earth

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Yeah but none of these pretend to have ‘invented’ our moral code and go on and on lamenting the ‘loss of morality’ and society’s ‘moral decay’’, claiming this ‘evil’ is all down to the fact that people don’t follow ‘God’s law’ anymore. I think it’s /that/ most of all that gets up people’s (non-believers) noses. >>

Morals aren't learned by religion but I'd be chary of suggesting they 've had no influence whatsoever throughout history and especially on the poverty stricken and less well educated in the distant and recent past. Maybe not today in the UK because of its secular culture.

At a time when I was struggling to pay the rent and cursing my lack of resource's enabling me to wander around half drunk in an attempt to alleviate the boredom of bedsit-land I found a fat wallet lying in the 5 inches of thick snow. It was at 2 am and I could easily have walked off with the wallet. If I'd been a heroin addict I would not have thought twice. I'd have taken the money and run for it!

As it happens I returned it to the address but without even a fiver for my trouble. Even so I felt kinda virtuous afterwards and I thought well its better to feel good than guilty so those are the only morals I know.

Sleeping with someones Wife or even Girlfriend is also probably not a good idea unless he's slept with yours.

Now how far these moral codes are grounded in Religion and whether they would permeate society if not for the foundations laid down by Religion is a hypothetical because we don't know - we have not lived on Earth without it.

My feeling is that Religion throughout Civilisation has laid down some basic ground rules and that in the balance the good may well outweigh the bad results of adhering to a moral code.

What I don't like about strict religious moral codes are the stringencies of the guidelines, the lack of doubt, and as you said..the hypocrisy factor. And of course the sheer absurdity of some of the more trivial and barmy codes..wearing headdresses, turbans, not eating Pork, having to slash throats of live animals and so on. Even these bizarre rituals have some positive effect by forcing the followers to be constantly reminded of whatever faith they belong to.

They don't apply or appeal in any way to me but I wouldn't be too judgemental towards those people who do adhere to them.

[piccione]

Sands

////Now you are being silly. You are just arguing that very addictive drugs and rarely addictive drugs are the same. You can't say that GPs routinely prescribe potentially addictive drugs to people without any thought or care for the user.////

I didn’t say they did. I’m advocating for people to take some 'responsibility' for themselves, rather than blaming it all on the doc. Which is just an extension of the ‘disease model’ of addiction. If it ain’t the drug’s ‘fault’, it is the doc's. Potentially addictive (prescribed) drugs carry health warnings about their addictiveness. No-one can say they didn’t know that, unless they decided not to read the label....

But like street drug users are ‘desperate’ enough to ignore such warnings, because of the ‘positive’ effects of the drug. If someone sticks to the prescribed dosage and has no ‘inclination’ to addiction, they will not become addicted. But many people misuse prescription drugs, and even go ‘doctor shopping’ to access more of them.

Street drugs /do not/ come with such labels. But there is enough public information out there to err ‘suggest’ that they are highly adulterated and addictive. But again, the positive effects of the drug outweigh the meaning of such warnings.

////Maybe you can't SEE any difference but I am sure others can.///

Yes, quite right - many /conveniently/ make that distinction....

////Again you completely ignore the fact that some drugs are far more addictive than others. It is true that people react to drugs differently. Some will get addicted others won't.////

Yes, exactly – no matter how addictive the drug is. Some people give up smoking without looking back, others (like me) struggle. Nothing to do with the addictive potency of tobacco, but with the individual’s ‘mind-set’. I’m not blaming /my/ struggling on /tobacco/. I blame it on my own ‘weakness’.

////But that is a good reason why people should not be stupid to try these drugs in the first place. Why risk a lifetime of hell for an hour's pleasure?////

Why do people drink alcohol, ‘risking’ becoming addicted? Why do people bungee-jump or sky-dive, ‘risking’ falling to their death? Risk taking, and even ‘thrill-seeking’, is an /innately/ human trait, and people seek thrills in different ways, ignoring potentially dangerous, or even fatal consequences, because the kick they get out of that particular thrill outweighs those potential negative consequences.

Like a ‘healthy’ degree of risk-taking, this underlying ‘ignorance’ is also innately human, since we couldn’t function without either of them in daily life. For various reasons, it is ‘simply’ blown out proportion in those who seek extreme thrills, and sometimes ‘only’ because it is considered a ‘normal’ degree of risk-taking in certain (peer) groups.

////But recreational users do not KNOW whether they are going to become addicted or not. It is like Russian Roullete. Why take the chance? Why are 'normal' people so sad they have to resort to recreational drugs to get any enjoyment out of life?////

Neither does someone who drinks alcohol for the first time. What’s the difference? The only difference is that alcohol is an accepted ‘mainstream’ drug, whereas illegal drugs are not. Young people /mainly/ use class B and C drugs, and do so recreationally and controlled. They are called ‘recreational users’ /because/ they only use drugs ‘recreationally’. If they didn’t, they’d be called ‘non-users’ or ‘problem users’.

//// They take prescribed drugs because they are ADVISED to take them to cure whatever problem is bothering them. They put their trust in doctors and the health system.////

Answered that above.

///But no 'authority' advises people to take 'recreational' drugs. In fact quite the opposite. They even bring out laws to warn people of the dangers.///

Yes, that’s exactly the double standard I’ve been pointing out all along. The fact that they are illegal doesn’t make them anymore ‘dangerous’ than prescribed drugs. But they are socially condemned, hence the enforcement of the danger message. What makes them more dangerous is the fact that they are adulterated, and that they don’t come with instructions about safe dosage.

No-one is force-feeding people prescribed anti-depressants, unless they are sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The reason why people take these drugs is that they the (anticipated) positive effects outweigh potential risks at that moment in time. And most people do so safely. Why do some people become ‘addicted’ to a certain prescribed drug, but most people do not?

////The two things are like chalk and cheese.////

The attitudes towards, and public/legal messages about prescribed vs. illicit drugs are like chalk and cheese, yes, the drugs themselves are not. In fact, many illegal drugs have exactly the same effects (various similar effects, depending on the type of drug) as most legal drugs.

////More nonsense. All people who take illegal drugs from whatever background are as stupid as each other. In fact people from respectable families are usually tarred with a bigger brush because they have had the advantages of life and can't use poverty and bad parents as an excuse.////

This functional ‘excuse’ is used by those affected, and by those close to the affected individual/family.

////There is NO reason for anybody to take illegal drugs.////

This is exactly where we get stuck and go round and round in circles: because you can’t accept that /your/ non-need for drugs isn’t shared by everyone else (those who ‘need’ drugs). We’ve been there before – many times in fact. You want the problem to go away by ignoring the causes, and by expecting everyone else to follow your line of thinking.

////The nearest I could come to agreeing with you is that of people who use cannabis for their painful ailments because they have been let down by the health system. That I can understand. I am all heart. No really.////

I've never put your ignorance down to malicious intend, Sands, just to indoctrination by functional perceptions.... ;D

////Yes it does as I have already said. With prescribed drugs people do not CHOOSE to take drugs they are advised to by 'respected' professionals (even if this respect is often misplaced) . With illegal drugs, people CHOOSE for themselves. It is their individual choice.
If GP prescribes you medicine most people will take it on trust.///

I’ve answered that as well (above).

////After 10 years of a Labour government and waiting times have been drastically reduced (according to Tony Blair) I think not.////

No indeed they haven’t. People are seen for ‘screening’ or an initial assessment within a few months, in order to keep the stats of waiting lists down. Because once they have been seen, they ‘officially’ come off the waiting lists. But the /real/ waiting begins /after/ that initial screening/assessment.

////Schizophrenia is one of the classic symptoms of cannabis use. How much shorter would these waiting lists be but for idiots who take cannabis, I wonder?////

And how many people are misdiagnosed with schizophrenia and personality disorders when no-one can ‘place’ them anywhere because of ‘inconsistent’ or border-line symptoms? As I said – it’s a rather curious fact that more women are diagnosed with bi-polar, and men with schizophrenia. The ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ symptoms of the two illnesses are very similar. But schizo has the (social) label of ‘potentially aggressive’ attached to it. So men are primarily diagnosed with schizo, ‘just in case’. Also, women are altogether less diagnosed with psychotic disorders, because being 'hysterical’ is considered (relatively) ‘normal’ for them. ;D In men it’s ‘abnormal’ and therefore an ‘illness’.

And lets be clear about one thing (again!): I’m /not/ advocating /any/ drug use, legal or illegal, as a ‘healthy’ option for coping or for a thrill. But that doesn’t alter the fact that many /see/ drugs as an option. It’s always been that way – throughout the history of mankind people have, by various means, and for various reasons, artificially altered their consciousness. It’s a human /trait/ - that’s a /fact/. Therefore, blaming ‘the drug’ is /very/ unhelpful in addressing the issue of (ignored) potential negative consequences.

As for schizophrenia and cannabis: A correlative increase of risk exists for young people (under 21) who have a genetic predisposition, or who have a family history of schizophrenia. Excessive alcohol use can similarly increase that risk, and so can certain other drugs, when used regularly.

Obviously, not everyone who is genetically prone will develop schizophrenia, but the risk certainly increases through /many/ environmental factors. Drugs are not the only risk factor. It can be anything from the mother being stressed during pregnancy, stress factors in early childhood, social stress factors etc. The people who misuse drugs (including cannabis), ie those who are heavy users, are /highly likely/ to have been exposed to any, or several, of these other risk factors. ‘Simply’ growing up with a parent who has a mental disorder is an exceedingly high stress factor, and a risk factor to ‘fleeing’ into heavy drug use as well.

////And you want to legalise cannabis so far MORE people will become prone to schizophrenia and related problems? And waiting lists will get longer and longer. And who is going to have to pay for all this treatment? Not the cannabis taking idiots that's for sure.////

Whereas you’re obviously happy for your money to be squandered on ineffective, prohibitive strategies that do f*ck all for addressing the /causes/ of excessive drug use, rather then investing it into prevention of drug use and into saving the lives of those who /do/ use.

At least be consistent Sands and say that smokers should not be treated for lung cancer, alcoholics not for conditions caused by their drinking, fat people not for various conditions caused by their fatness, ‘extreme sport’ ‘thrill-seekers’ not for their broken bones caused by pursuing their sports. I have a friend who fell of a cliff, and was in hospital and rehab for almost a year. Jeezzzz, the costs! She should have been left to die....

////No because I am not comparing their crimes but comparing attitudes of people like you, who use any daft thing to excuse them for their crimes apart from their innate criminality itself. Why can't you just see that some people are just BAD? They do not always need an excuse or reason to commit crime.////

I’m trying to get my head round this: So there are ‘innately bad’ people who commit /serious/ crime (such as serial killing, e.g. Shipman), and there are ‘innately bad’ people, such as drug addicts, who have moral scruples and do /not/ commit /serious/ crime, despite being ‘innately bad’.

Is that it?

