It is risible that the authorities do not think that young professionals know all about the bloody trade route of cocaine. We are inundated with tales of the Medellin drug cartels and film anti-heroes such as Tony Montana of "Scarface" fame.
Legalize it, control it and tax it. Turkey allows and strictly regulates opium production and home made white lightning in the Ozarks has been all but eliminated due to the legalization of alcohol.
How long do you have to keep hitting your head against a wall to see that something doesn't work?

It's good to see that the police have recognised that the current anti drug policy is not working but I can't see this new approach working. There is just no comparison between ethical shopping and ethical drug tacking.

As far as I am concerned the answer has to be to give infromation in schools with the full facts about all drugs and the safer ways to take them if they want. We should educate the young to know all of the information and let them make their own decision because if we don't they will make their decision based on poor information and that will get us nowhere. If you hide or omit anything from the anti drugs message young people will find this information from elsewhere and then your whole argument will loose credence and respectability. Once that has happened there is nothing you can do. In short the answer if full and complete information and letting people make their own decision.

#1 Scullion, Hi mate, If the stuff was legalized the Cartels would lose a heck of a lot of money and that's something they won't let happen I don't think. The underworld from the Cartels down all stand to lose Billions if it's legalized.

An addicts overriding craving for a hit extinguishes any feelings of guilt. They don't give a toss how many people have died or the human misery caused to get their drug of preference. To think that there is an analogy between the fur trade or child labour, etc, is naive in the extreme. Addicts don't have the strenght of conscience to make lasting moral or ethical choices. This proposal will inevitably fall of deaf ears and fail. Sadly.

I worked in a hospital for addicts almost 5 years.
Cocaine is more psycologicaly addictive than physicaly.
It makes a person to feel they can do anything as it gives them the energy of about 10 cups of coffee.
The addictive part is: When they come down, the depression is equal to their high.
The first time they try it, it is very mild, but lasts for a few days, with effects compounding as use grows.
Crack cocaine is about 10 times the strength of regular street white powder cocaine.

I STRONGLY suggest airing this film in every school and on public TV:
"Traffic" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/

The movie Won 4 Oscars. Another 57 wins & 46 nominations in USA.

In USA, cocaine use even went as high as the President in the Iran-Contra affair.
see the complete documentation at:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

To see the importers - it is the same as those wanting 24 hour pubs as this is where it is sold...... Alcohol is but another drug.
A little kicker herein is that the yeast are a form of bacteria that eat sugar/starch and deficate alcohol... <swizzle that with your lunch.

That's the way lads - kick the habit and get back to the hard stuff....like Tunnocks Caramel Wafers and a cup of Bovril......much better than sticking Harpic up your nose and so long as Gordon Brown controls inflation....probably cheaper !!

Excuse me! Have I missed something here? What has conscience got to do with feeding an addicition? I agree with Scullion, a fundamentally different approach is required.

hey, have you seen how they make it? Leaves soaked in petrol and diesel- probly worse for your health than the cocaine... anyway, check out an anti-cocaine song on http://www.fifetv.com/view_video.php?viewkey=929b125f8597...

the blood in question is that of colombians etc- I don't have a lot of sympathy for the middle-class pseudo-hippies who give themselves coke related heart attax...

#8, the campaign is aimed at people who use it recreationally. Are you saying that all cocaine users are addicts? All alcohol users are certainly not.

It's an imaginative approach and should be commended.

Why have I missed this entire drugs thing? I am aware of young girls forced on to Heroin to be used as prostitutes by evil gangs. I have seen a person smoking cannabis many years ago. I do not know anybody that takes drugs or would even talk about taking drugs. I do not understand why anybody would want to take drugs. I have been to the night raves and parties. I feel like I have been to many orgies and remained a virgin. The answer is find out why some people are immune and make a vaccine.

Prohibition does NOT work. Correct #1 and #3.

Of course Mizz Wood will say what she has said. Part of her role is to make herself and her organisation seem important in saving us from ourselves. Dream on!!!

As long as drugs are illegal there will be drug barons (the real crooks) and indeterminate quality of what is being sold. Deal with these and the problem goes away. So make it ALL legal, and ensure it all quality controlled.

THEN you can deal with the real killers, cigarettes and alcohol.

We be demanding Fairtrade drugs.

Coke is the best drug of all. Most of us are middle class now and why should be subject to another boring gormless campaign by our inneffective police forces? Also (sniff, ahhh) can i point out that our cockaine use help sustain dirt poor farmers growing the coca leaf.

#14 Spot on! Human beings will always find ways to get high. I suspect many who criticize druggies are all to willing to smoke nicotine or pop down to the boozer for a vodi or a pint, or several vodis or pints.

As always, if you follow the money you eventually find the reason for everything!

Funny, appealing to the users conscience. As if that'll work.

Be as well saying, turn off your computers as they pollute the world and rip off your Asda's clothes as they are made by Chinese children in sweat shops.

Barmy.

Logically and by extension, you could say that every pint, every nip and every fag is steeped in blood, too!

I'm with those who say that making these things illegal has criminalised those who partake of such substances and enriched those who supply them.

As with fags n booze, the government should have allowed them and then taxed them to the limit!

#14. Fairtrade Drugs. Has a ring to it, doesn't it!

"Imaginative anti-drug campaigns"?? They have never worked. Never will. A complete paradigm shift is required. A new vision in the control of drugs.

Look at the deep-rooted hostility Labour faced with their smoking ban! You can't tell me that didn't contribute to their ousting!

Actually Eric, that has happend but maybe not to the same propencity as hard drug users.

However, I would say the most cocaine users are in good, well paid jobs but it's the smack addicts that are the thieving scum.

I would, of course, defer to your better knowledge.

Drug users not drugs should be irradicated. Legalise drugs and give them away for free to people that want them. They will soon remove themseleves from the gene pool doing the work for us and then everyone will be a lot happier and better off. All this money inefectually spent trying to save people from their own self destructive tendancies when we'd be bettre off without them really is a farce.

Natural selection is a wonderful thing. Why interfere with it?

If you really want to save poeple from drugs you have to work on the person not the substance. We live in a psychologicaly sick society yet it is far easier to deal with the external war on drugs, far more comforting and tangible than to examine the murky depths of our own inner beings and psyches, to truly shine a torch into the dark recesses and the terrfying realities of our own existence. But until we gain the courage to do so, state sponsored self euthanasia via free access to drugs probably remains our most fiscally sensible approach to dealing with pain, suffering and cold beating emptieness at the heart of most people.

20 .Yes i agree .And i have work freinds who take it ,And turn violent and nasty with it too,

I wonder which naive goody two shoes boyscout thought this one up, these people are junkies, they dont give a damn who gets hurt, just so long as they get their junk.

What is Tommy Sheridan's mate Hugo Chavez doing about the "Sun Cartel" and the "corrupt elements of the Venezuelan security forces"?

..Oh I forgot he's too busy "standing up to America".

Any chance of wee Hugo standing up to his own generals then?

Maybe its better for wee Hugo to create a diversion by prattling on about American Imperialism - so no one will realise he's just another corrupt wide boy who is making millions of dollars from the drug trade.

police : drugs are bad m'okay.

drug users : no they are not, they are fun.

bawheeds : you are all junky scum, filth and ah no peed myself again.

Cant really see what the fuss is about. Since neolithic times we have been sitting arround eating magic mushrooms, drinking mead and laughing.

The current distinctions between drugs are arbitrary and meaningless. Even the scientists will tell you that.

Morning Timothy

Hope all is well with you. As you suggest, one would be very suprised at who is on drugs at any one time, illegal or prescribed.

Eric is the man with the knowledge and I would defer to his superior information.

Prohibition in 1930's America fuelled US organized crime. The "war on drugs" is doing exactly the same in the UK. Drugs are commonplace in our streets and cities and the people making the money are the criminals. The answer is to look at ways of allowing people to buy drugs from sources that are not criminal.

Good morning to you, too, Dave - actually its mid-morning over there where you are.

I have just had my second cup of fair-trade, organic, shade-grown Columbian (COFFEE!) and since it is 4:30a.m. here am about to take Chester my Black Lab for his walk and then a refreshing bicycle ride before the travails of the day begin.

Thanks for referring me to the postings of Eric. He appears to know of what he speaks - how refreshingly different from some of the babblers in these forums.

