Six Scotland Yard officers are accused of 'waterboarding' drug suspects

[Andy]

Drug classification needs a serious rethink and it should also stop waffling around with the tobacco/alcohol debate and add those to seriously dangerous.

The home office always trys to portrait that all drugs are bad yet on average more people die from pain killers than MDMA each year, they they still class it as a Grade A substance dispite calls from their own researchers calling for it to be changed.

Peoples opinions on drugs are always warped from the media and I find it funny that people would condone legalising heroin/cocaine etc as that is just stupid.

KaHn

Agreed, and i would like to say anything physiclly addictive should be illegalised and the rest legalised, but as we have seen with cocaine, the quality will decrease in correlation with supply.

The law, not dealers or users are making drugs more dangerous than the media make out

 

[Slogan]

Theft, murder, rape, vandalism, fraud, gordon brown etc, you know one of those crimes where there's an actual victim, not someone getting high at the weekend and not hurting anyone else but themselves.

Apart from when it all goes wrong and next thing you know they're making use of essential emergency services, which could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Andy]

Drug classification needs a serious rethink and it should also stop waffling around with the tobacco/alcohol debate and add those to seriously dangerous.

The home office always trys to portrait that all drugs are bad yet on average more people die from pain killers than MDMA each year, they they still class it as a Grade A substance dispite calls from their own researchers calling for it to be changed.

Peoples opinions on drugs are always warped from the media and I find it funny that people would condone legalising heroin/cocaine etc as that is just stupid.

KaHn

They actually did a trial in London where H addicts were given a constant clean supply of heroin. Statistically, crime and unemployment went down for these people. They stopped scrounging for thier gear and actually got on with their lives. In the end, most people in the trial came off the stuff as they had their lives back on track.
I think you would be surprised how many addicts actually want to spend their lives monged out on smack.

 

[Moley]

They're not just making it up to big themselves up.

"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."

How can the profit from sales be classified as a "harm" caused by class A drugs?

The crimes that addicts commit, damage caused to life and communities and costs to addicts health - yes, all understandable and quantifiable.

But the profit being measured as "damage" is wrong - its not damage as such, its motivation to commit the crime and if you take into account the money being spent and put back into the economy then it potentially has a beneficial effect - as money being spent tends to do.

Typical government spin.

 

[Malakite]

I don’t know weather or not to laugh or cry at this comment. How do you think the serious and organised crime organisations make most of their money? Criminality is funded in large by the illegal drug trade.

Well the isn't that an argument for legalisation, it it was government supplied wouldnt all these organised gangs have a huge decrease in revenue? Being unable to supply drugs at the current prices and level would limit their income and the effectivness of the gang would it not?

 

[platypus]

Well the isn't that an argument for legalisation, it it was government supplied wouldnt all these organised gangs have a huge decrease in revenue? Being unable to supply drugs at the current prices and level would limit their income and the effectivness of the gang would it not?

They'd just go legit and start bulk retailing to governments.

 

[Energize]

Well, some drug users also commit crimes that have victims in order to feed their habits. When my wife was still at university she was doing some revision in her house and a drug addict broke in, she was able to get out but he messed up the police officer that went in to apprehend him quite badly.

That's the problem that drugs being illegal causes, people can't go to a doctor and get help without fear of being arrested.

Everyone says that when they want to do something illegal, be it a traffic offence, drugs, or anything else.

It's as much a stupid comment then as it is now.

That's a nice association fallacy there, sometimes people just don't want something to be illegal because of valid reasons, like lack of an actual victim.

It's not the recreational drug users that are the problem is it. Jesus.

Then why go after them?

Apart from when it all goes wrong and next thing you know they're making use of essential emergency services, which could be better spent elsewhere.

You mean like smoking and alcohol? Drugs which bring in more money than they cost? The same argument can be made against sports injuries, if you force people to pay for something, don't complain when they use it.

 

[aayzof]

How can the profit from sales be classified as a "harm" caused by class A drugs?

The crimes that addicts commit, damage caused to life and communities and costs to addicts health - yes, all understandable and quantifiable.

But the profit being measured as "damage" is wrong - its not damage as such, its motivation to commit the crime and if you take into account the money being spent and put back into the economy then it potentially has a beneficial effect - as money being spent tends to do.

Typical government spin.

I think that they're arguing that the money people spend on drugs, illegally, is damaging because that money, if it weren't spent on drugs, would be fed into the legitimate economy. When it goes to dealers they reinvest in more drugs and the cycle continues etc.

 

[Slogan]

You mean like smoking and alcohol?

