Primetime Investigates - War Without End

Fourth Master: Growth Number of posts : 4226 Registration date : 2008-03-11

That's not a rant Hermes. That's an education.

It's what the thread was supposed to be about.

Thanks for that post Hermes. Superb post .

I never knew suicide was illegal. I knew it was Unholy alright...

FFS..what kind of mess have we got ourselves into ?

Guest

Audi wrote:: So you are totally in favour of liberalising access to and use of drugs
then? Isn't there more to the arguments against some drugs than the
individual danger aspect though Hermes ? I'm not very aware of the
arguments for or against it. Isn't there social problems, crime, family
difficulties - although the scale of similar issues associated with
alcohol could make cocaine etc. addiction look like a visit to Santa
Clause.

There's much more indeed. The social problems caused by drugs are incredible and heartbreaking. Families are quite literally torn apart. Kids end up living rough and are physically and sexually assaulted and exploited by others. Folks fail to take care of themselves, both from a health standpoint and from a cosmetic standpoint. And that's only pointing at the tip of the iceberg.

Do I still argue that all drugs should be decriminalised, in spite of knowing and understanding the above?

Yes, without hesitation or guilt. The tip of the iceberg I've described, exists despite the criminalisation of drugs. Until decriminalisation occurs, these problems will continue to be complexified beyond our ability to tackle and solve them. Drugs are very available and in my opinion, the mystical and forbidden aura surrounding them, thanks to criminalisation, serves to attract new users rather than act as a deterrent. Drugs have become a rite of passage in our society, thanks to criminalisation. Kids are marked for life as scum from very early on, long before hindsight and maturity have a part to play. If you're labelled as 'scum' early on in life, you won't be inclined to be an achiever and indeed your peers (us) have already defined the level of achievement that you will likely reach.

If we decriminalise, will we still have folks ruining their lives and the lives of others? Yes.

However, when this is all out in the open it will be easier to understand and to deal with. For example, we could deal with real crimes - rather than labelling a man as a 'druggie' and jailing him as a druggie, we could call him what he is based on his actual crimes: a complete and utterly bad bastard to his wife and kids (also by way of example) - we could jail him for that and we'd be getting closer to the heart of the matter. It's reasonable to assume (though to do so in some company, might lead to ostracization and ridicule, without a logical reason), that the problems with drugs would be no more severe than the problems surrounding the missuse of alcohol - I'm speaking generally, but if I were to be specific, I'd focus on kids and suggest that whilst the abuse of alcohol is deeply problematic, it doesn't have close to the same detrimental effect that illicit drugs are having presently. On top of this, if you were to criminalise alcohol you'd not begin to solve the problem, you'd exacerbate it. Take away the forbidden aura, the criminalisation, and you reduce the amount of kids that are being trapped and destroyed, and you facilitate the humane and considerate treatment of those who are trapped. Dirty little secrets tend to stay dirty little secrets until it's too late to prevent a trajedy. Indeed, decriminalise and you also take away the State's excuse that facilitates them doing little or nothing about the problems presently. But again, that's a whole new argument in itself. Drugs are a form of escapism, that's a truism. Moreso, and this isn't widely recognised: not only do drugs facilitate the escape from the drudgery that life sometimes coughs up, they facilitate the State escaping from its duty to care for, protect and even represent those that they are sworn to serve.

Guest

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:: That's not a rant Hermes. That's an education.

It's what the thread was supposed to be about.

Thanks for that post Hermes. Superb post .

I never knew suicide was illegal. I knew it was Unholy alright...

FFS..what kind of mess have we got ourselves into ?

Cheers, it's a subject that's been very close to my heart for a very long time and one rarely gets to argue such a delicate subject across the fence (as it were), without a major fight or flaming session ensuing. MN has rapidly turned into a very interesting and useful place.