Many of them should take training in how to say a lot in as little space as possible. It would save us from trudging through reams of pallid and inconsequential palaver.

Like fags and booze?

Like the Amsterdam model?

Police forces have launched a new strategy to deal with growing cocaine use. Picture: Neil Hanna
Police to tackle middle-class cocaine use through appeal to conscience
Drug enforcement agency exploiting current ethical consumerism trend
Move indicates tacit acceptance that health-driven campaigns have failed
"If people were truly socially-aware in their lifestyle choices, they wouldn't take cocaine."
GILL WOOD.. the national drugs co-ordinator for the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement."horrendous violence".."a swipe.. You are headmaster… at the middle classes .and where are the rich. They an buy plenty..with social conscience ..lost by the Iraqi war..that doesn't seem to extend to drugs"…We have discussed, with whom?? getting this message out at T in the Park as a good proportion of festival-…. Please can I have ticket.."We should try to harness .. That is what the horse wear on the nose..laudable intentions of people to live in environmentally considerate and responsible way." ..Sir Ian Blair caused a stir three years ago when he made similar remarks on becoming commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, but this is the first time senior officers in Scotland have adopted such a stance. Then he shot the young boy…. There was an out cry.. Now we have another lady..SARAH is, in many ways, typical of her generation. The 36-year-old from Glasgow insists on buying fair-trade food and declares her concern about the environment. Her casual drug taking, she accepts, requires her to cast aside the ethical principles she normally holds dear. A gram of cocaine bought in Edinburgh or Glasgow typically costs around £50. WE know the price..Cocaine destined for Scotland is commonly flown into the UK, usually in loads of between 10kg and 50kg..We know how they are packed.. Drivers are paid about £500-£1,000 for bringing the drug into the country. Is this under payment or overpayment. Are they complaining or ar

AM2 - Can I take it that you are not referring to alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, prescribed medicines or over the counter remedies?

To THE Ed Sir.
With the statistics, you have, what is the story?
I don’t understand why you want recyclable Pampers????
"Sun Cartel", You have this too??? If he is lucky, the cocalero will walk away with £600 profit per hectare per year, IS THIS BIG DEAL.. 600 per hectare per year….. which will have to support a whole family.
You don’t want him to make more 600 only and how much do you make 600 is peanuts.. But it is in Colombia where the cocaine trade really pays its blood tolls. In the province of Putumayo, one of the coca-growing heartlands of Colombia, 115 bodies were exhumed earlier this month from mass graves. Why you talk of Columbia here. Talk of Scotland madam. Please I cant hear you..Here we go again. In Iraq many have been blown no heroine???? The Attorney General's office believes that in Putumayo alone some 3,000 people are buried in shallow graves - more than 10,000 nationwide. Colombia sees more than 18,000 murders a year - an average of 50 a day. You see people boycotting certain products, refusing to buy disposable nappies, choosing organic vegetables, trying to satisfy themselves their shopping basket is full of fair trade goods. I am sorry I am too far I don’t see.

NO5

Please air as much you can but don’t air in here It smells.
I STRONGLY suggest airing this film in every school and on public TV:
"Traffic" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/
The movie Won 4 Oscars. Another 57 wins & 46 nominations in USA.
In USA, cocaine use even went as high as the President in the Iran-Contra affair.
see the complete documentation at:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

Let me say 2 things.
1....People who take drugs should be charged and fined or in the ideal world jailed.
2....People who take drugs are just plain stupid.Can`t see why anyone would want to.They must have empty lives.

The article refers to social use of cocaine, not the desperation of addiction where people commit crimes to fund a need. Check the statistics on alcohol too. The people most likely to beat up and mug people, commit domestic violence, vandalism, and social disorder are those under the influence of ALCOHOL. There is no evidence as far as I'm aware that social cocaine users, who are not living with addiction, commit crimes to fund their addiction.

What #34 said.

But then I suppose it's easier to send them all to the big hoose rather than analyse why people take drugs in the first place.

Why is the snuffer closing the eye? Bad for the eye? I am asking no offence. I take lot of heroine by nose but I keep my eyes open to see how the powder disappears.
But then I want to know where my granny is. She does not like these. She sneezes a lot. She told me it is bad for the urine. Is It?

Sir I am off to the other column this is bad for me I am only 10.

#26
There are many people who have no contact with drugs. I'm one of them.
I choose to keep away from places it might be found and choose not to take anything that could take control of my life.
I enjoy life and don't need drugs or alcohol to have a good time, and I can remember what I did to have a good time. Ask someone who got drunk if they had a good time and they will say yes. Ask them what they did to have a good time and they can't remember!!!

PS, the comment about the obnoxiously new ages self righteous vegetarian woman who knows about the bloody history of the powder she puts up her nose but does it anyway- don't you just hate those snotty eco vegan poster demonstrator types. She typifies everything I hate about hippies and people with a so called social conscience who are "llike so aware man".

I imagine she goes on anti capitalist demonstrations and thinks she's striking a blow for humanity.

She probably also wears all sorts of ethnic looking clothes just so people are left in no doubt about what a concientous and earth loving evolved creature she is. Typical narcissitic self deluded drug user.

I think the last thing we need is more trendy fairtrade pap for these types, instead anyone caught in possession should be sent to columbia as community service and forced to work as a grave digger or body carrier. A stiff dose of the reality they are trying to ignore will soon get their heads sorted.

1. How many drug addicts support the view that viewing child pornography is a most heinous offence worthy of jail? The usual argument used against viewers of child pornography is that children have suffered in its making. But precisely the same argument applies to drug use. In fact, even more so, because far more people are damaged, and even killed, because of the drug trade.

2. So legalising drugs will remove all the criminality asscociated with the drug trade? And the drug dealers will then become law abiding citizens!!! They will simply turn to other criminal activities.

3.One step tthat can be easily taken against drug addicts is to refuse them NHS treatment. A drug addict of his/her own free will decides to start taking drugs in the full knowledge that they are likely to become addicts. So why should people who are ill because of no fault of their own have no or delayed treatment so that drug addicts can be treated?

thinking

Does that include prescribed drugs and over the counter drugs that control peoples lives?

No single person is an island.

#35 AM2

But with other fairtrade initiatives, the product doesn't become socially unaccetable, only the production and merchandising. One odd thing about this initiative is the measure of its success. Presumably the SCDEA's intent is to reduce cocaine cosumption. But if, instead, a more ethical supply system emerges in response to demand, how will that be evaluated?

Chikderic - the point about prohibition is that it is a way that criminals can make a lot of money. Remove that option for them and you remove a lucrative source of income. Sure they will look for other ways of doing their business but I suspect that few will be quite as money making as drugs.

#42 - well done - you're not missing anything.

In addition drug users make appaling company. They are all self obsessed, narcisitic to a degree you can't believe, mentally unstable, agressively defensive about their habits and totally devoid of any insight into these facts.

Mong basher- how do you mange to be so insightful?

"who says it`s addictive i have been using it for many years" ??

drugs have only become a serious problem since most of them have become illegal.
what bugs me most is how they make marijuana this great gateway drug that makes you graduate to coke smack and all the rest when we all know its really alcohol.
and of course we all know who gets most of the money spent on alcohol and cigs and petrol .
do you think maybe the govt wants to stamp out drugs cause they dont like the competition

Easy solution: kill every middle class person. No-one'll miss 'em and it'll also end the careers of all those hideously bland jazz musicians like Amy Whinehouse that are currently popular.

41.....Fitrtzy pal you are on top form today...top marks for comedy content....excellent!

I support the idea of compulsory drug testing on a regular basis for everyone and
I MEAN EVERYONE!!! NO EXCEPTIONS!!!
we can then weed out the users of drugs(illeagal)
this would put the shoiters up the so called
middel-class professionals.Anyone who is detected can have their name and address published in the Scotsman newspaper.

Kameroon - sound like an excellent idea, it would mean that the suppliers of illegal drugs would then know where all their potential customers live. 10 out of 10 for that one!

thats right kameroon then when theres no more druggies left all you narrow minded people can have the world all to yourselves what a wonderfull world that would be.

"If people were truly socially-aware in their lifestyle choices, they wouldn't take cocaine."

What a rediculous, politically correct, pink and fluffy thing to say.

What's wrong with saying "If people were not morons, they wouldn't take cocaine"?

