I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
Morning all. Been away for a couple of days, I seem to have missed an interesting political story!
Without reading through all the threads for the past week, can I make a random guess that those who were shouting loudly about the personal criticism of Corbyn last week are now all over the decades-old rumours about the PM...?
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Your points about drugs are measured nd sensible unlike the above. Since when do most on the right demand an uncontrolled free market. The current govt has put more into the NHS than was ever planned by Labour.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
A more sensible comparison would be cannabis.
Quite possibly.
It's really not my area, but how does a 'typical' spliff compare to (say) a glass of wine in terms of effect on the user? Or does varying tolerances in individuals and the presence of harder forms of cannabis such as skunk make such comparisons pointless?
I knew more E users than cannabis users. Then again, it was London in the early '90s.
High functioning alcoholics are everywhere - and can down huge quantities whilst remaining top of their game, if my peer groups were anything to go by.
At the age of 75 and having worked in the media for most of that time I have yet to see anyone using drugs except for one well known director on a high profile drama series..he lasted ten days, got fired and disappeared from the industry....Seen a lot of drunks tho..at all levels..
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Strawman. Very very few people on the right say that.
The issue is oversight and incentive, not on type of organisation. Do we incentivise private sector companies to provide the minimum acceptable level of public service for the general good or the best possible? Too often in this country I fear it is the former rather than the latter. And even then the oversight is often too lax.
This is the ground a sensible Labour party would be fighting on, btw. The identity of the service provider does not matter. The level and consistency of service is the key issue. It's all about incentives and oversight, not about excluding or including.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
If you drink pure alcohol you can get in trouble pretty quickly, as someone who has drunk 75% rum I can attest to this.
Conversely, it's quite easy to do low doses of other drugs too, if that is your desire.
We have something in alcohol that is probably a net bad for society but, as it is already legal, is hard to ban. Instead there are numerous campaigns to lower drinking rates and make people aware of the damage it can do. Younger people are drinking less than ever
Even if we accept that other recreational drugs are no worse, why would we want to legalise them only to spend millions telling people not to do them? In the case of hippy crack, we are looking to ban things that are legal.
We already fail to prosecute people for taking drugs, they are semi legal anyway. If people want to do them they can. They can take as little or as much as they liked and dilute them however they wish. If police wanted to catch people they'd raid every bar in the city of London every Friday. But they don't.
I think cannabis in particular does immense harm to teenagers, and you can see a large correlation between its use and psychosis. If we legalise it Id make the age limit 40
There's no fundamental material difference between 'all that crap' and drink, though, is there? Or, say, coffee for that matter. I think one of the worst things Brown did was reversing the reclassification of cannabis, just when at least it looked like the bizarre and damaging puritan policy regarding natural substances that just happen to modulate neurotransmitters might finally be slowly heading in the right direction.
I'm not in favour of legalising everything, not yet anyway, but for once im inclined to agree. That I don't drink alcohol, do drugs or drink coffee may undermine my view though.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Strawman. Very very few people on the right say that.
The issue is oversight and incentive, not on type of organisation. Do we incentivise private sector companies to provide the minimum acceptable level of public service for the general good or the best possible? Too often in this country I fear it is the former rather than the latter. And even then the oversight is often too lax.
This is the ground a sensible Labour party would be fighting on, btw. The identity of the service provider does not matter. The level and consistency of service is the key issue. It's all about incentives and oversight, not about excluding or including.
But thats where the dogma of the left come in, 'Private bad, public good' is just as wrong as 'Public bad, private good'
I think most people would agree with you, its a balance about what can provide the best service for the best value. That's pretty much both the New Labour way, and the current government way.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
A more sensible comparison would be cannabis.
Quite possibly.
It's really not my area, but how does a 'typical' spliff compare to (say) a glass of wine in terms of effect on the user? Or does varying tolerances in individuals and the presence of harder forms of cannabis such as skunk make such comparisons pointless?
I knew more E users than cannabis users. Then again, it was London in the early '90s.
I took cannabis for over 20 years and stopped for No special reason 10 years ago. Never been keen on much alcohol. Addiction in the former case is more go do with personality than the drug.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
If you drink pure alcohol you can get in trouble pretty quickly, as someone who has drunk 75% rum I can attest to this.
Conversely, it's quite easy to do low doses of other drugs too, if that is your desire.
