British housewife looking at Bali death row - drug smuggling.

[BigGully]

To be honest I don't have the complete answer. Further, I feel uneasy legalising everything. But, not having the answer does not invalidate my view that the current approach is not working. It clearly isn't. An open debate devoid of emotion and politics is required.

Well it is likely to be a encroachment of legalisation, which for me is a sure way to increasing the usage of the drugs, however I am not sure a more puritan/anti approach would help.

I have not got any inclination to 'hit' those that choose to smoke the odd spliff and I recognise the contradiction regarding alcohol and nicotine, I am a regular user of alcohol !!

But as any responsible parent/government, we exaggerate to our young the pitfalls of many things we might have done or do ourselves, it offers balance to a difficult issue.

I dont care whether a habitual marijuana user demands legality or the puritan zealot demands deeper penalties, smoke your pot if thats your thing, maybe even toot your cocaine if thats your thing too, but you cannot make drugs more accessible, it might help the addicts, but it would only exacerbate the problem for us all.

 

[catfish]

And as more time goes by, and more and more money is pumped into the so called war on drugs, you might realise what a complete waste of money it is and that a rethink is needed.

Exactly. It's a war that will never be won.

 

[WhingForPresident]

Please tell me I'm not the only one that thought she was wearing a "Frankie Say Relax" t-shirt?

 

[griff9]

I think your young and naive, as time goes by and your hit with colleagues dying and maybe personally the victim of relentless crime, then you might gain a different view on the drugs and its implications.

Calling someone young and naive because their opinion differs to yours is awfully closed minded...
If the government were in charge of distribution they could gather info on who's taking what and when and try to help and advise them rather than leaving it to the hands of the criminals who only care about your money.
If it was regulated it would be much easier to keep away from children... the drug dealer on the corner doesn't care how old you are nor does he care how much your harming yourself on the drugs..
Surely making the drugs expensive would slow down the increase of people using them? (make overly severe punishments to avoid a black market of non-government made drugs starting up)
Even if there was an increase its non comparable to the increase that happened with the meow meow... foreigners make legal high, sell it at ridiculously cheap prices 100% pure.. before long kids as young as 13 are doing it in school as it was so readily available (at £5-10 a Gram!)..
An increase in adults doing drugs is better then children having them readily available because the government let a bunch of criminals control the supply and trafficking of drugs whilst we spend money trying to stop them...
People are always gonna f*** themselves up on drugs.. If it was regulated we could at least try to educate them of the risks and offer help, if they continue to f*** themselves on drugs despite being warned and offered help then thats their problem!
We'd earn good tax, Children would be safer, people would be highly aware of the risks of the drugs they are taking and offered help (before taking the drugs rather than after) and we might even get rid of a few of this countries morons in the process.. Personally i can't see whats not to like!

 

[Poyetry In Motion]

Oh right, thanks for clearing that up. You see I was just wondering what the correct response was to this. Well now I know.

Glad to be of service

 

[BigGully]

Calling someone young and naive because their opinion differs to yours is awfully closed minded...
If the government were in charge of distribution they could gather info on who's taking what and when and try to help and advise them rather than leaving it to the hands of the criminals who only care about your money.
If it was regulated it would be much easier to keep away from children... the drug dealer on the corner doesn't care how old you are nor does he care how much your harming yourself on the drugs..
Surely making the drugs expensive would slow down the increase of people using them? (make overly severe punishments to avoid a black market of non-government made drugs starting up)
Even if there was an increase its non comparable to the increase that happened with the meow meow... foreigners make legal high, sell it at ridiculously cheap prices 100% pure.. before long kids as young as 13 are doing it in school as it was so readily available (at £5-10 a Gram!)..
An increase in adults doing drugs is better then children having them readily available because the government let a bunch of criminals control the supply and trafficking of drugs whilst we spend money trying to stop them...
People are always gonna f*** themselves up on drugs.. If it was regulated we could at least try to educate them of the risks and offer help, if they continue to f*** themselves on drugs despite being warned and offered help then thats their problem!
We'd earn good tax, Children would be safer, people would be highly aware of the risks of the drugs they are taking and offered help (before taking the drugs rather than after) and we might even get rid of a few of this countries morons in the process.. Personally i can't see whats not to like!

Well I have yet to have a reply from him so I would suspect that he might be casual user, doesnt make him a bad person, but it might offer a 'closed mind' opinion on the matter of legality and I would rather those that use, not be pivotal in the policy process.

If you implement a policy which offers more access to any drug, it is likely that the usage will increase.

It seems that you think it takes regulation to educate, why ? What stops us currently offering that level of education today ?

You mentioned that the government would 'keep' the costs of drugs expensive, then how exactly would this stop the dealers, it might make 'the street corner dealer' more attractive, then what the government sells their drugs at a reduced cost 'buy one gramme get one free' !! ?

My view is that regulation and distribution through any government body would just be another level of drug dealing and not stop what is happening already.

It is a tough tough issue, but not convinced a relaxation of our drug laws will deliver what we all want.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I would suspect that he might be casual user, doesnt make him a bad person, but it might offer a 'closed mind' opinion on the matter of legality and I would rather those that use, not be pivotal in the policy process.