No can’t be. It doesn’t make any sense at all....

And how does your above para fit in with this:

//// I never said that most people who take illegal drugs are evil. Stupid yes but not evil.////

‘Innately bad’ or ‘stupid’….which shall it be?

Incidentally, although I do not ‘excuse’ /any/ criminal activity, I make a difference between those who are criminals for criminalities sake, and those who are criminalised for their illegal drug use. I hold both of them resposnible for the /active/ crimes they commit out of either motif.

////But even if they had to pay 'reasonable' (whatever that is) prices to get drugs many would still steal to get them. And but for the 'relatively' high prices of drugs there would be far more people overdosing on cheap drugs. And far more people would become ADDICTED to drugs because they would use more of them for longer periods.////

Do you really think that people who don’t take heroin now, and have no inclination to do so, would suddenly change their mind? If they /wanted/ to take heroin, they could do so now. It’s readily available.

////SOME may do so but not ALL. Many drug crimes result from people who have as much control of their brains as John Reid has of the Home Office.////

Yes, and so do many /other/, non-drug related crimes.

////Not just violent crime either but crimes like driving under the influence of drugs and killing or injuring people.////

And again…it /is/ a criminal offence to drive under the influence of alcohol /and/ drugs. And what about reckless drivers who are perfectly sober? How are you going to prevent them from driving recklessly?

////Drug taking does not affect me directly so what the frack are you talking about now?////

It does affect you /directly/ as a member of society experiencing the consequences of the whole illegal market. There is no ‘illegal market’ for self-harming.

////And who is to say that SOME self-harmers are not evil?////

And who is to say that /you/ are not, or that /I/ am not, or the nice man running the shop next door. For all I know he could turn into a serial killer tomorrow……

Don’t be so silly Sands....

////Many will be so but they NEED just the same help as drug addicts. Although far more time and resources are spent on idiotic drug takers than people who self-harm. Although the two often overlap.////

Yes they do overlap, for obvious reasons. The reason why self-harmers tend to get less time and resources is that /most/ self-harming is unknown to ‘outsiders’. And because their self-harming has no immediate impact on society, ie doesn’t create public interest and concern.

[piccione]

Daz

////No more so than anyone ouside the constraints of their profession.////

There is always a higher expectation of those who are members of ‘respected’ professions, and/or who have a certain social standing. But even amongst those the medical profession has always been an exception as far as the expectations of ‘moral impeccability’ is concerned. Even in ‘ancient’ cultures, ‘healers’ were held in high regard, whether they actually deserved it or not.

////Show it to a Welshman and he's bending your ear about Garreth Edwards and getting all weepy eyed!////

That depends on the /colour/ of the dragon... ;D

////Morals aren't learned by religion but I'd be chary of suggesting they 've had no influence whatsoever throughout history and especially on the poverty stricken and less well educated in the distant and recent past.////

/In the past/ the church had a lot of power and enforced ‘morals’ and moral conformity by coercion – by threats of punishment, either immediate (‘earthly’) or in the ‘after-life’. That’s always a bad premise for ‘true’ morality, especially when these morals, and their enforcement, serve a certain section of society.
We don’t have to look to the past to see the effect of moral coercion. We’ve got plenty of examples even today, amongst orthodox Christianity/Judaism, and most of all Islam. And I’m not ‘simply’ talking about the fanaticisms of suicide bombers. I’m talking about the day-to-day moral bigotry that keeps powerful leaders exactly where they are – in power – by enforcing (moral) conformity through brainwashing and threats.

////As it happens I returned it to the address but without even a fiver for my trouble. Even so I felt kinda virtuous afterwards and I thought well its better to feel good than guilty so those are the only morals I know.////

This is /exactly/ what ‘true’ Christian morality is about though – behaving ‘morally’ for a ‘reward’. I don’t need a fiver for returning a lost wallet (I found £500 pounds once, also in a time when I could have very well done with the money – well, I could always do with an extra couple of hundred quid). I don’t need a choc biscuit or a pad on the back. And if someone can’t say ‘thank you’ that’s no skin of my nose.

////Sleeping with someones Wife or even Girlfriend is also probably not a good idea unless he's slept with yours.////

That depends on the motif. Personally, I’d see it as a far greater ‘moral wrong’ to sleep with someone’s wife/girl-friend out of /calculation/, ie because their husband/boy-friend slept with that person’s wife/girl-friend, rather than out of genuine attraction.

////Now how far these moral codes are grounded in Religion and whether they would permeate society if not for the foundations laid down by Religion is a hypothetical because we don't know - we have not lived on Earth without it. My feeling is that Religion throughout Civilisation has laid down some basic ground rules and that in the balance the good may well outweigh the bad results of adhering to a moral code.////

Don’t be so daft. There ain’t anything ‘hypothetical’ about it. Fundamental social morals and ethics are an innate and /essential/ human instinct and need (for survival). If they didn’t exists, there’d be no ‘societies’ or human co-existence, and we’d all be loners, just meeting up for ‘mating season’. In fact – there’d be no humans at all, since human survival is dependent on interaction and co-operation with other humans. Most people don’t need a written or ‘prescribed’ (moral) law for ‘constructive’ social interaction. Criminal law (and the moral code underlying that law) is for those who are, for whatever reason, destructive, and outside that ‘moral norm’. There are many animal species (those who are equally dependent on each other for survival), who punish or exile destructive members of their social group. And likewise, they’re /supportive/ of each other and their social group...

myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=binti

I doubt Binti Jua acted out of a /religious/ moral conscience...

The fact that, in our (Western) societies, /anti/-social, or socially /ignorant/ behaviour has increased has nothing to do with loss of morals due to loss of religious moral impact. It’s due to the fact that we have ‘outgrown’ ourselves ie can afford to live and think more independently, because we are not tied down to and by immediate (geographical) ‘communities’ anymore - ie loss of impact of social coercion. We always complain about the disadvantages of this phenomenon, and there are many, but we’ve also gained /a lot/ of personal freedom and choice. All comes at a price, and you can’t have it all.

The ‘moral codes’ that are indeed deeply rooted in /religion/ are those imposing restrictions onto the /individual/, regardless of their overall lack of social impact or disadvantage to the whole group. And here we are talking sex and sexuality /big time/. It’s an obsession, even today. I wonder why....

And look at the ‘positive effects’ that had: How many infants have been abandoned and killed over the centuries because of the utterly insane Catholic celibacy. There are ‘hidden’ child graveyards in many, primarily Catholic, countries/regions - kids fathered by priests - not to mention the people who were punished and killed, or killed themselves, because they didn’t abide by the (sexual) moral code.

/Thankfully/, in /our/ society, we are now only dealing with the ‘left-overs’. And f*cking good riddance. ‘Amen’ to that indeed!

////My feeling is that Religion throughout Civilisation has laid down some basic ground rules and that in the balance the good may well outweigh the bad results of adhering to a moral code.////

That probably depends on your ‘moral outlook’. I for one refuse to have my sex life ‘prescribed’ by sexually inhibited Christians, or by anyone else for that matter. I’m quite capable of making my own decisions, thank you very much. And likewise, as far as I’m concerned Christians are welcome to continue their platonic ‘threesome’ with God and Jesus if they prefer....

////What I don't like about strict religious moral codes are the stringencies of the guidelines, the lack of doubt, and as you said..the hypocrisy factor. And of course the sheer absurdity of some of the more trivial and barmy codes..wearing headdresses, turbans, not eating Pork, having to slash throats of live animals and so on.////

Yup. I agree.

////They don't apply or appeal in any way to me but I wouldn't be too judgemental towards those people who do adhere to them.////

You mean as judgmental as many theists are of non-theists/other religions…? Funny that ‘apologists’ always point out atheists being judgmental of theists, but don’t acknowledge the same 'flaw' in theists. It’s that let-the-child-believe-in-Father Xmas phenomenon again...

Personally, I don’t care how theists lead their lives as long as they don’t claim /their/ ‘truth’ should also be mine, and as long as their ‘truth’ doesn’t affect my life – e.g. by claiming ID should be acknowledged as a ‘scientific theory’ or that brainwashing young men into becoming suicide bombers is for a ‘noble moral' cause.

And, funnily enough, no answers from ‘apologists’ either as to /which/ of these religions is ‘right’...

Actually, I think there are good reasons for Islam to support Catholicism. If they don’t, they might run out of virgins soon. Ah no, I forgot – they have their own way of dealing with ‘promiscuous’ women. They just hang them. Which means they might be running out of women /altogether/ soon...

[Daz Madrigal]

The only slight disagreement is in nuance and emphasis. Although there is one point you've made thats highly questionable. You suggest that it is not 'hypothetical' to suggest that we cannot truly comprehend on how the World would be without any religious guidelines.

This is obviously nonsense, you simply cannot airily dismiss 20,000 years of history and attempt to brush it under the carpet as if it does not and has never existed. Therefore by all definition it is purely hypothetical on your part.

<< There is always a higher expectation of those who are members of ‘respected’ professions, and/or who have a certain social standing. >>

Again a nonsense.

Well thats a mere sleight of hand. Of course monied people from mainly middle and upper middle class families find it easier to adhere to moral standards, Piccione.

Try taking their money off them and throwing them onto a run down Slum Council Estate and then we were really set the standard for 'their respected professions'.

But then you were the one who suggested that these people were just as likely to use heroin, coke and crack cocaine as those on the Council Estate. I find this highly dubious and rather worrying. I do NOT want my GP to be a part time Heroin Addict!

Apart from those glaring errors we are in some agreement. I like the idea of pure Christian Morals without the baggage that has been attached to it over history.

..but thats another subject. There were numerous splits during Early Christianity and as expected in this World the mean of spirit easily gained the upper hand of those who were more pious.

Sometimes humility and turning the other cheek just doesn't pay!

[piccione]

Daz

////Although there is one point you've made thats highly questionable. You suggest that it is not 'hypothetical' to suggest that we cannot truly comprehend on how the World would be without any religious guidelines. This is obviously nonsense, you simply cannot airily dismiss 20,000 years of history and attempt to brush it under the carpet as if it does not and has never existed. Therefore by all definition it is purely hypothetical on your part.////

Is it full moon again…? Or are you just bored…? Surely you can find /something/ more useful to do than word-twisting....

/Your/ original statement was this:

[Now how far these moral codes are grounded in Religion and whether they would permeate society if not for the foundations laid down by Religion is a hypothetical because we don't know - we have not lived on Earth without it.]

....to which /my/ reply was that it ain’t ‘hypothetical’ at all (as to where these moral codes are grounded) – ie /not/ in religion: they are an innate human instinct and need for survival, similar to social 'morals' of other species.

Nothing to do with ‘comprehending what the world would look like without religious guidelines’. 'Religious guidelines' aren't innate human social moral values and ethics. Religion just /claims/ they are.

////Of course monied people from mainly middle and upper middle class families find it easier to adhere to moral standards....////

Yup – looks like boredom to me....

