Lovely New Britain

[richard-af]

I disagree that deaths would increase through ODs. A regulated supply would mean that users would be certain of the strength they had which would decrease ODs. Another possibility is to regulate heroin in such a way that it is only available in smokeable (i.e. not injectable) form, which would decrease many of the health impacts (not the addiction, obviously) including OD deaths.

Doesn't work. Some Junkies sell Methadone, for example, to pay for the "real thing".

[Old Greg]

Doesn't work. Some Junkies sell Methadone, for example, to pay for the "real thing".

Doesn't work in this climate. Well may work in a decriminalised regulated environment where heroin, rather than methadone is available legally and safely. Whatever we have at the moment certainly doesn't work.

[Clippy]

It is the state that strips communities of power to determine themselves. With the state (supposedly) taking responsibility for everything people no longer need to take personal responsibility for anything. The state is increasing its power and influence, all you need to do is look at the money that they take from us. It never goes down.

The problem that the state has is that it cannot control the rich. the rich can go where they like. They can take their wealth wherever they want, so it is the middle classses that they end up soaking.

Surely you mean choking?

[gingerjedi]

You make something people want illegal, and they will pay over the odds for it, thus creating a black market of scumbags. See the US under prohibition. If it were legal burglary would half overnight. Everyone would afford thier habit and anyone who'd need to steel for it would be consuming so much as to have an OD very quickly (hooray the world got lighter another moron got off).

So the downside is some idiots might die. The upside is;

a/ the scumbag gravy train would be over, at least in that 'industry'.
b/ all types of 'petty' theft down

Every time I hear on the local news that there's rogue batch of heroin going about and users should be warned... I think... why???

[richard-af]

... anyway, I'm off to France!

[Board Game Geek]

Not saying cannabis is harmless, just that it's less harmless than booze.

I disagree.

Booze may fry the liver permanently (and the brain during the intoxication period).

Cannabis rewires the brain (during the psychoative period) and then continues to rewire the brain long after the primary effects have worn off.

Too much booze leads to cirrorhis of the liver.

Too much cannabis turns the brain to goo.

A relative was an alcoholic, and yes, during the binge periods, she was completely blotto. But she sobered up in the mornings, and was a normal person again. (She's recovered btw)

A friend from school did the weed daily, and turned in to a complete zombie. He has no chance to "sober up" anymore. He's mentally fekked.

True, degrees of use does count.

Both drugs affect the mind.

Except cannabis use is the more insidious, and people who tell you otherwise either have no idea how dangerous it is, or are kidding themselves to justify their addiction.

To be honest, neither drug are nice and regulation is needed for both. But cannabis regulation must take precedence.

[BA to the Stars]

France has a strong State (i.e enshrinement of the democratic point of view); holds dear privacy; has stronger community; does not have Southampton.

Would they like Scumhampton - they can have it

[Clippy]

A timely piece in tomorrows Times on similar themes.

I am no fan of David Aaronovitch, but I found myself, on the whole, agreeing with him.

Oh, wrt his Top 10 anti social hates list, surely his number 10 should be near the top?