Guest

Auditor wrote

Quote :: Now, cocaine and that stuff - narcotics. This is downright dangerous shite for once and for all. It's fine as long as you're not addicted and I believe it's very easy to get addicted - is this true ? It baffles me how apparently sophisticated people end up hooked on white powder - isn't awareness of the problems associated with narcotics or opiates or whatever they're called a bit more sophisticated than falling into a social trap of taking such hard recreational drugs ? How do people get educated on the dangerous simplicity involved in addicting yourself to cocaine ? (I'd have reservations about legalising it too but I think addicts should go nowhere near jails anyway )

I think there is great awareness of the problems associated with the use of heroin (opitates), but with cocaine it's a different story. Heroin is now associated with the junkie on the street, whereas I think most people see cocaine on tv and associate it with glamour so they think it's ok.

When I was around 16 or so I used to think cocaine was just as addictive as heroin. I was talking to my sister one day and she told me about herself and her friend doing cocaine on a number of occasions and I kind of though 'well if she's ok after doing it, it must not be so addictive', so I started taking it myself.
It wasn't until I got to around 23 or so that I started developing problems with it.

When I say I have reservations about legal cocaine I think I may have phrased it wrongly.
I absoloutely think it should be decriminalised and under no circumstances should someone be jailed just for possession, but I would worry about it being widely available and associated with the same amount of risk as say alcohol or cannabis. It is a very dangerous drug and one of the important things to remember is that someone can have a serious cocaine problem and those close to them can be oblivious. It's very easy to hide the effects of the drug, not like ecstasy where the person's pupils are huge and their jaw swings around the place, or cannabis which makes your eyes bloodshot.
The only thing really to look out for with cocaine is white powder around the nose and sniffles. After taking large amounts it can also affect your jaw but this is easy to hide.

Guest

AfricanDave wrote:: When I was around 16 or so I used to think cocaine was just as addictive as heroin. I was talking to my sister one day and she told me about herself and her friend doing cocaine on a number of occasions and I kind of though 'well if she's ok after doing it, it must not be so addictive', so I started taking it myself.
It wasn't until I got to around 23 or so that I started developing problems with it.

Problems ? Shocked

I once saw a Prime Time Special where people were injecting it (crack) into pustules on their legs Shocked

their legs were about to fall off but they wanted the hit but they didn't care as long as they got the hit... This was in Liverpool. What you are saying above - is cocaine NOT as addictive as heroin then ?

Guest

I would imagine it could be if you start injecting it, but snorting cocaine isn't as physically addictive as heroin.
The only real problem I had was in paying for it, but when you don't have the money that's a serious problem.
The problem with cocaine is that it's a very impulsive drug. Once you take it you want more and if someone offers you some and says you can pay next week you're bound to say ok.
This is where legalisation would be a big improvement because reputable outlets wouldn't give credit.
Then they wouldn't be able to make threats of physical violence in order to recoup their money.
Not that I've been threatened with physical violence.

Guest

AfricanDave wrote:

Lestat wrote:

AfricanDave wrote:

youngdan wrote:: What person under 50 has never done drugs.

Me. If you exclude alcohol.

Ibid.

Save for a very peculiar experience I once had, but I would not term it experimenting with drugs as such.

It seems, Lestat, that you have misquoted me.
I definitely didn't say this, as it's wrong on so many levels.
I don't drink.

Not my fault AfricanDave, I didn't write the post attributed to me above. I did say

Quote :: Me. If you exclude alcohol

but I was referring to myself as being an under 50s never a drug user.

Guest

Hermes wrote:: .... Drugs are very available and in my opinion, the mystical and forbidden aura surrounding them, thanks to criminalisation, serves to attract new users rather than act as a deterrent. ...

I disagree.

Alcohol and cigarettes are legally available but they still have that "mystical and forbidden aura surrounding them". And despite the fact that they are legally available, criminals still trade in both products.

Guest

Did anyone else see the little girl of 23 years dying of liver damage last night on Channel 4 news? Alcohol and tobacco are far more destructive than any other drugs we use and after that I guess cocaine, which is highly addictive and leads to a lot of violence and accidents.

Anyone want to compare levels of alcohol consumption with other substance abuse?

All we need now is for crack cocaine to be available and promoted in the same way as budweiser....

Rolling Eyes

Guest

Lestat wrote:: Alcohol and cigarettes are legally available but they still have that "mystical and forbidden aura surrounding them". And despite the fact that they are legally available, criminals still trade in both products.

