Legal Highs

[lord_seagrave]

ii also know that a greater majority of recreational drug users actually stop using them as they get older, whereas drinkers continue to drink throughout their lives.

This is just plain old risk aversion, and I'm not sure it contributes to the debate.

 

Statistics concerns the effects of alcohol and nicotine are much more reliable and easier to come by than statistics concerning the effects of illegal drugs.

 

I suspect, therefore, that the reported cases of the effects of illegal drugs are far more serious and shocking than the average, and that, on the whole, illegal drug use is no more dangerous than legal drug use. Users generally take a calculated risk whatever their weapon of choice.

 

LS

[Danger-Mouse]

It is sad when someone attempts to stifle discussion and debate on the basis of their own puritanical point of view.

 

Fair enough to express an opinion that this sort of discussion thread has the potential to denigrate into a slanging match, and I very much hope it doesn't, but what did you hope to achieve with the comment about law abiding citizens?

 

As this is a forum largely for firearm holders there is of course an attendant level of responsibility that we would expect contributors to the forum to observe and that is absolutely centred on safety and responsibility in relation to their ownership and usage of guns, but sadly there is also always a theme that tends to run through many discussion threads that we should somehow also be fervently righteous for fear of judgement or retribution.

 

The argument for the legal status of cannabis in particular is one that is hugely influenced by fear and ignorance and largely peddled by government and media in some sort of false moralistic pretence. By denying the debate on the pretext of legality means that we continue to perpetuate and breed ignorance.

 

Cannabis and the hemp plant have some absolutely brilliant qualities that could benefit millions of people in society, something that is being increasingly recognised by many conservative countries, but ones that have a more progressive attitude to furthering knowledge and learning instead of peddling fear based on the psychoactive properties of the drug. These qualities include incredibly effective pain relief without side effects and stabilising those who suffer from some psychotic illnesses.

 

Sure there are bad things that have happened to people who have consumed cannabis, but bad things happen everywhere all of the time.

 

Great post

[LondonLuke]

I am amazed by the narrow minded views here, love the idea that anyone that touches drugs is immediately going to be a heroin addict stealing from their family.

 

I say this as someone who only touches drugs by way of alcohol

Edited May 29, 2015 by LondonLuke

[Gordon R]

Legalise and tax marijuana then. I guarantee the crime and health costs will be far, far outweighed by the tax revenue.

 

 

Not a great post. The poster can guarantee absolutely nothing.

 

kdubya - whilst I think your cited stats have been subject to "seasonal adjustment", I agree with the argument behind them.

 

I may be out of step - I don't honestly care - but I have no time for drugs or people who say they don't cause any harm. I have seen enough people affected by drugs to last a long time and the lengths they will go to, in order to get their next fix.

[grrclark]

 

Not a great post. The poster can guarantee absolutely nothing.

 

kdubya - whilst I think your cited stats have been subject to "seasonal adjustment", I agree with the argument behind them.

 

I may be out of step - I don't honestly care - but I have no time for drugs or people who say they don't cause any harm. I have seen enough people affected by drugs to last a long time and the lengths they will go to, in order to get their next fix.

Gordon, undoubtably drugs can and do cause harm, but the argument is that you can't bundle everything into the same basket.

 

I am absolutely opposed to legalisation of many drugs, but there are others that we can take a much more balanced approach to that I personally believe would help in a number of ways.

 

If you look at ecstasy as an example, the argument around the classification of that drug is mainly one of public health, people have died under the effects of ecstasy and principally because it is often adulterated with other much more harmful substances. We could install inexpensive machines in nightclubs and pubs that could test for purity and cut the number of deaths at a stroke, but that needs a much more progressive attitude from where we are now.

 

Currently we demonise those who indulge in recreational narcotics and criminalise them if caught, as a result we push the problem into the shadows. The message that drugs are bad and evil doesn't stop people taking them, that campaign has largely failed. We should at least recognise that people will indulge, every culture in the world has people who indulge in taking psychoactive substances, whether it is from fermented and rotten fish to some plant based substance, if we accept that people will indulge no matter what the law makers and righteous say then we can lessen risk by providing mechanisms to make it safer.