We have something in alcohol that is probably a net bad for society but, as it is already legal, is hard to ban. Instead there are numerous campaigns to lower drinking rates and make people aware of the damage it can do. Younger people are drinking less than ever
Even if we accept that other recreational drugs are no worse, why would we want to legalise them only to spend millions telling people not to do them? In the case of hippy crack, we are looking to ban things that are legal.
We already fail to prosecute people for taking drugs, they are semi legal anyway. If people want to do them they can. They can take as little or as much as they liked and dilute them however they wish. If police wanted to catch people they'd raid every bar in the city of London every Friday. But they don't.
I'd just add that I don't want more drugs legalised until there are good, timely and easy-to-use tests for their usage. Drug driving is enough of a problem as it is; if further drugs are legalised then usage should be controlled in exactly the same way as alcohol, and you can only do that if there are easy roadside tests along with more accurate machines in police stations.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Strawman. Very very few people on the right say that.
The issue is oversight and incentive, not on type of organisation. Do we incentivise private sector companies to provide the minimum acceptable level of public service for the general good or the best possible? Too often in this country I fear it is the former rather than the latter. And even then the oversight is often too lax.
This is the ground a sensible Labour party would be fighting on, btw. The identity of the service provider does not matter. The level and consistency of service is the key issue. It's all about incentives and oversight, not about excluding or including.
Right. By focus on structure Labour gives an impression of favouring the provider above the client. Big mistake in the modern world.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Strawman. Very very few people on the right say that.
The issue is oversight and incentive, not on type of organisation. Do we incentivise private sector companies to provide the minimum acceptable level of public service for the general good or the best possible? Too often in this country I fear it is the former rather than the latter. And even then the oversight is often too lax.
This is the ground a sensible Labour party would be fighting on, btw. The identity of the service provider does not matter. The level and consistency of service is the key issue. It's all about incentives and oversight, not about excluding or including.
But thats where the dogma of the left come in, 'Private bad, public good' is just as wrong as 'Public bad, private good'
I think most people would agree with you, its a balance about what can provide the best service for the best value. That's pretty much both the New Labour way, and the current government way.
It's a more managerial argument, and a more boring one, but it is the one we should be having. I think there should be more oversight and that incentives need to be reworked. I imagine most Tories would disagree. It's a question of degree. But once you accept capitalism is the system that works best it is the only argument worth having.
Plat.. I am, of course, a drug virgin, but I do enjoy a drink...but never when I am working...and that seems to be the golden rule on any film set I work on..Drug users, usually thespians, stood out like a sore thumb and were quietly taken to one side for a little chat...
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
Thanks David - all good points. I'd actually be interested in hearing SeanT's views on this: he's been there and got the t-shirt.
A lot of media folk have come out the other side of excessive drugs use - Mr T, Toby Young, James Dellingpole and many more. They write about it well and engagingly. In a funny kind of way it seems glamorous. But most of all it comes across as survivable. If you are young, foolish and impressionable, what is not to like?
But of course there are plenty of others who don't come out the other side with a merry story to tell.
It's a risk. And the stronger, more powerful and concentrated the drug, the more risk you are taking.
Morning all. Been away for a couple of days, I seem to have missed an interesting political story!
Without reading through all the threads for the past week, can I make a random guess that those who were shouting loudly about the personal criticism of Corbyn last week are now all over the decades-old rumours about the PM...?
The initial humour at th story was in fact pretty across the board as these things go, for the most part. Yesterday seemed to be when political dividing lines came out again.
Plat.. I am, of course, a drug virgin, but I do enjoy a drink...but never when I am working...and that seems to be the golden rule on any film set I work on..Drug users, usually thespians, stood out like a sore thumb and were quietly taken to one side for a little chat...
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Strawman. Very very few people on the right say that.
But thats where the dogma of the left come in, 'Private bad, public good' is just as wrong as 'Public bad, private good'
I think most people would agree with you, its a balance about what can provide the best service for the best value. That's pretty much both the New Labour way, and the current government way.
It's a more managerial argument, and a more boring one, but it is the one we should be having. I think there should be more oversight and that incentives need to be reworked. I imagine most Tories would disagree. It's a question of a degree. But once you accept capitalism is the system that works best it is the only argument worth having.
Actually I think most people do agree with you, but as you said, it's a bit boring, and there more fun things to argue about than managerial styles and oversight.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
Thanks David - all good points. I'd actually be interested in hearing SeanT's views on this: he's been there and got the t-shirt.
