Unbelievable - Lucas advocates the use of recreational drugs

[Tyrone Biggums]

They may well have the means to pay for treatment, but casual / recreational drug users won't consider that they have a problem, ergo they are not going to bother seeking out or paying for treatment.

It's not about just the treatement.

It's about making recreational drugs unappealing in as many ways as you can to people thinking of using while also providing an avenue for people affected by the recreational user to seek maximum damages.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

It's ridiculous false logic that is repeated over and over again: "Every crack/heroin user took cannabis before they moved onto the harder drugs".

It's just as true to say "Every crack/heroin user drank coffee before they moved onto the harder drugs", or "Every crack/heroin user ate cheese before they moved onto the harder drugs". Correlation is NOT causation - but of course this won't stop the conservative right from spouting the rubbish...

To be fair though, the left have never given a shit about the victims.

That's why the left are always at the front of criminals civil liberties when opposed to the victims.

 

[Easy 10]

It's not about just the treatement.

It's about making recreational drugs unappealing in as many ways as you can to people thinking of using while also providing an avenue for people affected by the recreational user to seek maximum damages.

Surely victims already have the right to sue someone who caused them injury or damage through being skunked out though. And the effect of that could indeed be far-reaching in more than financial terms for the recreational user. Still doesn't seem to put them off though.

I don't really see what new measures you are proposing tbh.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Surely victims already have the right to sue someone who caused them injury or damage through being skunked out though. And the effect of that could indeed be far-reaching in more than financial terms for the recreational user. Still doesn't seem to put them off though.

I don't really see what new measures you are proposing tbh.

Being drugged out has traditionally been a way for defence lawyers to go after diminished repsonsibility.

I'm simply looking at placing measures in which will deter people from using drugs and if they do use think about using more responsibly.

To simply say ok we'll leagalise and away you all go is a rubbish idea.

Seems very much to me that those who always bleet the loudest about legalising are also the very ones who expect the rest of society to pick up the bill when people end up on the skids because of their policies.

 

[DTES]

To be fair though, the left have never given a shit about the victims.

That's why the left are always at the front of criminals civil liberties when opposed to the victims.

Tyrone, glad you're willing to engage directly - could you take up the challenge and answer the question everyone seems to ignore. Why should one drug - alcohol - be selected seemingly at random and treated completely differently? I say "seemingly at random" because there are no scientific, evidence-based criteria for it to be the only one legalised.

If you don't think cannabis etc should be decriminalised, why do you think alcohol should be legal? Do you not "give a shit" about the victims of alcohol abuse either? Or do you deny that there are any victims of alcohol abuse (I really hope your eyes aren't that tightly shut)?

 

[Dave the OAP]

Surely victims already have the right to sue someone who caused them injury or damage through being skunked out though. And the effect of that could indeed be far-reaching in more than financial terms for the recreational user. Still doesn't seem to put them off though.

I don't really see what new measures you are proposing tbh.

using the law is not an option here though is it as you fine someone who has no money and you dont get a penny....

maybe we should shoot them?

 

[The Ringleader Returns!]

I don't see how that's an argument that any (currently illegal) soft drugs should be treated differently to alcohol. In fact I don't see any real evidence-based reason why marijuana, for example, should be treated differently to alcohol.

Legalise it, regulate it and tax it. You'll a) raise tax income, b) save lives by ensuring the marijuana being used is regulated and hence not full of dodgy impurities (that do most of the physical harm) and c) not criminalise a significant number of people. For me, it's simple...

This.

De criminalising the so called soft drugs such as cannabis amphets etc etc, will make the short path to herion or cocaine easier to follow for the vunerable or those with addictive personalities

I smoke Weed now and then, I've taken Speed and Ket, but I wouldn't even think of doing Heroine and Cocaine. Most people who are hooked on "heavier" drugs would have ended up hooked on them, even if they hadn't smoked weed or whatever you're babbling on about.