I didn’t say that they actually inherently /had/ ‘higher moral standards’, I said there was an /expectation/ (from the /outside/) that the had, or should have.

////But then you were the one who suggested that these people were just as likely to use heroin, coke and crack cocaine as those on the Council Estate. I find this highly dubious and rather worrying////

No-one knows for sure how common recreational smack and crack use is among the upper-/middle class (or in certain middle class cultures). But ‘invisible’ use (ie non-problem, recreational use) is estimated to be far higher than we think. Addiction rates are far lower among the upper-/middle class. At least ‘officially’. They are more likely to hide their addiction because they can’t ‘afford’ it - /socially/. But they more likely to be able to afford it /financially/.

And what certainly /is/ a common recreational drug among the upper-/middle class is coke, and other stimulants. I would have thought that was a well-known fact. And why should it be more worrying than e.g. regular (and often heavy) alcohol use by those same people? Because drinking (even large amounts of) alcohol is ‘normal’, whereas all illicit drug use is ‘abnormal’?

////I do NOT want my GP to be a part time Heroin Addict!////

In the early 20th century opiate use by doctors was quite a common phenomenon. Many experimented with it, and kept diaries.

///I like the idea of pure Christian Morals without the baggage that has been attached to it over history.////

And what /are/ these ‘pure Christian Morals without baggage’? Unless you are still arguing that basic moral (social) values were 'given’ to us ‘by the grace of God’.
Which is of course bull...

A ‘true’ Christian Moral value ‘without baggage’ would be a Catholic priest having sex with his house-keeper without her falling pregnant. Ah, but then they are not allowed to use condoms. Hmmm - coitus interruptus perhaps…?

‘Thankfully’, today that ain’t necessary anymore, since the meaning of celibacy has ‘unofficially’ changed from ‘sexual abstinence’ to being ‘unmarried/without partner’, and the Holy Roman Catholic Church runs their very own child maintenance offices for err ‘celibate’ priests, while preaching about the values of marriage and family life, and sexual restraint/abstinence outside marriage.

Jezzz – what a hypocricy. If they are the ‘earthly representatives’ of ‘God’, I’m dam/n glad ‘HE’ has chosen not to show his face round here anymore – after some initial, heavy involvement – setting bushes on fire, giving orders and ‘helpful’ health tips (like curing leprosies with animal blood), chatting to people, and actually /physically/ sharing a couple of bites of ‘earthly’ food with them (although he was/is allergic to apples). And he /still/ managed to hide from them what he looked like. Pretty amazing. Or maybe Islam got it right after all, and he wore a niqab.

[sandywinder]

////But recreational users do not KNOW whether they are going to become addicted or not. It is like Russian Roullete. Why take the chance? Why are 'normal' people so sad they have to resort to recreational drugs to get any enjoyment out of life?////

<<< Neither does someone who drinks alcohol for the first time. What’s the difference? >>>

As someone who doesn't think alcohol is a good idea either, very little. I have suggested many times that alcohol should be treated
like tobacco. It should be taxed far more heavily and there should be more TV campaigns and warning message on bottles/cans to warn of the dangers.


///The only difference is that alcohol is an accepted ‘mainstream’ drug, whereas illegal drugs are not. ///


Not by me. But I also think that a limited amount of alcohol is not harmful. In fact a certain amount of alcohol is actually healthy. In limited quantities the addictiveness of alcohol is far less than that of many illegal drugs and far less unhealthy. There are no health benefits in using any quantity of illegal drugs.

/// Young people /mainly/ use class B and C drugs, and do so recreationally and controlled. They are called ‘recreational users’ /because/ they only use drugs ‘recreationally’. If they didn’t, they’d be called ‘non-users’ or ‘problem users’. ///

And many youngsters move from Class B and C drugs to class A drugs. They often deal with the same pushers. And today's 'recreational' user is often tomorrow's 'problem' user.


///But no 'authority' advises people to take 'recreational' drugs. In fact quite the opposite. They even bring out laws to warn people of the dangers.///

<<< Yes, that’s exactly the double standard I’ve been pointing out all along. The fact that they are illegal doesn’t make them anymore ‘dangerous’ than prescribed drugs. >>>

Wrong.

This is not double standards. Prescribed drugs are prescribed to 'cure' a health problem. They are not prescribed so that people can have a good time.

You can't seem to grasp this difference, Pixie.

<<< But they are socially condemned, hence the enforcement of the danger message. >>>

And they are condemned precisely because they ARE so dangerous and unhealthy.

<<< What makes them more dangerous is the fact that they are adulterated, and that they don’t come with instructions about safe dosage. >>


Wrong again. They are more dangerous because of the SIDE EFFECTS that often come with them, even if they are not adulterated. Schizophrenia for one.

Only the other day George Michael was found guilty of driving while under the influence of cannabis. Are you saying it was safe for him to drive?

Cannabis stays in the blood stream for far longer than alcohol. So this is another reason not to allow idiots like him to take these drugs. I doubt his drugs were adulterated.


<<< No-one is force-feeding people prescribed anti-depressants, unless they are sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The reason why people take these drugs is that they the (anticipated) positive effects outweigh potential risks at that moment in time. And most people do so safely. Why do some people become ‘addicted’ to a certain prescribed drug, but most people do not? >>>

But a decent doctor in a decent health service would only prescribe anti-depressants for a short time, especially if there was a chance of them being addictive.

As I said some drugs are far MORE addictive than others.

////The two things are like chalk and cheese.////

<<< The attitudes towards, and public/legal messages about prescribed vs. illicit drugs are like chalk and cheese, yes, the drugs themselves are not. In fact, many illegal drugs have exactly the same effects (various similar effects, depending on the type of drug) as most legal drugs. >>>

But the point is that these prescribed drugs are 'controlled' by medical professionals (or at least should be). Illegal drugs are not

It is like the difference between a baby playing on the streets monitored and unmonitored. Which makes the most sense?


////There is NO reason for anybody to take illegal drugs.////

This is exactly where we get stuck and go round and round in circles: because you can’t accept that /your/ non-need for drugs isn’t shared by everyone else (those who ‘need’ drugs). We’ve been there before – many times in fact. You want the problem to go away by ignoring the causes, and by expecting everyone else to follow your line of thinking.

No I don't expect the problem will go away by ignoring the causes. The causes have to be addressed. Drugs (prescribed or not) are only a short term 'fix' (and in many cases the 'cop-out' alternative) . Unless the underlying causes are dealt with the problem is only postponed (if that).


////After 10 years of a Labour government and waiting times have been drastically reduced (according to Tony Blair) I think not.////

<<< No indeed they haven’t. People are seen for ‘screening’ or an initial assessment within a few months, in order to keep the stats of waiting lists down. Because once they have been seen, they ‘officially’ come off the waiting lists. But the /real/ waiting begins /after/ that initial screening/assessment. >>>

Actually that is not usually so. Certainly in some cases it is indeed true but not generally.


////Schizophrenia is one of the classic symptoms of cannabis use. How much shorter would these waiting lists be but for idiots who take cannabis, I wonder?////

<<< And how many people are misdiagnosed with schizophrenia and personality disorders when no-one can ‘place’ them anywhere because of ‘inconsistent’ or border-line symptoms? >>>

A poor reply that fools nobody. How many people are NOT diagnosed with schizophrenia when they SHOULD be?

/// Therefore, blaming ‘the drug’ is /very/ unhelpful in addressing the issue of (ignored) potential negative consequences. ///

I am not blaming the drug but the idiots who take them and the government for not getting its act together and tackling the abuse.

////And you want to legalise cannabis so far MORE people will become prone to schizophrenia and related problems? And waiting lists will get longer and longer. And who is going to have to pay for all this treatment? Not the cannabis taking idiots that's for sure.////

<< Whereas you’re obviously happy for your money to be squandered on ineffective, prohibitive strategies that do f*ck all for addressing the /causes/ of excessive drug use, rather then investing it into prevention of drug use and into saving the lives of those who /do/ use. >>>

No I am not advocating ineffective strategies. Wherever did you get that silly idea? I want EFFECTIVE enforcement not the pathetic response we have had in the UK for the past fifty years. That half-arsed strategy has been almost a complete waste of time.

Although it has dissuaded many young people from taking illegal drugs, it has not stopped no way near enough of them.

// At least be consistent Sands and say that smokers should not be treated for lung cancer, alcoholics not for conditions caused by their drinking, fat people not for various conditions caused by their fatness, ‘extreme sport’ ‘thrill-seekers’ not for their broken bones caused by pursuing their sports.///

Have I said that drug users should not be treated?

I can't remember doing so. Maybe the Pixie imagination is going into hyperdrive.

It think all drug users should be TREATED. It should be made COMPULSORY to treat them. And I don't just mean getting them off the drug temporarily. The underlying problems need to be sorted out. It will cost money to do so but it already costs the country billions a year by ignoring the problem.

/// I have a friend who fell of a cliff, and was in hospital and rehab for almost a year. Jeezzzz, the costs! She should have been left to die.... ///

Remind me not to have you as a friend. Was she drunk or on drugs at the time?

////No because I am not comparing their crimes but comparing attitudes of people like you, who use any daft thing to excuse them for their crimes apart from their innate criminality itself. Why can't you just see that some people are just BAD? They do not always need an excuse or reason to commit crime.////

/// I’m trying to get my head round this: So there are ‘innately bad’ people who commit /serious/ crime (such as serial killing, e.g. Shipman), and there are ‘innately bad’ people, such as drug addicts, who have moral scruples and do /not/ commit /serious/ crime, despite being ‘innately bad’.

Is that it? ///

No. there are innately bad people who commit crimes but not all people who commit crimes are innately bad, including many drug takers and speeding drivers. Even a woman who kills her husband after years of physical abuse is not necessarily innately bad.

<<< And how does your above para fit in with this:

//// I never said that most people who take illegal drugs are evil. Stupid yes but not evil.////

‘Innately bad’ or ‘stupid’….which shall it be? >>>

They could be either or both.


////But even if they had to pay 'reasonable' (whatever that is) prices to get drugs many would still steal to get them. And but for the 'relatively' high prices of drugs there would be far more people overdosing on cheap drugs. And far more people would become ADDICTED to drugs because they would use more of them for longer periods.////

<<< Do you really think that people who don’t take heroin now, and have no inclination to do so, would suddenly change their mind? If they /wanted/ to take heroin, they could do so now. It’s readily available. >>>


Yes I do think so (but why does it have to be suddenly?) because the government would be sending out a clear signal that it was legally acceptable to do so. Far more people drink alcohol than take illegal drugs purely because it is LEGAL.

LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

////SOME may do so but not ALL. Many drug crimes result from people who have as much control of their brains as John Reid has of the Home Office.////

Yes, and so do many /other/, non-drug related crimes.>>>

But taking mind-altering substances (including alcohol) greatly INCREASE the risks of people indulging in extra crime.

