Droogs...

[denny]

I thought this report got buried a couple of years ago, but either it's re-appeared, or this is a new one saying the same things. Either way, I'm not holding my breath for any kind of implementation of its recommendations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm

Comments

[kynetik.livejournal.com]

At least the issue has been recognised and put into the minds of the public.

[mr_magicfingers]

Personally I'm not waiting for an outbreak of common sense in anything to do with a government.

It's nice to see that there's solid scientific evidence of the relative harm these things do, but most police have known this for years just by watching the effects on users. I used to date a girl who's father was a chief super, he and I had some very interesting discussions over a few pints on the legality and policing of drugs in the UK, and his and my ideas on what was sensible were pretty similar, which was rather encouraing. Unfortunately, he has to uphold the law as it stands.

In Liverpool though, they're a little more enlightened and drugs policing had developed into a more realistic stance. If you got caught with an 1/8 on you, you were likely to get it taken away and told not to be stupid for carrying it around.

Drug users will always be in a minority and I honestly can't see any government passing new laws to make things more realistic when the press still love to print unreasoned, sensationalist crap for the 'average' daily mail reader to ponder.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I did like the Robbie Williams bit I just found in a related article, where he's quoted as saying he's personally taken coke with some of the journalists who laid into Kate Moss for taking it :)

[fayroberts.livejournal.com]

See, the thing that strikes me as ridiculous is ketamine = Class C. Fucking horrible stuff.

[ninneviane.livejournal.com]

I can't say that I'd like to see 'E' leave class A, though it would be fantastic for common sense to prevail and mushrooms leave it for Ket to take it's place where it belongs.
Looking at the recommendations however, I'd love to know which research pointed to GHB being lower on the harm scale than so many of the other chems listed above it... **confused**

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I can't say that I'd like to see 'E' leave class A

Why not?

I'd love to know which research pointed to GHB being lower on the harm scale ...

Yeah, that surprised me too... I'd have put it near speed, I think.

Also, I've never heard of 4-MTA before... am I leading a sheltered existence here? :)

My rather long winded opinion...

[ninneviane.livejournal.com]

I have used E excessively in the past, I have used it tight moderation recently, and no doubt I will use it with tight moderation from time to time in the future - it's fair to say I am a user of E. It is as a user of some experience I come from the perspective of agreeing wholeheartedly with its placement as a class A. It is the most insidious drug I have ever used - I think it is only when one has taken a break from it being the party gear of choice, took a step back, that one can observe just how insidious it is, how and where the damaging seeps into ones life.
I know a LOT of people that would claim teeth gritted their using it has not effected their lives, mental and physical health at all...**shrugs**...I don't agree, I doubt they will agree either in times to come when they're no longer using the drug. I would have been one of those people in the past, but not anymore.
Any drug that causes so many extreme physical and mental changes, not just in the event of taking it, but afterwards and in the future, does need tight scheduling...when it is so immersed in modern youth culture even more so. I've met very young adults recently who have been using E since they were 13 or 14 because to them now, it's not much different to having an underage drink or smoking weed. I find this appalling. As an acceptance level I think it would be dangerous and long regretted if that attitude became general consensus. It's a slippery slope - drugs always are.
At the end of the day, as a user of several drugs past and present I'm a firm believer that people should do as they like - if they want to take pills, coke, speed, weed, whatever, by all means do - with them come ups, downs, and the choice is yours...but that shouldn't create an expectancy that the law should change to accommodate use. I think it's dangerous to play the 'this' is more dangerous 'that' game...we all do it, based on where we come to those drugs from. I might say as a user of cocaine, within my experience of it, that it causes the least harm of the many I have used...on my personal scale it is less harmful to me than E, or Speed on several levels, but that doesn't mean that it really is less harmful than those substances across the board. There is always going to be someone else who could cite coke as being their ruin. Harm in this sense, to be applied to law, has to be generalised...we might not like it, but it is the way it has to be. I would like to know how the men in suits regard harm in this instance - is it because of the overdose risk, the extremities of the effect good and bad, the risk to mental health, physical health, short term, long term? A mix of all the above? It's hard for me to conclude why it score so low in the harm stakes without this information. It's doesn't concur with my own experience and the experience of other people I know and have known.

