The Elimination Of Drugs.

[ColPyat]

It's all well and good arguing the pro's of decriminalization of all drugs, but it's not going to happen, yes it's a form of targetted control, it's oppressive, it's devisive, a perfect tool for those in power, therefore in their view it's not futile.

Set up a poll, yes or no, will drugs ever get decriminalized.

I think we all already know the answer.

It's castles in the sky, man.

I don't think so.

Many European countries have in the recent decade slowly moved towards decriminalisation, and social pressure will one day change repressive drug policies. It will be a very long process though.

[marshbags]

Thaksin's 2003 War on Drugs was an astute political move and will go down as probably the most popular and respected thing he did during his murderous tenure.

Respected for a false objective which was to become known internationally as the infamous " Extra Judicial Killings " which shocked and revulsed the major powers and the human rights organisations.

First of all an excerpt from the latest article in response to your post.

Quote :- Many of the anti-drug programmes of the 1990s came to an end in 2003, when then-premier Thaksin Shinawatra declared victory in his nasty and violent war on drugs. That not only cleared the way for surviving drug peddlers _ meaning all the big shots and most of the street sellers _ to resume their activities after the murderous but inconclusive "war".

It also meant the end of many anti-drug programmes, including those aimed at young people. Most projects aimed at gathering information about drug use, demand and supply also were stopped, in case anyone might think they were questioning the ex-premier's claim of victory. Unquote

Details of the full editorial are :-

General news >> Tuesday February 13, 2007 B.Post

EDIORTIAL

Quote :-

Drug traffickers still at large

The depressing news in recent days that drug traffickers are again stepping up activities in and near Thailand should come as no surprise. Winning the war against international drug merchants takes time, requires commitment and must have international cooperation. The sad fact is that eliminating the cross-border gangs that cause illicit drug problems cannot succeed without the full determination of all the governments concerned. So long as one regime remains on the sidelines of the battle, the drug traffickers will persevere.

Unquote.

Please go to the following url for the full article :-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/13Feb2007_news20.php

Another point to take into account is the effects it had on the rehabilitation of drug users who survived with their pathetic lives intact, which became non existant.

As for decriminalization, it is already happening in many countries and the only thing that slows down any moves towards it happening here are due to the vested interests of the main suppliers, the Puyai of course who suprisingly didn,t suffer one hit during the 2003 agenda.

I was of course being a tad sarcastic when i typed " suprisingly ".

Regarding taking a vote on it, does it really indicate anything positive for the victims and families of the E.J.K.

I think not, but perhaps you would like to promote a poll on what they think about the real objectives Thaksin and his ilk had in mind ?????????

Rehabilitation, support and education are a good start for those dependant on drugs, along with targetting the real dealers / Puyai who exploit them.

When will this begin to happen, the sooner the better, and it will, some time down the line.

They used to say this would never happen in the European countries, but take a look around there now...........

marshbags and

P.S.

C.P.

You will be happy to know that I do agree with much of what you say about others being invovled relating to drugs, but it was the TRT and Thaksin in particular that promoted the 2003 incident as government policy and therefore they must accept responsibility for it.

Edited February 13, 2007 by marshbags

[LivinLOS]

It's all well and good arguing the pro's of decriminalization of all drugs, but it's not going to happen, yes it's a form of targetted control, it's oppressive, it's devisive, a perfect tool for those in power, therefore in their view it's not futile.

Set up a poll, yes or no, will drugs ever get decriminalized.

I think we all already know the answer.

It's castles in the sky, man.

I totally dissagree..

Drugs have not been illegal for that long a time.. Coca cola used to have the 'secret ingredient' and it was only the Citizen Kane paper barons that made weed illegal..

I think most progressive societies are realizing that they are making fools oif themselves with campaigns that are as black and white as just say no and many western countries are moving towards if not decriminalization at least tolerance and a lack of prosecution to users.

I personally believe that there needs to be a massive education campaign (run by intelligent people with real experience) while this situation happens and that there needs to be that investment (repaid rapidly in the taxation of intoxicants) as well as comprehensive rehab and detox centres.. Just opening pandoras box would create a situation that was to fast and would show too many downsides.. People need to learn about responsible use and the very obvious down sides also.

However I do think that the idea will come about.. We are not so stupid as a species to keep doing things that dont work forever.

Now I am going to have a beer.

[paulsmithson]

Marshbags,

first of all | am not your SON!!!!!!!

Secondly I know that my views are not widely held in todays misinformed society.

