Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2009, 08:25 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6894710.ece

Is it time to for the Police and Council to start looking at the possibility of a Amsterdam style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_coffee_shop in Newbury?

Some might think it's a solution to decrease the binge drinking culture they feel is now prevalent in our society.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 29 2009, 08:58 AM

Speaking from personal experience when I was a lot younger.....

Cannabis had little or no affect on me. It was like having a beer.
Skunk weed which is often referred to as 'Cannabis' is totally different. it is akin to a Class A drug and I tried it once and had no feeling in my legs for 3 hours and could not even stand up. Never again.

Amsterdam style coffee shops in Newbury. No thanks. Its bad enough avoiding the drunks.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 29 2009, 09:11 AM

I can never understand why this government always seems to come to the conclusion that offering an equally irresponsible alternative will solve a current problem.

Viz, The introduction of 24 hour drinking to stop binge drinking.
Making Cannabis a class C drunk to stop people starting to take drugs.
Allowing areas of cities to become no-go Ghettos to illiminate street violence and gun crime. ie handing areas over to gangs.
The enthuiasm for no-custodial sentences to bring down the level of crime.

It's beyond me.

Posted by: Simon Oct 29 2009, 12:28 PM

Even though i dont agree with pot cafes, i do think that certain drugs should be legalised and taxed removing the criminal activity away from the culture and helping the finances of this country.

I smoked a bit in my younger days and have the occasional puff now and again and it hasnt hurt me. The most dangerous thing about smoking weed is buying it.

I used to go to bournemouth to a club known for the majority of its customers being high on ecstacy and i never witnessed a fight and had some really good times there.

I think the government need to bring in some proper experts on drugs and work out which ones could be legal, not that i think they ever will as it seems a good vote winner to promise to rid the country of drugs full stop, even though no one ever does.

Posted by: user23 Oct 30 2009, 05:42 PM

If one was going to legalise only two drugs, alcohol and nicotine would probably be among the worst choices.

Taking the control of drugs out of the hands of criminals would be a good thing in my view.

Perhaps it's time to face up tot he fact that a large percentage of the population everyone enjoys the use of drugs, legal or otherwise.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 30 2009, 08:10 PM

So the prof got the sack as a Government advisor for doing science, rather than politics...

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Oct 30 2009, 08:35 PM

My thoughts exactly when I saw the news tonight. Something wrong somewhere - messenger, shooting, comes to mind?

Posted by: user23 Oct 31 2009, 09:39 AM

Does seem a bit daft and it's indicative of the closed minded view some have on drugs.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 31 2009, 10:18 AM

In my experience, many that enjoy the binge drinking so loathed in the press and elsewhere, are likely to enjoy experimenting with said drugs as well. The deregulation argument was used for drinking, but it seems to have made matters worse to police.

The danger of one thing compared to another, shouldn't in my view, necessarily mean that either should be treated any lighter. It is likely that if all the above were only discovered now, none would be made legal.

All that being said, the 'war on drugs' is failing and perhaps the biggest argument for some form of legalisation, would be to reduce the amount of crime that surrounds the illegal drugs trade. I understand that 80% of burglaries are committed to fund drug users habits. If drugs were made cheaper. Perhaps the incidence of burglaries would fall. Having said that, look at the impact of cheap alcohol is having on society.



Having alcohol and nicotine legal hasn't removed the illegal trade in them.

Posted by: Darren Oct 31 2009, 02:31 PM

Half the row seems to be about the decision being made against the available scientific facts.

Well hang on a minute, decisions can't be made just on what one side say. Politicians (whether we like it or not) have to make decisions based on public opinion too. If I recall, the last survey done said the public don't want cannabis downgraded.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 31 2009, 09:04 PM

Hang on another minute: was 24-hour drinking introduced because of public opinion? The public that now drinks to excess, introducing young people's (potentially fatal) health problems the like of which has never been seen before?

Methinks the prof was right - abuse of alcohol has far more serious consequences than the misuse of any of these other drugs.

(And this from someone who enjoys the occasional pint, and a glass of wine with his meal.)

Posted by: lordtup Nov 1 2009, 03:31 PM

Surely it is the right of any adult to partake of whatever particular vice he or she see fit .
The exceptions arise when the results of such actions affect others .

Ask anyone who has an alcoholic as a family member and they will tell of mental torment and violent threats .

In a nutshell , anyone can abuse themselves , but no one has the right to abuse others .

Legislation won't stop it , so why even try . The answer lies within our own conscience every time we enter that twilight world .

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Nov 1 2009, 05:17 PM

That's fine just as long as the rest of us aren't expected to pay for the NHS to sort out any damage at a later date.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 1 2009, 08:12 PM

Which they invariably do.

