>

SNP - mad as a box of frogs

PerryGunn

Lifer
By the seaside...
Wee Krankie & The Inmates Running the Asylum said:
The SNP has backed decriminalising the possession and consumption of drugs.

At its conference in Aberdeen, a resolution was unanimously passed by delegates
branding current drug control legislation "not fit for purpose".

And they called for powers to be devolved to Holyrood to enable the
"decriminalisation of possession and consumption of controlled drugs".

Lot's of places are moving towards this for cannabis but they want to do it for all controlled drugs...

Hopefully they'll get the powers and a large proportion of the low-life scum that mug old ladies to pay for their smack habit will move North... the Law of Unintended Consequences is a real bitch...
 
One of the greatest unanswered questions, why are some drugs legal whilst others are not?

Nicotine, probably the most addictive drug known to man
Alcohol, causes more social problems than all others combined
 
sars said:
Alcohol, causes more social problems than all others combined
That's slightly distorted - in the same way that saying driving a family car is more dangerous than driving a racing car as more people die/have serious injuries driving family cars than driving racing cars

You should really look at a metric such as 'problems caused per 1000 users' (if such a metric existed)
 
"Low life scum that mug old ladies".
In a backwards story of way this sums it up nicely for me. Drugs aren't really the problem, it's the fact that they're illegal.
In more enlighten counties where they have decriminalised the so called harder drugs and spent a fraction of the money saved on actually supplying the drugs and helping people with their addiction, acquisitive crime and prison populations have fallen dramatically overnight.

People are then able to address their addiction and social issues instead of spending every waking minute thinking about obtaining the funds for their next fix and mugging old ladies.

Studies also suggest that the only common illicit drug that's any more addictive than alcohol or gambling, with an incident rate of 10% of users, is heroin at 25%. Personality trait rather than drug trait.

Sorry, bit of a rant but really gets my goat. The government sacked its drug tzar for recommending what the science and research indicates in favour of a Daily Mail 'War on Drugs' style approach they've been losing for decades at the cost of lives and monstrous amounts of tax payer money.
 
Jamie25 said:
"Low life scum that mug old ladies".
In a backwards story of way this sums it up nicely for me. Drugs aren't really the problem, it's the fact that they're illegal.
In more enlighten counties where they have decriminalised the so called harder drugs and spent a fraction of the money saved on actually supplying the drugs and helping people with their addiction, acquisitive crime and prison populations have fallen dramatically overnight.

People are then able to address their addiction and social issues instead of spending every waking minute thinking about obtaining the funds for their next fix and mugging old ladies.

Studies also suggest that the only common illicit drug that's any more addictive than alcohol or gambling, with an incident rate of 10% of users, is heroin at 25%. Personality trait rather than drug trait.

Sorry, bit of a rant but really gets my goat. The government sacked its drug tzar for recommending what the science and research indicates in favour of a Daily Mail 'War on Drugs' style approach they've been losing for decades at the cost of lives and monstrous amounts of tax payer money.

Bit naive though if you don't mind me saying...

Suddenly legalising hard drugs won't turn addicts into productive members of society will it? Yes I get the argument that a (possibly large) proportion of the money spent criminalising these people can be used to beef up the help and welfare systems (that already exist) for helping addicts - assuming they want to get off the stuff in the first place. The logical conclusion of legalising class A drugs is that it becomes a taxable resource in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are taxed - but the legalised position of those commodities doesn't stop a massive problem with smuggling, tax evasion and criminal activity does it? So the reality will be that the majority will not see any drop in tax take due to the need to fund health and welfare programmes and the criminality will still continue. People at the bottom of the pile will be priced out of the legal market, so old ladies will still get mugged...
 
It all just sounds a bit mental. Basically they cant control the war on drugs and it costs too much trying, so make it legal.
Sounds great, so anything that costs too much to control just change the law and dont bother with it anymore hopefully the problem goes away.
Shame they couldnt do the same for speed limits.
 
z4pilot said:
Bit naive though if you don't mind me saying...

Suddenly legalising hard drugs won't turn addicts into productive members of society will it? Yes I get the argument that a (possibly large) proportion of the money spent criminalising these people can be used to beef up the help and welfare systems (that already exist) for helping addicts - assuming they want to get off the stuff in the first place. The logical conclusion of legalising class A drugs is that it becomes a taxable resource in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are taxed - but the legalised position of those commodities doesn't stop a massive problem with smuggling, tax evasion and criminal activity does it? So the reality will be that the majority will not see any drop in tax take due to the need to fund health and welfare programmes and the criminality will still continue. People at the bottom of the pile will be priced out of the legal market, so old ladies will still get mugged...

In the places where decriminalisation has been sucessfully introduced they've had clinics where addicts were actually supplied with the drugs and the treatment by the government, thereby removing any black market incentives and the possibility of the least fortunate having to revert to criminality, which is actually the destructive aspect of drugs.

Obviously long term addiction is destructive to one's health but if we continue to criminalise people instead of assisting them it's a vicious cycle that would be hard to escape.

In not suggesting that the aren't health issues associated, of course there are. But that's the point, it's a health and social issue.

But if you've an addiction and have already been criminalised for poor choices you've made, what incentive is there to change? Chances are you're surrounded by others in similar situations and you're situation is normalised.

