Legal Highs

[Bram J]

I agree with the above, it hasnt seemed to have done Dylan, Bowie etc any harm (except perhaps to their record sales when they record 'sober' albums), not to mention the bare walls we would see in the museums and gallieries should out artistic brothers not have dabbled.

I don't mind putting a list of artists up here who have died or have had a miserable life because of drugs either . I also think that the way drugs would've made artwork and music better is heavily overrated. There are plenty of famous artists/musicians who don't do drugs too. Would Jimi hendrix's music have been less if he didn't do drugs BITD? I think not.

Sure there are people using drugs to escape humdrum existence, but many people use them in a very controlled way as well.

And yes there are a small amount of people who do drugs in a responsible way, but 'legalise and control' is not going to change anything for these people. It will only make a change for that fraction of kids who would normally say no when offered drugs, because they know they're not supposed to. You want to tell these kids that suddenly it's ok to do drugs? I don't think you would .

 

[Bram J]

If you need stuff like that to make you're life interesting quote]

Ok, not everybody who does it is a boring person...
But a lot of them are. And a lot of them have become boring by doing drugs too.
My mates and I used to have a bmx-parcours, we'd used to ride our bikes all day, go out and have fun. About 4 years ago (4years and 1 day TBE),the place has kinda burnt down and we weren't allowed to ride there anymore :evil: . So I got into mountainbiking, and my mates got into drugs.
They sit stoned out behind a playstation most of their spare time nowadays...
They're still great guys IMO, but they're not as interesting as they used to be either. It's only funny when I can laugh my ass off when they are doing really stupid stuff, but all in all it's still kinda sad.
They would all have turned out better if it wasn't for drugs, it kinda took away their ambition and their need to go out and do something err... interesting.

 

[KeepItSteel]

I also think that the way drugs would've made artwork and music better is heavily overrated. There are plenty of famous artists/musicians who don't do drugs too. Would Jimi hendrix's music have been less if he didn't do drugs BITD? I think not.

Errrr, yes. On every level. Hendrix was pretty much king of the stoners, and without the daily cocktail he consumed his music would've most likely been very good at best. IMO his psychadelic trip fest music towers above the rest.

Even The Beatles made (good) simple pop music till they got high, then things got really interesting. And none of them suffered badly in the long run.

Of course drugs have messed up some artists/musicians, but that refers back to my previous point of whether the individual can much handle it or not.
For every musician messed up by drugs, theres another who lost it /went mad/commited suicide without taking drugs.
Its far too convenient to just assume that because someone took or takes drugs, that thats the sole reason for their troubles.

Heres my tip for you, dont knock it till youve tried it - eat a bunch of hawaiian magic mushrooms and come back and tell me:

a) you didnt have the funniest most far out eye opening evening of your life
b) you didnt feel completely inspired and brimfull of ideas/answers/solutions (usually nonsense but occasionally brilliant)



I never got addicted, Never had any cravings, never had any nasty side effects, didnt do anything rash or stupid, was in total control, and had an absolute whale of a time.
However, that chapter is over and I had the self control to walk away.

 

[KeepItSteel]

If you need stuff like that to make you're life interesting quote]

My mates and I used to have a bmx-parcours, we'd used to ride our bikes all day, go out and have fun. About 4 years ago (4years and 1 day TBE),the place has kinda burnt down and we weren't allowed to ride there anymore :evil: . So I got into mountainbiking, and my mates got into drugs.
They sit stoned out behind a playstation most of their spare time nowadays...
, it kinda took away their ambition and their need to go out and do something err... interesting.

For this i tend to agree. I have seen a correlation between (heavy) weed smoking and wasted years. I had a few 'friends' who turned out very similar.
In hindsight, it turned out that I grew up and didnt have as much in common with them as I thought.
They made the choice to sit around all day and get stoned, wasting so much time. But again, I think its a conscoius choice and again, it comes down to the individual.

One old friend did have a breakdown after abusing booze and tons of weed and was sectioned for a while, and I do think there is a connection...but its hard to be certain that he wouldnt have lost it even if sober.
He's clean now, but we have nothing in common anymore.

I dont think there is a black and white definitive right or wrong on the subject. Im not sure how ill broach it when my baby son grows up, I think ill be fairly liberal but I also hope I will have managed to educate him enough to make sensible decisions and show self control.
one thing is for sure, kids will do whatever theyre told not to!

 

[Gadro]

Keepitsteel

Yep it's called experimenting, something a lot have done when growing up, and something that continues amongst those growing up today.

Personally I can't see how a number of controlled drugs differ from both alcohol and tobacco. Thats my argument, both very dangerous substances, both legal.

Why are we forcing those who want to experiment buy dangerous mixtures of chemicals, from criminals and then criminalising the users?

