Clamping down on drugs
https://www-thesun-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/16941848/boris-johnson-drugs-crackdown-war/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16387285719583&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesun.co.uk%2Fnews%2F16941848%2Fboris-johnson-drugs-crackdown-war%2F
This is absolutely the right approach. The increasingly popular idea of decriminalisation benefits middle class casual abusers who couldn't care less about the law (which, by the way, isn't just there to be followed by those who happen to like it, or indeed those who don't think they can get away with it) and similarly couldn't care less about what they are doing facilitates. The gangs they are funding, keeping in business, are the height of evil deliberately targeting vulnerable people and making light use of guns etc.. If I was handing my money over to that I would hang my head in shame. Anybody who is willing to is very worthy of a place in prison.
As for those who take drugs as a result of mental health problems, for example, I think they should be able to get the help they need and some discretion should be used in punishing them based on how able they were to make an informed decision. But by no means should the law be changed for them because at the end of the day it is there to protect and you break it at your own risk.
This is absolutely the right approach. The increasingly popular idea of decriminalisation benefits middle class casual abusers who couldn't care less about the law (which, by the way, isn't just there to be followed by those who happen to like it, or indeed those who don't think they can get away with it) and similarly couldn't care less about what they are doing facilitates. The gangs they are funding, keeping in business, are the height of evil deliberately targeting vulnerable people and making light use of guns etc.. If I was handing my money over to that I would hang my head in shame. Anybody who is willing to is very worthy of a place in prison.
As for those who take drugs as a result of mental health problems, for example, I think they should be able to get the help they need and some discretion should be used in punishing them based on how able they were to make an informed decision. But by no means should the law be changed for them because at the end of the day it is there to protect and you break it at your own risk.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jcrij
Nah, America tried this (The war on drugs) and all it did was cause more suffering and chaos. It failed miserabley. Its a stupid approach. They should do what Poland did and decriminalise them.
Suffering to people who would have been fine if they'd just followed the law. Meanwhile legalising them puts vulnerable people who are law abiding far more at risk of being dragged into using them. It's the safety of these people that should be prioritised given the choice
As I've kind of already said, the law is primarily there to protect those who follow it, not those who don't
(edited 2 years ago)
Struggling in the polls? Mired in corruption allegations? Hiking up taxes and worried that the electorate will start complaining?
Let's distract the masses with a moral panic. It is the Conservative way.
Let's distract the masses with a moral panic. It is the Conservative way.
Original post by Crazed cat lady
Struggling in the polls? Mired in corruption allegations? Hiking up taxes and worried that the electorate will start complaining?
Let's distract the masses with a moral panic. It is the Conservative way.
Let's distract the masses with a moral panic. It is the Conservative way.
An how many of the cabinet have taken drugs?
Original post by mondays child
An how many of the cabinet have taken drugs?
I knew someone would bring that up 😂
Let's be clear, I'm welcoming the idea, not the man or the government who have it!
While I in no way support the use of illegal drugs, I feel that the current approach feels terribly backwards in comparison with the public health/decriminalisation based approaches that other countries have begun taking in recent years. Giving low level users a criminal record simply for consuming something deemed to be bad for them is completely unjust - they should be offered a medical referral without the fear of prosecution. The government seems to want to alienate vulnerable people further. We should be cracking down on drug supply chains, not the victims of drug misuse.
The current government feels like the most authoritarian one that Britain has had in its modern history.
The current government feels like the most authoritarian one that Britain has had in its modern history.
No, incredibly narrow minded approach that can't (and wouldn't) be taken seriously.
It’s the dealers who pedal misery and death that should be severely punished. Not necessarily the users. I’m all up for what they did in the Philippines and round up every last dealer and supplier and stick them in prison for life. Let’s not pretend here that the police don’t have suspicions in who the main low level dealers will be.
Original post by imlikeahermit
It’s the dealers who pedal misery and death
nah, you're thinking about politicians
Original post by imlikeahermit
It’s the dealers who pedal misery and death that should be severely punished. Not necessarily the users. I’m all up for what they did in the Philippines and round up every last dealer and supplier and stick them in prison for life. Let’s not pretend here that the police don’t have suspicions in who the main low level dealers will be.
