[Closed] WAR ON DRUGS!

"Our politicians are idiots"

And also on drugs it seems.

Weird that they've announced this just when there are news articles about coke being snorted at the parliament. The House.. must get its own house in order?

"Last one on drugs is a queer," shouts Portillo.

I was disappointed the news on Radio 4 this morning completely failed to link these two stories.

Weird that they’ve announced this just when there are news articles about coke being snorted at the parliament. The House.. must get its own house in order?

In fairness, the headline is that they're going to try to reach and offer treatment to the 300k or so addicts in the UK that supposedly commit half of all thefts in the UK. It's something that the Police and Drug Addiction workers have been asking for, for years.

Of course, it falls short of the only real solutions IMHO, accepting that drug addiction is a medical issue and not a criminal issue and decriminalising drugs.

They also plan to 'crack down' on organised gangs.

Of course, Headlines are easy, how are they actually going to achieve it. More funding for the Police, more funding for the 3rd industry that offer out-reach for addicts, or just more money to their mates to plunder?

Around 10% of the population use recreational drug IIRC

IMO its really really important to separate out the different drugs and to use different approaches to each.  Look worldwide and see what works, take the best practice out there and use that.  Use a harm reduction / healthcare issue approach in general

Again IMO

Cannabis - state regulated supply and sale ( avoid the dutch trap of letting the profits go int the hands of organised crime)   give kids who want to get high some sort of safer alternative  Harm from cannabis is low

MDMA / ecstasy - as above in low dose low concentration form.  Again harm is low

Use profits from both to mitigate health ill effects

cocaine - full force of the law using resources freed up from the above. Harm to individuals is high, harm to society is apparent as well

Heroin - decriminalise simple possession.  Punishing junkies does not work.  State supply for known junkies but consumption only in a sate shooting gallery.  make it just dull and tedious.  this would have a huge effect on crime as so much petty crime is done by junkies feeding their addiction.  Chase the big dealers hard.

It's still denying the total and utter counter-productive life-destroying mess that is the war on drugs, but I guess the treatment stuff could be good. Will probably be outsourced so Serco though.

Sounds like something SKS wouldn't dare to do for fear of being soft on 'druggies'.

Why keen to punish cocaine addicts and no one else TJ?

Oh look, an otter.

Sounds like something SKS wouldn’t dare to do for fear of being soft on ‘druggies’.

Don't understand what mudguards have got to do with anything.

Cannabis – state regulated supply and sale

Largely hasn't worked in California though. I would certainly legalise possession, I'm not convinced yet that state involvement in production and taxation would necessarily make things better. Agree that drugs need to be reclassified, the medical uses of MDMA and mushrooms needs to be more widely researched, and their class 1 classification is stopping that.

The new German coalition are now going to legalise cannabis. IMO once Germany does the rest of europe will follow.

Of course the best way to keep people from abusing drugs is to create a system where more people live happy fulfilled lives, **** all chance of our political class working towards that. Much easier to blame foreigners and call those suffering from poverty scroungers and make them the enemy.

"Chasing the scream" is an interesting book, and reveals just how much drug policy was based on racism and supporting the vietnam war rather than any concern for societies wellbeing. And iirc also details how America exported that through trade deals, which is why most countries still decriminalise rather than legalise.

Of course, it falls short of the only real solutions IMHO, accepting that drug addiction is a medical issue and not a criminal issue and decriminalising drugs.

la la la, I'm not listening
hangings too good for them
it's all their own fault
they're bad people
stone them

**** all chance of our political class working towards that.

of course

we are "blessed" in this country to have government of the people, by the rich and aristocratic lot; rather than a government for the people, by the people

Wr aren't winning the war to remove them, so support for users and maybe some sort of legal medically controlled access to remove the profits from the criminals?

Kind of works with tobacco and alcohol, but wiser heads than mine need to figure it out really.