Thirdly I do KNOW that drugs are no longer the problem that they used to be in that particular area on Bangkok.

Thank you MR Taxin!

Talking sense to liberals never works---some of you guys are admitted illegal substance abusers from this and other posts and so hold prejudiced views.

I have no time for users of illegal drugs and little time for many legal drug users, the world is bad enough without welcoming more problems with open arms.

Legalising these drugs is not the answer---you ageing hippies would be floating around in a cloud of marijuana smoke all day and unable to work properly. Then no money!

Only an idiot believes that legalising drugs would be beneficial to society!

My nephews and neices and all young kids deserve better .

Tell you what, I will buy the bullets and the gun myself to use on any drug dealer

[endure]

If we take the UK as an example of the success of the 'War on Drugs' - before 1971 Doctors were allowed to prescribe morphine derivatives of a known and consistent strength to registered addicts which allowed them to carry on normal lives. There were approx 5000 registered addicts in the UK and drug-related crime (burglaries, muggings etc.) were non-existent. This would probably be called 'bleeding heart liberal country' by your average Daily Mail reader. Since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was passed into law in the estimated number (as the consumption of morphine derivatives is no longer legal there are no longer any reliable statistics) of addicts in the UK is approximately 250,000 and the majority of crime is reckoned to be drug related. So - criminalising hard drugs has led to a 5000% increase in the number of addicts and has driven drug-related crime to the top of the charts. You'd think that any politician with enough brain to fall out of bed in the morning would have taken notice of the effects of the Volstead Act in the USA but it seems that they'd rather attract the attention of the Yapping Class vote rather than do anything which actually looked after the interests of their constituents.

[LivinLOS]

Talking sense to liberals never works---some of you guys are admitted illegal substance abusers from this and other posts and so hold prejudiced views.

Do you drink ever ??

If you are a tee totaller who never takes intoxicants of any type then I will be happy to have a rational discussion with you on the pros and cons of intoxication as form of relaxation and stress relief versus thier drawbacks in health and social costs. If you enjoy an intoxicant yourself I have to say I think your comments are hypocritical, I see alcoholics around me very regularly, people whose drinking effects thier health and weight, people who will be a burden to health systems because of it, people whose sanity is questionable, peoples whose ability to work, or achieve thier full potential is compromised. This is clear and obvious yet tolerated by society..

Is this tolerated because it is legitimately better, safer, more useful to society ?? Or is it tolerated becuase they are taxable drugs ?? See its ok to drink your drugs.. Thats just dandy because those are good drugs, good taxable ones.

I have no time for users of illegal drugs and little time for many legal drug users, the world is bad enough without welcoming more problems with open arms.

Legalising these drugs is not the answer---you ageing hippies would be floating around in a cloud of marijuana smoke all day and unable to work properly. Then no money!

he he.. During the period I lived in Holland and I was using the most drugs I formed a company.. Took it pan European.. Employed 400 people.. Made many millions of Euros.. I did this all while being mid 20's.. I worked 18 hours a day 7 days a week (often while high). The very fact I was able to retire having made myself and my whole extended family independently wealthy before I was 30 should say something about peoples inability to work or be productive members of society. Its another miss conception.

I could add my father smokes (lots) every day, he wears conservative blue suits, drives a new S Class merc, has a silver beard and is perceived as the exact picture of conservative elder statesman image. His mind is razor sharp (he is one of the most travelled and intelligent men you could ever have a conversation with) and physically for his age he is in tip tip shape. He wont touch a drop of alcohol and wont even smoke tobacco in his pipe. The image that media presents and the idea that people are unable to be happy and productive and an assets to society is another media fiction.

It seems the people with the lack of experience on the subject are always the ones to want to prohibit others freedoms. I would never impose my beliefs on yours, if a drug user commits a crime I am not an apologist and think they should be punished to the full extent of the law, no liberal 'its because' lines coming from me. But if there are things I want to do to my own conciousness, in privacy, without harming others, I cannot understand how anyone has the right to stop me.

Whenever I get in these discussions it makes me sound like some rabid drug preacher and in reality those that no me know thats clearly not the case, however I feel very strongly that personal freedom (and personal responsibility) is being taken away by nanny states (thereby creating cultures of proles claiming benefits and looking to the state for all thier answers) and see this as another part of Governments telling me what to do, what to eat, what to think.

