Strathclyde Police Federation call for all drugs to be legalised

[Bear]

It was on the front page of the Scottish Daily Mail, I didn't wanna buy that scummy gutter press rag because that would boast the bastards circulation by 1 to many, and I couldn't find the story online, this was the best link I could get -

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_LatestNews_13_04_06_Scottish_police_legalisation_call.htm

If anyone can get a link to the proper story will they post it please? I think only the English version goes online.

 

[TAE]

ALL drugs?

If it's true, then I think it's nuts.

 

[Bear]

ALL drugs?

If it's true, then I think it's nuts.

It's true. Basically, they think trying to stop people taking drugs is futile and doesn't work and that handing the supply of drugs over to an unregulated criminal market is only making the problem worse.

I think they're being very sensible.

 

[detective-boy]

It's true. Basically, they think trying to stop people taking drugs is futile and doesn't work and that handing the supply of drugs over to an unregulated criminal market is only making the problem worse.

Whilst I would agree with their argument for the vast majority of controlled drugs, I suspect they have not actually considered the small number of substances which could justifiably remain illegal on the basis of the extreme damage they cause to the individuals consuming them or on the basis of the extreme effect they have on the individuals taking them which directly harms others around them.

I think if you did have a decriminalised drug market, you would need to think about how to address a black market trade in drugs which legitimate companies would not sell due to product liability issues.

 

[two sheds]

Whilst I would agree with their argument for the vast majority of controlled drugs, I suspect they have not actually considered the small number of substances which could justifiably remain illegal on the basis of the extreme damage they cause to the individuals consuming them or on the basis of the extreme effect they have on the individuals taking them which directly harms others around them.

with alcohol being the worst on both counts.

 

[MatthewCuffe]

At last, the first fragments of sanity force their way into the miserable 'war on drugs' and the prohibition on talking about ways to solve the epidemic of hard drug use that we now face in our society.

These people have to enforce the law day in and day out on the ground. Their voice is important. If you are trying to fix a broken car, you listen to the mechanic.

 

[Onket]

with alcohol being the worst on both counts.

Yawn.

I would much rather have alcohol legally available than not. Cos they ain't going to do a swap are they.

 

[Soul On Ice]

At last, the first fragments of sanity force their way into the miserable 'war on drugs' and the prohibition on talking about ways to solve the epidemic of hard drug use that we now face in our society.

Agree - but what you say here............

These people have to enforce the law day in and day out on the ground. Their voice is important. If you are trying to fix a broken car, you listen to the mechanic.

could also be used to justify the Association of Chief Police Officers' view that there should be 90 day detention without trial to comabat terrorism.

 

[two sheds]

Yawn.

I would much rather have alcohol legally available than not. Cos they ain't going to do a swap are they.

Not get much sleep last night?

Nope, not with the extent of alcohol abuse amongst MPS, judges, lawyers, journalists and the police.

 

[Onket]

Nope, not with the extent of alcohol abuse amongst MPS, judges, lawyers, journalists and the police.

They wouldn't do a swap anyway.

 

[Blagsta]

ALL drugs?

If it's true, then I think it's nuts.

Why? Its the only sensible option.

 

[detective-boy]

with alcohol being the worst on both counts.

Not too sure it'd be the worst, but it'd certainly be up there (especially on the direct effect on the lives of others). Oh the logic inherent in historical happenchance ...

 

[Bear]

Whilst I would agree with their argument for the vast majority of controlled drugs, I suspect they have not actually considered the small number of substances which could justifiably remain illegal on the basis of the extreme damage they cause to the individuals consuming them or on the basis of the extreme effect they have on the individuals taking them which directly harms others around them.

I think if you did have a decriminalised drug market, you would need to think about how to address a black market trade in drugs which legitimate companies would not sell due to product liability issues.

I think the worst drug is heroin - at least it seems to be the one causing most of the problems (and crime) in the North East of Scotland where I live. I guess rather than sell it in shops, we could have a system where only doctors could prescribe it. That would mean the dealers would lose their customers and nobody else would become addicted since drug dealers would lose the incentive to 'push' it because they'd know that as soon as someone got dependent they'd get it on the NHS. That would manage the problem and drastically reduce the number of new addicts being created.

 

[detective-boy]

Agree - but what you say here............
could also be used to justify the Association of Chief Police Officers' view that there should be 90 day detention without trial to comabat terrorism.

No, no, no, no, NO! He doesn't agree with that one ...

 

[detective-boy]

I think the worst drug is heroin - at least it seems to be the one causing most of the problems (and crime) in the North East of Scotland where I live.