Why keen to punish cocaine addicts and no one else TJ?

they are not addicts - it is not a drug of addiction ( tho the crack form comes close)

this is all over simplified and generalisations - to not do so so would take me hours to type

Its harmful both to individuals in health and its harmful to the country because of the stupid decision taken by folk using it ie boom and bust in the city etc - its the drug of choice in finance and banking.

I argue for the harm reduction approach to heroin usage because it stopping all the crime that junkies do - a junkie with a clean supply is just a boring waste of space.  they do no harm to others

I argue against this for cocaine because this does not apply in the same way - and cocaine and alcohol mixed causes a lot of stress to society - fights etc.  someone taking cocaine is a huge pain in the arse to society from the direct effects of the drug.  someone taking heroin the ill effects on society are due to the secondary effects - ie the prohibition causing them to end up in a life of low level crime.  The cocaine user does not commit crime to get their supply - run out you do not get withdrawal so you do not have to commit a crime to get your next hit

Cannabis and MDMA - I treat as the safest ways to get high - safer than alcohol  people want to get high - its been in all societies since the dawn of human consciousness so divert them into the safer drugs

this approach to heroin and cannabis works in the netherlands - they have very few problem drug users and very few new recruits into addiction

Again IMO

Don't disagree with any of that. Weed, MDMA, LSD, magic mushrooms should all be legal and available to buy thorugh highly regulated sources with a large slice of the proceeds being ringfenced for education and treatment.

The dangers of heroin are massively exaggerated and can be almost eliminated by stricly supervised medical supply. Not sure exactly how you deal with the recreational side of it, and my instinct is still to have full legalisation. It doesn't make sense to allow the black market to be in control of supply.

Same goes for the more harmful drugs like cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ketamine etc. The idea of allowing legal supply of these seems wrong, but then we allow tobacco smoking and irresponsible use of alcohol so not sure what the difference is.

Of particular interest in all of this is that they are considering confiscating the passports and driving licenses of middle class drug users as a away of punishing them in a way that affects their lifestyle.

Don't think it will work in practice and seems to more posturing than anything else....

so rich folk get to keep their passports?

sounds ideal for boris and his jolly chums. bring on the technology lessons and the dwarves with the trays of cocaine balanced on their heads

Don’t think it will work in practice and seems to more posturing than anything else….

if "middle class recreational user commuter man" (on the number 24 clapham omnibus) loses his passport and drivers license, and then his job because he can't commute or the job needs him to drive, what next? a life of petty crime? thrown out on the street? kids turning to daylight robbery? before we know it all these recreational once-a-month-at-home users will be shooting up skag on street corners and mugging mug punters for their next fix.

@tjagain Cocaine is addictive. I know lots of people addicted to it. One guy has just come out of residential rehab for it.

so not sure what the difference is.

because unlike when tobacco and alcohol were legalised the effects of them weren't very well understood, where as now there's masses of evidence about the harm that drugs like cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ketamine do, so legalising them would be pretty irresponsible.

It s really not YGH unless your definition of addiction is so wide it would include playing bridge and cycling!

You do not get withdrawal symptoms

benzidiazipine withdrawal - can be fatal
Heroin withdrwal - weeks of puking shitting pain and misery
cocaine withdrawal - tuesday blues

4561 deaths from drugs in the UK last year and not one of them was necessary, if people had access to unadulterated drugs of a known strength and information on how to take them safely then no one would have to die. The government knows this so I don't understand why there isn't more political appetite for more radical change, are voters really against this?

someone taking cocaine is a huge pain in the arse to society from the direct effects of the drug

*Over-simplified and generalisations klaxon*

Loads of people take cocaine regularly and don't go out and get in fights etc. Fairly common in lots of high pressure/long hours type jobs - it's obviously not healthy to do so and there will be some extra strain on the NHS, but the idea all cocaine users turn into violent offenders is nonsense.

