Recreational drugs

[Zigs]

"Strychnine is only found in the seeds of the Asian tree Strychnos nux-vomica. Whilst there are many toxins found in fungi, strychnine is not amongst them."

 

Seems you're right. Strychnine was the story when he came out of hospital perhaps 25 years ago and i confess I never bothered to check. I last saw the lad in question about 4 years after his "heroic" mushroom ingestion and he was still twitchy, slightly ataxic and not fully mentally focused then - but still much better than he had been.

 

25 years ago there was a lot of acid about that had been "enhanced" by adding strychnine. I remember the lsd50's had a lot in them. Used to make your limbs twist up a lot while you were tripping.

[Nicepix]

Andrew / Rob,

Do you know what is behind all this drugs rehabilitation nonsense? Profit, pure and simple.

 

There are hundreds of private companies making fortunes out of addicts. We dealt with alcoholics who got stroppy whilst on re-hab placements that cost you and I £3,000 per alcoholic per week to run. When things got tough the private company called the police and an ambulance to deal with their problem for no charge to themselves. We dealt every day with drug addicts who were on courses run by private companies who had no incentive to conduct the treatment properly. In fact, the less efficient they were, the more chance they had of another course with the same addict being booked at the taxpayer's expense. Often these courses were given instead of penal sentences. A proper joke and the addicts walk out of court laughing all the way home.

 

There are plenty of people making money out of addicts and I don't mean dealers. So when our friend suggests that we should cut out the dealer's profits by legalising drugs I can't help wondering whether he has shares in these companies because they stand to make even more out of the drug problem.

[Andrew]

I was aware of the " private resource " avenue. But not to the extent.

Its the same all over, money talks, and money corrupts, no matter what walk of life/career you may have.

 

PS

 

We have have had a huge chemist constructed not far from us, complete with " PRIVATE CONSULTING ROOMS " on the first floor.

Oh i thought, how nice, yet another private room for the substance abuser to get free " help " at the expense of the tax payer.

 

No doubt they will come first over the ordinary customer

Edited July 4, 2012 by Andrew

[barry luxton]

Illegal drugs and recreational do not mix. There is nothing in common. I have seen what smoking spliffs do, one of my brothers used to smoke it, he now also has serious medical issues, no one else in the family has, funny that, isn't it. It affected him big time. I sacked him because of it, so don't give me cr@p that it's safer than drinking beer, thats a rubbish argument. i have sacked guys on site for smoking it, bl@@dy idiots. Read a report this week that 30% of those who actually work suffer from drug abuse and the effects that it causes and attending work while under the influence. That sits ok with you, ohh it's a bit of harmelss recreational. Your bl@@dy bonkers if you adopt that attitude. The legislation is weak, our governments are weak. It's illegal and that is the end of it. Make the punishment fit the crime. Double the sentances, double them again until it is a deterrant that is fit for purpose.

 

I have seen docherty sitting on the communal steps of a block of flats that my mate manages. The place stinks and reaks of drugs, that sit's ok with you recreational drug apologetics, thats right and fair for others who have to live there, just because he goes there and gets his fix, others suffer, that ok?. Thats the guy who has a cloud around him after someone fell or was pushed to his death, that was a drug induced happening, you guys ok with that, acceptable, harmelss, your bonkers if that is the case.

[Sportsman]

Andrew / Rob,

Do you know what is behind all this drugs rehabilitation nonsense? Profit, pure and simple.

 

There are hundreds of private companies making fortunes out of addicts. We dealt with alcoholics who got stroppy whilst on re-hab placements that cost you and I £3,000 per alcoholic per week to run. When things got tough the private company called the police and an ambulance to deal with their problem for no charge to themselves. We dealt every day with drug addicts who were on courses run by private companies who had no incentive to conduct the treatment properly. In fact, the less efficient they were, the more chance they had of another course with the same addict being booked at the taxpayer's expense. Often these courses were given instead of penal sentences. A proper joke and the addicts walk out of court laughing all the way home.