But the users help to keep them in business. It's like purchasing stolen goods from someone. You weren't the one who stole the goods but by buying them you're lining the pockets of the criminals.
Original post by jamiet0185
But the users help to keep them in business. It's like purchasing stolen goods from someone. You weren't the one who stole the goods but by buying them you're lining the pockets of the criminals.
Which is exactly why you lock the dealers up.
Original post by imlikeahermit
Which is exactly why you lock the dealers up.
....and the people who help them out
Original post by jamiet0185
Suffering to people who would have been fine if they'd just followed the law. Meanwhile legalising them puts vulnerable people who are law abiding far more at risk of being dragged into using them. It's the safety of these people that should be prioritised given the choice
As I've kind of already said, the law is primarily there to protect those who follow it, not those who don't
As I've kind of already said, the law is primarily there to protect those who follow it, not those who don't
Just research why the war on drugs was a failure and you will see the consequences of the politicians small minded approach which will inevitably happen here if they continue this backwards campaign.
With all due respect, and i really dont think any is due to this mnedieval approach, youre talking out of your ass.
For a start your main reason for getting all high and mighty seems to be the fuelling of gangs war chests, that is solely caused by their illegality. Nothing else. You are effectively arguing to strengthen the gangs hand here and nothing else. If you would actually care to read a single study on the topic youd know this.
The war on drugs has been a flop for more reasons than 'Politian's small thinking'. Humans are innately attracted to pleasure, drugs provide that. The morals on it are irrelevant, especially as you could buy every single one of these drugs in your local dairy in times gone by. As to safety, guess what happens to drugs when you ban them? Enterprising, free market capitalists look at ways to potentate them to get more bang for their buck. Its a lot more efficient to ship Fent/heroine et al. than a block of opium.
Of course, this ignores the two biggest problems with this failed approach:
1) Users and dealers dont care about the legal status (especially when all the politicians are high as kites, see the other thread on that), users, and especially addicts, will use irrespective of the consequences. The latter, notionally at any rate, having lost the free will to make an informed choice one way or the other. Plus, dealers will always exist when you create a hyper profitable market for them.
2) Simply jailing people in an area where drugs are even more readily available, and they can learn new approaches to dealing etc. is hardly going to solve anything.
Long story short, this idea is moronic as is anyone who supports it.
For a start your main reason for getting all high and mighty seems to be the fuelling of gangs war chests, that is solely caused by their illegality. Nothing else. You are effectively arguing to strengthen the gangs hand here and nothing else. If you would actually care to read a single study on the topic youd know this.
The war on drugs has been a flop for more reasons than 'Politian's small thinking'. Humans are innately attracted to pleasure, drugs provide that. The morals on it are irrelevant, especially as you could buy every single one of these drugs in your local dairy in times gone by. As to safety, guess what happens to drugs when you ban them? Enterprising, free market capitalists look at ways to potentate them to get more bang for their buck. Its a lot more efficient to ship Fent/heroine et al. than a block of opium.
Of course, this ignores the two biggest problems with this failed approach:
1) Users and dealers dont care about the legal status (especially when all the politicians are high as kites, see the other thread on that), users, and especially addicts, will use irrespective of the consequences. The latter, notionally at any rate, having lost the free will to make an informed choice one way or the other. Plus, dealers will always exist when you create a hyper profitable market for them.
2) Simply jailing people in an area where drugs are even more readily available, and they can learn new approaches to dealing etc. is hardly going to solve anything.
Long story short, this idea is moronic as is anyone who supports it.
Original post by imlikeahermit
Which is exactly why you lock the dealers up.
Whats the point though? The police will only evcer get some poxy street dealer, likely an addict funding themselves, and theyre eminently replaceable. Ive yet to hear of any big fish being caught that have ever made a real difference to the markets..
Good for a bit of 'good publicity' but a spectacular waste of tax money and time. Merely look to our somewhat more enlightened european friends for policies that work, demonstrably so, as opposed to our iteration of the american school of thought that ruined our own formerly enlightened (and effective) approach.