I would imagine there are mental sypmtoms of one form or another. Much like there can be with cannabis or MDMA or similar.

if people had access to unadulterated drugs of a known strength and information on how to take them safely then no one would have to die.

apart from cocaine causing heat attacks and strokes directly and cannabis causing lung cancers

cannabis causing lung cancers

only if you smoke it.

Jeez, what is it with the drug laws? They just get stupider. So the tradesman caught tripping on a weekend can now have his driving license removed... yeah awesome, a new problem created where there wasn't one before.

Why not life sentences for anyone with the letters D,R,U,G or S in their name.

Absolute farce.

If people could buy coca leaf tea they wouldn't have heart attacks (unless they drank a tonne of it) Cocaine has been made to be the most concentrated version of the plant because it would be impossible to secretly transport tonnes of leaves - prohibition has made that drug so dangerous.

Smoking anything is bad for you, more education to stop people smoking cannabis could stop lung cancer caused by this - in legal states in the US people can buy edibles gummies etc, no lung cancer risk with these right?

I agree Grum - I did say my analysis was over simplified 😉

My point is that legalising cocaine would not reduce the harms to individuals and society.  Decriminalising heroin would

I am not taking any sort of moral view here - just looking to minimise the harms to society and individuals

cocaine withdrawal – tuesday blues

The voice of someone who has never witnessed someone come off of coke addiction.

"I snorted that line in a limited and specific way."

where as now there’s masses of evidence about the harm that drugs like cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ketamine do, so legalising them would be pretty irresponsible.

True but people take them anyway. Cocaine use in particular is so widespread that the law is effectively redundant. Yes, it's dangerous (although not as much as TJ would have us believe), but as adults it's up to us to assess the risks and make a decision, just like we do with many other things that are a risk to our health and wellbeing. I'd strongly argue that allowing the supply to be controlled by criminal gangs causes much more harm than any increase in usage would, especially when you factor in the improved education and treatment that legalisation would enable.

My point is that legalising cocaine would not reduce the harms to individuals and society. Decriminalising heroin would

The evidence from Portugal is pretty clear isn't it? Their approach is successful for all drugs AFAIAA.

The thing that pisses off is the law around psychedelics. There is clearly potential there for personal/social benefit if used responsibly, but the last thing they did was make it illegal to even pick and eat liberty caps in a field.

Of particular interest in all of this is that they are considering confiscating the passports and driving licenses of middle class drug users as a away of punishing them in a way that affects their lifestyle.

I wonder if that will include the mp's and other people currently inhabiting and working in Parliament as per recent study on the cocaine residue left on MP's toilets 😕

I know, I'm just being silly.

The voice of someone who has never witnessed someone come off of coke addiction.

Wrong - its the voice of someone who has worked in drug rehab, who has friends that became over users of cocaine ( and stopped instantly when they realised it was becomeing an issue without any withdrawal) and who saw a friend die from cocaine ( massive heart attack)

TJ do you have some links to back up your claim that cocaine isn't addictive? It's widely considered to be one of the most addictive substances in existence.

'My friends got off it fine' isn't really convincing me.

Wrong – its the voice of someone who has worked in drug rehab, who has friends that became over users of cocaine ( and stopped instantly when they realised it was becomeing an issue without any withdrawal) and who saw a friend die from cocaine ( massive heart attack)

Fair doos, but that isn't the same as watching someone who has used it daily for years (an addict, not an "over user") come off it, as I have. Withdrawal is a recognised issue and far more than Tuesday Blues. Tuesday Blues maybe a thing after a heavy weekend on it.

From the (unfortunatly named) wikipedia page of professor Nutt

Cocaine is seen as being highly addictive and physically harmful.

but as adults it’s up to us to assess the risks and make a decision

While this I think is fine in theory, in practice, not so much.

TJ do you have some links to back up your claim that cocaine isn’t addictive?

