Time to legalise

‘It’s all fentanyl’: opioid crisis takes shape in Philadelphia as overdoses surge
Nationally, over the past three years, fentanyl-related deaths have increased by 540%, and the epidemic is felt acutely in Philadelphia’s Kensington area

It’s the variability of the dose that kills:

Heroin itself rarely kills. Pharmaceutically pure that is, in measured doses. The two most common, by far, causes of overdoses are those coming back to it after a layoff, dosing as before and having lost much of their tolerance, and variable doses in the material itself.

Modern chemistry has made this very much worse with synthetics like fentanyl. It’s hugely cheaper and also very much stronger. More, the gap between a dose that produces a high and one that kills is very much smaller. Some to much “heroin” is now cut with such synthetics, making a dose even more of a lottery than it has traditionally been.

As we say, this is now enough of a problem that something really must be done. We’ve tried half a century of prosecuting, persecuting, those who simply wish to get high and as we can see that doesn’t work. Legalisation – no, not decriminalisation, full legalisation – is the only viable answer.

For it is the variability of the dose that is killing people. Only when brands appear with controlled and known dosages will the deaths stop. Thus we want to have such legal brands.

118 comments on “Time to legalise

  1. Or we could fix the societal problems that cause some good people who aren’t deadshits to take these drugs (sexual perversion from Hollyweird, lost working class jobs from immigration and other causes, broken marriages as a result of no fault divorce).

    And deal with the pushers of opoids, like the Sackler family, and the foreign doctors who overprescribe them.

  2. Drug users finding out the hard way that their filthy and illegal habit kills.

    Remind me why I should even bother to get my tiny violin out of its case?

  3. @Paul Rain: “Or we could fix the societal problems that cause some good people who aren’t deadshits to take these drugs …”

    I’m rolling my eyes so hard at that, I’m afraid they might actually fall out of my head.

  4. JuliaM: The opoid problem is hardly something that can be blamed on pot smoking hippies, who I agree should be systemically poisoned. Oxycontin and other evil shit has been pushed on good working folks by demons in human form from the tribe that killed the reason for the current season.

    Just read any of a number of recent stories on the Sackler family.

  5. I don`t care how many fuckwits kill themselves, I don`t want it anywhere near my children and staying illegal delivers better on that.

  6. What is filthy Julia? Recreational pharmaceuticals are not that bad. Trust me on this. I smoke tobacco. I used to smoke cannabis. I don’t because you can’t get anything other than skunk these days. I don’t like skunk. It makes me paranoid. But skunk is “stronger” than the old stuff and if you have to smuggle you go for the bang for buck. Drug illegality forces the good out for the bad.

  7. I have recently broken both my wrist and scapula and been on the receiving end of my colleagues’ prescription habits. Orthopod prescribed enough schedule 5 for a suicide pact or addiction whereas anaesthetist got me over acute postop pain with pethidine(doc’s drug of choice ) then oxyycontin mixed with its antidote naloxone(no fun so I stopped once pain bearable).

  8. Newmania
    Ah, think of the kiddies! You do know making something illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen? All you are suggesting is that drugs get more variable and stronger which directly puts people (including you children) at more risk. If you buy a bottle of wine it has an ABV on the label. Drugs don’t. This is becuase they are illegal.

  9. Paul Rain: “Oxycontin and other evil shit has been pushed on good working folks by demons in human form …”

    Translation: “Oxycontin and other evil legal medication has been prescribed for good working folks by doctors to help with pain… ”

    Is it the doctor’s fault they then abuse it? Seriously?

  10. @NickM: “Recreational pharmaceuticals are not that bad.”

    Driving around today, are you? Walking near building sites? Happy that other drivers & crane operators might be under the influence?

  11. @Ljh: I broke my arm a few years ago, and was prescribed strong painkillers.

    I Googled them, saw the lengthy list of side effects and binned them. Use paracetamol instead.

    Just because they are prescribed doesn’t mean you have to use them.

  12. JuliaM: So you’re saying that when tens of thousands of people are dying in the states, tens of thousands of babies being born addicted to this shit, due to something that begins with doctors prescribing entirely inappropriate drugs, we should blame the people who become addicted to it, not the pushers?

    Hell no. Anyone involved in pushing prescription opoids- the marketers and everyone else involved in the drug companies, the imported doctors with no empathy for their patients- all of them, they all need to be dragged behind trucks and then given the Winnie Mandela special.

  13. @Paul Rain: you’re clearly not rational on this subject. Take off the tinfoil.

    When were they ‘inappropriate drugs’? When people started to abuse them!

  14. I agree you don’t haveto use them but bleeding under the periosteum (the membrane covering the bone) is seriously painful as is surgery and it’s immediate aftermath. Without adequate pain relief the patient’s blood pressure becomes seriously alarming, sleep is impossible and they tend to moan, whimper or scream if moved. Please remind your surgeon this is your choice. Let’s see if paracetamol even begins to help.

  15. “Kensington is a harsh place. For many women there, work means sex work. For men it’s pimping or, for the cost of a couple of $5 bags, acting as a guide to customers from elsewhere.”

    #blamingthelocale

  16. @JuliaM

    “Driving around today, are you? Walking near building sites? Happy that other drivers & crane operators might be under the influence?”

    Your point is? They might be drunk. Is that different?

  17. JuliaM: Clearly you are incapable of facing reality. The CDC states that “Sales of prescription opioids in the U.S. nearly quadrupled from 1999 to 2014” without any change in perceived pain in patient surveys. As this is the result of alien doctors and some Sackler-bribed scum overprescribing this stuff, I find it extremely strange that you would blame people who have been deliberately hooked on this stuff for ‘abusing’ it.

    The only ‘abuse’ is that if I went and hung Purdue pharma staff up by their fingernails, I would be arrested.

  18. Once upon a time in the UK or USA if someone became hooked on opiates (most commonly on morphine, a close relative of heroin, after it was prescribed legitimately for pain) they went to the doctor and legally received a clean dose. The numbers of addicts were very few and they mainly continued to function otherwise normally.

    Then this became illegal and the real problems began as there was a financial incentive for criminals to get people hooked and the impurities and erratic manufacture caused most of the medical problems.

    I suspect that it’s the illegality which causes most of the problems. Remove that and while some people will continue to do stupid things (when has that ever not been the case?) and there will have to be some drugs supplied cheaply or for free, on the whole I think that society will be better off.

    A huge amount of property crime is caused by addicts trying to fund an expensive illegal habit so there would be a lot less property crime, less violence, fewer policing costs, and fewer addicts, with remaining addicts healthier and functioning.
    The main problem would be stopping the government slapping on so much tax that there is still a role for crooks supplying cheap illegal and more dangerous drugs.

    Otherwise, the main people who won’t be better off will the crooks who currently control the market.

  19. JuliaM
    You are usually very sensible but there is pain that the likes of paracetamol or Ibuprophen don’t get anywhere near touching. Having had that kind of pain more than once and being exceeding grateful for short term and entirely beneficial doses of drugs like morphine, I hope you and yours never need them

  20. Julia – 95% of the harm is a direct result of attempts by an increasingly militarised police to enforce a ban.

    Banning this stuff has never worked.

    Think Al Capones Chicago on a golbal scale.

    The bets possible result for non users such as me and I presumeyou, is legalise control and tax, similar to alcohol.

    The best possible result for users, is legalise amd enable sensible treatment for the vast majority who just want a hig from to time (i get mine from whisky, which for no logical reason other than bitter experience is legal)

    Legalisation benefits every individual in society except lowlife drug lord scum, and their mates in law enforcement and government.

    And therein lies the problem.

  21. The war on drugs is a failure. The only reason it continues is that it is greater for funding police forces and the industries that supply them.

    Perhaps some people here are shareholders.

    As for the gent complaining about only being able to purchase skunk, you could always just grow your own.

  22. NewRemainia–On a rare occasion you are not talking shite about Brexit you are still talking shite.

    And the “filter” is worthy of note: as ever me,me,me and mine and fuck everybody else.

    Well you’re consistent at least.

    There are NO good arguments for the illegality of drugs. As Nick M says crane drivers etc might be pissed anyway. Fools will be fools regardless. Esp extreme fools who go for intoxicated in charge of etc. Availability will have an effect so marginal on such events as to likely be undetectable in any stats. Sure if you are struck by lightning it is small comfort to know that your chances of being so struck WERE miniscule but there it is. The harm done by anti-drug laws vastly outweighs the harm that drugs themselves might do. For Goodness Sake Julia how many tweets about G&Ts have you posted over Christmas? I’m sure you don’t drink yourself into a state where you are a danger to others but some folk do and so should not drink also be banned?

    Mr Rain–I really don’t see the Jews/Opioid connection. I don’t know how it is in the US but the majority of doctors in the UK are still British albeit with a sub-continental presence. I don’t think Zionism is much of a factor in their prescribing preferences.

    As for “pushing” opos—-well people still suffer pain. Are we to meet that with a pious “tough shit” as some want to do with MJ and those looking for surcease of cancer pain? Are we to have the American mess where Sudafed buyers are to be rousted by costumed thugs?

    Legalise the vast majority of drugs and enjoy the benefits of less crime, trouble and death etc

  23. “Driving around today, are you? Walking near building sites? Happy that other drivers & crane operators might be under the influence?”

    Julia raises an important point, here. We lack an etiquette for drugs. With alcohol we have etiquettes for when it’s appropriate to consume & acceptable levels of consumption. Who it’s OK for them to be consuming alcohol & in what quantities. Think social drinking & piss-ups. In cases like driving, the etiquettes are backed up by laws.
    One of the problems of other drugs is, because their use has to be to an extent covert, there’s no opportunity to develop acceptable etiquettes. And, as Tim points out, due to the illegal supply chain users couldn’t be sure what their own levels of consumption were, to conform to etiquettes if there were any.
    There’s no real reason we couldn’t live with drug consumption. We already do!* Like we live with alcohol consumption.

    *Do you really know that your companion’s brief visit to the bogs was for a piss & not a line of charlie?

  24. The war on drugs is a war that can never be won. Making drugs illegal encourages organised crime, leads to more petty crime, diminishes respect for the law by recreational drug users and costs a lot of taxpayers’ money.

    That money would be better spent on regulating the supply of drugs, on advertising the risks of drug-taking and on addiction services.

  25. To endorse Theo’s comment: Some of the biggest consumers of illegal drugs are the police. Presumably because they have assured supply chains.
    That’s how stupid the situation is.

  26. JS – “Then this became illegal and the real problems began as there was a financial incentive for criminals to get people hooked and the impurities and erratic manufacture caused most of the medical problems.”

    Actually it is the other way around – when Britain was confronted with a growing heroin epidemic, they moved to shut down doctors who were handing out drugs like candy. As it turned out, it seems to have made no difference at all. Heroin use seems to have grown just as fast after the ban as before.

    I would like to suggest a reason for this – heroin became cool. The Rolling Stones made drug use chic. And when the State showed it was not serious about punishing drug crime, drug use exploded. That would have happened whether drugs were prescribable or not. Likewise, in the on-going Paul R v Julia spat, I think both have a point, but the bigger issue is Social Permission. White Americans don’t take hard drugs because drugs are for losers and Blacks. The users are held in contempt. But when a doctor comes along and tells people they can get high and it is OK because it is about pain management, the social context means use is acceptable. No one despises some poor sod who has to take it for back pain. So use has exploded. It takes a weak minded person but it also takes a doctor willing to give a socially acceptable reason for using.

    “I suspect that it’s the illegality which causes most of the problems. Remove that and while some people will continue to do stupid things (when has that ever not been the case?) and there will have to be some drugs supplied cheaply or for free, on the whole I think that society will be better off.”