Even you must admit that.


////Not just violent crime either but crimes like driving under the influence of drugs and killing or injuring people.////

<<< And again…it /is/ a criminal offence to drive under the influence of alcohol /and/ drugs. And what about reckless drivers who are perfectly sober? How are you going to prevent them from driving recklessly? >>>


You are trying to divert the subject again. Because some idiots drive recklessly without drugs is no excuse to suggest that it is OK for everyone to be allowed to take drugs and increase the risk of them driving recklessly. That is just being silly.

////Drug taking does not affect me directly so what the frack are you talking about now?////

<<< It does affect you /directly/ as a member of society experiencing the consequences of the whole illegal market. There is no ‘illegal market’ for self-harming.>>>

But as member of society I also have to live with the knowledge that people self-harm. It affects me just the same.
The 'illegal market' is irrelevant. With a legal market the drug problem is not going to disappear. Nor is the crime associated with it despite your utopian viewpoint.

////And who is to say that SOME self-harmers are not evil?////

<<< And who is to say that /you/ are not, or that /I/ am not, or the nice man running the shop next door. For all I know he could turn into a serial killer tomorrow……

Don’t be so silly Sands.... >>>

I was only replying to your extremely silly suggestion that self-harmers can't be 'innately' evil.

i.e. 'And so self-harmers are /not/ ‘innately evil’

<<< Yes they do overlap, for obvious reasons. The reason why self-harmers tend to get less time and resources is that /most/ self-harming is unknown to ‘outsiders’. >>>

Oh dear, you are wrong again. One of the very reasons for self-harm is a cry for help to publicise their need for help.

[Theeoldepunkette]

sandywinder said:

And many youngsters move from Class B and C drugs to class A drugs. They often deal with the same pushers. And today's 'recreational' user is often tomorrow's 'problem' user.

Same pushers?

I doubt it.

I've never known a hash dealer that also sold smack, and I've never known a smack dealer that also sold hash.

One is high-risk, high-profit. The other is lower risk but lower profit.

Different business strategies all together imho.

But at least I'm speaking from experience, in that I have actually known both hash and smack dealers in my time. Only one lot of them were scum.

[Daz Madrigal]

I only know one well and he made a mint out of drug dealing but he drew the line at hard drugs.

He did have some scruples left.

I used to collect rent off a pusher selling heroin from his flat..a luxury flat no less. Despite that it was against 'his rights' to chuck him out. Fortunately he held up a taxi driver with a sawn off shotgun.

What a relief that was...not so much for the taxi driver - but for everyone else incl. the poor and rather pleasant fellow flat dwellers.

A heroin dealer would probably be less principled due to being on drugs himself but by and large they're all downright untrustworthy rather than nasty 'scum' or whatever epithets applied.

[piccione]

Sands....

////As someone who doesn't think alcohol is a good idea either, very little. I have suggested many times that alcohol should be treated like tobacco. It should be taxed far more heavily and there should be more TV campaigns and warning message on bottles/cans to warn of the dangers.////

You’re /still/ being inconsistent ie biased, since you /tolerate/ alcohol as a drug. But I’m not surprised, with your ‘belief system’....

This is a quote from M. Gossop’s ‘Living with Drugs’: [Where drugs are presented as if they were something peculiarly alien and unusually dangerous, it becomes difficult to hold a sensible discussion about them.]

I know /exactly/ what he means.... ;D

He also said that if drugs were able to sue for misinterpretation, defamation and libel, they would have done so, and won....

Look…Sands…this concept of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ drugs is driven by /attitudes/, not by factual knowledge. /All/ drugs can be used ‘sensibly’, and /all/ drugs can be used ‘stupidly’ and cause harm - even caffeine. There are drugs that have stronger effects, or that have a greater impact on overall health altogether, when misused, but that applies to /legal/ drugs (and not just alcohol and tobacco) as well.

At the heart of this social construct lies the denial that we are /all/ drug takers, ‘sensible’ and /or ‘irresponsible’, and of /all/ kinds of drugs. This /belief/ (and it ain’t more than that – a belief system) that the drugs /we/ use are ‘good’ drugs (or don’t ‘count’ as drugs at all, because they are socially acceptable), and other drugs, especially illicit drugs, are inherently bad and sinister, is rather like the blind belief in ID – based on the denial of scientific facts, because of functional personal (and often collective) bias, again based on belief/morality/social construct.

But a belief in this construct doesn’t /actually/ make it a fact or real. Yet it leads to some very bizarre, commonly held perceptions, attitudes, and policy-making - which are /fundamentally/ flawed and ineffective (and mostly counter-productive), because they are based on complete misconceptions.

If ID really was /the/ ‘scientific’ theory for the origin of the ‘natural’ world, and /the/ fundamental ‘scientific’ ‘law of nature’, this would mean that if we got ill, we would not go to the doc, because it’s ‘in the Creator’s’ hands to cure/not cure us. We would not avoid crossing a busy street, because whether we got killed/injured by a car/lorry hitting us or not would equally be ‘in the hands of the Creator’. There /would/ be no actual /natural/ law of the physical world to tell us that the impact of a lorry hitting us would most /definitely/ kill/injure us.

Now that would lead to many unnecessary deaths, wouldn’t it, because we’d be silly enough to let our /beliefs/ rule how we relate to the physical world, rather than the actual laws of nature.

It’s the same with attitudes/policies around drugs: If we base our approaches on a fundamentally misguided line of thinking (ie a belief – social construct), the outcome can only be harmful.

Arguing with you about drugs (and attitudes/policies around drug use) is like arguing with a theist about whether god exists or not.

////Not by me. But I also think that a limited amount of alcohol is not harmful. In fact a certain amount of alcohol is actually healthy.////

Yes it is – some ridiculously small amount like 1 unit a day (e.g. one small glass of red wine – tch!). Not 7 units in one day though, even if one doesn’t drink at all for the rest of the week. 'Getting drunk' only once a months already outweighs the benefits of alcohol use.

And in small, regulated amounts, even morphine and diamorphine – ie the pharmaceutical version of heroin, isn’t harmful or addictive, and used to give people relief from all sorts of ailments and pains and illnesses. The components of many illegal drugs are used in medicine – psychotropic, even psychedelic drugs.

////In limited quantities the addictiveness of alcohol is far less than that of many illegal drugs and far less unhealthy.////

Nope. Simply not true.
In limited, controlled quantities, they aren’t addictive or physically harmful either. Yours is the typical perception of someone having gained all their information about drugs from the popular media...

////And many youngsters move from Class B and C drugs to class A drugs.///

Nope. Simply not true.
That’s a completely myth Sands. /Some/ people do – those that are ‘prone’ to addictive behaviour, for whatever reason. But that’s a minority. /Most/ young peeps don’t touch heroin and wouldn’t dream of it. In fact, they don’t tolerate heroin use amongst their peers.

////They often deal with the same pushers. And today's 'recreational' user is often tomorrow's 'problem' user.////

Nope. Not true either. Punky has given you the answer, I see. They are different dealers, different (sub) groups of users and sellers.

There was for example a UK study about cannabis use amongst heroin users, looking into how/if heroin users used cannabis to help them come off heroin. What the study found was that many heroin users /wanted/ to access cannabis but couldn’t get hold of it very easily, because they frequented the wrong ‘circles’, and the wrong dealers. They also said that they ‘weren’t welcome’ amongst cannabis users and dealers.

///This is not double standards. Prescribed drugs are prescribed to 'cure' a health problem. They are not prescribed so that people can have a good time.///

We are mainly talking about psychoactive drugs here – tranquillizers, depressants, stimulants and sleeping etc tablets right?

Why do people go and see a doctor? Because they are/feel ill and need to be ‘cured’. How do doctors cure patients from illnesses? By prescribing medication. Everyone knows that: When you go to the doc, if it’s curable, you’ll be cured with medication.

So why would people who don’t have any physical illnesses go to the see the doc? Because they expect the doc to give them medication for their non-physical problem. In fact, many people explicitly /ask/ for anti-depressants, sleeping tablets etc.

Which means that these people go to the doc expecting to be ‘cured’ from a personal/social stress situation with medication, because they perceive it as an ‘illness. If they didn’t expect medication, why would they go to the doc in the first place, and not see a counsellor instead, or seek other non-medical support?

It’s a sign of increased willingness, even /eagerness/ to take medication for a non-physical problem. This is not an individual ‘problem’ or the ‘problem’ of the individual, but a consequence of us ‘diseasing’ every possible social/personal/mental distress, turning it into a syndrome/illness/disorder. This goes back to the points I made in my post to Daz – about expectations on the medical profession to ‘cure’ us with medication, not matter whether it’s a physical or non-physical ‘condition’.

We have very high expectations of ‘health’ these days, and are therefore critical of any state that does not ‘fit’ into this high aimed concept. And it also doesn’t 'look good’ when one is ‘weak’ and ‘can’t cope’, even if only temporarily. People take tranquillizers to cope with the ‘stresses’ of changing jobs these days.

Btw I’m not saying that some of these prescriptions (and their acceptance by the patient) are not fully ‘justified’ and ‘genuine’, but very many are not. People don’t want to deal with /any/ feelings of stress anymore, because they know there are convenient prescription drugs that will do the ‘dealing with’ for them. It’s the same with ‘self-inflicted’ physical ailments due to unhealthy life-styles. Why make inconvenient life-changes when there is a medication that will ‘make the problem go away’ (meaning cover it up) without one having to do anything?

This is not an attack on the individual, just the way it generally is these days. We are /all/ in it. And we are just as ‘guilty’ of it as the medical profession, because we are not only willing, but /eager/ recipients. In fact we /demand/ these ‘cures’. And we are no different from illicit drug users who /also/ take the ‘convenient’ route.

////Wrong again. They are more dangerous because of the SIDE EFFECTS that often come with them, even if they are not adulterated./////

Sands, /all/ drugs do, or can have side-effects, whether prescribed or illicit, especially when ‘mis’used. These side-effects depend heavily in the individual.

////Only the other day George Michael was found guilty of driving while under the influence of cannabis. Are you saying it was safe for him to drive?////

No. When will you GEDDIT? It is a criminal offence!! I DO NOT approve of driving under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs. But /unfortunately/ people /do/ commit criminal offences. They drive recklessly, whilst being perfectly sober, and they drive under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. And they /also/ drive under the influence of /prescribed/ drugs, even when advised not to, and /even/ when it is illegal to drive, as it /is/ with some prescribed drugs.

What I don’t get though is why you keep picking out /illicit/ drugs, when driving under the influence of alcohol and prescribed drugs is /just as bad/. Where is the difference between someone being killed/injured because of the driver being under the influence of an illicit drug or the driver being under the influence of a /prescribed/ drug? /Both/ is irresponsible driving, ie criminal.

Oh hang on – I /do/ gettit! It’s your biased thinking, of course....