Posted by: Simon Nov 2 2009, 10:21 AM

What Survey is this? I have never been asked whether cannabis should be class a, class b, class c or even legal

The problem with people filling in the survey is that they get confused between the so called facts and fiction of the subject. They believe what they read in papers and what polititcians say.

Posted by: Darren Nov 2 2009, 12:42 PM

Scientist use to say that smoking was in fact good for you and recommended certain brands, as did doctors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

Posted by: Roost Nov 2 2009, 04:09 PM

Not to mention "Guiness is good for you"!!

A slogan I took to heart at a very young age.

Mind you, I'm not sure which of the usual 12 pints of the black stuff is the better one.......

Posted by: Bill1 Nov 2 2009, 04:25 PM

Comparing cannabis resin to skunk is like comparing regular Carling to Tennants Super.

Thats the problem all pot/weed/hash/ is categorised together whereas in truth, as someone has already mentioned on here the strengths and effects are completely different.

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 2 2009, 06:07 PM

Apparently Alan Johnson sacked Prof. Nutt because his job is to advise rather than criticise. Well apparently Mr Johnson knows for sure that in his constituency kids are more likely to have a drugs overdose than a horse riding accident, this after the comments from the professor.

Now was Johnson's comment based on scientific fact, I don't think so.

Posted by: user23 Nov 2 2009, 07:24 PM

Invariably they don't actually.

The actions of the vast majority of people who use recreational drugs don't affect others.If it were legal it could be classified by strength like cigarettes or alcohol are.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 2 2009, 07:31 PM

Except the countries where these drugs come from.

"...a gram of cocaine sells on the Colombian streets for just £1.00 and is the cause of 17,000 murders every year in Colombia. Here, cocaine and violence are inextricable. As Alex himself finds out: "It's a long way from a cheeky line at a dinner party. It's terrifying."

http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/330/index.jsp

BTW user23.3, do you experiment with drugs?

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 2 2009, 11:17 PM

QUOTE (lordtup @ Nov 1 2009, 03:31 PM)
Surely it is the right of any adult to partake of whatever particular vice he or she see fit .
The exceptions arise when the results of such actions affect others .

Which they invariably do.

[quote name='user23' date='Nov 2 2009, 07:24 PM' post='10559']
Invariably they don't actually.


If you currently buy cannabis, you'll buy from a dealer, lining their pockets and no doubt they also deal in much harder stuff. So just remember the money that changes hands with a dealer; it's highly possible someone, someones child is sticking a needle in their arm somewhere else as a result.

Unless you are growing it yourself, then you will affect others because you're part of the circle.

Posted by: Darren Nov 3 2009, 12:27 AM

It's a well documented fact that the cannabis user of today is more likely to become the heroin user of tomorrow.

The reason? As use continues, the body develops a higher tolerance to the active ingredients resulting in shorter and less intense highs. This means the users has to move up to the next level of drug. It's very rare for someone to go from no use straight to heroin.

A quick google will produce all the facts you need.

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2009, 01:24 PM

Where again they're illegal, which supports my point about having a sensible debate about how to remove the criminal element from their supply.Got any evidence to suggest that "no doubt they also deal in much harder stuff" or is this just what you've heard?
This logic suggests that everyone who enjoys a beer from time to time will invariably move to harder forms of alcohol as the body develops a higher tolerance to the active ingredients.

We both know this isn't true, neither is your statement about cannabis.

The large amount of alcohol users know how to use their drug of choice sensibly.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2009, 01:30 PM

But...

a - We have no jurisdiction in other countries like S. America.
b - Negates the argument that taking drugs is harmless to no-one except those that use it.
c - Having Alcohol legal doesn't, or hasn't removed the illegal trade in it.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 3 2009, 02:09 PM

Am I alone in thinking that the words "recreational" and "drugs" don't sit well together?

Like taking drugs is much the same as kicking a football around.

(Apologies for using the f-word).

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 3 2009, 03:11 PM

Google it you'll see.

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2009, 06:35 PM

Watching TV is a recreational activity and is hardly the same as kicking a football around.Sorry, couldn't find anything, care to post what you found up here?

I still maintain that everyone who enjoys a beer from time to time will not invariably move to harder forms of alcohol as the body develops a higher tolerance to the active ingredients.

If you can find anything that refutes this then please post it a link to it.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2009, 07:26 PM

Agreed.



You must be blind, examples come up easily, however, opinion on the subject is divided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/12/2134
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol18N4/Twins.html
http://www.trushare.com/High%20Time/Brett.htm

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2009, 07:41 PM

Hardly conclusive evidence, is it. In fact this statement

While some research shows that many hard drug users used cannabis or alcohol before moving on to the harder substances, other research shows that some serious drug abusers have used other drugs before using cannabis or alcohol.