    That is an interesting opinion. Any evidence for it? The underlying assumption is that drug users are poor innocent victims and not, as I would argue, psychopaths. If they are poor innocent victims forced to score, then perhaps you are right. Except that it is a lot of work to be a drug addict. You have to search out a user to teach you how to shoot up, you have to search out a dealer who won’t just sell you castor sugar, you have to use, a lot, over many weeks to develop a habit. All the while in the full knowledge that what you are doing is illegal and leads to “addiction”. That suggests that only psychopaths bother and giving them free drugs won’t make them better people.

    “A huge amount of property crime is caused by addicts trying to fund an expensive illegal habit so there would be a lot less property crime, less violence, fewer policing costs, and fewer addicts, with remaining addicts healthier and functioning.”

    So you say. Your evidence is what? In Britain when we give drug users free drugs, their thefts drop a little. But not by enough. They are not stealing because they need drugs. They are using drugs because they hate us all and hold our values in contempt. They were damaged before they were users. The best thing to do is lock them up for the drugs. The drugs serve as a useful flag so we can see who belongs in jail. And keeps them asleep half the day so that they are not our raping our dogs or something.

    Best solution? The death penalty for possession.

  27. Theophrastus – “The war on drugs is a war that can never be won. Making drugs illegal encourages organised crime, leads to more petty crime, diminishes respect for the law by recreational drug users and costs a lot of taxpayers’ money.”

    The War on Rape can never be won either. Safe Rape Rooms? Refusing to enforce the law encourages organised crime. Refusing to enforce the law encourages recreational drug users. Enforcing the law gets rid of the problem. Social shaming works even better.

    “That money would be better spent on regulating the supply of drugs, on advertising the risks of drug-taking and on addiction services.”

    Says who? What is the evidence? We have advertised the risks of drug using to our heart’s content. It only makes it look cooler. We ought to be displays some users in gibbets.

  28. My mother has a fentanyl patch for her back pain. With 2 crushed vertebrae it is the only treatment so far that has allowed her to be able to move.

  29. “Refusing to enforce the law encourages organised crime.”

    No SMfS. Enforcing the law encourages organised crime. Because the demand is still there. The more you enforce the law the more organisation is required to evade it, to supply the demand. Tough law enforcement pushes up prices. Entrepreneurs (because drug trafficking is just as much trade as any other commodity) see an opportunity for high profits & move in to supply. It’s just a business, like any other business.

  30. JuliaM, It may sound whatiffery and facile, but if alcohol was introduced on the streets now, it would be a Class A. It’s more toxic than heroin. Nicotine has been shown to be as addictive as Class As (with only minimal upfront psychoactive properties – ffs, how pointless is that).

    Legalise, regulate and tax. Some folk will always want to be high regardless. Most don’t but will experiment for a short term effect. It’s those that want to piss about for a bit that get swallowed up by the criminal element.

    Most illegal drugs have beneficial medical uses. That being the case, why drive it underground? It makes no sense.

  31. SMFS–

    “I would like to suggest a reason for this – heroin became cool. The Rolling Stones made drug use chic.”

    The UKs drug problems are down to the Rolling Stones? Jesus H–there are times you must be on something.

    Lots of people I know like the RS (I think they are grotesquely over-rated shite but whatever…). And yet they are not drug addicts. I think it likely that the same is true of lots of commenters on here and across the country in general.

    ” And when the State showed it was not serious about punishing drug crime, drug use exploded.”

    All those who have done jail time is not being “not serious” about drug crime. As opposed to the programme of executions you advocate I suppose.

    “That would have happened whether drugs were prescribable or not.”

    No it wouldn’t.

    “Likewise, in the on-going Paul R v Julia spat, I think both have a point, but the bigger issue is Social Permission. ”

    Yeah cos crims are big on having the permission of others.

    “White Americans don’t take hard drugs”

    Yes they do. Not as many as other groups perhaps but still plenty.

    ” because drugs are for losers”

    Plenty of whom are white.

    ” and Blacks. The users are held in contempt.”

    As far as you go SMFS doesn’t that apply to everybody except you?

    ” But when a doctor comes along and tells people they can get high and it is OK because it is about pain management, the social context means use is acceptable.”

    A small number of chronic pain victims feel that it is OK to seek pain relief–once some official pork have told them its alright of course. Therefore it follows (I refuse to abuse the word logically) that everybody else–who doesn’t have chronic pain–now also believes that their use of the same drugs is just dandy and a good idea?

    ” No one despises some poor sod who has to take it for back pain.”

    For you that is quite an admission

    “So use has exploded. It takes a weak minded person”

    To think up such nonsense?

    ” but it also takes a doctor willing to give a socially acceptable reason for using.”

    So its medicos AND Mick Jagger –in league.

    “The underlying assumption is that drug users are poor innocent victims and not, as I would argue, psychopaths.”

    There are characteristics that accompany the label. Some druggies fit it–most likely don’t.

    ” If they are poor innocent victims forced to score, then perhaps you are right.”

    They may be victims of their own inner demons. But most of the harm done is a function of the lawdog antics you are defending. If they could buy the stuff at the chemists most would live or die with little harm to others.

    ” Except that it is a lot of work to be a drug addict. You have to search out a user to teach you how to shoot up, you have to search out a dealer who won’t just sell you castor sugar, you have to use, a lot, over many weeks to develop a habit. ”

    Being a drunk costs time/money, trips to pubs, off-licences, extra underpants after you’ve pissed/shit the one you were wearing. So what?

    “All the while in the full knowledge that what you are doing is illegal and leads to “addiction”. That suggests that only psychopaths”

    Oh–they’re self-harming psycho-paths. Surely the best kind?

    “bother and giving them free drugs won’t make them better people.”

    Lots of things don’t make you a better person. Most folk do very little about becoming a better person in their entire life. Again so what?

    “So you say. Your evidence is what? In Britain when we give drug users free drugs, their thefts drop a little.”

    Evidence yourself? If drugs are vastly cheaper then less needs to be thieved to afford the high. It isn’t rocket science. Or are you saying that the drugs are only secondary to an addiction to (mostly petty) theft?

    ” But not by enough. They are not stealing because they need drugs. They are using drugs because they hate us all and hold our values in contempt.”

    You are Geo W Bush and I claim my £5.

    So morons whose vision of life extends to filling their arms with brain bomb are actually philosophically inclined haters who (as if they even understood or could delineate our values) are engaging in social warfare against us.

    Thank God you explained that–it just makes such sense out of everything… er ..no… its bollocks.

    “They were damaged before they were users. The best thing to do is lock them up for the drugs.”

    Which we do now and it doesn’t work except to cost a fucking fortune.

    ” The drugs serve as a useful flag so we can see who belongs in jail. And keeps them asleep half the day so that they are not our raping our dogs or something.”

    So you want them to get high but only if its in jail? At –what is it now?–£36000 a year each?

    “Best solution? The death penalty for possession.”

    Well there’s fuckall that go wrong with that is there?

    As always SMFS you are sound on many things but as almost always you undermine the sense you have with a psychopath-like pseudo tough guy approach. Esp the complete lack of empathy that imagines that the harsh measures you love to advocate could never come back and bite YOU on the arse. Some copper fancies your daughter and you don’t approve–so a couple of well-placed bags of white powder and off YOU go to the gallows.

  32. The U.S. Federal government has no Constitutional authority to ban drugs. The War on Drugs is an extra legal expedition into fascism.

    If you wish to disagree, you better be able to explain the 18th Amendment.

  33. bloke in spain – “Enforcing the law encourages organised crime. Because the demand is still there.”

    Why do you assume that? There is no law that says scum have to take drugs. We used not to. Even though hard drugs were freely available. Now we do. Something changed in the Sixties. It is clear that demand is entirely flexible. We can reduce it if we choose.

    “It’s just a business, like any other business.”

    Slavery was a business like any other business. Yet the demand for slaves seems to have disappeared. Odd that isn’t it? It is as if the social permission to make money out of slavery has disappeared. It is as if the demand, which once was so high, has gone. Not in the Middle East of course. Our Muslim friends continue to smuggle and so the market exists there. But it does not in Britain. No business is just like any other business. All businesses exist in a social context and if that context changes, so does the business.

    w-18 – “but if alcohol was introduced on the streets now, it would be a Class A.”

    Because our ruling class are spineless cowards. We have evolved with alcohol. It does us good. A lot of good. It is a vital part of our culture. Marijuana is not.

    “Some folk will always want to be high regardless.”

    And there are plenty of legal ways to get high. Alcohol for instance. People who choose to break the law on a long running sustained basis are not doing it to get high. Although I am sure the pleasure they get is part of it.

    “Most illegal drugs have beneficial medical uses. That being the case, why drive it underground? It makes no sense.”

    Since when has any illegal drug been denied legitimate medical use? Heroin is available for medical use. So is cocaine. So are all their near relatives and derivatives. Marijuana has not legitimate medical use – and claims otherwise are simply lies – but that is a minor exception.

    w-18 – “My god, SMFS, are you for real? That’s the biggest load of shit I have ever seen. Is it a piss-take?”

    You must lead a sheltered life.

  34. Becker’s estimate of the cost of the War on drugs was $100 billion per year in 2005 – and that was just in the US and represented measurable costs such as prison etc. The effect on supplier countries is very high given the political impact of the lucrative drug revenues.

  35. Mr Ecks – “The UKs drug problems are down to the Rolling Stones? Jesus H–there are times you must be on something.”

    British people used to live in a country awash with drugs. But they did not take them. Then some time in the Sixties they changed their minds. There must be some explanation. At least I am trying to explain it. You are not. You are wasting my time with a lot of anger and swearing but nothing of any substance to say.

    “Lots of people I know like the RS (I think they are grotesquely over-rated shite but whatever…). And yet they are not drug addicts.”

    You can see what a stupid logical fallacy this is can’t you? You are not that dumb are you?

    “All those who have done jail time is not being “not serious” about drug crime. As opposed to the programme of executions you advocate I suppose.”

    Richards’ notoriety for illicit drug use stems in part from several drug busts during the late 1960s and 1970s and his candour about using heroin and other substances. Richards has been tried on drug-related charges five times: in 1967, twice in 1973, in 1977, and in 1978. The first trial – the only one involving a prison sentence – resulted from a February 1967 police raid on Redlands, Richards’ Sussex estate, where he and some friends, including Jagger, were spending the weekend. The subsequent arrest of Richards and Jagger put them on trial before the British courts, while also exposing them to public opinion. On 29 June 1967, Jagger was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for possession of four amphetamine tablets. Richards was found guilty of allowing cannabis to be smoked on his property and sentenced to one year in prison. Both Jagger and Richards were imprisoned at that point: Jagger was taken to Brixton Prison in south London, and Richards to Wormwood Scrubs Prison in west London. Both were released on bail the next day pending appeal. On 1 July The Times ran an editorial entitled Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?, portraying Jagger’s sentence as persecution, and public sentiment against the convictions increased. A month later the appeals court overturned Richards’ conviction for lack of evidence, and gave Jagger a conditional discharge.

    An unrepentant recidivist. A single night in jail served. The Times, the voice of the Establishment, coming to his defence. Yeah, we are not serious about punishing drug crime. Even if we don’t hang them, we don’t actually enforce the laws we had. Utterly unserious.

    “No it wouldn’t.”

    How do you know? Drug use was growing before doctors were told to stop prescribing. Indeed they were told to stop because so many of them were doing so with abandon.

    “Yeah cos crims are big on having the permission of others.”

    Yeah they are. Criminals operate in communities too. When those communities are approving of crime, or at least indifferent to it, you get more crime.

