PDA

View Full Version : Drug-driving law set to be introduced in UK



Diver
7th May 2012, 06:28
Offenders could face a jail term and fine of up to £5,000 as well as an automatic driving ban of at least 12 months.

Police will carry a hand-held drug detection devices, which will take a saliva sample, as well as a breathalyser to test erratic drivers.

The Home Office is expected to approve the devices by the end of this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17975502


About time!

What annoys me is BBC Presenters forming questions like " What if someone has taken "Recreational drugs" days before?)

They are Not "Recreational drugs", they are, under the laws of this country "Illegal Drugs" and if they are still showing traces in a persons system, then that person should still be subject to the full force of the law.

Drugs are destroying this country, 70% of crime in the UK is drug related, including shoplifting and burglary by addicts to feed their habits, and I think the UK should bring in the same penalties as Thailand for drug possesion and drug dealing.

doodab
7th May 2012, 06:56
What annoys me is BBC Presenters forming questions like " What if someone has taken "Recreational drugs" days before?)

Well, it's going to ruin their weekends isn't it.

100% of crime is committed by people who should know better. You can blame it on drugs but you can equally well blame it on food or mobile phones. There are lots of people who have a bit of a smoke or take mushrooms or even a bit of coke and don't go out marauding. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to drive cars while under the influence any more than a drunk person should but it seems a bit draconian to prevent them enjoying their chosen poison in their own home.

VectraMan
7th May 2012, 08:16
Regardless of the arguments about drugs, is it really right that somebody should be banned from driving because they smoked a joint 2 days earlier? That's a much much harsher penalty than simple posession of cannabis would ever carry.

cojak
7th May 2012, 08:17
Liked the no-nonsense approach of the mother whose daughter was killed by a cannabis user.

"these drugs are illegal. If you're found with them in your blood you should be banned"

BBC presenter: "but what if they haven't used them in weeks?"

Mother: "then don't drive".

He didn't have an answer to that one.

Mupps
7th May 2012, 08:44
As a child of the '90s (well a student then anyway) i have a somewhat different perspective to Diver: We took shed-loads of drugs all the time. I smoked dope every day for years and partied as much as possible. Pills and Thrills all around. We didn't see ourselves as being inherently evil. Ironically we looked down on the pissed-up townies with considerable disdain: Alcohol ruins lives and makes you an aggressive asshole etc etc.

Amongst my druggy-scum friends a fair few went on to achive good things: Doctors, lawyers, partners in Big 4 consultancies, minister of fisheries (not in the UK), millionaire businessmen, contractors on 6 figure incomes etc. Admittedly there are some who underachieved and might have gone on to earn more if they had smoked less dope, but across any sample of 20 people you will have good, bad and wastrels.
Saying "all drugs are bad" is facile and unhelpful to the understanding of the complexites of the arguments. I would contend that these lives could all have been ruined far more by a criminal conviction for smoking a spliff rather than the harm from the drug itself. I have been in many parts of the world where you are suddenly not an "evil criminal drug user" for smoking a spliff. It is purely a regional legislative perspective, largely based on historial inertia and continued pandering to US influence - it was they who forced the drug laws on much of the rest of the world- rather than an objective rating of the harm of the activity.

Much of the harm of drug use is associated with its illegality. Witness the efficiency of Prohibition in creating a criminal gangster class, and crimninalising large parts of the populace.. same with illegal drugs. Heroin never ever featured in my experience. I knew distantly of smack-heads, but they didn't inhabit the same space as us normal, middle-class kids just having fun while we're young.

d000hg
7th May 2012, 09:05
Saying "all drugs are bad" is facile and unhelpful to the understanding of the complexites of the arguments.That's irrelevant. If they are not bad, then legalise them. While they are illegal, the laws should be enforced.

However testing motorists simply as a way to find drug users does not seem right to me. Testing drivers to see if drugs are affecting their safety on the road is fine. Banning someone from driving because you can see they have at some point done something illegal is bad... like banning them if you can detect they have drunk alcohol in the last week on the basis "they might have been tempted to drive while drunk".

Gonzo
7th May 2012, 09:06
Much of the harm of drug use is associated with its illegality.Current laws make the supply lucrative business for criminals and it is perfectly clear to me that most of the harm that is caused could be reduced by stopping making it lucrative business for criminals.

