Hint.....Edit!!!Memo to self,
clear a reply you were going to give to another topic, can't go upsetting delicate 'stick to the topic' types.
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Fan Behaviour
- Thread starter North Bar Tiger
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Stet.
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
A while since I have seen that word used.
As someone who has had a long and prosperous career of taking drugs and partying hard, I’ve had just about everything other than crystal meth and smack, I am probably more free thinking about drugs than most. And personally I think they absolutely should not be legalised. There are obviously pro’s and cons both ways but I’m pretty sure once you get down to the next generation or two and it’s lost that stigma, usage rates would just go through the roof and all kinds of bad **** would happen.
Also those championing weed, I reckon 100% of the manic depressives and people who have committed suicide I’ve known have been heavy long term weed smokers. It’s fine in moderation but people very easily fall into a lifestyle of relying on it and it’s no good for the brain.
Also those championing weed, I reckon 100% of the manic depressives and people who have committed suicide I’ve known have been heavy long term weed smokers. It’s fine in moderation but people very easily fall into a lifestyle of relying on it and it’s no good for the brain.
Yeah I think legalising would remove the stigma and it would see massive increases in usage which is entirely counter-productive. I agree with the point about having safe injection sites etc. to reduce risks and give users the correct support, but legalising isn't the answer.
As an aside, my half-brother has severe schizophrenia amongst other issues stemming largely from a heavy usage of marijuana so I'm never going to be convinced that it's 'harmless'.
As an aside, my half-brother has severe schizophrenia amongst other issues stemming largely from a heavy usage of marijuana so I'm never going to be convinced that it's 'harmless'.
I realise you weren’t replying to me directly, but just to clarify I am absolutely not in favour of the free availability of all drugs to all of the people all of the time and there are long and detailed arguments to be had on how you control access at end user level on a substance by substance basis.
But the drugs trade is huge, malign and dangerous and the big business aspect of it is too often ignored. There’s plenty in the chattering classes who insist on Fairtrade food, ethically sourced clothes etc, but who ignore the poor Colombian villagers who were massacred to make way for their coke crop to be grown, or the desperate people involved at all stages of its journey from there to here.
I’ve heard it argued that it’s almost the perfect example of capitalism, red in tooth and claw and high risk, high reward. That it may be, and some of those desperate people will be doing very well on it thank you, but the illegality of it allows the immorality to continue unchecked. So for me creating a legal and regulated supply chain, from farm to nostril, is a net good in itself.
Completely agree.
I get the argument for reducing the criminality involved in supplying drugs, but you’re reducing crime in one area only to increase crime and social issues in another area.
You’d see a sharp increase in violent crime, road traffic accidents, mental illness, self harm…etc. Not to mention the added strain on the health service.
Plus, alcohol is legal and there’s a lot a crime involved in sourcing it, from mugging to shoplifting, those that can’t afford it will do horrendous things to get their hands on it. The same would be true of legal drugs.
Interesting and valid counter points.
I don't think you'd see an increase in violent crime.
An earlier poster (Amin?) stated he was a party user when younger, like most of us. I assume he got older, had responsibilities and moved on, so left the hobby behind. Why wouldn't most ppl do this - same as binge drinking.
The difference would be the return in tax income and the removal of policing resources needed. A huge income boost to help social issues and remove the supply and production from the hands of the criminal sector.
There is evidence to show that excessive use can trigger mental illness and health problems - same as alcohol, social media, junk food etc. It's not a perfect solution, but it is one that is more workable and allows problems to be targeted directly. Society already 'deals' heroin substitute legally to some addicts.
I think something radical has to be done to reduce the waste of resources and as it stands, its clearly not working as it is.
You read a lot of people in court saying that they committed crimes to fund their addiction. Can’t recall any saying it was to fund their drinking.
What is the situation in Norway with the use and legality of drugs, use of police resources etc? Watching crime drama programmes set in Norway there are often violent criminals involved in drug dealing. Same in other Scandi one. Are they an accurate or inaccurate representation of real life?
It might not be to fund their drinking, but 1.2m violent crimes in England and Wales (almost half of all violent crimes) every year, are alcohol related.
Obviously there’s far more offences caused by drugs, but they’re primarily crimes against property, rather than people.
There’s actually a surprisingly low amount of people convicted of actual offences involving drugs nowadays. Importing and dealing get you prosecuted, but possession is largely ignored.
I haven't seen the programmes but it's stricter than the UK regarding possession. You can lose your driving license if caught in possession or if subject to an obligatory blood test, even if not in a car - this is being protested about and challenged by human rights legal groups. A 17 year old caught smoking weed can lost their right to have a driving license for 2/3 years.
Despite this, cocaine usage has rocketed the last decade to the point that it's almost an alternative to heavy drinking for many younger women (seen as 'healthier' and not lose total control as when drinking). The issue, as with most countries, is that middle class users usually escape prosecution, whilst working/under class users end up with records.
Swedish gangs have moved into Norway and taken over regarding distribution, so there are now stricter controls at the border.
There's an issue with heroin abuse and lot of long term addicts who suffer the health issues of tainted drug supply as a result (missing limbs etc) A lot are now subsidised drug addicts receiving methadone treatment.
Norway is a wealthy country and generally things 'work' better than the UK (not always - the health sector is struggling right now), but the streets aren't paved with gold as the Guardian likes to fantasise - there are social issues still, maybe not as extreme as the UK, and the big cities have the same issues as everywhere regarding crime and violence.
Last edited:
Love Scandi programmes. Gangs Of Oslo on Netflix is well worth watching.
Maybe not, but why would you bother committing a different crime to fund buying alcohol when you could just nick the alcohol in the first place? I doubt many people charged with shoplifting reach the level of being reported in any more detail in the press than their name and the crime, unless they’re already famous for something else.
I didn’t say shoplifting.I was referring to criminal activity which includes burglaries, mugging etc…
I know you didn’t, which is why I responded to the point you did make. Which was to ask why anyone desperate enough for alcohol that they would break the law to get it commit a more serious crime to fund buying it from a shop when they could just nick it in the first place?
Having worked for a drug and alcohol charity, a few (perhaps) relevant thoughts:
1. If we lost a client to a drug related death, it was a huge thing with an investigation and reviews to see what lessons could be learned and whether it was in any way avoidable. If we lost a client to an alcohol related death it was no less sad, but it was a frequent and expected consequence of long term alcohol abuse.
2. Alcohol related deaths (leaving aside accidents and drunk driving etc.) are almost always caused by the long term heavy use of alcohol, although alcohol ODs are not unknown. Drug related deaths are generally consequences of the illegal and illicit use of drugs. ODs for example are usually the result of either unexpectedly pure drugs (i.e. not cut with as much other stuff like baby powder as normal) or by people using after a spell off it either through rehab or prison and therefore not having the tolerance for their usual dosage. Other drug related deaths or health issues come from the conditions that drugs are used in e.g. sharing dirty needles. The point is that much of the health issues and deaths from drugs would be much reduced by legalisation.
3. Before we even get to whether legalisation would be a good idea (and I'm still torn on that), properly funding drug and alcohol services would hugely reduce the health and criminal justice costs of drug and alcohol misuse. Funding was massively reduced under the last government because of both local government cuts and a fear of what the Daily Mail might say about a humane and effective drug and alcohol policy. It makes sense both as the right thing to do, and because it would save money in the long run.
Novels by Scandi authors are also a good read.
Nesbo is getting a bit samish but Jussi Adler Olsen is a good read
I can read. How do think I know what drivel you are writing? And, unlike you, punctuate.