////As I said some drugs are far MORE addictive than others.////

In your last post you also said that people react /differently/ to /any/ drug – which is correct. And not only that – they react differently depending on /expectations/ of how a drug ‘should’ work. One only needs to look at the actual (psychological) effect of placebos. Many interesting studies have been done around this. One where ‘experienced’ users were given ‘placebo joints’, not knowing they were smoking placebos. They had a higher reaction to the placebos than first time cannabis smokers had to /actual/ cannabis, because the experienced smokers /expected/ a certain, /known/ effect, whereas the first-time-smokers didn’t know /what/ reaction to expect. Being ‘stoned’ doesn’t mean very much when you don’t know what it actually feels like, but it /does/ when you have ‘learned’ what it's like to be stoned.

////But the point is that these prescribed drugs are 'controlled' by medical professionals (or at least should be). Illegal drugs are not////

Sands, have you /any/ idea how widespread the misuse of /prescribed/ drugs is? I don’t think you have. They are sold on the illegal market – bloody thousands of them. You can by diazepam and other benzos on every street corner, despite them being ‘prescribed’ drugs.

////It is like the difference between a baby playing on the streets monitored and unmonitored. Which makes the most sense?////

How about the baby playing in the street unmonitored while the parent/carer /believes/ or rather pretends to believe it is being monitored? The ‘baby’ being prescribed drugs, of course....

////No I don't expect the problem will go away by ignoring the causes. The causes have to be addressed. Drugs (prescribed or not) are only a short term 'fix' (and in many cases the 'cop-out' alternative) . Unless the underlying causes are dealt with the problem is only postponed (if that).////

You are giving out a lot of inconsistent messages. Here you say the /underlying causes/ should be addressed, when in your earlier post you said this: ///There is NO reason for anybody to take illegal drugs////, and again, later on this: ////I am not blaming the drug but the idiots who take them…////. And later on again, this follows: /// The underlying problems need to be sorted out.////

You sound very confused. Confusion is a very bad basis for making sensible decisions. Make up your mind first Sands....

////Actually that is not usually so. Certainly in some cases it is indeed true but not generally.////

It is unfortunately 100% true for NHS and local authority drugs services. They are the ones I was talking about. There are regional differences of course, and in /some/ areas it is a bit better. But overall the situation is pretty dire.

////A poor reply that fools nobody. How many people are NOT diagnosed with schizophrenia when they SHOULD be?///

Ah I see that fact doesn’t bother you so much, so you just brush it aside. And why should it indeed.....

////Although it has dissuaded many young people from taking illegal drugs, it has not stopped no way near enough of them.///

Ah yes – back to the ‘effective’ American model – or was it the Singaporean…?

No it hasn’t stopped them, and if you don’t accept that drugs are here to stay Sands (and always /have/ been here, ever since humans have been around), you will end up /very/ disappointed and bitter. Ah but then in our earlier discussion you /did/ acknowledge that, while at the same time (and also in the above para) saying that we could eradicate their use if only we took a tougher approach on the supply.

More mixed messages....

/////Have I said that drug users should not be treated?
I can't remember doing so. Maybe the Pixie imagination is going into hyperdrive.////

Hardly my imagination Sands. It’s more likely down to your err very ‘mixed messages’. See both paras above.

////It should be made COMPULSORY to treat them. And I don't just mean getting them off the drug temporarily. The underlying problems need to be sorted out. It will cost money to do so but it already costs the country billions a year by ignoring the problem.//////

Compulsory treatment isn't effective either. Why are you so set on reactive approaches, rather than proactive/preventative – which would of course mean tackling the demand, /not/ the supply.

////Remind me not to have you as a friend.////

Oh too late for that! You disappoint me now - I thought we already /were/ good mates! I find it rather hurtful that the thought should scare you so much... ;D

////Was she drunk or on drugs at the time?////

No she was climbing. But I wasn’t there that day - honest. ;D Besides people do have climbing accidents without being pushed. I'd never push her. I love her to bits.

////No. there are innately bad people who commit crimes but not all people who commit crimes are innately bad, including many drug takers and speeding drivers.////

You mean people are just err… /people/. Why didn’t you just say so.....

Anyway, what is this ‘innately bad’ thingy? Is that some kinda ‘evil gene’?

///Even a woman who kills her husband after years of physical abuse is not necessarily innately bad.////

I’m sure she’ll be glad to hear your verdict, Dr Freud.....

////They could be either or both.////

That ain’t restricted to drug users. It applies to a large part of the population....

////Yes I do think so (but why does it have to be suddenly?) because the government would be sending out a clear signal that it was legally acceptable to do so. Far more people drink alcohol than take illegal drugs purely because it is LEGAL.///

No not ‘purely’ because of that. Alcohol has always been /the/ drug number one in Europe. There used to be very little other drugs. That changed (gradually) from the time when explorers, like Columbus, for example, set out to discover and explore other parts of the world/cultures. We introduced alcohol to other cultures, who used other drugs, other cultures introduced other drugs to our societies. But fact is that /all/ cultures have always used drugs. And that will never change.

////But taking mind-altering substances (including alcohol) greatly INCREASE the risks of people indulging in extra crime.////

Certain mind-altering illicit drugs do, yes. And so do certain mind-altering prescribed drugs. The only reason why the risk is lower is that mind-altering prescribed drugs can be accessed legally.

And yet the mind- altering drug that increases that risk most of all is alcohol.

////You are trying to divert the subject again. Because some idiots drive recklessly without drugs is no excuse to suggest that it is OK for everyone to be allowed to take drugs and increase the risk of them driving recklessly. That is just being silly.////

So you are saying that reckless driving is a risk that you reluctantly 'put up' with because you have no interest in banning cars. Since you are not against banning alcohol and prescribed drugs, you also accept that we’ll have to put up with offences caused by driving under the influence of alcohol or prescribed drugs. But because you are so against any illicit drug use, you use that same offence as an argument for banning /this/ potential causal factor.

Err - who is being silly here?
You can't even see your complete lack of logic and consistency, can you? Yup - that's what blind belief systems are all about....

////But as member of society I also have to live with the knowledge that people self-harm. It affects me just the same.////

And you would like /whom/ exactly to ‘simply’ change that for you, and preferably over-night, I expect?

No government will ever prevent self-harm/excessive drug use etc /on their own/, because it is a symptom of the society /all of us/ have created and encouraged. But no-one wants to take responsibility for that. We happily accept the good we have gained out of these changes, and blame the bad on consecutive governments. How very convenient. If you can’t live with the knowledge that people self-harm, then start doing something about it yourself – actively. Invest some of your time into supporting people who need that support. That’s what I have always done, since I was 18. It’s called /voluntary/ work, but I prefer ‘community service’ since I think it should be /mandatory/. Hence ‘voluntary’ wouldn’t quite apply. Sometimes people need to be forced to take some responsibility. But it ain’t such a sacrifice actually. You get /a lot/ out of it as well, and you learn a lot. Learning is always a good thing right? Especially when you learn by /doing/, rather than by passively absorbing spin and media propanada.....

////I was only replying to your extremely silly suggestion that self-harmers can't be 'innately' evil.

i.e. 'And so self-harmers are /not/ ‘innately evil’////

And I was replying ironically to your extremely silly initial statement.....

////Oh dear, you are wrong again. One of the very reasons for self-harm is a cry for help to publicise their need for help.////

As I said Sands – learn by /doing/. It’ll be a real eye-opener for you. I can guarantee you that.

[sandywinder]

Theeoldepunkette said:

sandywinder said:

And many youngsters move from Class B and C drugs to class A drugs. They often deal with the same pushers. And today's 'recreational' user is often tomorrow's 'problem' user.

Same pushers?

I doubt it.

I've never known a hash dealer that also sold smack, and I've never known a smack dealer that also sold hash.

One is high-risk, high-profit. The other is lower risk but lower profit.

Different business strategies all together imho.

But at least I'm speaking from experience, in that I have actually known both hash and smack dealers in my time. Only one lot of them were scum.

Well Op I don't think your anecdotal evidence is proof of anything much.

I did not find it very hard to find a case of one dealer who sold both cannabis and cocaine - and in Scotland as well.

news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1162&id=341592007



<<< Central Scotland caught one 15-year-old dealing three kinds of drugs: cannabis, diazepam, and cocaine; >>>


And there is evidence that cannabis use does make it more likely that heroin experimentation will lead to addiction.

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9488&feedId=teenagers_rss20

[sandywinder]

///As someone who doesn't think alcohol is a good idea either, very little. I have suggested many times that alcohol should be treated like tobacco. It should be taxed far more heavily and there should be more TV campaigns and warning message on bottles/cans to warn of the dangers.////

<<< You’re /still/ being inconsistent ie biased, since you /tolerate/ alcohol as a drug. But I’m not surprised, with your ‘belief system’.... >>>

Unlike your 'belief' system which means everything you say has to be right.

But I am not being inconsistent at all. Alcohol is already legal. If it was illegal I would say we shouldn't make it legal, but the fact is that it is. The same goes with tobacco.

And a moderate amount of alcohol is beneficial whereas with illegal drugs and tobacco it is not.

How is that inconsistent?

<<< This is a quote from M. Gossop’s ‘Living with Drugs’: [Where drugs are presented as if they were something peculiarly alien and unusually dangerous, it becomes difficult to hold a sensible discussion about them.]

I know /exactly/ what he means.... ;D >>>

Yes off course you know everything Pixie so it is not really surprising is it? If you think you aren't getting a sensible discussion (which is presumably one in which everybody agrees with every word you say) why do you bother?


<<< He also said that if drugs were able to sue for misinterpretation, defamation and libel, they would have done so, and won.... >>>

Well if HE says so and you agree then it stands to reason he must be right, mustn't it?


<<< Look…Sands…this concept of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ drugs is driven by /attitudes/, not by factual knowledge. /All/ drugs can be used ‘sensibly’, and /all/ drugs can be used ‘stupidly’ and cause harm - even caffeine. >>>


Which proves my point that prescribed drugs are much more likley to be used 'sensibly' than those you can buy for yourself at any time in whatever quantity you like.


Why do you think that the government have limited the quantity of painkillers people can buy? Do you think it is to stop Boots making more profit?

<<< At the heart of this social construct lies the denial that we are /all/ drug takers, ‘sensible’ and /or ‘irresponsible’, and of /all/ kinds of drugs. This /belief/ (and it ain’t more than that – a belief system) that the drugs /we/ use are ‘good’ drugs (or don’t ‘count’ as drugs at all, because they are socially acceptable), and other drugs, especially illicit drugs, are inherently bad and sinister, is rather like the blind belief in ID – based on the denial of scientific facts, because of functional personal (and often collective) bias, again based on belief/morality/social construct. >>>

But drugs like heroin are not like sweets or cups of coffee. They are very dangerous, addictive and soul destroying. To put them in the same bracket as coffee is plainly ridiculous.