 

There are plenty of people making money out of addicts and I don't mean dealers. So when our friend suggests that we should cut out the dealer's profits by legalising drugs I can't help wondering whether he has shares in these companies because they stand to make even more out of the drug problem.

 

Just to point out I have no interest, financial or otherwise in the treatment of drug addicts.

My only interest was many years ago working as a nurse in A&E and treating overdose after overdose because the users didn't know what or how much they were injecting.

 

As for the majority of respondents might I suggest that you take the trouble to do a little research into the truth about "drugs" before spouting off. A good time might be while your sitting down having a drink and a fag

[Nicepix]

Just to point out I have no interest, financial or otherwise in the treatment of drug addicts.

My only interest was many years ago working as a nurse in A&E and treating overdose after overdose because the users didn't know what or how much they were injecting.

 

Making drugs legal will not alter that. Users of any substance will experiment with different dosages, cocktails and methods of taking - just as we do with baits and groundbaits. Human nature is to experiment and to push boundaries. If anything, making drugs legal will increase the number of people taking and experimenting with drugs.

[Sportsman]

Making drugs legal will not alter that. Users of any substance will experiment with different dosages, cocktails and methods of taking - just as we do with baits and groundbaits. Human nature is to experiment and to push boundaries. If anything, making drugs legal will increase the number of people taking and experimenting with drugs.

 

Nonsense.

Almost all of the unwanted side effects from drug use result from its illegality.

Street drugs are cut or adulterated with whatever is available. If your lucky its sugar, if your not so lucky its drain cleaner.

 

Ironically the one thing that an addict doesn't get much of is the drug as it is so adulterated, so most addicts do not build up a high tolerance. Their problem begins when high quality product gets onto the streets. They get their normal deal in a packet but have no way of knowing that it contains 10 or 20 times their normal dose. Overdose and death result.

 

It is no coincidence that the very many wealthy and successful drug users can control their use for years with no untoward effects. They are perfectly capable of leading normal lives and being productive. Why? because they are rich enough to get a guaranteed supply of medically pure drug. You would be amazed for instance at how many Doctors and Surgeons and very successful ones at that are addicted to opiates. It is the poor who suffer the side effects and die young and that is the problem. No-one gives a ****

Do you remember Leah Betts? She took an Ecstasy tablet and died. Her father was a Police Inspector and her mother was a teacher. Horror. If it could happen to her it could happen to my kid. The newspapers were full of it for days or even weeks. Do you know how many poor underprivileged kids die from sniffing solvents? Many many more than die from the tens of thousands of ecstasy tablets taken every weekend but when did you last read about one in the Daily Mail?

 

Almost all health problems associated with drug use, such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, malnutrition etc are due to addicts being forced to use substandard dangerous drugs with little or no information in poor environments and with shared equipment.

 

You say that making penalties tougher for drug use would act as a deterrent. Are you serious? Ask any addict how many times they have overdosed and nearly died and yet the very real risk of sudden death doesn't work as a deterrent so do you really believe that tougher sentences would?

 

In every trial where the supply of legal and pure drugs to users has been tried it has had nothing but beneficial effects on the addicts and the communities they live in.

 

Lastly we have the drugs / dealer environment. If I wanted to buy some relatively harmless Marijuana I would have to go to a supplier. This suppliers probably sells other drugs. It is in the suppliers financial interest to sell me these other drugs so he makes them easily available (at first) Wouldn't it be a good idea if I didn't have to go near him in the first place?

 

One for Barry. You seem to think that because Alcohol is legal it's OK. I can tell you that when I worked in A&E I was never attacked by someone who had been smoking dope. I was attacked verbally or physically almost every day by drunks, often several times a day and including being stabbed. If I was going to ban a drug tomorrow because of the damage to health and disruption to society it causes then it would have to be Alcohol. As an afterthought I have nursed people coming off heroin (cold turkey withdrawal) and I have nursed people coming off alcohol addiction (Delerium tremens) and DTs are much much worse and medically more dangerous. We live in a nonsensical world.

[Zigs]

Nonsense.

