The Grumpy Old Git thread.

[FamilyWiggs]

I am a libertarian at heart, and within braod parameters don't beleive it is the role of the state to tell me what I can or can't do to myself - provided I am able to make an informed decision.

On that basis I agree with Gareth et al on decriminalisation. Combining that principled stance with a regulated supply of drugs would mean that the huge sums of money spent on "managing" the crimewave associated with the artificial price premium created by the illegal nature drugs (and those sums include everything from customs to police to insurance costs) could instead be spent of proper education, prevention and treatment measures for addicts, other public expenditure, or returned to the taxpayer. I have seen economic analyses that indicate the savings to the public purse would be very significant.

Of course no one is brave enough to take this step, so we have no idea if the analyses are accurate.

On the subject of inconsistency in drugs policy, alcohol is a far far more damaging drug in far greater numbers than other illegal recreational drugs. The health burden created by alcohol use (both binge and long term use) and the societal cost of acohol use/misuse/abuse is staggering. Just ask your GP/social worker/pastor or counsellor.

I love the occasional drink, but am under no illusion how iniquitous a substance it is.

 

[LadyArowana]

I think everyone is missing the point completely. Chocolate is much better than anything else.

 

[robgil]

the government must have some agenda which benefits them to keep drugs illegal , votes perhaps? revenue from alcohol?
when they ignore their appointed advisor's then sack them for not telling them what they want to hear you have to ask why.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm

 

[robgil]

I think everyone is missing the point completely. Chocolate is much better than anything else.

oooh look here , but make sure you have some chocolate at hand. :wink:
i have a bar of lindt 90% cocoa to try , yummy.

http://www.allchocolate.com/enjoying/intro_to_chocolate/conducting_session.aspx


http://www.allchocolate.com/enjoying/intro_to_chocolate/

 

[Flyfisher]

the government must have some agenda which benefits them to keep drugs illegal , votes perhaps? revenue from alcohol?
when they ignore their appointed advisor's then sack them for not telling them what they want to hear you have to ask why.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm

Yes, I remember that story now - wish I'd remembered it earlier. A good example of there being a 'no debate' mindset on drugs.

I can't see how revenue could be a reason for not legalising drugs though because the government would surely tax them, plus there'd be the savings that FW mentioned. As for votes, that would be interesting to know. Would 'middle England' really be up in arms about it?

 

[Flyfisher]

I think everyone is missing the point completely. Chocolate is much better than anything else.

Indeed. It certainly hits the same brain receptors as many psychoactive drugs, especially, it would seem, among the ladies.
http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223%2899%2900307-7/abstract

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1pg1zpNgB0

 

[robgil]

the government must have some agenda which benefits them to keep drugs illegal , votes perhaps? revenue from alcohol?
when they ignore their appointed advisor's then sack them for not telling them what they want to hear you have to ask why.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm

Yes, I remember that story now - wish I'd remembered it earlier. A good example of there being a 'no debate' mindset on drugs.

I can't see how revenue could be a reason for not legalising drugs though because the government would surely tax them, plus there'd be the savings that FW mentioned. As for votes, that would be interesting to know. Would 'middle England' really be up in arms about it?

well look at all the pubs that would not do so well if every body stayed in with a dooby , popcorn and a cheech and chong movie, that is a long shot though i know.
i would say that votes have a lot to do with it , usually nearing election time someone will 'get hard on drugs' and 'no tolerance' will be involved somewhere , makes them look like they are trying to do something for the good of the people. i would love to know the percentage of voters who use recreational drugs , would it be more or less than the none voters who use recreational drugs. or in a round about way do users vote , if not then they are an easy target.

 

[JoceAndChris]

There could be a relaxation towards cannabis in our lifetimes. But the legalisation of potentially dangerous drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, could never happen with the current political zeitgeist - this welfare state won't even let you do your own wiring, never mind blowing your mind on that stuff.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

If we were being consistent, either alcohol, tobacco and caffiene should all be banned, or all recreational drugs legalised.

Absolutely, but you answered your own point with "If we were being consistent.

Joce's point about drugs being addictive and killing people would be a fairer point if it wasn't for the fact that the quality of illegal drugs is a complete unknown and they are frequently 'cut' with all sorts of nasty things. Then people can overdose when an unexpectedly pure batch appears. Many illegal drugs have perfectly sound clinical uses, but such preparations are of pharmaceutical grade of course. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known to man but, being legal, its availability isn't a problem so it doesn't drive people to antisocial behaviour and is therefore quite manageable.

