On 10 Jun 2011 at 9:58pm jrsussex wrote:
Almost - Where have you been for the last 15/20 years to not have heard of kids dying having dropped an E? I rememebr a young man in Hastings dying from an overdose and his friends, fellow drug users, agreeing that he was just "unlucky".
Defending the indefensible is difficult.
On 10 Jun 2011 at 10:03pm kneel wrote:
I grew up in Lewes and I have lost atleast 7 people from school from Heroin who lived in Lewes, it was rife back in the late 80`s early 90`s
On 10 Jun 2011 at 10:16pm Anonymous coward wrote:
No one had died from dropping an e, ever jr. Please get your facts right. People might have died as a result of taking something else, maybe something that they thought was e. If so, that 'something else' only existed because e was illegal. Leah Betts dies of water poising. If you want a reasoned discussion please use facts.
And did you ever see the list of drugs that the guy in Hastings had taken?? I bet you didn't otherwise you'd know that he'd drunk an absolute shed load of alcohol!
On 10 Jun 2011 at 10:45pm Madame Bovary wrote:
This is what I mean about people trying to justify the use of "recreational" drugs as if they are harmless. Don't kid yourself, AC.
On 10 Jun 2011 at 11:15pm Anonymous Coward wrote:
I have not justified the use of recreational drugs as harmless. I have corrected a misconception created by tabloids.
No drugs are entirely harmless, and as you can't fail to agree this includes the legal drugs alcohol and cigarettes.
The majority of the harm caused by illegal drugs is easily attributable to their legal status.
Drugs, whether illegal or legal can be both fun and harmful
On 10 Jun 2011 at 11:34pm Lambo wrote:
MC - I bet you didn't think your original post would generate such a response. I'm glad it did. When I read it, it actually made me jump because it was if all the previous grief/murder/mayhem had been forgotten and it was all going to happen again. Get the gear off the street and come down hard on the people who peddle it.
On 11 Jun 2011 at 12:19am randy wrote:
i think we can see from this discussion that there is a knee jerk reaction to drugs?? from those that have never taken them or been friends in circles that have. JR, I'm looking at you! you have a lot of knowledge of the pub trade but draw a distinct line between alcohol and drugs?? talking of well run pubs and knowing when not to serve someone is the socially acceptable way of regulating drugs.
if pills, weed and coke were served the same, by well a regarded landlord of the local tavern, who were making an honest living by providing a place for people to let off steam and enjoy themselves, it would take away the easy cash that the criminal fringe thrive from. they would move on to other areas of ill repute and human suffering, but it would not be as profitable and therefore a smaller burden for a civilised society to carry.
heroin and acid. some drugs are very strong and can mess with peoples lives, but criminalising them helps no one. especially the most vulnerable who are most likely to suffer . making them taboo is not the answer, i don't know what is, but open to ideas.
MC. how sheltered a life have you led?
p.s not sure if coke should be included in the well regulated pub style of socially acceptable drugs (time and a place)
love,
Randy
On 11 Jun 2011 at 7:31am MC wrote:
I am fascinated by this discussion and am surprised by the way it has taken off but It is a mistake to think I have lead a sheltered life. I grew up in a reasonable sized village where recreational drug taking was pretty normal amongst a reasonable sized section of my peers. I'd go so far to say that drug taking was was more common than drinking alcohol at the time.
However usage was pretty much restricted to smoking dope (that's pot or marijuana to you jr), a bit of LSD (acid jr), and very occasional (or maybe one-off) experimentation with other drugs that popped up  now and again. I don't think heroin ever entered into the equation and was generally frowned upon by the pot smokers. At the time it all seemed quite benign and innocent. Desperate smack addicts dealing on street corners feels a world away from that.
The link in the first thread was very disturbing. Some good-looking young people with the world in front of them turned into ugly old crones wthin five years by their addiction to methamphetamine. What an incredible waste. I can't square this with the stuff I saw during my youth. The difference between the casual pot usage amongst my friends, the meth stuff and those desperate heroin addicts is seems large, in fact their illegality is the most obvious commonality (as AC points out).
The Dutch coffee shop idea of separating the 'acceptable risk' drug user from the 'unacceptable risk' drug user is interesting.
On 11 Jun 2011 at 7:43am Clifford wrote:
I suppose we should be grateful that no one has posted the hoary old myth about people taking acid thinking they could fly and jumping out of the window. Not as good, though, as the one about the man who thought he had turned into an orange and was afraid people were going to squeeze him and drink him.
On 11 Jun 2011 at 10:27am Ed Can Do wrote:
Jrsussex, there have been perhaps ten deaths at most from people taking pills that have been widely publicised by the tabloids over the years. In 2009, 8,664 people died from alcohol related reasons and that statistic only covers people dying from diseases directly caused by booze, it doesn't include deaths from road accidents caused by drunk people or fights involving drunk people, nor does it include deaths from cancer that is caused by heavy drinking.