Edited February 14, 2007 by LivinLOS

[LivinLOS]

If we take the UK as an example of the success of the 'War on Drugs' - before 1971 Doctors were allowed to prescribe morphine derivatives of a known and consistent strength to registered addicts which allowed them to carry on normal lives. There were approx 5000 registered addicts in the UK and drug-related crime (burglaries, muggings etc.) were non-existent. This would probably be called 'bleeding heart liberal country' by your average Daily Mail reader. Since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was passed into law in the estimated number (as the consumption of morphine derivatives is no longer legal there are no longer any reliable statistics) of addicts in the UK is approximately 250,000 and the majority of crime is reckoned to be drug related. So - criminalising hard drugs has led to a 5000% increase in the number of addicts and has driven drug-related crime to the top of the charts. You'd think that any politician with enough brain to fall out of bed in the morning would have taken notice of the effects of the Volstead Act in the USA but it seems that they'd rather attract the attention of the Yapping Class vote rather than do anything which actually looked after the interests of their constituents.

While I agree with you in principal, and Hollands own prescription program had reduced thier heroin addicts number, its easy to fall into the trap of lies ###### lies and statistics.

The world has changed and the transportation and big business around chemical drugs and the profit that hard drugs generate to the really powerful in the industry mean that its a little unfair to compare pre 70's dug cultures with the new millennium culture. Designer drugs, the ability and knowledge in how to produce compounds, the research by people like Alaxander Shulgin means that the information is out there and cant be put away.

These things present great dangers to societies but you would have to be blind not to see that prohibition has also made great dangers to and feeds wars, militias, taliban, puts unsafe compounds in the hands of people with no access to education or testing. Simply put we have tried it, it didnt work very well. Now we need to be mature enough to find the way forward that leaves the least social harm and even perhaps gets the greatest social benefit.

[marshbags]

Marshbags,

first of all | am not your SON!!!!!!!

Secondly I know that my views are not widely held in todays misinformed society.

Thirdly I do KNOW that drugs are no longer the problem that they used to be in that particular area on Bangkok.

Thank you MR Taxin!

Talking sense to liberals never works---some of you guys are admitted illegal substance abusers from this and other posts and so hold prejudiced views.

I have no time for users of illegal drugs and little time for many legal drug users, the world is bad enough without welcoming more problems with open arms.

Legalising these drugs is not the answer---you ageing hippies would be floating around in a cloud of marijuana smoke all day and unable to work properly. Then no money!

Only an idiot believes that legalising drugs would be beneficial to society!

My nephews and neices and all young kids deserve better .

Tell you what, I will buy the bullets and the gun myself to use on any drug dealer

If you have another look at the post you refer to in your first sentence you may note that i have in fact shortened your pen name " paulsmithson " to P.S.,son.

Had i meant to be condescendingly and sarcastic enough to call you SON there would have been a space at the very least to seperate the two. P.S., son and I would have used a capital " S ".

I feel fortunate that you are not, with so much venom and lack of understanding in you.

Also the casual way in which you talk about killing while giving Kudos to the evil, indiscriminate actions of Thaksin and his executioners, who,s real objective was to politically exploit and silence the less fortunate so as to protect the PUYAI dealers.

Your second post i find even more disturbing than the first i posted on.

Bullets before rehabilitation ect. , with no consideration of the circumstances of each case.

This puts you on a similar footing to the Ex.... C.E.O. when it comes to understanding the reasons why and who the real culprits are in the majority of cases relating to drugs.

Their ROLE in distribution and the way they get people hooked and then exploit there addiction by forcing them to sell in most cases because of dependancy.

The majority of whom ( Main Dealers ) are PUYAI with money their only motive.

Instead of lawfully and justly penalising them, who are at the top of foodchain, you would murder those who are at the bottom along with those unfortunate enough to get in the way or as in many incidents in 2003, unjustly and indiscriminately identified as the main dealers. ( if at all )

Shame on you.

I would hope genuinely, none of your family, relatives and friends ect. are ever among the unfortunates weaned onto drugs and then exploited for their consequent dependancy on them.

marshbags and

Edited February 14, 2007 by marshbags

[ColPyat]

I have no time for users of illegal drugs and little time for many legal drug users, the world is bad enough without welcoming more problems with open arms.

Tell you what, I will buy the bullets and the gun myself to use on any drug dealer

It appears that you also have very little time for the fundamental principles of modern society, such as human rights and due process of the law.

In this discussion it actually matters very little if you support or oppose repressive laws against drugs. In a democracy everybody is entitled to freedom of speach and thought (even if these thoughts voiced are rather unintelligent).