    “A small number of chronic pain victims feel that it is OK to seek pain relief–once some official pork have told them its alright of course.”

    Except they are not chronic pain victims. There has been an explosion in America in deaths caused by an explosion in opiate use. Again something has changed. Denying it is an utter waste of everyone’s time. If you do not like my explanation find your own.

    “Therefore it follows (I refuse to abuse the word logically) that everybody else–who doesn’t have chronic pain–now also believes that their use of the same drugs is just dandy and a good idea?”

    Doctors have become more generous. So people who wouldn’t have got the drugs before do now. People who would have got by fine without them can now enjoy the buzz in the knowledge that the community approves – they have medical permission. So yes, pretty much.

    “There are characteristics that accompany the label. Some druggies fit it–most likely don’t.”

    Someone who actively seeks out the life of a drug user, taking months of persistent hard work to get there, despite all of the laws and social disapproval, despite the risks and the harm to their friends and family, is a very special person. There are not casual heroin users. The label fits.

    “They may be victims of their own inner demons. But most of the harm done is a function of the lawdog antics you are defending. If they could buy the stuff at the chemists most would live or die with little harm to others.”

    What makes you say that? Again nothing forces them to seek out the training, the suppliers, the street life, the crime, the risks and the danger. These are people making a life style choice. They want to in the gutter. If you made heroin available in stores, they would still have the same inner demons. And indeed when they are given free drugs they continue their life of crime.

    “Being a drunk costs time/money, trips to pubs, off-licences, extra underpants after you’ve pissed/shit the one you were wearing. So what?”

    I have no idea. It is your p!ss poor point, not mine. What do you think you are trying to say? Being a drunk does. So what? Being a drunk is legal. Watching dog fighting is not. Someone who seeks out dog fights is not an innocent victim of an otherwise victimless crime. They are someone who lacks compassion and decency to the point they are willing to violate the law by spending a lot of time and money seeking out dogs being tortured to death.

    “Oh–they’re self-harming psycho-paths. Surely the best kind?”

    If they were self harming no one would care. The problem is that they are not.

    “Lots of things don’t make you a better person. Most folk do very little about becoming a better person in their entire life. Again so what?”

    So they are dangerous psychopaths with a contempt for the laws and norms of boring Straight society. Which means if they are not jailed for this, we would have to jail them for something else. Giving them free drugs won’t make them good people.

    “Evidence yourself? If drugs are vastly cheaper then less needs to be thieved to afford the high. It isn’t rocket science. Or are you saying that the drugs are only secondary to an addiction to (mostly petty) theft?”

    You know, I can’t be ar$ed. I have cited the studies before but you are just wasting my f**king time. You rise to the point where you are worth it – make one coherent logical argument – and I will bother. Again you assume that they steal because they need to take drugs. All the evidence says otherwise. They take drugs because they are scum. They steal because they are scum. They belong in jail because they are scum. Giving them drugs does not stop them being scum.

    “So morons whose vision of life extends to filling their arms with brain bomb are actually philosophically inclined haters who (as if they even understood or could delineate our values) are engaging in social warfare against us.”

    What the f**k do you think you are trying to say? Yes, they are engaging in social warfare against us. As they have repeatedly made clear. Often.

    “Which we do now and it doesn’t work except to cost a fucking fortune.”

    Which we do not do and on the rare occasions we do, it works wonders. It is expensive because the left does not like prisons. Prisons do not have to be expensive.

    What a waste of my time.

  36. Legalising drugs is likely to have a negative effect in that their legalisation will likely prompt a small number of people who would otherwise not have had access to try and potentially to become addicted. This will be offset to some extent by the loss of the “forbidden” label that encourages others to try. In comparison to the overall costs of the failed war on drugs, it’s a cost that is worth paying IMO.

    From a purely cost benefit analysis view – maximising social welfare, legalisation and taxation are best. But, ethically it has some problems – some who would not be exposed to drugs if they were banned would suffer and thus there are costs – the counter argument is that the present system already has massive state intervention that worsens the lives of those caught up in the war on drugs and the arguments we see about the different treatment of other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

  37. ken – “Legalising drugs is likely to have a negative effect in that their legalisation will likely prompt a small number of people who would otherwise not have had access to try and potentially to become addicted.”

    What makes you think that the numbers will be small? Again social approval. If we approve of drug use by making it legal, what makes you think that the numbers will not explode. You know, like they did when we legalised divorce – half of all marriages is it now? – and abortion and gambling and working on the Sabbath and so on. What is your evidence for this claim?

    “In comparison to the overall costs of the failed war on drugs, it’s a cost that is worth paying IMO.”

    That sounds a lot like a theological statement. The water does turn into wine! What is your evidence and why do you think it is worth paying?

    “From a purely cost benefit analysis view – maximising social welfare, legalisation and taxation are best.”

    All other things being equal. But they are not. They never are. We give social approval to drug use, drug use will soar. They are, after all, a hell of a lot more fun than the slots.

    “the counter argument is that the present system already has massive state intervention that worsens the lives of those caught up in the war on drugs and the arguments we see about the different treatment of other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.”

    Only if you assume that every feather of every sparrow that falls in the ghetto falls because of the War on Drugs. Which is not likely to be true. After all marijuana is in the process of being decriminalised. Ghetto thugs are turning out to be really bad at running a legal business. They are being pushed out of the weed business. Who would have guessed? So they are not about to put down their Glocks and become Accountants. What do you think they will be doing once they don’t have the weed business?

  38. Do you really know that your companion’s brief visit to the bogs was for a piss & not a line of charlie?

    If the club was anything like the cocktail bar my daughter used to run, they’ll have a bottle of WD-40 in the cleaning kit just to give the relevant surfaces* that little extra sheen. And completely ruin any cocaine that was put on them for snorting.

    * Tops of the toilet** cisterns were apparently the favourite spot.

    ** Well, I wouldn’t. But I wouldn’t take my drink in to the loo with me either and, okay, this was Glasgow.

  39. By the way, on the subject of Keith Richards and heroin, the British government was gutless and so he continued to use. The American government was not. He was busted for heroin possession in Canada in 1977. He got off with the usual stern talking to from the Canadian courts.

    But the US government told him that his visa would be pulled if he ever offended again and he would never be allowed back into the US. He gave up heroin and never used it again.

    Threats of punishment and punishment do actually work. In fact they are probably the only things that work with sociopaths. Funny about that innit?

  40. Drug taking was rife in high society in the 1920s. Who says that cocaïne and heroin only became popular in the 1960s? There is a Lon Chaney film made around 1920 which shows a man going into a New York drugstore to buy a line of marching powder. You can see him rubbing his nose as he comes out. Cole Porter mentions cocaïne in “I get a kick out of you”. In the musical “42nd Street” there is a song called “You’re getting to be a habit with me”. There are many other examples. The question is why did it get driven underground?

  41. There’s something telling me SMfS’s contact with the world of illegal drug use & supply is restricted to reading about it. Very selectively.

  42. Diogenes – “Drug taking was rife in high society in the 1920s.”

    Rife? Define rife.

    “Who says that cocaïne and heroin only became popular in the 1960s? …. There are many other examples. The question is why did it get driven underground?”

    There are indeed many other examples. The novels of Raymond Chandler for instance. Or of course the example of Sherlock Holmes. It seems to be a commonplace in crime fiction. Or Freud’s use of cocaine. But that does not mean it was common in society.

    As for heroin use, we know why the British government made prescribing it illegal:

    The UK Department of Health’s Rolleston Committee Report[26] in 1926 established the British approach to diamorphine prescription to users, which was maintained for the next 40 years: dealers were prosecuted, but doctors could prescribe diamorphine to users when withdrawing from it would cause harm or severe distress to the patient. This “policing and prescribing” policy effectively controlled the perceived diamorphine problem in the UK until 1959 when the number of diamorphine addicts doubled every 16 months during the ten years from 1959 to 1968.[27] In 1964 the Brain Committee recommended that only selected approved doctors working at approved specialised centres be allowed to prescribe diamorphine and benzoylmethylecgonine (cocaine) to users. The law was made more restrictive in 1968. Beginning in the 1970s, the emphasis shifted to abstinence and the use of methadone; currently only a small number of users in the UK are prescribed diamorphine.

    Register users doubled every 16 months for ten years. That is, the policy failed and failed spectacularly. I mean, seriously – what are you all on the legalisation side talking about? We tried this policy. It did not work. You would think some of you had noticed.

    bloke in spain – “There’s something telling me SMfS’s contact with the world of illegal drug use & supply is restricted to reading about it. Very selectively.”

    Love your work dude.

  43. SMFS has an interesting point here – the “increased use via social approval” one.

    Tim’s piece at the ASI suggests that the (US) state should legalise recreational drugs because consequences of their illegality are leading to shorter lifespans. But if legalisation (which means profit driven corportions promoting use via advertising) means greatly increased use overall, then consequencial lifespan shortening will probably occur anyway.

    Would a better result (in terms of lifespan) be brought about by continued disapproval in combination with an undercutting of the profitability of supply? I.e. decriminalisation. Addicts readily get a cheap, clean and measured supply, removing the incentive for criminal gangs to supply. But social disapproval remains, making such drug use appear pathetic and loserish.

    We know that social disapproval works. The propaganda campaign against smoking (whether you approve of it or not) has been the most successful element in reducing the level of that pastime.

  44. SMFS

    “That sounds a lot like a theological statement. The water does turn into wine! What is your evidence and why do you think it is worth paying?

    – Because we’ve run experiments with legalisation in places like Portugal. There was no massive rise in addictions – which is why your rants about “it’s not going to be small” is far close to being the “theological statement”.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837

    Even the most negative views of the Portuguese experiment show tiny rises in some categories of drug use. And generally find a decline in problematic drug use.

    So the evidence is no real change in drug addiction, massive decline in associated costs, improvements in treatment, a reduction in collateral damage in producer nations. So I’m pretty confident about my data. The ethical problems remain, but unlike you, I’m on pretty solid ground on the data side.

  45. ken – “Because we’ve run experiments with legalisation in places like Portugal. There was no massive rise in addictions”

    No we have not. Portugal has not legalised. They have in fact stripped drug users of their civil rights. Users are hauled before a tribunal that can impose a whole range of unpleasant punishments on users who do not behave themselves. For the record, I would love to adopt the Portuguese approach. As for addictions:

    Reported lifetime use of “all illicit drugs” increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%

    The CATO study more or less covered the period when the Taleban imposed a heroin drought on the rest of the world by stamping out opium production.

    “So the evidence is no real change in drug addiction, massive decline in associated costs, improvements in treatment, a reduction in collateral damage in producer nations. So I’m pretty confident about my data. The ethical problems remain, but unlike you, I’m on pretty solid ground on the data side.”

    Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years. The number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented

    Homicide rate increased 40% between 2001 and 2006

    Feel as confident as you like in your data.

    As for other experiments, because doctors are so lax, in effect opiates have been legalised in the US:

    What the U.S. Surgeon General dubbed “The Opioid Crisis” likely began with over-prescription of powerful opioid pain relievers in the 1990s, which led to them becoming the most prescribed class of medications in the United States. As of 2016 more than 289 million prescriptions were written for opioid drugs per year.[62]:43In the late 1990s, around 100 million people or a third of the U.S. population was estimated to be affected by chronic pain. This led to a push by drug companies and the federal government to expand the use of painkilling opioids.[11] Between 1991 and 2011, painkiller prescriptions in the U.S. tripled from 76 million to 219 million per year.

    So Paul R is on to some thing – this problem did begin with a push by the drug companies to sell more drugs. And they have. A lot more.