I'm flabbergasted by this statement. First you are being judgemental in assuming that Albion Dan might be a casual user. Just because someone has, in my view, a progressive view on something it does not mean they have also have a vested interest. Second, in any open discussion you need as many stakeholders as possible to be able to make an informed and well judged decision. I'd say one of the key stakeholders in this discussion is the end user.

Your last line asks 'what we all want.' What is it we all want? Narrowing it, what do you want? What I do know is that the current situation is failing, costing us billions a year, and that current policy is confused and the messages which are being sent out contradict those which many of us experience.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

you cannot make drugs more accessible.

True, as they're very accessible already.

 

[00snook]

Great you tell me what rethink is needed here.....

If you legalise anything, the very least that happens is usage increases and therefore the causalities ...

I do not wish to consider what is better for the hopeless skank head or the vehemently anti brigade, I want what is the best of a bad lot for our children.

Keep it unofficially legal for the casual user of the softer drugs, whilst not confusing or shifting the boundaries of those drugs that ruin lives, really really ruin lives.

Drugs that really ruin lives

Like alcohol you mean?

 

[BigGully]

I'm flabbergasted by this statement. First you are being judgemental in assuming that Albion Dan might be a casual user. Just because someone has, in my view, a progressive view on something it does not mean they have also have a vested interest. Second, in any open discussion you need as many stakeholders as possible to be able to make an informed and well judged decision. I'd say one of the key stakeholders in this discussion is the end user.

Your last line asks 'what we all want.' What is it we all want? Narrowing it, what do you want? What I do know is that the current situation is failing, costing us billions a year, and that current policy is confused and the messages which are being sent out contradict those which many of us experience.

Please do not be flabbergasted, I apologise having said that he might be a user, in hindsight, thats unfair.

As to what we all want, I am guessing a decrease in fatalities and crime otherwise what exactly are you wanting to be progressive about and what are the stakeholders meant to be contributing to, so by 'all want' I think is reasonable.

So offer a view and I will no doubt debate it, actually I am not particularly passionate about this issue, I would suspect it will be tweaked here and there and we will be blighted by drug use for the next millennium.

 

[BigGully]

Drugs that really ruin lives

Like alcohol you mean?

Ah come on I have already acknowledged that !!!

 

[00snook]

If you implement a policy which offers more access to any drug, it is likely that the usage will increase.

When Holland legalised cannabis the use actually fell. As did the use of all harder drugs (coke, smack etc)

The Dutch now have one of the lowest heroin and cocaine usage levels in the world, without doing anything other than legalising weed.

The facts are there if you do a bit of research.

 

[00snook]

Ah come on I have already acknowledged that !!!

Sorry BG had missed you doing that.

Still the point stands.

 

[BigGully]

When Holland legalised cannabis the use actually fell. As did the use of all harder drugs (coke, smack etc)

The Dutch now have one of the lowest heroin and cocaine usage levels in the world, without doing anything other than legalising weed.

The facts are there if you do a bit of research.

I have enjoyed the delights of Amsterdam as have many, but scratch behind the façade, its a seedy drug fuelled place, not a great example.

I havent done the research and may well do, but that to me seems highly unlikely.

 

[User removed 4]

Is drug smuggling really such a massive crime that it warrants a death penalty?

If you'd seen the misery that heroin addiction causes at close hand then maybe you'd think so?

 

[User removed 4]

You will at these prices. If 4.79 is worth 1.6 million that's over £300 a gram.

probably very pure and before it gets stamped on.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If you'd seen the misery that heroin addiction causes at close hand then maybe you'd think so?

I'm not disputing there is misery involved. There clearly is for the addict and the family and almost certainly others. And I do not want to start ranking crimes as more serious than others, but there is an element of choice with drugs. For this reason I feel that not only is the death penalty severe but also non-productive as heroin use and trafficking is soaring. My own view is that I would feel uneasy with legalisation, I feel people should be able to do what they want as long as it does not impact on others, some people need to be protected against themselves, the current system is failed. I'm not sure how I could achieve all these possibly contradictory goals. I have a few ideas as to improving things but I'm a long way from the solution.

 

[keaton]

Great you tell me what rethink is needed here.....

If you legalise anything, the very least that happens is usage increases and therefore the causalities ...

I do not wish to consider what is better for the hopeless skank head or the vehemently anti brigade, I want what is the best of a bad lot for our children.

Keep it unofficially legal for the casual user of the softer drugs, whilst not confusing or shifting the boundaries of those drugs that ruin lives, really really ruin lives.

Really? I thought most studies shows it didn't result in increased usage.And it would be safer, more regulated and there'd be better information so the 'casualties' would decrease immensly i'd think.
I don't see why it would lead to an increase in crime either. i'm sure most studies suggest that's not true either. It would be cheaper and you wouldn't be interacting with criminals

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

probably very pure and before it gets stamped on.

I know, my reply was a semi-humourous reply to the poster who mentioned expensive nights.

 

[Jim Van Winkle]

You mentioned that the government would 'keep' the costs of drugs expensive, then how exactly would this stop the dealers, it might make 'the street corner dealer' more attractive, then what the government sells their drugs at a reduced cost 'buy one gramme get one free' !! ?

If drugs were regulated then the "merchandise" served up by the government would be of better quality, thus the end user would need a lot less of his/her chosen drug of choice to get high. So now the user is looking at an issue of quality over quantity.