A flimsy argument, Lestat. The illegal trade in alcohol is negligible. In cigarettes it's not negligible, but that's because the retail price is ridiculously high in places like Ireland. The legal retail price should be similar to the "street price".

I am of course in agreement with Hermes and other "Legalize It" people. And I mean legalize all the established drugs -- heroin, etc. -- though I'm not sure we know enough about the effects of ecstasy and newer synthetic drugs.

cactus flower wrote:: All we need now is for crack cocaine to be available and promoted in the same way as budweiser....

Ah, that's another key idea: No Advertising! Or any kind of commercial promotion. Just the facts about the products and their effects, from state-controlled information sources. No more Diageo sponsorship of GAA (what a disgrace that is!) or any of that.

It's related to the issue of education, which no one has highlighted here. Education of everyone about drugs, as well as alcohol and cigarettes, is essential. At the moment, the Government sort of pretends that drug-taking and drug-dealing are not happening -- it puts very little money and effort into educating young people about drugs. It's disastrous: for example, most people don't know how much cannabis affects your driving. With legalization, serious money would be put into drug education.

By the way, legalization should mean alcohol, cigarettes and drugs being freely available everywhere, to all adults, in state-controlled outlets.

I have spoken to cops in different countries. They all say the same thing: we're not winning The War On Drugs, and we'll never win it. But they will only say that in private. The chiefs of police, with rare exceptions, won't say it either.

As for politicians... Why is it seen as the political kiss of death to even raise the subject of legalizing drugs?

Is all this not so obvious?

Guest

What do we know about what works? I know that I have seen convincing evidence that price increases work best. So we would tax crack cocaine up to the hilt, and then find that there was a "street price" and back to the starting point?

- Education of the young?
- Keeping the price high - buying out the farmers ( I read that some Afghanistan farmers have switched crops since food prices have gone up)?
- Restricting the age of commencement of use?
- Restricting advertising?

That is easier said than done - cigarette firms use product placement very successfully - the advertising just gets more subtle.

Guest

soubresauts wrote:: A flimsy argument, Lestat. The illegal trade in alcohol is negligible. In cigarettes it's not negligible, but that's because the retail price is ridiculously high in places like Ireland. The legal retail price should be similar to the "street price".

Obviously it isn't that flimsy since you agree with it.

soubresauts wrote:: I am of course in agreement with Hermes and other "Legalize It" people. And I mean legalize all the established drugs -- heroin, etc. -- though I'm not sure we know enough about the effects of ecstasy and newer synthetic drugs.

But we know the effects of heroin and so on yet you want to trya nd make them socially acceptable.

soubresauts wrote:: Ah, that's another key idea: No Advertising! Or any kind of commercial promotion. Just the facts about the products and their effects, from state-controlled information sources. No more Diageo sponsorship of GAA (what a disgrace that is!) or any of that..

Yes because banning tobbacco advertising really worked. Only people bereft of ideas advocate banning advertising.

soubresauts wrote:: It's related to the issue of education, which no one has highlighted here. Education of everyone about drugs, as well as alcohol and cigarettes, is essential. ..

Eveybody knows drinking and smoking are bad for you yet even some health care professionals smoke and drink.

soubresauts wrote:: With legalization, serious money would be put into drug education...

Why would it? Serious money isn't put into tobbacco and alcohol education.

soubresauts wrote:: By the way, legalization should mean alcohol, cigarettes and drugs being freely available everywhere, to all adults, in state-controlled outlets....

Maybe, junkies, alcoholics and chain smokers could draw their dole in kind.

soubresauts wrote:: Is all this not so obvious?

It's obvious lunacy to me.

Guest

Lestat, I think you picked me up wrong on one or two points. Anyway, here's where we clearly disagree:

Lestat wrote:: But we know the effects of heroin and so on yet you want to trya nd make them socially acceptable.

I said nothing about "socially acceptable". I have little doubt (and some serious evidence) that some of the great and the good of Irish society use cocaine. And probably some are using heroin -- the consequences are not so obvious and not so serious when you're wealthy, eat well, and so on.