    The opioid epidemic has since emerged as one of the worst drug crises in American history: more than 33,000 people died from overdoses in 2015, nearly equal to the number of deaths from car crashes, with deaths from heroin alone more than from gun homicides.
    ….
    In 2016, over 64,000 Americans died from overdoses, 21 percent more than the almost 53,000 in 2015.[7][8][6] By comparison, the figure was 16,000 in 2010, and 4,000 in 1999.

    Some of these are from heroin but actually the most common cause of opiate death is perfectly legally prescribed, factory-produced pain killing drugs. They are not getting rancid sh!t from the streets. They are taking huge amounts of very dangerous pain killers and they are dying.

    However let’s assume that on the order of 50,000 people are dying because of this outbreak of over-prescription. Every year. An American life is worth something like $3 million. So it is costing the US $150 billion every year in lost lives alone. That makes Posner’s nonsense costs look entirely worth it.

  46. If the starting point was low (as SMFS suggests), does the doubling of diamorphine addicts every 16 months over 9 years really constitute a policy failure? At that, you start with a relatively small number and still have a relatively small number. And this during a period when a tiny minority activity was suddenly promoted to the masses as “cool” and “rebellious”.

    When the policy was stopped, the addiction problem exploded.

    Perhaps if the policy had been continued (practically expanded) the problem would have dissipated.

  47. PJF – “If the starting point was low (as SMFS suggests), does the doubling of diamorphine addicts every 16 months over 9 years really constitute a policy failure?”

    At what growth rate would you consider a policy failure a failure? The British had lower tolerances back in the day. We have become numb – we are the proverbial boiling frog. But the policy clearly was not working.

    “At that, you start with a relatively small number and still have a relatively small number.”

    And in another ten years the problem is not small any more. That is the point about doubling – you can ignore it for a while but while you go slowly at first, you go rapidly at the end. I did check the numbers once for one of these tedious threads. Maybe even here on TW’s blog. As far as I could see – and the data wasn’t that good – the change made no difference. Users continued to double every 16 months or so until the 1980s. Then it plateaued.

    “Perhaps if the policy had been continued (practically expanded) the problem would have dissipated.”

    Perhaps. Perhaps if HIV continued to spread as it did in the 1980s it would magically start to decline. But past experience suggests otherwise. China’s experience with opium legalisation for instance. Or present America’s opiate problems.

    I think there is a case to go back to some form of proscription. But it is not a magic bullet. What we need is a lot less social tolerance.

  48. Just to make the obvious point – America’s problem is not really with illegal drugs. There are heroin users. Don’t know how many really but they have been around for a long time. There is illegal drugs coming in from Mexico. But the largest number of users are using properly-produced, pharmacy-sourced drugs. Often with a prescription.

    The problem is that the drug companies are pushing even stronger forms of these drugs:

    Fentanyl, a newer synthetic opioid painkiller, is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine and 30 to 50 times more potent than heroin,[17] with only 2 mg becoming a lethal dose.

    These means the margin for error is much smaller than it is with heroin or morphine. So think about what sort of people are taking these drugs – they are often poor, elderly, and not well educated. Suppose someone can’t remember if they took their meds or not. And so they take another one. With fentanyl the risk of an overdose death is just that much higher.

    No move towards legalisation is going to help with this problem.

  49. The latest Jack Reacher from Lee Child (not his best ever, but still pretty good IMHO) covers the (tiny spoiler alert) problems of abuse of prescription opioids in the US. He claims (yes, it’s fiction) that the DEA now have a good system for ensuring the integrity of the legal supply chain.

  50. US medical marijuana legalization sees minor increases in use by youth and some but still minor increases in initial use.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574915

    See figures on page 34.

    SMFS

    You rely on wikipedia, but edit out the caveats in the piece – the evidence is for no appreciable rise in use relative to other similar countries during the same period. As I noted, some minor increases at worst – which is what the wiki numbers show (the Cardoso and Santos (2009) piece is a reply to the Greenwald (2009) piece and is the source of the negative numbers cited in Wiki, and other papers show they cherry picked data to show a rise just as Greenwald picked his data to show a fall). I don’t see this massive rise that you seem to believe (and it is just that, a belief) happens. I’m confident about the data results.

    As for your other assertions:

    “Some of these are from heroin but actually the most common cause of opiate death is perfectly legally prescribed, factory-produced pain killing drugs. They are not getting rancid sh!t from the streets. They are taking huge amounts of very dangerous pain killers and they are dying.”

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/25/491340448/illegally-made-fentanyl-seems-to-be-driving-a-spike-in-overdoses

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6533a2.htm

    The CDC disagrees. It’s ilegal drugs that seem to be driving the deaths.

  51. “More will die!”

    “Fewer will die!”

    You argue effects. It is one level removed from the real debate: does government have the right to tell people what they can put in their bodies?

    I say, “No.” Er, “Hell, no!”

    I say, “Ban the FDA and, especially, the DEA.*”

    An industry council can provide any actual value the FDA might have provided. Without the heavy hand of government.

    *Along with 600 other U.S. government alphabet agencies.

  52. Note that the outrageously inflated cost of illicit drugs, created by government bans, fuels the drive to get more people to use them. Otherwise, few would care.

    I wait for the Mexican Cartels to collapse overnight when the U.S. calls quit to the ridiculous “War on Drugs.” The Cartels’ business model depends on the “War on Drugs.”

  53. “The War on Rape can never be won either.”

    Rape is not a victimless crime, like taking illegal drugs.

  54. I wonder if the Bitcoin price will plummet when recreational drugs are legalised.
    It’s nice to see some classical liberalism of the JS Mill flavour on these comments, especially from Mr Ecks and those looking in from the USA.

  55. “Note that the outrageously inflated cost of illicit drugs, created by government bans, fuels the drive to get more people to use them.”

    Singapore has a draconian anti-drugs regime (including mandatory death penalty for not very exciting quantities). Drug use in Singapore is very low. Prohibition does not necessarily lead to increased use.

  56. Mr Ecks: ’For Goodness Sake Julia how many tweets about G&Ts have you posted over Christmas?’

    Sure, if alcohol was suddenly invented today, it’d be banned tomorrow.

    But it wasn’t, and it isn’t. Can see the point in adding another danger, can you?

  57. @Theophrastus: ’Rape is not a victimless crime, like taking illegal drugs.’

    Hardly victimless, when you see how they are produced, and the things people do to get them, or sell them.

  58. JuliaM
    The crime of consuming illegal drugs is victimless. The production and distribution of many things involves costs to people.

  59. SMFS – do you actually know anyone who takes any classified drugs? I live a dull nine-to-five existence that pays my bills and gives me some r&r every now and then. I’m the same as millions of others in the UK.

    I smoke and I insufflate and I bomb. And I relax and I escape the stressful mundanities of the soulless day-to-day drudgery, if only for a short while. A bit like a few pints and a night cap. Just like millions of others in the UK.

    Are they all filthy scum? All those white, middle-class, upstanding, and patriotic citizens? At a stroke their lives could be ruined by being shopped by some wanker , curtain-twitcher like you.

    You’re trying to be intellectual about this, but you are clueless.

    Intoxicant use has been ‘rife’ since forever. I’m sure you can find out about it on wikipedia. Even Puritans got pissed. Hell: Buckfasts.

    For ‘street’ drug users, the most important part of rehabilitation is to remove the need to associate with the criminal suppliers. It’s so obvious.

    Anyway, check out w-18. And get first in line. Your thinking perpetuates misery.

  60. Not every user of intoxicants becomes addicted. Not every addict’s usage career ends in catastrophe. Those that do suffer serious negative consequences (in the parlance, “jails, institutions and death”) do so almost always as a result of the illegality of drugs and the poor quality control that is created by that illegality. The only policy that is simultaneously liberal and moral is to accept the autonomy of individuals to put whatever they want into their bodies while providing harm mitigation (to them and to those around them). This means legalisation plus support services. Will it be cost-free? No, of course not. Will it cost less and result in less harm than the current policy? I believe so. It’s ridiculous to cast all addicts as degenerate low-lifes who only get what they deserve. Some are completely feral and could do with shooting, but they’d likely be a bane on society stone-cold sober. Most aren’t; most will eventually try to stop; those that sincerely try should be helped. And all of the above goes, mutatis mutandis to users of legal intoxicants.

    I’d wager I have more experience of this subject than the hangers’n’floggers. God knows, I used to be one. Not any more.

  61. Indeed, Mr in Costa Rica. – the vast majority aren’t the “psychopaths” SMFS thinks are under his bed.

    Most people who take illegal drugs are not those ‘under-the-bridge-types’. If they could have testing kits, or know the source is regulated – even discreetly registered, the likelihood of the descent into criminality and the likelihood to get into long term dependency is massively reduced. There’s that socially negative reinforcement thing again. Do you want to be seen going into a licensed outlet for a subsistence dose of horse of a lunch time?

    Undoubtedly there will be an upsurge of experimenters, but seriously though, apart from that tiny minority, who wants to be strongly opiated all of the time. They would stop and get help for that like we get help for nicotine addiction, and the like. All above board.

  62. SMFS–You waste your own time with the tripe you pen. Nor will verbal diarrhoea NiV-style bring you victory in debate. Esp when you can’t even command basic facts.

    “British people used to live in a country awash with drugs. But they did not take them. Then some time in the Sixties they changed their minds.”

    Pure garbage. Diogenes is correct. Drugs go waaay back. DeQuincey and his laudanum. The fact that loads of Victorian patent medicines, Godfrey’s cordial and McMunn’s Elixir and countless others contained opium in large quantities. Legions of temperance old bags cursed the demon drink even as they consumed patent medicines and nostrum that were loaded with both ethanol and opium/laudanum.

    These people were “respectable” not advocates of some alternative lifestyles. Your laughable claim is therefore that being slebs enabled the Stones to make drug taking a popular “fad”–one worth billions. And you have the bare-faced brass neck to claim my points are of no value?

    “An unrepentant recidivist. A single night in jail served. The Times, the voice of the Establishment, coming to his defence. Yeah, we are not serious about punishing drug crime. Even if we don’t hang them, we don’t actually enforce the laws we had. Utterly unserious.”

    This was 50 years ago. How many millions likely man hours of expensive jail time have gone by to zero effect since then.

    “Yeah they are. Criminals operate in communities too. When those communities are approving of crime, or at least indifferent to it, you get more crime.”

    Are there many criminal communities DISapproving of crime then.? You talk tripe on stilts. Since criminals make billions off all phases of drug production they can hardly be said to disapprove. Indeed were they the moralists you claim they should bung Jagger a few million every Xmas for having created such a monster profit for them. Better than Noddy Holder and his Slade “Merry Christmas” 100 grand royalties
    every Xmas.

    “Except they are not chronic pain victims.”

    And how the fuck do you know that Uncle Righteous? You don’t know or give a shit either. People in pain can go on suffering for all you give a rat’s arse.

    ” There has been an explosion in America in deaths caused by an explosion in opiate use. ”

    Since you are proposing to hang such people why do you care?

    “Doctors have become more generous. So people who wouldn’t have got the drugs before do now.”

    So Doctors are also worthless gutless wonders who hand out drugs like smarties?

    ” People who would have got by fine without them can now enjoy the buzz in the knowledge that the community approves – they have medical permission. So yes, pretty much”

    What is all this “permission” bullshit?. I don’t drink, smoke or take drugs because my Mam had signed the pledge in the 30s and influenced me as a small child.. But if I wanted to do any or all of those I would and piss on who “approves”. For many years people outside the family tried to encourage me to drink. “No thank you” was always sufficient–but fuck off was always there ready for use.

    “Someone who actively seeks out the life of a drug user, taking months of persistent hard work to get there, despite all of the laws and social disapproval, despite the risks and the harm to their friends and family, is a very special person. There are not casual heroin users. The label fits.”