Exactly. But at least the tax in alcohol and cigarettes is contributing in some way towards their potential medical treatment. Unlike drugs.

 

[Energize]

Exactly. But at least the tax in alcohol and cigarettes is contributing in some way towards their potential medical treatment. Unlike drugs.

Which is a reason to legalise them. There would be a huge cash influx into the nhs.

 

[Glaucus]

I just wish the police would spend their time stopping real crime instead of drug use.

and drugs don't lead to crime like theft and murder, gang wars and other such things..
Sorry drugs do cause serious crime. What they should stop worrying about and tbh they don't is small quantities of weed and other non addictive drugs.

 

[GSDog]

I just wish the police would spend their time stopping real crime instead of drug use.

Speak for yourself. Drug use leads to more serious crime, you should know that. If the police stopped spending their time targeting drug users and dealers I can almost guarantee you there would be an increase in overall crime.
I don't fancy walking through piles of infected needles on the streets either.

Theft, murder, rape, vandalism, fraud, gordon brown etc, you know one of those crimes where there's an actual victim, not someone getting high at the weekend and not hurting anyone else but themselves.

So you think there are no victims of drug use?

 

[Energize]

and drugs don't lead to crime like theft and murder, gang wars and other such things..
Sorry drugs do cause serious crime. What they should stop worrying about and tbh they don't is small quantities of weed and other non addictive drugs.

It causes crime because it's illegal, if drugs were legal all the gang related drug crime would stop.

So you think there are no victims of drug use?

No I never said that, there are victims of many things, like alcohol and cars, doesn't mean they should be illegal though.

 

[Glaucus]

It causes crime because it's illegal, if drugs were legal all the gang related drug crime would be out of money.

Not that simple. addictive drugs will still cause all the crime. You will still have theft and murder.

There is case for legalising some drugs like weed, but certainly not all of them.If you think legalising drugs would stop the crime you are very mistaken.

 

[Energize]

Not that simple. addictive drugs will still cause all the crime. You will still have theft and murder.

Theft wouldn't happen because drug programs would provide addicts with free drugs, it's been shown to be successful in many countries.

 

[Glaucus]

Brilliant idea, let people get addicted, destroy their lives then give them free drugs. That is insane. Some drugs are highly addictive.

drug programs have been shown to work. But I bet you can't find a study that combines legalising it and free drug support combined.

 

[Slogan]

Which is a reason to legalise them. There would be a huge cash influx into the nhs.

Legalising another form of addiction isn't really smart. We all know what different kinds of things come from use of cigarettes and drink. The former is directly and indirectly health related and the latter obviously has strong ties to murder via drink-driving.

The introduction of widely available drugs opens another addiction, another thing for people to get a hold of at any cost (i.e crime) and another thing that people will take irresponsibly (i.e believe their car will grow wings and not kill the person approaching their bonnet at a rapid speed).

The percentage of accident-related drivers found with drugs in their system is pretty high over here in Northern Ireland and that's without it being legalised. That obviously increases with legalisation.

I personally haven't tried any form of illegal drug. That probably makes me uncool and 'a bit of a square' but I can understand why it is illegal. I think smoking and drinking would probably be illegal if our health research was as good as it is now but I imagine the two of them are a lot more deeply rooted in history than the availability of illegal drugs - hence why they would be very hard to phase out.

Smoking has been phasing out with the public ban and you can't miss a 'stop smoking' advert at most times during the day.

Working hard to phase smoking out and then introducing drugs, which can be taken through smoking, doesn't make sense.

 

[Energize]

Brilliant idea, let people get addicted, destroy their lives then give them free drugs.

The fact is that already happens, the polices efforts are having no effect. Legalising drugs is the way to reduce harm from current levels where people end up overdosing because of unregulated illegal drugs.

 

[Moley]

But I bet you can't find a study that combines legalising it and free drug support combined.

Just because it hasn't been tried yet doesn't mean it's a bad idea....

 

[Glaucus]

Just because it hasn't been tried yet doesn't mean it's a bad idea....

No it's a bad idea because it's a terrible idea which wont work.

The fact is that already happens, the polices efforts are having no effect. Legalising drugs is the way to reduce harm from current levels where people end up overdosing because of unregulated illegal drugs.

And although I agree that the risk is higher due to it being illegal and you don't have any idea what it is cut with. It is not a valid argument for it being legalised. Addictive drugs are still addictive. Those addicted to it will still commit crimes to fund their drugs. It will still wreck many peoples lives, kill people and/or make some people mentally ill.