Whatever I think about that, driving under the influence should not be tolerated!

cojak
7th May 2012, 09:12
As a child of the '90s (well a student then anyway) i have a somewhat different perspective to Diver: We took shed-loads of drugs all the time. I smoked dope every day for years and partied as much as possible. Pills and Thrills all around. We didn't see ourselves as being inherently evil. Ironically we looked down on the pissed-up townies with considerable disdain: Alcohol ruins lives and makes you an aggressive asshole etc etc.

Amongst my druggy-scum friends a fair few went on to achive good things: Doctors, lawyers, partners in Big 4 consultancies, minister of fisheries (not in the UK), millionaire businessmen, contractors on 6 figure incomes etc. Admittedly there are some who underachieved and might have gone on to earn more if they had smoked less dope, but across any sample of 20 people you will have good, bad and wastrels.
Saying "all drugs are bad" is facile and unhelpful to the understanding of the complexites of the arguments. I would contend that these lives could all have been ruined far more by a criminal conviction for smoking a spliff rather than the harm from the drug itself. I have been in many parts of the world where you are suddenly not an "evil criminal drug user" for smoking a spliff. It is purely a regional legislative perspective, largely based on historial inertia and continued pandering to US influence - it was they who forced the drug laws on much of the rest of the world- rather than an objective rating of the harm of the activity.

Much of the harm of drug use is associated with its illegality. Witness the efficiency of Prohibition in creating a criminal gangster class, and crimninalising large parts of the populace.. same with illegal drugs. Heroin never ever featured in my experience. I knew distantly of smack-heads, but they didn't inhabit the same space as us normal, middle-class kids just having fun while we're young.

Irrelevant and you're in the wrong thread.

We talking driving whilst taking mind-altering drugs.

I don't care what you to do to yourself. I do care what you do to other people.

VectraMan
7th May 2012, 09:18
Whatever I think about that, driving under the influence should not be tolerated!

But how do you define "under the influence"? There's a set limit for the amount of alcohol you can have in your blood and drive legally, but I haven't seen anything similar mentioned here. They seem to be saying even the slightest trace of an illegal substance means an automatic ban, whether it's enough to affect you're driving or not. And that's okay because drugs are bad, and more importantly, illegal.

Diver
7th May 2012, 09:23
I'm so sorry

I didn't realise that;

The heroin, meth and crack addicted teenagers who take up prostitution and thieving to fund their drug habits were a benefit to us all.

That the young girls and boys found dead daily from drug overdoses were of such little concern

That the crack and heroin addicted screaming babies born daily were a good thing.

That innocents mowed down by drug addled drivers was acceptable and that they should not be punished.

That drug money used to fund terrorist activities, people smuggling and other crimes helped the economy.

I truly believe that those who use drugs and alcohol must really have a pathetic life or be completely spineless to need a chemically induced escape from reality

Those that do support the free use of drugs and make pathetic ill thought out statements like " If you legalised it, there wouldn't be all this crime" Doh! My brain hurts :confused:
There will still be addicts, the drugs will not be free, they will still need money to buy the drugs, they will still steal and go into prostitution to fund thier habits, the will still be crack and heroin addicted babies borne, there will still be drug related deaths, there will still be a massive burden on the public purse that We are paying for.

Only sensible well thought out responses please, not the usual idiotic rhetoric of the drug addled idiots, like "it's personal choice" etc. because some people should be supervised as they are far too stupid to make wise choices like Don't drink and drive or drive while drugged up .:rolleyes:

d000hg
7th May 2012, 09:27
Diver you're really in full Daily Mail mode today. I'm not saying I disagree with you but no debate is that one-sided.

VectraMan
7th May 2012, 09:27
I'm a bit surprised by the level of hysteria from some quarters. Surely most of the congregation here through having been to university have smoked a joint at least once?

I did quite often for a couple of years. I never once was tempted to steal or become a rent boy to fund it, and although I knew a few people taking harder drugs (acid mainly), I would never have done it myself. And not because it was illegal.

Diver
7th May 2012, 09:41
I'm a bit surprised by the level of hysteria from some quarters. Surely most of the congregation here through having been to university have smoked a joint at least once?

I did quite often for a couple of years. I never once was tempted to steal or become a rent boy to fund it, and although I knew a few people taking harder drugs (acid mainly), I would never have done it myself. And not because it was illegal.

Please try to keep up at the back. My post clearly states Crack, Meth and Heroin :wink

Wacky Backy appears to be the main problem with Drugged driving, as it is the most commonly used drug.

