• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

From Sky News - "MPs Reveal Plans To Reform Drug Laws"

"bi curious" anyway..

Going well so far

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-policy-despite-critical-report-8397630.html

The Government tonight ruled out any shift in drugs policy despite a damning report by an influential group of MPs which said Britain was failing to tackle drug barons or the multi-billion pound global profits of their illegal trade.

The MPs said the current policy was not working and called for major reforms, but the Government swiftly ruled out any prospect of following the lead of several US states in decriminalising cannabis or calling a Royal Commission to examine the country's drugs policy.
 
BBC news, site, top story:

MPs call for drugs policy rethink

The government is being urged by MPs to closely consider a system of drugs de-criminalisation pioneered in Portugal.

The Home Affairs Committee said it was impressed with the approach to cutting drug use where people found with small amounts are not always prosecuted.

It also asks ministers to monitor the effects of cannabis legalisation in other parts of the world.

The Home Office rejected its call for a Royal Commission on UK drugs policy, saying that was "not necessary".

Official figures show that drug use in England and Wales is at its lowest rate under current measurements since 1996.

However, there is concern over the growth and prevalence of "legal highs", some of which are banned, amid a recorded rise in deaths linked to their use.
Click to expand...
 
"Official figures show that drug use in England and Wales is at its lowest rate under current measurements since 1996." - Well that does not mean that much since the UK has the worst rate (or should it be best rate) for drug use in the E.U.
 
More countries need to defy the UN. If a major player like the UK reforms its policy to be more like Portugal, the UN drug policy might be finished.

I suspect though that major UN policy changes will only happen if the U.S. does them first, since the UN drug policy is basically DEA drug policy.
 
Ceres said:
at least they are talking about it, which is better than pretending there isn't anything wrong.
Click to expand...

my bet is David Cameron or such like will come and say they acknowledge there is a problem with current law but then completely ignore what this committee is saying and then look towards tightening the existing laws.

It's almost comical when politicians talk about drugs as they know fuck all. 99.9% of bluelighters have greater knowledge than our elected MPS.
 
swedger77 said:
my bet is David Cameron or such like will come and say they acknowledge there is a problem with current law but then completely ignore what this committee is saying and then look towards tightening the existing laws.

It's almost comical when politicians talk about drugs as they know fuck all. 99.9% of bluelighters have greater knowledge than our elected MPS.
Click to expand...

Best post of the month in my view.

Gwarn swedger77 ya logical man or woman.
 
Foreigner said:
More countries need to defy the UN. If a major player like the UK reforms its policy to be more like Portugal, the UN drug policy might be finished.

I suspect though that major UN policy changes will only happen if the U.S. does them first, since the UN drug policy is basically DEA drug policy.
Click to expand...

This.

South America has already started to defy the UN, but most of S America doesn't have the economic clout to make the US wake up. At the moment the policies of Ecuador, Uruguay et al are just an annoyance to the US.

Don't expect the UK to pioneer anything. We will jump when the US tells us to jump. And as high as they want us to.
 
people over the age of 18 or 21 should be allowed to get a drug taking license, by passing an exam so they understand exactly how to use the drug they want to take responsibly, and accept terms and conditions with it that absolve the state from supporting them if they fuck up themselves or someone else and also commit themselves to not being involved in any kind of drug related criminal activity like dealing. Then they can go and get their drug at the high street pharmacy at a price that damages the profit motive of black market dealers, in high purity form making it much safer to use.

drugs bought legally could also be implanted with sophisticated chemical markers that make it easy to trace to source if they make it onto the black market.

then david milliband could go on telly dropping an NHS MDMA pill to show how safe it is.
 
In Dubai in order to be able to buy alcohol in a shop to take home(hotels and pubs are exempt) you need to have a permit. It's a plastic card like a driver's licence, to apply for it you need to fill in paper work and get your employer to sign it, they have to write down how much you earn monthly.