Yeah, I'd like to know as well, as I'm pretty sure cocaine is wildly addictive

I'm pretty sure Theresa Mays husband owns Europe's largest cannabis medical facility (grow room) and she had the cheek to try and enforce a zero tolerance drugs policy when she was PM.

I am not going to get involved in this thread any more.  Drugs threads on here are like politics - ends up with loads of illinformed shouting

I gave my view and my reasoning.  On addiction I have seen heroin withdrawal and benzos / alcohol withdrawal.  I have never seen any cocaine withdrawal despite meeting heavy users in both person and professionally.   Benzo withdrwal and alcoho;l withdrwal results in convulsions and can be deadly.  cocaine withdrwal is on a totally differnt level

"It’s widely considered to be one of the most addictive substances in existence."  I think this is a very disputed point.  Alcohol, tobacco and benzos are much worse IMO

again here we come into definitions - to me the idea of"psychological addiction" is a very problematic one as if you include cocaine as addictive then exercise, playing bridge etc are also addictive.  the whole concept of psychological addiction is a disputed one.

One of the problems with prohibition is that it makes doing decent research and finding the reality very difficult.

Prof Nutt ( brilliant name) probably has the best analysis I have see

My views are formed from what I have seen professionally and personally

“It’s widely considered to be one of the most addictive substances in existence.” I think this is a very disputed point.

Pretty much only disputed by you though, based on anecdotal evidence.

Are you disputing gambling addiction is real also?

I have never seen any cocaine withdrawal despite meeting heavy users in both person and professionally.

So you have met "heavy users", but not witnessed an addict withdraw?
30 seconds on a search engine will give you a list of physical and psychological symptoms of coke withdrawal that are far worse than the "Tuesday Blues" as it was put.

I see a war on Johnsons flagging poll numbers

I’m pretty sure Theresa Mays husband owns Europe’s largest cannabis medical facility (grow room) and she had the cheek to try and enforce a zero tolerance drugs policy when she was PM.“

Donks has been spending too much time on Facebook.

[url= https://i.postimg.cc/bvLdHJtC/Drugs.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/bvLdHJtC/Drugs.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Last point - 30 seconds on a search engine will throw up all sorts of things

i gave my views on what I would see as sensible drug policies.  I gave my reasoning

Of course cocaine useage should also be treated as a health issue  I simply do not see decriminialisation as a part of the solution and i gave my reasons

Its just one persons view

Of course cocaine useage should also be treated as a health issue I simply do not see decriminialisation as a part of the solution and i gave my reasons

It's a difficult issue for sure. I'm not for a second advocating a big bang legalise everything approach as that would be a disaster for very obvious reasons. It needs to be a process, probably lasting a decade or more. What's most depressing however is the direction of travel, and here in the UK once again we're going in the opposite direction compared to most other western countries. It's even more depressing when you consider it's almost certainly being done to stoke Boris's reactionary support, and with the full support of the bloody labour party.

NHS seems to think cocaine is addictive...

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/cocaine-get-help/

I think a big issue with Cocaine and Heroin is the damage they do to the areas where they are grown, plenty of violence is fuelled in South America and the middle east by drugs. The impacts of lab made drugs like MDMA or LSD is lower as it only needs to involve a chemist.

Cocaine is addictive. I know a wealthy lad who would occasionally lose £1000 up his nose in a few days. Did several months in a detox centre in SA, came back, drifted into it again, now claims to have been clean for 6 months. It's been a big and long battle and not to be dismissed lightly.
Portugal seems to have gone down the decriminalisation route with notable success. Is Germany not about to decriminalise weed like in most US states? I used to use a pub where weed was ignored so long as it was outside, a most friendly and civilised place. Any arseholes would be talked down and talked out of the pub and then told politely not to come back so the police never got called. Now we've got that slob in No10 going on about 'tackling' 300,000 problem users. I guess rich pollies are not problem users. The LP I guess will be backing them. Nobody read 'Good cop, bad war' ffs?