Insurance is going to be a problem for anybody caught driving whilst on drugs, as it will be on your license for 15 years and premiums are going to go through the roof :laugh

oracleslave
7th May 2012, 09:41
Surely most of the congregation here through having been to university have smoked a joint at least once?



I'm in the minority then as in my 5 years of full-time university studies (or since) I never smoked a joint.

MarillionFan
7th May 2012, 09:42
I'm a bit surprised by the level of hysteria from some quarters. Surely most of the congregation here through having been to university have smoked a joint at least once?

I did quite often for a couple of years. I never once was tempted to steal or become a rent boy to fund it, and although I knew a few people taking harder drugs (acid mainly), I would never have done it myself. And not because it was illegal.

WHS. The nanny state brigade are out in force today. Alcohol and smoking are the biggest killers out there. The argument that you do damage to others when under the influence of drugs pails in insignficance to the damage that passive smoking and alcohol related incidents have.

Best to ban smoking completely. Smokers in cars should be taken out and shot because of the risk they are to other road users and anyone who has had a drink in the last five years should only use public transport.

Hysterical nonsense.

oracleslave
7th May 2012, 09:45
Hysterical nonsense.

You sound paranoid, are you high?

Diver
7th May 2012, 09:49
WHS. The nanny state brigade are out in force today. Alcohol and smoking are the biggest killers out there. The argument that you do damage to others when under the influence of drugs pails in insignficance to the damage that passive smoking and alcohol related incidents have.

Best to ban smoking completely. Smokers in cars should be taken out and shot because of the risk they are to other road users and anyone who has had a drink in the last five years should only use public transport.

Hysterical nonsense.

I see adulthood still escapes you MF.

They should ban tobaco too, and;
Alcohol should have £10 per unit tax.
Disposable babies nappies should be banned.
Biological washing powders should be banned.
There should be a £10 a letter tax on all MarillionFan posts.

You know it makes sense :smokin <--------Smoking :eek:

Gonzo
7th May 2012, 09:57
I'm a bit surprised by the level of hysteria from some quarters.:confused:

Why are you surprised? You've been on this board long enough to know that it always ends up like that on here when a narcotics related topic is started.

MarillionFan
7th May 2012, 10:03
I see adulthood still escapes you MF.

They should ban tobaco too, and;
Alcohol should have £10 per unit tax.
Disposable babies nappies should be banned.
Biological washing powders should be banned.
There should be a £10 a letter tax on all MarillionFan posts.

You know it makes sense :smokin <--------Smoking :eek:

Anyone who disagrees with me should be taken out and shot. Then their immediate family. Then cousins. Then their neighbours and work colleagues. Even next doors dog. It's the only way to be certain.

Diver
7th May 2012, 10:17
:confused:

Why are you surprised? You've been on this board long enough to know that it always ends up like that on here when a narcotics related topic is started.

Are you accusing me of Trolling! Bignose :poke:



Anyone who disagrees with me should be taken out and shot. Then their immediate family. Then cousins. Then their neighbours and work colleagues. Even next doors dog. It's the only way to be certain.

You know it makes sense :cheers:

doodab
7th May 2012, 10:20
I'm so sorry

I didn't realise that;

The heroin, meth and crack addicted teenagers who take up prostitution and thieving to fund their drug habits were a benefit to us all.

That the young girls and boys found dead daily from drug overdoses were of such little concern

That the crack and heroin addicted screaming babies born daily were a good thing.

That innocents mowed down by drug addled drivers was acceptable and that they should not be punished.

Now you are just trolling. Quite obviously no one has suggested this is acceptable.


That drug money used to fund terrorist activities, people smuggling and other crimes helped the economy.

And why is it in the hands of these people and not the government? Because drugs are illegal. Legalise it and you can tax it, manage quality to reduce harm, and attack a major revenue stream of organised criminals.


I truly believe that those who use drugs and alcohol must really have a pathetic life or be completely spineless to need a chemically induced escape from reality

Quite a lot of people do have a pathetic life. Perhaps they should all start mutilating themselves with power tools instead?


Those that do support the free use of drugs and make pathetic ill thought out statements like " If you legalised it, there wouldn't be all this crime" Doh! My brain hurts :confused:
There will still be addicts, the drugs will not be free, they will still need money to buy the drugs, they will still steal and go into prostitution to fund thier habits, the will still be crack and heroin addicted babies borne, there will still be drug related deaths, there will still be a massive burden on the public purse that We are paying for.