Basically you're allowed to spend only a certain amount of money on alcohol and it's proportional to your income.

Everytime you go to the shop to buy booze, you swipe it at the till like a travel card so they see how much of your monthly spending allowance you have left, once you reach your limit you have to wait until next month(or drive to Abu Dhabi and fill up your trunk with cases of beer, like most pisshead expats do).

When I was working in Beirut, one night I was down the pub and I got chatting with this Irish journalist who worked for a Dubain newspaper and he showed me the card when I asked him about it, as I'd heard of the system already.

For me drugs should be classified depending on whether they can cause dependency, for every drug that can lead to addiction a similar system would be appropriate.
 
that's a pretty neat idea, infact instead of physical money changing hands you could just be allowed to purchase x amount of credits a week or a month from a central authority, would be pretty easy to write algorithms to detect patterns of problematic usage then.

maybe make everyone taking part in it go for a review with a doctor periodically depending on levels of risk associated with whatever drug they are taking.

people with factors that would make them particularly vulnerable or at abnormally higher mental, socioecomic or physical risk if they were to take whatever drug wouldn't be able to get a license to do so, but in the process of trying to do so (which would be more attractive than taking black market drugs, as a first option for a new drug user) would then at least, in this process, find out in no uncertain terms *why* it would be a bad idea and not in their own interest to then turn to the black market.
 
^ Except it does nothing to curb the black market. When people exceed those cards they will turn to illegal sources, especially if they are addicts. Prohibition of any kind does not work. Even in parts of the world where you can be put in jail for life for possession, or even executed, people are still addicted and the black markets are flourishing.

We need permissive laws and full disclosure. Portugal has proven that decriminalization leads to reduced drug use in society.

The war on drugs is about controlling people's minds so that they will remain sheep. I really feel the UN policy on harm reduction is secondary to that.

The structures that people are raised in disrupt creative thinking. Drugs disrupt the disruption. That's the last thing government wants.
 
Ceres said:
people over the age of 18 or 21 should be allowed to get a drug taking license, by passing an exam so they understand exactly how to use the drug they want to take responsibly, and accept terms and conditions with it that absolve the state from supporting them if they fuck up themselves or someone else and also commit themselves to not being involved in any kind of drug related criminal activity like dealing. Then they can go and get their drug at the high street pharmacy at a price that damages the profit motive of black market dealers, in high purity form making it much safer to use.

drugs bought legally could also be implanted with sophisticated chemical markers that make it easy to trace to source if they make it onto the black market.

.
Click to expand...

I agree nearly 100% but I find the last part to be wrong.
Just make drugs legal & let people go free, if they fuck up thats their issue to deal with, people should be free to do as they feel in the drugs issue & if they die well thats their problem.

I say make everything legal & just leave people alone
 
foreigner said:
^ Except it does nothing to curb the black market.
Click to expand...

It curbs the black market by dramatically undercutting the price of blackmarket drugs, coupled with increased penalties for dealers and traffickers and quality assurance for high purity drugs sold through the state, makes participating in the black market a hugely less attractive option for people who want to take drugs or deal drugs. Tax revenue from state drug sales could also be funnelled into improved policing at the local, national and international level and a state licensing system for drug users would also help law enforcement focus their resources in a more intelligent fashion.

Of course the black market will always exist, but I look at this problem as a cat and mouse game where the law can stay one step ahead by implementing practical measures like above, so that good side can outfund the criminal hierarchy, while at the same time bringing into play a constantly improving level of technical sophistication (such as tagging state supplied drugs) that puts a heavy burden of resources on criminals and their supply chain, further denting the profitability of black market trade, making it nearly impossible for local level petty / smalltime dealers to operate atall.