What matters here, especially in your posts, is that you openly support summary executions and circumventing the legal systhem as set up by the constitution of Thailand (and the legal system of your own country as well). Your posts are of an extremist nature that is fitting to societies such as Afghanisthan under the Taleban, or Saudi Arabia, or under Nazi Germany.

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to go back to primary school, as you have obviously missed out on something there.

[Robski]

It's all well and good arguing the pro's of decriminalization of all drugs, but it's not going to happen, yes it's a form of targetted control, it's oppressive, it's devisive, a perfect tool for those in power, therefore in their view it's not futile.

Set up a poll, yes or no, will drugs ever get decriminalized.

I think we all already know the answer.

It's castles in the sky, man.

I don't think so.

Many European countries have in the recent decade slowly moved towards decriminalisation, and social pressure will one day change repressive drug policies. It will be a very long process though.

I totally dissagree..

Drugs have not been illegal for that long a time.. Coca cola used to have the 'secret ingredient' and it was only the Citizen Kane paper barons that made weed illegal..

I think most progressive societies are realizing that they are making fools oif themselves with campaigns that are as black and white as just say no and many western countries are moving towards if not decriminalization at least tolerance and a lack of prosecution to users.

No offence, but take off the rosey specs fellas, please show me where Western societies are moving toward decriminalization or are realising that they are making fools of themselves.

I would say that Western society is currently putting in place some of the most draconian laws ever on personal freedom and privacy issues, the crimininalization of drug users is in part divisive and controlling, why would they decrimininalize drugs and give up one of the best tools in their armoury?

[ColPyat]

No offence, but take off the rosey specs fellas, please show me where Western societies are moving toward decriminalization or are realising that they are making fools of themselves.

I would say that Western society is currently putting in place some of the most draconian laws ever on personal freedom and privacy issues, the crimininalization of drug users is in part divisive and controlling, why would they decrimininalize drugs and give up one of the best tools in their armoury?

Maybe you should make a holiday in Europe one of these days, and have a look around there. Smoking dope does not attract much attention there anymore, decriminalisation is very much public debate.

"The West" is not just represented by the US.

[Robski]

I'm from the UK (thats the biggest drugs market in Europe as I'm sure you know)

I also lived in Amsterdam for nearly three years.

Depends what you're smoking and where, smoking hash and being careful where you are may get you let off with a verbal caution if you're caught, but thats not every town and everywhere and hydroponic weed was reclassed as a class 'a' drug in the UK, even if the police in your area where tolerant of you smoking weed, it would be different matter if you were growing or supplying it and anyway dope isn't all you guys are talking about legalizing are you?

I can see your basis for opinion, but in reality decriminalization of all drugs is not going to happen.

When authorities can use it as the justification for stop and search, house searches, surveillance, telephone record checks, background checks, credit, known associates etc etc etc as well as the reasoning behind more powerful laws and bigger budgets, and also the ticket to winning any election whilst alienating certain sectors of society, those in power are not going to give up such a powerful grip on control. Ever.

Would be nice for some, but it aint gonna happen unless you're thinking of staring a revolution, but then who's gonna help you do that? Everyone in favour of it is too stoned.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Robski

[ColPyat]

I can see your basis for opinion, but in reality decriminalization of all drugs is not going to happen.

The way how it's handled now in most parts of Europe is already an improvement from when i was a kid. There was no tolerance whatsoever.

Anyhow, when i say that drugs will be decriminalised i don't mean next year or so, but maybe within twenty or thirty years.

[Robski]

Is that 'just a feeling' or do you have some kind of inside tip on the future?

Sorry mate, but if you had some kind of info to show that European countries were seriously considering decriminalisation in the future, I'd be genuinely interested in reading it.

I think you will find that most European countries are actively lobbying the Netherlands to criminalize drug taking and shut down the easy access to drugs.

Like I say. I can see where you're coming from, but it aint going to happen, if you are all really passionate about this subject, why don't you organise a demo or make some placards or write to your MP (hahaha)

You won't because you know it's futile, castles in the sky... man.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Robski

[ColPyat]

Is that 'just a feeling' or do you have some kind of inside tip on the future?

Sorry mate, but if you had some kind of info to show that European countries were seriously considering decriminalisation in the future, I'd be genuinely interested in reading it.

There are more and more small localised experiments in alternative approaches to drugs. That shows that decriminalisation is already considered in many quarters. The developments in the last two decades all over Europe have clearly moved towards more tolerance from the times of hardline supression when i was a kid.