And how exactly is Doh! my brain hurts an intelligent counter argument? Like you say you can't get rid of the addicts, but if they are criminalised and marginalised to begin with they are much less likely to respect the rest of society's rules, and if you look at the evidence the fact is that in many cases decriminalisation of drug users has worked very well both to reduce the number of users and the level of harm caused.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/)



Only sensible well thought out responses please, not the usual idiotic rhetoric of the drug addled idiots, like "it's personal choice" etc. because some people should be supervised as they are far too stupid to make wise choices like Don't drink and drive or drive while drugged up .:rolleyes:

Some people do need to be more closely supervised than others, but there are a couple of reasons why what you are suggesting is not the way to go about it. Firstly, we shouldn't let a few idiots who are incapable of behaving responsibly spoil things for everyone. This is just encouraging the nanny state, and we could equally well argue that power tools, or cars, or ovens, or mobile phones (use of which is as bad as being drunk when driving) should be banned because some people hurt themselves or others. Secondly, prohibition doesn't work at the moment, so why do you think more of the same will be better? There will still be idiots who will continue to misbehave.

Also, it's rather hypocritical to insist on "only sensible well thought out responses" to one's own "idiotic rhetoric" :wink

NotAllThere
7th May 2012, 11:45
I'm in the minority then as in my 5 years of full-time university studies (or since) I never smoked a joint.

In my three years at university, I think there were a few people who had the odd joint, but it certainly wasn't the majority pass-time. I certainly never had any.

Maybe the UK should adopt the Swiss system. Registered addicts get their stuff for free. Drug related crime is almost unheard of. The total cost to society per addict is far less than it was when when heroin et. al. were completely illegal - even with the addicts living longer. A further unforeseen consequence of that is that there are now old addicts getting their daily dose, which means that drugs have lost their appeal to many young people.

Diver
7th May 2012, 11:51
Now you are just trolling. Quite obviously no one has suggested this is acceptable.

Yes, but it has given you lot something to do for the past hour :D


And why is it in the hands of these people and not the government? Because drugs are illegal. Legalise it and you can tax it, manage quality to reduce harm, and attack a major revenue stream of organised criminals.
So if you legalise it and manage quality there won't be any drug addicts or overdoses. Ok :eyes



Quite a lot of people do have a pathetic life. Perhaps they should all start mutilating themselves with power tools instead?

:uofftopic:winker:



And how exactly is Doh! my brain hurts an intelligent counter argument? Like you say you can't get rid of the addicts, but if they are criminalised and marginalised to begin with they are much less likely to respect the rest of society's rules, and if you look at the evidence the fact is that in many cases decriminalisation of drug users has worked very well both to reduce the number of users and the level of harm caused. Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/)
Doh! my brain hurts was not a counter argument, it was my expressed opinion of the people who spout the same rhetoric with regard to legalising class A drugs. Learn to read before you spout. As for portugal, the whole country had a smaller drug problem than some of the UK cities alone. Over 2 million addicts in the UK, some estimate as high as 4 million. and legalising it has Not stopped overdoses or crack and heroin addicted babies. nor has it stopped people driving under the influence of drugs.


Some people do need to be more closely supervised than others, but there are a couple of reasons why what you are suggesting is not the way to go about it. Firstly, we shouldn't let a few idiots who are incapable of behaving responsibly spoil things for everyone. This is just encouraging the nanny state
Now there's the rub! this is why you are making this personal. Do You want drugs to be legalised because you are dependant on them? do you want your children to have easier access to Crack & Heroin?


and we could equally well argue that power tools, or cars, or ovens, or mobile phones (use of which is as bad as being drunk when driving) should be banned because some people hurt themselves or othersNow you are being an idiot! when was the last time that you saw someone with power tool, car or oven withdrawal symptoms :laugh.


Secondly, prohibition doesn't work at the moment, so why do you think more of the same will be better? There will still be idiots who will continue to misbehave.

Also, it's rather hypocritical to insist on "only sensible well thought out responses" to one's own "idiotic rhetoric" :wink

When judges are giving crack & Heroin dealers caught with £20,000 worth of drugs, suspended sentences, the system that is in place is not working. There should be a minimum sentence in line with the ammount of drugs or the crime. in this case it should have been 20 years. if caught driving under the influence of drink and drugs, then the ban should be a minimum of 5 years and up to a lifetime ban depending on the state of the driver.