Personally I think one measure that could be taken without drastic changes in the law, for example, is to introduce widespread anonymous access to drug testing resources so drug users could test the drugs they are buying illegally to identify exactly what is in the drug. This would show them the reality of how impure, adulterated or misrepresented black market drugs really are. I would expect a knock on effect of this would be increased reluctance to spend their hard earned cash on shitty drugs, hurting dealers trade, lowering the level of adulteration / cutting that is attractive to the lower end of the dealing foodchain, which would have a trickle-up impact on suppliers - and of course increasing the level of education and awareness among drug users, and generally make them a bit safer in their drug taking.

How can honest, rational approaches to the problems surrounding drug use be developed and tabled for discussion by policy makers though, when they are all too shit scared of being demonised, ridiculed, or sacked because of media hysteria?
 
Foreigner said:
^ Except it does nothing to curb the black market. When people exceed those cards they will turn to illegal sources, especially if they are addicts. Prohibition of any kind does not work. Even in parts of the world where you can be put in jail for life for possession, or even executed, people are still addicted and the black markets are flourishing.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Ceres said:
people with factors that would make them particularly vulnerable or at abnormally higher mental, socioecomic or physical risk if they were to take whatever drug wouldn't be able to get a license to do so
Click to expand...

Which would inevitably create another black market for those unable to obtain a license. Especially as many of the people I think you're trying to identify are among the most prone to self-medicating behaviour.

Ceres said:
but in the process of trying to do so (which would be more attractive than taking black market drugs, as a first option for a new drug user)
Click to expand...

How would it be more attractive than taking black market drugs?

Surely it's a lot easier and more appealing for your hypothetical teen to phone (hypothetical) Scouse Tony for an eighth of soap, rather than willingly subject themselves to the kind of 'exam' you propose. Which would in fact involve much more than 'an exam' - more like fairly extensive psychiatric assessment- in order to be of any real use at all.

Ceres said:
would then at least, in this process, find out in no uncertain terms *why* it would be a bad idea and not in their own interest to then turn to the black market.
Click to expand...

Very, very idealistic. Sadly not realistic. I'll refer you back to Foreigner's post, quoted above.

Maybe a small minority of users would undergo a 'Road To Damascus' experience and give up their drug-takin' ways. Though I doubt there would be many because outright propaganda and misinformation have failed to achieve the same aim over decades, not to mention healthcare professionals.

Foreigner said:
The structures that people are raised in disrupt creative thinking. Drugs disrupt the disruption. That's the last thing government wants.
Click to expand...

Bang on. Thinking outside the box is ultimately dangerous to the status quo, hence the structure of the educational system. Though that's another can of worms.
 
Last edited:
samhaingrim said:
Quote Originally Posted by Ceres
people with factors that would make them particularly vulnerable or at abnormally higher mental, socioecomic or physical risk if they were to take whatever drug wouldn't be able to get a license to do so
--

Which would inevitably create another black market for those unable to obtain a license. Especially as many of the people I think you're trying to identify are among the most prone to self-medicating behaviour.
Click to expand...

^ this is why it would be necessary to pre-empt consequences like that and take additional measures like I mentioned to put increased, focused, pressure on sectors of the black market which are the most harmful and detrimental to individuals and communities.

samhaingrim said:
Quote Originally Posted by Ceres
but in the process of trying to do so (which would be more attractive than taking black market drugs, as a first option for a new drug user)
--
How would it be more attractive than taking black market drugs? Surely it's a lot easier and more appealing for your hypothetical teen to phone Scouse Tony for an eighth, rather than subject them to the kind of 'exam' you propose. Which would in fact involve much more than 'an exam' - more like fairly extensive psychiatric assessment- in order to be of any use at all.
Click to expand...

Really it shouldn't be trivial for young people to gain their first access to drugs, illegaly or legally, they ought to realise the gravity of making a decision like that and the impact it could have on them if they are reckless about it.

One other point, measures can also be taken at the other end of the blackmarket supply chain, such as incentivising coca and poppy growers to switch to supplying the government sanctioned side of the market instead of the criminal side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top