You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
On the face of it the arguments seem compelling that access to drugs should be carefully managed but legal, just like booze... but:
Just a sad anecdote from me, a good friends lad had a drug induced psychosis, it destroyed his life and he almost took his family down with him.
He grew up with my lad and it was horrible to watch the events unfold and completely horrific for his family.
I can think of multiple examples of this. Most of them are still affected ~30 years later. Two died in their 30s. To think an evening as a 15-year-old could effectively ruin a life is tragic.
Personally, i can manage my alcohol intake. I got addicted to tobacco from combining it with dope but quite that as found myself increasingly anxious when high. MDMA gave me a come down so bad i'd never go near it again. Same with Meth. Coke did bugger all, could barely feel it - total waste of money. Whizz was just convenient and acid probably the most interesting of the lot - but too many stories from friends that scared me off.
I’d be all for the legalisation of cannabis and psylocybin in the uk.
At the moment, with only alcohol being the only legal recreational drug, it’s actually an extremely sexist policy decision.
Alcohol/ floor polish is a pretty dodgy substance, but more so for men.
There’s a qualitative difference in the experience between the sexes.
For women, it seems to induce some kind of hormonal rush that’s obviously lost on men.
For men, a trip to the pub is as interesting as spending an evening at the corporation bus depot. You’re drumming your fingers, glancing at you’re watch every thirty seconds.
Just mindless tedium, whilst you’re waiting for a ride.
But to women, they can’t understand why men are not flocking around them, at the corporation bus depot, and get extremely frumpy in the process.
Women, take note. If you want to meet the hot blokes, go to the Netherlands, or petition the govt to legalise cannabis.
Given that the drinks lobby exercises so much influence over the govt, it may be easier to collectively abstain from alcohol purchases. You’ll see a pretty rapid policy reversal. As would abstaining from county-lines drug purchases.
Should you want to rejuvenate the high st, take a note from the Netherlands.
The revenue from cannabis tourism must be staggering.
The cannabis works as a bulwark against the skank and squalor that goes hand in hand with alcohol consumption.
What about the risk of psychosis?
Theres so much crap in alcohol that it does induce psychosis. To the non-drinker, it’s like venturing out, into a world of mass hysteria.
People are literally tripping on the latest social panic.
With cannabis, it’s all about finding the strain with the ratio of THC/ CBD that works for you.
As for psylocybin, the only problem with these substances is that they only ever reached the already converted.
Your Farage, Trump, Putin, Vatican, wriggled out of their grasp.
Inagine the kind of world we could be living in, had ISIS or Le Pen had been force fed DMT☺️☺️☺️
it does change brain chemistry and many folk become life long stoners but this does not effect their ability to hold down professional jobs and be contributing members of society.
I worked with a guy like that, back in the 70’s. Long hair, flairs, long-sleeved tee shirts, used to roll up joints in the studio, for what he called ‘herbal insporation’. He was a brilliant freehand artist, he used to sit doodling steam locomotives, with all the details, and in perspective too, just out of habit, while thinking about a design. He’d roll a joint, then there’d be a flurry of activity from his corner of the room. Smashing bloke, went to his place in Bath the afternoon before a gig, gave me a small piece of resin to chew on because I wouldn’t smoke it.
Completely off my face for hours afterwards, even while waiting for the train home late that evening - according to a friend I saw. I can’t remember…
I remember seeing some amazing things looking through a book of his about Antoni Gaudi, which did prompt a question about whether he was using it as well.
I’ve never tried it since, that’s what, fifty years ago, and never felt the need. Nor anything else, except alcohol, and that in moderation, I don’t actually like the out of control sensation. Or the spinny room thing, either. Especially that! [img] 
[/img]
I think skunk can be psychologically addictive . At least with legalization the occasional spliff could be purchased rather than having to buy it in quarters or halves and be permanently off your face. I've known Cambridge professors who were regular users and an actor in a popular agricultural (!) radio series, all stayed on top of their game.
nevermind.
the rave generation would never have happened without MDMA.
It's true that every music has its drug - but drugs don't 'make things happen'.
theres a romantic notion that drugs are a sort of creative performance enhancer. But they're not - they just compliment to mood. People who like the franticness of speed will enjoy the franticness of punk. But you can enjoy punk anyway..People who like the visual and aural qualities of LSD will enjoy the dreaminess of psychedelia, but you can write or enjoy psychedelia any.
The drugs are incidental but compilmentary - its like saying you wouldn't have had the cheese generation without wine.
I want to drink in the bus depot where Greatbeardedone drinks - sounds like an easy pull!
Unless.... it actually is a bus depot
It feels like there are a lot of drugs already being handed out at this 'bus depot'... 😉 Agree with the conclusions (decriminalise), but the reasoning felt like some sort of psilocybin induced essay.
maccruikeen
I think you can be right for folk listening to the music but without the drugs the performers / creators would not create it. I have no doubt that some drugs increase creativity
why would I go to a shop when the dealer will come to my door, will have drugs of known quality that will always be cheaper?