Bunk
7th May 2012, 12:09
So if you legalise it and manage quality there won't be any drug addicts or overdoses. Ok :eyes



Of course there will still be addicts, but there would be a massive drop in crime because they wouldn't need to steal to fund their next fix. There would be less overdoses because the drugs would be a standard strength and quality instead of the wildly variable stuff on the streets at the moment. There would also be a reduction in the transmission of AIDS etc, because when the addicts come in to pick up the drugs, they get clean needles. They can also be given counselling and education to try to help them give up. It's not ideal, but it has to be better than the mess we're in at the moment.

d000hg
7th May 2012, 12:09
WHS. The nanny state brigade are out in force today. Alcohol and smoking are the biggest killers out there. The argument that you do damage to others when under the influence of drugs pails in insignficance to the damage that passive smoking and alcohol related incidents have.It's not about total amount of damage, but total damage divided by number of people.

On a separate thread, I wonder how drug use breaks down by demographic. Are most Coke users rich business hotshots, while Heroin is mainly used by benefits culture chavs?

AtW
7th May 2012, 12:11
Drugs should be decriminalised and taxed - this would deal with massive supply chain and produce some revenue for the Govt.

Having said that there should be zero tolerance rules when it comes to Driving Under Influence (drugs/alcohol/girl on front seat in a mini skirt).

Diver
7th May 2012, 12:29
Of course there will still be addicts, but there would be a massive drop in crime because they wouldn't need to steal to fund their next fix. There would be less overdoses because the drugs would be a standard strength and quality instead of the wildly variable stuff on the streets at the moment. There would also be a reduction in the transmission of AIDS etc, because when the addicts come in to pick up the drugs, they get clean needles. They can also be given counselling and education to try to help them give up. It's not ideal, but it has to be better than the mess we're in at the moment.

Ah! I hadn't realised that you were advocating FREE class A drugs. Sorry :confused:

Ah! so the free exchange needles they get from the Free anonymous clinics now are a different type that transmit HIV :confused:

Oh! The Free counselling and education to try to help them give up that is available in every major town and city in the UK and has been for 10 years, on a drop-in and chat basis, and that drug addicts are also ordered to attend by the courts is of a different type to what's now proposed :confused:
Now I understand, I didn't realise I was so wrong :suicide:

National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse - Homepage (http://www.nta.nhs.uk/)
Drug Rehab Official site >>NEED HELP? | UK Drug Free Rehabilitation Centre | Alcohol Rehabilitation | Drug Treatment | Freedom from drug and alcohol addiction (http://www.tclondon.org.uk/)
Narconon Drug Rehab in the UK (http://www.drugrehab.co.uk/narconon_uk.htm)

AtW
7th May 2012, 12:31
Looks like Diver picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines...

Diver
7th May 2012, 12:32
Looks like Diver picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines...

Twitch, dribble, shiver :ohwell

doodab
7th May 2012, 12:57
Doh! my brain hurts was not a counter argument, it was my expressed opinion of the people who spout the same rhetoric with regard to legalising class A drugs. Learn to read before you spout.

Ah right. Unfortunately I was reduced to guessing at the meaning of the non grammatical stream of consciousness you posted and I made the mistake of assuming that you might actually have a point.


As for portugal, the whole country had a smaller drug problem than some of the UK cities alone. Over 2 million addicts in the UK, some estimate as high as 4 million. and legalising it has Not stopped overdoses or crack and heroin addicted babies. nor has it stopped people driving under the influence of drugs.

Now there's the rub! this is why you are making this personal. Do You want drugs to be legalised because you are dependant on them? do you want your children to have easier access to Crack & Heroin?


No. I am in favour of legalization because I think it's the best way to manage the problem as a whole.



Now you are being an idiot! when was the last time that you saw someone with power tool, car or oven withdrawal symptoms :laugh.


You have an obsession with addiction. Withdrawal symptoms have absolutely **** all to do with driving or being dangerous, and not that much to do with being illegal. According to Kent police 25% of drivers "under the influence of drugs" have taken prescription medication. Shall we lock them up for 20 years?

The daily mail reckon around 2000 addicted mothers give birth every year. As a dangerous situation we ought to do something about that compares quite favourably with the 12,000 under fives who are hospitalized every year due to accidents involving DIY tools (figure from the RoSPA website). If we're going to start banning stuff on the grounds that some people are too stupid to do it safely then DIY is a bloody good candidate.

