UK - BBC - How cutting drugs became big business

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
BBC news - 7 September 2010 Last updated at 05:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11177126

'It's a booming industry, say police. So how are legal anaesthetics making people so rich illegally?

They call it the "bash" or "smash" trade and in the current financial climate it is one cut that is netting some people a small fortune.

The black market trade of selling legal chemicals to drug dealers to be used as so-called cutting agents has become a highly lucrative trade of its own, a BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast investigation has found.

Legally imported in bulk, the substances are mixed in with the illegal Class A drugs cocaine and ecstasy by dealers to maximise profits. Demand is so high because they numb the mouth like cocaine, so customers think they are getting better quality drugs - and will pay more.'

'"It's a savvy way for dealers to cover the fact that the purity of drugs like cocaine is getting less and less," says Martin Barnes, the chief executive of DrugScope. "If there is a numbing of the tongue and nose people think the cocaine they are using is purer than it actually is."'

'"Any drug is harmful, however pure it is," says Mr Barnes. "But variations in purity due to cutting agent being used increases the risk of an overdose. People just do not know what strength of drug they are taking."'
 
Hmm maybe in the financial crisis dealers are feeling the pinch of a less frevolous consumer? Or maybe they are just busting the low level dealers more.. Anyways, we are lucky to get 10% pure in aussie land. No point in trying to find coke in this country, not unless u buy a heap of it regularly.
 
Id like to see how pure some of the coke i have been getting is, as it is much better than any of the coke i used to get before getting this connect.



Either way, this is nothing new. Dealers have always and will always sell impure product to maximize profits. Personally i would rather pay double what i pay for half a gram of pure than what i pay for a gram now.
 
The news is nothing new but this article shows how un-neutral the BBC is in reporting this kind of event. The article is effectively acting as a mouthpiece for Drugscope who are often consulted as a supposed neutral and expert view regarding drugs. However if their policy on legalisation is anything to go by they are anything but. The last sentence on their page says it all, "Any government legalising cannabis would be sending out the message to society that intoxication is OK". Yup, that's right, they believe "intoxication" is not OK.

Unfortunately, although the article invites comments it appears that none have been posted yet. Let's hope someone somewhere is reading them who might review what their idea of a neutral, balanced and informative article is. The BBC is probably the most significant news service in the UK. They have a policy of neutrality and not representing a particular group's views that they are not following here.
 
^Why don't you leave a comment? Your argument is good, but if you only post it on BL no-one but a bunch of druggies is gonna read it.
 
I did.

This happens sometimes with BBC articles. I think, "Great, no comments yet. I get to be the first to post!", but no comments ever appear. This looks like the case here with this article.

I don't think I've ever seen a comment of mine actually come up on a BBC article. I think, when they do actually post the comments they receive, they just get so many they only show a small selection.
 
Update. There are now some comments appearing on the article. Looks like mine didn't make it but I'm not too upset since they are all saying pretty much what I wanted to say anyway; that the reason there is a problem is because of prohibition.

It's not uncommon to see readers comments mostly in favour of legalization or decriminalization yet the BBC resolutely refuses to represent this significant point of view in their general drug-related articles. Why are they leaving to the readership to represent the other side to the story? Is it our job to make their articles balanced? Some comments below...



'"But variations in purity due to cutting agent being used increases the risk of an overdose. People just do not know what strength of drug they are taking." Is this not a direct consequence of the drug being illegal and being sold by those willing to break the law? How often do you hear of (legal) booze or fags being adulterated to unknown strengths?

Dave, Cardiff

In this era where we are seeking to save costs and also seeking to find new revenue it is time that we legalize most of these substances. Legalisation would eliminate the high profit motive and we would not need to expend police effort just trying to keep people from harming themselves. Perhaps not as many police would be needed because the related crimes of theft and fraud would diminish. And then, think of all the tax revenue that the government is missing! Not only are we paying to enforce what is impossible to enforce, but we are missing out on all the tax revenues that such substances can generate! Its really time we stopped trying to save people from themselves and made revenue off them instead.

Todd, Oxford

Yet another argument for the decriminalisation of drugs: make them legal, and you cut out all the organised crime instantly, and guarantee a substance free from cutting with unknown and potentially more dangerous chemicals. A properly controlled, licensed, and taxed industry is the only way forward. It may not be the most palatable of ideas, but drug use is never going to go away, so it's the (far) lesser of two evils. Criminal gangs form wherever there is a quick profit to be made, but they don't simply dissipate into thin air when those profits subside: they look for some other activity to get involved in. The longer we wait before decriminalisation, the more criminals we risk inhabiting our society.