    Again so what?

    ” Being a drunk is legal.”

    Legal bullshit does not make it any different from other forms of addiction save that its legality makes it a cause of less trouble and strife in society.

    ” Watching dog fighting is not. Someone who seeks out dog fights is not an innocent victim of an otherwise victimless crime. They are someone who lacks compassion and decency to the point they are willing to violate the law by spending a lot of time and money seeking out dogs being tortured to death.”

    Taking something yourself and torturing poor animals can hardly be equivalent–even in your disordered brain-pan.

    “So they are dangerous psychopaths with a contempt for the laws and norms of boring Straight society.”

    That contempt would only harm themselves were drug taking legal. The laws antics spread the pain around.

    ” Which means if they are not jailed for this, we would have to jail them for something else. Giving them free drugs won’t make them good people.”

    Just piffle. Buy the drugs legal–get high–live or die. All with very little harm to the average person. No gangs/no uzis/no corruption/ no power or money for cops and polipigs.

    “You know, I can’t be ar$ed. ”

    I wish you wouldn’t be.

    “I have cited the studies before but you are just wasting my f**king time.”

    You waste your own time . And –NiV like again–your studies aren’t worth shit.

    “You rise to the point where you are worth it – make one coherent logical argument – and I will bother.”

    I have done–that you are too dim to follow them–and everybody else’s to boot– is down to you not me. You have the capacity to whip a mass of po-faced clichés into what sounds like it could be a logical argument. Until it gets looked at in the light of day when it falls apart.

    ” Again you assume that they steal because they need to take drugs.”

    Again if they were stealing cos that is what they do then getting rid of drugs would make no difference to the crime level anyway. Why bother in that case?

    “All the evidence says otherwise.”

    What evidence?

    ” They take drugs because they are scum. They steal because they are scum. They belong in jail because they are scum. Giving them drugs does not stop them being scum.”

    I have never proposed to give them drugs. If they could buy drugs for their real market cost they would need to steal far less to get drugs. Crime will plummet. Or are you saying they are hustling for “Scum of the Year” award and are trying to break thieving records cos drugs have nothing to do with their crime habits? If that were so then no need to worry about the drugs anyway. Just encourage them to take an overdose.

    “What the f**k do you think you are trying to say? Yes, they are engaging in social warfare against us. As they have repeatedly made clear. Often.”

    Where and when exactly? I must have missed “60 Minutes”.

    “Again social approval. If we approve of drug use by making it legal,”

    Who cares about approval?

    “W what makes you think that the numbers will not explode. You know, like they did when we legalised divorce – half of all marriages is it now? – and abortion and gambling and working on the Sabbath and so on. What is your evidence for this claim?”

    There are lots of reasons for the above-listed to happen, too many to cover now –and that does not imply approval of those things–but few reasons to ruin yourself with drugs outside of some inner demons.

    ” We give social approval to drug use, drug use will soar. They are, after all, a hell of a lot more fun than the slots.”

    Yeah–there will be recreational users–just as with drink. Does everybody who drinks become an alki?

    “Register users doubled every 16 months for ten years. That is, the policy failed and failed spectacularly.”

    It worked for the previous 33 years. And all these explosions are relatively small numbers. Most folk aren’t addicts and aren’t going to be.

    ” So think about what sort of people are taking these drugs – they are often poor, elderly, and not well educated. Suppose someone can’t remember if they took their meds or not. And so they take another one. With fentanyl the risk of an overdose death is just that much higher.”

    So now its hearts and flowers? You were going to hang them a couple of postings ago.

    Your arguments are the same old crap that has been peddled for years. While drug problems get worse.

    If we were just a bit nastier to druggies etc–which would likely make the habit worse. After all if the habit is an attempt to numb pain then being hated isn’t likely to reduce the urge to use. Social approval –which means bugger all unless what you are actually calling for is rating people out to the Stasi–will have zero effect.

    Enough.

  63. “Can’t see the point in adding another danger, can you?”

    The danger is already there and in action Julia. Responding with same old, same old isn’t working.

  64. My gut is with Mr Ecks on this.
    Given that people here tend to be in favour of the scientific method I’m surprised that no one commenting has referenced the natural experiment conducted in Portugal (albeit ‘only’ a decriminalisation rather than legalisation).
    I’d be genuinely interested in the results of any meta study.

  65. So if I can summarise this blog; it is home for people who love heroin, hate human rights think business free trade and prosperity are less important than ethnic purity .Support Putin, admire Trump, dislike Western civilisation, fear women and , generally speaking can`t find their own arse with both hands unless the Daily Mail prints an easy guide.

    It occurs to me the civilisation has gone backwards before , I wonder if this is what it felt like ?

  66. Newmania – the availability of drugs (in the manner of this conversation) should not be conflated with a political leaning. It is quite different to the other points you make. Taking recreational drugs and having an opinion about it is about a personal choice. Slagging off women and hating socialists is an external projection.

    I doubt there is a tribal affiliation about this subject.

    FWIW I’m a left leaning lurker who can’t be bothered with trying to argue a point because I see others that do drown in hostility. Mr Ecks is dreadful, but here he is right – stopped clocks etc.

    Pumping billions into the military and then locking up the guy next door for supplying his mates with a few pills and an ounce of weed is pure nonsense.

    At every social, economic and cognitive level.

  67. New Facepainter–always nice to see more direct evidence of what a scummy example of deceitful middle class Marxian twathood you are.

    Should an blog ‘s commenters have a collective view dickhead? Is that EU Directive 1415/1704/1759/1815 mayhap? Or don’t your owners allow any numbers higher than 1066? Our opinion’s differ–unlike the pure hatred and treason of you ReMainiac trash.

    Also your verbalising great words like Free Trade, Rights, Western Civilisation is not welcome here. When a crawling Euro-cuck like you mouths those words it is like having to witness the Mona Lisa being smeared with shite.

    Run along and get your next set of crib sheets from Drunker. If you are lucky perhaps he won’t make you kiss his arse-this time.

  68. @NickM, December 28, 2017 at 10:17 am

    What is filthy Julia? Recreational pharmaceuticals are not that bad. Trust me on this. I smoke tobacco. I used to smoke cannabis. I don’t because you can’t get anything other than skunk these days. I don’t like skunk. It makes me paranoid. But skunk is “stronger” than the old stuff and if you have to smuggle you go for the bang for buck. Drug illegality forces the good out for the bad.

    Nick, I agree. I have friends who like grass, weed etc and used to buy “soap”, like you they don’t want to smoke “skunk”, but they often do as nothing else available.

    I don’t know enough about cannabis to say which is good/bad/dangerous, but you reinforce what I hear.

    .
    @JuliaM

    Recreational means leisure time. Alcohol is a recreational drug, use at work is not acceptable, same with cannabis.

  69. WD40–Don’t worry yourself about the Facepainter. He gives a shite for nothing except what benefits him. Treason fucks you up even worse than drugs I guess.

    Since you are new here and left-leaning and all what’s your thoughts about the 150 million murdered by socialism so far? Eggs and Omelettes/ never happened/who gives a shit so long as no one is better off than me?

    See that’s hostility–because I want all collectivist scum to suffer for their evil and support for tyranny–but it is also a point and an argument. Since you have emerged from the shadows have a go.

  70. Newmoronia- if I can sum you up: you believe in the reintroduction of slavery, you torture kittens to death for kicks and fuck handfuls of your own shit?

    Or did I just make some stuff up because I have a different view on Brexit?

  71. Interesting how snowflake-like certain people get when a sacred belief is challenged by evidence……. Particularly those who decry snowflakeyness so often…..

  72. Blimey, only abortion surpasses this level of comments, so I might as well get my two ‘penneth in FWIW.

    bis makes an excellent point about socialising behaviour and I’m with Gamecock, people own their own body.

    Even if you don’t agree with Gamecock, all man’s foibles have innocent victims, be they the wrong side of a drunk driver’s wheel of the family of a gambling addict. The question for me is whether there’s more innocent victims by making drugs illegal.

  73. A couple of thoughts.
    – I’ve a friend who had a serious accident (essentially had a 7.5T truck driven over her legs) while about 4 months pregnant.
    Despite initially fighting for her life, amazingly she and the baby both made it, but only after lots of surgery and skin grafts to her lower body and was in pretty horrible pain (sort of permanently screaming levels) for several months.
    Anyway, she had the dilemma of how much opioid pain relief to accept, particularly given the baby. She was given a specialist midwife who basically said “I work with babies from heroin addicted mothers – I can fix an addicted newborn in a week”. She duly accepted the pain relief, and essentially the midwife was exactly right. Baby is (as far as we can tell) fine, and mum has been more or less weaned off the opoids now.

    I’ve also a friend whose dad turned to illegal drugs in a bout of depression, and who has wrecked a 30 years marriage, lost his wife and children their home due to debts he ran up before his wife gave up and threw him out. It’s amazing the destructive power drugs can have.

  74. Theophrastus – “Rape is not a victimless crime, like taking illegal drugs.”

    If you want to make a completely different argument, make a completely different argument. Don’t make the false argument you did make.

    Obviously drug use is not a victimless crime. Everyone who shoots up, snorts or smokes knows that they are contributing to the murder, brutalisation and corruption of the Third World. They don’t care. Because – what is the word again? – oh yes, they are sociopaths.

    But it is irrelevant. The law is what the law is. If the laws were changed, we might see a whole better class of drug user. But with the law as they are, drugs are a wonderful filter for sorting out the sort of people who should be in jail from the sort of people who should not.

  75. ”Given that people here tend to be in favour of the scientific method I’m surprised that no one commenting has referenced the natural experiment conducted in Portugal (albeit ‘only’ a decriminalisation rather than legalisation).“

    Portugal was mentioned and linked above.

    I think decriminalisation combined with social shame (lite) is the most pragmatic approach for balancing individual liberty against the survival of the nation(s).

  76. w-18 – “I smoke and I insufflate and I bomb. And I relax and I escape the stressful mundanities of the soulless day-to-day drudgery, if only for a short while.”

    At the expense in suffering of thousands of other people and in full knowledge that it is illegal. Yes, you are a low level sociopath and should be in jail.

    “At a stroke their lives could be ruined by being shopped by some wanker , curtain-twitcher like you.”

    No, their lives could be ruined by their willful and deliberate violation of the law. The fault is not with the policemen who enforce the law, or with the community that insist on their standards, but on the sociopaths who think they can have the benefits of society without being bound by its rules. You want to play the game, you have to abide by the refs’ decisions.

    “Intoxicant use has been ‘rife’ since forever. I’m sure you can find out about it on wikipedia. Even Puritans got pissed. Hell: Buckfasts.”

    Sure but heroin and marijuana were not rife since forever. Not in this country. They are new. They are also illegal.

    “For ‘street’ drug users, the most important part of rehabilitation is to remove the need to associate with the criminal suppliers. It’s so obvious.”

    Rehabilitation does not work because drug users are not sick. It is irrelevant who they associate with or what treatment they are offered. They are not suffering from an illness that can be cured but a lack of moral character.

    “Anyway, check out w-18. And get first in line. Your thinking perpetuates misery.”

    Blame anyone but yourselves. Sort of proves my point about the sociopathy don’t it? Society made me do it! I am sure Ian Brady spent the last days of his life making similar claims.

    Bloke in Costa Rica – “Not every user of intoxicants becomes addicted.”

    I agree. Because addiction does not exist. Heroin is not hard to get off whatever the industry says.

    “Not every addict’s usage career ends in catastrophe.”

    And half of all smokers die of something else.

    “The only policy that is simultaneously liberal and moral is to accept the autonomy of individuals to put whatever they want into their bodies while providing harm mitigation (to them and to those around them).”

