Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

The irresponsible use of drugs is very often a precursor to serious crime.

The addicted are very often inclined to commit criminal acts in order to finance their addiction.

Responsible citizens (of any nation) decry the prospect of witnessing their children being drawn yet further into a culture of a drug (or alcohol) induced euphoria, the damage caused by 'MISUSE' of either or both of these is obvious wherever such 'MISUSE' is (rapidly becoming) an accepted daily spectacle.

Those who advocate the legalization of the class of drugs known to be (and proven to be) detrimental to health, usually do so out of self interest, confused perhaps by their own little forays into the unknown and mysterious land of "WOW!"! which is the only place which enables them to enjoy their sad lives.

The occasional 'Joint' (if we must be sucked into the jargon) is not quite such an issue providing the user has the intelligence enough to avoid excess, the trouble is, they usually are not.

I would have thought that THIS thread would have developed into an intelligent exchange of views directed toward 'Praise' for the efforts of the Iranian authorities which are apparently the major barrier to an increasingly serious problem in Western society.

Whatever the outcome of 'Lawful Intervention' by those who are empowered to make decisions, I doubt if 'Heroine' (and other such substances) will ever be made freely available to those who regard a 'Buzz' as the ultimate pleasure of their lives, certainly such folk will hardly be able to force their governments to legalize such potentially damaging drugs.

They can all 'Buzz Off' as far as I am concerned.

But heroin was itself developed as a result of the banning of Opium which had been used safely as a recreational drug for generations... The law of unintended consequences again...

There are a number of fundamental problems that arise from trying to ban drugs: -

1) Man has a desire to use drugs to induce pleasure, relaxation or induce an altered state of mind. Always has, always will...
2) You cannot 'uninvent' that which has been invented/discovered
3) Criminals will always step in to provide that which has been banned or rendered too expensive by taxation

The combination of these mean that (unless you wish to live in a totalitarian regime like Iran) there will always be people taking drugs.

So our choice is quite simply one of two paths: -

1) Make all drugs illegal. Users will then buy drugs from criminals whose only motive is profit. There is no control on the strength or quality of the drugs and vendors will be as happy to sell to children as adults.
2) Legalise drugs. Sell them from licences premises to adults and benefit from the taxation of the product.

There are of course other consequences of 1) above - billions spent on trying to stop the trade, hundreds of thousands of lives lost fighting the war against drug gangs and between gangs themselves, etc.

[bigOz]

To add to above
Most of the time it is not the drugs that actually kill people but the harmful chemical/ additives that are induced by the dealers who wish to make more money! Legalisation can help provide cheper less harmful alternatives.

Many people find it more exciting or see themselves as privilaged using something illegal, fuelled by curiosity. Legalisation can reduce curiosity and interest.

The only thing that can be controlled by law should be active advertising of drugs that can be harmful. Forbid advertising and promotion of such products including on the spot banner/poster advertising, and make them available at chemists (for example) only. Just like cigarettes, prohibit use in public places etc.

I do not condone the use of drugs, but anyone sensible enough would see that legalisation is the lesser of the two evils!

But there are far too many people making their fortunes out of drugs money - not just producers and dealers. So it is not in their interest to change what is a good money earner!

[cyprusgrump]

Most of the time it is not the drugs that actually kill people but the harmful chemical/ additives that are induced by the dealers who wish to make more money! Legalisation can help provide cheper less harmful alternatives.

I think the instances of drugs being 'cut' with dangerous substances are widely exaggerated - not dealer wants to intentionally kill his clients...

However, the wide variations in the strength of drugs (sometimes caused by dealers 'cutting' their stock) can indeed be lethal...

Licensing drugs would ensure a consistent quality and strength.

[Schnauzer]

I must confess that I never considered the issues of 'Legalization v Prohibition' of drugs from quite the same standpoint as both 'cyprusgrump' and 'bigOz' have.

I do wonder if the problems connected with 'Drug Abuse' by both user AND supplier, could stem from a lack of understanding of (as cyprusgrump has indicated) the 'Recreational' advantages of drug use ?.

In days gone, it was a socially accepted practise in many cultures to use drugs as a means of relieving stress or simply relaxing after their labours.

