The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[walkerleeds]

35 minutes ago, kenny said:

If the government are serious about reducing drug crime, I would hit the middle class users that have normalised the taking of them.

 

As soon as a few MPs, solicitors, investment bankers etc start getting criminal sentences things may start to change. Walking round the streets giving £60 fines for possession to working class people is a pointless exercise.

 

If the government are serious about reducing drug crime they will legalise it, so it can be properly regulated, therefore rendering the illicit drug market obsolete. 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, walkerleeds said:

 

If the government are serious about reducing drug crime they will legalise it, so it can be properly regulated, therefore rendering the illicit drug market obsolete. 

It's an age old debate. My feeling is that legalised and taxed drugs will be more expensive and not as potent so it won't effect the illegal trade except to normalise its use.

[pedmcl]

47 minutes ago, kenny said:

If the government are serious about reducing drug crime, I would hit the middle class users that have normalised the taking of them.

 

As soon as a few MPs, solicitors, investment bankers etc start getting criminal sentences things may start to change. Walking round the streets giving £60 fines for possession to working class people is a pointless exercise.

And then what happens when you need people to replace them? 

[fox_up_north]

13 minutes ago, kenny said:

It's an age old debate. My feeling is that legalised and taxed drugs will be more expensive and not as potent so it won't effect the illegal trade except to normalise its use.

I dunno...if I want to not feel in control for a bit and my choices are

 

A) a shop where I walk in, get what I want, knowing that I can't be arrested and the people selling it to me aren't involved in crime

 

B) a man in a park who carries a knife, takes my money, sends me to a kid who then takes the drugs out of his pockets and gives them to me

 

 

I think I know which one I'd go with

[fox_up_north]

And, for posterity, what's wrong with drugs being normalised? Getting drunk is normalised. Other than coke and meth, I'd take most people on drugs over some pissed up

[kenny]

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

I dunno...if I want to not feel in control for a bit and my choices are

 

A) a shop where I walk in, get what I want, knowing that I can't be arrested and the people selling it to me aren't involved in crime

 

B) a man in a park who carries a knife, takes my money, sends me to a kid who then takes the drugs out of his pockets and gives them to me

 

 

I think I know which one I'd go with

Personally, I wouldn't go for either.

 

Each to their own I suppose.

 

[fox_up_north]

Just now, kenny said:

Personally, I wouldn't go for either.

 

Each to their own I suppose.

 

And I feel very much the same. I've not had a drink in 15 years, only done a few drugs and smoked for about a week when I was 16. It's not for me. 

 

But I recognise that, for a lot of people - and throughout history - it is. So I'd rather there be safe ways for them to do it, that aren't like to people trafficking, forced prostitution, child gangs and murder. 

[pedmcl]

2 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

And, for posterity, what's wrong with drugs being normalised? Getting drunk is normalised. Other than coke and meth, I'd take most people on drugs over some pissed up

The fact that Cannabis hasn't been legalised in a controlled way (Cafes, designated smoking areas, membership/licensing to purchase etc.) when Tobacco and Vaping is easily purchased is absurd to me. Would also boost the economy.

 

You very rarely find a disruptive stoner, and it would cut a lot of the gang/county line grooming culture that's becoming prevalent in the UK. 

[Captain...]

12 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

And, for posterity, what's wrong with drugs being normalised? Getting drunk is normalised. Other than coke and meth, I'd take most people on drugs over some pissed up

Getting drunk is normalised and look at all the issues with binge drinking. How many people do you know that exceed the recommended amount of alcohol on a regular basis? How many drink to absolute excess and oblivion on a regular basis? If those attitudes are replicated to drug taking then you're going to wake up with more problems than a sore head. Alcohol is at least understood even if it is abused. 

 

I do agree with the sentiment that legalising drugs gives you more control in one sense, but I don't think we are there as a society yet to handle it responsibly. Legalise weed first and see how we get on with that.

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

Getting drunk is normalised and look at all the issues with binge drinking. How many people do you know that exceed the recommended amount of alcohol on a regular basis? How many drink to absolute excess and oblivion on a regular basis? If those attitudes are replicated to drug taking then you're going to wake up with more problems than a sore head. Alcohol is at least understood even if it is abused. 

 

I do agree with the sentiment that legalising drugs gives you more control in one sense, but I don't think we are there as a society yet to handle it responsibly. Legalise weed first and see how we get on with that.

Newsflash: drugs actually exist and are currently used on a wide level.

 

Your argument only holds water if the War on Drugs was a raging success and not a bucket of shit on fire.

 

”Just look at the number of speeding cars and accidents on the road we have, this is why as a society we are not ready to have mandatory seat belts - it would only encourage more extreme driving.”

Edited 10 October 2022 by Daggers

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Newsflash: drugs actually exist and are currently used on a wide level.

 

Your argument only holds water if the War on Drugs was a raging success and not a bucket of shit on fire.