Eh? That's pretty much the opposite of reality. Do you think dealers are looking out for you and want to ensure you get the highest quality drugs? lol, they're cut to a crazy extent (you're lucky if the coke you might buy is 10% actual coke these days). Sure if you live in that world and know the dealers well you might get better stuff but that's not most people.
Who really wants a drug dealer driving to their house selling them something illegal vs being able to go to a shop and buy the legal quality-controlled version (maybe it ends up being available on Deliveroo anyway...).
And why cheaper? A lot of the cost of illegal drugs comes from a mix of the high overheads that come with smuggling and the nature of the market where supply is artificially controlled and protected. Remove that and the only real cost to worry about is how much tax the government would be applying to the product.
As for the wider argument...
I've never really been into cannabis myself but agree with controlled legalisation, that said I think it's best limited to edibles as it removes the smoking aspect which is not only damaging to your health but also horrible for your neighbours to deal with.
Heroin is the problematic one, whilst I agree criminalising it's use mostly just harms society's most vulnerable people you have to have something in place to stop people trying it and getting addicted in the first place (afaik it's the only recreational drug that's pretty much instantly addictive, not something you can just try once or twice to see what it's like)
Coke, yeah it's hard to argue for legalising it in any way but I'm sure, with research they could come up with less harmful synthetic versions that might have a place...
Crack is basically a poor man's coke but even more harmful (shorter but more intense high meaning it often ends up being much more abused than coke). It's not helped by often being bought alongside heroin, by the same vulnerable people but unlike heroin can't really be prescribed as a way to reducing it's harmful impact.
MDMA, if it were available legally you'd take away one of the main problems with it (in that it's often cut, sometimes with harmful stuff but also people just don't know how much to take as they don't know it's purity).
Micro-dosing on psychedelics I think needs a lot more research and has the potential to help a lot of people (if the limited positive research that's been done turns out to be true and there not being long-term harmful side effects etc.)
A few thoughts after catching up with the thread and thanks Tj.
Often some poor teenager drowns in their own vomit after too much vodaka. Please educate your kids and grandkids about units.
Even one unit of alcohol is too toxic to pass today's current tests so wouldn't be allowed on sale if it was a new invention.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy a drink but we certainly need to be aware of its minus's. Plus this was world's first failed attempt at having a War on Drugs...
Someone mentioned that we should make policy once we have properly assesed each drug. That research has been done by highly qualified researchers all over the world using FMRI scanners, etc. We know what each drug does the body and brain but only if that drug is exactly what it says on the tin.
Heroin addiction is often a way of coping with something horrific in your past so the longer term answer is to improve society but once addicted we proved years ago in the Merseyside Experiment that addicts can function in society if given a clean and regular supply. Ironically we banned this idea but the clever Swiss went around the world looking for a solution to their growing problem and copied it.
Heroin is the problematic one, whilst I agree criminalising it’s use mostly just harms society’s most vulnerable people you have to have something in place to stop people trying it and getting addicted in the first place (afaik it’s the only recreational drug that’s pretty much instantly addictive,
This is why I suggest using medicinal heroin for long term maintenance rather than Methodone because it would take away the illegal market. In the UK we spend huge sums on giving folk methodone but it does not satisfy the need - so they still try to get heroin ( gross generalisation). If you use heroin for maintenance of long term addicts you remove a large part of the market so there ends up less illegal heroin available
I really don’t know where I sit on this. I am probably old fashioned in my thinking that a bit of hash is ok but coke/heroin etc should be off limits. If we were to legalise drugs it would need a lot of work/funding of health services before hand as I think we would need to adapt current funding models, moving funding from the illegal costs of police/court/prisons into health/gp/hospitals/support counselling etc. would it lead to an increased consumption? if we look at alcohol and tobacco and how they impact on the health services we would need a huge shift of investment to support any law change. Then, ignoring the cost implications, what would the society implications be? As previously mentioned, a lot of drug (and alcohol) abuse is because of life/society circumstances , so we need to address these causes too. I don’t feel you should legalise more drugs without having these issues sorted first or you risk an increase in use/abuse that cannot be supported.
anyway I think all you big hitters have to solve the housing crisis first.
Mugboo I do not agree that various recreational drugs effects are all well understood. One of the issues with prohibition is that high quality research is hard to do.
Another adverse effect of prohibition is that medical benefits of these drugs are very much under utilized. Its often hard to separate out the overvalued claims made by enthusiasts for positive effects from what is provable but the hallucinogens would appear to have potential for use in mental illness and distress.
IIRC the swizz were trying MDMA in relationship counseling - because it releases oxytocin so it reminds couples what its like to be in love
Ketamine seems to have a use in profound depression - something that would not be known without its recreational use
And I think the current Fentanyl problem is blurring the lines regarding changing current drug laws.
Its one of those chicken/egg things. The explosion in users has come from the fallout of OxyContin, plenty of documentarys to watch if you are'nt up to speed on that but basically, as the governement in the States caught up with reality and banned its use, the heroin market was'nt able to cope with all the new addicts so handily the chinese stepped in with Fentanyl. Hey Presto, everyones a winner (or loser...).