Seems to suggest that harder drugs are a gateway to using cannabis or alcohol in some cases. The point is (as the sacked adviser suggested), it's time for a sensible debate on the subject. If we followed the line that some people abuse a thing therefore it should be banned, pretty much nothing would be legal.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2009, 08:03 PM

I have also never read anywhere that the drugs as previously listed, are healthy for one either.

Most people drive their cars too fast at some point, but it shouldn't necessarily mean we should permit an increase of speed limits.


Some form of legalisation to reduce burglaries/robberies/prostitution and to clean up some of the gear sold might be a good reason, but I would anticipate that the net increase in drug use caused by legalisation would have a net detrimental affect on health in the country.

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2009, 08:14 PM

Correct, but does it mean we should ban the use of most cars, as we have done with most most recreational drugs?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2009, 09:00 PM

Councils, like West Berkshire Council, have already started to do this.

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2009, 09:22 PM

No they haven't, anyone in West Berkshire is free to own a car as far as I'm aware.

In no way have they banned the use of most cars.

I sense as you're being daft you realise that I'm right about this.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2009, 09:33 PM

I said councils, like WBC, have started to ban the use of (some) cars. As you know, one cannot use a car to drive through the high street during the day without authorisation. This is the first steps towards banning the use of some cars.

I have made a number of points on the subject, both for and against the proposal. As for you being right, I never said you were wrong, so I would ask that you don't turn this into another slanging match.

Most people I have met that are in favour for legalisation of some drugs, are usually partakers anyway - as indeed, the reverse to be true. Anyway, would you like to legally experiment with 'recreational' drugs?

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2009, 09:38 PM

Of course it's not, you're just being daft now. You honestly think the Council are going to ban people in West Berkshire from owning some cars?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2009, 09:46 PM

Say that I am being daft one more time and I'll ignore you - especially as you are distinctly distorting what I (and you) said. I never said they are banning owner ship. Read it again, except with more care.

Do you want to debate the OP or not, I'm not in the mood to play your pathetic and childish little games.

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2009, 09:51 PM

That's the analogy though, the authorities banning the ownership / possession of a motor vehicle because some mis-use them, the same way some drugs are now banned because of their mis-use by some.



Nothing has been "distorted" and I'm sorry you couldn't see the point you were arguing in favour of, which was the banning cars ownership.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2009, 11:53 PM

My substantive point regards cars, as an analogy, was that I see policies being made that slowly restrict the use and sale of cigarettes and alcohol. This is done by taxation and restrictive use, like with the car. Smokers are being moved away from some public places, just as cars are in the centre of towns, up and down the country.

Your reaction to the announcement that Ecstasy, LSD and Cannabis (EL&C) are less harmful than Cigarettes and Alcohol (C&A), is to propose that we down class EL&C. Some, however, might see grounds for tightening laws on the distribution of C&Al, rather than the relaxation of the laws on the availability of softer drugs; BUT, history shows prohibition doesn't really work.

This is a no win situation as I see it at the moment.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 4 2009, 09:39 AM

Yes, and your point is?

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 4 2009, 02:01 PM

User23 isn't blind, heshe just didn't look

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2009, 09:21 PM

A recreational activity doesn't have to be a physical one.Only if you think the taking of drugs (legal or otherwise) is always bad.

I happen to think that's not the case.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 4 2009, 10:45 PM

How do you think most users (legal or otherwise) pay for their drugs? (OK the legal ones it's us the taxpayer. Or by legal do you mean alcohol & nicotene?)

Posted by: Iommi Nov 4 2009, 11:03 PM

No that's not it at all.


It is this point.

Few things are always bad, or good for that matter. If drug taking was always bad, or good, then it would be a lot easier to make one's mind up.

How would you suggest that the law should be changed?

Posted by: JeffG Nov 5 2009, 10:27 AM

Who said anything about being physical or not? I just gave an example of a recreational activity.

What does any of this have to do with taking drugs?

Posted by: Jayjay Nov 5 2009, 06:46 PM

The media is being a bit naughty with its headlines. The expert said that cigs and booze cause more DEATHS than LSD, cannabis. Put in this context I think the government was possibly correct - well there is a first for everything.

I think I would rather be stuck in a lift with someone who had just put a cigarette out or a worker who had a couple of drinks on the way home than a drug user.

Posted by: user23 Nov 5 2009, 07:20 PM

Someone who had just put a cigarette out or a worker who had a couple of drinks on the way home (I presume you mean of the alcoholic variety) are drug users.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 5 2009, 07:31 PM

I think you know what he means.

Posted by: user23 Nov 5 2009, 08:29 PM

Yes, he means he'd rather share a lift with someone who had been partaking of legal drugs rather then illegal ones. He's displaying the old stereotypes of the worker who's had a couple of beers and the unemployed drug user.

I wonder if they were all legal would he still have a problem?

