Drugs, what the government doesnt want you to know

[1bar]

Who is to say that smoking weed or the softer drugs actually led them to meth though? Its cant be proven, therefore i dont see the argument for the 'Gateway effect'

Not saying it will lead them to meth but a percentage that does take weed tend to move onto something else. Like the previous posts said its a gateway to more illicit drugs and its showen its hand time and time again. I know from personal experience as well that one thing leads to another ( Just as worst as doing mods on your car lol ) Its a natual progression.

 

[GTti]

I am sure there are a lot of facts on the NHS website Luke but how many average people go on there to look? The fact is they hired a professional to research a subject and when he came back with results they didnt like they sacked him. That is silencing someone in my opinion.


Very interesting comments from all sides here, thanks for sharing your views everyone.

Any person with common sense should know the side effects of alcohol and just how dangerous it can be.

The problem is that the lot of you are missing the point. Alcohol is a controlled substance, it creates employment from brewerys, bars, clubs and pubs. It usually keeps people in a certain environment, either home or at a designated place. Taxation of tobacco and alcohol pay for public transport, schools, health service and protecting our nation.

Dangerous drugs. What about the clutivation and distribution of the illegal drugs itself, and the type of people involved in this process, what happens to this money? Think Lord of War. People die before these drugs reach the users hand, people are oblivious to that.
Also look at the risks that people take injesting these drugs, hypodermic needles etc.

So I don't really understand the point of this thread.

Are you trying to say legalise all drugs? Or legalise cannabis (Because it's sensible to consume two different drugs at the same time tobacco & cannabis - double effect)




If we were to have a role reversal and alcohol was an illegal substance, yet we had cocaine bars, or perhaps people smoked a joint instead of having a beer. The effects of alcohol on society is known and has been for hundreds of years, you simply can't compare them, but I think things would be far worse if other substances were legal.

 

[GTti]

That is silencing someone in my opinion.

Disagree, if anything it's given it more publicity. Would this thread be here if he was still employed and there was yet another report about the effects of alcohol and tobacco.

There are plenty of individual reports that have been saying the same things for years.

 

[gv1.3]

Any person with common sense should know the side effects of alcohol and just how dangerous it can be.

The problem is that the lot of you are missing the point. Alcohol is a controlled substance, it creates employment from brewerys, bars, clubs and pubs. It usually keeps people in a certain environment, either home or at a designated place. Taxation of tobacco and alcohol pay for public transport, schools, health service and protecting our nation.

Dangerous drugs. What about the clutivation and distribution of the illegal drugs itself, and the type of people involved in this process, what happens to this money? Think Lord of War. People die before these drugs reach the users hand, people are oblivious to that.
Also look at the risks that people take injesting these drugs, hypodermic needles etc.

So I don't really understand the point of this thread.

Are you trying to say legalise all drugs? Or legalise cannabis (Because it's sensible to consume two different drugs at the same time tobacco & cannabis - double effect)




If we were to have a role reversal and alcohol was an illegal substance, yet we had cocaine bars, or perhaps people smoked a joint instead of having a beer.
You simply can't compare them, but I think things would be far worse.

The point of the thread is to discuss how different drugs are treated differently with some more harmful drugs being accepted by the government whilst other less harmful drugs are banned. I am not trying to say legalise all drugs, and I dont believe I said that.

Your "lord of war" statement is totally rubbish in my opinion as is unfounded scare mongering. In California ordinary people can grow marijuana legally and that state supplies 2/3's of all marijuana in the USA. It is the number one cash crop for them, they are farming not fighting.

The minute you make anything illegal you push it in to the black market and criminals will get involved to make money. This is why opium poppies are grown by farmers in Afghanistan, made in to heroin and then sold to the West funding terrorist groups in the East - keeping things illegal perpetuates this situation. If this substance was controlled and produced by governments in the West there would be no market for it thus taking the money away from terrorism.