Since then the Chinese have stopped doing it directly and just ship the precursers to Mexico.
And mu understanding is that the Taliban have made moves against the poppy growers over there so our traditional Afghanistan/****stan supply is about to slow done so we may saddly see our own synthetic opiate crisis.
Tj - give the Drug Science Podacsts a listen, very enjoyable. David Nutt and his friends across the world, working at Imperial College London/ John Hopkins, etc, have been testing these drugs on themselves and volunteers for years now. Its been slow going due to the hoops they have to go through but very good progress, often to the point of Stage 3 testing.
I'm sure there is lots left to learn but they do know what each drug is doing to the brain and body.
There is not a lot of love for cocaine though but coca leaves by all acounts would be a nice swap for caffeine.
Fentanyl is massively more effective than other opiates. dosag is in microgrammes not milligrams thus its easier to smuggle and also harder to work out dosages. Hence ODs are common with it. Its also often used to adulterate low quality heroin - again vastly increasing OD risk as its very hard to add a consistent amount
(afaik it’s the only recreational drug that’s pretty much instantly addictive, not something you can just try once or twice to see what it’s like)
Not sure that's right, I remember reading it's about comparable with nicotine, it's the shit it's cut with that produces most of the negative effects.
Meth and crack on the other hand are the "instantly addictive" sort. Obviously not for everyone.
For those countries that have legalised, have they seen a reduction in use ?
Again different drugs different effects. I think with Cannabis legalisation there tends to be a initial rise in usage then it falls away even to lower than pre legalisation levels - but this is compounded by folk taking cannabis rather than other drugs. Again from memory I think less dutch teenagers smoke cannabis than in the UK - because its seen as boring and for old folk. there is no element of teenage rebellion in taking drugs if they are legal. Again this will depend on what level of cannabis decriminlaisation / legalisation. I am concerned that some US states and Canada may have gone too far with allowing THC to be refined to pure and then added to products. apparently the US market in THC laced drinks is huge and in canada you can buy pure THC and also THC edibles not weedlaced edibles.
If you use heroin maintenance for heroin addicts then the use of black market heroin drops and fewer folk are recruited to addiction
Hallucinogens my guess would be that usage might increase
I think most countries with liberal drug laws have seen harms decrease - after all that is the aim - harm reduction
I think most countries with liberal drug laws have seen harms decrease
This is not the case. See the article I posted on the first page about Oregon's experience. The reduction in crime and black market drugs isn't as clear cut either. In most cases/studies the decrease is reported crime. Which makes sense; if you're not criminalising it, then the cops aren't treating it as a priority. But that doesn't mean that crime or gangs have gone away, it just means the cops aren't doing anything about it/them.
Edit: Portugal has seen reduction in use and harm, and they've invested in treatment and are trying to de-stimatise addiction. They seem however to be alone, pretty much, in both having a long term and broadly successful policy. But, even their crime stats are misleading for the same reasons everyone's else's are. If the cops aren't investigated/arresting anything then crime is 'going down'
In the UK we spend huge sums on giving folk methodone but it does not satisfy the need – so they still try to get heroin ( gross generalisation).
I spent some time discussing this with a very experienced addiction doctor. His view (I’ve not researched it myself) was that methadone can work and correctly dosed can be a complete substitute. He was quite scathing about GPs who don’t seem to understand what they are doing with the dosing. He felt a lot of GPs were intentionally underdosing believing it will help their patient wean themselves off it - when actually higher dosing would enable them to regain control. He likened it to someone who is addicted to 20 fags a day, being given enough Nicorette gum to compensate for 15 ciggies, but expecting them to stop going to the shop and buying fags.
He wasn’t opposed to legalising heroin for the same use but questioned whether the current delivery approach would do any better than with methadone. But of course he was arguing that his services were underfunded and deserved more investment because they could make a big difference. He was very clear though you can’t solve a drug problem (personal or societal) through medical intervention alone - you have to recognise it’s caused by what TJ called “shitty life syndrome” and fix as much of that as possible.
He made an observation that for many prisoners being released returns them to that shitty life and the cycle begins - that was certain not a “prisoners have it too easy” claim… he was saying - how badly we treat addicts on release that actually it’s worse than being inside.
Another point I meant to add to the discussion was, how legal/accessible do you make drugs? Walk into a shop/prescription only etc? Legalising drugs would have companies seeing an opportunity to make money and how do you regulate them? Look at how big pharma can behave with OxyContin/ Purdue, drinks companies trying to attract drinkers to their product with alcopops, vaping that was once used primarily for smoking cessation now widely used by youngsters who would never of smoked. If you give companies free rein then some will seek to exploit this in a bid to gain customers, make too many regulations and you just drive the use back underground into the hands of the cartels. People/ companies are smart and will always seek a loophole or way to exploit us in their quest to make money. Again I don’t know the answers and I have more questions than answers so good luck to those trying to solve a very difficult problem.
