• Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

U.K. - Government urged to sell cocaine and ecstasy in pharmacies

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,165
Don’t worry. We three shall solve the problems and draw up the real blueprint.

Just need to sleep on it again! 🤣
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,165

how ironic, this was released just a few hours ago

could probably even have its own thread but I’ll leave it here for now
I nearly fell off of my chair when I saw the title! 🤣

Not sure what to say actually. If it didn't have the Vice logo at the top though it could easily be mistaken for a Transform promotional video.

I suppose there's only so much you can fit into 11 or so minutes. But sorry to say that the elephant in the room (Cocaine) is hardly given a mention. Not to mention Meth. (although once again I still believe Meth. too is doable).

And I don't know if it's just me: but the original article was based on the proposal of selling Cocaine and Ecstasy yet everything subsequent to that seems to have toned down on the Cocaine part of the equation.

Maybe also the UK could be deemed a special case given its size and geography?

I realize you (probably?) cannot argue with the Swiss (or other) statistics. But for the sake of my own interest is this Heroin being supplied in these programs naturally derived or totally synthetic? Anybody?

Just some random thoughts on the topic (as they came to mind).

I dunno. Maybe it's just where I come from. Maybe the people in the UK and the EU etc. are different. All I know is that (here anyway) where there's a gap somebody will take it and exploit it for everything that it's worth and then some (and that includes politicians and law enforcement).

Oh. And one thing that's really pissing me off about Vice is this age restriction nonsense. The people that really need to see stuff like this (and content related to abuse etc.) are the younger generation (fuck that makes me sound old) but this bunch keeps age restricting their content. Yet gratuitous violence and glorification of substance use and abuse etc. is a free-for-all when it comes to the entertainment industry.

Like @dalpat077 said, online ordering really could work well. I would LOVE to see independent drug producers selling online on an eBay type site. Colombian coca straight from the farm, Czech LSD from a superlab, etc.
Don't get too happy! 🤣 Said proposal was based on the idea that there would be one single, government controlled, point of entry, manufacture, quality control, storage, testing, and website (for sales). Boring I know.

For what it's worth: I THINK I've solved a part of the Cocaine problem! 🤣

Sorry. Sometimes these things take time to sink into my head (due in part I'm sure to the current information overload on this stuff).

There's already a model! Coca-Cola and the Stepan Company in the USA!

So that takes care of price and eliminates the need for costly 100% synthesis. I think anyway.

Now all we got to do is police this stuff (and from what I gather it's doable if the USA model is anything to go by).

Right. What's next? 🤣 Any questions? 🤣
 
Last edited:

thegreenhand

Moderator: DiTM
Staff member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
1,375
Location
{\mathbb C}^{n}
Can i ask why you want one centralizaed govt source? Some FDA regulation on purity standards would be a good thing obviously lol, but the govt has historically been pretty bad at having the supply to meet popular demand
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,165
Can i ask why you want one centralizaed govt source? Some FDA regulation on purity standards would be a good thing obviously lol, but the govt has historically been pretty bad at having the supply to meet popular demand
Good morning.

I'll address the last part first i.e. re: the government. Bear in mind we're talking about the UK here on this thread and which is way smaller than the USA in every respect. A quick look right now informs me that you have 11 states that are bigger than the UK (which in itself consists of four countries). So I figured from that point of view it'd be relatively easy to have a central point (but that's probably flawed i.e. at very least you'd have to probably have to have at least one distribution point in each of said countries that make up the UK). And for sure: even if we're on the right track here this would only be as good as it is managed. The whole plan would cave in on itself if deliveries took too long and didn't run smoothly. No user is going to wait for days for their super superb substance to arrive without resorting to the street to source while waiting let's face it (and that of course would be defeating the whole object of the exercise).

I suppose the centralized government source idea was because everything could be monitored and tracked (and even used for statistical purposes e.g. it'd quickly show up problem areas and where more intervention in the form of safe injection sites or extended rehab. facilities are required). And of course: it'd be easy to limit the quantities being sold (they're not, I'm sure, going to be allowing users to order by the kilogram or pound). And of course: the government would be testing each and every substance. Left to private enterprise and individual entrepreneur shit: you'd probably be back to square one. Then again: maybe not. See. Yet another idea forthcoming! :ROFLMAO:

Just using the liquor industry here as an example: the one thing that makes liquor outlets obey the law is the fact that it is very very difficult to obtain a liquor licence and not to mention costly. And if such liquor licence is revoked for any reason: that's the end of the line i.e. there are no second chances. That tends to keep people in line (at least insofar as the liquor industry is concerned anyway). Suppose you'd have to set up a consumer complaints division type thing i.e. if somebody received bad or cut substances then that's their remedy and said suppliers would then be investigated and would lose their licences to distribute.