The best solution would be to legalise ALL drugs. You would then have control over the purity, ability to tax them and put the dealers ourt of business overnight. After all we do it with tobacco and alcohol which are 2 other drugs. Think of the millions we would save world wide in enforcement costs and our prisoins would then be half empty for the real criminals.

#43 Mong Basher
Comment of the day!

Where does this Gill Wood get the idea that its 'middle class' people who are cocaine users?

She's never heard of Frank McAvennie I take it. So he's the posh middle class ex-fitba' player then is he?

If we got rid of ALL drug users, there would be hardly anybody left. If you smoke nicotine, drink alcohol, coffee, tea, or any caffiene drinks, use medication of any type for health reasons or for recreation, you are a DRUG USER! The vast majority of the population are drug users.

Unfortunately, people tend to believe that drugs are illegal substances when in fact they are ANY substance you put into your body that changes the functions of the body or the mind. The laws are based on politics, and as such, are ineffective and possibly even lead to great harm.

Rather than try to appeal to the ethical consumers, why don't the government step up education programmes and do something about the image of cocaine. A lot of people who use cocaine believe themselves to be in some sort of exclusive group of high flyers who are the elite among drug users. If the same type of image was connected to cocaine that is to heroin, for that reason alone some people would steer clear. Nothing will work for everyone, but I believe that the image created several decades ago, when cocaine was actually an expensive substance, goes a long way to maintaining its social standing. It's no more expensive than heroin nowadays, but the images are quite different.

Mcsnagpile, there are indeed "vaccines" for heroin and cocaine, however it would be extremely irresponsible to start using them considering that most medical anesthetics are in essence the same thing. I don't think you'd want to have a root canal, undergo major surgery or give birth without any anesthetic would you?

As for this strategy, it's good to see that the police are moving away from the government mandated "Just Say No!", however I don't think that we'll see a massive reduction in cocaine use. What we really need is a government that isn't afraid of the tabloid press and will decriminalise the drug market.

#63, The issue of image is an important one. If people got it into their heads that using cocaine is on the same level as using heroin, they might think twice. They wouldn't want to be known as junkies, like their heroin using counterparts. Cocaine is so cheap nowadays, anyone who can spend a weekend on alcohol (2nd biggest killling drug in this country) can afford to party on cocaine. It's no longer the rich man's drug.

Mong Basher needs a nap.

Lets get real. Youngsters have used drugs since "drugs" were Invented.

In the 1830's, Laughing Gas was the drug of choice.

Young people will continue to experiment with drugs and will find others (horse tranquilisers... for the love of god) if some are not readily available or have fallen out of fashion.

Leagalise it , control it , with the emphasis on control.

While we are at it , Control alcohol. Only sell it offsale in Government run shops.

It's time to grow up and accept drugs as a part of growing up.

"Young people will continue to experiment with drugs"

Accept it and contain it. IT WILL NOT CHANGE.

55. Kameroon.

publishing scottish drug users names in the scotsman would make the scotsman 28,972 pages long.

Miss Cankers

I didn't get his humour. Maybe I am not stoned enough to appreciate it. But then, he is only TEN YEARS OLD!

Since you appreciated his humour does this mean you are.... well, we'll let that pass for now.

Why is every gram of cocaine soaked in blood Gillian?
And why is every gram of coffee not soaked in blood?
Answer - those who profit from the war on drugs, prohibitionsits like you Gillian, made it so.
I'm sure being a war criminal pays well, I'm sure you live in a nice house Gillian, but when you look in the mirror in the morning, you know that every brick of your home is made from bones the dead you never met, held together by the blood you helped to spill.

The best solution would be to legalise all drugs.

It is absolutely immoral that the government controls what individuals decide to do with their own bodies and property. I'm thinking of how absurd it is that one need to pay for a permit to grow tobacco plants in your greenhouse! What kind of absurd government is this?

Agreed Jock.

If you take this to its logical conclusion and go the fair-trade route, you could close half the shops on every high street , at least.

No more asda or tesco , no more cheap electronic goods made in china. I'm sure theres tons more.

Legalisation is the sensible way forward but we are decades away from it.

To be fair , Gill is working within the current confines.

#62 interstellarmince: As long as it has a wee hauf in it? :o)

Why don't they raid middle-class homes, parties and clubs? Or is that getting too close to home for the law and order aficiandos of Labour and Tory?

...starting with almost any pub, club or house party in Edinburgh's New Town, George St area. Or is it just poor folk and neds who get done for drugs?

(80) well said. It seems it is easier ordering coke than a pizza. Friends do it and think nothing of it - its almost part of a night out for them. These are all well educated people in well paid jobs. Do you think anyone actually cares where it came from? As long as they're having a good time all is well. They will do it some weekends then not for a few weeks. This "new strategy" is laughable and will not work

"These are all well educated people in well paid jobs."

They may be well-educated on paper. That doesn't mean to say that they have any common sense. The fact that they are in well-paid jobs is worrying...

To my mind, they are morons and I wouldn't count them amongst my friends.

Compulsory surprise drug testing.No exceptions,all jobs.The concept by police to appeal to drug addled citizens conscience, is bound to failure!The thought process by police ,is truly flawed and intellectually lazy.

Drugs like cocaine are psychologically damaging, that is a fact. If you have ever seen anyone who has taken cocaine over lond periods of time you will know that.
But then, so is alcohol, just to a different extent.

The "middle classes" who are using these drugs refuse to listen to any reason with regards to the dangers to themselves so what makes people think that in the materialistic world that we live in that the users will give a stuff about other people when they do not care what they are doing to themselves!

I think that there is alot to be said about legalising and taxing it - not only does it remove the "dangerous" appeal of it but it will prevent the people who benefit from its sale from making the amount of money they do from it.

Education would help too! If people are going to take it they should be aware of exactly what is in it, what the dangers are and the safest way to take it if they are adamant that they are going to.

In the interests of fair and informed debate I've gathered a few facts on the 'war on drugs', (I've used America as the control case as theirs is globally the most high profile and widely spread anti drugs campaign with the most readily available information)

AMERICA; -

Spends annually $50 BILLION on the war on drugs - Source; Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Arrests annually in excess of 1.7 MILLION people for drug offences with 45% of the arrests being for offences involving cannabis (765,000 people) - Source; Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Fails to prevent 10 new cases of HIV infection EVERY DAY through it's federal ban on the needle exchange program, proven to be the single most effective weapon in the reduction of HIV infection in the western world - Source; Center for AIDS prevention studies University of California San Francisco.

Fails to spend nearly as much on the Leading Causes of Death as they do on the war on drugs;
Leading causes of death in America (annually);
TOBACCO - 435,000
JUNKFOOD - 365,000
ALCOHOL - 85,000
DISEASE - 75,000
POLLUTION - 55,000
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS - 32,000
SUICIDE - 30,000
FIREARMS - 29,000
MURDER - 20,000
SEXUAL BEHAVIOURS - 20,000
ILLEGAL DRUG USE - 17,000
Source; American Medical Association.

Publishes annual 'Drug offence Statistics' which show 1,700,000 arrests for drug offences. 45% (765,000) were arrested for Marijuana offences with 695,000 of those arrests being for simple possession - Source; Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Confirms that alcohol is associated with more violent crime than any illegal drug, including crack, cocaine, and heroin. Of all federal prisoners incarcerated for Violent offences;
21% were under the influence of ALCOHOL
3% were under the influence of COCAINE/CRACK
1% were under the influence of HEROINE
40% of all murders were committed under the influence of alcohol

Very well said #86! Nobody is denying the dangers of drug abuse but perhaps there is quite alot of scaremongering involved . . . As I said, definitely time for a rethink.

There are a lot of people on this forum with very little knowledge and a great deal of prejudice. This is an article about occasional cocaine. Why, in that case, do many refer to 'drugs' (as if they were all the same) and 'addicts'? This shows a closed mind-set. I do not suggest that taking cocaine is a good idea but at least address the issue, not your prejudices.

It really would send out the wrong message to kids to decriminalise cocaine. This is not a dated view - I've seen the damage this stuff does and know how far down the path people can go.

I understand what people are saying about taking out the dealers, but I don't think that is the answer, after all, to start on a gov't sponsored programme you have to be an addict...to be an addict you've got to get it illegally...no gov't could ever justify handing out drugs to a first time user.

I was fairly relaxed about drugs until my 20's and saw the state that some of my less guided pals took.