 

For right or wrong the effects of drugs are an object of desire for the majority of people in this word, some are legal and some illegal, for as long as we continue to deny that then we will always swim against the tide.

 

I think that some drugs are truly horrific and crack and crystal meth are right up at the top of the tree, but they were born by demand for something cheap and easy to produce just the same as legal highs are just now. As a result of bundling everything into the same basket that 'drugs' are evil we have created a much bigger problem.

Edited May 29, 2015 by grrclark

[evo]

 

Not a great post. The poster can guarantee absolutely nothing.

 

kdubya - whilst I think your cited stats have been subject to "seasonal adjustment", I agree with the argument behind them.

 

I may be out of step - I don't honestly care - but I have no time for drugs or people who say they don't cause any harm. I have seen enough people affected by drugs to last a long time and the lengths they will go to, in order to get their next fix.

probably the best post so far,,

 

I,m quite amazed at the amount of potheads in charge of firearms making posts on this topic,

 

infact very surprised,,,

 

its only ever potheads who say cannabis is harmless

 

obvious to me their brains arn,t working,

 

tin hat on,for the potheads comments

[grrclark]

probably the best post so far,,

 

I,m quite amazed at the amount of potheads in charge of firearms making posts on this topic,

 

infact very surprised,,,

 

its only ever potheads who say cannabis is harmless

 

obvious to me their brains arn,t working,

 

tin hat on,for the potheads comments

That is the bit that isn't true, there are a great many studies of peer reviewed scientific studies that say otherwise, in fact I am not aware of any studies that beyond highlighting some limited specifics that say it is a harmful drug. There are of course some issues with cannabis, but there are issues with absolutely everything.

 

I'm not a pothead, I just like debate that goes beyond ignorance. We only learn when we challenge accepted wisdom and convention.

 

Cannabis is absolutely unique in the world that we have receptors in our brain that mesh perfectly with the various elements of the cannabis plant, some of which give rise to a euphoric high and some of which are calming and stabilising and some of which perfectly interact with our pain receptors. It is way beyond my level of knowledge, but scientifically acknowledged and recognised.

[Harnser]

I am also surprised at the number of people who say ,or infer that they have and do take drugs . I hope the appropriate FEO are looking in tonight .

 

Harnser

[grrclark]

I am also surprised at the number of people who say ,or infer that they have and do take drugs . I hope the appropriate FEO are looking in tonight .

 

Harnser

Just for fun, why should someone who smokes a bit of puff be considered any more of a risk than someone who talks about drinking whisky every night?

[evo]

I am also surprised at the number of people who say ,or infer that they have and do take drugs . I hope the appropriate FEO are looking in tonight .

 

Harnser

+1,, I wonder how many will remove their said comments when pc plod starts reading them,,

 

never taken drugs and I never would, I also would not bother with anyone who does also,

 

but that's just me

 

mr puuurrrrfect

Just for fun, why should someone who smokes a bit of puff be considered any more of a risk than someone who talks about drinking whisky every night?

one is legal and one aint,,,,, simples really

[Duckandswing]

If you can't enjoy life without drink or drugs then you're doing it wrong.

 

Each to their own I say, but not at the expense of others, be that from drink or drugs.

[grrclark]

one is legal and one aint,,,,, simples really

So that makes them more of a risk? Does the same argument hold true for people that drive beyond the speed limit?

[Danger-Mouse]

 

Not a great post. The poster can guarantee absolutely nothing.

 

 

I think I pretty much can. At the very least I can set out a number of reasons to give a great deal of evidence as to why the crime and health costs would be outweighed by the revenue.

 

Let`s go for crime first.

 

1) If it was legal our police forces wouldn`t be wasting money trying to enforce a law that quite simply they can`t enforce with any degree of success. I don`t know how much the police spend on raiding cannabis factories or busting the people who grow a couple of plants for personal use. But that`s somewhat irrelevent anyway. Whatever they spend wouldn`t have to be spent if cannabis was legal. Similarly the costs of prosecuting the individuals involved in this trade would be removed.

 

2) Cannabis users are generally not the violent type. That`s the province of the drunken idiots. Legalising cannabis would not cost anything by way of an increase in crime related to it`s use. Similarly as cannabis is not physically or even particularly mentally addictive there will be few users who would resort to crime to feed their habit.