NotAllThere
7th May 2012, 13:01
Free drugs and needles for registered addicts. Legalise possession. Dealing remains a crime.

It reduces crime, the number of addicts and is cheaper than the current system. What's not to like?

d000hg
7th May 2012, 13:06
Drugs should be decriminalised and taxed - this would deal with massive supply chain and produce some revenue for the Govt.So it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong as long as it saves money?

Diver
7th May 2012, 13:09
Free drugs and needles for registered addicts. Legalise possession. Dealing remains a crime.

It reduces crime, the number of addicts and is cheaper than the current system. What's not to like?

You just want free drugs :laugh

Diver
7th May 2012, 13:15
As a dangerous situation we ought to do something about that compares quite favourably with the 12,000 under fives who are hospitalized every year due to accidents involving DIY tools (figure from the RoSPA website). If we're going to start banning stuff on the grounds that some people are too stupid to do it safely then DIY is a bloody good candidate.

You seem to have a phobia about DIY :eyes

Did you actually waste a significant part of your life googling this carp :laugh

I'm bored so just make it up as I go along :rollin:

watch out watch out there's a screwdiver about (probably driving under the influence of drugs too) :wink

AtW
7th May 2012, 13:56
So it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong as long as it saves money?

It's personal choice of individual to kill themselves on drugs.

What society should do is avoid that this personal choice has effect on society.

That said if those who choose to use drugs act wrongly then they get cold turkey for many years.

I would not use those drugs even if they were free and 100% legal, it's my choice but much prefer to avoid lots of crime that is due to drug addicts needing money to feed their habit, it's not like police gives a tulip about it.

Buy heroin in bulk from Taleban - this will put all drug delears in UK out of business.

Oh and Govt taxes should be very small on those drugs - otherwise black market will appear again.

d000hg
7th May 2012, 14:07
It's personal choice of individual to kill themselves on drugs.Even if we set aside the argument whether society has a moral obligation not to let people kill themselves, your argument is based on the fallacy that an individual can live in isolation. Just think back to that scene in SpiderMan where Peter Parker doesn't stop the robber because "it's nothing to do with me". In real life a drug user has family and neighbours who can be adversely affected - just think how having a druggie next door can affect your house price!

AtW
7th May 2012, 14:13
Even if we set aside the argument whether society has a moral obligation not to let people kill themselves, your argument is based on the fallacy that an individual can live in isolation.

Society has moral obligations to explain risks of certain actions (you commit crime and then you go to jail, you jump off a cliff and you probably die etc) but ultimately individual should make thier own choices in life - once they reach certain age at least.

AtW
7th May 2012, 14:19
When you go diving never forget to bring the ...


http://s3.amazonaws.com/giles/towelie_091208/towelie_bong.jpg

:smokin

Sysman
7th May 2012, 16:15
In my three years at university, I think there were a few people who had the odd joint, but it certainly wasn't the majority pass-time. I certainly never had any.

Funny backy was certainly around in my uni days but it was really a minority thing. I tried it once and decided it wasn't for me and that was that. I didn''t bother with it in Holland where it was legal.


Maybe the UK should adopt the Swiss system. Registered addicts get their stuff for free. Drug related crime is almost unheard of. The total cost to society per addict is far less than it was when when heroin et. al. were completely illegal - even with the addicts living longer. A further unforeseen consequence of that is that there are now old addicts getting their daily dose, which means that drugs have lost their appeal to many young people.

Agreed. We went through a period in the UK where our whole village was being burgled by some crack types. Heavens knows how much that cost in insurance claims. Ask any victim though and the money wasn't uppermost in their minds. I had a load of sports trophies and paintings done by my father nicked. The tossers even pulled my bedclothes back and wanked over the pillows. I would no doubt have been in clink myself if I'd caught them red handed.

AtW
7th May 2012, 16:16
We went through a period in the UK where our whole village was being burgled by some crack types.

A tad more liberal gun laws is what's needed in this case :eyes

d000hg
7th May 2012, 16:31
Society has moral obligations to explain risks of certain actions (you commit crime and then you go to jail, you jump off a cliff and you probably die etc) but ultimately individual should make thier own choices in life - once they reach certain age at least.You haven't answered the point I made, only the one I didn't want to make.