A lot of media folk have come out the other side of excessive drugs use - Mr T, Toby Young, James Dellingpole and many more. They write about it well and engagingly. In a funny kind of way it seems glamorous. But most of all it comes across as survivable. If you are young, foolish and impressionable, what is not to like?
But of course there are plenty of others who don't come out the other side with a merry story to tell.
It's a risk. And the stronger, more powerful and concentrated the drug, the more risk you are taking.
Those stories are seldom told in the first person though. That's the point.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
A more sensible comparison would be cannabis.
Quite possibly.
It's really not my area, but how does a 'typical' spliff compare to (say) a glass of wine in terms of effect on the user? Or does varying tolerances in individuals and the presence of harder forms of cannabis such as skunk make such comparisons pointless?
I knew more E users than cannabis users. Then again, it was London in the early '90s.
Sometimes it seems like everyone I know smokes or used to smoke cannabis, and I cannot say I've ever noticed much effect on them from single spliffs. Only hours in to a serious session have they seemed different. But it may be I've seen them mildly stoned so much I cannot tell the difference.
Never really felt the desire myself, particularly with drugs involving smoking.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
Thanks David - all good points. I'd actually be interested in hearing SeanT's views on this: he's been there and got the t-shirt.
A lot of media folk have come out the other side of excessive drugs use - Mr T, Toby Young, James Dellingpole and many more. They write about it well and engagingly. In a funny kind of way it seems glamorous. But most of all it comes across as survivable. If you are young, foolish and impressionable, what is not to like?
But of course there are plenty of others who don't come out the other side with a merry story to tell.
It's a risk. And the stronger, more powerful and concentrated the drug, the more risk you are taking.
Those stories are seldom told in the first person though. That's the point.
Ex-druggies telling people that drugs are fine can be a bit like a survivor of Russian Roulette telling people that the game's perfectly safe.
Plat.. I am, of course, a drug virgin, but I do enjoy a drink...but never when I am working...and that seems to be the golden rule on any film set I work on..Drug users, usually thespians, stood out like a sore thumb and were quietly taken to one side for a little chat...
Comedians too. Plenty of famous comedians still funny while on drugs, but your average person? Not so much.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
A more sensible comparison would be cannabis.
Never really felt the desire myself, particularly with drugs involving smoking.
Thats the rub isn't it. I cannot see how logically you can move towards decriminalising drugs, when on the other hand move ever more towards banning tobacco and being completely anti-tobacco on a public health basis.
I don't have a particular view one way on the other on cannabis, but I don't think that decriminalisng it will solve all the issues over it, especially as it's use has moved from the mild 'grass' like vareity in the 60s to the harder skunk etc stuff now, which should be considered harmful.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
Thanks David - all good points. I'd actually be interested in hearing SeanT's views on this: he's been there and got the t-shirt.
A lot of media folk have come out the other side of excessive drugs use - Mr T, Toby Young, James Dellingpole and many more. They write about it well and engagingly. In a funny kind of way it seems glamorous. But most of all it comes across as survivable. If you are young, foolish and impressionable, what is not to like?
But of course there are plenty of others who don't come out the other side with a merry story to tell.
It's a risk. And the stronger, more powerful and concentrated the drug, the more risk you are taking.
Those stories are seldom told in the first person though. That's the point.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
If you drink pure alcohol you can get in trouble pretty quickly, as someone who has drunk 75% rum I can attest to this.
Conversely, it's quite easy to do low doses of other drugs too, if that is your desire.
We have something in alcohol that is probably a net bad for society but, as it is already legal, is hard to ban. Instead there are numerous campaigns to lower drinking rates and make people aware of the damage it can do. Younger people are drinking less than ever
Even if we accept that other recreational drugs are no worse, why would we want to legalise them only to spend millions telling people not to do them? In the case of hippy crack, we are looking to ban things that are legal.
We already fail to prosecute people for taking drugs, they are semi legal anyway. If people want to do them they can. They can take as little or as much as they liked and dilute them however they wish. If police wanted to catch people they'd raid every bar in the city of London every Friday. But they don't.
I'd just add that I don't want more drugs legalised until there are good, timely and easy-to-use tests for their usage. Drug driving is enough of a problem as it is; if further drugs are legalised then usage should be controlled in exactly the same way as alcohol, and you can only do that if there are easy roadside tests along with more accurate machines in police stations.