Now of course some would argue that a lot more people drink than take pills but I'd wager the deaths per user stat is seriously higher for booze than for pills, especially when you consider that most people who die from "Taking pills" die because the pills contain all kinds of other random crap or, like in the case of Leah Betts, they're hilariously un-educated about the risks and think that drinking 12 litres of water in the space of an hour is a good idea.
The issue of course is that deaths from alcohol are so commonplace, they don't make for good headlines. A young girl who took a pill then drank herself to death sells papers much better than one of the hundreds of drink driving fatalities that happen every year, or a red-nosed old soak carping it when his liver gives out or even someone getting kicked to death by drunken louts.
As for why people take drugs in the first place, it's curiosity and the thrill of doing something you're not supposed to. Remember when that kid at Sussex Uni died from taking Miaow Miaow and her mum went on this massive crusade to ban the stuff? The resulting media storm led to a huge increase in sales of the stuff while it was still legal, massive increased demand for it amongst kids who'd never even heard of it before and the subsequent banning meant that instead of buying the same stuff each time off the internet, kids were buying it at far greater cost and with far less likelihood of it actually being what they thought it was from hardened drug dealers.
There is simply no way that drug use is ever going to be stamped out. At the end of the day, taking drugs is fun, otherwise people wouldn't do it. Rather than waste millions of pounds on trying woefully to stop the flood of illegal drugs into this country, it would make far more sense to me to legalise the whole shebang and sell it in shops, thereby standardising the quality (Meaning far fewer OD deaths) and raking in the same kind of tax dollars that the government get from booze and cigarettes, neither of which the economy could ever afford to ban (The tax revenue from cigarettes is approximately three times the cost to the NHS of treating smokers illnesses).
The sooner the press stop painting drugs as the greatest menace to society ever conceived whilst advertising cut-price booze deals on the facing page, the sooner we can perhaps have a sensible debate on the issue in parliament and get rid of the idiotic prohibition on drugs.
On 11 Jun 2011 at 11:29am Ching Chong Chan wrote:
In China, drug users get bullet in head, then family get billed for bullet.
Perhaps this should be adopted here.
On 11 Jun 2011 at 1:22pm sen cybal wrote:
Quote:
(The tax revenue from cigarettes is approximately three times the cost to the NHS of treating smokers illnesses).
Ed Can Do, were you on a trip when you posted that drivel?
Anyway a simple way out is to let the population smoke, drink and drug themselves into seriously damaging their health, or worse, and then refuse them any treatment on the NHS.
I rather like Ching Chang Chong's idea.........perhaps it will catch on!
On 11 Jun 2011 at 4:33pm Ed Can Do wrote:
I'm sorry, you're right, it's only twice as much.
Cost of smoking, £5billion: hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm
Tobacco tax revenue, £10billlion: hxxp://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/
Given that smokers are actually a net income to the treasury, perhaps we should start refusing treatment to people who don't smoke? Sadly, it's people like you who are the reason we'll never get a sensible debate on narcotics in this country. Do you feel the same way about fat people? Eating too much is just as much a vice as smoking, drinking or drugs and is proving to be a seriously costly passtime for the economy. What about if we refused treatment to fat people because after all, you only get fat by taking in more calories than you use, it's nothing but personal choice in the same way that smoking or drinking or shooting up smack is. Why not a blanket ban on fatty food then? Why not ban drinking? Why not ban smoking?
On 11 Jun 2011 at 5:35pm Teachers Pet wrote:
This thread is beginning to sound like a fairy story with the support of one or two are making noises in favour of drugs.
If they are so popular and good for us why isn't everybody on them?
We are fighting wars in other countries in an attempt to stem the flow (so we are told); why not cut out the middle man and send those who want to take drugs to regions that grow them?
We could give them a free passage to places like Afghanistan and South America and let them loose.........they may even stumble upon some IED's for us and save a few of our soldiers lives that are being sacrificed because of their craving for drugs.
Did Ed Can Do factor the cost of these lives into his frivolous calculations?
On 11 Jun 2011 at 7:20pm Clifford wrote:
Can I try to follow your logic about drugs Teacher's Pet. 'If they are so popular and good for us why isn't everybody on them?' What's the problem, then? Everybody isn't on them; most people aren't interested in them; so why not legalise them for the few that are and take the trade away from criminals?
On 11 Jun 2011 at 8:07pm FieldFairy wrote:
It has always been a mistake for the "authorities" to think they can control supply. Change can only happen by turning our attention to the demand. This goes for everything.
On 11 Jun 2011 at 9:47pm Teachers Pet wrote:
I was being a little facetious Clifford, of course most people are not interested in drugs, but the answer to the problem has yet to be found.
Healthy debate is a good thing but rarely produces solutions on this type of issue.
I am rather intriqued by the changing tone of Ed Can Do's postings and feel that he may be at 'ODDS' with the world in general.........
O verweight
D rinker
D rug lover
S moker!
I'm joking , of course! 
On 11 Jun 2011 at 10:45pm MC wrote:
I thought Ed Can Do's post was the most intelligent, informed and reasoned post I'd read here for quite a while. None of the anti legalisation posts have been informed, intelligent or reasoned, especially the last couple, sadly..