I wonder if he was educated on the effects of them (going back to the original post), again would he still have a these ingrained ideas about their users?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 5 2009, 10:12 PM

I would. I have worked with heavy drinkers and with substance abusers. The substance abusers are always more unpredictable than the drinkers. Anyone with a really bad habit is often dealt with easily. With drinkers you can tell easily if or when they have and if they are pissed. With substance abusers this is not so easy.

Posted by: user23 Nov 6 2009, 08:29 AM

He wasn't talking about heavy drinkers, he said "a worker who had a couple of drinks".

If the comparison is to be fair he wasn't talking about a substance abuser either, just a casual user.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 6 2009, 08:06 PM

Have to agree with this and have seen the effects for real. These were office workers as well. Almost folded the firm. Now we have quite an enlightened policy - we'll help you off any drugs; so long as you admit there is a problem. If not, the door is always open, in these cases it has to be.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Nov 6 2009, 08:17 PM

Some firms go for random, unannounced, screening for drugs and alcohol (5% of the workforce p.a, possibly) - you agree to this when you join and they also explain that if you later tell them you have a problem, they will help you get it sorted. If you don't, and the Medscreen man tests you positive, then it's too late = out the door. In some industries, you are also looking at six moons inside if you are 'for cause' screened after an incident and the police get involved. The choice is yours, if you decide you want to work there in the first place.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2009, 12:13 PM

Certainly, the choice is yours. Two points, first, I would not want to be served by any organisation that employed staff in situations where their activities would be hindered by the abuse use of drugs. In my view, that includes all on the public payroll, I can make my own mind elsewhere. Second, if an individual does choose to abuse, then I should not be expected to pay for that; through unemployment benefits etc. Yes, you do have a choce BUT not at the expense of mine!

Posted by: JeffG Nov 8 2009, 01:57 PM

Actually, that comment doesn't make much sense. So if your house was burning down, you wouldn't call the fire brigade, or if you were ill, you wouldn't want to be treated?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2009, 03:53 PM

No I would NOT want to be treated by anyone drugged up - would you? Equally, I suspect my house might well have burned to the ground before a fire brigade so staffed. On a serious note, the emergency services are supposed to keep their wits about them - ANY deviation can cause serious issues to other parties. We know in Newbury just what happens when things go wrong on 999 calls where the staff driving aren't under the influence. Are you suggesting we should make it worse?

Posted by: JeffG Nov 8 2009, 08:18 PM

This is getting a bit silly now. Of course I wouldn't want to be treated by anyone "drugged up". You didn't say that at all - you said anyone where their activitites would be hindered if they were on drugs. Of course they would be. Which is why I said it didn't make sense and chose the examples I did.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Nov 8 2009, 09:09 PM

So it's ok, for instance, for a tyre fitter to be drugged up, or a chemist? Why just select the public sector?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2009, 09:13 PM

Think it was you who wanted choice. Personally, I'd be more than happy if NO organisation permitted staff to do this. However, as you quite rightly say, everyone has a choice. I'd certainly not choose to use an organisation I felt didn't have appropriate safeguards like this - particularly where it comes to safety. And yes, I do ask, and yes I have taken business elsewhere. However, in the public sector - we have no choice. Perhaps an argument for small government?

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Nov 9 2009, 04:29 PM

I was referring to chosing whether an individual wished to work for a firm that had a random drugs and alcohol screening policy for its staff, not whether to use the firm's services or not. Cannot see your course of action regarding asking an organisation each time if they have such a policy or not before using them as terribly practical, to be honest. Would you, for instance, ask Wightlink or Red Funnel line whether they routinely screen their deckhands before you decided to go for a day on the Isle of Wight - or whether there is a system in place for screening the tanker drivers who bring the fuel to the places you stop to buy petrol? (in the latter case, they probably do, actually)

Posted by: On the edge Nov 9 2009, 08:04 PM

Simply risk mitigation - where there is a serious risk to me - yes I do check. Certainly where it affects my business as well. As to the firms you mention; yes they do! Would you honestly get your car serviced at a garage you didn't trust? Must admit - I think we've gone a little too far on the cult of the individual - with freedom comes responsibilty; a lost value.

Posted by: user23 Nov 9 2009, 08:07 PM

This thread is turning into a great example of some people's general misconception about drugs.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Nov 9 2009, 08:34 PM

[indent][/indent]

Since there is generally no mandatory requirement so far for the merchant marine to have random screening in place, delighted to hear it, especially since it is currently a recommendation following various accidents to seafarers where drink/drugs have been held to be the primary cause. Out of interest, can you tell us where you learnt that Red Funnel and Wightlink have these screening procedures in place?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 9 2009, 09:05 PM

What are those misconceptions?

Posted by: Roost Nov 10 2009, 03:10 PM

Im sure that you, User, have no misconceptions about drugs whatsoever.

Posted by: Strafin Nov 10 2009, 04:30 PM

That would explain the name, and the drivel!