 

”Just look at the number of speeding cars and accidents on the road we have, this is why as a society we are not ready to have mandatory seat belts - it would only encourage more extreme driving.”

Not the same thing. The war on drugs may not be a success, but there are limits on supply which mean the average piss head does not have the same access to drugs as alcohol.

[Daggers]

3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Not the same thing. The war on drugs may not be a success, but there are limits on supply which mean the average piss head does not have the same access to drugs as alcohol.

I didn’t say it was the same thing, I said your argument only holds water if there are zero drugs in society.

 

The harm reduction principal works for everything from shagging to falling out of the sky, except for substance use in this backwards country. It has been clearly demonstrated that opening up substances increases access to treatment and support while reducing deaths. Into the bargain, it severely curtails associated illegal activity.

 

Substance users reduce their self-destructive tendencies through support and treatment, something that is paid for via revenue generated from legal sales. It is an unrelated related matter. The conclusion to your argument is that all alcohol should only be available from park bushes because of alcoholics.

 

The idea that we can’t have a reduced harm approach to drugs is, quite frankly, Daily Mail laughable.

[rachhere]

On 06/10/2022 at 14:59, rachhere said:

It's so complex. For example, how do you define work shy? I do a lot of work with disabled people who are perfectly able to work, would love to work, but no one will take a chance on them. This can be exacerbated by them not having had the support they needed whilst in education, which means they don't have qualifications reflective of their ability. Similarly, would work shy include people who are struggling with their mental health, but can't access the support they need to get the point where they feel work ready, because of the shocking lack of provision at the moment?  

Following on from this... 

 

 

[Captain...]

3 hours ago, Daggers said:

I didn’t say it was the same thing, I said your argument only holds water if there are zero drugs in society.

 

The harm reduction principal works for everything from shagging to falling out of the sky, except for substance use in this backwards country. It has been clearly demonstrated that opening up substances increases access to treatment and support while reducing deaths. Into the bargain, it severely curtails associated illegal activity.

 

Substance users reduce their self-destructive tendencies through support and treatment, something that is paid for via revenue generated from legal sales. It is an unrelated related matter. The conclusion to your argument is that all alcohol should only be available from park bushes because of alcoholics.

 

The idea that we can’t have a reduced harm approach to drugs is, quite frankly, Daily Mail laughable.

I appreciate the arguments, but I'm not 100% convinced that the benefits of legalising drugs will create a utopia of well balanced people medicating themselves into perfect harmony funding an extensive welfare state. 

[walkerleeds]

6 hours ago, kenny said:

It's an age old debate. My feeling is that legalised and taxed drugs will be more expensive and not as potent so it won't effect the illegal trade except to normalise its use.

 

Well, you simply make it incredibly cheap. We waste an inordinate amount of money on drugs squads which have only exacerbated the situation in this country, so let's give those who are suffering these addictions the accessible and cheaper option, as well as professional advice from pharmacists etc.

 

Aside from the drugs themselves, there's also the horrific societal impact drugs has on this country. Gang related violence (which is getting worse) evaporates, county lines evaporates, corruption within our POLICE FORCE evaporates. How many people do you see on some sort of substance at football matches these days? This is an indicator at just how obtainable drugs are.

 

It's years and years away from happening, as this is essentially a social movement, which naturally doesn't happen overnight. I just hope one day we realise that the illicit drug market will never be beaten and as a society we can be so much better without it.

 

 

Edited 10 October 2022 by walkerleeds

[walkerleeds]

30 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I appreciate the arguments, but I'm not 100% convinced that the benefits of legalising drugs will create a utopia of well balanced people medicating themselves into perfect harmony funding an extensive welfare state. 

 

The world has moved on, but let's not forget before the Single Convention of Narcotics was brought in in the 60s, Doctors actually prescribed heroin to those suffering with  addiction. Drugs haven't always been illegal in this country and people were pretty much treated as the victim, not the criminals they are portrayed as today.

[LiberalFox]

Most people I know have tried a few drugs, some took a lot of drugs, I also know a few people who have substance addiction but it's usually alcohol.

 

From that I conclude that it's usually people experimenting in their 20s and then they kind of grow out of it. Some people like to use weed at any age, usually pretty mild amounts. Addiction is a health issue not a moral one. 

 

Cannabis really ought to be legal though. Class A would be ridiculous. 

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Most people I know have tried a few drugs, some took a lot of drugs, I also know a few people who have substance addiction but it's usually alcohol.

 

From that I conclude that it's usually people experimenting in their 20s and then they kind of grow out of it. Some people like to use weed at any age, usually pretty mild amounts. Addiction is a health issue not a moral one. 

 

Cannabis really ought to be legal though. Class A would be ridiculous. 

The government has a responsibility not to legalise something which is unhealthy - we have enough of those already which are impossible to get rid of.  Cannabis outside of a medical setting has known and widespread impact on mental health in many users.  Lets not pretend otherwise.  

