Jump to content

Drug debate.


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wrong way round. The war on drugs has been an abject failure, the only winners being the drug barons. Legalise drugs and tax them like booze and fags! Result! Portugal has already gone down this road with positive results. Ban something and you just make it more attractive to some members of society, legalise and tax it and see the result! :shock::shock::shock::shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An independent advisor to the Government has suggested that fags and booze are more dangerous than cannabis; and he's probably right. Now IF the Government, in the interests of public health, were to make fags and booze an illegal class A drug - what would happen? :shock:

 

What would happen? They'd be taxed and someone would benefit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I read something recently about a town in the UK actually supplying addicts with free drugs as part of an experiment.

 

Can?t recall the exact details but it had something to do with the fact that the majority of crime was drug related and it was cheaper to simply give the druggies their fix. :)

 

Apparently it slashed the town?s crime rate and put all the dealers out of business.

 

Bill :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick is to find a way that removes the profit from the trade WITHOUT legalising stuff that we know is deadly. All registered addicts should get their drugs for free, that's the first move. No incentive for dealers to recruit kids then.

 

The rest of it is really hard though. If drugs are legal, is it legal to drive high? Are we going to have to have a limit like the alcohol limit? Would employers have the right to ban drugs from the workplace or not? And then there are the recreational users. Do you legalise it and encourage them to use more? Should they get an allowance for free?

 

I've come to the conclusion that all drugs should be under Government control, and there should be investment in a safe, legal high that clears the system in four hours, sold over the counter in the Chemist, with advice on uses and warnings. Then users could party and still be fit for work next day, and hopefully, nobody would go round the twist as a result of drug abuse. If you could then wean all addicts off the bad and onto the good, job done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already illegal to drive under the influence of drugs. Of course employers can insist on their employees not using drugs as a condition of their employment contract. 8)8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcohol is also very easy to test for at the roadside and then measure back at the police station. It can be extremely difficult and time consuming to prove that someone has drugs in their system and THEN to go on and prove that they were "under the influence" to the extent that their performance was impaired.

 

But with the rise of driving while under the influence of drugs maybe we'll need to move to an American style sobriety test rather than rely on an arbitrary threshold value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick is to find a way that removes the profit from the trade WITHOUT legalising stuff that we know is deadly. All registered addicts should get their drugs for free, that's the first move. No incentive for dealers to recruit kids then.

 

The rest of it is really hard though. If drugs are legal, is it legal to drive high? Are we going to have to have a limit like the alcohol limit? Would employers have the right to ban drugs from the workplace or not? And then there are the recreational users. Do you legalise it and encourage them to use more? Should they get an allowance for free?

 

I've come to the conclusion that all drugs should be under Government control, and there should be investment in a safe, legal high that clears the system in four hours, sold over the counter in the Chemist, with advice on uses and warnings. Then users could party and still be fit for work next day, and hopefully, nobody would go round the twist as a result of drug abuse. If you could then wean all addicts off the bad and onto the good, job done!

 

 

I understand that there is a Columbian hit squad on it's way over to Lymm. :wink::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already illegal to drive under the influence of drugs. Of course employers can insist on their employees not using drugs as a condition of their employment contract. 8)8)

 

It's illegal because drugs are banned substances. Make them legal, you need new legislation - with all the loopholes that brings. It is not currently illegal to drive under the influence of prescription drugs, including tranx.

 

You can't force people to stop doing something legal as part of their employment contract - well, not if you want that contract to be enforceable in any way. Basic Human Rights Brigade stuff - it is illegal to put anything in a contract that restricts a person's right to earn a living or live his life as he pleases....

 

And when drugs are legal, junkies and dealers are no longer criminals. So dealers would be able to intimidate people into continuing to buy from them, but they'd be protected from prosecution for possession or intent to sell. They'd probably quite like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP for your information, from the Department of Transport:

 

"Is it an offence to drive or attempt to drive while unfit through medicine?

 

It is an offence to drive or attempt to drive while unfit through drugs, and the law does not distinguish between illegal drugs and medicines. Sections 4(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ('the 1988 Act') say that a person who, when driving or attempting to drive ? or in charge of ? a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.

 

This law exists because a driver who is impaired through drugs is at risk of having an accident. Insurance will be affected by a conviction or an accident linked to drugs and medicines in the same way as it is for drink-driving.