    Perhaps that is so. But does it apply to thalidomide? However what we have is the policy we have. Some other policy might be wonderful but we don’t have that policy. We have laws and we have people determined to break them. The solution for that is to jail the people breaking them.

    “Will it cost less and result in less harm than the current policy? I believe so.”

    Why do you believe so?

    “It’s ridiculous to cast all addicts as degenerate low-lifes who only get what they deserve. Some are completely feral and could do with shooting, but they’d likely be a bane on society stone-cold sober. Most aren’t; most will eventually try to stop; those that sincerely try should be helped.”

    How do you know most aren’t? These are people who have seen Sid and Nancy, they have seen all the ads, they have sat through all the After School Specials, and they have still decided that what they want to be is a drug user. No one falls on a needle by accident. Eventually most will stop. So will most criminals. They grow out of it. We should offer treatment to people who break and enter?

    w-18 – “Most people who take illegal drugs are not those ‘under-the-bridge-types’. If they could have testing kits, or know the source is regulated – even discreetly registered, the likelihood of the descent into criminality and the likelihood to get into long term dependency is massively reduced.”

    Evidence? Why do you think that dependence depends on testing for purity? Surely adding sugar keeps people from dependency because they are not shooting up real drugs.

    “There’s that socially negative reinforcement thing again.”

    The “I wouldn’t be a criminal if society didn’t oppress me” argument? The poor little dears. If only we did not castigate them for being low life scum they could lead productive lives stealing our DVD players.

    “Undoubtedly there will be an upsurge of experimenters, but seriously though, apart from that tiny minority, who wants to be strongly opiated all of the time.”

    Ummm, everyone? Opiates are fun. A lot of fun. We could reasonable expect to see half the country using if they were legal.

  77. Mr Ecks – “Pure garbage. Diogenes is correct. Drugs go waaay back. DeQuincey and his laudanum. The fact that loads of Victorian patent medicines, Godfrey’s cordial and McMunn’s Elixir and countless others contained opium in large quantities. Legions of temperance old bags cursed the demon drink even as they consumed patent medicines and nostrum that were loaded with both ethanol and opium/laudanum.”

    How does that prove I am anything but right? The point about DeQ is that he was a rare degenerate widely condemned by society. That is the point of his pathetic self-justifying book. There was, as I said, drugs everywhere in Victorian Britain. But people were not taking them – at least not for pleasure. They were using medicines. There’s that social permission again. Which killed people by overdosing. How odd that legalisation did not result in safety back then? Hard drugs were widely available but people were not using them for pleasure.

    “Your laughable claim is therefore that being slebs enabled the Stones to make drug taking a popular “fad”–one worth billions.”

    And yet something changed. What that was you have no idea. Because you have a Perfect Theory to which facts are irrelevant. I at least try to work out what happened. And something did. The Stones changed hair cuts, clothing, the way men and women behaved – why not their attitudes to drugs too? It is the least unreasonable thing on this thread. But hey, you have your Theory. I am sure it will stand you in good stead.

    “This was 50 years ago. How many millions likely man hours of expensive jail time have gone by to zero effect since then.”

    F*ck all. We do not jail drug users. We never have really. We have people in prison for drug offenses but they are usually serious drug offenses. Not mere possession or use. We have tried virtually nothing and it is no surprise that it has not worked.

    “Are there many criminal communities DISapproving of crime then.? You talk tripe on stilts.”

    Depends on the crime. Some crimes, yes. The criminal fraternity is not big on child sex offenders. I am willing to bet that communities that tolerate GBH do not have high levels of child abuse. Again, you have a Theory that is proof from any factual claims at all. Which is why, like so many Marxists, you turn straight to abuse when your Theory is questioned.

    “And how the fuck do you know that Uncle Righteous? You don’t know or give a shit either. People in pain can go on suffering for all you give a rat’s arse.”

    It is simply impossible for pain sufferers to have increased that fast. Again facts, they are so annoying aren’t they? People in pain deserve treatment. But medical malpractice is killing people.

    “So Doctors are also worthless gutless wonders who hand out drugs like smarties?”

    Yeah. Pretty much. As the numbers I have cited show.

    “But if I wanted to do any or all of those I would and piss on who “approves”.”

    Then you are a sociopath. Or more likely fooling yourself.

    “Again so what?”

    They belong in jail. Whether the drugs are legal or not.

    “Legal bullshit does not make it any different from other forms of addiction save that its legality makes it a cause of less trouble and strife in society.”

    There is no such thing as addiction. And obviously the legality does matter. Most people obey the law. Even if they think the law is wrong, it is not a matter of individual choice. We obey the law because it is the law – unless the law is monstrously unjust. Which drug laws are not. All the drug laws do is filter out those people who think the laws do not apply to them – people like Ian Brady. And Keith Richards.

    “Taking something yourself and torturing poor animals can hardly be equivalent–even in your disordered brain-pan.”

    Why not? Taking something yourself produced by death squads, drug gangs, the Taleban is harming people as much as dogs being tortured. Everyone knows it too.

    “That contempt would only harm themselves were drug taking legal. The laws antics spread the pain around.”

    No – obviously that is the stupidest thing you have said all day. People who do not think the laws apply to them are a bane on society. If they do not express it through drugs they will express it some other way. As many drug users do. Those people belong in jail.

    “Buy the drugs legal–get high–live or die. All with very little harm to the average person. No gangs/no uzis/no corruption/ no power or money for cops and polipigs.”

    Up to a point. But still every drug user is someone who says that the laws do not apply to him. He is a special person, a superior person, above the law. Just as Ian Brady claimed. Just as Keith Richards claimed. If they do not take drugs, they will not become good members of the community. They will simply continue to behave as if the laws do not apply to them in some other aspect of their lives. Brady did not take drugs. But he did think that superior men like him were not rightfully bound by the laws.

    “And –NiV like again–your studies aren’t worth shit.”

    You haven’t even seen them and you know they aren’t worth anything? You are a parody of yourself today.

    “Until it gets looked at in the light of day when it falls apart.”

    I look forward to that.

    “Again if they were stealing cos that is what they do then getting rid of drugs would make no difference to the crime level anyway. Why bother in that case?”

    That is my whole argument. Welcome to reality.

    “What evidence?”

    The evidence where we give them drugs and then monitor their offending. Which does go down but not by much.

    “I have never proposed to give them drugs. If they could buy drugs for their real market cost they would need to steal far less to get drugs. Crime will plummet.”

    Need. You are too caught up in your Theory to even see my objections to that word. Despite the fact that it has been put to you any number of times. No one needs to steal. Because no one needs to take drugs. There is no law that says anyone has to. Giving up the drugs is not even hard. They can all do it any time they please. They do not please. They steal because they are scum. When people in Glasgow give them free drugs, they continue to steal. Because it is not about the drugs. They are an excuse.

    “If that were so then no need to worry about the drugs anyway. Just encourage them to take an overdose.”

    You are getting there.

    “Who cares about approval?”

    Everyone who is not a sociopath?

    “There are lots of reasons for the above-listed to happen, too many to cover now –and that does not imply approval of those things–but few reasons to ruin yourself with drugs outside of some inner demons.”

    So you have no f**king answer to that answer? But you do have your Theory. Which must be defended at all costs from attacks from Counter Revolutionaries, Wreckers and Splittists!

    “Yeah–there will be recreational users–just as with drink. Does everybody who drinks become an alki?”

    Because moderate heroin use is just so common.

    “It worked for the previous 33 years. And all these explosions are relatively small numbers. Most folk aren’t addicts and aren’t going to be.”

    How do you know they won’t be? The population was different. As Methodism declined, so did the moral values associated with it. Methodism has collapsed completely. You cannot assume the values of the past have any hold in the present.

    “So now its hearts and flowers? You were going to hang them a couple of postings ago.”

    You forget – those people have social approval.

    “After all if the habit is an attempt to numb pain then being hated isn’t likely to reduce the urge to use.”

    If. What a wonderful weasel word that is. What is your evidence for thinking it is? Oh yes, your Theory says that users are innocent little lambs and it is the rest of us who are screwing everything up.

    “Social approval –which means bugger all unless what you are actually calling for is rating people out to the Stasi–will have zero effect.”

    And yet you insist that Social Disapproval works. Odd. Social approval works. Look at racism. We have shamed it all but out of existence. But hey, if it contradicts your Theory, it is irrelevant, right?

  78. ken – “You rely on wikipedia, but edit out the caveats in the piece – the evidence is for no appreciable rise in use relative to other similar countries during the same period.”

    So we are agreed there has been a rise? Either way what this suggests is that the non-enforcement policy of Portugal is no better or worse than the non-enforcement policy of Spain or Italy. As no one in Europe is bothering to enforce drug laws.

    “As I noted, some minor increases at worst – which is what the wiki numbers show”

    A doubling is a minor increase? But we are agreed – the Portuguese policy had lead to increases in use?

    “(the Cardoso and Santos (2009) piece is a reply to the Greenwald (2009) piece and is the source of the negative numbers cited in Wiki, and other papers show they cherry picked data to show a rise just as Greenwald picked his data to show a fall).”

    To continue to point out the obvious yet again – and perhaps you might listen this time – the Taliban:

    In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world’s most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world’s supply of heroin at the time.[17] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002.

    The Portuguese policy was introduced more or less at the same time the Taliban was banning opium production. Any effect seen in Europe is utterly dwarfed by the massive drop in world heroin production. It makes all these studies irrelevant.

    “The CDC disagrees. It’s ilegal drugs that seem to be driving the deaths.”

    You mean they have found a study that blames foreigners and not themselves? Amazing.

    Gamecock – “It is one level removed from the real debate: does government have the right to tell people what they can put in their bodies?”

    How far as you willing to go? Keep in mind that if drugs were legal, people would be playing pranks with a whole lot of worse things than they do now. Do people have the right to put opiates in their fried chicken before selling it to the public?

    Gamecock – “Note that the outrageously inflated cost of illicit drugs, created by government bans, fuels the drive to get more people to use them. Otherwise, few would care.”

    Coke is cheap. The other sort of Coke is not. Are you arguing that the Coca Cola company does not have a strong interest in getting more people to drink Coke and is in fact not advertising widely and often to achieve that goal? Why do you think few would care?

    “I wait for the Mexican Cartels to collapse overnight when the U.S. calls quit to the ridiculous “War on Drugs.” The Cartels’ business model depends on the “War on Drugs.””

    You mean like the Mafia just went away after Prohibition ended?

  79. “The question for me is whether there’s more innocent victims by making drugs illegal.”

    Effects. Speculation about effects.

    When you empower government to act to optimize effects, they are empowered to do anything they want to. You have a full fledged fascist state, where debates are speculation as to effects. You think it is okay for them to ban drugs? Okay, but you have just authorized them to ban top loading washing machines. Or 100 watt light bulbs. Or parting your hair on the left.

  80. “Coke is cheap. The other sort of Coke is not. Are you arguing that the Coca Cola company does not have a strong interest in getting more people to drink Coke and is in fact not advertising widely and often to achieve that goal? Why do you think few would care?”

    WTF are you talking about?

    Marijuana, cocaine, and opium are agricultural products. They’d be cheap as okra if government wasn’t involved.

  81. Mr Ecks – “Pure garbage. Diogenes is correct. Drugs go waaay back. DeQuincey and his laudanum. The fact that loads of Victorian patent medicines, Godfrey’s cordial and McMunn’s Elixir and countless others contained opium in large quantities. Legions of temperance old bags cursed the demon drink even as they consumed patent medicines and nostrum that were loaded with both ethanol and opium/laudanum.”