How is that relevant? Statistically, around 40% of the population of this country have tried cannabis. As the law stands, they can all be sentenced to 5 years in prison. Do you think this is useful, or right?

In a way, I'd LOVE to see everybody who has ever had a toke of weed prosecuted, just to see the look on HB&B's face as people he once respected are sat in the dock.

OK, but how can putting dangerous chemicals into your body constitute have a good time ?
Those that do it i guess don't know the risks / damage they can do.

As other people have said, do you drink? What's the difference?

It's ridiculous false logic that is repeated over and over again: "Every crack/heroin user took cannabis before they moved onto the harder drugs".

It's just as true to say "Every crack/heroin user drank coffee before they moved onto the harder drugs", or "Every crack/heroin user ate cheese before they moved onto the harder drugs". Correlation is NOT causation - but of course this won't stop the conservative right from spouting the rubbish...

I likes you.




HB&B, what would you rather have. A bunch of drunk teenagers wandering down your road, being loud, violent and potentially damaging your property

OR

A bunch of teenagers,in a house down your road, smoking a bit of weed, causing no harm to anybody. Just chilling.

 

[Questions]

Alcohol is the biggest 'Gateway' drug there is.
Prolonged use and you will end up on kebabs.

 

[cannedheat]

Tyrone, glad you're willing to engage directly - could you take up the challenge and answer the question everyone seems to ignore. Why should one drug - alcohol - be selected seemingly at random and treated completely differently? I say "seemingly at random" because there are no scientific, evidence-based criteria for it to be the only one legalised.

If you don't think cannabis etc should be decriminalised, why do you think alcohol should be legal? Do you not "give a shit" about the victims of alcohol abuse either? Or do you deny that there are any victims of alcohol abuse (I really hope your eyes aren't that tightly shut)?

Please God please please pretty please, I hope this poster is not sitting next to me at the amex, he will bore the arse off anyone within earshot of him with his boring facts and figures, if you see a Brighton fan hanging from the footbridge its me cos he is.

 

[bhaexpress]

Please God please please pretty please, I hope this poster is not sitting next to me at the amex, he will bore the arse off anyone within earshot of him with his boring facts and figures, if you see a Brighton fan hanging from the footbridge its me cos he is.

I suspect he feels the same.

 

[Billy the Fish]

It can't be long before we see licensed narcotic use. The war on drugs is being lost convincingly, and good on Lucas for admitting as much, even though it is easy for her to say as she has as much chance of running the country as I have of opening an oyster with a bus ticket. Time for a rethink I'm afraid, and that means that we accept that squeezing demand is proving impossible, as is restricting supply.

I'd advocate a two tier system. Firstly, allow cannabis in its lower risk forms to be ready available in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol, and tax the f*** out of it. Allow it to be consumed out doors and on licensed premises only. Secondly, make other serious narcotics available but only from strictly licensed narcotic stores, where users could buy and consume the narcotics but only on especially monitored premises, away from the public eye, so off the high streets. They should not be glamorised and only made available to people registered as addicts - as an alternative to pumping their bodies with baking soda and rat poison. Ideally they can be monitored and help can be offered to get them off the stuff. I'm not interested in the tax angle from these places, the people who'd use them are desparate enough, and we as a society ought to be able to offer them help change their lives for the better.

The main problem I'd foresee is that you'd have so many understandable nimby problems to deal with - similar to the way strip clubs are objected to, only ten times more vociferous.

We could call them, I don't know....pharmacies? ;-)

Methadone is already prescribed and controlled in this way. Strict conditions can and do apply- some addicts have to drink it in the shop, in front of the pharmacist, because they've been previously suspected of selling it on.

One problem - you're both assuming is that every person using drugs is an addict. If you're going to legalise other narcotics you need to put them in the correct environment, other drugs won't work in the same way methodrone users go to a chemist and take it on the premesis. Most people using MDMA, coke, weed, ket, or speed aren't actually addicted to it. Fine if you're allowed to take it away and do what you want with it but that's not really the idea, nobody is going to register as an addict and sit in a shitty room to do a gram of coke when you can buy from john round the corner and do it at home with your friends.