You might as well say that we should allow companies to sell poisons freely because raw eggs or chicken can also be poisonous.
Or we should allow anybody to sell guns because guns themselves aren't killers. Only a small minority of people who use them.

Do you suggest we should legalise the sale of guns to children?

If not, why not when fewer people die of gun-shot wounds than illegal drugs do every year in this country?


<<< But a belief in this construct doesn’t /actually/ make it a fact or real. Yet it leads to some very bizarre, commonly held perceptions, attitudes, and policy-making - which are /fundamentally/ flawed and ineffective (and mostly counter-productive), because they are based on complete misconceptions. >>>

Yes it is a complete misconception that heroin use destroys the lives of so many addicts, Pixie. It must be all in my mind. No wonder you can't have a serious discussion.

<<< If ID really was /the/ ‘scientific’ theory for the origin of the ‘natural’ world, and /the/ fundamental ‘scientific’ ‘law of nature’, this would mean that if we got ill, we would not go to the doc, because it’s ‘in the Creator’s’ hands to cure/not cure us. We would not avoid crossing a busy street, because whether we got killed/injured by a car/lorry hitting us or not would equally be ‘in the hands of the Creator’. There /would/ be no actual /natural/ law of the physical world to tell us that the impact of a lorry hitting us would most /definitely/ kill/injure us.

Now that would lead to many unnecessary deaths, wouldn’t it, because we’d be silly enough to let our /beliefs/ rule how we relate to the physical world, rather than the actual laws of nature.

It’s the same with attitudes/policies around drugs:


If we base our approaches on a fundamentally misguided line of thinking (ie a belief – social construct), the outcome can only be harmful. >>>.

err... no it is not the same at all. Just because YOU have decided that a 'belief' is misguided does not automatically mean that your view is the correct one. I have mentioned this characteristic about you before Pixie. You are just like a God bother who says 'God is all round' and just can't understand how people can hold a different opinion.

<<< Arguing with you about drugs (and attitudes/policies around drug use) is like arguing with a theist about whether god exists or not. >>

Pot, kettle, black.


////Not by me. But I also think that a limited amount of alcohol is not harmful. In fact a certain amount of alcohol is actually healthy.////

<<< Yes it is – some ridiculously small amount like 1 unit a day (e.g. one small glass of red wine – tch!). Not 7 units in one day though, even if one doesn’t drink at all for the rest of the week. 'Getting drunk' only once a months already outweighs the benefits of alcohol use.

And in small, regulated amounts, even morphine and diamorphine – ie the pharmaceutical version of heroin, isn’t harmful or addictive, and used to give people relief from all sorts of ailments and pains and illnesses. The components of many illegal drugs are used in medicine – psychotropic, even psychedelic drugs. >>>

But these are prescribed with care and LIMITED. You however are campaigning to remove this limitation. You want to allow drugs to be FREELY available like alcohol, tobacco and coffee.

Do you have a clue what I am talking about?

////In limited quantities the addictiveness of alcohol is far less than that of many illegal drugs and far less unhealthy.////

<<< Nope. Simply not true.
In limited, controlled quantities, they aren’t addictive or physically harmful either. Yours is the typical perception of someone having gained all their information about drugs from the popular media... >>>

And your information is the typical perception of that gathered from drug sellers.

////And many youngsters move from Class B and C drugs to class A drugs.///

<<< Nope. Simply not true.

That’s a completely myth Sands. /Some/ people do – those that are ‘prone’ to addictive behaviour, for whatever reason. But that’s a minority. /Most/ young peeps don’t touch heroin and wouldn’t dream of it. In fact, they don’t tolerate heroin use amongst their peers. >>>

Tell me how someone can be addicted to heroin BEFORE they have even tried it, Pixie? Your logic is slipping again.


////They often deal with the same pushers. And today's 'recreational' user is often tomorrow's 'problem' user.////

<<< Nope. Not true either. Punky has given you the answer, I see. They are different dealers, different (sub) groups of users and sellers. >>>


Sorry but this does not wash. I have already put OP right on this one. Where do you lot get these misguided opinions from?

Not only can cannabis lead to heroin addiction but it also means users are far more likely to become addicted to it if they have been used to taking cannabis previously.

Although of course the 'New Scientist' can't be expected to be as informed as some drug peddler, can it?


<<< There was for example a UK study about cannabis use amongst heroin users, looking into how/if heroin users used cannabis to help them come off heroin. What the study found was that many heroin users /wanted/ to access cannabis but couldn’t get hold of it very easily, because they frequented the wrong ‘circles’, and the wrong dealers. They also said that they ‘weren’t welcome’ amongst cannabis users and dealers. >>>

I am sure that this is often the case but it is not ALWAYS the case. In most 'middle class' circles frequented by cannabis users I am quite sure they wouldn't be seen dead with low-life heroin users but in lower class areas that is not often the case.

Do you really think all drug dealers are so honest and scrupulous that if they got hold of heroin they would not sell it as well?

///This is not double standards. Prescribed drugs are prescribed to 'cure' a health problem. They are not prescribed so that people can have a good time.///



<<< So why would people who don’t have any physical illnesses go to the see the doc? Because they expect the doc to give them medication for their non-physical problem. In fact, many people explicitly /ask/ for anti-depressants, sleeping tablets etc. >>>

But GPs do not usually prescribe sleeping tablets, unless they have some good reason. I asked for some myself a few years ago and the GP would only prescribe some for a few nights only and that was when I was in real pain.

This is a completely different ball game (and a sensible one) to allowing people to buy whatever drugs they wanted whenever they wanted them.

<<< Which means that these people go to the doc expecting to be ‘cured’ from a personal/social stress situation with medication, because they perceive it as an ‘illness. If they didn’t expect medication, why would they go to the doc in the first place, and not see a counsellor instead, or seek other non-medical support? >>>


But most sensible GPs will advise the patient to see other medical support (such as psychiatrists or whatever is felt appropriate) rather than pump them full of dangerous drugs.

<<< It’s a sign of increased willingness, even /eagerness/ to take medication for a non-physical problem. This is not an individual ‘problem’ or the ‘problem’ of the individual, but a consequence of us ‘diseasing’ every possible social/personal/mental distress, turning it into a syndrome/illness/disorder. This goes back to the points I made in my post to Daz – about expectations on the medical profession to ‘cure’ us with medication, not matter whether it’s a physical or non-physical ‘condition’. >>>

There was a time twenty years or so ago when exactly this attitude was prevalent within the medical profession but this is now changing for the better.

<<< We have very high expectations of ‘health’ these days, and are therefore critical of any state that does not ‘fit’ into this high aimed concept. And it also doesn’t 'look good’ when one is ‘weak’ and ‘can’t cope’, even if only temporarily. People take tranquillizers to cope with the ‘stresses’ of changing jobs these days. >>>

But these tranquillisers are usually only prescribed if they are not thought addictive and they don't have as much effect on the patient as the older addictive ones.

<<< Btw I’m not saying that some of these prescriptions (and their acceptance by the patient) are not fully ‘justified’ and ‘genuine’, but very many are not. People don’t want to deal with /any/ feelings of stress anymore, because they know there are convenient prescription drugs that will do the ‘dealing with’ for them. It’s the same with ‘self-inflicted’ physical ailments due to unhealthy life-styles. Why make inconvenient life-changes when there is a medication that will ‘make the problem go away’ (meaning cover it up) without one having to do anything?

This is not an attack on the individual, just the way it generally is these days. We are /all/ in it. And we are just as ‘guilty’ of it as the medical profession, because we are not only willing, but /eager/ recipients. In fact we /demand/ these ‘cures’. And we are no different from illicit drug users who /also/ take the ‘convenient’ route. >>>

I have already covered this. Time has moved on. the medical profession are a lot more savvy than they were twenty years ago.

////Wrong again. They are more dangerous because of the SIDE EFFECTS that often come with them, even if they are not adulterated./////

<<< Sands, /all/ drugs do, or can have side-effects, whether prescribed or illicit, especially when ‘mis’used. These side-effects depend heavily in the individual. >>>

Now you are implying that all drugs have equal side effects. This is nonsense. One drug's side effects can be much worse and more likely than another. And yes they do depend on the individual. And quite often it is only when the user has tried them that they find this out, when it is too late.

////Only the other day George Michael was found guilty of driving while under the influence of cannabis. Are you saying it was safe for him to drive?////

<<< No. When will you GEDDIT? It is a criminal offence!! I DO NOT approve of driving under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs.>>>


But you don't seem to be able to GED that taking illegal drugs is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.


<<< But /unfortunately/ people /do/ commit criminal offences. >>>


Yes - like illegal drug users.


<<< What I don’t get though is why you keep picking out /illicit/ drugs, when driving under the influence of alcohol and prescribed drugs is /just as bad/. Where is the difference between someone being killed/injured because of the driver being under the influence of an illicit drug or the driver being under the influence of a /prescribed/ drug? /Both/ is irresponsible driving, ie criminal. >>>

Of course they are both as bad as each other but why can't you listen when you are told that cannabis stays in the blood stream for far longer than alcohol.


How long does cannabis stay in the bloodstream?

Traces of cannabis will usually stay in a person's system for about a week. If you use it a lot, or have a lot in one session, it stays in the system longer. It's fat soluble, meaning that it lodges itself in the fat cells of the body, in the brain, the liver, and the kidneys. Consequently, a heavy cannabis smoker will find that it can be detected sometimes a month after use.

Are you seriously telling me a cannabis user will wait a week before driving a car?




////But the point is that these prescribed drugs are 'controlled' by medical professionals (or at least should be). Illegal drugs are not////

<<< Sands, have you /any/ idea how widespread the misuse of /prescribed/ drugs is? I don’t think you have. They are sold on the illegal market – bloody thousands of them. You can by diazepam and other benzos on every street corner, despite them being ‘prescribed’ drugs. >>>

That is a different argument. When I said controlled I meant by the GP. Drugs like diazepam that are sold illegally are no better than any other illegal drug, i.e very dangerous.


////No I don't expect the problem will go away by ignoring the causes. The causes have to be addressed. Drugs (prescribed or not) are only a short term 'fix' (and in many cases the 'cop-out' alternative) . Unless the underlying causes are dealt with the problem is only postponed (if that).////

<<< You are giving out a lot of inconsistent messages. >>>


No I am not. It is just you who is unable to unsderstand what I am
saying because of your preconceived ideas.

<<< Here you say the /underlying causes/ should be addressed, when in your earlier post you said this: ///There is NO reason for anybody to take illegal drugs////, and again, later on this: ////I am not blaming the drug but the idiots who take them…////. And later on again, this follows: /// The underlying problems need to be sorted out.//// >>>

Look Pixie can't you understand that just because people behave like idiots does not mean that we should not treat/help them. The same goes with most other criminals. I say put them in prison but not so they can rot there but so they can be helped. As it is the current system seems to do neither.