Hezza, I have seen this too. But it also shows that peolpe will not listen to the dangers, as with alcohol.

"..public relations profession.." - an oxymoronif ever there was one. All fur coat and no knickers.

I agree post no.43

It should be madatory that all people are drug tested in the workplace at least four times a year. those found to have taken illegal drugs can be fired on the spot.

School pupils should be tested at least three times each term.

But no!! the PC and liberals will say infringement of human rights ................ B/S the more testing the more those junkies will find it harder to hide their dissgusting habit.

I also have to correct a few 'facts' that have appeared on this forum;

Cocaine is exclusively psychologically addictive, it produces no physical addiction criteria such as Heroine.

Cocaine effects everybody differently depending on an individuals Dopamine and Serotonin levels and their ability to produce Adrenaline, (some people become deleriously happy whilst others become dangerously psychotic), this is usually as a result of usage patterns.

The post usage depression is caused by reduced levels of Dopamine and Serotonin, it is usually temporary and will return to normal within 1 - 3 days, again dependant on usage patterns - The more you use, the more you lose.

Finally, let's debunk the myth that crack is purer than powder cocaine;

Powder Cocaine, (Cocaine Hydrochloride), is the product derived from treating base cocaine with Hydrochloric acid to produce a crystalline form which when snorted can be absorbed through the very thin and delicate mucus membrane and thus into the bloodstream.

Base Cocaine is the base product as extracted from the coca plant, base cocaine is only effective when smoked or 'free-based', due to the difficulties of re extracting the base cocaine from the powder form, (you need specific chemicals and paraphenalia for free-basing and the process is extremely dangerous)
this form of cocaine use is not very popular nowadays.

Because Cocaine in it's crystal form is extremely susceptible to temperature and moisture levels, smoking normal powder cocaine doesn't give much of an effect, free basing is complicated and difficult, so there was a third form developed, Crack.
Crack is Cocaine Hydrochloride that has been bonded to a naturally occuring salt, (purifying salts or sodiumbicarbonate), in order to slow down the burning process when smoked thus giving a much more profound effect which is much shorter lived than that achieved by snorting.

As it costs less to process a kilo of heroin or cocaine than it does to refine a kilo of sugar, then the obvious solution is to legalise and tax it. The main opponants to this sensible policy are the criminals who are making fortunes, and the people employed as drugs workers, who see legalisation as their ticket back to the McJobs they were otherwise destined for. If you want a consice summary of the arguments for legalisation, I suggest you read the speech in "trainspotting" that states that society sees an individuals decision to use drugs as a symptom of that societies failure. PS cocaine = middle class, yea right, whoever wrote that obviously hasn't been on the terraces for a while, it's the drug of choice for the discerning fan who wants to be able to go on a 14 hour session!

#86 Has done his homework. These reports and studies have been presented to various administrations for close to 4 decades. Half the people in prison are inside for cannabis!! It's totally absurd. I am a 60 year old who remembers Nixon declaring war on drugs in 71. Since that time we have spent over a trillion dollars and are in a much worse situation then when this "war" started. Prohibition does not work, period. Any rational, thoughtful person has to conclude that a new way of dealing with drugs has to evolve. Unfortunately politicians in the US don't have the stones to tell the moralists they are making the situation worse.

I can only agree with #1.

The government now seems to accept that 'social' drug taking occurs within the middle classes and is not likely to stop through their current campaigns... Regulation - not legalisation - of certain drugs would certainly make a difference to the supply chain and criminality associated with the trafficking of the drugs.
Maybe the money currently used to stop the drug coming into the country illegally & that raised from taxes on the drugs could instead be used for education about drug taking and assitance for those at risk of dependancy to these drugs?

A sensible view must be taken by the government of the use of drugs in society now rather than perscuting those social users who cause no harm...

I cant see what all the fuss is about. This is a woman who needs to be seen to be doing something in her new job, thats all.

Things will not change , people are not stupid and will not change their habits because of Global nonsense.

...oh, I nearly forgot the most important thing, ever heard anyone say "I love coke when I'm out drinking"?
The reason they love the feeling produced by using coke and alcohol at the same time is actually down to a simple chemical reaction in the liver which produces a new substance called Cocaethylene. This effectively increases the euphoria caused by the alcohol and cocaine in the system and simultaneously increases the speed at which the pathways in the brain, (synapses), work, otherwise known as the 'superman effect'...

...downside is, superman is 7-10 times more likely to have a severe convulsive fit or fall victim to a spontaneous and total cardiovascular failure than somebody who doesn't mix the two.......

Preposterous! Research has shown from Nature to National Geographic that humans simply WANT to get high and always have and always will. Consider the solutions here: http://www.leap.cc/. The middle class recreational users are much more likely, due to left wing propaganda, to resent the intervention in governments in their personal affairs as well as at the supply end of things for what they see as innocent fun and assume that govts are responsibile for most of the bloodshed. It will not work.

Appealing to users consciences is a bit of a joke. If they love the feeling they get from using it - do you for one minute think they are going to give a hoot about the way it's trafficked. As long as people crave it - and there's money to be made from the sale there is no way it's going to be stopped. Making it available and taxed, seems to me the way to go, but I can't see that happening. There must be greed and corruption along the way to keep the supply moving along. The War on Drugs is a joke.

#98 - JACKPOT!!
REGULATION is what the best political solutions are all about, something for everyone.
It doesn't have to be LEGALIZED, (a word which will send any politician into uncontrollable spasms), a combination of de-criminalization and regulation would more than likely create an acceptable situation for everyone.
Weed isn't legal even in Holland, it's just de-criminalized and regulated for tax purposes, works a hell of a lot better than making someone a criminal for occasionally playing with puff the medicinal dragon.......

We are all middle class drug users, apart from you Chairman Gordon.

Now get back down that mine.

95. Sláine
Your argument seems to be that the American "War on Drugs" is a failure because far more people die from tobacco, alcohol and obesity than illegal drugs. How then would you define success?

Presumably, one of the aims of the "War on Drugs" is to minimise drug related deaths. Since these are low, perhaps US efforts are more successful than you think.

#103 & 104 - Can you prove that you don't smoke, drink alcohol or occasionally eat too much?
Can you prove that you don't add to pollution or ever use prescription drugs?
Because if you can't then you fall into at least 5 of the top 10 cause of death categories, therefore you sir are a burden on our health system and our perfect society as a whole!

Let he without sin cast the first stone and all that.......

#108, Show me some evidence that drug related deaths have fallen off. I don't see it and as a professional who work with "gang folk" I can assure you they are dying and being maimed like flies. I am convinced after being part of this nightmare for 30 years that regulation, treatment for addiction and education are the only way out of this mess. In the US politicians have taken a socio-medical issue and made it criminal. One more time.....it is not working and is perpetuating criminal behaviors. The moralists have had a go and failed. Let another approach to this problem be considered for Gods sake.

#99 Laura Palmer

Yours has to be the most ignorant and stupid comment in this forum.

Your lack of perspective and dismissive attitude towards the sincere efforts of another woman to at least TRY a different approach to a very serious problem smacks of jealousy and envy.

You are a disgrace to all women in positions of authority and just embarrass yourself by posting such ignorant, arrogant comments.

Smarten up, you sorry excuse for a thinking person of the feminine gender!

#113, pedophiles do NOT respond to treatment. There is no analogie . I am amused at how you can come to the conclusion I am a "liberal" from this post. It also cracks me up that you put pedophiles and liberals in the same catagory. You showed your true colours my son. This is a problem we all should be trying to deal with. Name calling will not help but go ahead if it helps you cope.

#118, Ach away wae ya

Perhaps due to the war in Iraq, they can convince all the people of SCOTLAND to boycott OIL. USE BIODIESEL and Electric cars. BOYCOTT Multinational Oil Companies THAT KILL innocent people to STEAL THEIR OIL!!!

112. Donal fae Motherwell
You say drug prohibition isn’t working. That's like saying anti-terrorism policing isn't working just because sometimes terrorists are successful. Some drug use is inevitable. Prohibition is about limiting drug use, not eliminating it. A good analogy is shoplifting. It's illegal but a few people still do it. Take away the illegality and most people will do it.

You recommend "regulation, treatment for addiction and education" for drugs instead of prohibition. It should be obvious that what you advocate will result in far lower prices. How can that possibly result in less drug use, drug injuries or drug deaths?