FunkyDunc - Portugal changed their laws to tackle a growing heroin problem but the key to it was money spent on bringing these people back into society rather than just decriminilizing. It worked and lead to a big drop in heroin users.
Its important to note that this came from both sides of their house getting together and doing something sensible.
As Tj says, this is about harm reduction, there is no magic bullet, us human beings are often self destructive, especially when we are young. We get the ability to enjoy pleasures around the age of 12 but us boys mostly don't understand risk properly till we are 24 ish according to research.
Opiate/crack type addiction is mostly due to a shitty start in life.
https://pca.st/episode/dc640ae3-1119-4382-92b4-282c1b730989
Merseyside Experiment podcast about giving addicts heroin.
Really? Because I never tire of hearing bams talking about taking 2 or 3 of an evening. Either they’re talking shit or taking shit.
One of my mates can hack 3 pills in an evening with a bit of crystal MD on top (not to mention other stuff). He's away with the fairies but he can still operate (he drives his mobility scooter home from the pub afterwards!). It's all about tolerance, and you can build that up quite quickly with frequent MDMA use. Back in the 90s when I was going out raving every weekend 1 pill was never enough.
Lots of MDMA usage or stronger hallucinogens can lead to “fried brains” it would seem
It's absolutely a thing - I have direct experience - but it takes a lot, like every weekend over a couple of years. It'll happen with any drug if you use it enough (although I have heard stories of people going crazy after a single nuclear dose of LSD).
Look at how big pharma can behave with OxyContin/ Purdue, drinks companies trying to attract drinkers to their product with alcopops, vaping that was once used primarily for smoking cessation now widely used by youngsters who would never of smoked.
This is largely my fear if you legalise it. Oxytocin should be a big red flashing signal to everyone regarding the behaviour of pharmaceutical companies if you give them the opportunity to exploit vulnerable people for profit.
TJ not sure you're right on the price thing. If MDMA was ever legalised there's no way it would be cheap, otherwise the alcohol industry (who are the main opponents of legalisation for obvious reasons) would be annihilated. I reckon a legal pill would probably be half as strong as they currently are (ie a single dose) and cost upwards of £10. Possibly even more than that as who is going to spend £40-50 drinking on a night out when you can pop a pill for a tenner?
The only answer I can think of to this question is "It is complicated".
Dugs have both the actual and potential capability for so much harm to individuals and society all the way through their supply chain from that I think it is next to impossible to create a legal ecosystem without accepting some harm along the way. In the worst case, that could be harming people on the streets and their families, or destroying communities where the drugs or precursors are produced/harvested. Even the question about legalising cannabis is tough to answer. If you legalise it, will people buy from a government controlled source (which may require ID) or continue buying from a dealer to avoid this? Will a dealer be cheaper? Will they have a better quality product? You could say that _this_ government may not record/retain user information, but what would another one do? Would the info be sold to a third party for further use?
Manufactured chemicals... Well, it would be easier for a large company to buy, manufacture and distribute a synthetic chemical to the end-user with a known quality and purity, so a drug like MDMA _could_ be made available as a safer product, but could also be copied illegally and distributed as the 'legal' version with a higher level of risk to the end user. Again, who do you trust to make and distribute the drugs? How do you guarantee that the data from the purchase and use is not misused? How do you keep people safe?
I keep thinking of the supply chain for heroin and cocaine and the way that this has destroyed nations and their populations. Could this be reversed if drugs were legalised? I don't think so. Money will always be something people will want more of, either because they have none and just want t little bit more to feed their families (Opium in Afg) or because they have a shit-tonne and want to control it all (Cocaine in South America). Drug companies would probably fall into the latter category here... If they managed to secure the contract for producing legal MDMA, they'd want to optimise their profits.
The only way I see the war on drugs being won is by education and help. Show people the harms the drugs cause, educate them on what they can do in a way that works with them, help them effectively if they do have a problem. If the dealers are dealing because tit's the only way they can get money, give _them_ opportunities, allow them to learn new skills, get real jobs, break that cycle too.
Honestly, the only thing I can see being remotely working as legalisation is small scale, self-grown cannabis and, even then, I do not think that will happen in the UK.
That’s pretty much the opposite of reality. Do you think dealers are looking out for you and want to ensure you get the highest quality drugs?
Nope.
Not all drugs dealers are balaclava wearing yuffs from the local council estate.
One of my old dealers was very professional. He used to give out 2g tasters (try before you buy), throw in some THC laden munchies on big orders and even refunded me on a batch of weed that wasn't all that.
Will be interesting when I see him next to find out what the legalisation of weed in Germany has done to his business.
Eh? That’s pretty much the opposite of reality.
My son's dealer was a professional woman who delivered to the door in her Merc. Product was always good quality and reasonable price. It was just as easy as using Deliveroo
Germany and Spain have a setup where you have “cannabis clubs” that you can join and these clubs are allowed to grow so much per member and simple possession is legal.