Look at the prohibition era in the USA. Ban alcohol and people who want still get but now organised crime is supplying it and profiting from it so I think your argument regarding "lords of war" is reversed.

As for comparing smoking a joint and drinking a beer, why cant you compare them? If you go to Amsterdam you can go to a bar or to a coffee shop. Both are social experiences. Both are taking a drug... the difference in my mind is that one will give you a hangover and make you less productive the next day and one wont.

 

[Corey_gt]

Any person with common sense should know the side effects of alcohol and just how dangerous it can be.

The problem is that the lot of you are missing the point. Alcohol is a controlled substance, it creates employment from brewerys, bars, clubs and pubs. It usually keeps people in a certain environment, either home or at a designated place. Taxation of tobacco and alcohol pay for public transport, schools, health service and protecting our nation.

Change where you wrote alcohol to weed in that speech and you get Amsterdam. It works great over there brings in cash to the dutch exchequer nobodys complaining. Same goes for Vancouver they have it sorted there too. Just to many narrow minded people jump on the band wagon when it comes down to it.

 

[gv1.3]

Disagree, if anything it's given it more publicity. Would this thread be here if he was still employed and there was yet another report about the effects of alcohol and tobacco.

There are plenty of individual reports that have been saying the same things for years.

so forcing someone to resign because they speak up about scientific fact is not silencing them? Im not entirely sure how you came to that conclusion.

Yes there are plenty of individual reports saying the same thing but do they have the same level of credibility as a report from a direct government advisor who was specifically tasked by the government to investigate this?

They hired a guy to do a job and when he came back with a report they didnt like they forced him out. Yes they may have inadvertently caused publicity around this but do you think that was the governments intention?


EDIT: just saw this in your post Are you trying to say legalise all drugs? Or legalise cannabis (Because it's sensible to consume two different drugs at the same time tobacco & cannabis - double effect) - isnt that what people do when they go to the pub and drink and smoke at the same time? two drugs. Thats my point of this thread. All of these substances are drugs but people dont seem to think of them that way.

 

[SupaStu]

Another government fail, yeah we know better than the professor who has been doing research on drugs since the 70s. Just if he says the right things it suits them.

The way I see it is, they can fight the war on drugs forever, as people who want drugs will always get them, there will always be demand and supply.

Think of a war on booze and tobacco, and coffee, it would never end. There would need to be some constructive discussion on the future policy.

Its a personal choice, you can smoke fags, drink booze, tea total, or take drugs. Some people are high on life, myself I prefer to drink beer at the weekend, if I never drank booze I would be bored out of my mind (tried it for a month, it was crap).

I like a good few beers, possibly the odd cigarette, it helps me to "reset" my brain of all the shit in it after a busy week. I have always been like that. Sure I go to the gym and feel better, but its not the same as getting fucked lol

All things in moderation I say.

 

[GTti]

You have to be kidding me, there is a whole government organisation called SOCA in the UK to tackle these sorts problems.

The fact is a large proportion of people involved with illegal drugs trafficking are involved in other crime, theft, violence, gun crime, murder.

A nice quote from their website:

The most damaging sectors to the UK are judged to be trafficking of Class A drugs.

Home Office estimates put the harm caused by Class A drugs at around £13bn a year. This largely arises from the profits from sales, the crimes addicts commit to fund their habit, and the damage caused to family life and communities, as well as from costs to addicts' health.

I'm used to hearing about the sorts of people involved with illegal drugs, my girlfriend spent most of the time arresting them and telling me about it when she came home. She never once said "I met this lovely man who's house we raided and found x amount of Class A drugs".

The long term and real world study is not there to suggest any one drug is worse than the other. So until the unkown is known there should never be a trial on society and other drugs should remain illegal.

 

[gv1.3]

The unknown will never be known if the government continues to silence scientific fact.

The main reason all of the crime exists is because by banning things you create a black market which is serviced by criminals. I draw your attention back to prohibition era USA it is fact not something I am making up.