    ^^How does that prove I am anything but right? The point about DeQ is that he was a rare degenerate widely condemned by society.^^

    His book is still in print after 200 years. Yeah condemned alright.

    ^^That is the point of his pathetic self-justifying book. There was, as I said, drugs everywhere in Victorian Britain. But people were not taking them – at least not for pleasure. ^^

    They may not have admitted that reason and of course changing the label changes everything.–not.

    “They were using medicines. There’s that social permission again.”

    Bugger off with your permission piffle. Worrying about what others may think of you engaging in non-aggressive behaviour makes you crawling morally spineless scum –not a model citizen.

    “Which killed people by overdosing. How odd that legalisation did not result in safety back then?”

    Safety is an illusion in this world anyway. Hence my genuine hope that one of your own pseudo-tough guy schemes returns to bite you on the arse. And as they shackle YOU into the cells you will know that society disapproves of you and approves of whatever you have lined yourself up for.

    ^^”Hard drugs were widely available but people were not using them for pleasure.”^^

    Again more bullshit. Horrid heroin propaganda was instrumental in passing the 1914 US Harrison Act.

    “Your laughable claim is therefore that being slebs enabled the Stones to make drug taking a popular “fad”–one worth billions.”

    ^^And yet something changed. What that was you have no idea. Because you have a Perfect Theory to which facts are irrelevant.^^

    The level of projection in that statement and the lack of self-awareness are breathtaking.

    ^^ I at least try to work out what happened.^^

    Then try harder cos its all cockrot so far.

    ^^” And something did. The Stones changed hair cuts, clothing, the way men and women behaved – why not their attitudes to drugs too?”^^

    FFS. My Dad had a short back and sides all his life as did almost all the men of his generation and many of mine including me. Long hair came in and left again as it has thro’ out history. Doubtless the Stones and other had some effect. But to claim that modern drug capers are down to them is nonsense.

    ^^” It is the least unreasonable thing on this thread.”^^

    It is nonsense. Such is your stupefying level of arrogance it is far from the biggest nugget of nonsense you are pushing today but nonsense it is.

    ^^” But hey, you have your Theory. “^^

    And it remains vastly better than yours.

    ^^”I am sure it will stand you in good stead. “^^

    Yours ill-serves you that is for sure.

    “This was 50 years ago. How many millions likely man hours of expensive jail time have gone by to zero effect since then.”

    ^^F*ck all. We do not jail drug users. We never have really. We have people in prison for drug offenses but they are usually serious drug offenses. Not mere possession or use. We have tried virtually nothing and it is no surprise that it has not worked.^^

    Even if we don’t –because we can’t afford to jail all drug users caught with any amount–the Yanks and other have far more rigorous approaches that haven’t worked.

    “Are there many criminal communities DISapproving of crime then.? You talk tripe on stilts.”

    ^^Depends on the crime. Some crimes, yes. The criminal fraternity is not big on child sex offenders. I am willing to bet that communities that tolerate GBH do not have high levels of child abuse.^^

    As I pointed out and you
    carefully left out crims make billions off of drugs. So they do not disapprove of drugs.

    ^^Again, you have a Theory that is proof from any factual claims at all. Which is why, like so many Marxists, you turn straight to abuse when your Theory is questioned.^^

    Again your “facts” are tripe and your unremitting sense of your own smug rightness and condescending superiority invites attack.

    “And how the fuck do you know that Uncle Righteous? You don’t know or give a shit either. People in pain can go on suffering for all you give a rat’s arse.”

    ^^It is simply impossible for pain sufferers to have increased that fast.^^

    They may have had to suffer pain stoically for years or decades but now find that weed or opiates offer some surcease. But so what? They can suffer on as far as you are concerned. Tho’ I suspect the attitude might be a tad different were you among the ranks of chronic pain sufferers yourself.

    ^^Again facts, they are so annoying aren’t they?^^

    Facts don’t annoy you–they simply bounce off.

    ” People in pain deserve treatment.”

    That is mighty big-hearted of you.

    ^^” But medical malpractice is killing people.”^^

    Always has–always will. No plans you have for letting people in pain suffer some more will change that.

    “So Doctors are also worthless gutless wonders who hand out drugs like smarties?”

    ^^Yeah. Pretty much. As the numbers I have cited show.^^

    So if doctors can’t be trusted then you can?

    “But if I wanted to do any or all of those I would and piss on who “approves”.”

    ^^Then you are a sociopath. Or more likely fooling yourself.^^

    And you are the classic Van Vogtian “Right Man”. An individual who under no circumstances can or will ever accept that he is in the wrong either in theory or practice.

    “Again so what?”

    ^^They belong in jail. Whether the drugs are legal or not.^^

    So jail them legal or not. Well OK. Seeing you being dragged off to jail would make it almost worthwhile to embrace that particular piece of insanity.

    “Legal bullshit does not make it any different from other forms of addiction save that its legality makes it a cause of less trouble and strife in society.”

    ^^There is no such thing as addiction.^^

    And you know this how?

    ^^ And obviously the legality does matter.^^

    You just said it didn’t. Jail them whether the drugs are legal or not. Make your mind up FFS.

    ^^Most people obey the law. ^^

    Depends on the law.

    ^^Even if they think the law is wrong, it is not a matter of individual choice.^^

    Oh yes it is. Each person must weigh the danger against what they think of the particular laws moral status. For the individual. The fact that such collectivist tripe comprises your idea of morality points you out as a very dodgy character.

    ^^ We obey the law because it is the law – unless the law is monstrously unjust.^^

    Contradicts what you said above.

    ^^Which drug laws are not. ^^

    Sez you.

    ^^All the drug laws do is filter out those people who think the laws do not apply to them – people like Ian Brady. And Keith Richards.^^

    A particularly cheap shot. Drug use does not make you Ian Brady.

    “Taking something yourself and torturing poor animals can hardly be equivalent–even in your disordered brain-pan.”

    ^^Why not? Taking something yourself produced by death squads, drug gangs, the Taleban is harming people as much as dogs being tortured. Everyone knows it too.^^

    All of the above horrors are caused by the scum of the state not by drug use or supply in themselves. The very prohibition you call for more of is the cause of the problems you cite for justifying the prohibition. And arrogant as you are you cannot be stupid enough not to know that. You simply prefer that your ego be gratified by trying to win the argument.

    “That contempt would only harm themselves were drug taking legal. The laws antics spread the pain around.”

    ^^No – obviously that is the stupidest thing you have said all day.^^

    I stand awed in the presence of a master of foolishness in service to overweening ego.

    ^^ People who do not think the laws apply to them are a bane on society.^^

    The lawmaker of North Korea doubtless would agree with you.

    ^^ If they do not express it through drugs they will express it some other way. As many drug users do. Those people belong in jail.^^

    Yes–the principle of universal criminality which the polipigs are very keen to lay on us all. Unfortunately they likely won’t care about the fact that YOU aren’t a lawbreaker. Since you likely are. Three laws a day etc. American in origin but doubtless applies over here in the UK too.

    “Buy the drugs legal–get high–live or die. All with very little harm to the average person. No gangs/no uzis/no corruption/ no power or money for cops and polipigs.”

    ^^Up to a point. But still every drug user is someone who says that the laws do not apply to him.^^

    I said the ID card laws weren’t going to apply to me. Likely because there were roughly 4 million or so like me and The Bottler didn’t want the expense/hassle/bad publicity of trying to put us all down , it wasn’t put to the test and a bad law/plan was struck down.

    ^^He is a special person, a superior person, above the law.^^

    Above the law of tyrants for sure. As we all should be.

    “Just as Ian Brady claimed.^^

    Another cheap nasty shot

    ^^Just as Keith Richards claimed. If they do not take drugs, they will not become good members of the community.^^

    Richards is hardly a worse member of the community than you –unless you are Secret Santa or something–which I somehow doubt.

    ^^They will simply continue to behave as if the laws do not apply to them in some other aspect of their lives.^^

    So what’s Keith Richards murder score so far? Excluding songs of course.

    ^^Brady did not take drugs. But he did think that superior men like him were not rightfully bound by the laws.^^

    Feeling that you are entitled to commit sex murders and defying tyranny in matters of your own life and body are two things that even deep madness cannot equate. Please don’t try as it hardly helps your “argument”.

    “And –NiV like again–your studies aren’t worth shit.”

    ^^You haven’t even seen them and you know they aren’t worth anything?^^

    Ken dealt with your stats malarkey handily and the great Taleban poppy roust was all you had as a comeback. Not impressed.

    ^^ You are a parody of yourself today.^^

    Marveling at rock solid egotism masquerading as an argument has left me nonplussed. What can men do –as the quote goes–against such insane self-regard?

    “Until it gets looked at in the light of day when it falls apart.”

    ^^I look forward to that.^^

    Do so by all means.

    “Again if they were stealing cos that is what they do then getting rid of drugs would make no difference to the crime level anyway. Why bother in that case?”

    ^^That is my whole argument. Welcome to reality^^

    If your “contribution” to this thread were behind a paywall the sentence above could be referred handily to trading standards officers.

    “What evidence?”

    ^^The evidence where we give them drugs and then monitor their offending. Which does go down but not by much.^^

    Which study is that please? I don’t want to squander what time I have left to me

    “I have never proposed to give them drugs. If they could buy drugs for their real market cost they would need to steal far less to get drugs. Crime will plummet.”

    ^^Need. You are too caught up in your Theory to even see my objections to that word. Despite the fact that it has been put to you any number of times. No one needs to steal. ^^

    Just cockrot. A low IQ druggie can’t get work that will pay for his habit. Yes–were the druggie in question Sartre he doubtless could say that he had no “need” to steal. But he isn’t and so what again? Life is what it is not what you say it should be.

    ^^Because no one needs to take drugs. There is no law that says anyone has to.^^

    What is -is. Your “should” is a cork bobbing mid-Atlantic. Why belabour a stupid point so? Except as justification for the tyrannical exercise of greater state power of course.

    ^^Giving up the drugs is not even hard. They can all do it any time they please. They do not please. They steal because they are scum. When people in Glasgow give them free drugs, they continue to steal. Because it is not about the drugs. They are an excuse.^^

    Because you want an excuse to kill them. And nor does it matter much to you if they be killed for drugs or for petty theft. After all they are scum. That is a word I also use a lot. But I don’t use it in service of a desire to deal out life and death. Financial ruination for vicious leftists yes–but mas murder –generally no.

    “If that were so then no need to worry about the drugs anyway. Just encourage them to take an overdose.”

    ^^You are getting there.^^

    Back to mass murder again.

    “Who cares about approval?”

    ^^Everyone who is not a sociopath?^^

    So not you then.

    “There are lots of reasons for the above-listed to happen, too many to cover now –and that does not imply approval of those things–but few reasons to ruin yourself with drugs outside of some inner demons.”

    ^^So you have no f**king answer to that answer?^^

    If I have no simple answer to the spread of divorce etc that YOU say will be an analogy for drug use– on the basis of no real evidence beyond your own assertions–that is because I don’t know for sure. No such doubt exists with you however. As was said of AJ Ayer–“I wish I was as sure of anything as he is of everything”.

    ^^But you do have your Theory. Which must be defended at all costs from attacks from Counter Revolutionaries, Wreckers and Splittists!^^

    And nothing that paragraph applies to you does it. You little old empiricist you.

    “Yeah–there will be recreational users–just as with drink. Does everybody who drinks become an alki?”

    ^^Because moderate heroin use is just so common.^^

    Controlled use is found among doctors who use and who proscribe it for themselves and function well enough.

    “It worked for the previous 33 years. And all these explosions are relatively small numbers. Most folk aren’t addicts and aren’t going to be.”