You don't need to be a member of a cannabis club in Spain. You can grow your own, as long as it's only for personal use. 3 plants/adult is apparently acceptable, although I doubt that's a hard, legal limit, and presumably if you pissed off a police officer / judge you could still end up in trouble. A plantation of 50 would definitely be for dealing and would no doubt lead to jail time.
Honestly, the only thing I can see being remotely working as legalisation is small scale, self-grown cannabis and, even then, I do not think that will happen in the UK.
thats the model in Germany and Spain.
I think it is next to impossible to create a legal ecosystem without accepting some harm along the way. In the worst case, that could be harming people on the streets and their families, or destroying communities where the drugs or precursors are produced/harvested.
Its certainly difficult. This is why I want to look at things from a harm reduction viewpoint not a moral one. My belief and the experience from other countries is that liberalising drug laws reduce harm overall. the third country issue is a real one. Note I do not advocate personally any change to the status of cocaine but I do advocate legal heroin prescribing for maintenance under supervision - which creates a legal avenue for growers to sell and reduces the black market
If you legalise it, will people buy from a government controlled source (which may require ID) or continue buying from a dealer to avoid this? Will a dealer be cheaper? Will they have a better quality product?
The spanish or German model of "cannabis clubs" avoids this issue. You have to be a member of the club to be able to buy from the club and that does leave a record
the canadian model of a full legal market means that tested and safer products are available and the dealer is cut out as you have a choice of products in the legal shops rather than take it or leave it. The only ID check is like alcohol ie an age check. Nothing is recorded.
IO think we should look at best practice worldwide and use that to inform our laws. The key thing is our current laws have failed. We have huge issues with drugs. The status quo does not work. We need to find something that does.
Ta Mogrim - I had forgotton that. The clubs are for those who do not want to grow their own? I think Germany is the same?
Cannabis clubs here have a tendency to get raided and shut down, I'm pretty sure they operate on the fringes of legality.
I think Germany is the same
Not 100% up on things in the Vaterland, but there aren't any clubs set up and running as yet, at least in Bavaria.
Bavarian government is trying to make it really difficult for people. Every club application is being looked at very carefully and they're taking their time doing it.
From my clique back in Munich I don't know anyone who has put their name down for a club. Who wants their details handed over to the authorities?
the canadian model [sic] Nothing is recorded.
It's not Canada, just BC. When my wife bought some mushrooms (she's Canadian from Vancouver) she had to sign a document to become a patient of their 'clinic' and had to indicate the 'treatment' she was seeking to use mushrooms to alleviate. They kept that record. It's very much still a legal grey area
thats not cannabis. They have a full legal market Canada wide for cannabis IIRC.
IMO legalise the lot and tax its sale and production.
I think it's one of those subjects where the system we have now is very much bent, and should be reformed as @tj and others suggest to remove as much harm as can be reasonably achieved. You could however, never realistically legalise them, no politician will ever go near it, and the medical community won't ever thank you, and you'd instantly create a new market for the really shittiest of companies (becasue we all know it would be fags, booze and pharma corps that would sweep it all up) to make vast vast profits
Not 100% up on things in the Vaterland, but there aren’t any clubs set up and running as yet, at least in Bavaria.
yes - in typical german style they have in theory legalised the set up of clubs very recently. In practice it all stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare with some of the regional governments being obstructive.
, and you’d instantly create a new market for the really shittiest of companies (becasue we all know it would be fags, booze and pharma corps that would sweep it all up) to make vast vast profits
Its early days yet in the Canadian legal cannabis market but from what I saw at least the weed seemed to be lots of small scale producers not conglomerates. I do not know about the THC products like drinks and edibles. I believe in the US the cannabis derived products like drinks have been mainly big businesses. I am doubtful whether these should be legal
Interesting discussion folks. I have realised I have conflated two things tho - my personal opinions and my understanding of legal status and effects in various places. I hope the two are suffficiently clear which is which
Put heroin on prescription. It would stop the one man crime waves addicts become and may stop some of the health problems with impurities, cannabis is virtually decriminalised as it's not worth the polices time to arrest someone over £20 worth, let people grow it themselves. Drugs gangs are organised, successful and incredibly wealthy and offer a product people want and you will never stop them by the use of the law. Fancy some drugs, do a quick Instagram search and have it delivered to your door.
Someone on this forum once suggested that heroin must be amazing, because people are willing to give up everything else in their life to use it.How would the user demographic change if the experience was less trainspotting and more s****y high end bar?
And a separate question about the gangs. How exactly are they structured, are they using drugs to fund other criminal activities, or are other activities purely a business expense at running an illegal drug network. I imagine they would not voluntarily renounce their past lives and go get a minimum wage job, so what would they turn to?
IMO heroin is mainly used to ease the pain of a shit life. I do not believe it would become "s****y high end bar" - and I am not advocating full legalization personally.
Drugs gangs - hard to know but I believe there are many different models some of which are very nasty indeed. Its one of the reasons I want a liberalization of the law - to remove the power of the gangs. Many of the recruits at the bottom end are coerced not voluntary in the nasty ganges. also stopping busting folk for simple possession means no criminal record and jobs are easier to find
I think we need to look long and hard at what other countries experiences are and copy the policies that lead to least harm to individuals and society
They'd turn to other crimes of course. Crime to fund drug deals, drug dealer profits to fund legitimate business for laundering you're money, repeat in one way or another.