Which basically means that there is a slow moving trend towards toleration and decriminalisation, and that one day might very well move towards legalisation.

What I do not see happening is the Netherlands going back to prohibition as they live rather well with their policy of tolerance.

[LivinLOS]

The UK seems to have a near decriminalized status where I was living on soft drugs.. Theres head shops.. The local town had a town in bloom competition and the winner was awarded to a head shop that was growing cannibis plants in pots.. There was some ho ha in the local paper after he was given first prize and it was shown they had been tricked but the town council and mayor said its not our position to debate the legality and it was simply the best plant display.. He kept his first prize !! The shop owners name is Free (rob) Cannabis hes online if you dont believe me.

I know someone who the police came to the property to accompany the inland revenue to do a paperwork seizure.. He had in his locked safe about 1oz of hydroponic weed.. The police confiscated it and gave him an unofficial caution !! Thier words were we didnt come here for this, we came to ensure the IR had access, this doesnt interest us. They were non confrontational and pleasant the entire time. As the person being busted was not intimidated or concerned about the IR they in fact sat and had tea and coffee and talked while the IR made a pain in the ass of themselves (the police later rebuked the IR for taking things they were not entitled to and causing damage to the persons business in fact) and the policeman also claimed that 'we know your not a dealer.. we know who the dealers are.. we are not interested in you' while sat around the kitchen table.. All in all it was superb community policing whereby the relationship between the police and the person whose home they entered remained friendly and civil.. They wave at each other in the street now.

I dont know if you have been to Berlin but they have a coffeeshop like system.. I hear Denmark has allowed a section of town to be tolerated (although they have allowed it to be all drugs prostitution etc I have read which concentrates slum life IMO)..

I am not living in some fantasy world were I think drugs are problem free.. However I will argue that drink is a far worse intoxicant than many illegal drugs and yet we as a society can adapt and live with all the ills that this creates..

[Robski]

Yeh, but you're talking about dope, and small amounts at that.

[Robski]

For instance, just suppose....

My name is Steve, I live on the Chalk Farm Estate (housing scheme) in Wembley, London.

1. My drugs of choice in descending order are; Crack, Heroin, ICE, Valium, Diazapam, Temazapam.

2. I can get any of these drugs, 24hrs a day, within 500 metres of my front door.

3. I earn my money by fair means or foul, but I am not interested in a regular job because

a. it wouldn't cover the cost of my drug habit and

b. my lifestyle is already a full time occupation.

4. My dealers have guns and other means of protection to stop people trying to steal the supply they know they have.

3. If I am short of money my dealers will give me drugs on credit or trade them for stolen goods.

4. it is only the threat of death that makes me repay my debt to the dealers.

5. the only thing that will ever stop me taking drugs is death.

6. Hard drugs of the highest purity are the only ones that interest me.

7. Prison is an occupatiuonal hazard but drugs are widely available on the inside.

So are they going to decriminalize drugs to the point where all the above criterea are met?

If the answer is not 100% yes, then a black market and criminal activity will continue.

If the drug of choice is crack and the lifestyle choice is criminality,

how is decriminalization going to change these choices for many drug takers?

[LivinLOS]

Yeh, but you're talking about dope, and small amounts at that.

Exactly.. I would think that it initially takes people to realize they have been lied to about the associated harms on one thing before they realize that ALL intoxicants cause harm, they all have side effects, they all can effect your life for the negative and sometimes for the positive.

Unfortunately we have a problem in that many people lack self control, and the escapism of intoxication can compound already existing instability issues.. People need to get a massive dose of self reliance and self responsibility in this world.. Freedom comes at a price but personally I feel that any price is worth freedom. To be able to do as I please without imposing harm (or even my opinion if its not wanted) on others, is a basic core belief of mine.

[LivinLOS]

For instance, just suppose....

My name is Steve, I live on the Chalk Farm Estate (housing scheme) in Wembley, London.

1. My drugs of choice in descending order are; Crack, Heroin, ICE, Valium, Diazapam, Temazapam.

2. I can get any of these drugs, 24hrs a day, within 500 metres of my front door.

3. I earn my money by fair means or foul, but I am not interested in a regular job because

a. it wouldn't cover the cost of my drug habit and

b. my lifestyle is already a full time occupation.

4. My dealers have guns and other means of protection to stop people trying to steal the supply they know they have.

3. If I am short of money my dealers will give me drugs on credit or trade them for stolen goods.

4. it is only the threat of death that makes me repay my debt to the dealers.