AtW
7th May 2012, 16:44
You haven't answered the point I made, only the one I didn't want to make.

Then I am ready to be a politician :wink

Diver
7th May 2012, 16:47
Then I am ready to be a politician :wink

the force is strong within this one :grey

doodab
7th May 2012, 17:11
A tad more liberal gun laws is what's needed in this case :eyes

And some new pillows...

xoggoth
7th May 2012, 17:19
Drug laws need to be a lot tougher in my view. All for personal freedom but sometimes the public good is more important.

Apart from some major side effects like heart failure, hypertension, depression and psychotic illness, the disincentivising effect on far too many would be enormous if they were legalised and some argue that even use of milder legal drugs like Khat produce some impairment and has a lot to do with the failure of societies that use them.

Evidence suggests that it is true that sane, well adjusted people can take drugs and not be ruined by them, but legalisation would probably greatly expand the number of inadequates who would only live for the next fix.

d000hg
7th May 2012, 18:03
It's personal choice of individual to kill themselves on drugs.It's a personal choice for people to play the system and live off benefits in relative comfort then, but we blame the 'users' as much as the 'supplier' when they do.

AtW
7th May 2012, 18:05
It's a personal choice for people to play the system and live off benefits in relative comfort then

It's not the same - in your example people USE the system to finance themselves, in mine they'd still have to pay their own money (drugs are cheap though). If they so much as cause trouble (drive, steal etc) they get lots of cold turkey. If they are not totally stupid they'd stick to having drugs quietly, those who don't will suffer as the result.

A fair deal for society in my view.

mudskipper
7th May 2012, 18:38
What about legal (prescription) drugs?

Sleeping pills, painkillers, anti-depressants, cold medication - can all affect your reactions. What about methodone? That's a legally prescribed drug - should you be allowed to drive when you're taking it? (ATM, on a 'maintenance dose' you are allowed to drive).

Also withdrawal from (prescription) drugs can leave you feeling detached and lightheaded - even after they're out your system. ADs, for example, actually change the chemistry of your brain, so withdrawal lasts a lot longer than it takes to get the drug out your system and can leave you feeling pretty spaced out.

I agree that illegal drugs are illegal, and therefore a bit more clear cut, but it's the tip of the iceberg, and any trace being automatic jail seems to be ignoring the real issue on whether the perp is fit to drive.

Diver
7th May 2012, 19:05
Thread is Still going I see :rolleyes: :D

:poke: :popcorn:

BrilloPad
7th May 2012, 19:14
Thread is Still going I see :rolleyes: :D

:poke: :popcorn:

Your fluffy kitten thread did not last as long.

Anyway I believe drugs are a symptom of the UK going downhill - not the cause. It seems to me if drugs are illegal then people should be randomly tested. And anyone who fails should be crucified. For first offence.

Diver
7th May 2012, 19:34
Your fluffy kitten thread did not last as long.

Anyway I believe drugs are a symptom of the UK going downhill - not the cause. It seems to me if drugs are illegal then people should be randomly tested. And anyone who fails should be crucified. For first offence.

:poke: more more :popcorn:

mudskipper
7th May 2012, 19:39
:poke: more more :popcorn:

Indeed. You shouldn't eat popcorn whilst driving.

AtW
7th May 2012, 20:21
Indeed. You shouldn't eat popcorn whilst driving.

The only driving he is doing is on top of a goat...

BrilloPad
7th May 2012, 20:35
The only driving he is doing is on top of a goat...

And they are both very close to that cliff edge. :eyes

AtW
7th May 2012, 20:39
And they are both very close to that cliff edge. :eyes

Cliffhanger...

xoggoth
7th May 2012, 21:51
What about legal (prescription) drugs?

I believe that some legal drugs would also be covered by this law, it would state not to drive on the prescription.

mudskipper
8th May 2012, 04:52
I believe that some legal drugs would also be covered by this law, it would state not to drive on the prescription.

Most say 'May cause drowsiness. If affected, do not drive or operate machinery'. Not exactly black and white.

doodab
8th May 2012, 06:45
And it's estimated 1 in 5 fatal accidents are called by tired drivers. Lets hang anyone who stays up past pub closing time!

BrilloPad
8th May 2012, 06:47
And it's estimated 1 in 5 fatal accidents are called by tired drivers. Lets hang anyone who stays up past pub closing time!

Good point. Maybe we need car seats with spikes that come up to prod people awake.