Heroin is indeed an amazing experience or at least opium is which I tried once and thought twice your an addict. Not all addicts are in grotty council flats it's every level of society.
A lot of the point is missing that not all drug users have horrible lives, lots of people use drugs 'cause you know they are fun. Forget kid in a tracksuit on a street corner it's all nice houses and people with well paid jobs and pleasant lives with door to door delivery. Drug policies are written by people who are way out of touch or more concerned with political loss or gain so nothing improves.
I find the "I have a bad drug anecdote" fairly bizarre. Someone took some unregulated drug of unknown provenance and had a bad (or terminal) experience. That's not an argument for keeping the status quo. Legalisation is about reducing/preventing harm. Illegal drugs are easily available now to anyone who wants them, but with all the negatives of a criminal trade along with people's reticence to be truthful when asked about substance use. Keeping the drugs illegal does nothing to prevent more future bad anecdotes. Legalising, controlling, monitoring and supporting their use should.
Someone on this forum once suggested that heroin must be amazing, because people are willing to give up everything else in their life to use it.
The assumption of opinions like this is that drugs/heroin cause chaotic life problems. I think in most cases (informed by Mrs Daz being a drug and alcohol support worker for 15 years) the opposite is true. As TJ says people take drugs to escape their shit lives. For a couple of hours a day a homeless person or victim of abuse can forget whatever's going on in their lives and have a fleeting moment of feeling good. Of course the drug use may then exascerbate their situation and make it worse, but it's generally not the root cause.
I think in most cases (informed by Mrs Daz being a drug and alcohol support worker for 15 years) the opposite is true.
Actually, I think that the abiding lesson from the opioid crisis is that the addiction leads to the chaos and not the other way round in many cases.
Keeping the drugs illegal does nothing to prevent more future bad anecdotes.
But this is already also true of the legal drugs we have now.
Its early days yet in the Canadian legal cannabis market but from what I saw at least the weed seemed to be lots of small scale producers not conglomerates. I do not know about the THC products like drinks and edibles. I believe in the US the cannabis derived products like drinks have been mainly big businesses. I am doubtful whether these should be legal
From speaking to a retirement age Oregon based weed farmer I met in Bangkok the big pharmacy companies and Mexican cartels (using immigrant slaves) have moved in and combined with the new legal red tape has forced out the small local farmers.
Portugal has implemented a successful system of helping not criminilizing addicts, Thailand on the other hand is reversing its decision on legalising weed due to OCG and youngsters smoking it.
I'm not sure exactly how much you need to take or how often before you become hopelessly addicted, but when you live in a seriously depressed area, with no jobs on the horizon and are in the habit(no pun) of taking drugs like weed, then i suppose it can be more appealing, as it certainly has more of a hit than weed.
The problem is they start smoking heroin. Initially, it might only be at the weekend, much like cocaine,and because it's only the occasional,it's cheap. Then within a year, maybe 2 they are probably smoking £200-300/week. Thats when the real problem starts, which is when they move from smoking to injecting. If you are smoking £300 a week and you start injecting, because of how it works, that habit goes back to maybe £70/week, but you'll build up a resistance very quickly and be back to the 300+
Someone on this forum once suggested that heroin must be amazing,
Put it this way. Say you have a bad flu, and you can't even get out of bed. A fivers worth of heroin, and you could go on a ten mile jog. It's just that its really addictive/habit forming/moreish.
I expect there are some who have a stronger head and can limit it to once a week or once a month,or even a couple eof times a year, but not everyone is that focused and can project the dangers..
Most of my mates took it, I took it, though I was 90% of the time a weed smoker and often said 'Just stick to weed, you'll not go wrong'. They're all dead from it, im still here.
.
Whatever their reason, and it might not be deprivation, it could be death of close family, depression, please be christian about the horrible disease they're caught in.
.
Funny joke
Whats the difference between a heroin addict, and an alcoholic ?.
Both will steal your wallet, but the heroin addict will help you look for it.
It's high time that Cypress Hill and the London Symphony Orchestra have just fullfilled The Simpsons pipe dream and performed together last night, all reviews are smoking it !
Actually, I think that the abiding lesson from the opioid crisis is that the addiction leads to the chaos and not the other way round in many cases.
If you are rteffering to oxycontin in the US then yes - prescribed opiates led to addiction and chaos. However the heroin addicts from the sink estates in the UK its shit life syndrome IMO
I think that the abiding lesson from the opioid crisis
The opioid crisis is an entirely different issue to the harm caused by recreational drug use. Addiction to opioids is mostly a result of aggressive marketing and dubious research by big pharma than the result of people choosing to use drugs and then falling victim to them.
There’s massive crossover between the two.