Original post by jamiet0185
I knew someone would bring that up 😂
Let's be clear, I'm welcoming the idea, not the man or the government who have it!
Let's be clear, I'm welcoming the idea, not the man or the government who have it!
The idea is more than slightly tainted given its being used to distract from their own prolific use of drugs. Then again, take their idea and run with it.. line them all up against one of the walls in the Palace of Westminster. It would certainly help in reinforcing their '0 tolerance approach'.
Original post by Jcrij
Nah, America tried this (The war on drugs) and all it did was cause more suffering and chaos. It failed miserabley. Its a stupid approach. They should do what Poland did and decriminalise them.
I feel the Swiss/Portuguese way would be better tbh. Itsa what we used to do before the yankees went all old testament on us a few decades ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59540781
a somewhat more nuanced take on the governments move instead of the usual gibberish from the tabloid press.
I maintain the move is in line with their retrograde approach in following archaic laws that're simply not based in science - as many of the members of the expert committee, the government is legally obliged to listen to (they dont though) when formulating these laws, can attest.
A variation on the portugese/swiss/italian/polish policy would be a nice starting point (as opposed to transplanting them which is never a good idea). As noted, the simple fact of the matter is people like doing drugs irrespective of what the government says (merely look at theb stats) the focus needs to be on harm reduction and, for users at least, removing the threat of legal action.
The former expert Dr Nutt puts it rather well when he notes, the blindly obvious, that drugs have won their war and the government is still pissing good money after bad. We used to have excellent drug policies (prescription heroin for example) but trashed them and gave a massive win to organized crime to felate Washington.
Drug use, and therefor its sale, will never go away. It might be a politically courageous move but the only way to smash the gangs is to take their market away from them. Upsides include, tens of billions in revenue, high safety standards (most ODs are caused by adulterated drugs after all or simply not being in the right setting e.g. a 'shooting gallery') and cutting the feet off of almost every gang.
Downsides, politically suicidal given, ironically like the EU, the government has been spoon feeding the populace that drugs are sinful (despite most of them probably doing them). It would also be problematic given our signature on certain egregious UN conventions but given no one listens to them anyway.. well.
a somewhat more nuanced take on the governments move instead of the usual gibberish from the tabloid press.
I maintain the move is in line with their retrograde approach in following archaic laws that're simply not based in science - as many of the members of the expert committee, the government is legally obliged to listen to (they dont though) when formulating these laws, can attest.
A variation on the portugese/swiss/italian/polish policy would be a nice starting point (as opposed to transplanting them which is never a good idea). As noted, the simple fact of the matter is people like doing drugs irrespective of what the government says (merely look at theb stats) the focus needs to be on harm reduction and, for users at least, removing the threat of legal action.
The former expert Dr Nutt puts it rather well when he notes, the blindly obvious, that drugs have won their war and the government is still pissing good money after bad. We used to have excellent drug policies (prescription heroin for example) but trashed them and gave a massive win to organized crime to felate Washington.
Drug use, and therefor its sale, will never go away. It might be a politically courageous move but the only way to smash the gangs is to take their market away from them. Upsides include, tens of billions in revenue, high safety standards (most ODs are caused by adulterated drugs after all or simply not being in the right setting e.g. a 'shooting gallery') and cutting the feet off of almost every gang.
Downsides, politically suicidal given, ironically like the EU, the government has been spoon feeding the populace that drugs are sinful (despite most of them probably doing them). It would also be problematic given our signature on certain egregious UN conventions but given no one listens to them anyway.. well.
Original post by Napp
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59540781
a somewhat more nuanced take on the governments move instead of the usual gibberish from the tabloid press.
I maintain the move is in line with their retrograde approach in following archaic laws that're simply not based in science - as many of the members of the expert committee, the government is legally obliged to listen to (they dont though) when formulating these laws, can attest.
A variation on the portugese/swiss/italian/polish policy would be a nice starting point (as opposed to transplanting them which is never a good idea). As noted, the simple fact of the matter is people like doing drugs irrespective of what the government says (merely look at theb stats) the focus needs to be on harm reduction and, for users at least, removing the threat of legal action.