I think the Amsterdam coffee shop model is the one to follow. Licenced sale of MDMA in clubs and music venues. Private members clubs licenced to sell cocaine. Coffee shops which sell weed. Nothing is allowed to leave the premesis, although that rule will create an entirely new black market.

 

[DTES]

Please God please please pretty please, I hope this poster is not sitting next to me at the amex, he will bore the arse off anyone within earshot of him with his boring facts and figures, if you see a Brighton fan hanging from the footbridge its me cos he is.

You joined a political debate thread thinking it wouldn't involve any facts?

Of course, you're right - it would be much better if we based the law on what was "cool", rather than the facts.

A cynic would say you're changing the subject because it's either that or admit you were wrong...

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I agree with above, many people on this thread are assuming that all drug users are addicts who live in hovels tapping at their arm to find veins. Many people work professional jobs, and just use drugs for fun on special occassions, festivals, birthdays etc once in a blue moon. Because you know, well, it's FUN.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Some people can "handle" drugs, enjoy themselves and carry on next day as normal. Some people just can't handle them (sometimes because of dark areas in their past/current lives eg abuse, stress or an addictive personality). Unfortunately, the problem with drugs come when you cannot recognise which camp you are in.
Society needs to somehow protect these vulnerable people (from themselves).

 

[Shooting Star]

Lucas is an incredibly sensible woman and talks a shitload of sense. This is a very good move indeed IMO as it is clear the battle to stop recreational drugs is a lost cause. Was reading in TIME magazine today (even though it was about injecting drugs) that those countries around the world using tougher measures to stop such drugs have a much higher problem, and those who are more relaxed have far less of a problem. In many cases, for personal use, illegality isn't much of a deterrent. So many of my former sixth form friends did forms of drugs, mostly as a form of rebellion and the risk factor involved. I reckon this would decrease somewhat if it were to be legalized.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They are probably all the people who won't have to deal with the effects nor live in the neighbourhoods where increased drug use could lead to issues.

Ivory tower types.

I think the former president of Colombia has had to deal with the effects of drugs.

 

[simonsimon]

It would appear that this normal windup thread by hove born & inbred has now surpassed his tiny Irish Brigand brain. When the discussions move on to a higher level he disappears.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

It would appear that this normal windup thread by hove born & inbred has now surpassed his tiny Irish Brigand brain. When the discussions move on to a higher level he disappears.

Sorry had to go and earn some cash to pay my Brighton and Hove council tax and therefore subsidise many of the Lucas' cronies.

I don't see discussions have moved to a higher level. Although certain posters who gave short three word sentence answers/statements on Monday night appear to have taken 'instruction' later on Tuesday and come out with the most eloborate and colourful suggestions. You know who they are.

Good morning.

 

[Notters]

Sorry had to go and earn some cash to pay my Brighton and Hove council tax and therefore subsidise many of the Lucas' cronies.

I don't see discussions have moved to a higher level. Although certain posters who gave short three word sentence answers/statements on Monday night appear to have taken 'instruction' later on Tuesday and come out with the most eloborate and colourful suggestions. You know who they are.

Good morning.

The only people providing short, ill thought-out answers appear to be those that agree with you.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

The only people providing short, ill thought-out answers appear to be those that agree with you.

Legalising non prescription drugs of any kind is not the way forward and will lead to all kinds of related crime. Things get banned for a reason, some elected 'visionary' who's own party represents 'the alternative lifestyle' deciding we should adopt a more relax attitude to cannabis is totally opposed to what many in society consider decent clean living.

Does no one remember the fairly recent ad campaigns showing the pitfalls and desperate repercussions of regularly smoking cannabis?

Those who agree obviously have the same values in life.

I believe former Kemp Town MP Des Turner made such a suggestion in 2008. He stood down some time later. Oh er...........Carry on Lucas!