And of course in just looking at the above (again as I type): we're talking about setting up whole new departments and whatever else just to keep control. Mind you: I would imagine that at least given the subject matter said departments and whatever would easily cover their own costs.

The other thing that's been playing on my mind is the scheduling of these various substances and who is and who is not deemed fit to receive such little pleasures and by whom this is to be done. Putting it in the hands of private medical facilities and professionals to make such decisions? In other words: you'd need evaluation and a prescription? I only bring this up because of my reading the stuff on that website. Well: I could make the argument that if any of this stuff falls under the same category and controls as, for example, benzodiaepines then that's not going to work now is it.

Then I think to myself: maybe you just let it go and open the floodgates and see what happens. Maybe you'll simply reach a saturation point whereby you'll eventually reach a stable or saturation point where those that are going to use or abuse are those that would have done so anyway regardless and that'd be that. That's another way of looking at it I suppose. At least you'd be dealing with a known issue and be able quantify the resources necessary to ensure that everything remains nice and neatly packaged in the plan.

At the end of the day though and no matter how this goes down: I more keen to see how the potential problems would be addressed of street dealers being able to order quality government sanctioned substances and not cutting and re-selling in smaller quantities and how to ensure that the UK would not become a major exporter of said substances. In the case of the latter though: would it actually really matter given the revenue that would be generated? And maybe with the former it's just something that would be less prevalent and you'd have to live with it. No matter what the answers are though: at the end of the day and generally speaking the life of users and addicts alike would be improved. And I guess that's the most important and general idea anyway.

If nothing else though: for damn sure if any of our ideas get used I hope we at least get given a mention in the legislation! :ROFLMAO:
 

thegreenhand

Moderator: DiTM
Staff member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
1,375
Location
{\mathbb C}^{n}
ok @dalpat077 i want to address your writeup as thoroughly as i can

but i do not have the energy right now as it's almost bed time and i'll be at work all weekend. expect a detailed response in the coming days 😅
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,165
ok @dalpat077 i want to address your writeup as thoroughly as i can

but i do not have the energy right now as it's almost bed time and i'll be at work all weekend. expect a detailed response in the coming days 😅
Hey.

No rush. Sorry you have to work the weekend too.

I think we have another partner in crime i.e. @the_void that could make a worthwhile contribution here too. :)
 

AyahuascaSeeker

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
33
Location
Australia
i believe cocaine is one of three drugs which should remain illegal and come with ways to help users with a addiction to it. Its literally funding terrorism in south america and central america everytime somebody uses cocaine they are support barbaic blood cartels who are x100 worse than even isis. Ecstasy should be legal though.
What rubbish. Compare deaths and brain damage caused by MDMA and Coke, and that should be enough to prove your statement is ridiculous. If that's not enough, legalising coca production, extraction and cultivation in South America will take a LOT of money out of the cartels pockets.
 

TripSitterNZ

Bluelighter
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
4,281
Location
The Dimension of LSD-25
Spoken truly as somebody who has never stepped foot in south america and realized the gravity of the situation. Legal illegal lol those things don't mean shit to cartels. It will take no money from them.
 

thegreenhand

Moderator: DiTM
Staff member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
1,375
Location
{\mathbb C}^{n}
Ok I have returned! This was a week from hell with an important exam and long days at work.

Good morning.

I'll address the last part first i.e. re: the government. Bear in mind we're talking about the UK here on this thread and which is way smaller than the USA in every respect. A quick look right now informs me that you have 11 states that are bigger than the UK (which in itself consists of four countries). So I figured from that point of view it'd be relatively easy to have a central point (but that's probably flawed i.e. at very least you'd have to probably have to have at least one distribution point in each of said countries that make up the UK). And for sure: even if we're on the right track here this would only be as good as it is managed. The whole plan would cave in on itself if deliveries took too long and didn't run smoothly. No user is going to wait for days for their super superb substance to arrive without resorting to the street to source while waiting let's face it (and that of course would be defeating the whole object of the exercise).
I'll try to address the gist of your points. Let's begin with this one, I agree that a purely mail-order system would not suffice. Both to meet popular demand and more importantly for people who are at risk of severe withdrawal.