The former expert Dr Nutt puts it rather well when he notes, the blindly obvious, that drugs have won their war and the government is still pissing good money after bad. We used to have excellent drug policies (prescription heroin for example) but trashed them and gave a massive win to organized crime to felate Washington.
Drug use, and therefor its sale, will never go away. It might be a politically courageous move but the only way to smash the gangs is to take their market away from them. Upsides include, tens of billions in revenue, high safety standards (most ODs are caused by adulterated drugs after all or simply not being in the right setting e.g. a 'shooting gallery'
and cutting the feet off of almost every gang.
Downsides, politically suicidal given, ironically like the EU, the government has been spoon feeding the populace that drugs are sinful (despite most of them probably doing them). It would also be problematic given our signature on certain egregious UN conventions but given no one listens to them anyway.. well.
a somewhat more nuanced take on the governments move instead of the usual gibberish from the tabloid press.
I maintain the move is in line with their retrograde approach in following archaic laws that're simply not based in science - as many of the members of the expert committee, the government is legally obliged to listen to (they dont though) when formulating these laws, can attest.
A variation on the portugese/swiss/italian/polish policy would be a nice starting point (as opposed to transplanting them which is never a good idea). As noted, the simple fact of the matter is people like doing drugs irrespective of what the government says (merely look at theb stats) the focus needs to be on harm reduction and, for users at least, removing the threat of legal action.
The former expert Dr Nutt puts it rather well when he notes, the blindly obvious, that drugs have won their war and the government is still pissing good money after bad. We used to have excellent drug policies (prescription heroin for example) but trashed them and gave a massive win to organized crime to felate Washington.
Drug use, and therefor its sale, will never go away. It might be a politically courageous move but the only way to smash the gangs is to take their market away from them. Upsides include, tens of billions in revenue, high safety standards (most ODs are caused by adulterated drugs after all or simply not being in the right setting e.g. a 'shooting gallery'
and cutting the feet off of almost every gang.Downsides, politically suicidal given, ironically like the EU, the government has been spoon feeding the populace that drugs are sinful (despite most of them probably doing them). It would also be problematic given our signature on certain egregious UN conventions but given no one listens to them anyway.. well.
thank you for providing a more articulated and reliable source cuz tbh i just didn't get anything out of The Sun's article in the op. written like super trash as always
don't think i disagree with anything you've said above but might i ask which parts of the new government plan do you disagree with? for me it would be casual drug users losing their driving licences or passports (ridiculous
), police using dealers' seized phones to message their clients to direct them to support and discourage use, 'plans to pilot a behaviour change campaign on university campuses to understand what messages discourage drug misuse at an early stage' (whatever that means 
). personally tho don't have a problem with spending money on recovery for addicts and 'delivering treatment and recovery services through rebuilding the workforce, council-led substance misuse services and ensuring support is more integrated to cater for users' physical and mental health needs'. cuz many if not most addicts have spent time in the crank and have little to no support upon their release to help reintegrate themselves back into society, keep stable employment etc so they just keep doing the same things over and over again because it's familiar and no help to get back to 'normal'. at least that's my hope this is part of the government plan but the article hasn't elaborated afaik. did you interpret that part differently?
(edited 2 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- BTEC level 3 Engineering unit 10 3D Models - Add a bull nose to the end of the clamp
- Unconditional offers?
- 17 and clubbing in Marbella?
- Make it More Percussion-ey !!
- Disturbance in halls after a girl snitched
- I messed up the relationship, how can I get her back?
- Formal lab report
- Hamster mystery - please can a hamster owner help
- Edexcel GCSE Physics Paper 2 Higher Tier Triple 1PH0 2H - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How likely is a court hearing for fare evasion?
- Do UK medical students/doctors get drug tested?
- Do student nurses get drug tested?
- chem engineering vs medicinal chemistry
- What roles do pharmacists take in industry?
- Drugs and Sexual Assaults
- Is a crack addict actually crazy?
- Edexcel IAL biology unit 1 Jan 2024
- bristol accommodation rec!
- Feel Like I'm On Drugs... And I'm Not...
- how do you do this please explain steps
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