The 'Red Indians' and their 'Pipe of Peace' was/is a classic example of attitude in relation to the use of an 'Hallucinogenic Substance'. ('Loco Weed ?).

The indigenous populations of the 'Canary Islands' were also regular users of such methods of relaxation and there are many other pockets of humanity on the face of the earth which did (or still do) precisely the same as the orientals of old. (again as indicated by cyprusgrump).

However, since the cultural differences between those mentioned and ours are so diverse, it might be worth considering the fact that it was not until quite recently (in historical terms) that a 'Drug Culture' has developed, particularly in Western civilizations and, as a 'Red Indian Chief' is reputed to have famously once said "The Lands which you now destroy, will one day rise up and destroy you!", rather prophetic when one considers the fact that the 'Loco Weed' which grew upon the lands referred to, was greatly introduced to the UK subsequent to WW2 (courtesy of the Black immigrants) and may well have been the 'Root Cause' in many nations, of all the problems encountered since.

As 'bigOz' suggests, it does little to suppress the use of drugs, nor alleviate addiction, when the dealers add chemicals and other mixtures to their wares, it may also be that WE of the West, are not quite so knowledgeable about the correct use of drugs as a 'Recreational and Social' ally as we may think we are.

I think there is much to be done in educating 'Drug Users' regarding their attitudes toward such use, before any steps toward legalizing are taken but, if it does happen, certainly their should be stringent controls. (imho).

[cyprusgrump]

I must confess that I never considered the issues of 'Legalization v Prohibition' of drugs from quite the same standpoint as both 'cyprusgrump' and 'bigOz' have.

I do wonder if the problems connected with 'Drug Abuse' by both user AND supplier, could stem from a lack of understanding of (as cyprusgrump has indicated) the 'Recreational' advantages of drug use ?.

In days gone, it was a socially accepted practise in many cultures to use drugs as a means of relieving stress or simply relaxing after their labours.

The 'Red Indians' and their 'Pipe of Peace' was/is a classic example of attitude in relation to the use of an 'Hallucinogenic Substance'. ('Loco Weed ?).

The indigenous populations of the 'Canary Islands' were also regular users of such methods of relaxation and there are many other pockets of humanity on the face of the earth which did (or still do) precisely the same as the orientals of old. (again as indicated by cyprusgrump).

However, since the cultural differences between those mentioned and ours are so diverse, it might be worth considering the fact that it was not until quite recently (in historical terms) that a 'Drug Culture' has developed, particularly in Western civilizations and, as a 'Red Indian Chief' is reputed to have famously once said "The Lands which you now destroy, will one day rise up and destroy you!", rather prophetic when one considers the fact that the 'Loco Weed' which grew upon the lands referred to, was greatly introduced to the UK subsequent to WW2 (courtesy of the Black immigrants) and may well have been the 'Root Cause' in many nations, of all the problems encountered since.

As 'bigOz' suggests, it does little to suppress the use of drugs, nor alleviate addiction, when the dealers add chemicals and other mixtures to their wares, it may also be that WE of the West, are not quite so knowledgeable about the correct use of drugs as a 'Recreational and Social' ally as we may think we are.

I think there is much to be done in educating 'Drug Users' regarding their attitudes toward such use, before any steps toward legalizing are taken but, if it does happen, certainly their should be stringent controls. (imho).

It may well be of course that the dangers of drugs have been over-stressed by the media....

Given how large the market obviously is (just by the example of the seizure in the OP), there must be many thousands/hundreds of thousand/millions of people that 'successfully' use drugs for recreation that never come to our notice...

There will always be a small minority of people that are susceptible to any vice (alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.) and it is they that the media (and authorities) like to bring to our attention to further their cause...

"Man takes heroin while holding down full-time job as bank manager" does not make a good headline...

It is also true that much the media reports is simply untrue... we've all seen front page headlines that scream "Teenager dies at party after taking Ecstasy" yet ion most (if not all) cases this is based on nothing but supposition. Often, once the post mortem has been carried out and the truth known the teenager has never taken the drug. This tends to be reported on page 30 at the bottom of the column "teenager died of choking on own vomit after drinking too much"...