I follow (I think) the line of Tim, former contributor and combatant of PB.com.
Legalise the lot. Formulate regulations for use, age, place of use, quantity consumed, place of sale and manufacture etc. Tax it and make money. Absolutely kill illegal trade by draconian punishments when caught.
And there you have a nice little nanny state government controlled market. But a better one than we have now.
All my circle were quite serious users of speed, cannabis et al in the 80s and they were much less interesting when taking.
Being sat in a pub surrounded by those who were barely present, giggling like 4yrs olds or being deep and meaningless was dull company.
I'm a drinker and only tried cannabis/cocaine once - the former made me paranoid so I didn't try that again. Coke didn't seem to have much impact so I didn't bother twice. Never fancied E or whatever.
Plat.. I am, of course, a drug virgin, but I do enjoy a drink...but never when I am working...and that seems to be the golden rule on any film set I work on..Drug users, usually thespians, stood out like a sore thumb and were quietly taken to one side for a little chat...
Comedians too. Plenty of famous comedians still funny while on drugs, but your average person? Not so much.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
If you drink pure alcohol you can get in trouble pretty quickly, as someone who has drunk 75% rum I can attest to this.
Conversely, it's quite easy to do low doses of other drugs too, if that is your desire.
We have something in alcohol that is probably a net bad for society but, as it is already legal, is hard to ban. Instead there are numerous campaigns to lower drinking rates and make people aware of the damage it can do. Younger people are drinking less than ever
Even if we accept that other recreational drugs are no worse, why would we want to legalise them only to spend millions telling people not to do them? In the case of hippy crack, we are looking to ban things that are legal.
We already fail to prosecute people for taking drugs, they are semi legal anyway. If people want to do them they can. They can take as little or as much as they liked and dilute them however they wish. If police wanted to catch people they'd raid every bar in the city of London every Friday. But they don't.
I follow (I think) the line of Tim, former contributor and combatant of PB.com.
Legalise the lot. Formulate regulations for use, age, place of use, quantity consumed, place of sale and manufacture etc. Tax it and make money. Absolutely kill illegal trade by draconian punishments when caught.
And there you have a nice little nanny state government controlled market. But a better one than we have now.
Problem is you would still have the illegal trade, and thats the problem. Just like now you do over illegal cheap booze, but ten fold. You would effectively have the state in competition with criminals, and my money would be on the criminals.
I can't see how restrictions over quanity consumed etc over hugely addictive drugs is going to work well, you'd just get users taking their legal supply, and then also going for the illegal options.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
If you drink
We have something in alcohol that is probably a net bad for society but, as it is already legal, is hard to ban. Instead there are numerous campaigns to lower drinking rates and make people aware of the damage it can do. Younger people are drinking less than ever
Even if we accept that other recreational drugs are no worse, why would we want to legalise them only to spend millions telling people not to do them? In the case of hippy crack, we are looking to ban things that are legal.
We already fail to prosecute people for taking drugs, they are semi legal anyway. If people want to do them they can. They can take as little or as much as they liked and dilute them however they wish. If police wanted to catch people they'd raid every bar in the city of London every Friday. But they don't.
I follow (I think) the line of Tim, former contributor and combatant of PB.com.
Legalise the lot. Formulate regulations for use, age, place of use, quantity consumed, place of sale and manufacture etc. Tax it and make money. Absolutely kill illegal trade by draconian punishments when caught.
And there you have a nice little nanny state government controlled market. But a better one than we have now.
Problem is you would still have the illegal trade, and thats the problem. Just like now you do over illegal cheap booze, but ten fold. You would effectively have the state in competition with criminals, and my money would be on the criminals.
I can't see how restrictions over quanity consumed etc over hugely addictive drugs is going to work well, you'd just get users taking their legal supply, and then also going for the illegal options.
If you made the amount each person could purchase to cover 90% say of most users, it would cut down how much illegal trade I'd have thought, most people would pick it up legally whereas currently 100% do so illegally.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Strawman. Very very few people on the right say that.
The issue is oversight and incentive, not on type of organisation. Do we incentivise private sector companies to provide the minimum acceptable level of public service for the general good or the best possible? Too often in this country I fear it is the former rather than the latter. And even then the oversight is often too lax.
This is the ground a sensible Labour party would be fighting on, btw. The identity of the service provider does not matter. The level and consistency of service is the key issue. It's all about incentives and oversight, not about excluding or including.
