If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Come on, you think it's acceptable to just butt into a thread and start telling people to piss off?
And I'd side with the drugs workers and health professionals if I believed the solution to problem drug use was as simple as providing drugs to those who wanted them. Problem drug use is linked to social issues such that it makes it a more complex issue. We don't issue suicidal people with lethal injections because that would be a better way to go than throwing themselves under a Tube train.
If drugs were freely available, we would have to accept that the government would be licencing the sale of substances harmful to health in a society which is becoming so anti-smoking and anti-binge drinking that it would make that position paradoxical.
Bans on smoking already in most workplaces and public buildings, health warnings covering half the packets, above inflation tax increases, bans on certain advertisements etc. Yes they get a lot of tax off smokers, but you can hardly say that they encourage smoking.
Alcohol again is becoming the subject of the government's wrath with its health and social consequences.
You don't necessarily have to ban them to show your disapproval. It would not be practicable to ban them outright, but both are being brought to public attention more than ever before.
Its about a balance of harm though, a heroin addict needs heroin, is it better for him/her to get it from her GP or from her dealer?
But I dispute the assertion that a "heroin addict needs heroin". And now again we're getting to the difference between prescribing heroin as a form of rehab or maintenance, and blanket legalisation of drugs on the grounds of civil liberties.
It would be impractical to ban alcohol and tobacco.
I can see your point, why should the NHS pay for maintenance heroin if the person has no intentions of giving up. Its a dodgy moral question really, but again I look at it on the balance of harm, its not a great thing, but its better than the other option.
I'm not for the blanket legalisation of drugs by the way.
It would not be impractical- it would be an election loser. That is what this or any other government past or future cares about, and why it will not be banned.
And also because many MPs tend to be amongst the biggest pissheads in the land, of course. Perish the thought of banning something they enjoy.
But it could be banned without that much problem if they really wanted to- just as other things have been banned over the years.
btw kentish marijuana use over here is already a LOT more widespread than you prolly imagine, so where are all these people with problems?.........why isn't it reported in the news? we hear all the time about alcohol and fag-related problems, and they jump at the chance to demonise ecstasy e.g. leah betts............why would it be any different if it was legalised, cannabis use has actually decreased in amsterdam since decriminalisation (not counting the tourists obviously).........your argument does not counter or address these issues.
Not on that scale. But as MR has pointed out, they're already doing it with well established institutions such as fox hunting and hunts. They'd be a lot of resistance to a ban from those who profit from selling alcohol, but technically and logistically it could be done without that much trouble.
As I said, the only reason it doesn't get done (if the government really cared about harmful substances having a negative effect on society, that is) it's because it'd lose them an election and because MPs are the biggest users of the substance.
If you are arguing for the criminalisation of alcohol sale and supply, and the legalisation of cannabis then there is a paradox.
If you are arguing for the legalisation of cannabis on the basis that alcohol is worse, then your argument is self-defeating.
If that is the case, it should be the duty of the government to protect us from ALL harmful substances, regardless of whether they're currently legalised or not.
Opium used to be legal. Presumably they shouldn't have made it illegal...
yea but unlike alcohol, stimulants will eventually take it's toll and you'll quit on your own accord, you get physically addicted to alcohol, two different things altogether.
i still cannot work it out ...at the end of the day ...it's addiction.
most move on and do pack it in but ...you'll always have a hardcore who will use it forever.
have you personally got anything to lose if cannabis is legalised, seriously though, i know you might think so but you don't have everyone's best interests at heart, just because you believe that everyone should be healthy and because you personally find solice in health, doesn't mean we or anyone else does, there's something really dictorial aobut your thesis, i've mentioned choice before, we have the choice to do what we want, if we die x amount of years younger because of smoking then thats our loss, not yours. get it now......
you on about speed yea?, i know it gets to a point where you need it but you don't need need it if you know what i mean, i'm sure there are hardcore users who do it all their lives but again thats their choice, deep down they don't actually want to quit it, most reach a certain stage in their lives where they decide that although the drug has a hold, you need to let go, alcohol and heroin isn't like this imo.