I suppose the centralized government source idea was because everything could be monitored and tracked (and even used for statistical purposes e.g. it'd quickly show up problem areas and where more intervention in the form of safe injection sites or extended rehab. facilities are required). And of course: it'd be easy to limit the quantities being sold (they're not, I'm sure, going to be allowing users to order by the kilogram or pound). And of course: the government would be testing each and every substance. Left to private enterprise and individual entrepreneur shit: you'd probably be back to square one. Then again: maybe not. See. Yet another idea forthcoming! :ROFLMAO:

Just using the liquor industry here as an example: the one thing that makes liquor outlets obey the law is the fact that it is very very difficult to obtain a liquor licence and not to mention costly. And if such liquor licence is revoked for any reason: that's the end of the line i.e. there are no second chances. That tends to keep people in line (at least insofar as the liquor industry is concerned anyway). Suppose you'd have to set up a consumer complaints division type thing i.e. if somebody received bad or cut substances then that's their remedy and said suppliers would then be investigated and would lose their licences to distribute.
It is difficult to get around quality standards without some sort of oversight. That said, something decentralized would appeal to me a bit more. What would this look like? I honestly have no idea. I do know that in most US jurisdictions local municipalities handle the maintenance of liquor licenses. I don't think a new Washington DC bureaucratic powerhouse is in need. But, however, I do concede that this isn't one the free market can solve. The beef industry comes to mind as a modern example...




The other thing that's been playing on my mind is the scheduling of these various substances and who is and who is not deemed fit to receive such little pleasures and by whom this is to be done. Putting it in the hands of private medical facilities and professionals to make such decisions? In other words: you'd need evaluation and a prescription? I only bring this up because of my reading the stuff on that website. Well: I could make the argument that if any of this stuff falls under the same category and controls as, for example, benzodiaepines then that's not going to work now is it.

Then I think to myself: maybe you just let it go and open the floodgates and see what happens. Maybe you'll simply reach a saturation point whereby you'll eventually reach a stable or saturation point where those that are going to use or abuse are those that would have done so anyway regardless and that'd be that. That's another way of looking at it I suppose. At least you'd be dealing with a known issue and be able quantify the resources necessary to ensure that everything remains nice and neatly packaged in the plan.

At the end of the day though and no matter how this goes down: I more keen to see how the potential problems would be addressed of street dealers being able to order quality government sanctioned substances and not cutting and re-selling in smaller quantities and how to ensure that the UK would not become a major exporter of said substances. In the case of the latter though: would it actually really matter given the revenue that would be generated? And maybe with the former it's just something that would be less prevalent and you'd have to live with it. No matter what the answers are though: at the end of the day and generally speaking the life of users and addicts alike would be improved. And I guess that's the most important and general idea anyway.
First criteria for me is grown adult. I would, honestly, rather see the age to purchase as 25. By all currently known measures this is when brain development ends. And I say this as 19 year old. I have been able to source legal drugs (alcohol, weed from legal states) with minimal effort. I have access to a safe supply should I choose to use drugs. But it troubles me that a law should promote the idea that "all is ok" with underage individuals using powerful psychoactive. It has certainly affected my development, though I have not had any detrimental effects.



Then I think to myself: maybe you just let it go and open the floodgates and see what happens. Maybe you'll simply reach a saturation point whereby you'll eventually reach a stable or saturation point where those that are going to use or abuse are those that would have done so anyway regardless and that'd be that. That's another way of looking at it I suppose. At least you'd be dealing with a known issue and be able quantify the resources necessary to ensure that everything remains nice and neatly packaged in the plan.

At the end of the day though and no matter how this goes down: I more keen to see how the potential problems would be addressed of street dealers being able to order quality government sanctioned substances and not cutting and re-selling in smaller quantities and how to ensure that the UK would not become a major exporter of said substances. In the case of the latter though: would it actually really matter given the revenue that would be generated? And maybe with the former it's just something that would be less prevalent and you'd have to live with it. No matter what the answers are though: at the end of the day and generally speaking the life of users and addicts alike would be improved. And I guess that's the most important and general idea anyway.
I am often tempted by the thought of opening the floodgates, so to speak. But I also recognize that this will never happen. Not in our political climate. Change will be gradual, as it almost always has been. Slavery was not undone in a day, nether will this.

Dealers will undoubtedly try that. Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned with the global trafficking issue. It already happens, at least it'll be diacetylmorphine and not whatever the fentanyl analog the Chinese cook up for us. The violence will likely never stop until the market is no longer ~black~



If nothing else though: for damn sure if any of our ideas get used I hope we at least get given a mention in the legislation! :ROFLMAO:
Damn straight lol
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,165
Hey.