5. the only thing that will ever stop me taking drugs is death.

6. Hard drugs of the highest purity are the only ones that interest me.

7. Prison is an occupatiuonal hazard but drugs are widely available on the inside.

So are they going to decriminalize drugs to the point where all the above criterea are met?

If the answer is not 100% yes, then a black market and criminal activity will continue.

If the drug of choice is crack and the lifestyle choice is criminality,

how is decriminalization going to change these choices for many drug takers?

The most interesting post yet and exactly what needs to be had.. a rational discussion on harm limitation and the minimization of harm to greater society and personal lives.

I want to get onto this but am pushed for time as I type and this deserves some thought.. Hope to respond to you / this later today.

[Robski]

Ok if you want to discuss it rationally, then we should focus on the needs of the drug taker, after all he is the consumer and if the decriminalized market does not serve his needs, there willl still be a need for a criminal market.

As well as the drug user, you would have to look at the bigger picture, put yourself in the shoes of a politician, an intelligence agency, a senior police officer. They will all have, to some degree, opposition to drug decriminalization, because decriminialization serves their needs.

There are some very rational people, doctors, sociologists, even policemen that advocate decriminalization with very forceful arguements, but they dont make the rules and neither does the mass of public opinion, unfortunately.

Two points, I'm not with the kneejerk hang 'em high brigade and if the decriminalization meant that joe public was able to dictate it's needs to government it would never be implicated for that reason alone.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Robski

[marshbags]

Here is an interesting comment that i first heard on BBC news 24 hour yesterday relating to the different standards of contentment via younger children at schools in various countries.

We in the U.K, along with the U.S. failed miserably which i for one found a reality check as i had always took it that they were more content than is researched.

1. Netherlands

2. Sweden

3. Denmark

4. Finland

5. Spain

6. Switzerland

7. Norway

8. Italy

9. Republic of Ireland

10. Belgium

11. Germany

12. Canada

13. Greece

14. Poland

15. Czech Republic

16. France

17. Portugal

18. Austria

19. Hungary

20. United States

21. United Kingdom

Anyhow this was what a young Dutch student said in an interview.

Quote :-

The Dutch are famous for their liberal attitudes towards drinks, drugs and sex.

"Because parents are more relaxed, the dynamics of the problems are less severe than in countries where they are seen as more of a serious issue," says Mr Vangeert.

Laura Vos, a 16-year-old schoolgirl from Amsterdam agrees.

"In this country, it's very free, you can do anything you want," she told the BBC's Newsnight programme. "You can smoke at 16, you can buy pot in the store next to the school. You can do what you like and because it's not illegal, it's not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it."

Unquote.

This i found very profound and considering it came from someone so young and it was so matter of fact when she said it.

I hope some of the politicians are taking notice of this regarding decriminalisation when they next debate it.

" Pot " of course has the best chance of this and the court is out on the harmful / harmless effects which are tipping towards the latter.

I realise this is not exactly on topic regarding the O.P. on the comparisons of the 2 approaches to curtailing drugs.

But this maybe give others food for thought on yet another observation from someone so young and innocent, yet so mature in her thoughts.

I was impressed by her casual response.

If you would like to read the complete article which is mainly about child well being please go to the following url:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6360517.stm

It is just for reference and i apologise for going of the threads topic to provide the above relevant info.

I hope the mods will allow me to do so in this case please to get an important point accross.

marshbags

P.S.

For the record i also do not subscribe to the taking of drugs as you may note in several topics of this nature that i,ve posted on.

What i am against is how this particular case in 2003 was dealt with the misery it caused and general world wide lack of understanding on how to approach the issue from a humanity point of view.

Instead of treating the victims as criminals they should try to re educate, make treatment available and offer support to back it up, for those who want to become unaddicted and " clean " as i hear others refer to their state.

Once they have been given a chance, should they either refuse treatment or re offend then do things within the law to take them out of the vicious cycle.

Not indiscriminately go round shooting / killing the small fish, while letting the big ones who generally put them on the road to ruin, carry on at will.

IMHO of course.