Rob, London'
 
The cutting of cocaine and heroin has always been around since it was made illegal to buy or have the drugs.As a dealer will tell you "the money is in the cut" ,even if they only cut the product 10%,with a large volume of drugs sold over time that 10% adds up to a lot of money.
 
Intense numbing of the mouth /face etc. is a straight-up, tell-tail sign of Coke being cut with other psychologically inactive analogues.

But yea, nothing new here. Not really sure why it's being reported on really :?
 
Shitty coke is why I stopped doing coke, all the hassle you know. Meeting all these different and sometimes shady people wasting half a god damn day only to spend an hour mildy buzzed fom a gram and half. :(:(

But damn 40 odd percent of seized coke less than 9% pure...laaaame
 
edgarshade said:
The news is nothing new but this article shows how un-neutral the BBC is in reporting this kind of event. The article is effectively acting as a mouthpiece for Drugscope who are often consulted as a supposed neutral and expert view regarding drugs. However if their policy on legalisation is anything to go by they are anything but. The last sentence on their page says it all, "Any government legalising cannabis would be sending out the message to society that intoxication is OK". Yup, that's right, they believe "intoxication" is not OK.
Click to expand...

You haven't read that page properly, have you? :p
 
What amuses me the most is that news programs usually have some comment from an expert or law enforcer.

They always says these additives will fuck you up.

But they said Coke/Speed/Ecstacy would fuck you up, well before the purity was compromised.
 
7zark7 said:
"The major themes in these areas are outined below; each pro-legalisation argument (italics) is followed by an anti-legalisation reply (normal text)."
Click to expand...

It's subtle but there is a bias. The arguments in favour of legalisation are presented in first italics and the counter-arguments are presented last in normal text. This has the effect of making the arguments look like what someone else is saying and the counter-augments look like the final voice of reason from the author. The way I see it is that subtly, if someone in favour or prohibition were to read the page then they would feel more reassured than someone in favour of legalisation that the author acknowledged and accepted their views.

Is there also a page on their website putting arguments and counter-augments for prohibition in the same way with the arguments in favour in italics and the arguments against in normal text?

Also, going back to the original BBC article, what Drugscope is saying is clearly propaganda.

"Any drug is harmful, however pure it is," says Mr Barnes. "But variations in purity due to cutting agent being used increases the risk of an overdose. People just do not know what strength of drug they are taking."​

Any drug is harmful? It's a bit like saying any medicine is harmful. Specifically, cocaine is harmful, according to Professor David Nutt's research. Why extend the fact that cocaine is harmful to all other drugs? Generalising the risk of one drug to cover all psychoactive substances is a common ploy used by the sources that provide the media with sound-bites on these type of stories.

Overall, I see Drugscope as being moderately in favour of prohibition and maintaining the status quo. They are definitely in favour of opening debate and against hysterical reaction in the media but I am not convinced anyone can depend on their neutrality.
 
Last edited:
edgarshade said:
It's subtle but there is a bias.
Click to expand...

You think? Taking Drugscopes's website and press-releases as a whole, I wouldn't say there is a bias in that direction.

"Any drug is harmful, however pure it is," says Mr Barnes. "But variations in purity due to cutting agent being used increases the risk of an overdose. People just do not know what strength of drug they are taking."​

Any drug is harmful? It's a bit like saying any medicine is harmful.
Click to expand...

I agree that saying that does sound anti-drug, but I wonder if, when making public statements, they feel they have to add such a caveat so that people who live in a world where everything is black and white do think they are saying no drug is harmful.
 
7zark7 said:
You think? Taking Drugscopes's website and press-releases as a whole, I wouldn't say there is a bias in that direction.
Click to expand...

Just my personal impression, I admit.


I agree that saying that does sound anti-drug, but I wonder if, when making public statements, they feel they have to add such a caveat so that people who live in a world where everything is black and white do think they are saying no drug is harmful.
Click to expand...

They could have stuck to only talking about the specific substances in question by their name without offending anyone. I admit I don't know much about Drugscope yet but they certainly weren't neutral in this particular interview.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top