I see a war on Johnsons flagging poll numbers

Well I suppose it makes a change from some grandiose tunnel/bridge distraction.

A few more headlines to distract before the Chrissy hols.

Portugal seems to have gone down the decriminalisation route with notable success.

I'd say the evidence is unclear. the Hughes and Stevens Paper suggests mixed success  There's been no health benefits, there's been little investment in rehabilitation, and drug users are still injecting and living in squalid conditions. And perhaps most dangerously selling drugs is still in the control of illegal gangs, so the state gets no tax revenue.

Interestingly in 2019 the Conservatives published quite a sensible piece that they'd commissioned from YouGov/square space I think, to look at the public perception of drugs and drug reform. I'm guessing from today's announcement; Johnson and his team haven't read it.

Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group

Based on the Westminster opposition to the setting up of safe rooms up here, and their attack dog presses reaction to it, I will be interested in how much actual help is being given to addicts. Honestly; people dying needlessly so they can highlight how the SNP is "overseeing a drugs death epidemic."

It's actually refreshingly progressive for a Tory initiative, probably because of the overwhelming consensus among experts about the social benefits of tackling those core addicts.

And "cracking down" on county lines gangs selling smack & crack (and exploiting young people to do it) is difficult to argue with.

Obviously Priti Patel isn't the first person you'd pick for the job, and Tory cuts to policing and social services haven't helped this last decade - but y'know.

Don't hold your breath for drugs raids on middle class dinner parties, that side of it sounds like a gimmick.

And perhaps most dangerously selling drugs is still in the control of illegal gangs, so the state gets no tax revenue.

Thats the issue that concerns me with the halfway house of "decriminalisation"  In the netherlands recently some councils have begun growing to keep the profits I believe

This is why for cannabis and MDMA I would have a regulated market and for Heroin a state controlled supply with "shooting galleries".  Take the profits and its very lucrative out of the hands of the criminals and also to reduce the harm from an unregulated supply

Recently in the UK there was a batch of poorly made MDMA that actually had a slightly different drug in it.  It was both more powerful and had a much longer time to take effect.  The result was that people would take a pill, think nothing was happening when they didn't go up after an hour. take another and so on until they  all came on at once and of course that led to huge issues

Again the dutch experience -street drugs are tested, bad batches the info is put out there and you can even get your stash tested anonymously

On harm reductions with heroin usage.  there is a significant issue in glasgow with junkies ODing and dying.  the scottish government wanted to set up "shooting galleries" where narcan ( which stops the action of opiates) was available and medical care and clean needles.  Stopped completely by the tories to score cheap political points.  this shows how disjointed the system is and how much its based on nonsense rather than science

To go back to cocaine - and to set aside please its addictive qualities debate.  My position is that the harm from it does not come from the effects of prohibition but from its actual effects.  thus I do not see any level of decriminalisation actually reducing harm

I make no moral point over this - I simply want the harm to individuals and to society reduced

Another point is to give people the true facts about drug use.  The "just say no" and "all drugs bad" does not work when so many people have seen otherwise.  The classic here is Leah Betts who was used in a campaign to stop people taking MDMA

She took some MDMA at a party ( she also took distalgesic tablets in a damaging dose)  she was a smart kid who wanted to get high.  When the MDMA came on she panicked and her and her pals had read about drinking lots of water with MDMA ( which is 'cos it mucks up your temperature control and if you are dancing away you can over heat and dehydrate)

So she drank lots of water - I mean litres and litres.  she died of cerebral oedema caused by that excessive water intake.  the MDMA was nothing to do with her death directly.  If we had a decriminalised / harm reduction approach she could have taken medical advice she was too scared to do and given the correct advice and would have lived.  the fear of being found out and the lack of knowledge led to her death - she died because of prohibition not because she took MDMA

Someone in her position would under the sort of drugs policy I would like to see wpould have been able to get proper medical advice and may not even have had the MDMA in th efirst place as cannabis would be available legally.  she certainly would not have taken the distalgesic which is highly toxic.  Even without the MDMA and water the DGs would have had her toxic anyway

That is a very refreshing document that one Nickc.  But then Prof Nutt was sacked for telling the truth on drugs!