Well said. The average man in the street supports "The NHS" in the sense that he supports no-one asking him for a credit card when he goes to the hospital. He doesn't care who employs the doctor or the nurse, as is seen with lots of GP surgeries and speciality clinics.
I follow (I think) the line of Tim, former contributor and combatant of PB.com.
Legalise the lot. Formulate regulations for use, age, place of use, quantity consumed, place of sale and manufacture etc. Tax it and make money. Absolutely kill illegal trade by draconian punishments when caught.
And there you have a nice little nanny state government controlled market. But a better one than we have now.
That's a coherent plan, but I think there are two massive flaws:
1) There is already a vast black market in fake and duty-free cigarettes and booze. If the official drugs are taxed, people will just run to the black marketeers, who of course are already in the business and can sell much cheaper goods than the official sources. Likewise if you try to restrict the amounts people take.
2) The drug dealers will not go away. They make vast sums at the moment, and they will find ways around any system to make money. If you make draconian punishments (and what exactly does that mean?) then there will be more violence as they will do anything to avoid those punishments. New drugs types will be created that are not covered by the laws (as is happening at the moment with legal highs. They will push more to new groups - "it's fine, the drugs are now legal so they must be safe."
Drugs laws need to deal with human nature: both that of the users, and that of the dealers.
Despite the above, it might still be better than the situation we have at the moment.
Comments
Without reading through all the threads for the past week, can I make a random guess that those who were shouting loudly about the personal criticism of Corbyn last week are now all over the decades-old rumours about the PM...?
It's really not my area, but how does a 'typical' spliff compare to (say) a glass of wine in terms of effect on the user? Or does varying tolerances in individuals and the presence of harder forms of cannabis such as skunk make such comparisons pointless?
I knew more E users than cannabis users. Then again, it was London in the early '90s.
Drug taking was rare and the odd weekend spliff.
Even if we accept that other recreational drugs are no worse, why would we want to legalise them only to spend millions telling people not to do them? In the case of hippy crack, we are looking to ban things that are legal.
We already fail to prosecute people for taking drugs, they are semi legal anyway. If people want to do them they can. They can take as little or as much as they liked and dilute them however they wish. If police wanted to catch people they'd raid every bar in the city of London every Friday. But they don't.
I think cannabis in particular does immense harm to teenagers, and you can see a large correlation between its use and psychosis. If we legalise it Id make the age limit 40
I think most people would agree with you, its a balance about what can provide the best service for the best value. That's pretty much both the New Labour way, and the current government way.
It's a risk. And the stronger, more powerful and concentrated the drug, the more risk you are taking.
Never really felt the desire myself, particularly with drugs involving smoking.
I don't have a particular view one way on the other on cannabis, but I don't think that decriminalisng it will solve all the issues over it, especially as it's use has moved from the mild 'grass' like vareity in the 60s to the harder skunk etc stuff now, which should be considered harmful.
Legalise the lot.
Formulate regulations for use, age, place of use, quantity consumed, place of sale and manufacture etc.
Tax it and make money.
Absolutely kill illegal trade by draconian punishments when caught.
And there you have a nice little nanny state government controlled market. But a better one than we have now.
Being sat in a pub surrounded by those who were barely present, giggling like 4yrs olds or being deep and meaningless was dull company.
I'm a drinker and only tried cannabis/cocaine once - the former made me paranoid so I didn't try that again. Coke didn't seem to have much impact so I didn't bother twice. Never fancied E or whatever.
I can't see how restrictions over quanity consumed etc over hugely addictive drugs is going to work well, you'd just get users taking their legal supply, and then also going for the illegal options.
1) There is already a vast black market in fake and duty-free cigarettes and booze. If the official drugs are taxed, people will just run to the black marketeers, who of course are already in the business and can sell much cheaper goods than the official sources. Likewise if you try to restrict the amounts people take.
2) The drug dealers will not go away. They make vast sums at the moment, and they will find ways around any system to make money. If you make draconian punishments (and what exactly does that mean?) then there will be more violence as they will do anything to avoid those punishments. New drugs types will be created that are not covered by the laws (as is happening at the moment with legal highs. They will push more to new groups - "it's fine, the drugs are now legal so they must be safe."
Drugs laws need to deal with human nature: both that of the users, and that of the dealers.
Despite the above, it might still be better than the situation we have at the moment.