There have been several 'Legal Highs' which have been banned simply on the back of screaming newspaper headlines and politicians vowing "to do something" when the drug was not involved at all... And these drugs are immediately replaced on the market with something else - often stronger and more dangerous.... The law of unintended consequences strikes again...

[apc2010]

I must confess that I never considered the issues of 'Legalization v Prohibition' of drugs from quite the same standpoint as both 'cyprusgrump' and 'bigOz' have.

I do wonder if the problems connected with 'Drug Abuse' by both user AND supplier, could stem from a lack of understanding of (as cyprusgrump has indicated) the 'Recreational' advantages of drug use ?.

In days gone, it was a socially accepted practise in many cultures to use drugs as a means of relieving stress or simply relaxing after their labours.

The 'Red Indians' and their 'Pipe of Peace' was/is a classic example of attitude in relation to the use of an 'Hallucinogenic Substance'. ('Loco Weed ?).

The indigenous populations of the 'Canary Islands' were also regular users of such methods of relaxation and there are many other pockets of humanity on the face of the earth which did (or still do) precisely the same as the orientals of old. (again as indicated by cyprusgrump).

However, since the cultural differences between those mentioned and ours are so diverse, it might be worth considering the fact that it was not until quite recently (in historical terms) that a 'Drug Culture' has developed, particularly in Western civilizations and, as a 'Red Indian Chief' is reputed to have famously once said "The Lands which you now destroy, will one day rise up and destroy you!", rather prophetic when one considers the fact that the 'Loco Weed' which grew upon the lands referred to, was greatly introduced to the UK subsequent to WW2 (courtesy of the Black immigrants) and may well have been the 'Root Cause' in many nations, of all the problems encountered since.

As 'bigOz' suggests, it does little to suppress the use of drugs, nor alleviate addiction, when the dealers add chemicals and other mixtures to their wares, it may also be that WE of the West, are not quite so knowledgeable about the correct use of drugs as a 'Recreational and Social' ally as we may think we are.

I think there is much to be done in educating 'Drug Users' regarding their attitudes toward such use, before any steps toward legalizing are taken but, if it does happen, certainly their should be stringent controls. (imho).

It may well be of course that the dangers of drugs have been over-stressed by the media....

Given how large the market obviously is (just by the example of the seizure in the OP), there must be many thousands/hundreds of thousand/millions of people that 'successfully' use drugs for recreation that never come to our notice...

There will always be a small minority of people that are susceptible to any vice (alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.) and it is they that the media (and authorities) like to bring to our attention to further their cause...

"Man takes heroin while holding down full-time job as bank manager" does not make a good headline...

It is also true that much the media reports is simply untrue... we've all seen front page headlines that scream "Teenager dies at party after taking Ecstasy" yet ion most (if not all) cases this is based on nothing but supposition. Often, once the post mortem has been carried out and the truth known the teenager has never taken the drug. This tends to be reported on page 30 at the bottom of the column "teenager died of choking on own vomit after drinking too much"...

There have been several 'Legal Highs' which have been banned simply on the back of screaming newspaper headlines and politicians vowing "to do something" when the drug was not involved at all... And these drugs are immediately replaced on the market with something else - often stronger and more dangerous.... The law of unintended consequences strikes again...

Will Self springs to mind.......

[Jerry]

My brother in law was a heroin addict for some time. We helped him get off it but he went back again for a couple of years. I asked him about the addictive properties of the drug. He was sick the first few times but soon got hooked and then had to continue taking it because if he didn't he felt intense pain. That's how the addiction manifests itself, you must take more to feel "well". I'm not sure how legalizing it would address that problem. He is now clean and holding down a proper job but has admitted to me that it has buggered up his overall health.

A heroin addict's life is focused on one thing only - the next fix, and that usually means via cash from crime. Smokers and drinkers are not usually that determined, any health care they may need has probably been paid for many times over in tax.

As for contaminated drugs, I've seen a once very pretty 20 year old covered in spots, she looked like she had bubonic plague.

Drugs? What's the point, there's other ways to enjoy oneself.