[Innovindil]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The government has a responsibility not to legalise something which is unhealthy - we have enough of those already which are impossible to get rid of.  Cannabis outside of a medical setting has known and widespread impact on mental health in many users.  Lets not pretend otherwise.  

Who's pretending otherwise?

 

Better, I think, to have it regulated than to have people buying any random strength crap on the streets. The only people that want it banned are the people who think the "war on drugs" is actually winning. Getting weed in the vast majority of the UK is as easy as ordering a take out. 

 

I'd rather the money be going somewhere it can be taxed and used to help the people that struggle with substance abuse, than in the back pockets of local gangs. 

[Finnaldo]

There’s nowhere near the justification for a substance like cannabis to be illegal, hence why we get so much exaggeration and bluster from authorities to cover for it: psychosis and mental illness etc., so when the vast majority of users don’t become schizophrenics over night, they are taken in by the pushback counterargument that there’s absolutely no issue with smoking multiple joints a day. 
 

I’ve known and currently know plenty of mates who have gone through period of use thats either debilitating or near enough, and it’s led to them either isolating themselves, never bothering to socialise, or being so disassociated when out it feels like they may as well not be there. It’s akin to being a functioning alcoholic without any of the support or resource to assist people. 
 

I’ve never bothered myself, but it should definitely be legalised and regulated, so people can be informed exactly on the potential negatives of use in a level-handed way, as well as allowing sensible users the ability to enjoy as they wish.

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Who's pretending otherwise?

 

Better, I think, to have it regulated than to have people buying any random strength crap on the streets. The only people that want it banned are the people who think the "war on drugs" is actually winning. Getting weed in the vast majority of the UK is as easy as ordering a take out. 

 

I'd rather the money be going somewhere it can be taxed and used to help the people that struggle with substance abuse, than in the back pockets of local gangs. 

If it were the same here, id be a happy  man...

problem that i dont know too many people and those that i do are far from able to fulfil my weed needs

[Daggers]

10 hours ago, Captain... said:

I appreciate the arguments, but I'm not 100% convinced that the benefits of legalising drugs will create a utopia of well balanced people medicating themselves into perfect harmony funding an extensive welfare state. 

If you fail to legislate to ensure the relative safety of a product, you create illegal black markets that thrive on the provision of unregulated and potentially harmful products.

 

It’s not about creating utopias, it’s about making things better.

 

I refer again to everything else that now has a harm reduction approach. Look at the promotion of safe sex, all the same arguments against regulating a legal drugs market were offered up against safe sex during the Aids outbreak under Thatcher. 
 

Prohibition doesn’t work. Banning cannabis has led to the widespread use of ridiculously strong strains that come with documented issues. Arguments for legalisation don’t rest on a free for all legal market, they follow proven, successful international examples that restrict THC content and combine that with the provision of support.

 

People still drive without a seat belt and using a mobile, there’s no utopia in transport, but we accept that the current regulations are proportionate and evidence-based, making a safer and fairer society. Precisely the same arguments apply to soft drugs.

 

Would initial regulation be perfect? Highly unlikely, but it would be a step in the right direction. Current regulation of vape products isn’t perfect, but it has ensured standards of safety that prohibits the inclusion of a range of additives and has been responsible for encouraging a disruptive product that’s led to record lows in smoking rates.

 

Harm reduction works. It doesn’t eliminate bad choices, it encourages better ones.

[StanSP]

Is it worth getting fussed over Kwarteng's undisclosed meetings, when as business sec, with Saudi oil companies? 

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

If you fail to legislate to ensure the relative safety of a product, you create illegal black markets that thrive on the provision of unregulated and potentially harmful products.

 

It’s not about creating utopias, it’s about making things better.

 

I refer again to everything else that now has a harm reduction approach. Look at the promotion of safe sex, all the same arguments against regulating a legal drugs market were offered up against safe sex during the Aids outbreak under Thatcher. 
 

Prohibition doesn’t work. Banning cannabis has led to the widespread use of ridiculously strong strains that come with documented issues. Arguments for legalisation don’t rest on a free for all legal market, they follow proven, successful international examples that restrict THC content and combine that with the provision of support.

 

People still drive without a seat belt and using a mobile, there’s no utopia in transport, but we accept that the current regulations are proportionate and evidence-based, making a safer and fairer society. Precisely the same arguments apply to soft drugs.

 

Would initial regulation be perfect? Highly unlikely, but it would be a step in the right direction. Current regulation of vape products isn’t perfect, but it has ensured standards of safety that prohibits the inclusion of a range of additives and has been responsible for encouraging a disruptive product that’s led to record lows in smoking rates.

 

Harm reduction works. It doesn’t eliminate bad choices, it encourages better ones.

My theory, for what it's worth (i.e. not much), is that the main barrier to anything done about it is that the bulk of the societal harms fall either on people in the more deprived areas of the UK or overseas, and the fear that those who aren't really affected by it will be if any reform actually takes place, a fear I think personally is largely unfounded

 

 

[purpleronnie]

we're all sturgeon aren't we?