Well it's funny but I don't know anyone in the UK who uses opioids recreationally. I know loads of people who frequently use weed, MDMA, mushrooms, coke, alcohol etc but I've yet to come across anyone using opioids so I don't think it's the problem you're making it out to be. The people in the UK who are addicted to opioids are mostly people who were prescribed them by doctors. It's not a recreational drugs issue.
The people in the UK who are addicted to opioids are mostly people who were prescribed them by doctors.
I do not think that is true at all. UK doctors are very careful about prescribing opioids to the point they may be under prescribed. In the US this might be true
*klaxon* Irony alert *klaxon*
this has been a nice polite debate - can we keep it that way ta?
can we keep it that way ta?
You're telling the wrong person TJ.
Addiction to opioids is mostly a result of aggressive marketing and dubious research by big pharma than the result of people choosing to use drugs and then falling victim to them.
And
Addiction to heroin is mostly the result of aggressive marketing by drugs gangs rather than the result of people choosing to use drugs and falling victim to them
Aren't actually that far apart...
Addiction to heroin is mostly the result of aggressive marketing by drugs gangs rather than the result of people choosing to use drugs and falling victim to them
In over 30 years of taking various recreational drugs (although admittedly not heroin) I've never once come across a dealer or gang aggressively pushing (or 'marketing') a drug. If anything it's the other way round, the demand from users often outstrips supply and the people selling them are reacting to that demand rather than generating it themselves.
As the US surgeon general noted, “Tobacco is more addictive and damaging than heroin”.
Afaik, the govt in the late 1960’s proposed measures to wean heroin users off it.
When the conservatives took over, these proposals were abandoned. Deliberately trying to create ‘Kaoss’? Who knows.
In Scotland, it’s merely furthered what is basically ethnic cleansing as a means of whittling down the population and staving off any expansion back into the highlands.
As for cannabis…
In Canada, the cultivation and distribution is still in the hands of criminals.
The legal growers are still playing catch up.
From my brief experience in the Netherlands, the police don’t so much turn a blind eye, as condone its use.
They appreciate it when tourists use the coffee shops, as it saves the police from having to waste precious resources, chasing people around town.
Theres always an argument when a progression policy is mooted of “well what about the teenagers? Won’t they all become addicts?”
Doesnt seem that way for the Dutch. The ‘yoot’ don’t cluster around, passing doobies.
Without a coherent message from the drinks lobby, the Dutch seem to respect the weed and its smokers.
Were not revered quite like sports stars, but there’s a healthy sense of astonishment from the residents.
Priest-class?
And whatever you smoke, there’s always a risk of cancer. More so with tobacco, but always present.
Kind of odd when the German tourists snort with derision at the smell of a doobie, but when they return home, they’ll spend four hours perched over their barbecue???
And ironically, it’s that demographic (retired), are probably the ones who’ll receive the most benefit from the weed.
They’ll be able to run diagnostics to their hearts content.
As for psychosis, it’s alcohol that makes people paranoid AF.
But I’d argue that psychosis is hard wired into the human psyche. Part of the human condition.
When push comes to shove, most people of all ages have absolutely no concept of reality, in any way, whatsoever.
Its not surprising that people can undergo psychosis.
Mental fitness, whatever, is just as much of a hard won struggle as gender identity.
Ive experienced verbal gender reassignment from my peers, even when in my twenties. That kind of nonsense, I had already dealt with in my very, very early youth.
When the conservatives took over, these proposals were abandoned
I think they were happy to let it carry on, IIRC it was Regan personally who lent on Thatcher to put a stop to it, as it was out of step with his own policy (the war on drugs) Folks in Liverpool were sacrificed to transatlantic relationships.
In Canada, the cultivation and distribution is still in the hands of criminals.
That's not strictly true... I Know first hand from a Canadian friend.. He grows a few plants on his land, just for personal use really...
Much like someone might grow tomatoes or whatever. He doesn't sell it.. But he does trade small amounts and cuttings with like minded friends who have grown a different strain or whatever.
No cartels or big pharma in sight.
Of course you need a garden or allotment or something to do that otherwise you have to buy it from somewhere if you want it.. Be that a licenced operator or traditional black market dealer.
In Canada, the cultivation and distribution is still in the hands of criminals.
I am not sure how this can be as the industry is now legal ie both growing and selling is fully legal in a controlled and regulated market. do you mean its the same people? Weed is tested, stuff is taxed, there is a high degree of regulation
I am not sure how this can be as the industry is now legal ie both growing and selling is fully legal in a controlled and regulated market. do you mean its the same people? Weed is tested, stuff is taxed, there is a high degree of regulation
I'm guessing he means legal dispensaries that may be sourcing bulk product from producers that are not always totally legit, possibly even proper criminals.
That's more a commercial supply chain issue, and not the experience I have from 'informal co-op's' for want of a better term, who are basically just very small scale home growers who help each other out, rather than growing it to sell for profit as a business.
I'm not sure how that can be as the stuff in the shops has a tested and approved type seal on it like cigarettes in the UK with the tax paid seal on them.
Its not dispensaries really - its shops. I do not see shops knowingly selling black or grey market stuff - if caught they would lose their license to sell and there is plenty of legal product to sell.