The men in suits are saying that we need to stop looking at the drug classifications as 'the trouble we'll get into for possessing or dealing them' in favour of 'the harm they cause', but drug classification will always be a reflection of the trouble you'll get into...nothing is changing as I can see, other than a push to change the public perception of what the drug classifications mean. No matter what the classifications dictate chances are users will never think 'that's in class A - that means it's really harmful to me I shouldn't do it' it will always be a case of 'that's in class A - I'll get 4 years for it, it's so unfair - it's not doing me any harm'.

Or is it? :)

Re: My rather long winded opinion...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Their assessment of harm is based not only on the physical and mental dangers to the user, but also on the societal impact - I imagine this is where E scores some points (or rather, doesn't score many negative points), as E users are for the most part paying for their weekend high out of their weekly wages (rather than stealing/mugging/whoring to get their daily fix), and are far less likely to beat you up on a random whim than someone using speed or alcohol.

The way you've stated your opinions sounds slightly inconsistent to me. If the current evidence points to E being less harmful (to user and society) than alcohol, then surely it's better for a 13 year old to take a couple of pills than it is for them to get pissed? (assuming that the medical research on the effects is still valid for a user going through puberty etc, something which I have no knowledge about)

On a selfish level, I'm fairly sure I'd prefer it if more people were taking pills and less were drinking - I think that would improve my nights out just as a side-effect of the way other people behaved, regardless of whether I using anything myself.

Re: My rather long winded opinion...

[ninneviane.livejournal.com]

I don't like 'to user and society' being lumped together as far as accessing harm is concerned. Physically, mentally, I do not believe for a second, neither have I read any reputable reports or findings that suggest, that alcohol is *more* harmful that E in those areas. Physiology, taking a couple of pills is nothing like having a drink - a come-down is nothing like a hang-over. Personally, I value mental health above anything else - I would be horrified, and would outright protest if my children were being brought up in a society that angled on any level that E was a better choice that alcohol because it is less harmful, whatever the hell that means. There is just no way I could condone that. Knowing the effect of a *couple of pills*, during and after, and the thought of my son experiencing that fills me with a horror I couldn't put into words. The young adults I've met who were those 13 years doing E, are well and truly unhinged.As for whether E is better for society? What does society mean in this instance?

To be honest, these days, it makes no difference if I'm surrounded by piss heads or E heads - I don't much like the volatile behaviour of drinkers, and I'm not much enamoured with the artificial behaviour of those riding high on the loved up feeling. As for myself, in recent months I've had better nights out on drink than the other, give me a hang-over over a come-down any day of the week, I lose less time from having to recover physically, mentally and emotionally from my excesses, and my life is better under my control as a result. Over the years, every time my life has gone tits up, I've been a drug user of some description, every time it starts to come right again they're no longer the presence in my life that they were. I know I'm not the only one who would say the same. I don't believe for the average person who drinks, drink has the same detrimental effect, as drugs do to the average person who does drugs.
Oh and I admit, there may be some inconsistency in my opinion and in how I put those opinions across. I have been to such an extreme of E use and back again, there are still many trains of thought I haven't consolidated - learning to separate my fears and knee jerk emotive reactions from the rest of the mix because of my own experience (and the experiences of people I know or have known) is very difficult.

Re: My rather long winded opinion...

[ninneviane.livejournal.com]

Oh and btw, I love that icon - obviously it's you, but it's very *you* :)

[skorpionuk.livejournal.com]

Your icon made me giggle muchly, ta.

I really must practice my poker face, my colleagues get disconcerted when I laugh to myself...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I yoinked it from someone else on my friends list, so I can't really take credit. It was something my dad said to me several years ago, so I was amused when I saw it in icon form :)

[mr_magicfingers]

I think it's a Robin Williams quote, I heard him use it in a sketch about his own coke use during his one man show 'Live at the Met' in New York, and that was some 16 or so years ago.