OK, how about never argue with a fool.

#111

Your point seems to be that legal drugs are ok and illegal drugs are bad.

Ever consider the notion that the law might not be perfect? Or that it could cause more problems than it solves?

Drugs have slowly undermined all our societies and and are a detriment to the advancement of what little civilisation is remaining with us. The penalties for either taking or dealing in drugs are so punitive that they cannot deter the continuation. Unless the punishment is so severe that even thinking of going near drugs is terrifying, very little will ever be accomplished.
Bring out the firing squad .... so we execute 2000 or 3000 of the dregs and wasters of our society .... the result will be that we can save millions of innocents.
The numbers executed would be no different to any of the wars that are going on at the moment, it would be much cheaper with tangible results
Anyone Agree .......????

#108 Dougie - I do suspect that you're just trying to be fascetious, my point is simply this;

Politicians are manipulating information and using the politics of fear to justify the staggeringly enormous amounts of money wasted on massively exaggerated 'problems'.
They tell us that they are fighting global wars on terrorism, drugs and hunger against hordes of evil people, governments and societies when in fact those problems are far less significant than the worldwide problems caused by their political and economic policies.

#122 - Dougie, my point is that prohibition has not limited drug use. Drugs are much more varied and inexpensive then 30 years ago. Police corruption has increased, the list of negatives from this approach is endless.

Why does even discussing a new tactic considered to be a mistake?

123. Never argue with a fool. Thats the lesson for today.

Timothy charles etc, Laura Palmer is not a real person.

126. Sláine
I'm not convinced that the problems are insignificant. It only takes a few junkies to drag down a neighbourhood or a city centre.

112. Donal fae Motherwell writes that he works with people who are "dropping like flies". I don't but I'm inclined to believe him.

If you're saying that the USA would be better to direct some of its drugs policing money into other things you're probably right. But removing law enforcement altogether would be a big mistake and I suspect in Britain we've got the balance about right.

127. Donal fae Motherwell
Certainly drugs are cheaper. All manufactured goods are cheaper than 30 years ago relative to earnings (except cigarettes perhaps). Manufacturing and transportation is cheaper now. That's got nothing to do with ineffective law enforcement. Remove the law enforcement and the price of drugs will drop to almost nothing. Drugs will become more accessible to even the poorest people and drug use will increase.

Personally I dont think its a war that can be won. Seems we spend too much time fighting wars that cant be won these days.

Only thing we can do is contain it.

How effective is drug testing at work , and for interviews ? Anybody stateside got any figures?

#130- Dougie, Have to leave fpor work but I must respond. I boughjt a new car in 1975 for 4k US. It would cost 40k today. Manufacturing prices have gone up for the consumer.

The old ways have failed. We need to look at other approaches to the problem

#130 "the price of drugs will drop ... and drug use will increase"

That doesn't necessarilly follow. If you take tobacco as an example, in many industrialised countries, the price of cigarettes is very low compared to here. Yet consumption has fallen at a similar rate to here over the last 20 years or so, presumably as a result of health campaigns and social pressures.

Gordon mo sheann charaid, why stop at illegal drugs? Are legal ones harmless and 'unabused'? Are is that cos you partake in them too? Wonder if your kids will turn out the same way as Blair's, Thatcher's, MacConnell's and the Windsors?

Large parts of our cities are awash with cocaine. A friend was in London recently and reported that the pub he visited was full of locals coked out of their heads from stockbrokers to tradesmen. The cops, if they venture out of their station won't bother as they might hit too close to home.

Is Gordon a Muslim or a Wee Free?

Or is he a hypocrite who likes his wee swally like most of us?

Ouch big boy! Now get back to yer bottle and fags. Those clean harmless drugs that kill no-one...

But you are teetotal aren't you?

Is it stupid to point out that legal drugs are just as harmful as illegal ones?

Slàinte mhath 'ille na dibhe!

I think Iman Gordon in Bannockburnabad is sharpening his sword.

And you don't? If cannibas was legal, it'd be ok by you?

You enjoy alcohol, one of our biggest killers. Give it up and you'll get some respect. If not, live with it 'lle bhig.

You can pretty well eliminate most of those that do not smoke as drug users.

You watching Reporting Scotland the now? Aye, and alcohol is harmless!

Sorry, my puritan friend, the problems i have in my town are not with guys having a wee smoke but with lads, mostly, vomiting, fighting and peeing all over the place most nights of the week. That's not to mention the drunk drivers and those who quietly drink themselves to death in their own homes or take out their drunken rage on their partners.

Yeah, by all means, hit the coke users and those of e, heroin and meths but don't for a minute pretend that OUR drug habits are somehow superior. I know folk who have a wee smoke, probably less often than you drink. Should they be locked up? Logically, which drug does most harm to society? Or does the fact that your govt. tells you that fags and booze are ok mean you can get on your moral high ground and band about solutions that Iran would find extreme?

Nis, thall is gabh te bheag! You and your middle-class pals. Lock up the 4x4 drivers while you're at it. It's mostly them who are coked oot their heids!

It's easy to dismiss drug and alchohol problems when it doesn't affect your day to day life. I'm fed up of calling the police and council to get drug addicts and drunks out of my building and garden and clean up needles that are in my 'home'. I'm afraid to let my kids out to play for fear of finding someone shooting up in the cellars on the way out or falling on needles in the garden. I'm fed up of hearing the fights and screaming outside my window from addicts - to alcohol and drugs. I'm sick of crowds of drunks walking down the street at 3.00am in the morning (every day where I live) screaming and singing and fighting and swearing where my kids hear the most vile language and get woken in the middle of the night. Personally I'm fed up with the bleeding hearts who don't live among addicts and anti-social behaviour every single day. Lock 'em up and get them out of the way of people like me who just want to live without fear of their kids going out to play. You can all wax lyrical about how it would be better to legalise drugs - but presumably you won't be playing host to them shooting up in your house because they have nowhere else to shoot up or can't wait to get home for their fix. All those that want to legalise drugs should invite the junkies to go round their houses and enjoy a nice bit of legal drug taking in their front rooms - or doesn't that appeal?

Gentlemen please! You both have fair and valid points but you do not have to justify your own way of life to each other or anybody else here!

Agree to disagree. You certainly agree with each other on a number of points so let it go.

If drugs with no therapeutic value are to freely sold then what about therapeutic drugs. Why can't I buy an antibiotic or a decent painkiller like morphine without going to the doctor's?

Why not adopt the Malaysian approach - hang the dealers

Hey Gordon, you're a real bundle of laughs, you Tartan Taliban you. You need to relax that tight butt of yours. Have a whisky man. Or maybe a wee smoke for our drug taking moral guardian?

You've got a point Dave. It's just so easy for some to moralise about others - like Thatcher, Blair etc - but it's funny how perspectives change when it's your own kids. When one's precious middle-class daughters swap their horses for coke or get jakied in a city club.

If folk want a hardline approach to this issue, then go and live in Iran.

We have created a liberal society and with that we have to accept everything that comes with it.

That includes accepting peoples right to get fat, smoke, drink, take drugs, have abortions and anything else that they feel they should, must or can do.

It is a battle of wills and I'm really not sure who will win.

I'll hazard a guess interstellar. Control?

#1 Right on the button Scullion.

When in a hole stop digging.

If they want to fry their brains with that crap..let them have at it. If they are old enough to vote they are old enough to make their own decisions. Take the profit from the dealers and tax it. Use the money to educate kids on the personal penalty for sniffing or smoking that crap. In fact legalize all of it.

#54
If you think Frizzola is funny, you obviously havn't taken your drugs today.
Sambo from Alabama, with a banjo on my knee.

Kempelstein Productions Announces Launch of Sedaris Branding Initiative

Silliness, inclusiveness to be key themes of product launches ranging from greeting cards to personal submersibles. With single women now a majority in the U.S., advertisers are standing up and taking note

New York, NY (PrInside.com) May 14, 2006 -- Myron Kempelstein Productions, Ltd., a major producer of numerous Internet-only television variety shows in both wide-screen and digital formats, announced today it had formed an alliance with well-known actress/author/comedienne Amy Sedaris to launch a range of consumer products -- some of which will make their debut in the American marketplace as early as Fall of 2007.