Again, I'm not sure it's the worst. But it is certainly up there as an addictive drug and hence can lead to acquisitative crime to fund a habit. But I can't remember any instances where someone "high on heroin" killed / injured / raped someone in the same way that people "drunk on alcohol" do.

One thing which I think is telling is that heroin (particularly when you take into account the indirect problems associated with injecting - infection, vein collapse, etc.) does "screw you up". Users and potential users know that - they SEE it around them, amongst their friends and peers and, whilst they are capable of rational choice many will exercise the choice NOT to go there.

One of the most (only?) effective anti-drugs campaigns I remember was the "Heroin screws you up" one from the 80's, with very familiar images of sick and skaggy looking (interesting also how "shaggy" has become used in that way) addicts. Compare this with "E will kill you" type adverts where users watch and go "Er, not in my experience it doesn't".

 

[Blagsta]

That's funny, its usually acknowledged that the "heroin screws you up" campaign was completely ineffectual. Heroin isn't actually that physically damaging. Its the illegality and associated lifestyle that leads to the majority of health problems associated with it. I've known a lot of junkies to look quite healthy - you wouldn't know they had a habit unless they told you.

Crack causes more problems than heroin ime. Heroin users don't spend much more than £30 - £40/day on gear. Crack users can spend £100s/day.

 

[subversplat]

I think the worst drug is heroin - at least it seems to be the one causing most of the problems (and crime) in the North East of Scotland where I live. I guess rather than sell it in shops, we could have a system where only doctors could prescribe it. That would mean the dealers would lose their customers and nobody else would become addicted since drug dealers would lose the incentive to 'push' it because they'd know that as soon as someone got dependent they'd get it on the NHS. That would manage the problem and drastically reduce the number of new addicts being created.

I'll tell you what, mate, heroin doesn't need any "pushers" to get people to take it. There is and always have been millions of people just itching to take on the Big One and see if they make it out the other side. If doctors won't prescribe to all and sundry, and a decent dose to all and sundry, then there will always be a black market for it.

Something else to consider that I'd not even thought about before, is that if you make all recreational drugs legal, you're also implicitly making all pharma-corp drugs legal, which means that all sorts of dodgy things would be floating about on the market and the pharma-corps making even more money at the expense of the sick.

Still, I suppose it might mean an end to animal testing

 

[detective-boy]

That's funny, its usually acknowledged that the "heroin screws you up" campaign was completely ineffectual.

I'm aware of the fact that most (if not all) anti-drug campaigns have been found to be ineffectual based on various attempts to quantify their effects. I am also aware of how difficult it is to measure the effectiveness of a single initiative when nothing else stands still. My comments were based simply on anecdotal evidence gathered myself in years of dealing with and speaking to users of various drugs - I met many (at least thirty or forty) who, to some extent or another, either gave up or never started heroin because of what they saw around them, reinforced by the campaign whilst it ran. I have not met one who gave up or never started E (for instance) because of anything they saw around them reinforced by any campaign.

I agree with you comments on the ill-effects of heroin being associated with illegality, etc. (I have previously made reference on these boards to the experiment in the North-West (Warrington I seem to recall) where GPs were allowed to prescribe heroin (rather than methadone) to addicts who functioned pretty much normally.

I also agree with your comments about crack - it certainly does seem to be addictive to the point where a habit is more expensive.

 

[two sheds]

Its the illegality and associated lifestyle that leads to the majority of health problems associated with it.

Yep, that's the one. Also linked to shoplifting to pay for it, which wouldn't be needed if it was on prescription with strict controls to avoid it going on to the black market.

I'd still say alcohol was worst as in highest 'real' costs to society. I think it's also probably linked to more crime than is admitted - people having a stiff drink before they go out and do whatever it is they've got planned.

 

[TAE]

Why? Its the only sensible option.

While I can understand the reasoning behind wanting to legalise cannabis, many drugs are just nasty entrapping money spinning machines that only the dealers benefit from.

 

[subversplat]

Yep, that's the one. Also linked to shoplifting to pay for it, which wouldn't be needed if it was on prescription with strict controls to avoid it going on to the black market.

I'd worry that such "strict controls" would ultimately be self defeating. I'm guessing you mean controls like a limited amount per day and supervised dosage? I think people are forgetting that these drugs are first and foremost, before the addiction takes hold, recreational substances, and who wants to be taking their stuff in front of a doctor unless they're hooked and broke already? People with money and time to wait to find a dealer are always going to prefer to do it with their mates in their own homes, so a black market will persist, no matter what strict measures are in place - they can't get much stricter than they are at the moment, and there's loads of heroin on the streets.