 

Health.

 

I would say the majority of cannabis users already smoke tobacco. Therefore costs to the NHS would not significantly increase even if (and it`s still not proven) cannabis actually does increase the chances of cancer etc. Plus there are options such as vaporisers or e-cigs to allow the smoking of cannabis without the use of tobacco.

 

As already pointed out in this thread there are actually many positive uses for cannabis based drugs. It`s one of the finest painkillers. It`s been proven to reduce seizures in those suffering from severe epilepsy. With legalisation would come more opportunities for research into it`s uses.

 

Revenue

 

I don`t know how much it would earn the goverment. But it would open up new businesses, new jobs, tax revenue, new medical research. I sincerely doubt it would have a negative effect on the country`s finances.

 

And one last point. Over in Amsterdam quite some years ago I chatted with some Dutch teenagers. Their attitude to cannabis was one of disinterest. Yes they`d tried it but it was no bigger deal to them than alcohol. The lure of the forbidden and it`s inherent coolness factor had been taken away. In fact they regarded it as something the older generation did.

[welsh1]

I can't say that alcohol has ever changed me,i was a grumpy sod when i drank,i stopped for 5 years and my wife told me i was still a grumpy sod,so i started drinking again,guess what,i am still a grumpy sod.

So alcohol hasn't changed me at all

[Harnser]

Just for fun, why should someone who smokes a bit of puff be considered any more of a risk than someone who talks about drinking whisky every night?

I have never taken drugs and I am tee-total and I have lots of fun . I am very anti all drugs as I have seen first hand over many years how drugs effect people's lives . I have seen fatal accidental over doses and the anguish caused to parents and family's by the selfish act of drug users .

Harnser

[evo]

So that makes them more of a risk? Does the same argument hold true for people that drive beyond the speed limit?

its only you who has mentioned risks,

 

one is law abiding and one helps you break the law,

 

I,m not getting into this drug argument that you are pushing for,

 

all I will say is as I said before is I,m amased how many are openly admitting to using ILLEGAL substances and they hold firearm certs,,

 

so go smoke that as I,m not biting

[Harnser]

So that makes them more of a risk? Does the same argument hold true for people that drive beyond the speed limit?

I think that when you play at devils advocate you shouldn't be so flippant .

 

Harnser

[Danger-Mouse]

I have never taken drugs and I am tee-total and I have lots of fun . I am very anti all drugs as I have seen first hand over many years how drugs effect people's lives . I have seen fatal accidental over doses and the anguish caused to parents and family's by the selfish act of drug users .

Harnser

 

Fair enough, each to their own. However some people do like to drink or take drugs. They too can most likely have a good time when sober but they also enjoy the feeling they get from taking their drug of choice, be it legal or illegal. It`s all down to choice.

 

And again, as others have, you are clearly banding all drugs together, grrclark asked specifically about marijuana. I`d be the first to admit that heroin and crack are terrible drugs that cause death and misery to users and their families. But not all drugs are the same. I`m sure there are people who have had bad experiences with marijuana but then there are many more that have ended up in a bad way through alcohol abuse.

 

I`ve known plenty of people who have at one time or another enjoyed a recreational smoke. Most of them are well adjusted members of society with good jobs. I`ve also known complete potheads and unlike a drunk I doubt you would even notice they were high. It`s nowhere near as debilitating as alcohol. But of course unless you`ve tried it you wouldn`t know that.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Danger-Mouse

[overandunder2012]

At last a real move to do something about this huge and growing problem. Kids are dying and the dealers/manufacturers are getting rich. My initial reaction to the drafting of this legislation is one of relief - any mind altering substance other than alcohol, tobacco, coffee etc now out (other than for commercial/medical purposes - Teresa May for the next PM?

cant see it stopping people doing it people do cocaine and heroin and a whole range of other illegal drugs regardless of it being illegal so i suspect it will be business as usual, lets be honest nobody who likes that kind of thing has given a damn about its legal status since the 60's

Edited May 29, 2015 by overandunder2012

[keg]

I can't say that alcohol has ever changed me,i was a grumpy sod when i drank,i stopped for 5 years and my wife told me i was still a grumpy sod,so i started drinking again,guess what,i am still a grumpy sod.