This is why for cannabis and MDMA I would have a regulated market

Sure, but I don't think for a minute that would stop gangs selling drugs, they'd just sell it more cheaply, and lets be honest, most folks would just continue to buy it from the source they'd always had done.

This is why there isn't a market in dodgy Russian fags at 50p a pack...

I think many, many people would be only too pleased to be able to buy MDMA legally and with some quality assurance.

Dunno about weed, not my thing.

Recently in the UK there was a batch of poorly made MDMA that actually had a slightly different drug in it. It was both more powerful and had a much longer time to take effect. The result was that people would take a pill, think nothing was happening when they didn’t go up after an hour. take another and so on until they all came on at once and of course that led to huge issues

That's been the case since E's have been around. Anyone who inadvertently double dropped a Dove in the 90's will know the feeling well.

Someone in her position would under the sort of drugs policy I would like to see wpould have been able to get proper medical advice and may not even have had the MDMA in th efirst place as cannabis would be available legally. she certainly would not have taken the distalgesic which is highly toxic.

People take MDMA and cannabis for very different reasons. I don't think I'd fancy smoking a few joints before going to a techno night for example.

On harm reductions with heroin usage. there is a significant issue in glasgow with junkies ODing and dying.

I've seen you use the term junkies on a couple of threads. Quite surprising as a healthcare worker who has worked within addiction services. These people are human beings with an addiction. Someone's son or daughter. Refering to them as junkies does no-one any good. Fortunately, there is a campaign being launched on this very topic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59542090

Nutt was sacked

they so often are

my point is that legalising cocaine would not reduce the harms to individuals and society. Decriminalising heroin would

Well apart from the huge harm that organised crime brings obviously. If you don’t decriminalise or legalise that drug, there will still be turf wars etc over that still hugely lucrative revenue stream.

Fair enough on the use of "junkies" futurreboy - lazy typing.  I'll take my telling 🙂

Jamj my thesis ( and backed up by evidence from the netherlands) a lot of the time people want to experiment and get high - so the availability of legal drugs reduces the demand for illegal ones is that despite it being a different sort of drug

Nickc - I very much doubt it and I am not sure if this was meant sarcastically but there is a big market in fake fags

legal production of cannabis and MDMA would take out most of the illegal market IMO so long as the price point was right - and legal stuff should be cheaper than illegal as you do not have to factor in the losses from busts.

Nutt was sacked
they so often are

Bravo! @johnx2

i gave my views on what I would see as sensible drug policies. I gave my reasoning

And on reviewing the replies following your post @tjagain - the vast majority of people are supporting 90% of your post, just disputing one point for a couple of reasons. I would say that’s a significant degree of agreement.

Recently in the UK there was a batch of poorly made MDMA that actually had a slightly different drug in it. It was both more powerful and had a much longer time to take effect. The result was that people would take a pill, think nothing was happening when they didn’t go up after an hour. take another and so on until they all came on at once and of course that led to huge issues

Probably something like PMA or PMMA, although there are lots of dangerous MDMA analogues. Lots of these came about because of a crackdown on MDMA pre-cursors, so illegal labs start making something similar but more dangerous.

Similar situation with so called "Research Chemicals" where tweaks are made to the chemical structures of common drugs to give a legal but still effective alternative. Lots of these have no history of safe(ish) use like illegal alternatives and have caused deaths.

Sure, but I don’t think for a minute that would stop gangs selling drugs, they’d just sell it more cheaply, and lets be honest, most folks would just continue to buy it from the source they’d always had done.

I think weekend ravers would be queueing up for high quality, pure MDMA in known doses. You're right that it would have to be cheap enough to out-compete the same old dealers though.