Its a tightly controlled market. I am willing to be proved wrong but I don't see how it could be a major issue.
I think a lot of the growers may have been illegal growers before the legalisation but that is surely a good thing as they will now be paying taxers and being inspected and the products tested.
In Scotland, it’s merely furthered what is basically ethnic cleansing as a means of whittling down the population and staving off any expansion back into the highlands.
wow! Scotland has a drugs problem. The problem is not unique to the big cities. I’ll buy that governments of all colours and all locations don’t give it the priority they should - and often regard it as self inflicted harm. BUT as a policy of intentionally removing an ethnic group it’s a pretty shit one: which ethnicity is it targeting? what %age of that group has it removed?
Well it’s funny but I don’t know anyone in the UK who uses opioids recreationally.
do you think that’s because your social circles don’t involve injecting drug users?
The people in the UK who are addicted to opioids are mostly people who were prescribed them by doctors. It’s not a recreational drugs issue.
i don’t think that’s true. Its quite possibly true for the US but in the UK we never really had the same drug company opioid push here, and a healthcare system that’s funded in a way that doesn’t benefit doctors by overprescribing. Moreover, if you end up addicted to prescription medicine in the UK there’s much less reason to resort to street drugs - in the US once the meds (or the underlying health issue you were taking them for) mean you lose your job - you lose your healthcare insurance and access to the doctor who got you hooked!
but it’s not a “fun” or “party” drug issue - people taking opiates are doing it to escape a miserable life probably inflicted on them by others and with no easy way out; so yes not a “recreational” drug in the sense of it being a game but very much not usually starting with prescription opiates.
I’m not sure how that can be as the stuff in the shops has a tested and approved type seal on it like cigarettes in the UK with the tax paid seal on them.
Its not dispensaries really – its shops. I do not see shops knowingly selling black or grey market stuff – if caught they would lose their license to sell and there is plenty of legal product to sell
You might well be right, I'm not disagreeing, all I can say is my own experience, if you get to know people in certain circles, there are networks of very small scale personal growers, which is technically 'black market' but it's not a money making scheme, it's just groups of people who grow a handfull of plants for thier own use, and help each other out.
My friend for example, if his few plants get eaten by a marauding goat or just die or something, then he can lean on some friends to get some new cuttings etc, as you can grow your own as long as you don't get silly with it, the police really won't give a damn.
My friend just grows his own as it's totaly legal in small amounts, and so do his friends, as long as you don't go commercial with it, it's a better way of doing it.
Ah - yes I am sure that still happens - and thats legal to grow a small amount at home and gifting small amounts Is again I think OK
The sooner we move to a legalised production model for consumers the better, this is how it’s sold in Canada, comes in a sealed package with exact THC/CBD terpenoids listed on the packaging (my aunt sends these over) so you know exactly what you are buying.
My opinion on drug use/decriminalisation has been done to death before on the forum and I imagine most are aware of my experience in growing so I won’t bore you all with it again, growing for personal use/clubs with friends should be totally legal.
Drugs other than cannabis/hash/oil should also be decriminalised and made available to users, the idea of a state deciding what I am allowed to consume/take is utterly absurd and throughout my life I have ignored the law
[img] 
[/img]
Re:Canada. What I heard was that whilst there is legal weed, most of the cultivation facilities know-how, etc, is still in the hands of the criminal gangs.
Re: Scotland. There’s been about a thousand drugs deaths per annum. Maybe they were the direct descendants of Robert the Bruce?
Such affrontery!
I guess at a level above the Scottish govt, someone decided that it would require too much resources to combat generation upon generation of poverty. So they hit reset, handed out ‘hot-shots’, and hived out any kids to better-heeled foster parents.
As for any perceived population, encroaching onto the highland estates.
The theory is that the USA feared an increase in the African population. Was AIDS engineered to achieve population control?
Who knows.
Certainly, by stigmatising the use of condoms, the papacy was instrumental in those countries holocaust.
Re:Canada. What I heard was that whilst there is legal weed, most of the cultivation facilities know-how, etc, is still in the hands of the criminal gangs.
As they are licensed and inspected I do not think that can be true. Is it that its the same folk growing but they have moved into the legal market? that may be true ( infact I think it probably is given that the legal market has such high quality products. people who know how to grow good stuff are growing it) but then they are no longer a criminal gang - they are a legal and licensed grower paying taxes etc. One of the key things was to get the money out of the hands of the criminals to avoid the situation they have in the netherlands
colorado tried to freeze out anyone who grew in the black market and as a result the legal product was so poor no one wanted it. They had to backtrack
I do not know the details tho and am not certain.
I must say I find this very refreshing that we have no real " all drugs are bad just say no" nonsense and a nice willingness to consider harm reduction approaches. also interesting that a few folk would go further than I would on this. Clesarly there is an appetite for a change in the laws
Nice discussion
Anyone watched Murder Mountain on Netflix? Covers some of the growers trying to go legal, really good series, it's a totally outlaw part of California.