Edited February 15, 2007 by marshbags

[deon]

RObski i have to tell you but you are wrong , when you say hydroponic weed was reclassed as a class 'a' drug in the UK, not true the only thing to do with hash or weed that is class a is oil . skunk ie weed and hash are all class c .The law

In the UK, cannabis plants and resin are Class C drugs following declassification in January 2004.Also anyone interested in a report on driving while stoned may find ths uk tv report intresting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfcRyruo91Y and this is what the uk house of lords had to say about the medical issue..I find it sad when folks can get locked up for smoking weed ,yet pedo gets let of and does not go to jail.Now to me that just mad sick and sad .LORDS SAY, LEGALISE CANNABIS FOR MEDICAL USE

The Government should allow doctors to prescribe cannabis for medical use: this is the conclusion of a report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, published today.

Lord Perry of Walton, chairman of the inquiry said: "We have seen enough evidence to convince us that a doctor might legitimately want to prescribe cannabis to relieve pain, or the symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), and that the criminal law ought not to stand in the way. Far from being a step towards general legalisation, our recommendation would make the ban on recreational use easier to enforce. Above all, it would show compassion to patients who currently risk prosecution to get help."

MEDICAL USE

Cannabis is a "Schedule 1" drug, and cannot be used at all in medicine, except for research under special Home Office licence. The Lords recommend that it should be moved to "Schedule 2". This would allow doctors to prescribe it, subject to certain special regulations, and it would allow doctors and pharmacists to supply it in accordance with a prescription.

The report sets out evidence that cannabis can be effective in some patients to relieve the symptoms of MS, and against certain forms of pain. The Lords say, this evidence is enough to justify a change in the law. They are less convinced about its effectiveness in other conditions, including epilepsy, glaucoma and asthma.

The Lords welcome the fact that clinical trials of cannabis are currently being launched, by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and by Dr Geoffrey Guy of GW Pharmaceuticals, with a view to the eventual licensing of cannabis as a medicine. The Lords say, however, that cannabis should be rescheduled now, rather than waiting several years for the results of these trials.

If cannabis ever becomes a licensed medicine, the Lords do not envisage it being licensed for smoking; they call for research into alternative delivery systems.

At present, people who use cannabis for medical reasons risk prosecution; and juries sometimes refuse to convict such people, which brings the law into disrepute. If prescription were legalised, then someone using cannabis for medical reasons who was accused of recreational use could clear himself at once by producing the prescription. [More]

RECREATIONAL USE

The Lords find enough evidence of toxic effects of cannabis to justify maintaining the present ban on recreational use. Besides being intoxicating, they report that:

- regular heavy use can lead to psychological dependence, and even in some cases to physical dependence, involving withdrawal symptoms;

- cannabis can pose a risk to people with a heart condition;

- cannabis can exacerbate pre-existing mental illness;

- smoking cannabis is as bad for the lungs as smoking tobacco, and may cause cancer.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The report follows an inquiry which began in April, and included 12 public hearings. A list of the Lords who took part in the study is attached :

2. The report is published by The Stationery Office: Cannabis, HL Paper 151, ISBN 0 10 4151986, £9.50.

3. The evidence taken by the Committee is published separately as HL Paper 151-I, ISBN 0 10 4792981, £22.60.

4. The full text will be on the Internet on publication, accessible via the UK Parliament home page at www.parliament.u

Edited February 17, 2007 by deon

[deon]

Mods i have tried to edit my post as i know i have gone of topic , but i was not able to .So i will say sorry now ok .As i dont want another warning , i should just learn to keep my mouth shut lol .

[Maizefarmer]

So let me see - have I got this right: you are a useless member of society, contributing nothing (I can just picture you and your circumstances).

But thanx for your openesss and honesty - how did you get into drugs, what was "missing" in your life that you felt drugs would compensate for, and have you ever tried to give up.

For instance, just suppose....

My name is Steve, I live on the Chalk Farm Estate (housing scheme) in Wembley, London.

1. My drugs of choice in descending order are; Crack, Heroin, ICE, Valium, Diazapam, Temazapam.

2. I can get any of these drugs, 24hrs a day, within 500 metres of my front door.

3. I earn my money by fair means or foul, but I am not interested in a regular job because

a. it wouldn't cover the cost of my drug habit and

b. my lifestyle is already a full time occupation.

4. My dealers have guns and other means of protection to stop people trying to steal the supply they know they have.

3. If I am short of money my dealers will give me drugs on credit or trade them for stolen goods.

4. it is only the threat of death that makes me repay my debt to the dealers.

5. the only thing that will ever stop me taking drugs is death.

6. Hard drugs of the highest purity are the only ones that interest me.

7. Prison is an occupatiuonal hazard but drugs are widely available on the inside.

So are they going to decriminalize drugs to the point where all the above criterea are met?