On 12 Jun 2011 at 4:10am qeef wrote:
yes, agree. don't understand why ed can do's post got so much flak????
On 12 Jun 2011 at 7:32am DRUG DEALING PIRATE wrote:
At least there aren't any well qualified professionals to speak up about this. And if there were, at least the government isn't sacking them for highlighting these issues.
Check it out here »
On 12 Jun 2011 at 7:33am Ken Wood wrote:
Thankyou Ed Can Do - the most sensible post by far.
On 12 Jun 2011 at 6:23pm Lambo wrote:
You can debate the subject until the cows come home. The bottom line is you don't want another dozen Lewes young people suffering the same fate as the 90's generation. Get the drugs off the street, and those that sell them should be punished so they can't do it again.
On 12 Jun 2011 at 6:47pm Clifford wrote:
Lambo - if that could be done don't you think it would have been done long ago? We need something a bit more imaginative.
On 12 Jun 2011 at 7:52pm Lambo wrote:
Other than a vigilante/Charles Bronson type or a 'Kick Ass' style superhero - the police need to be on the case.
On 12 Jun 2011 at 7:53pm Deelite wrote:
Yup. That seems to be what has failed.
Imagination and courage is required. Wheeling out the old formulas isn't much good.
On 12 Jun 2011 at 8:50pm Clifford wrote:
As long s drugs are illegal there'll be a premium on their price and criminals will control the market - with help, of course, from the police they buy.
On 13 Jun 2011 at 12:43pm Anon wrote:
Clifford, I know from experience that it is not a 'hoary old myth about people taking acid thinking they could fly and jumping out of the window'. That is exactly what happened to a school friend at a party. He died.
On 13 Jun 2011 at 2:36pm Clifford wrote:
Thanks for giving us an example of how the urban myth spreads, Anon. Now perhaps you'll tell us the name, date and place of this incident.
On 13 Jun 2011 at 4:36pm Grunge wrote:
Clifford, can you give us the proof that it is just an urban myth?
On 13 Jun 2011 at 5:31pm Ed Can Do wrote:
That something is a myth means that nobody can prove it, not that nobody can disprove it. Nobody can categorically prove that unicorns, dragons and minotaurs never existed but we still generally refer to them as mythical creatures.
On 13 Jun 2011 at 5:41pm Clifford wrote:
Thanks Ed Can Do. Grunge, you do make yourself look silly you know.
On 13 Jun 2011 at 5:46pm Clifford wrote:
Ching Chong Chan wrote: 'In China, drug users get bullet in head, then family get billed for bullet. Perhaps this should be adopted here.'
Something tells me you're joking Ching. At least, I hope you are. I dread to think of the state of mind of anyone who seriously thought that was a remedy.
On 13 Jun 2011 at 6:11pm Grunge wrote:
Clifford - Anon wrote from personal experience and you replied that was how urban myths started and asked for chapter and verse. My comment to you was in response to that, and, as you obviously didn't notice, it was a bit of a legpull.
On 13 Jun 2011 at 8:43pm Deelite wrote:
Oh was it? Thanks for putting me right.
It wasn't very funny though.
On 13 Jun 2011 at 10:25pm Mr Forks wrote:
Nothing more funny than the middle classes discussing drugs?! Well done all of you, you've been great!
On 14 Jun 2011 at 6:17am Deelite wrote:
Wow Mr Forks, you're so clever. How do you tell who is middle class or not?
On 14 Jun 2011 at 8:00am Guido wrote:
Well said Mr Forks. Totally agree.
On 14 Jun 2011 at 8:51am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Excellent posts, Ed.
Most kids take drugs to be rebellious. If they were legal and parents showed their kids how very dull drug taking was by openly using coke, weed, smack etc in front of them, they'd soon stop. They'd probably take up something more dangerous and even less savoury, mind.
People take drugs because they want to, so if they come to harm, it's their own faults, really. Addiction only becomes a social problem because of the crime addicts take to to fund it. In the early 60s, when heroin addicts could register and get heroin on prescription, overdoses and drug related crime were rare.
Many of my peers took drugs in quite a big way, but I've only ever known two junkies socially. And one of them came from Middlesborough, so that was probably a recognised career path for him.
On 14 Jun 2011 at 12:48pm Anon wrote:
I am not going to put personal information on here Clifford. That would not be appropriate, and I think it is pretty insensitive of you to demand it. The event in question however, took place back around the second half of 1980, I cannot remember the exact date, other than it was not long after he/I left school. It was at a party in a block of flats and he jumped from a window believing that he could fly. There is not really much more to tell.
To be honest, I don't really care what you think is the truth. I know it happened, and there are others in Lewes still that knew this person and be aware of what happend to him. I am sure if you are desperate for more details, then you could probably dig something up from the local press as it was reported at the time, but to be honest it sounds like you are determined not to believe it anyway because it suits your argument not to.
On 14 Jun 2011 at 9:38pm Can abyss wrote:
I think this thread has gone to pot and smacks of being on the rocks.
Too much snorting or line dancing going on. Time to put it under wraps?