Sedaris, the New York Times best-selling author of the light-hearted approach to cooking, "I Like You: Entertaining Under the Influence," and a star of the recently released cult film "Strangers With Candy," is a well-known figure in international entertainment circles. In a recent profile in the Sunday Times of London, Ms. Sedaris was described as someone who likes to "live like a Girl Scout, working on activities, making crafts, being kind to animals, and being good to the community."

"Ms. Sedaris is both a Girl Scout and -- thanks to the producers of 'Shrek 3' -- a princess," says Kempelstein, an early pioneer in the field of groundbreaking video and audio presentations on the Internet and elsewhere. "That's a rare combination in today's sullied world of stardom, where drug-addicted starlets flash their private parts to all and sundry on a regular basis."

According to Kempelstein, while there has long been a clamor for a Sedaris-branded marketing initiative, it was the break-through 2006 performances of Sedaris in both the literary and wide-screen formats that made all parties feel the moment was finally ripe.

"Our focus groups feel Amy has a wide variety of desirable attributes," s

Weeshooie1,
Drugs have been with us for thousands of years.
The affluent in Victorian times in the UK indulged in opium.
Recent figures show 1 out of 110 people in Scotland are addicted to heroin.

ZERO TOLERANCE -IS BEST

Execution for all drug dealers/pushers etc

The lash for all drunk, and disorderly

Urinating, defecating and vomiting in all public places - chain gang for street cleaning and washing

The minority must learn to respect the freedom and way of life for majority

Are the Police going to close down the City of London. No, so they they have their heids up their ****ses (© Sir Sean) as per usual. We're just get more solemn pomposity that only CEOs will a silly salary like chief constables (of our scottish forces) can deliver while wearing their favorite kinky uniforms. "I don't drink, don't do drugs, just have an account with the Bank of Scotland." Too bad, we've raised the price of cocaine so that you will pay more for our banking facilities.

"But like many other professionals of her age, Sarah also enjoys a few lines of cocaine, usually once every couple of months, at a dinner party or before going out with friends."

And therein is most of the problem. These same young professionals are in law enforcement, customs and excise, the judiciary, business, etc. There are too many holes in the dike, too many young, swinging professionals using, and too many young professionals (and some older ones further up the food chain) making sure that copious amounts of the drug are getting into the country. I am reminded of a paper I did many decades ago on prohibition in Canada with particular reference to Victoria, B. C. I did a search at the archives on correspondence between the chief of police and the mayor during the period of prohibition and found a real treasure--the chief of police reported that his major difficulty in enforcing the law was that so many of his officers were themselves engaged in the illegal booze trade. Nothing changes. To appeal to one's conscience is naive in the extreme. Legalize it--perhaps, but does that mean I'll be able to go to the local drug emporium and get the odd wee dram gratis?

I doubt if any government in the modern age will legalise drugs, despite calls from people far more knowledegable than our politicians. There are several reasons for that, but mostly it's because it's not a vote winner. Drugs are harmful to varying degrees (that includes ALL drugs, even the ones some people would like to think of as being safe), and people should be made aware of their individual harms rather than blindly believing that the illegal ones, or the addictive ones, are the ones that cause the most harm. It is good that more emphasis is being put on educating recreational users instead of always focussing primarily on dependent users. Relatively speaking, only a small fraction of illegal drug users will die from their drug use, but if they are aware of the wider problems associated with their substance use, they can then make informed choices.

This is a simple supply-and-demand problem. Government anti-drug programmes keep going after the supply. They should COMPLETELY DESTROY the demand ... and that's the end of the business.

The major problem, too, is that the dealer(s) and HUGE networks they work within are simply unafraid of the police, legal and judicial systems.

The average home-owner isn't. As soon as the word gets out that a snort gets you 20 years at hard labour and a loss of EVERYTHING you've worked for, the interest in being a customer will decrease. And F-A-S-T!

-- Does that mean I'll be able to go to the local drug emporium and get the odd wee dram gratis?

When I did this perfectly legal activity activity called commercial sea fishing, I even made some money out of it and would have stood you a dram in the Central Bar, Mallaig.

Tom, the voyeur #177, wants the government to raid any citizen's house whenever they feel like it, view the activities , and cart the residents off to jail. When you can't tell policemen from pornographers, we have to be worried.

Is Gill Wood on mind altering drugs??
I've never heard a bigger load of rubbish on how to sort out "illegal"drug use.She's been to too many ridiculous conferences,probably on loads of ridiculous subjects,and met the usual load of government workers who helped put these thoughts into her very small mind.
Many of the comments from those who have never taken"drugs"are either bizzare or so way off the mark,that they are incomprehensible.
I've taken many different drugs,both legal & illegal, over the last 30 years.The buzz is what you take them for,nothing else.Alcohol was always the one with the worst side effects & the easiest to get your hands on.
I don't really do anything any more,just because I don't really want to.I've always had a good job & I'm the father of 2 wonderful & intelligent adult daughters.I've also never been middle class,I've always had to work for a living,Ha!Ha!Ha!

Every Unionist Manifesto delivered to my door was stained with the blood of Afghanis. It's not bombs , it's food we should be sending to their rubble strewn country as my mother pertinantly remarked after 9, 11. And who did it?

Is there any country like Scotland for po-faced hypocracy? How much money do you make from the heroin trade, Chief Constable of Aberdeen? I see some low grade detectives took some rap and I wasn't impressed. Any affairs with married women recently?

NO ONE IS INNOCENT. WE ARE ALL GUILTY AND ARE DAMNED TO HELL, WHERE WE BELONG.

A media-whore sounds more innocent than merely working as a journalist like Conan and his confession. Just go on the 12 step progam and realise there is a higher authority called TRUTH.

Dealers will just come up with fair trade cocaine

#180
Exactly. I'm in the same situation. In the early 90s I was into the club scene in a big way and regularly took what the papers call a "cocktail of drugs".

My friends all did exactly the same. 15 yeas later we've all grown out of it a long time ago have good jobs and famillies and are totally unscathed by the whole experience.

The whole ongoing hysteria about "drugs" from those who know nothing about them is totally ridiculous. Particularly ecstasy, my own favourite from back in the day.

It kills what, 2 people a year, few enough so that it's front page news. Big deal, it's always what it's mixed with because it is illegal, not the thing itself.

It's all about social and revenue control on the part of the Government, nothing else.

Think how may people tobacco kills in comparison for true hypocracy.

The phrase "drugs" is also misleading it's like saying "animals" are dangerous and lumping sheep in with lions.

Heroin, Crack, Tobacco- All extremely harmful and should be avoided.

#187 - Be sure of one thing, you would most definitely hear about it if it were more.

What do you think the big bucks spent on the war against drugs goes on if not advertising?.

My point is it's not the drug itself which kills anyway. You have to be physiologically allergic to it to react to it like that. It's what it's cut with that's the problem.

Why is it cut with things?. Because it's illegal! Go figure.

Lol. The only thing I'm addicted to is going to the gym and I'd bet a £ to a penny I'm in a damn site better shape than you Mr #186.

Whoops, of course I meant Mr #187. (Must be my early 90s addled brain) ;-)

#187 Chairman Gordon

Please lump libertarians into the category too!

I like how conservatives always shout to high heaven about how they stand up for individual rights and small government, yet whenever they get into power they always pull the law and order card and end up making massive bureaucracies in order to combat acts consenting adults take part in. Government has no place to regulate individuals lives in this manner. It is absurd as the laws that make suicide illegal...

Also, the arguments for drug legalisation put forward on this board so far have all trumped anything the anti-drug individual-controlling conservatives can come up with.

It is time for libertarians and liberals - no matter how much we disagree on many other things - to come together and unite for the furtherance social liberty.

Aye #186....
Coke and E's where drug of choice in my "clubbing" days..... Had a ball....!
Grew out of it....
Life is all about choice.

Anyone who casually uses knows there's violence just within their own area, never mind anywhere else. They feel since they don't use that often they aren't really contributing to the problem. They'll ignore this latest campaign, which is absolutely destined for failure. Make it clear to casual users that their little bit, when combined with others who only use a bit, adds up to a whole heck of a lot and they are contributing to the problem.

#s 83 & 94 and all the others who suggest compulsory drug testing - while you're at it, at the same time, why not have compulsory penile and vaginal swabs to ensure people are not being promiscuous and spreading VD (you could also keep track of errant parents who are not paying for their offsprings' upkeep); tap everyone's phones to make sure they're not involved in crime; have a dog DNA database so that people who don't clean up are arrested; CTV on every street so that nobody can go anywhere without there being a record - oh. sorry, that's been done already; have a squad of enforcers allowed to enter people's homes to make sure they're not smoking or drinking to excess or in the presence of abstainers, and finally, make driving your own car illegal. There, that's cured all ills.