Lestat wrote:

soubresauts wrote:: Ah, that's another key idea: No Advertising! Or any kind of commercial promotion...

Yes because banning tobbacco advertising really worked. Only people bereft of ideas advocate banning advertising.

You seem to be disagreeing with me but I don't see your argument.

Quote :: Eveybody knows drinking and smoking are bad for you yet even some health care professionals smoke and drink.

So what? Can you not bear the thought of them smoking and drinking?

Lestat wrote:

soubresauts wrote:: With legalization, serious money would be put into drug education...

Why would it? Serious money isn't put into tobbacco and alcohol education.

Well, I don't have figures, but I'd say significantly more is spent educating people about tobacco and alcohol. I think it's fair to say that if drugs were legally available, the Depts of Education and Health couldn't turn such a blind eye to the effects on people.

Lestat wrote:

soubresauts wrote:: By the way, legalization should mean alcohol, cigarettes and drugs being freely available everywhere, to all adults, in state-controlled outlets....

Maybe, junkies, alcoholics and chain smokers could draw their dole in kind.

Why not?

Lestat wrote:

soubresauts wrote:: Is all this not so obvious?

It's obvious lunacy to me.

Really? Are you saying you prefer to have the drugs trade controlled by gangsters rather than by elected government?

Fourth Master: Growth Number of posts : 4226 Registration date : 2008-03-11

soubresauts wrote:: ...Are you saying you prefer to have the drugs trade controlled by gangsters rather than by elected government?

This is the question. Everything else is jibber-jabber until this question is answered. Comparisons and analogies with fags, booze, gambling or whatnot are sideshows to this question imho.

Sure, experiences learned from all that stuff will help in the implementation of policies etc. in this area. But they do not help either way in answering the question. Not that I can see anyway.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: What do we know about what works? I know that I have seen convincing evidence that price increases work best.

Price increases decrease consumption, generally. But we know that pricing legal drugs too high would bring us back to square one. Junkies will do just about anything for their fix. We don't want decreased consumption as a primary objective. Rather, we want people to make an informed, responsible choice about drugs. When people are happy, healthy and informed, what choice do you think they'll make? (Do you have faith in human nature?)

Quote :: So we would tax crack cocaine up to the hilt, and then find that there was a "street price" and back to the starting point?

You have grasped one of the problems. We wouldn't tax the drugs too much. Pricing them close to the street price would still ensure substantial state revenue -- funding for education, treatment of addicts, and so on.

Quote :: - Education of the young?

Essential.

Quote :: - Keeping the price high - buying out the farmers ( I read that some Afghanistan farmers have switched crops since food prices have gone up)?

Why shouldn't farmers in Afghanistan, Colombia, or wherever, grow what they know how to grow, or whatever they like? And why shouldn't we buy it from them if we want? Do you believe in free trade?

Quote :: - Restricting the age of commencement of use?

Of course.

Quote :: - Restricting advertising?

Totally.

Quote :: That is easier said than done - cigarette firms use product placement very successfully - the advertising just gets more subtle.

Yes, but I can't get too worked up about that. I really don't think that "subtle" product placement paid for by the (legal) heroin dealers -- in movies, etc. -- is going to trump pictures and videos of junkies, along with a blunt message ("This is what heroin will probably do to you..."), when the latter are properly funded by the state.

Guest

Lestat wrote:

Hermes wrote:: .... Drugs are very available and in my opinion, the mystical and
forbidden aura surrounding them, thanks to criminalisation, serves to
attract new users rather than act as a deterrent. ...

I disagree.

Alcohol and cigarettes are legally available but
they still have that "mystical and forbidden aura surrounding them".
And despite the fact that they are legally available, criminals still
trade in both products.

Criminals deal in most items that are legally available. There is a certain aura with regard to alcohol and cigarettes. That's why most kids try them out.

However, when you compare this 'aura' to the 'aura' associated with illicit drugs, you're comparing apples to oranges. In truth one would be better if one contrasted rather than compared. There's a big difference between receiving stolen goods or goods that have not been taxed sufficiently than criminally consuming a product that is banned outright. If your argument were to have merit, one would have to suggest that stolen milk would have the same forbidden aura and thus fascination for impressionable minds.