Personally I think that any successful attempt at decriminalising drugs is to have them freely available in any amounts people would like from guaranteed quality licenced sources (much like alcohol, really). This would at least take the wind out of the international organised crime gangs, and with that out of the way society could start looking at how to treat any further problems caused by the free availablity of drugs.

I still think that keeping the pharma-corps in line is a bigger worry, though

 

[Blagsta]

While I can understand the reasoning behind wanting to legalise cannabis, many drugs are just nasty entrapping money spinning machines that only the dealers benefit from.

...and...what? Don't you think that taking it out of the hands of gangsters would help with the social problems associated with drugs? And to say that only dealers benefit is daft - if people didn't think they gained something from taking drugs, they wouldn't take them.

 

[two sheds]

I'd worry that such "strict controls" would ultimately be self defeating. I'm guessing you mean controls like a limited amount per day and supervised dosage? I think people are forgetting that these drugs are first and foremost, before the addiction takes hold, recreational substances, and who wants to be taking their stuff in front of a doctor unless they're hooked and broke already? People with money and time to wait to find a dealer are always going to prefer to do it with their mates in their own homes, so a black market will persist, no matter what strict measures are in place - they can't get much stricter than they are at the moment, and there's loads of heroin on the streets.

Personally I think that any successful attempt at decriminalising drugs is to have them freely available in any amounts people would like from guaranteed quality licenced sources (much like alcohol, really). This would at least take the wind out of the international organised crime gangs, and with that out of the way society could start looking at how to treat any further problems caused by the free availablity of drugs.

I still think that keeping the pharma-corps in line is a bigger worry, though

Yep, point taken. I'll swear I remember reports of pilot projects for heroin where controls had worked though, and not fed supplies through. But yeh making sure it's pure and taking it out of organized crime solves two of the major problems that criminalising it causes.

Any rational (hahaha) approach to drugs would be to class them in some way according to the benefits (we all need some form of release, for example) versus the costs to users/people around them. Couldn't pharmaceuticals be handled in same way?

 

[two sheds]

Couldn't pharmaceuticals be handled in same way?

Yeh they could. They won't be though will they, you stupid bastard?

 

[Bear]

I'll tell you what, mate, heroin doesn't need any "pushers" to get people to take it. There is and always have been millions of people just itching to take on the Big One and see if they make it out the other side. If doctors won't prescribe to all and sundry, and a decent dose to all and sundry, then there will always be a black market for it.

I don't like the idea of doctors giving an ultra addictive drug like heroin to someone who isn't already and addict but I suppose I'd still prefer that to them buying it of dealers because of all the crime the illegal market creates. I mean, I'd rather £1 a week of my taxes went to that than £100 went on the police courts and jails trying (and failing) to stop the crime caused.

Anybody any statistics as to how much crime is drug related? I'd be interested to read just how much crime could be reduced by.

 

[TAE]

Don't you think that taking it out of the hands of gangsters would help with the social problems associated with drugs?

Nationalising the drugs trade? Knowing our polititians, they'd immediatly privatise and sell the business to some gangsters.

And to say that only dealers benefit is daft - if people didn't think they gained something from taking drugs, they wouldn't take them.

If it were as easy to stop taking hard drugs as it is to start, then I would agree with you.



Another thing that concerns me is the drastic effect of certain drugs on a user's likelyness to become violent.

 

[Bear]

While I can understand the reasoning behind wanting to legalise cannabis, many drugs are just nasty entrapping money spinning machines that only the dealers benefit from.

Yeah, its true that they are nasty. But the fact is they exist and some people want to take them. So what can you do? I mean, how do you justify spending billions of pounds locking people up for doing something which only harms themselves, especially when the draconian laws don't even work and fail to reduce use regardless of how much tax payers money is spent trying...

 

[TAE]

Users who want help should be given help.

Pushers who only care about money should not be allowed to give out free samples and then make a living out of someone's addiction.

 

[Blagsta]

Nationalising the drugs trade? Knowing our polititians, they'd immediatly privatise and sell the business to some gangsters.

Who mentioned nationalising it? I'm well aware that big business often behave like gangsters, but I'd rather have the drugs trade subject to controls than the free for all we have at the moment.

If it were as easy to stop taking hard drugs as it is to start, then I would agree with you.

I'm well aware that it can be very difficult to stop. So...what?

Another thing that concerns me is the drastic effect of certain drugs on a user's likelyness to become violent.

Like alcohol you mean?

 

[Blagsta]

Users who want help should be given help.

Pushers who only care about money should not be allowed to give out free samples and then make a living out of someone's addiction.

So how you going to stop them?