 

Picking up a new prescription or over-the-counter medicine

 

It?s every driver?s responsibility to ensure that they are safe to drive. If a driver is taking medicine, they must be sure that their ability to drive is not affected. The best way to find out if they are safe to drive is to ask for advice from a doctor, healthcare professional or pharmacist. They will advise the driver on how to take the medicine to control their medical condition without risking their safety by driving when impaired."

 

 

As for forcing people to stop doing something legal by using a contract of employment, of course they can. If you work on an oil rig and on some ships you are prohibited from drinking alcohol (which is legal ashore).

 

It is illegal to intimidate people in any case so where is your argument?

 

I think you'r nit picking because you've overdosed on the witchyness from last night :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not currently illegal to drive under the influence of prescription drugs, including tranx.

 

It is a criminal offence punishable by up to 6 months in prison, a ?5,000 fine, and a ban of up to 3 years, to "drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while unfit to drive through drink or drugs." Makes no difference at all whether it's legal or illegal drugs, prescription mediactions, or cough syrup.

 

You can't force people to stop doing something legal as part of their employment contract

 

Of course you can, happens all the time. Police are banned from joining certain political parties, highly paid sportspeople are often forbidden to take part in dangerous sports, active duty firemen are forbidden from growing beards, and it's quite common to be sacked for "conduct unbecoming" or "bringing the organisation into disrepute" - even if that conduct is not illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"unfit to drive" - there it is in both posts. At present, there is a limit of tolerance for prescription drugs and alcohol that does not apply to illegal substances. Test positive for them, you're toast. When the drugs are all legalised by Asp, someone is going to have to decide exactly how much cocaine you can snort and not be over the limit. Otherwise, as I stated earlier, we have an open door for junkies to argue that they were not unfit to drive, and all a clever lawyer would have to do is throw doubt on the judgement of the arresting officer.... So, do we really want to have a legal amount of heroin for drivers? Lorry drivers? I don't. I quite like zero.

 

Rig workers can drink as much as they wish when not on the rig. Drugs stay in the system for days. You can't stop employees from having a drink or legal drugs at home in their own leisure time, and whist booze will metabolise out, drugs won't before next shift. So you're not talking about restricting behaviour in the workplace, or even conduct unbecoming - you're talking about dictating people's private and legal pleasures 24/7. Much better to just let the damn drugs stay illegal!

 

And are you being silly about intimidation, Asp? The Police can only prosecute if they are present at the time of the offence or someone is prepared to stand witness. Not likely, is it? At present, all they need to do is find the stuff to convict a dealer.

 

It's not nitpicking - there are enormous consequences to just legalising drugs of all kinds - but I'm witchy at all times anyway, so when you cut your finger making tonight's tea, you'll think of me and know why! :twisted::twisted::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see a zero limit for alcohol when driving, so why not for drugs? The point is the present legislation against drugs is simply not working and has proved to be paradise for drug trafficers who have become very rich on the proceeds.

 

As for drug prohibition for employees, well the company I work for has it and, if someone has a drugs habit and tests positive even if they haven't been taking drugs during that tour of duty (as you say the drugs stay in the system a long time) they're out on their ear. If you want the job you stay off drugs simple.

 

The police are quite adept at recognising if someone has been taking drugs and can arrest them on suspicion of driving under the influence. A blood test will confirm the suspicion.

 

Also if drugs were legalised then the quality would be controlled and unnecessary deaths avoided.

 

More positives than negatives in legalising in my opinion.

 

Going out for my tea by the way :wink::wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A threshold value for the amount of a drug or of alcohol present in someones system is not necessary - and would be completely arbitrary in any case.

 

And a zero value is impossible as there is always a small, natrurally occuring, quantity of various substances used as markers for drug and alcohol use in the body.

 

A simple series of roadside tests based on co-ordination and judgement designed to determine fitness to drive would be a much more accurate way of measuring whether or not a person is commiting an offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zero limit, balance tests, whatever - there will still be legislation required, therefore a period between legalisation and legislation, and grey areas thereafter. Just as we have drunk drivers getting off today, we will have junkies getting off in future. Drunks are enough trouble and cause enough harm.

 

There are more pros than cons for non-drug users like you and me, Asp. That is not in doubt. There are some pros for drug users in decriminalising their addictions too, and there are some pros for society in the possible reduction in crime rates. But what happens when it's legal for 16 year olds or 18 year olds to take heroin? Dealers move in on the younger market? Then what? We lower the age limit to drive them out of there? Where does that stop? And what do we do with all the extra legal junkies?

 

Legalising drugs won't decrease drug addiction. If anything, it'll increase it. Until there's a safe, legal high without harmful effects or addictive properties, then it can't be legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...