I forgot about food. Tax sugar and fat, and issue licences to buy anything that's ever been shown to create problems for anyone (that's everything you eat or drink). Whoopee - lots of money for the government to waste.

Chairman Gordon - who elected you?

Chairman Gordon:

@ #194

Nice of you to insult me than actually respond to any of my arguments - shows a lot for your caliber.

@ #199

You clearly don't even know what a libertarian is. You seem to be confusing utilitarianism with libertarianism, the two are not the same. They are not mutually exclusive, but you certainly will not have a Christian libertarian who is also a utilitarian.

You really need to learn what libertarianism actually says. Concerning social liberty we are talking about each individual controlling their own self, which means that you have no right to decide what another decides to do with their own body. This has nothing to do with the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

If you're going to actually criticise libertarianism it might actually help you to learn what it is first.

All this pontificating over whether we should be allowed to drop E's, drink wine, eat fat, drive etc etc is just a load of point scoring crap- your freedom to take whatever illegal drugs you want - cheap and legal - infringes on my rights and freedom to enjoy where I and my kids live safely. You keep on and on - I want to know if you live somewhere where junkies live on your doorstep? Or are you a nice occasional user who doesn't live in an area where all the nice occasional users turn up all the time to indulge themselves, bring dealers into the area and make the lives of residents miserable? I'd really love someone to respond to this who is pro legalising Cocaine, Heroin etc who is a non-user and lives in a drug ridden area.
lising drugs and

Michelle, I am a non-user, I am pro-legalisation, but I wouldn't even know where to go or begin to get drugs if I wanted them.

The point is, you say that you have junkies in your area - is this not a testament to the failing of making drugs illegal? You have them in your area if they are illegal and you have them in your area if they are not illegal.

It seems like a lose-lose situation for you, apart from one thing:

With legalised drugs you lose substantial amounts of crime that comes with illegal ones.

#207

If you know the difference between utilitarianism and libertarianism then why did you try to refute libertarianism with utilitarianism then?

Stop trying to cover your tracks and stop making useless insults that don't do anything to further your case.

with the amount of foreign aid we've dished out for the last 40 years

Absolute bollocks, Gordon. Any "foreign aid" was all a scam for corporate business. Would you like to talk about Iran in 1953? Where Arabs never had any problem with democracy Until Capitalism's Invisible Army organised their deplorable regime change.

I'm not swearing, being offensive, or posting law breaking comments; it just that your crapalogy needs hit where it hurts; like at yourself.

Why does everyone always conflate capitalism with mercantilism?

#211

Your analogy with burglary fails because it is not consenting act.

I'm not disputing the legal alcohol causes many crimes. However, illegal alcohol would cause many more - as we saw in 1920's America.

As for your case study on being attacked, I would like to ask you if they were caught and you found out their motive and I would also like to ask you what drugs they were using before I offer you a reply. Also, I have been attacked by a drunk, I guess you would want to make drinking illegal then (continuing your analogy).

ColinEdin - exactly, you haven't got a clue. I don't want legalisation, I want it made so that no-one wants to take drugs in the first place because the penalty is too high. It's the saddest indictment of society today that you would wish to have a situation in which it is easy for people to access drugs and destroy their own lives, those of their families and the extended misery that it causes people who live with it. The answer isn't legalisation, the answer is to act on illegal drug taking, instead of providing needle exchanges etc - my taxes pay to give needles to users at one end of the street and at the same time, (in theory) I am also paying the police through my taxes to protect me by arresting those people who infringe on my safety or quality of life (7 years for possession of class A). Even when the police arrest them, they are back again a few days later. I am paying for the promotion of illegal drug taking through 'drop-in centres'. Why don't these centers provide premises to actually consume the drugs instead of providing 'safe' tools (like you can make drugs 'safe') and sending people out on the street to make my life miserable. Last week a user collapsed out the back of my garden while my nine year old was looking out the window. For one awful moment I thougt he'd overdosed and died in front of us. I would also like to point out that a close friend of mine died this way and witnessing these acts is deeply distressing to me, let alone in front of my children. So go on - promote legalisation. Make it easier for people to die and children watch it. You argue the political and social definitions all you like, but until you really live with the consequences, I suggest you review your opinions. Do you really think that you should be in a position to make my life worse from your comfortable drug-free environment? That's right - it might save your taxes, but at other's cost.

#198
You are definitely going down the right path for a free & caring society.Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

Gordon, nice revised history of philosophy there, but what on earth does it have to actually have to do with problems in libertarianism? You write a timeline of history as an explanation for your understanding of libertarianism? I'm sorry, but that leaves a lot to be desired.

As I already said, utilitarianism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive, however, attacking utilitarianism (as you did above) holds absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of libertarianism. There are far more libertarian writers than just Mill (take Smith, Hayek, Rand, Friedman, Madison, Payne, Jefferson or Nozick as just a few examples).

Your attack on libertarianism by attacking the persons of Mill and Bentham would be like me attacking conservatism because it was the conservative party who supported the Jacobites during their uprising. Libertarian's, like conservatives, are not a homogenous group, I'm sure you would take angrily towards me doing to conservatism what you are doing to libertarianism.

P.S. You know nothing about me, so please don't make personal attacks on my character - it really shines through on you.

Sorry -long rant. Very tired, very stressed. Not only drug problems here but alcohol too - lots of people who want to scream and shout, fight and swear under my windows every night. Especially between 3-4. They also like to urinate in my doorway. Helps me to keep the comments about how things effect real life. Not just about obscure definitions and petty point scoring between people who think that their ability to define libertarianism vs utilitarianism or make points about Iraq, charity or corporate business. This was about drug taking, education and the law. All of you should grow up. No-one is debating the real issue. How to protect people - both users and the people around them from the truly horrible effects of drugs in society.

Michelle, I would agree with you in saying the government should not be handing out 'free-drugs'. However, you must understand, that the vast majority of crime associated with drugs never actually happens whilst users are under the influence - it actually happens as a result of dealing, trading and government busts.

Just so you know, I am sorry that you had to see your friend suffer as she/he did, but that does not mean you should use the government to immorally force what individuals do. It is funny how there are examples from around the world where legalisation of drugs has resulted in less drug use (for example the Netherlands or Britain during the 19th century when most drugs were legal - notice how our nation never fell apart...).

I never brought taxes into this, and now that you actually mention it, it is extremely telling. In a legal drug world, they would be taxed, thus generating more money for the treasury, whilst in your world (as made clear in your own statement) you see much of your tax money wasted on a bad mixture of policing and rehabilitation.

Gordon :-

What drug were they using, you never answered? Also, as I said, one case study proves nothing - I have been attacked by someone under the influence of alcohol, but I don't call for its banning.

That pusher would not even exist in a legal drug environment.

By the way, you cannot compare America of 87 years ago to the America of today, so don't even go down that route.

#219

You can't just state that they are the same, you really need to show why they are the same. (despite the fact that I know many libertarians who are not in any sense utilitarians).

#220

Michelle, you tell us to grow up and say we aren't talking about the real issues, but in this post you have just given us rhetoric and circumlocution. What is YOUR solution then? By the way, as I have previously mentioned, I have suffered as a result of alcohol, but I know the results of banning and controlling it would cause much more crime than we currently have concerning it (we could actually liberalise alcohol a lot more than we currently do, but that is not for this discussion).

Anyway, I'm off to sleep - if you reply I will try to remember to check this thread tomorrow morning.

Night!

ColinEdin - what is your personal experience of living in a drug taking culture? Please do not patronise me by telling me what I must understand. By your own admission you have no practical experience in this field. The dealing and the using are going on in my backyard. The criminal activity is directly associated with being under the influence, or attempts to become under the influence. Do you think I care whether the smashed locks on my door happened 1 minute before the user was under the influence? Do you think it matters that the violent behavior, urination and defecation in my premises happened after he was under the influence. ALL the acts are associated with the attempt to get the drug, use the drug and get some again. Heroin addiction particularly consumes/controls the whole person 100% of the time. Please advise me how this comment is relevent. You are right - I want my taxes spent on effective policies - not on supporting drug use, but eradicating it. Your policies, which question the morality of using a government to immorally force what the individual may do - are frankly immoral in themselves. As far as I am concerned I am no lover of the Nanny/Police State... as far as I am concerned everyone can do what the hell they like as long as they do not infringe upon anothers liberties. That is one of the many reasons that I chose to return to Britain after living in many places across the world from Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Switzerland, as well as extensive travels elsewhaere. Unfortunately, the whole culture around drug taking infringes upon the freedoms and security of others in society and that is why all possible effort should be made to eradicate it.