Finally. My long awaited response. Sorry. For once been a kinda sorta busy week (with crap). And this topic needs a little bit of concentration. Politics is quick and easy nowadays! 🤣


I'll try to address the gist of your points. Let's begin with this one, I agree that a purely mail-order system would not suffice. Both to meet popular demand and more importantly for people who are at risk of severe withdrawal.
I never thought about that i.e. addicts and withdrawal. So very good point.

I don't know how you handle security though at these outlets though. Could it ever become such a problem though? Maybe not. Only reason I mention this though: there's more than a few published notices on the DEA's website where individuals, and in one case an entire gang thwarted, conspired to, or in fact did, hold up pharmacies at gun point in order to get their hands on pharmaceuticals (the usual suspects). But there's not enough published to be cause for panic (that being said: I highly doubt that every case is published i.e. maybe only high profile stuff or cases that the DEA has been directly involved in this as opposed to local law enforcement).


It is difficult to get around quality standards without some sort of oversight. That said, something decentralized would appeal to me a bit more. What would this look like? I honestly have no idea. I do know that in most US jurisdictions local municipalities handle the maintenance of liquor licenses. I don't think a new Washington DC bureaucratic powerhouse is in need. But, however, I do concede that this isn't one the free market can solve. The beef industry comes to mind as a modern example...
I don't have the answer to the quality standards. As I understand it: the end goal of all of this is to get killer drugs and cuts off of the streets. So maybe some centralized depot that controls imports and quality and then distributes countrywide? I've been thinking about this a lot of late. Draconian as it may seem: maybe there should be far far harsher penalties imposed (and I'm talking as extreme as life or death sentences) for the possession substances that are known to be lethal e.g. Fentanyl. In other words: if you're going to sell (because there will always be an element of re-sale) or use a substance then it's not to be cut or adulterated and in the case on known lethal substances they are stilled banned outright and carry extreme sentences. Wouldn't that be fair? I know it sounds radical. But maybe it'd have the criminal element and those hell bent on screwing up a well intended exercise of shift in policy to think real nice. Matter of fact it could even end up being self-policing in a way. Maybe the majority of those that still deal will police themselves and hold the unscrupulous dealers to book themselves in order that a few choice individuals don't fuck up the status quo for the majority.


First criteria for me is grown adult. I would, honestly, rather see the age to purchase as 25. By all currently known measures this is when brain development ends. And I say this as 19 year old. I have been able to source legal drugs (alcohol, weed from legal states) with minimal effort. I have access to a safe supply should I choose to use drugs. But it troubles me that a law should promote the idea that "all is ok" with underage individuals using powerful psychoactive. It has certainly affected my development, though I have not had any detrimental effects.
Always very refreshing to see someone of you age with an objective and educated view. Oddly enough and on this very topic: I'm sure you've seen my DEA thread. Seems to me that education is a part of the new operation. And if that be the case and it's implemented: well we're on the right path then I'd say. Point is: if somebody has been educated proper on the dangers and they still go ahead and score: well those are the people (regardless of age) that would have done so anyway. I suppose there's always the danger of arousing curiosity though. Hopefully that'd count for a minority though. How you'd stop dealers from selling to those under the age of 25 (as per your suggestion and which is probably spot on the mark): I know not. Given the nature of this business: no dealer is going to turn down business. Unless the penalties are the harshest possible. Mind you (and I don't know if it's prudent to draw parallels between here and the USA and with booze and nicotine products): but I must say that it works here to a large degree i.e. no licensed retail outlet here will sell to a minor if they have any suspicions for fear of losing their licence (and which once lost is never reissued i.e. it's usually game over and for good).


I am often tempted by the thought of opening the floodgates, so to speak. But I also recognize that this will never happen. Not in our political climate. Change will be gradual, as it almost always has been. Slavery was not undone in a day, nether will this.

Dealers will undoubtedly try that. Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned with the global trafficking issue. It already happens, at least it'll be diacetylmorphine and not whatever the fentanyl analog the Chinese cook up for us. The violence will likely never stop until the market is no longer ~black~
Well there's certainly an inordinate number of newer threads appearing where the decriminalization (within reason) is being mentioned and in one or two cases already implemented. So maybe it's not that far off. Could be the middle of the road solution lies in harsher penalties for the thugs that don't give a shit and will sell anything to anybody just to make a buck? Not sure. But seems to make sense to me anyway.

As for nipping exports and global trafficking in the bud and the crime and violence associated with it: I think this would all go a long way to reducing local crime and violence. But on a global scale (at source)? I'm not too sure to be honest. I do think it's drug type dependent. As I say: not sure. Believe it or not: I don't know if you saw my video posted yesterday about the Cartels mucking about with Avocado Pear production and pricing and exports? We're not even talking about an illicit substance here for crying out aloud. Who would have thought? Certainly not me anyway.