You wait to see me when they ban smoking (about ten years, I reckon, then you'll see some antisocial behaviour). Mind you, I only started in my late 20s so I'd have a vice to give up, as opposed to all the others I'm not going to quit...

 

[Flyfisher]

But the legalisation of potentially dangerous drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, could never happen with the current political zeitgeist - this welfare state won't even let you do your own wiring, never mind blowing your mind on that stuff.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Yes, when you put it like that I'd have to agree!

 

[philpjuk100]

But the legalisation of potentially dangerous drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, could never happen with the current political zeitgeist - this welfare state won't even let you do your own wiring, never mind blowing your mind on that stuff.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Yes, when you put it like that I'd have to agree!

If the government leagalised them they could tax them! tax on booze,fags and fuel are criminal,why should the government make more from them than the manufacturers?If the tax had been levied in one lump there would have been uproar,but it has been creeping up budget after budget.Have you ever tried to calculate your overall tax? You are taxed when you earn it and you are taxed when you spend it! and if you save it then that is taxed as well! rant over!
if you drive a car, car - I’ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit - I’ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold - I’ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk - I'll tax your feet

 

[Moo]

heroin addicts ... are just people with an illness

... like stroke victims, or arhritics... ?

no , we dont brush stroke victims under the carpet and pretend they dont exist

The point I was trying to make is that arthritics et al have not made a lifestyle choice in the face of much-publicised warnings.
However, I agree that it is unfair that heavy drinkers and smokers get their livers and lungs seen to on the NHS as a matter of course.

 

[Penners]

The point I was trying to make is that arthritics et al have not made a lifestyle choice in the face of much-publicised warnings.

Well said, madam.

 

[jocelyn plummer]

as opposed to all the others I'm not going to quit...

Neither am I Gareth, but I don't puff away anywhere except at home--silly really I should be able to quit if I can stay with and visit friends who are non smokers without even giving it a thought.

However, to add to grumpy old git theme it did annoy me when people lit up at the various mess dos that I had to attend with OH, absolutely no consideration for ones ball gown.

 

[LadyArowana]

Neither am I Gareth, but I don't puff away anywhere except at home--silly really I should be able to quit if I can stay with and visit friends who are non smokers without even giving it a thought.

Promise yourself a nice treat with the money saved as an incentive, no patio heaters or plastic windows allowed though.

 

[robgil]

The point I was trying to make is that arthritics et al have not made a lifestyle choice in the face of much-publicised warnings.
However, I agree that it is unfair that heavy drinkers and smokers get their livers and lungs seen to on the NHS as a matter of course.

i couldn't agree more , and to be fair there are more public warnings about cholesterol than there are about drug addiction. I dont think heroine addicts make a concious decision one day and decide ''i know , i am going to become a heroin addict and lead a life of crime'' just as smokers dont decide one day ''i know , i am going to become a nicotine addict and quite possibly become a strain on the NHS''.
i dont know why someone would take heroine , peer group pressure perhaps? lack of drug awareness? i certainly wouldn't go down that road but normal , every day people do for some reason.
but i suppose when you have people like Pete Doherty who go to court on drug charges and get caught with a pocket full of heroin in the court then walk free there is not many examples out there to deter people, and for a while it was cool to go to rehab , apparently.

 

[Penners]

Neither am I Gareth, but I don't puff away anywhere except at home--silly really I should be able to quit if I can stay with and visit friends who are non smokers without even giving it a thought.

Promise yourself a nice treat with the money saved as an incentive

A new ball gown, perhaps, in time for Joce's party?

Nothing too formal, mind...

 

[robgil]

thats a strange dress , who would design a dress specifically for some one who has no arms or legs?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

However, I agree that it is unfair that....smokers get their.... lungs seen to on the NHS as a matter of course.

The tax revenue from smokers far outweighs the cost of the associated health burden - at least it used to.- and thanks to the increases in young women taking up smoking we're likely to be quids in for some time to come.

Smoking is like playing Russian Roulette with 3 loaded chambers - if you smoke, there is a 50% chance that your cause of death will be directly attributable to your smoking. It is also likely to be a more debilitating and protracted cause of death (COPD, cancer, CV disease, etc etc) than otherwise.

But, and with all respect to smokers, it is an informed choice and many smokers derive significant pleasure from it. Long should they be able to continue to do so when and where it does not affect the health of non-smokers.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Smoking is so elegant, I've always had a sneaking admiration. The jackets, the holders, the kiss shape of the lips- oh!