So alcohol hasn't changed me at all

Grumpy sod....

 

Fair enough, each to their own. However some people do like to drink or take drugs. They too can most likely have a good time when sober but they also enjoy the feeling they get from taking their drug of choice, be it legal or illegal. It`s all down to choice.

 

And again, as others have, you are clearly banding all drugs together, grrclark asked specifically about marijuana. I`d be the first to admit that heroin and crack are terrible drugs that cause death and misery to users and their families. But not all drugs are the same. I`m sure there are people who have had bad experiences with marijuana but then there are many more that have ended up in a bad way through alcohol abuse.

 

I`ve known plenty of people who have at one time or another enjoyed a recreational smoke. Most of them are well adjusted members of society with good jobs. I`ve also known complete potheads and unlike a drunk I doubt you would even notice they were high. It`s nowhere near as debilitating as alcohol. But of course unless you`ve tried it you wouldn`t know that.

Taking your last point, I don't know how i'll react to it so i'm not going to try. I know how i react to alcohol.

[Danger-Mouse]

 

Taking your last point, I don't know how i'll react to it so i'm not going to try. I know how i react to alcohol.

That`s fair enough. As I said it`s each to their own.

 

But then again before you drank your first pint or shot you didn`t know how you`d react to that either. It obviously didn`t stop you trying it though.

 

But that`s what a lot of the anti`s don`t seem to get. No one in the pro camp is saying you should have to try any particular drug. However most of the anti`s don`t seem to believe you should have a choice.

[Gordon R]

Danger-Mouse - carry on digging a bigger hole in your truly flawed logic.

 

 

I think I pretty much can. At the very least I can set out a number of reasons to give a great deal of evidence as to why the crime and health costs would be outweighed by the revenue.

 

I see "guarantee" has gone.

[Vince Green]

There is another aspect to the debate which I wasn't going to mention but the debate probably has moved far enough in that direction that its safe to throw it in. If you legalised a drug, say cannabis you deprive a lot of criminals (like most of the gangs in London) of their income stream. The danger then becomes what forms of crime they will turn to in order to replace that income.

They are not just going to go down the jobcentre

 

Its cynical but its how the establishment weighs up the pros and cons of these things. While they are dealing drugs on the streets they are not doing anything 'worse' and by that I mean more visible.

[LondonLuke]

I find it interesting that as a shooting community we are absolutely outraged when the public feel that guns should be banned for the one person that goes rogue and shoots members of the public: yet it seems a few on here have read the Daily Mail saying marajuana/cocaine/etc user goes burglarising so all users must be addicts hard criminals.

Edited May 30, 2015 by LondonLuke

[Scully]

Which ever method anyone employs to get their high, they're all drugs, even the humble but carcinogenic fag. The fact some are legal and others legal merely enhances the hypocrisy we allow to exist regarding them.

Cigarettes are legal to buy and smoke yet smoking is deemed by bureaucrats to be such a threat to minors that their very packaging is now not allowed to be shown on display in shops etc. Alcohol however is openly displayed in all its splendour for all to see, minors and adults.

Minors can see on a daily basis the effects smoking has on those who smoke; which is....nothing. They can also see on a daily basis the effects alcohol can have on those who drink, which is, judging by the noise and laughter coming from the pubs, great fun.

Walking through our small town on a sunny Friday or Saturday afternoon they can see how much fun drinking is.

The cancer riddled lungs however, aren't on display for anyone to see, and ultimately effect no one but the smoker, but the effects of a drunken yob are on display for all to see, and quite often effect anyone but the drinker. There are quite a few lads in town who enjoy the odd spliff, it's when they've had too much to drink the trouble starts, but funnily enough at no other time.

Regardless of the legalities of one opposed to the other, it is the hypocrisy surrounding the use of one against the other I find hard to stomach.

To suggest that firearms owners should be whiter than white is ridiculous; we're human beings for crying out loud, just as much as the rest of the population. We do what we do, and if we're caught breaking the law we pay the price. Hands up all those who have never broken the speed limit? Get a grip people, please.