-- I have burglars in my area. is that not a testament to the failure of making burglary illegal?

Surely, Gordon, you're not wanting the USA to be made illegal?

Why were you attacking the pussycat called John Stuart Mill? He merely mentioned that money should suffice as a medium of exchange whereas DRUGS which is your main employment - well you seem to have this fantastic interest and knowledge of this topic - keep the City of London rolling. And weapons of mass destruction ie that kill alot of people, too. And why not sell a few airplanes to Saudi home of the bin Ladens while we're at it?

Chairman Gordon - quite right, so you did. The remark was directed more particulalrly at ColinEdin.

My answer is to arrest and imprison users with compulsory re-hab followed by monitoring and instant re-arrest if found with any illegal drug either on or in the offender.

Dealers should get life. This obviously means more effective use of resources - eg re-deploy mounted police patrolling the safest part of Edinburgh in the middle of the day for a couple of hours to patrolling the less salubrious parts of the city instead where the dealers are.

I think I have been clear enough - rhetoric and circumlocution free.

I hope by using the word rhetoric you are not implying that my words are either insincere or exaggerated, and hope that you are suggesting that I am effective or persuasive. I am indeed verbose and your accusations of circumlocution are justified.

It's all about endorphins released from the brain !
serotonin in particular. The 'feel good' factor. Who can resist it ?

Scots have been in the addiction business ever since I lived there in the 60s. At that time it was alcohol and tobacco.
In Ayrshire, pubs in one municipality would close at 9:30 pm and in the adjacent town at 10:00
so young folk would pile into someone's car and
drive while seriously impaired to the next town to have a couple of pints to raise their 'feel good' factor level before engaging in some anti social behaviour !

(brews a cup of tea)

What next will be banned in Scotland, forks and spoons, asks an american friend.

Well a serrated grape-fruit spoon you shouldn't carry about with you. Psychiatrists are our number one drug pushers and they should be all locked up especially as they force their stuff compulsorary on vulnerable people. Doctors get swayed by multi-national pharmecutical cos. and are very suspect. What you can say about most drugs is that they cause SIDE EFFECTS. (When doctors are not addicts themselves) The local drug dealer that only supplies stuff that might make you happy seems in a minor league. Some people just have this compulsion to meddle and interfere with eveybody else's life whereas most of us have work to do wouldn't be able to do it if we were locked up by the criminal industry which includes the tribe of lawyers who are no. 1 cocaine users (they can afford it) and what this feature is about

I'm absolutely stunned by the unbelievable ignorance and intolerance shown by many on this forum, you have people like chairman gordon who know absolutely nothing about drugs of any kind and who live in a black and white world where the use of extreme violence c.q. legalized murder is the god fearing way to tidy up anything/anyone that displeases them... If thine eye offends thee...
It really scares me that these people when presented with scientific facts, the opinions of some of the worlds leading drug research organisations and good old fashioned common sense still say that we should forge ahead with policies and solutions that have been proven time and time again not to work, in fact most of the policies in place have failed so spectacularly that they have just increased or exaggerated the problems they were designed to solve.

Here're a few questions for you;
Do you know the real reason why marijuana was banned in the U.S.A.?

Do you have any idea why marijuana was banned in the U.K.?

Can you tell me why it is still one of the most serious federal offences in the U.S.A. to experiment (scientifically) with using marijuana to treat chronic pain or the symptoms of HIV?

Do you believe that people who through their own actions cause themselves to become ill enough to need medical and/or psychiatric treatment should be in some way punished for their actions?

I'm very curious as to what the response to these questions will be...

#226 - If I understand you correctly;
"Heroin addiction particularly consumes/controls the whole person 100% of the time"

and

"My answer is to arrest and imprison users with compulsory re-hab followed by monitoring and instant re-arrest if found with any illegal drug either on or in the offender"

are statements you made and believe with all your heart to be true?

Morning All!

First a point to note on Gordon's punishment of death for dealers. If anything said nanny state conservative then this is it. You assume that the government is infallible and in that process have assumed that government has absolute authority over its citizens - whether it decides to use that authority is a different matter, but it is there. So Gordon, why do you think government is infallible?

#223

""You cannot compare America of 87 years ago to the America of today"

Er, you mentioned it in the first place!"

Actually, no. I mentioned 1920's America, I did not compare 1920's America to present America, as you did. There is a succinct difference.

#225

Then the average man on the street is completely wrong. How about I give you an example? Lets say we have to choose the best government, this is what the utilitarian and the libertarian will come up with:

The utilitarian, wanting the greatest happiness for the greatest number, will choose such a state. So let's say that such a state is actually a benign despotism. Utilitarianism often leads to a tyranny of the majority.

The libertarian on the other hand would choose the state which provides the most liberty and economic freedom, whether it generates the greatest happiness or not.

The two are clearly not the same.

#226

Why must I have practical experience in this field in order to be able to comment on it? Isn't that you patronizing me instead? One can have knowledge in a field without being affected by it - how else would any of our politicians ever make any policies if they were not allowed to legislate unless they had been under the effects of their legislation?

By rhetoric I was concerning when you said that nobody was talking about the real issue at hand, but never actually went on to say what your own solution would be.

You just state that:

"Your policies, which question the morality of

#228

Why do you criticise me at the start of this post for something I clearly did not do? I have made very clear from the start that my solution is the pro-legalisation solution.

As to your solution, it has been done, again and again. It has failed again and again. It is funny how when the Netherlands legalised cannabis they saw a slight rise in its use at first, now they have the lowest rates of cannabis use in Western Europe. My solution has examples from around the world that show it working. The war on drugs that you advocate has been shown to fail both at home and abroad - especially in the USA where it has resulted in a huge number of civil liberty cases, with police shooting innocent people (44,000 house raids per annum, only half of these containing any drugs).

Dealers would be removed in a drug allowing society, since the free market would cut prices from under them. If you really wish to get rid of dealers then that would be the solution. I would also like to know how you are going to pay for your extensive prison scheme, since you will need one to house all those prisoners, so will your daughters school take a funding hit or will we raise taxes?

Furthermore, did you know that prison is the place where the most drugs per capita are taken? It may suggest to you that prison is not the best place for a drug user.

We have had wars on drugs in the past, and guess what, it caused drug use to rise, as can be seen here:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,20599...

I just don't buy your solution Michelle, we've seen it tried time and again and we've seen it fail time and again. A new approach is required.

#235 - You and others like you give me cause for hope, an oasis of rationality in the bleak desert of puritanism and social blindness so frighteningly demonstrated here.
I can only assume that you are not averse to researching information on a particular question in order to weigh up that information and come up with an informed opinion of your own.......

Here are 2 items that indirectly address the issues brought up by some posters here;

"In Hanover, 98% of users of the medically supervised injecting centre did not encounter any negative experience with local residents and 94%
reported no negative police encounters. Research from Frankfurt showed that a drug user who overdoses on the street is 10 times more likely to stay in hospital for one night than a drug user
who overdoses in a medically supervised injecting centre. In addition, no one has died from heroin overdose in any medically supervised injecting centre. Therefore, establishing such centres
in the United Kingdom is likely to reduce the number of drug related problems."
Source; British Medical Journal "Supervised Injection Centres"

"There were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe.
The Dutch AIDS prevention programme was equally successful. Europe-wide, an average of 39.2% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug-users.
In the Netherlands, this percentage is as low as 10.5%."

Pretty damning evidence for the current anti drug polices pursued by our government.......

The Dutch are mostly a conservative people with this vital proviso that we are all in this [place that might sink] together. So it's live and let live. When, not if or if shouldn't be or be in jail or rehab, youngsters are taking drugs then there should be qualified people onboard to check them out and medics on stand by; in any nightclub that will be licenced by the town hall as the Dutch do things.

Live and learn? I'd like to see more of this in Scotland.