[cyprusgrump]

My brother in law was a heroin addict for some time. We helped him get off it but he went back again for a couple of years. I asked him about the addictive properties of the drug. He was sick the first few times but soon got hooked and then had to continue taking it because if he didn't he felt intense pain. That's how the addiction manifests itself, you must take more to feel "well". I'm not sure how legalizing it would address that problem. He is now clean and holding down a proper job but has admitted to me that it has buggered up his overall health.

A heroin addict's life is focused on one thing only - the next fix, and that usually means via cash from crime. Smokers and drinkers are not usually that determined, any health care they may need has probably been paid for many times over in tax.

As for contaminated drugs, I've seen a once very pretty 20 year old covered in spots, she looked like she had bubonic plague.

Drugs? What's the point, there's other ways to enjoy oneself.

Well, making drugs illegal and spending billions persecuting those that produce, distribute and consume them didn't stop your BiL becoming addicted to heroin... So the current system isn't working...

It is of course in the interest of the 'dealer' to get his client onto the strongest and most addictive substances - perhaps if a more reliable chain of supply had been available he wouldn't have had to endure the sickness which apparently came from trying heroin the first few times...

You make a very good point about the revenue that comes from tobacco and alcohol - currently we get none from drugs so any healthcare costs are carried by the taxpayer. If we taxed the millions of people that use drugs 'recreationally' we'd have more than enough money to pay for the costs of addicts who needed our help... hell, if we cancelled 'the war on drugs' we'd be able to put everybody in the UK on a rehab program!

And as for your last sentence, you could just as easily have written: -

Gambling? What's the point, there's other ways to enjoy oneself.

Or,

Alcohol? What's the point, there's other ways to enjoy oneself.

Both are quite capable of destroying the lives of those that are susceptible while millions of others enjoy a drink or a flutter in complete safety....

[Jerry]

Grump, Perhaps I should have said, drugs, what's the point, there are other much less harmful ways to enjoy oneself. Most people who drink and gamble are not addicts, smoking is addictive and harmful that's why the government runs campaigns to help us quit. So let's legalize drugs and then run campaigns to restrict it? The problem with any form of intoxication is that the user may put himself or others in danger through loss of control. Where I live a couple of lads recently got stoned after taking "legal highs”, some sort of horse medication, they were discovered drowned in a local pond. Experts say it can cause agitation, a faster heart rate, higher blood pressure and unsteadiness on the feet.

I wonder how safe or productive society would be if drug taking became as popular as drinking and smoking.

[cyprusgrump]

Grump, Perhaps I should have said, drugs, what's the point, there are other much less harmful ways to enjoy oneself. Most people who drink and gamble are not addicts, smoking is addictive and harmful that's why the government runs campaigns to help us quit. So let's legalize drugs and then run campaigns to restrict it? The problem with any form of intoxication is that the user may put himself or others in danger through loss of control. Where I live a couple of lads recently got stoned after taking "legal highs”, some sort of horse medication, they were discovered drowned in a local pond. Experts say it can cause agitation, a faster heart rate, higher blood pressure and unsteadiness on the feet.

I wonder how safe or productive society would be if drug taking became as popular as drinking and smoking.

Many would argue that alcohol is much more damaging than taking drugs...

Again, it is the small minority of alcohol users that abuse and or become addicted to it - often causing a great deal of harm to themselves and others in the process.

You've already shown us that no matter how much the government nannies, restricts, bans, taxes, polices or otherwise tells us what we can put in our bodies, people will always find ways of getting their 'high' - be it alcohol, gambling, smoking or drugs. It is no business of the government to tell us what we can eat, drink, smoke or otherwise put into our bodies.

It simply makes no sense to spend billions fighting the inevitable - money that would better be spent treating those that have a serious addition problem. Indeed, (again to use your earlier example) if we taxed those millions of people that were able to use drugs responsibly the whole thing would be self-funding (as you pointed out with alcohol and cigarette harm).

In the UK at the moment (as part of a programme to 'denormalise' alcohol) they are calling for a 'minimum unit price'. This will merely punish those that drink responsibly and not restrict those who do not. Criminals will step in to provide counterfeit booze which is not safe to drink and will be available on the street corner to those who would be otherwise unable to obtain it... Sound familiar...?