If the answer is not 100% yes, then a black market and criminal activity will continue.

If the drug of choice is crack and the lifestyle choice is criminality,

how is decriminalization going to change these choices for many drug takers?

[Robski]

RObski i have to tell you but you are wrong , when you say hydroponic weed was reclassed as a class 'a' drug in the UK, not true the only thing to do with hash or weed that is class a is oil . skunk ie weed and hash are all class c .The law

Thanks for correcting me Deon, I really thought they had reclassified it again since.

Anyhow the debate on Cannabis is the only one thats got a chance in h3ll of realization.

I hope you don't get a warning for posting that,

although you should be careful of using copyrighted material,

I would think that anything published on a goverment website is ok.

Edited February 18, 2007 by Robski

[Robski]

Maizefarmer, thanks for adding a bit of quality entertainment to this thread.

Now then, do you see the bit a the top of the post where it says; ]For instance, just suppose....

You do? Good.

Try reading it again.

PM me for the rest of 'Steves' story.

So let me see - have I got this right: you are a useless member of society, contributing nothing (I can just picture you and your circumstances).

But thanx for your openesss and honesty - how did you get into drugs, what was "missing" in your life that you felt drugs would compensate for, and have you ever tried to give up.

For instance, just suppose....

My name is Steve, I live on the Chalk Farm Estate (housing scheme) in Wembley, London.

1. My drugs of choice in descending order are; Crack, Heroin, ICE, Valium, Diazapam, Temazapam.

2. I can get any of these drugs, 24hrs a day, within 500 metres of my front door.

3. I earn my money by fair means or foul, but I am not interested in a regular job because

a. it wouldn't cover the cost of my drug habit and

b. my lifestyle is already a full time occupation.

4. My dealers have guns and other means of protection to stop people trying to steal the supply they know they have.

3. If I am short of money my dealers will give me drugs on credit or trade them for stolen goods.

4. it is only the threat of death that makes me repay my debt to the dealers.

5. the only thing that will ever stop me taking drugs is death.

6. Hard drugs of the highest purity are the only ones that interest me.

7. Prison is an occupatiuonal hazard but drugs are widely available on the inside.

So are they going to decriminalize drugs to the point where all the above criterea are met?

If the answer is not 100% yes, then a black market and criminal activity will continue.

If the drug of choice is crack and the lifestyle choice is criminality,

how is decriminalization going to change these choices for many drug takers?

[bernie66]

how is decriminalization going to change these choices for many drug takers?

Well friend, decriminalization will lower the monetary value of it to such a great extent that Steve the peddler would not be able to turn a profit. Bernie would not buy crack from Steve because Bernie would have a key of coke in his refrigerator. And it would probably last him over a year because Bernie , being the majority of users, has a job and no time to stay high all day. Steve on a peddler level would run out of such a demand that he would have to get a job to eat not being able to turn small amounts of coke into large amounts of crack that supports him so well. Thus leaving a stalemate at the addicted level because the majority are moderate users only scoring for a party or holiday get-together with family or friends. It would leave importers with a dilemma as well. they would have to import such huge quantities to pay for transport that it would leave them exposed to be easily found by customs at every embarkation point. lets say at a %400 percent tax that could pay for real social problems like job programs or to fight Muslim extremist. he he he. And remember carrying guns, extortion, murder, racketeering, and robbery are still illegal protecting poor Steve from his neighbors. But now we can just call the crimes what they are. And now we can pay the police take care of these crimes instead of watching them happen so that their undercover drug operation isn’t uncovered. The only problem I see worst than what we already have is that people are going to have to actually commit a crime to be arrested. A reformed addict will be able to get a good paying job because he doesn’t have a list of felonies on his record or doing more time in prison than the murderers, rapists, and child molesters that are let out early to make room for Steve. I think if you sat down with Steve and have a beer in Amsterdam you might find out he ant such a bad guy after all. Or you might find out that the idiot would be addicted to coffee were it illegal.

[Robski]

Thanks Bernie thats a great reply.

A kilo of Coke in the fridge... mm.... that would be a crazy scenario if drugs were that cheap.

I think if you sat down with Steve and have a beer in Amsterdam you might find out he ant such a bad guy after all. Or you might find out that the idiot would be addicted to coffee were it illegal.

Yes that sentence sums it up very well, I've met many 'Steves' that fall into both catagories, the latter being not only unwilling, but incapable of changing the pattern of their life.