Today - if for some reason I wanted to go buy heroin today I would be going to some sort of criminal who is being supplied by another criminal who is in turn probably being supplied by a network of other criminals. Eventually the trail would end up back in the East somewhere which proceeds probably going to fund terrorist groups. When I walk away with my purchase it is of unknown quality.

Government controlled: I would register as a drug user. I would go to a government run centre and purchase my heroin. My money would not be going to criminal gangs. The quality of what I am buying would be known.

Criminal gangs would make nothing from this purchase.

Obviously there are many ways to run such a scheme but I think the war on drugs is being lost and if you continue to take the same approach you get the same results.

Your girlfriend was arresting criminal gangs who were servicing the black market... do away with the black market, do away with those who profit from it, its not a difficult concept.

 

[GTti]

But you don't because these people have a fundamental issue. That is they don't know the difference between right and wrong. There will always be something else, a massive problem now is illegal Tobacco trade, so from that surely you can assume there will still be illegal drug trafficking.

 

[gv1.3]

there will always be an illegal trade in one thing or another... it might be knock off nike shoes or anything else.

You will never eliminate 100% of any black market demand. But you can significantly reduce it. You can go buy duty free beer and wine... but people still drink in pubs and buy their cans in tesco.

If you give people no option then you have lost the battle to criminals because they have a totally free market to operate in due to their customers having no option but to buy from them. Again ... prohibition era USA... people could only get their alcohol from organised crime gangs. The problem or alcoholism didnt go away during this period it just forced people to deal with criminals to get their supply.

When it was done away with... the entire country didnt turn in to alcoholics - people are more responsible than they are given credit for in my opinion.

 

[GTti]

Then in my mind we can only do more to neutralize already existing illegal drug trade.

 

[gv1.3]

And now the real danger is being realised... what scientific expert will work advising the government if they are going to be sacked for speaking the truth....

2 of this advisors colleagues have now resigned in solidarity... http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...f_Governments_Advisory_Council_On_Drugs_Quits

Fair play to them

 

[1bar]

The unknown will never be known if the government continues to silence scientific fact.

The main reason all of the crime exists is because by banning things you create a black market which is serviced by criminals. I draw your attention back to prohibition era USA it is fact not something I am making up.

Today - if for some reason I wanted to go buy heroin today I would be going to some sort of criminal who is being supplied by another criminal who is in turn probably being supplied by a network of other criminals. Eventually the trail would end up back in the East somewhere which proceeds probably going to fund terrorist groups. When I walk away with my purchase it is of unknown quality.

Government controlled: I would register as a drug user. I would go to a government run centre and purchase my heroin. My money would not be going to criminal gangs. The quality of what I am buying would be known.

Criminal gangs would make nothing from this purchase.

Obviously there are many ways to run such a scheme but I think the war on drugs is being lost and if you continue to take the same approach you get the same results.

Your girlfriend was arresting criminal gangs who were servicing the black market... do away with the black market, do away with those who profit from it, its not a difficult concept.

What about your health and mental problems your indure later in life? What happens when you need more and cant afford it? You probably then want a subsidy to keep up with your addiction. Dont forgot the body gets accustomed to what your taking and will need more an more as time passes by.

Over time you could find yourself spending your whole pay to get your fix then what happens to your family,morgage and bills. This is where the crime starts to creep in to try and compenstate for the newly addiction you now have.

I guess you will need this place to be open 24/7 catering for the drugies which in turn will cost tax payers allot of money plus metal insituitions, filling up hospitals with drug sick patients. I dont know the suituation there but here there already a shortage of doctors and imagine the extra workload pile on them if this happened tomorrow.

 

[gv1.3]

but you are talking like people are not out there addicted to drugs already? The money spent on fighting drug gangs who will be for the most part put out of business could be used to pay for the drug services which we already supply to addicts and so it would probably save the tax payer money.

 

[1bar]

but you are talking like people are not out there addicted to drugs already? The money spent on fighting drug gangs who will be for the most part put out of business could be used to pay for the drug services which we already supply to addicts and so it would probably save the tax payer money.