Why are we allowing criminals including terrorists (most Taliban funds come from Heroin) to make money by selling this stuff to our kids.

Legalise, regulate and tax it. You're not going to stop it by criminalising it and it's spiralling out of control.

The majority of youngsters experiment only a couple of times but the danger is with such dangerous concoctions out there on our streets, just that one time can now kill you or make you permanently addicted and destroy your life. Drugs are already part of society get them out there in the 'daylight'

 

[KeepItSteel]

hear hear!


As an aside, does anyone else find it interesting that certain wild animals regularly consume 'drugs' ?
Reindeer, monkeys etc

 

[Gadro]

Sheep down in Wales have got a hankering for the old Magic Mushrooms. My uncle regularly has to spray his fields to stop the the blighter's from growing

 

[suburbanreuben]

The legal age for drinking is 18. Younger kids still drink. Their drink suppliers are breaking the law, and are, effectively, criminals.
At what age would it be legal for kids to take "drugs"? Whatever it is , under age "drug" users would still be dealing with criminals, so would be unaffected by legalisation.
Legalisation would not solve anything.
Who would supply the newly legalised drugs? Would there be a blanket amnesty for the drugs gangs, or would Glaxo Welcome and Astra Zeneca be invited to take up the franchise?
Why would they want to? Aside from the fear involved in usurping some, dangerous , violent people, what's in it for them?
Any legal drug has to meet stringent criteria.
It has to be developed, tested, passed fit for human consumption, tested again, patented and marketed. This all takes time.
Criminal gangs have some very clever chemists working for them. They would be able to copy a formulation in no time, wouldn't have to make it safe, and wouldn't worry about patents.
All that hard work by Glaxo for nothing. Where's the profit in that?
What drugs would be legal? Would there be a moratorium on new development of more potent drugs? Any government would hate to be seen to condone the supply of ever more wierd and wonderful concoctions. Criminals have no such reservations. Even if Glaxo were allowed to join the Spaced Race, their development and testing would leave them months, if not years, behind. The hip kids will have moved on to something else. Government grade gear will be seen as a substitute to be used only when nothing else is available, much as methodone is now regarded by Heroin users.
Instead of legalising drugs, it would be far simpler, and more effective, to de-criminalise the end users. They're usually not hurting anyone except themselves and their families.
Hit the suppliers hard though.
King Dave is considering stopping benefits for addicts if they don't agree to rehab . Labour dropped that idea a while back. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know that friends of mine who have been addicts have never been cured by kindness. Breaking addiction is ugly, always against the addicts wishes at some stage of the treatment, and is not pleasant for anyone. Handing out legal smarties is cheaper and too easy.
Of course, there's always the assumption that drugs are the cause of societiy's ills. Are they- or just a symptom?

 

[Bram J]

Instead of legalising drugs, it would be far simpler, and more effective, to de-criminalise the end users. They're usually not hurting anyone except themselves and their families.
Hit the suppliers hard though.

Couldn't agree more with what you're saying.

 

[Gadro]

You'd have to have the amounts designated under statute what would be simple possession or possession with intent to supply. Now there would be a good argument to watch.

Still doesn't prevent the criminals from raking it in and also will still mean that poor, low quality and even dangerous concoctions are continued being made and supplied to get around the legality side of things.

Now I'm not condoning the taking of drugs in fact I am very much against it but other than Legalise the lot and regulating the industry how do you suggest we prevent or diminish the risks to users?

How else can we put an end or severely reduce the amount of money being raked in by certain 'shady' organisations?

With present Policies and Procedures we cannot win the fight against drugs. It is becoming more and more likely that EVERY child in the UK will have some contact with a controlled drug during their Teens. They can of course make a choice of shall I or shan't I. But of those that say 'hmm ok I might give this a go' or even worse those put under extreme peer pressure to try it then they are increasingly dicing with death. People may say that education is the way forward. I'm all for educating against the dangers of drugs but it won't stop experimentation or peer pressure.

Now as a father I will educate my children to the dangers of drugs, I will also watch them like a hawk when they are growing up and of course give them a bollocking where appropriate. But why take the risk of them experimenting with a potential poisonous substance when they could legally purchase something which is processed, regulated and relatively safer ( I use 'relatively' of course a bit tongue in cheek). If you want to know how dangerous some of these substances are. A Meth Amphet lab when discovered by Police will have a minimum 300m cordon imposed around it. The chemicals involved in 'cooking' meth are highly dangerous and explosive with some of the fumes given off being lethal in a matter of minutes. If I come across one in work I am required to wear a full NCB suit for standing on the inner cordon never mind about actually going into the house!! It takes 30 minutes to bloody get on and not very nice when you need to pee !!