As to comparisons of speeding, this can obviously lead to serious injury and death. But to a certain extent it's socially acceptable. I'm sure most Z4 drivers exceed the limit to a greater or lesser extent every day.
The latest government statistics show that over 9% of adults (16 to 59) have used illicit drugs in the last year and 5% in the last month.

Decriminalisation and supply was actually piloted in this county in the 80's in Liverpool with fantastic results. It was in the pipeline for national rollout but again we blindly followed the American lead and abandoned it.

Naive? That's all relative. But I did enjoying reading (amongst others) Good Cop, Bad War by Neil Woods. An ex police officer who spent many years under cover bringing down British drug related crime gangs. And now an advocate for legalisation. He very articulately takes apart a lot of the received wisdom about drugs and the war on them.
 
What Scotland does today, England will do in 3 years time. It has always been that way with major issues.
 
BeeEmm said:
What Scotland does today, England will do in 3 years time. It has always been that way with major issues.

If I only that were true. Surely we would've voted to remain! :poke: :poke:
 
Jamie25 said:
z4pilot said:
Bit naive though if you don't mind me saying...

Suddenly legalising hard drugs won't turn addicts into productive members of society will it? Yes I get the argument that a (possibly large) proportion of the money spent criminalising these people can be used to beef up the help and welfare systems (that already exist) for helping addicts - assuming they want to get off the stuff in the first place. The logical conclusion of legalising class A drugs is that it becomes a taxable resource in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are taxed - but the legalised position of those commodities doesn't stop a massive problem with smuggling, tax evasion and criminal activity does it? So the reality will be that the majority will not see any drop in tax take due to the need to fund health and welfare programmes and the criminality will still continue. People at the bottom of the pile will be priced out of the legal market, so old ladies will still get mugged...

In the places where decriminalisation has been sucessfully introduced they've had clinics where addicts were actually supplied with the drugs and the treatment by the government, thereby removing any black market incentives and the possibility of the least fortunate having to revert to criminality, which is actually the destructive aspect of drugs.

Obviously long term addiction is destructive to one's health but if we continue to criminalise people instead of assisting them it's a vicious cycle that would be hard to escape.

In not suggesting that the aren't health issues associated, of course there are. But that's the point, it's a health and social issue.

But if you've an addiction and have already been criminalised for poor choices you've made, what incentive is there to change? Chances are you're surrounded by others in similar situations and you're situation is normalised.

As to comparisons of speeding, this can obviously lead to serious injury and death. But to a certain extent it's socially acceptable. I'm sure most Z4 drivers exceed the limit to a greater or lesser extent every day.
The latest government statistics show that over 9% of adults (16 to 59) have used illicit drugs in the last year and 5% in the last month.

Decriminalisation and supply was actually piloted in this county in the 80's in Liverpool with fantastic results. It was in the pipeline for national rollout but again we blindly followed the American lead and abandoned it.

Naive? That's all relative. But I did enjoying reading (amongst others) Good Cop, Bad War by Neil Woods. An ex police officer who spent many years under cover bringing down British drug related crime gangs. And now an advocate for legalisation. He very articulately takes apart a lot of the received wisdom about drugs and the war on them.

It’s a complex socio-economic problem for sure and there are no easy answers. My view is that decriminalisation would be much like squeezing a balloon filled with water - squeeze one end and the excess water re-appears further along. Legalising hard drugs might well be an answer for some trapped by the current system, but would create problems for society elsewhere. If alcohol and cigarettes were invented tomorrow, would we legalise them knowing what we now know? Unlikely, so why would we legalise something with far more capacity to do harm to health and social fabric?

If people really want help to get off drugs and serious addiction - the help is there for them. I’m not saying we shouldn’t put more money and resource into such schemes, but it is there now for the most desperate. Even (and especially) if you are criminalised and end up in jail, there are programmes to get you clean, and I’m sure there are many successes - but others choose to have drones fly them the stuff in… Not everyone is crying for help and not everyone wants to be a productive member of society.

So for me, the carrot and stick approach we currently have is probably the best compromise. If you want help, hold your hand up and as a caring, enlightened society we should make that help available as best we can - otherwise you’re choosing a game of risk and consequence and take responsibility for your own choices.
 
The help is there, but in very limited form. Just like help is available for those who suffer mental health issues, but for any who've been unfortunate enough to have to use that help, it's woefully under funded.

As to the harm caused by drugs, what is that exactly, save those created thorough drugs being illegal. You mentioned carrot and stick. The issue is that with the current system there really is no carrot or stick. Yes the law is a stick for some, but not for a good proportion of the population who routinely use recreational drugs and for those with an addiction and/or any convictions, what deterant is there.

As you say, a very complicated issue with no right or wrong answer. But if we've been trying to tackle the issue in the same way for over fifty years and the situation hasn't improved, is it sensible to continue with the same approach which all evidence suggests has never worked. Or is it time to try a new approach that the available evidence shows has worked.

I think people will always want to take drugs. Should that fact make them criminals? Hmmm. Complicated.
 
Other European countries did this years ago .......... end result is number of users and abusers has dropped through the floor and street prices for drugs is next to nothing, making it unattractive to Drug Lords .....
 
Back
Top Bottom