<<< You sound very confused. Confusion is a very bad basis for making sensible decisions. Make up your mind first Sands.... >>>

Before complaining about MY confusion perhaps you should address your own as that seems to need the higher priority.

When will people like you learn that because people like me have concerns about society it is not automatically a 'hang 'em and flog 'em approach'?

Probably a very long time, I should think.

You don't hold a monopoly on self-righteousness you know.


////A poor reply that fools nobody. How many people are NOT diagnosed with schizophrenia when they SHOULD be?///

<<< Ah I see that fact doesn’t bother you so much, so you just brush it aside. And why should it indeed.....>>>

Just as YOU have just brushed aside the fact that many cannabis users who are schizophrenic have NEVER being diagnosed so. And why should they be unless they commit some utterly stupid act? Why can't you admit that as I admit that there may be a few people who are diagnosed with schizoprenia when they may not be.

But I bet my numbers will far exceed your numbers.

But hey brush away. After all, you are the one who is always right aren't you?

////Although it has dissuaded many young people from taking illegal drugs, it has not stopped no way near enough of them.///

<<< Ah yes – back to the ‘effective’ American model – or was it the Singaporean…?

No it hasn’t stopped them, and if you don’t accept that drugs are here to stay Sands (and always /have/ been here, ever since humans have been around), you will end up /very/ disappointed and bitter. Ah but then in our earlier discussion you /did/ acknowledge that, while at the same time (and also in the above para) saying that we could eradicate their use if only we took a tougher approach on the supply. >>>

No I said we could seriously REDUCE the problem. Can't you understand the difference between eradicate and reduce?

Try looking it up in a dictionary.

<<< More mixed messages.... >>>

Only in your prejudiced mind.

/////Have I said that drug users should not be treated?
I can't remember doing so. Maybe the Pixie imagination is going into hyperdrive.////

<<< Hardly my imagination Sands. It’s more likely down to your err very ‘mixed messages’. See both paras above. >>>

QED.

So according to you either I accept that we should have a free market for all drugs or I must believe we should lock up for life all drug addicts?

Can you really not see any possible middle ground somewhere between? And you say you wanted a serious discussion. HA!


////It should be made COMPULSORY to treat them. And I don't just mean getting them off the drug temporarily. The underlying problems need to be sorted out. It will cost money to do so but it already costs the country billions a year by ignoring the problem.//////

<<< Compulsory treatment isn't effective either. Why are you so set on reactive approaches, rather than proactive/preventative – which would of course mean tackling the demand, /not/ the supply. >>>

Compulsory treatment can and often is effective. Of course it is not guaranteed but your alternative has often no chance at all until it is far too late.


////No. there are innately bad people who commit crimes but not all people who commit crimes are innately bad, including many drug takers and speeding drivers.////

<<< You mean people are just err… /people/. Why didn’t you just say so..... >>>

Because you can't seem to understand that people are not all the same deep down. Some are bad, most are fairly decent.

<<< Anyway, what is this ‘innately bad’ thingy? Is that some kinda ‘evil gene’? >>>

Maybe it is.


////Yes I do think so (but why does it have to be suddenly?) because the government would be sending out a clear signal that it was legally acceptable to do so. Far more people drink alcohol than take illegal drugs purely because it is LEGAL.///

<<< No not ‘purely’ because of that. Alcohol has always been /the/ drug number one in Europe. >>>

But most people will not commit illegal acts for the simple reason it is illegal. Most people are honest and law abiding, even though it doesn't always appears to be so from the media.

////You are trying to divert the subject again. Because some idiots drive recklessly without drugs is no excuse to suggest that it is OK for everyone to be allowed to take drugs and increase the risk of them driving recklessly. That is just being silly.////

<<< So you are saying that reckless driving is a risk that you reluctantly 'put up' with because you have no interest in banning cars. Since you are not against banning alcohol and prescribed drugs, you also accept that we’ll have to put up with offences caused by driving under the influence of alcohol or prescribed drugs. But because you are so against any illicit drug use, you use that same offence as an argument for banning /this/ potential causal factor. >>>

I am saying that although we should not ban alcohol it should be made as socially unacceptable as tobacco is becoming due to higher taxes, government campaigns, warnings on bottles etc. That would lead to fewer cases of drunken drivers. So I am not advocating that is it is OK for drunk drivers bit wrong for drugged drivers.

<<< Err - who is being silly here?

You can't even see your complete lack of logic and consistency, can you? Yup - that's what blind belief systems are all about.... >>>

An you just can't comprehend what I am saying. I thought by now you would have gained some comprehension of my views.
JEEZUS we have been discussing this for bloody ages now. How many times do I have to say the same things?

Are you normally such a slow learner?

[oldpunkette]

sandywinder said:

Theeoldepunkette said:

Same pushers?

I doubt it.

I've never known a hash dealer that also sold smack, and I've never known a smack dealer that also sold hash.

One is high-risk, high-profit. The other is lower risk but lower profit.

Different business strategies all together imho.

But at least I'm speaking from experience, in that I have actually known both hash and smack dealers in my time. Only one lot of them were scum.

Well Op I don't think your anecdotal evidence is proof of anything much.

I did not find it very hard to find a case of one dealer who sold both cannabis and cocaine - and in Scotland as well.

news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1162&id=341592007



<<< Central Scotland caught one 15-year-old dealing three kinds of drugs: cannabis, diazepam, and cocaine; >>>


And there is evidence that cannabis use does make it more likely that heroin experimentation will lead to addiction.

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9488&feedId=teenagers_rss20

Sandy

NOT ONE of the drug dealers in the links you posted was selling both hash and heroin, proving my point. That they were or were not selling cocaine or ritalin or whatever is neither here nor there.

Not a single one was selling both heroin and hash.

And your medical article suggests that cannabis use makes the brain more susceptible to heroin addiction. It does not suggest that there is a behavioural link, or add any evidence to the (wrong) proposition that hash is a gateway drug to smack.

[Daz Madrigal]

Yeah I think thats correct, OP.

Its akin to saying people who are addicted to alcohol are more likely to take drugs than teetotaller. That doesnt prove a link between alcohol or suggest that alcohol is a gateway to drug abuse.

It simply means that some people are more prone to addiction/or to be more harsh, they are more prone to weakness of will.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Alcohol is already legal. If it was illegal I would say we shouldn't make it legal >>

;D

I'm sorry, Sandy, but you really MUST stop talking this twaddle!

Not only that but alcohol and red wine in particular has HUGE health benefits..its a seriously healthy pursuit (in moderation). You really are talking the most complete bollox..if it wasn't legal they'd be prescribing the stuff.

It prevents heart attacks for god sake!

[piccione]

Sands

////Unlike your 'belief' system which means everything you say has to be right.////

Nope – I derive my opinion from various personal experience, and from experts who have been working and researching in this field for yonks, and know ‘the scene’ pretty well.

What did you post on another thread (can’t remember where) – something about whose opinion you should trust more – scientists who got man to the moon and back, or Daz’s.

Well precisely Sands. What makes /you/ the expert whose opinion I should trust?

Apart from your own /opinions/ and /one/ New Scientist article (cited in your last post) you have only quoted/posted highly biased sources of American (…renowned child abusers amongst them, if I may remind you) or err…Singaporean ‘drug squads’. And you /seriously/ expect me to say: ‘Umm yeah he’s got a point’?

////Yes off course you know everything Pixie so it is not really surprising is it? If you think you aren't getting a sensible discussion (which is presumably one in which everybody agrees with every word you say) why do you bother?////

Awww....don’t be so oversensitive Sands. Here – have a tissue.....

////Well if HE says so and you agree then it stands to reason he must be right, mustn't it?/////

No. I wouldn’t rely on one opinion, or 2 or 3. But I could name you plenty of experts in the field who agree with Gossop. I cited him because he was one of the first to highlight these flaws, in one of the most /excellent/ books ever written about the subject. All in a nutshell. Btw he does not argue for legalisation. There are /many/ experts who don’t (for various reasons), albeit most argue for decriminalisation. I said this before – it's a point of constant disagreement amongst experts. But /unanimously/, they agree on the fact that a radical change in attitudes and strategies is urgently required: that we need to get a realistic grip on drugs and their use, and their meaning in our society (ie perceptions of illicit drugs), and that we need a focus on preventative strategies targeting /demand/, because targeting supply doesn’t work, and never will.

////Which proves my point that prescribed drugs are much more likley to be used 'sensibly' than those you can buy for yourself at any time in whatever quantity you like.////

Eh? In what way does that prove your point?
Because you don’t /hear/ (or read) so much about people getting hooked on prescribed drugs? That’s because the media doesn’t indulging in that as much as in the ‘illegal drug plague’. It doesn’t sell so well. Smack and crack is /the/ thing that excites the masses. Demonising illicit drugs has a far greater panic effect, since prescription drugs are ‘not all bad’.....

And again – prescription drugs are as readily available on the illegal market as drugs that are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Do you know how many people resort to illegal market supplies for valium etc when /legal/ (ie prescribed) supply sources have dried up?

////But drugs like heroin are not like sweets or cups of coffee. They are very dangerous, addictive and soul destroying. To put them in the same bracket as coffee is plainly ridiculous.////

Oh really –it is ‘ridiculous’?

Caffeine is a stimulant Sands, meaning it stimulates the central nervous system. Effects on the body set in after just 1 cup. And long-term health problems (if used regularly) can set in from anywhere between 2-7 cups a day, and over, depending on the individual/individual ‘proneness’ to reactions to caffeine (just as with other drugs).

It can cause serious heart disease, nausea, sleep disturbances/insomnia, headaches, anxiety attacks/depression, even delirium, light flashes and ear ringing, gastrointestinal problems, decrease of overall immunity and may be a partial causal factor for stomach ulcers. The list goes on. I wouldn’t exactly call that harmless or ‘ridiculous’. Just because you may consume caffeine ‘sensibly’ doesn’t mean everyone else does.

It also causes physical withdrawal symptoms when someone stops consuming caffeine, meaning it has highly physically addictive potential.

It’s a /drug/ Sands. Full-stop. Just a socially accepted one, and I doubt you’d accuse anyone of ‘self-inflicted’ health problems if they suffered cardiovascular problems as a consequence of too much caffeine intake. And neither are you the only one. If people go to the doc/hospital with illnesses related to caffeine misuse, they might be told to ‘cut down’ or stop drinking coffee/tea altogether, but no-one will make a fuss about the health effects that caffeine can have. It certainly doesn’t make the local papers: “Caffeine addict rushed into hospital after heart failure from exessive use.”

Doesn’t quite have the same ‘exciting’ ring to it, does it?

////You might as well say that we should allow companies to sell poisons freely because raw eggs or chicken can also be poisonous.////

Awww c’mom Sands! You are being silly now, and you know it.