Yea there alot of addicted people out there causing a huge strain on our healthcare system and costing you and me millions of dollars of there self abuse. All this money could go into more productive ways. What your suggesting wouldnt be feesible.

 

[gv1.3]

Yea there alot of addicted people out there causing a huge strain on our healthcare system and costing you and me millions of dollars of there self abuse. All this money could go into more productive ways. What your suggesting wouldnt be feesible.

Why wouldnt it be feasible?

The fact of the matter is that emergency rooms all over the world are full of people on friday/saturday nights with people due to alcohol.. how many are there due to marijuana? That tells us that immediate effects are less dangerous than alcohol.

As for harder drugs I think the obvious problems such as crime, terrorism, addiction, disease etc etc etc are already there and nothing that is being done is making them go away so I think to dismiss alternatives without consideration is wrong.

It was like needle exchange programs a few years ago. People came out and said "if the government sponsor needle exchange programs it is like them condoning drug use and it will encourage people to use drugs". The reality is it cut down on infections spread from intravenous drug use and has reduced the people needing hospital treatment for these diseases which makes it pay for itself.

 

[GTti]

Having caugh up on the BBC site, I think to summarize my views on this thread:


- I don't agree with the sacking of the ACMD employee. I also don't agree with the way politics should interfere with the advisories given, it should be a separate body. But the government may have other reasons to classify drugs and these reasons should be presented.

- Do I think the scientific advice is correct (We have no idea what evidence this is), or do I think more reasearch should be done before you can deem cannabis less dangerous.

Well I would tend to agree with the latter and what was presented to ACMD, because at the end of the day this is what is happening in the real world, I have experienced this view myself and seen it on a number of occasions with my own eyes, I don't think enough has been done yet to establish the link:

Mental health charity Sane was one group which gave evidence to the advisory group.

Marjorie Wallace, the charity's chief executive, said not enough was yet known about the direct links between cannabis and the brain.

She said she knew of hundreds of cases where people smoked cannabis heavily, in particular skunk, and went on to suffer psychotic breakdowns, hallucinations and paranoia.

- Does the reclassification of this drug really matter to the public? Not to me, I don't care if it's Class C or Class A, it's still illegal however it's classified, I still will not take it and never will. All this does is undermine the ACMD, the real problem here is the childish interaction with the government (and vica verse of course) - a process that clearly needs to be defined and improved.

- Do I think these other drugs should remain illegal? Yes and I think more should be done to stop them reaching the streets, especially young users. I don't agree with the whole concept of illegal drugs, and even if they are legalised there would have to be heavy taxes to support the infrastructure, this would still result in illegal drugs trade and everything associated with it. There is not a solution to it.

- I don't think it is an attempt to silence anything, the information is clearly there should you wish to research it. It's clear to me that Labour do not need more people campeigning against them or their policies, it seems a fair opinion, but acting in the way they have has kicked them in the teeth.

 

[Phenom]

- I don't think it is an attempt to silence anything, the information is clearly there should you wish to research it. It's clear to me that Labour do not need more people campeigning against them or their policies, it seems a fair opinion, but acting in the way they have has kicked them in the teeth.

FFS - How NAIVE can you be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

 

[GTti]

FFS - How NAIVE can you be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

You think I'm naive? I have spent just as many years reading and practicing about general health and nutrition as I have car mechanics.

How is this in any way silencing scientific research? Those that are interested, or have some form of initiative and common sense will already know effects of alcohol consumption and tobacco inhiliation.

I don't need to be made "aware" of this. Maybe you're the naive one? As I have already stated, the sacking has only brought more publicity.

Regardless of this, who says this "scientific" opinion should dictate the classification of drugs? There are many other aspects to review, not just the scientific research. In this instance regarding cannabis, the research is clearly limited, this drug is already a huge problem along with alcohol - you just don't hear about it beacuse the research is not there to tie the links.