Almost all of the unwanted side effects from drug use result from its illegality.

Street drugs are cut or adulterated with whatever is available. If your lucky its sugar, if your not so lucky its drain cleaner.

 

Ironically the one thing that an addict doesn't get much of is the drug as it is so adulterated, so most addicts do not build up a high tolerance. Their problem begins when high quality product gets onto the streets. They get their normal deal in a packet but have no way of knowing that it contains 10 or 20 times their normal dose. Overdose and death result.

 

My friend Nigel died from using pure heroin. He couldn't cope with it after using the cut stuff from the street dealers.

 

Ironically he and I had a big argument shortly before he died because he was cutting the stuff he was selling with something nasty. I nearly colapsed after injecting it, I could feel it burning my veins as it went round.

 

He was 25 when he died. He's buried near my Mum, Dad & Grand Parents.

[Emma two]

making drugs legal will increase the number of people taking and experimenting with drugs.

 

 

Yes perhaps, but isn’t that up to them? Is it the business of state to prohibit or permit?

People doing a whole range of things harm and sometimes kill themselves because there is danger even in legal things. Extreme sports, driving motor cars and cycles, riding horses, eating too much and drinking alcohol, some even die through going fishin’.

By all means dismiss those who abuse drugs and come to work for you, just as happens to those who drink excessively while on the job. Just as you would if they were coming to work and where drinking/had drank legal alcohol.

You might argue (and perhaps someone will) that those activities don’t impact negatively on other (innocent) people, well that won’t wash, of course they do, death and injury can and is often inflicted upon third parties who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Is substances were legal then some innocents would suffer as a result of the intoxicated actions of users. However I’m unconvinced that there would be more damage to non-users, than there already is with criminal gangs determining the prices.

It’s easy, unhelpful and quite wrong to glibly label all of those who argue of legalisation as ‘bleeding heart‘do- gooders’ (although what is wrong in ‘doing good’?) and use the label in a pejorative way. These people are not all ‘apologists’ either, but those who can see that the present criminalisation system hasn’t worked. Contrary to much neo-conservative bluster, and ‘hang ‘em high gung ho vocals, the legalisation promoters might just be the tough ones, prepared to make the tough decision.

[barry luxton]

Yes perhaps, but isn’t that up to them? Is it the business of state to prohibit or permit?

People doing a whole range of things harm and sometimes kill themselves because there is danger even in legal things. Extreme sports, driving motor cars and cycles, riding horses, eating too much and drinking alcohol, some even die through going fishin’.

By all means dismiss those who abuse drugs and come to work for you, just as happens to those who drink excessively while on the job. Just as you would if they were coming to work and where drinking/had drank legal alcohol.

You might argue (and perhaps someone will) that those activities don’t impact negatively on other (innocent) people, well that won’t wash, of course they do, death and injury can and is often inflicted upon third parties who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Is substances were legal then some innocents would suffer as a result of the intoxicated actions of users. However I’m unconvinced that there would be more damage to non-users, than there already is with criminal gangs determining the prices.

It’s easy, unhelpful and quite wrong to glibly label all of those who argue of legalisation as ‘bleeding heart‘do- gooders’ (although what is wrong in ‘doing good’?) and use the label in a pejorative way. These people are not all ‘apologists’ either, but those who can see that the present criminalisation system hasn’t worked. Contrary to much neo-conservative bluster, and ‘hang ‘em high gung ho vocals, the legalisation promoters might just be the tough ones, prepared to make the tough decision.

 

Your sick if you link doing good with 'helping the likes of pepole who can't, won't help themselves to the detriment of others. No mention of hang 'em high. The punishment needs to be a deterant mate, whatever it takes with regards to legislation needs to be done. You forget as well mister, this is an island the heavy stuff needs importing. Our borders are rubbish, The 'do' good money needs to be spent sorting the importers and the dealers, hang 'em high, na punnish them long, it ain't happening. A tougth one to allow leagl death and distruction into our society, that is sick.

Edited July 5, 2012 by barry luxton