////Do you suggest we should legalise the sale of guns to children?////

/Guns/ are used to inflict deliberate harm on others. There are people who buy/access guns to kill themselves, yes, but they are not ‘the problem’ – as in an immediate threat to society. Lets be honest - they are not the ones we are 'concerned about' when it comes to gun crime. Drug addicts/users don’t use drugs to inflict deliberate, immediate harm onto society. They use drugs for ‘personal reason’, whatever these may be, just as people use alcohol for ‘personal reasons’. If you compare the two (guns and drugs), then I /really/ do not understand your defence position of alcohol. In fact the only defence you keep banging on about is that alcohol is ‘healthy’ (in moderation), completely ignoring the fact that /in reality/ the costs of alcohol to society (and to overall health) by /very/ far outweigh /any/ ‘health benefits’, making the ‘health’ ‘excuse’ look pathetic and ridiculous. Nonetheless I agree with you that making alcohol illegal would be insane, never mind /impossible/. But I agree for /other/ reasons.

And to make another point clear <deep breath>: I’ve never advocated legalising drugs to children, just as alcohol and tobacco aren’t /legally/ accessible to children. What I advocate for children/young peeps (and for adults actually) are /preventative/ strategies (for drugs /and/ alcohol), and not some silly, pathetic, finger-wagging school lessons along the lines of ‘tut tut! drugs are bad for you’.

I’m also advocating ‘normalising’ drugs (since that is what they are – ‘normal’ to humans), so that people don’t break out into a blind panic if young peeps /do/ (illegally) access drugs (and alcohol). Total prohibition (even for young peeps) leads to greater curiosity, the ‘forbidden fruit’ effect, and a greater likelihood of young peeps wanting to try drugs/alcohol ‘for the sake of it’. Still - most will do so without being in /any/ danger of becoming addicted. As soon as their lives have a /real/ meaning (ie they have adult responsibility) they will stop using drugs. Young peeps rebel against ‘authority’, that’s in their youthful nature. It’s part of growing up and learning to assert themselves. To an extend, it’s /essential/ for their own healthy development that they do just that - rebel. They need clear boundaries, yes, but boundaries that are /reasonable/ and ‘productive’, authoritative, rather than authoritarian, and not based on some irrational fear society has about them becoming ‘junkies’ because they smoked a bloody joint or got drunk on a few cans of cheap cider.

But the likelihood that they will ‘rebel’ more /today/ is greater than ever, because ‘youth’, ie transition from childhood to adulthood is a much longer process than it used to be. With more and more young peeps accessing university/college education, they are financially dependent on their parents/families for far longer than they used to be. They marry much later, they can’t afford to buy houses/have a family until they are well established in their jobs (if they are lucky). Plus we wrap children/young peeps up in cotton wool (at least those that are ‘precious’).

In the past, young peeps took, and /had to/ take on responsibility for ‘themselves’ and for their lives, and for others, at a far earlier age, ie become independent at an earlier age. The (social) circumstances have changed, but the young person’s drive for independence has remained the same. So what happens? They become frustrated. They have a lot of youthful energy that has no ‘meaningful’ outlet (as in for /themselves/, independent from ‘authorities’). When people (young and old) have tasks and responsibilities (especially for others), they are far more likely to become or stay focused. But if they are not ‘allowed’ responsibilities (because they are not allowed to make mistakes), they become bored and distract themselves with all sorts of things that make them at least /appear/ ‘adult’, ie being part of the adult world of 'meaning' and independence. Alcohol and drugs are such means, since they are ‘adult material’.

/We/, and our parents, have created that world for them. But like with blaming consecutive governments for all the ‘ills’ of society, we blame young peeps for these lacks in their lives, and resulting behaviour, alienating them instead of integrating them. We do more so in Britain than most other European countries do. UKyouth policy is shite. That’s why we have the greatest problems here with drugs, alcohol, teenage pregnancy etc.

I think it’s about bloody time /we/ gave young peeps some of their /rights/ back – the /right/ to be accepted and a responsibility-worthy part of this society – within their ‘youthful’ means – ie allowing ‘mistakes’. And not just responsibility for themselves, but also for others. That would do /a lot/ for (or rather against) their inclination to indulge in too much drinking, and drug taking.

////Yes it is a complete misconception that heroin use destroys the lives of so many addicts, Pixie. It must be all in my mind. No wonder you can't have a serious discussion.////

No we can’t because you constantly ignore my argument that:

1. I don’t /advocate/ smack use – I’m advocating /effective/ prevention strategies.

2. Most of these destructive factors are caused by the illegal market.

It is not the drug /itself/ that is ‘soul destroying’ (whatever that means) – it’s the illegal market life-style that comes with addiction, adulterated drugs /and/ the addict’s proneness to ‘giving in’ to the prevalent concept of addiction (as it stands today).

Would you say that Byron, Shelley, Blake, Keats, Coleridge, Wilberforce etc etc (the list goes on, and not just among writers and philosophers) were ‘soul-destroyed’? They were all addicted to opiates. Most of them for /all their life/. As were many ‘respected’ physicians and members of the upper/middle classes. In fact many were addicted to higher doses than some of the heaviest junkies take /today/. Society didn’t break down, in fact, most people didn’t even know or realise. At the time there were no illegal market effects that destroyed these people’s lives, and the opiates were /clean/.

////err... no it is not the same at all. Just because YOU have decided that a 'belief' is misguided does not automatically mean that your view is the correct one. I have mentioned this characteristic about you before Pixie. You are just like a God bother who says 'God is all round' and just can't understand how people can hold a different opinion.////

/I/ haven’t ‘decided’ anything. But I don’t rely on (ie /believe/ in) dodgy sources and popular media images of drug use. I have used drugs myself. Saying that, I /still/ use drugs now – I drink alcohol, I smoke cigs, I drink tea and coffee, I ‘even’ smoke cannabis. Jezz – and I haven’t gone mad yet (…although you will probably disagree). I have many drug-taking friends (ex and current –recreational- users), I have supported /many/ drug users (‘problem users’) over the years, and I have read /extensively/ on the subject. I started off with very different perceptions, and I have changed most of them /because/ of all the information and ‘real-life’ experiences around drug use I have gained and accessed. And I tell you what – I have /yet/ to come across the ‘innately evil’ drug user that you seem to believe in. The people I have met (and I have met /many/) are no better or worse than the rest of society. And if they didn’t take drugs, no-one would /think/ they were any ‘different’.

////But these are prescribed with care and LIMITED. You however are campaigning to remove this limitation. You want to allow drugs to be FREELY available like alcohol, tobacco and coffee.////

Again, you conveniently ignore the fact that I’m not advocating decriminalizing/legalising drugs and simply leave it at that.

////And your information is the typical perception of that gathered from drug sellers.////

Nah-ne-nah-ne-nah-nah…..’if you pinch my toy I pinch yours’....

No further comment. Your response is just too childish. Come up with a /proper/ counter-argument, and I will respond.

////Tell me how someone can be addicted to heroin BEFORE they have even tried it, Pixie? Your logic is slipping again.////

What? If you don’t understand what I’m saying – ask for clarification. Don’t just make up a meaning.

////Sorry but this does not wash. I have already put OP right on this one. Where do you lot get these misguided opinions from?////

I see that punky has already replied, as far as dealers are concerned.

It is true that it is more likely that someone who uses heroin will have used ‘softer’ drugs before. By ‘softer’ drugs I mean any drug that is classed lower than heroin (ie class C, B , or legal drugs). Although it is controversial to apply animal studies to humans (and lots of them around drug use have been done with rats), the only thing such studies prove is that certain people may be more inclined to take (any type of) drugs than others. It does not prove the ‘gateway’, ie a /causal/ ‘gateway effect’. The study the New Scientist article is based on acknowledges that: It may increase the risk of using heroin (but it is not a causal factor). They would be silly to say that, since it has not been proven, quite the opposite, no such causal connection has been made in any study. And if cannabis was an actual, genuine /causal/ factor, we’d have far more heroin users than we do now. 'Upgrading' to heroin depends on many other factors.

You are turning the ‘cannabis as a gateway drug’ argument around. You are saying that someone uses cannabis is likely to use heroin, but fact is that someone who is likely to use /any/ drug is also more likely to use higher classed drugs, meaning they have a certain ‘inclination’ to use drugs in the first place, legal or illegal. So people who use cannabis (or any other drug) are inherently more ‘at risk’ of using higher class drugs /anyway/, whatever the cause of ‘upgrading’. The only way of testing the /genuine/ causal link is to assess how the (alleged) gateway drug influences ‘upgrading’ at a certain population level. Picking random examples from various parts of society is misleading/distorting, because it ignores /other/ influencing factors. There are many studies that looked into this causal connection within a certain population, and they could not establish that link. There was one in Israel for example (one of the more recent ones).

////Although of course the 'New Scientist' can't be expected to be as informed as some drug peddler, can it?///

Huh - and you wonder why I said it is impossible to have a ‘reasonable’ discussion with you about this issue....

////I am sure that this is often the case but it is not ALWAYS the case. In most 'middle class' circles frequented by cannabis users I am quite sure they wouldn't be seen dead with low-life heroin users but in lower class areas that is not often the case./////

It is rather due to individual ‘motivation’. ‘Low-life’ drug users (as you say) are more likely to have an ‘inclination’ to use heroin, and come into contact/seek out heroin users/dealers, because they ‘frequent’ different social groups, and may have far higher social/personal inclinations for 'upgrade' than your 'average' middle class family spouse.

////Do you really think all drug dealers are so honest and scrupulous that if they got hold of heroin they would not sell it as well?////

No. But because /any/ drug dealer is beyond /your/ moral standards, you can’t accept that they have a moral tolerance level within those boundaries which /for you/ are immoral anyway: There is a world of difference between the ‘average’ cannabis dealer and the unscrupulous heroin dealer. And yes, I know and have known quite a few cannabis dealers. I have also met unscrupulous heroin dealers, not because they frequent the same circles, but because I have entered theirs. And I have met many heroin dealers who deal in heroin to finance their own habit. At street level, the two phenomena (of heroin use and selling) are often interwoven, and if we decided to seed out those who also sell in order to fund their habit, we’d be seeding out /a lot/ of addicts, which would, again, back-fire on us (society).

Because someone ‘does wrong’ does not mean that they are ‘undeserving’ of support (otherwise /none/ of us ever would be), even if ‘only’ to prevent them from having further need of selling to other people. I admit though that I’m biased as far as questioning the /motivation/ for selling is concerned, meaning I’d be err far more inclined to support someone who deals in (small amounts of) heroin ‘only’ to fund their own habit.

It’s a similar principle as with criminal victimisation. The boundaries of victim/perpetrator ‘status’ are often blurred. Would I refuse a victim justice and let the perpetrator get away with the crime because the victim has, at some point, been a perpetrator himself/herself? No, I wouldn’t, because ‘selective’ justice is a flawed and dangerous approach, giving out very wrong signals to the public (ie undermine the criminal justice system), next to many other obvious factors that speak against such an approach

I will answer the rest tomorrow…..err /today/, later……