To move on somewhat:

Folks seem to be looking for a quick fix in relation to Ireland's drug problems. Alas this is the very same 'quick fix' that drug users crave. There is no quick fix. Many politicians use this fact to facilitate keeping the status quo and doing absolutely nothing.

When you break down the criminalisation argument to its essential constituents you arrive at the conclusion that criminalisation exists to prevent exactly the scenario that we find ourselves ensnared in. In other words: it hasn't worked.

Criminalisation acts as a barrier to dealing with drug related problems, much like the criminalisation of suicide facilitated being in a very poor position to cope and deal with it. Fair enough, we haven't even started to deal with suicide (and that's a trajedy), it's no longer down to being in a position where we cannot deal with it. Anytime we use the law to enforce a particular brand of morality, one that's not self-evidently correct, there will be major resistance and hence needless conflict and strife.

Guest

Hermes wrote:: Folks seem to be looking for a quick fix in relation to Ireland's drug problems. Alas this is the very same 'quick fix' that drug users crave. There is no quick fix. Many politicians use this fact to facilitate keeping the status quo and doing absolutely nothing.

When you break down the criminalisation argument to its essential constituents you arrive at the conclusion that criminalisation exists to prevent exactly the scenario that we find ourselves ensnared in. In other words: it hasn't worked.

It seems to be true that criminalisation hasn't worked at all - is the situation here comparable to Holland ? The policemen in the UK often come out with fairly enlightened views on the issue too.

On this area of a quick fix and education - at what age do people begin using opiates or narcotics ? I can't imagine escaping it all your life then starting to snort it as a first year mature student in Maynooth... Is there a cultural background to drug-taking ?

Teenagers I guess are the ones who begin experimenting - a notoriously difficult age when people are open to all sorts of influences. Is it possible that there is some sort of cultural deficit not being filled ? This is, I admit, a species of the 'build them a youth club' line but in truth, is there enough cultural diversity to mediate kids' own education because, in the end of the day, at that time of their lives, they start to educate themselves - allowing them to do this authoritatively and responsibly is the problem.

Send them to the fuckin army I say

Guest

Audi wrote:: ... On this area of a quick fix and education - at what age do people begin
using opiates or narcotics ? I can't imagine escaping it all your life
then starting to snort it as a first year mature student in Maynooth...
Is there a cultural background to drug-taking ?

Teenagers I
guess are the ones who begin experimenting - a notoriously difficult
age when people are open to all sorts of influences. Is it possible
that there is some sort of cultural deficit not being filled ? This is,
I admit, a species of the 'build them a youth club' line but in truth,
is there enough cultural diversity to mediate kids' own education
because, in the end of the day, at that time of their lives, they start
to educate themselves - allowing them to do this authoritatively and
responsibly is the problem.

There's no hard and fixed rule for when kids will begin to experiment, short of saying, that everything a person does for the first time is experimentation: from the first "goo" to the last breath. By necessity and indeed ancestry, we're predisposed to experimentation. In primary school I knew kids who'd been sniffing glue since about the age of 7. I didn't smoke for the first time until I was nearing my 20's, checked out drugs too at around this age. Different strokes for different folks.

Some kids are more curious, impulsive than others and some seem only to exist to impress their peers. Convince but a single generation of kids that drug abuse is a bad thing and you solve this problem forever. We sometimes forget how powerful the mind of a child is. You could convince every adult on the planet about the woes of drug abuse, you wake up the next morning and the problem has not gone away. Education is indeed the key to success, particularly if it's accompanied by a genuine offer to help and care. This "build em a youthclub" mentality is more malignant than the drugs culture could ever be. The drugs culture dreams of a better tomorrow, whilst the others wallow and glorify themselves in their baseness.

Drugs are an intimate facet of our history and culture. They have both positive and negative effects. The pervasive "I know better, but won't or cannot explain" and "do as I say" mentalities have few if any positive effects.

