commodity (at least drugs are /perceived/ as such by humans) , and because supply is guaranteed by the high profits of illegal markets. Supply reduction may shift demand (to other markets, other drugs etc) until new markets emerge, but the demand will /not/ decrease. This is what has happened /consistently/ throughout prohibition. To understand why drugs are an ‘essential’ commodity, one has to /truly/ understand the nature of addiction/drug use. But there lies the crux. After decades of brain-washing many people can’t or won’t.

This goes back to the various points you made about my ‘lack understanding’ of heroin addiction per se, the positives for the user etc etc.

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 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.

[Daz Madrigal]

hmmm..thats true enough.

You don't get lost in the outback for several days to re-emerge asking for an injection of heroin.