comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
Gammons. Very good
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Triggered?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighten up snowflake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zzzzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone's grumpy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps but I just don’t like the phrase gammons mate.

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 1 minute ago
I would argue the comparative factor is more interesting than the 2 percent figure. 2 percent versus the health consequences of legalising cannabis. That is the real contention.

I am also not suggesting I agree with the article merely it is a very interesting read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I found the section talking about illegal sales vs legal sales to be interesting.

Why would people still buy off a dealer? Free market dealers undercutting the legal options?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I remember QBC talking about this but don't recall what his point was unfortunately

comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 1 minute ago
I would argue the comparative factor is more interesting than the 2 percent figure. 2 percent versus the health consequences of legalising cannabis. That is the real contention.

I am also not suggesting I agree with the article merely it is a very interesting read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I found the section talking about illegal sales vs legal sales to be interesting.

Why would people still buy off a dealer? Free market dealers undercutting the legal options?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I remember QBC talking about this but don't recall what his point was unfortunately
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t recall? Better lay off the old weed mate

He can reply in a few hours

comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 31 minutes ago
James Forsyth:

If there is to be a shift in drug policy in Britain, it will only come after a country or state has demonstrated how legalisation can both crush the illegal market, breaking the link between drugs and crime, and raise significant tax revenue

In US, states that have legalised the drug for recreational use, cannabis taxes make up less than 2% of tax revenues. It is hard to argue that the extra money is worth the health problems associated with its use

In California, the illegal cannabis market is estimated to be 2 to 3 times larger than the legal one. If cannabis legalisation can’t kill off the illegal market, then one of the strongest arguments for it falls away.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dont-bet-on-boris-johnson-decriminalising-cannabis-scmcj82cd
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the options aren’t just: a) zero-tolerance war on drugs, and b) full legalisation.

Here’s a good piece on how Portugal shifted its policy in such a way (and a way actually fairly unpopular with the public at the time) that the public’s perspective on its recreational drugs problems has actually changed, and to the benefit of those struggling with addiction, law and order, and Portugal’s healthcare system:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
Gammons. Very good
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Triggered?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighten up snowflake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zzzzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone's grumpy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps but I just don’t like the phrase gammons mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, in context of my comment it wasn't aimed at anyone here but more the QT furiouso types.

^ The effects of the decriminalisation of users on drug-related violent crime, in particular, have been pretty astonishing.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by rosso - can’t waste a day when the night brings a hearse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
^ The effects of the decriminalisation of users on drug-related violent crime, in particular, have been pretty astonishing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily true. Really depends on the form of decriminalisation. One with a jobs scheme actually interests me a lot as an idea for instance. Generic decriminalisation less so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry NPE; I should have been clearer.

I was referring to the Portuguese example, specifically.

God he's a straight edge bore

comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 1 minute ago
God he's a straight edge bore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he even really exists.

Can't really make up my mind on drug regulation etc, as when I was younger was all for it but not so much now.

In my early 20's smoked weed quite often, and was quite the (cookie) chef

However one day in work, when my phone rang (in an open plan office) as I stood beside my desk; I looked at my phone and stated "Good morning, how can I help" without picking up the handset. I released it was maybe time to knock it on the head.

Some the looks I received from my colleagues were choice as I stood there looking at the phone with my hands in my pockets

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

One basic general argument for decriminalisation of use is that given the (pretty strong) evidence that it is usually followed by decreases in continuation of use, problematic drug use and injecting drug use, the scales in terms of the economic and public safety arguments fall on the side of the state: reduction in directly drug-related criminal cases, reduction in petty crime, smaller prison population, less demand so reduction in activity and competition of dealers on the street, policing can focus elsewhere, etc.

Then there are the direct public health benefits of encouraging those in need to seek the healthcare and support they really need, rather than banging them up at the cost of the taxpayer to no great benefit to anybody.

comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 6 minutes ago
I agree with people that prosecuting weed smokers for criminal offences is ridiculous, the issue is that's not common any more in the UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weed smokers, opioid addicts, it’s all the same.

Criminalising the latter is arguably even more counterproductive than the former.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/11/colombias-cartels-target-europe-with-cocaine-corruption-and-torture

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Percy Pig aficionado (U3126)
posted 32 minutes ago
Can't really make up my mind on drug regulation etc, as when I was younger was all for it but not so much now.

In my early 20's smoked weed quite often, and was quite the (cookie) chef

However one day in work, when my phone rang (in an open plan office) as I stood beside my desk; I looked at my phone and stated "Good morning, how can I help" without picking up the handset. I released it was maybe time to knock it on the head.

Some the looks I received from my colleagues were choice as I stood there looking at the phone with my hands in my pockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant mate.

I worked in NIO Compensation agency and on answering the phone, just went blank, then said "hello, Coronation Street"

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by rosso - can’t waste a day when the night brings a hearse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 6 minutes ago
I agree with people that prosecuting weed smokers for criminal offences is ridiculous, the issue is that's not common any more in the UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weed smokers, opioid addicts, it’s all the same.

Criminalising the latter is arguably even more counterproductive than the former.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of weed smoking is recreational and opted in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some folk take this recreation seriously.🐐🐰🐠🦄🌻🦉

comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by rosso - can’t waste a day when the night brings a hearse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 6 minutes ago
I agree with people that prosecuting weed smokers for criminal offences is ridiculous, the issue is that's not common any more in the UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weed smokers, opioid addicts, it’s all the same.

Criminalising the latter is arguably even more counterproductive than the former.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of weed smoking is recreational and opted in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A much greater proportion, of course.

I’m not sure how much that has to do with the arguments around improving public health, public safety and helping out the exchequer.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by rosso - can’t waste a day when the night brings a hearse (U17054)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by rosso - can’t waste a day when the night brings a hearse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 6 minutes ago
I agree with people that prosecuting weed smokers for criminal offences is ridiculous, the issue is that's not common any more in the UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weed smokers, opioid addicts, it’s all the same.

Criminalising the latter is arguably even more counterproductive than the former.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of weed smoking is recreational and opted in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A much greater proportion, of course.

I’m not sure how much that has to do with the arguments around improving public health, public safety and helping out the exchequer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think most drug users are victims lacking free will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither do I. I don’t think most alcohol drinkers, smokers or gamblers are either.

That doesn’t mean that they all can’t or shouldn’t be offered help, for their own benefit and the benefit of wider society.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

True, but going back to the Portuguese example again, decriminalisation and the accompanying change in the language of the debate resulted in a huge increase in habitual drug users seeking help.

The language is a key factor for me. We want people feeling like they can talk openly about their drug use and abuse to the people around them and to people who can help them without fear of judgment, stigmatisation or, worse, criminalisation.

The starting point should be “How can we help?” rather than “What have you done?”

^ Obviously that goes hand-in-hand with a much more intelligent and better-supported educational public health programme.