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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
What do you mean 'this'?
emmm........ planes, the economy, fricking aliens....... what do you mean 'this' errr drugs perhaps and the whole argument you have been throwing back at me about drink...... catch up mate.....
I just think its important to get a background about people before i start smashing their arguments to the ground without hurting their feelings
I am kidding by the way........lol
I just wasn't sure whether you meant specifically drink, or more generally the 'drugs' issue.
The general view of alcohol in the UK upsets me because it is so damaging yet treated so lightly, and given it costs us £20bn a year you'd think we might be doing more to stem the problem.
As to the 'drugs' issue, its interesting, there isnt much more to it than that, it is a topic which over laps many specialist fields, law, chemistry, socialogy, criminality.....etc. That and I know and see what the drug laws do and think them hugely damaging.
I would like to direct your attention to this page, particularly the bottom section which displays all recorded deaths related to all drugs in England & Wales during 2003 (the most up to date stats i could find at present). They refer to (as you described) deaths in which various substances were listed as being at poisonous levels on the death certificates. This includes anti-depressants and painkillers, not just 'recreational' substances.
Consider this against the position of The Office of national statistics who report that during the period alcohol related deaths where more than three times that of all of the above substances. These are deaths which are directly attributable to the presence of alcohol, and do not include indirect factors such as alcohol fuelled violence.
When you talk about 'drugs' as an umbrella term you are identifing a range of differing substances with markedly different effects and health implications. It is not really helpful to compare the two, because factors which influence deaths can include all kinds of variables;
*Poly-drug use(this includes alcohol; does mixing one or more substances make the other inherently more dangerous in isolation?
*Underlying health problems.
*Usage patterns (is it the drugs people use or the way people use drugs?)
My point is that it is an extremely complex arguement, and discussing drugs as an umbrella term vs something singular like alcohol isnt perhaps the best way of approaching this.
But, how alcohol is used and regulated is a useful yard stick to compare with the treatment of recreational drugs.
My point was more related to Cherry's approach tbh which seemed to make a value judgement based upon the idea that one is illegal and one is not.
Oh certainly, the law is entirely secondary to the discussion about an individual drug. Except of course when discussing the dangers to users because the nature of the law makes the dangers higher.
You are completely right, i was just throwing my view out there when i dont know the statisics, although saying that i have no need to know them or look for them, After all I am no Politician
My point about drugs being illegal was based upon that fact of why the media make such a big thing out of it as opposed to drink. If something has that stigmata against it i.e. being illegal then it is worse according to the law........ it is not??
:eek:
oh also
...I am probably completely missing the point here cos i didn't read everything, but ure saying if you don't take drugs you are naiive lol? ok ...
I don't take drugs (apart from alc) but i don't mind people that do ... makes no difference to me, and i know the media has messed up most peoples views on them...having said that I did actualy hear about some bad motivational problems in later life after a lot of recreational drug use, probs just a load of crap though. Still ...drugs can fuck you up, people can't argue that they are almost totally safe, if they were then they would be legalised seeing as the government could make a ton off taxing them.
hehe this probably looks really out of context but oh well, shoudl have read the lot.
It's worth noting that there would be undeniable benefits to the public health from legalising certain drugs, like cannabis and heroin, and people with significant influence already prosper from the illegal market.
Actually thinking back about tax ... I guess dealers would still undercut the places selling drugs legally but it could still gain a lot of revenue. I;m sure the NHS would have a lot more to do though.
One of the main arguements here is that alcohol causes way more deaths/problems right?? Well is that not just because drugs are less readily available? Like if you could go down to tesco's and buy some heroiin im sure there would be a lot more fucked up people!! E.g. i have smoked weed a few times, i didn;t mind it, and if it was available as easily as alcohol then I probably would do more...I'm sure theres a lot of people like that, so if things became more available then there would be a lot more (imo more severe) problems like the alcohol ones (not so much wiht cannabis). :chin: :chin:
oh and btw ...you say people aren;t open to debate, just because people dont choose to take drugs doesn;t mean theyre against people that do ..I personally just dont feel the want/need to. If someone started talking about doing them then I wouldnt be shocked or uncomfortable either.
No, cannabis is not available for medical use at all, synthetic versions of one of the active drugs in cannabis is being tried, but that is quite different.
Heroin is technically available on prescription, but its incredibly hard to get a licence to do so, so in reality its not.
No one is suggesting that heroin be sold in Tesco's, its a medicine and should be treated as such.
What would be the problem of you smoking cannabis?
Most people if they want drugs can buy them, people choose not to use drugs like crack and heroin not because they are illegal but because they really dont fancy them.
Very few, it may put off some recreational users but for those who have serious problems with drugs the law is no deterant at all.
The law is far more likely to put of occasional recreational users than other groups.
You are right though, there are also people who make some sort of moral judgement on drugs purely because of their illegality, such as The Church, what they base this on I'm not quite sure.
I guess thats a left over from the days when Chruch and State were much closer.
For the record if you had read the thread, I do dabble in drugs, mainly coke and pills, and of course you are naive if you have never taken drugs...... as if this is the case, you wouldn't know what it felt like would you??...... who are people to judge when they have never tried something....... its like saying you don't like a certain type of food and yet you havent tasted it.....
Back to the main topic of this thread, I know plenty of non drug users that would quite happlily debate the use of drugs so i guess it just comes down to the people you associate yourself with....
There is some logic in this argument, but it only goes so far, I dont have to take PCP to know that its probably not a good drug for people to use.
Those making policy choices should not be either the heavy users or the arch prohibitionist but those who can look at all the evidence objectively.
You make a valid point, however if two people are having a debate, one a drug user and one not, who hasnt tried drugs, yes you can look at all the facts and satistics..........and be all logical about it but still they would be basing their arguments on textbook information as opposed to experience and to me the latter is more significant in life.....
Not always, drug use by its very nature is subjective, your experience of a drug is different from everyone elses, so basing an opinion on purely your own experience is sometimes misleading.
lol the way i am going on, you would think i was a hard core addict! i really dont even do it that much! he he
I wonder what Professor John Henry would have to say about that. :chin:
A scientific analysis can be made and annecdotal evidence does have its place in the examination of anything, but as bong said it is a highly subjective experience and any resulting conclusions or observations draw from in it will in turn be subject to value judgements on the part of the observer.
I would suggest that Shulgin would agree with them too, and who are we to argue with the great man?
However, it is a balance, Shulgin doesnt just wander off to the local rave and neck beans, its a little more complex than that and he also reads around a lot too.
If given the choice between two indentical policy makers one who has used and one who hasnt, I would pick the one who had used, but other factors would be more important.
He he that was quality
lol not sure if i entirely 'agree' with everything but it was very funny. :thumb:
but they wouldn't be identical then would they...
quite an interesting thread
i think to say that, unless you have tried something you have no understanding of it, is very naive.
I have never used crack, but having spent time with people who have i have an understanding of it, which is enough to base most of my subjectivly objective decisions about crack on.
I remember several occasions when "anti" drug posters have posted here and have ended up being "ganged up on" and flamed (rightly or wrongly).
going back to the original post; in my experience and in my opinion, people are scared of illegal drugs and the illegal drug culture due to the common portrayal (media/schools/ect) of them - this will cloud any judgement they might make. Also, non-drug users tend not to see the hypocrisy of saying legal drugs are ok and illegal ones aren't.
I'd definately agree with both those points, its a shame that the anti-drugs posters dont stick around for longer, they are interesting.