Jamj

I stepped away because the thread was in danger of getting derailed over that small point. I stepped back in as it hadn't.  I think some missed nuance there in how you saw what I said.  I did not mean " no one agrees with me I'm out" It was to stop that point of contention derailing the debate

Another aspect to any liberalisation of any drugs is driving and working - needs robust policy around this.   Cannabis is really tricky because its detectable long after it has no effect and indeed its actually hard to find impairment in driving after cannabis.

so long as the price point was right

I think one of the reasons that the market in legal weed in California has more or less collapsed as a standard way the users to buy was the cost to growers of taxation and regulation that was being passed on to buyers. Essentially illegal growers can still undercut legal sources. The legal weed market is now more or less relegated to "high value" bespoke weed crops that are bought by the very wealth only. Pretty much everyone else has gone back to what they were doing before, only the difference now is that the cops mostly look the other way.  The drug gangs are still shooting each other, still fighting over territory and still indulging in criminal behaviour with all the money they're making

I think the idea that simply legalising some drugs will mean the end of drug gangs is the stuff of fantasy I'm afraid.

Another aspect to any liberalisation of any drugs is driving and working – needs robust policy around this. Cannabis is really tricky because its detectable long after it has no effect and indeed its actually hard to find impairment in driving after cannabis

I've wondered how this could be managed. I worked in a job where drug testing was relatively normal and found it mental that someone could lose their job for smoking a joint a week or so before the test, yet someone banging in to the Class A's all weekend would sail through a mid week test.

Back in my clubbing days I'd have loved to have been able to buy legal MDMA with some idea of how strong it was going to be before taking it. I might not have shat my pants at Glade festival in 2007 if I knew what I was putting into my body.

Another aspect to any liberalisation of any drugs is driving and working – needs robust policy around this. Cannabis is really tricky because its detectable long after it has no effect and indeed its actually hard to find impairment in driving after cannabis.

That's true, although I can't see that drug driving would necessarily increase as a result of legalisation would it? Surely if the reason you don't take drugs now is their illegality then if drugs became legal why would you drive under the influence (which would be illegal).

One of the "quirks" (problems) of the dutch ecstasy law is that it is decriminalized to carry one (or maybe two) pills but any more and you are classified as a dealer. So if you are the buyer for a night out, you buy a strong pill that can be split. That has lead to much stronger pills being sold which can catch out inexperienced users or if the pill is badly made uneven doses on the split.

Again it would be better to be able to buy a legal pill of known quantity and quality.

Surely if the reason you don’t take drugs now is their illegality then if drugs became legal why would you drive under the influence (which would be illegal).

It's not a case of being under the influence at the time. Drugs can be detected in your system for a period of time after the effects have well worn off. TJ's cannabis example is a good one. Say I crashed my car on the Wednesday and was tested by the police, the joint I smoked on Saturday night would still show up in my system despite not being under the influence of it.

I might not have shat my pants at Glade festival in 2007 if I knew what I was putting into my body.

And if reform to the drug laws prevented just one raver soiling themselves, then that's justification enough in my mind.

That has lead to much stronger pills being sold which can catch out inexperienced users or if the pill is badly made uneven doses on the split.

I believe this is also because the law was that dealers/manufacturers were prosecuted/sentenced based on the number of pills they were caught with, so it made sense to make incredibly strong pills designed to be split up for a single dose. You could/can get pills that were literally 4-5 times more MDMA in than an old school pill the likes of which UK 90s ravers were taking.

At least there is an explanation for brexit..... 😁

TBH I'd legalise MDMA, LSD and mushrooms long before weed. All of these are completely harmless but very easy to misuse by taking way too much. Legalising them so that you can rely on the dose and purity without running the risk of taking some dodgy chemical made by a graduate chemistry student is a no-brainer. FFS mushrooms grow out of the ground all over the country, the fact that picking them is a class A drugs offence is patently ridiculous.