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

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

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

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...

If we start grouping all drugs together, then we're no better than the government spokesman who says "drugs are bad". "Drugs" is a meaningless term. Alcohol, as a drug*, certainly doesn't disrupt the disruption. Why would we have reason to believe that weed, smack or cocaine would do any different? The only thing these substances have in common is that they happen to be illegal intoxicants, and such intoxicants can be used equally well to stifle creative thinking - which should be patently obvious to those who frequent these forums. The context of use is all important.

* It's not a drug, it's a drink etc
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
I'd keep watching if I were you. Don't think for a second it will be ALLOWED to be a success.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure of that meself. A decade ago I would agree - would be scuppered from the start (actually, it simply wouldn't have happened at all). The US really don't like having a borderline narcostate on their... borderline though and that was one of the prime factors in the recent changes (at least according to the bit I read on it). The idea that such a relatively insignificant change in the law will make any impact on black market weed coming over the border from Mexico is a bit ridiculous but I do get the feeling that the US government really do want to find a way to reduce the amount of money (which is a fuckin' shitload - over half their income, from memory) the cartels are making from selling weed in America. There's no way the US would have the balls to admit their mistakes and just flat legalise weed but if they can make it seem as though these pilot schemes make an implact (whether they do or not) it gives a way in to make bigger changes and claim victory over evil Mexicans rather than the shame-faced forced U-turn it would actually be.

Possibly.
 
Whatever the future may hold, right now such is the strength of the Prohibitionist determination the much publicised Committee report is strangled, in effect, before it's even born and its considerable work and expense appears quite wasted. We remain as modern democracy decrees, utterly free to do what we're told. Play the patriotic music real loud and salute the masters as they blithely march us like over the cliff and onto the rocks. Ah, well, perhaps Prof Nutt will set fire to himself in the Strangers Gallery and relieve the tedium.
 
doorknob said:
That pathetic ann widdecombe interview springs to mind "YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT HEROIN SOLD IN CORNER SHOPS!?" "No..bu-" "HEROIN!?!"
Click to expand...

Haha, can just picture that. Ann Widdecombe is fucking crackers. Anyone mind of that programme she had a few years back where she just drove around in a van with a massive billboard on the back that had various things she'd taken issue with, all highlighted by a massive fucking photo of her looking annoyed next to it.

Genius, that was.
 
I've just seen on the news (and sorry if this has been discussed) that a group of MP's have said that people caught with a "small amount of drugs", should be "treated", not prosecuted.

I don't want or need treatment. You don't pounce on everyone coming out of a supermarket with some booze in their basket and treat them for alcoholism.

So fuck off.
 
Totally agree MM.

But then someone will come along and say 'small steps etc'.

But yeah, totally agree. I think the Portuguese way stinks and whenever I ask my friend in Lisbon if it's made any difference she says it hasn't. And people quote Italy for decriminalisation and that's worse. I quite like my driving license thanks.
 
As a bit of a "small steps" advocate, I definitely wouldn't describe mandatory treatment for possession as a useful step. A sideways step at best, an utterly pointless step more likely. I'd include such braindead fripperies in the "pissing around the edges" stage of drug law development. Of no use nor ornament but it's almost certainly gonna have to be demonstrated to be such before we can progress to something actually useful.
 
I think it's a backwards step, and reinforces the misplaced idea that drug use inevitably leads to "sickness" that needs "treatment".
 
Mailmonkey said:
I think it's a backwards step, and reinforces the misplaced idea that drug use inevitably leads to "sickness" that needs "treatment".
Click to expand...
when in reality in a lot of situations (plants anyway) it's thee 'drugs' which can help to treat sickness.
what a fucked up society we live in
 
The little van that they show in Portugal on the T.V clip .

It's run by a outreach Needle Exchange place called Click . They go around all the open air markets & ask if you need a script & generally try to be nice without being intrusive.
Many people are refugees from Angola & don't have I.D so can't access services.

In the clip they are in fukin Alexio of all places . I have nothing but good things to say about them & what they do . They gave me a Jam Donut & some Chocolate Milk .
 
Mailmonkey said:
I think it's a backwards step, and reinforces the misplaced idea that drug use inevitably leads to "sickness" that needs "treatment".
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree. And as such will be of no use should such measures be put into place and will shortly after need to be tossed onto the same heap as what it was brought in to replace.

Unfortunately, I can't really see any government having the balls to not try to weasel out of the inevitble by trying to rebrand recreational drug use as a "disease" or summat equally moronic first. Then again. given the sheer numbers of non-problematic, purely recreational users any government may have trouble convincing such large swathes of the public that they are in dire need of treatment for a non-issue. One can but hope.
 
All drugs are harmful.

First words I heard from a politician when I turned on the Radio this morning.

All drugs are harmful. Yeah, like someone said earlier, that's why doctors use them in treatment.
 
Well... all drugs are potentially harmful. May be nigh-on impossible to OD on diazepam but if you're walking under the forklift in the pharmaceutical warehouse and the pallet breaks you could easily get a nasty bruise - if not worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top