Not entirely sure I've contributed anything more worthwhile here though. Somebody I know wrote a good paper on all of this though. I don't have their permission to publish the same though. Makes a good argument, in in better words than I, for the topic at hand. But I'm not about to go plagiarizing somebody else's work.
 

railroadbridgesession

Greenlighter
Joined
Mar 24, 2021
Messages
11
I’d settle for being able to buy some weed without fake pills shite gear or brown powder being threw at me every time I want a nice bit of smoke and I’m positive this countries drug problem would start dropping if a person didn’t have to deal with the scum of the earth just to score some nice weed
Yo I would be more worried about dealing with SotE if you're like on dope or meth or even coke.

But weed?

Bro I met the chillest hippies sourcing the best not sure where you're from, man.
 

Nightraver

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
678
Yo I would be more worried about dealing with SotE if you're like on dope or meth or even coke.

But weed?

Bro I met the chillest hippies sourcing the best not sure where you're from, man.
Glasgow and at age fifteen the dealers start pushing free Valium till they reel you in then try pushing the h
 

Bomb319

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
580
Location
Kelowna, B.C.
i believe cocaine is one of three drugs which should remain illegal and come with ways to help users with a addiction to it. Its literally funding terrorism in south america and central america everytime somebody uses cocaine they are support barbaic blood cartels who are x100 worse than even isis. Ecstasy should be legal though.

Even if true, why make so many addicts feel bad?
 

JessFR

Sr. Moderator: AADD, H&R, TDS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
13,712
i believe cocaine is one of three drugs which should remain illegal and come with ways to help users with a addiction to it. Its literally funding terrorism in south america and central america everytime somebody uses cocaine they are support barbaic blood cartels who are x100 worse than even isis. Ecstasy should be legal though.

Rofl, dude. It funds terrorism BECAUSE it's illegal.

We should make it legal and take away that funding entire.

No drugs should actually be illegal for the user IMO. They should be supplied legally in a controlled basis (for hard drugs, for weed and shit I agree with total legalization into the capitalist system). This works, we know it works. It's just a matter of convincing people to look at the evidence and believe it.

Man it would be awesome buying MDMA from a pharmacy though :D.
 

trogere

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
756
Rofl, dude. It funds terrorism BECAUSE it's illegal.

We should make it legal and take away that funding entire.

No drugs should actually be illegal for the user IMO. They should be supplied legally in a controlled basis (for hard drugs, for weed and shit I agree with total legalization into the capitalist system). This works, we know it works. It's just a matter of convincing people to look at the evidence and believe it.

Man it would be awesome buying MDMA from a pharmacy though :D.
I'm not sure it's completely a good idea. If I had a local access to clean legal ketamine, I know I would be in deep trouble. Dealing with un-reliable shaddy people helped me to get away from ket. Maybe make ket infusions under medical supervision for suicidal people more available and affordable?

For the MDMA, I did so much I lost the magic and it turned into nausea and anxious come-ups. But I'm not against the idea of legalizing the use under the supervision of a therapist.

But I'm totally for having more access to medecines like iboga, aya, bufo, cacti and kambo, with providers checked and having medical knowledge.

And, make it affordable, not just a "in" thing for the richs. All classes in society should have a chance to heal.
 
Last edited:

JessFR

Sr. Moderator: AADD, H&R, TDS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
13,712
I'm not sure it's completely a good idea. If I had a local access to clean legal ketamine, I know I would be in deep trouble. Dealing with un-reliable shaddy people helped me to get away from ket. Maybe make ket infusions under medical supervision for suicidal people more available and affordable?

For the MDMA, I did so much I lost the magic and it turned into nausea and anxious come-ups. But I'm not against the idea of legalizing the use under the supervision of a therapist.

But I'm totally for having more access to medecines like iboga, aya, bufo, cacti and kambo, with providers checked and having medical knowledge.

And, make it affordable, not just a "in" thing for the richs. All classes in society should have a chance to heal.

Legal doesn't have to mean that you can just go and get however much you want. Lots of things are legal but controlled.

With gambling here they're legally required to let you ban yourself from gambling for set time period.

Personally I'd make some drugs fully legal. Marijuana, mdma, and some others. With the only exception being I'd ban advertising (but I'd ban all drug advertising completely including prescription drugs).

The harder drugs, heroin, meth, I'd have available in a controlled system similar to how methadone works.

Fully legal vs fully illegal is a false dilemma.
 

FnX

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
754
On a less serious note, this thread really reminds me of Electric Wizard...

But yeah, always been a proponent of legalization.
 
Top