    ^^How do you know they won’t be? ^^

    How do you know they will. Must we have tyranny and callous state murder to guard against your paranoid fantasy?

    ^^The population was different. As Methodism declined, so did the moral values associated with it. Methodism has collapsed completely. You cannot assume the values of the past have any hold in the present.^^

    And yet we are not all yet drug addicts or Ian Bradys.

    “So now its hearts and flowers? You were going to hang them a couple of postings ago.”

    ^^You forget – those people have social approval.^^

    I’m sure that’s all that is keeping them going.

    “After all if the habit is an attempt to numb pain then being hated isn’t likely to reduce the urge to use.”

    ^If. What a wonderful weasel word that is. What is your evidence for thinking it is?^^

    Whereas you have the secure walls of your sandcastle of theory around you.

    “Oh yes, your Theory says that users are innocent little lambs ”

    No-never said that.

    “and it is the rest of us who are screwing everything up.”

    Another cheap shot–it’s “us” now is it? As if everyone was with you and your malarkey.

    “Social approval –which means bugger all unless what you are actually calling for is rating people out to the Stasi–will have zero effect.”

    “And yet you insist that Social Disapproval works.”

    Do I ? Where exactly?

    “Odd. Social approval works. Look at racism. We have shamed it all but out of existence. But hey, if it contradicts your Theory, it is irrelevant, right?”

    Your own frequent observations concerning subSahara hardly serve to demonstrate the above. Nor am I saying you are always wrong in that regard. People maybe afraid to say what they think on matters of race. But that is by reason of oppressive state power and threats not because some SJW wanker might think little of anyone so speaking. Is that what you are advocating by this “social approval” tripe? Ratting people out to the Stasi?

  82. smfs,

    “Obviously drug use is not a victimless crime. Everyone who shoots up, snorts or smokes knows that they are contributing to the murder, brutalisation and corruption of the Third World. They don’t care. Because – what is the word again? – oh yes, they are sociopaths.”

    If drugs are legalised the supply chain can be controlled and regulated.

    And I don’t want the cost of jailing a good portion of the country for doing something that in controlled cricumstances can be harmless to the rest of us.

  83. @SMFS:
    Me: “It’s ridiculous to cast all addicts as degenerate low-lifes who only get what they deserve. Some are completely feral and could do with shooting, but they’d likely be a bane on society stone-cold sober. Most aren’t; most will eventually try to stop; those that sincerely try should be helped.”

    You: “How do you know most aren’t?”

    BECAUSE I’M AN EXAMPLE YOU DAFT TWAT. Fuuuuuuuuck. I would have thought that obvious. I am a recovered addict.

    You think there’s no such thing as addiction? Anything you write can be summarily dismissed after that. Seriously, you know nothing. I spend time, every week, helping people in treatment for addiction. It is very real, it is potentially life-destroying, and it is recoverable, albeit only with great difficulty. It is fucking difficult to get off heroin. It’s fucking difficult to get off nicotine. It is fucking difficult to get off alcohol, or crystal meth, or cocaine, or benzodiazepines. These things literally rewire your brain. Willpower has nothing whatever to do with it. It is terrifyingly easy to relapse, and relapse all too often means death. The addict knows this, intellectually, and is still powerless to stop. If only it were simply a question of deciding to stop. There has to be that decision, yes, but that’s just the entry point to recovery. It is a fuckload harder than that. I know.

    This is yet another example of your tendency to stick to your guns after blithely spouting off in areas where experts insist you are wrong.

    Check yourself before you wreck yourself, as they used to say.

  84. What Mr in Costa Rica said. All absolutely true. I have had the same experiences. I was recovering but have recently relapsed. I get away with it because I’m high-functioning.

    Try walking in BiCR’s or my shoes, SMFS. You are a cunt.

  85. Bloke in Costa Rica – “BECAUSE I’M AN EXAMPLE YOU DAFT TWAT. Fuuuuuuuuck. I would have thought that obvious. I am a recovered addict.”

    Good for you. Unfortunately one person does not make up “most”. As the tiresome cliche goes, anecdote is not data. That is an admission you do not. You simply think your example – as highly unusual as you are as a representative of the general population in so many other ways – is typical.

    “You think there’s no such thing as addiction? Anything you write can be summarily dismissed after that. Seriously, you know nothing.”

    Off you go and summarily dismiss everything I have to say then.

    “It is fucking difficult to get off heroin.”

    Thousands of heroin users say otherwise.

    “If only it were simply a question of deciding to stop.”

    In other words they are not making bad choices, they are helpless victims of circumstances and we need to grant them social permission to use.

    w-18 – “I was recovering but have recently relapsed. I get away with it because I’m high-functioning.”

    Which is odd because you are justifying use.

  86. “Thousands of heroin users say otherwise.”

    Show me where they say it’s easy. What you are probably trying to say is that coming off other drugs can be harder.

    “Which is odd because you are justifying use.”

    No I’m not. Where have I done that?

  87. — “I don`t want it anywhere near my children and staying illegal delivers better on that.”

    ‘2,000 children killed in Mexico’s soaring drugs war’
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2000-children-killed-in-mexicos-soaring-drugs-war-db9j7jqt66m

    ‘Mexican drug cartels targeting and killing children’
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mexican-drug-cartels-targeting-and-killing-children/2011/04/07/AFwkFb9C_story.html?utm_term=.c179525e1591

    ‘War Turning Mexican Kids Into Targets, Killers’
    https://www.npr.org/2011/05/01/135813656/war-turning-mexican-kids-into-targets-or-killers

  88. Broadly, there are two arguments for legalisation: (1) the philosophical (ie the libertarian argument about personal autonomy) and (2) the pragmatic (ie that legalisation would reduce drug-related crime etc). I lean quite strongly towards the pragmatic, and I favour an empirical approach involving a trial period of legalisation of at least three years.

    IMO, legalisation would require an extensive and sustained advertising campaign stressing the dangers of drugs and cultivating social disapproval of hard drugs – as has been done with smoking and drink driving. Additionally, there would need to be regulation of quality and of supply, with the state (at least, initially, during any trial period) providing these standards and services. (OffDrug, perhaps?)

  89. From NewRemainiac— “I don`t want it anywhere near my children and staying illegal delivers better on that.”

    Via wat–All very true. But they aren’t Facepainter’s kids so he doesn’t give a shit. I’m Alright (Union) Jack ( painted on my face) is his creed 100%.

  90. ”These things literally rewire your brain. Willpower has nothing whatever to do with it.”

    So yes, let’s legalise these mere agricultural products and distribute them via profit-driven corporations. Because free will. Or something.

  91. NewRemainiac’s desire to protect his children is perfectly reasonable, and he is correct that continued illegality of drugs will make his children less likely to use them.

    If you want to lay the guilt of Mexican children’s deaths at someone’s feet, w-18 is a far better choice. It is illegal drug users like him who are funding illegal drug distribution. Not Julia M, not SMFS and not me.

  92. “NewRemainiac’s desire to protect his children is perfectly reasonable, and he is correct that continued illegality of drugs will make his children less likely to use them”

    Bollocks. All drugs are freely available already. All illegality has done is driven the supply chain underground. NR’s concern is understandable. I would want the same for my kids. Unfortunately you can’t stop experimentation unless you clear every last substance forever. Drugs will always be there. Better to make it safe for the users and have honest conversations and open support.

    Despite SMFS’s claims, no-one wants to be an addict.

  93. PJF–As Facepaint’s frequent contributions show he is an entirely malicious individual who cares nothing for anyone except himself and his own to the detriment of everyone else. He may be fond of his own offspring. Well even Uncle Joe Stalin had kids –although he seems to have fucked them up at least he didn’t murder them. NewRemainiac is –as with everything else –entirely wrong about the drug issue.

    As for the Mexican kids –like SMFS–you claim that the awful problems caused by the state’s meddling are a justification for more meddling of the same , utterly destructive type. That will just lead to more deaths. Two trillion spent hasn’t so far pacified Iraq completely. “Heavy Hand” antics won’t stop Mexican drugs or gangs either. Not so long as the money flows to them.

    The issue with kids is frequently brought up in all kinds of areas where the state seeks to extend its power as most folk seem to lose what little logic they have as soon as some supposed threat is conjured up to their kids.

    Mexican drug gangs will be put out of business by lack of income once drugs are legal. No other method the state has will stop them. There are no other business where they will get widespread public participation in the trade as they do with drugs. Post drugs they can try straight-forward crime and violent thieving but without the vast flows of cash and the corruption that the cash brings their destruction will be easy.

  94. w-18

    “Bollocks. All drugs are freely available already. All illegality has done is driven the supply chain underground. NR’s concern is understandable. I would want the same for my kids.”

    The problem is that making it legal/decriminalizing something will make it available to a slightly wider audience. The issue is how much this is, relative to the wider benefits of legalisation/decriminalization.

    SMFS
    The data in Portugal, at worst, shows a small increase and as I noted, the Cardoso and Santos (2009) picked the worst data they could find. You keep ranting about heroin, but the data actually shows fairly similar trends in all drugs. The lifetime use data shows a shift of 7.6% in 2001 to 12% in 2007, but the use of illicit substances over the last 12 months is a far smaller 3.4% to 3.7% from the same data source.

    https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/50/6/999/404023

    The point I made is amply backed by the data, there has been, at worst, a minor rise (and a doubling in lifetime use from 0.9% to 1.9% for cocaine is still minor), You believe that it would lead to a massive upsurge – for which there is no evidence.

  95. No, w-18, all drugs are not freely available. You can’t freely buy them at the corner shop and over the counter at the chemist’s. I wouldn’t have a clue where to get any. They are not part of normal peoples’ lives.

  96. ”As for the Mexican kids – like SMFS–you claim that the awful problems caused by the state’s meddling are a justification for more meddling of the same , utterly destructive type.”

    No, I clearly stated that the responsibilty for the dead Mexican kids is with the illegal drug users. If illegal drug users obeyed the law and just stopped buying the shit, the drug gangs would have to find other work.

    Now, I would accept that half-arsed measures by governments contribute to the problem. I should think that Singapore, with its very successful and draconian anti-drugs regime, supplies very little money to drug gangs.

    I don’t want us to go the Singapore route. I favour decriminalisation of use; readily available, regulated supply from the state; and social discouragement. But if the only choice is between Singapore and this ideological libertarian batshittery of the legalisation of hard drugs – then fucking lock and load.

  97. Anyone who thinks its the drug users that are responsible for deaths of kids in Mexico needs to think a little harder. You have to start from a position that everything is legal because anything that is illegal is only illegal by action of a government.

    Once you do that, its a fair assumption that there wouldn’t be Mexican drug cartels so there wouldn’t be murders of Mexican children. Its only making drugs illegal that results in the criminal activity. Surely that is just a straight forward fact?

  98. ”Surely that is just a straight forward fact?”

    It’s not a fact, it’s a belief. I used to believe it, I no longer do.

  99. ‘All illegality has done is driven the supply chain underground.’

    And inflated the price to where there is a strong incentive to get Newmania’s kids to try it.

  100. I tell my wife that everyone has a button that can be pushed.

    The comments on this post prove it. 🙂

  101. PJF,

    I think most of us arguing for drugs to be legalised are doing so on the basis that it will be heavily regulated as that better protects our children. Or at least I am as someone who’s not taken anything stronger than alcohol but has seen his son blow some serious money on illegal drugs.

  102. 2 quick points. First, on whether drug laws or drug users are responsible for dead Mexican children; look at the legal drug trade. Does anyone get shot over the lucrative Pinot Grigio market?

    Second; it is fairly easy to get drugs in Singapore. They hang a few dirt poor unfortunates from SE Asia each year for smuggling but prosperous punters still get served.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.