Guest

soubresauts wrote:: I said nothing about "socially acceptable". I have little doubt (and some serious evidence) that some of the great and the good of Irish society use cocaine. And probably some are using heroin -- the consequences are not so obvious and not so serious when you're wealthy, eat well, and so on....

By legalising anything you put it on the road to social acceptance.

Lestat wrote:: You seem to be disagreeing with me but I don't see your argument.....

Sorry my friend, I don't have the answers to society's problems. But you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that a concrete block won't fly.

Quote :: So what? Can you not bear the thought of them smoking and drinking?.

My point being that obviously health care professionals would be educated better than anyone about the negative health effects of smoking and drinking but many still do it. That being the case a couple of hours of lectures to bored teenagers is likely to be ineffective.

Lestat wrote:: Really? Are you saying you prefer to have the drugs trade controlled by gangsters rather than by elected government?

I'm not sure it's a governments function to trade in anything, let alone narcotics.

Guest

Another aspect that should form a part of this discussion is the social impact that lies have on impressionable minds.

Nobody has ever overdosed on marijuana or lsd for example. Most of the scare stories force-fed to children tend to glamourise these substances, they don't act to deter. Tell little johnny not to jump into puddles, cause it's evil, and the first opportunity little Johnny gets, he'll be up to his neck in shite.

That's one side of this particular coin. The other's more important and has dire ramifications in my opinion.

Little Johnny smokes a joint, he doesn't turn into a raving lunatic, he doesn't drop 50 points off his IQ and he doesn't die or become seriously ill (provided he doesn't chuck a whitener Laughing

). "Those lying bastards!!" And little Johnny's got a point. "Maybe they're lying about everything!!"

Is it the drug that's turning little Johnny into an anti-social or is it the lies?

I'll not list all the lies told about drugs, I've seen nothing that I'd consider to be the full truth, with regard to supposedly educating our youth. Even those who trajically die after taking drugs are held up by the know-it-alls as beacons for anti-drug propaganda, when in truth, these folks most probably only sought to enjoy themselves. Most deaths associated with drugs are very very preventable. Criminalisation, social stigmatism, etc. prevents dangerous incidents becoming visible and thus treatable. Criminalisation prevents education with regard to DIY intervention in the case of a dangerous incident associated with drugs. I've been educated how to respond to ventricular fibrilation due to electric shock, which is a lot rarer than someone who's seriously overheating and unaware of the fact due to ecstacy - the little training that teaches how to cope with and spot this is largely unavailable. Still, more folks die from electric shock each year than from incidents associated with ecstacy.

Electricity isn't an emotive subject, ecstacy is. Why is this? Truthfully answer this question and you'll know why criminalisation is repugnant.

Guest

Hermes wrote:: Another aspect that should form a part of this discussion is the social impact that lies have on impressionable minds.........

Please tell me you don't really believe all you just wrote.

Guest

Guest

Hermes wrote:: No.

That's a relief.

Guest

I'm confused here.
Was Hermes' 'No' in response to Lestat asking him to deny believing what he wrote or was he saying he doesn't believe all he wrote?
I believe all he wrote anyway.

Guest

Lestat wrote:: By legalising anything you put it on the road to social acceptance.

There may be something in that, but what difference does it make? The great and the good are still consuming the drugs, illegal or not.

Quote :: Sorry my friend, I don't have the answers to society's problems. But you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that a concrete block won't fly.

So you're likening the legalization argument to a concrete block?

Quote :: My point being that obviously health care professionals would be educated better than anyone about the negative health effects of smoking and drinking but many still do it. That being the case a couple of hours of lectures to bored teenagers is likely to be ineffective.

Why should they be bored? Do you believe in educating teenagers or not? Would you prefer they remain in ignorance about drugs?

Quote :: I'm not sure it's a governments function to trade in anything, let alone narcotics.

Now you're playing with words. The Government performs a controlling role in relation to the trade in alcohol and cigarettes; why not with drugs? Who do you think controls the narcotics trade?

If you can't get your head around those questions, I suggest you take a break and try to tune into the discussion later. Some of us take these issues seriously.