W arren has his say on Hatton

[earsjohn]

Countries which have liberalised drug usage have invariably seen drug usage rise. Given that you admit it would be disastrous for society to see that, what justification do you have for liberalization?

Not so.

Portugal decriminalised recreational drugs in 2001.

Police figures suggest that the use of every drug has either gone down or remained stable, apart from cocaine which has recently become fashionable.

In Portugal just 8.2% of people have tried cannabis at least once, compared with 42% in the U.S.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/f ... 106689.stm

I'd say "Put that in your pipe and smoke it" but this is neither the time nor the place

[doctorboxing]

Addiciton aside, why is one OK and the other isn't?

One is legal and one is not.

One funds drug dealers who often sell other drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine to very vulnerable people. These same people get addicted to drugs. This leads to crime in many forms.

[Carbo]

Countries which have liberalised drug usage have invariably seen drug usage rise. Given that you admit it would be disastrous for society to see that, what justification do you have for liberalization?

Not so.

Portugal decriminalised recreational drugs in 2001.

Police figures suggest that the use of every drug has either gone down or remained stable, apart from cocaine which has recently become fashionable.

In Portugal just 8.2% of people have tried cannabis at least once, compared with 42% in the U.S.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/f ... 106689.stm

I'd say "Put that in your pipe and smoke it" but this is neither the time nor the place

Um, what I said is that drug usage will probably go up: you said that in Portugal, the use of most drugs has stayed the same, post liberalization, except cocaine which has gone up. So, erm, what you're saying is that drug usage has risen, right? And that contradicts my point... how?

Meantime, reading the article, what Portugal has done is not offer a free for all, but instead replace a criminal issue with a health one, with people caught with certain amounts compelled to attend "dissuasion" counselling, rather than going to court and leaving it at that.

Sounds very sensible, but isn't liberalization.

My view is this: we currently have a stupid half way house in which drug possession is illegal, but if it is in small quantities it is not really punished. This does nobody any good. It prevents the government from properly monitoring and regulating usage, and offers no real deterrent against its usage.

I think that we should have a proper debate and do one of two things: actually properly enforce the law, starting to send people to prison for using, and cutting off the demand, or properly liberalizing and taxing and regulating the industry.

But this half way house is the worst of all worlds.

[Srebmun]

Not true at all.

First, it's laughable that people "can" enjoy cocaine for the taste or for some other pleasure other than the affect of the drug itself. What taste? Or do you mean people like that feeling of particles going up their nose? Why don't they snort finely ground salt, then? It's simply preposterous. I'm not saying it is morally wrong, but people take cocaine with the sole objective of the affects of the drug. Simple as that. The same is not true of alcohol.

Laughable that people can enjoy cocaine?? are you on drugs or something?

Of course people enjoy the taste of cocaine for fecks sake, it does have a smell, it does affect your taste buds, etc.. people take cocaine because it increases the neurotransmitter dopamine levels, i.e. the reward system, i.e. total pleasure - you don't get that from snorting salt. In small doses (cpl of beers say) it can be relaxing (yes this can heppen) and make one feel extremely pleasurable.

Second, the point is not the harm caused, but the purpose of taking it. Cocaine is taken for no other reason than its affects, and is therefore quite different from alcohol -- in most cases -- or, say, sugary food. It's a bit like when people say that more people die in motor sports than in boxing, and that this is a good argument in favour of boxing. But the purpose of motor sports is not to inflict damage to the brain, rather, it's a potential side effect. It's true that some people abuse alcohol where, like cocaine, it is used as a means of getting drunk, rather than drunkardness as a side affect, but these people are demonised and ostracised by society and there are laws and restrictions on alcohol sale and distribution to minimize this.

I'd be confident in saying that people drink exactly because of the affect it has on them, and yes it is the point, what harm they can cause.

Do you know, both alcohol and cocaine target the same brain receptors, obv' alcohol not to the same degree - but they both enhance the same neurotransmitter.

Third, using raw figures in this case is utterly irrelevant. So many more people drink so much more alcohol than take cocaine, that saying that more people are harmed by, or more money is spent on, alcohol abuse than cocaine related issues is rather like saying that a person earning a million pounds a year should pay less tax because he currently pays hundreds of times more than a poor person.

I have touched on this, i.e. if cocaine was as widely used and abused as alcohol is, there would be far more carnage.

Finally, arguing that alcohol causes loads of damage and costs the tax payer loads of money is an argument for restricting alcohol usage, not legalizing equally or potentially more damaging drugs.

Totally agree, alcohol should also be banned if we're on the premise of damage it causes.

Why do you think it will never happen? It it was as readily available as alcohol, and was legal, and became as accepted by society, what possible argument have you for saying its usage wouldn't go up? Countries which have liberalised drug usage have invariably seen drug usage rise. Given that you admit it would be disastrous for society to see that, what justification do you have for liberalization?

It wont happen, you and I both know it wont happen. But yes indeed, any country which has decrmininalised has seen drug usage go up - but has also reduced harm - It's all about education. But I don't know of any country where cocaine is legal????

Fair enough.

But you have to admit that (1) many people seem to think that because they and/or people they know enjoy it and because (2) they and/or people they know have not died, wound up in hospital or become, and because (3) loads of people want to do it, it should therefore be legalized.

I admit that the uneducated to the facts of this whole thing may think this, I know a lot of people in the industry of substance misuse who do not think this.

Apologies if you haven't made such craven and weak arguments, but that doesn't change the fact that they have been made.

What (such craven and weak) arguments am I actually making?

Again, I have made no statement to say I'm personally in favour or against the liberalization of drugs, or in favour of tougher implementation. I'm just trying to point out the weaker arguments in favour of liberalizations. There are actually pretty good ones, but they're not based on comparisons to alcohol.

I'm personally in favour of debate about it. Prohibition has failed and for 'drugs' to be controlled by organised crime is totally irresponsible from a succession of governments.

[Srebmun]

Addiciton aside, why is one OK and the other isn't?

One is legal and one is not.

One funds drug dealers who often sell other drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine to very vulnerable people. These same people get addicted to drugs. This leads to crime in many forms.

So why leave it in the hands of organised crime?

[DavidPayne]

Not true at all.

First, it's laughable that people "can" enjoy cocaine for the taste or for some other pleasure other than the affect of the drug itself. What taste? Or do you mean people like that feeling of particles going up their nose? Why don't they snort finely ground salt, then? It's simply preposterous. I'm not saying it is morally wrong, but people take cocaine with the sole objective of the affects of the drug. Simple as that. The same is not true of alcohol.

Laughable that people can enjoy cocaine?? are you on drugs or something?

Of course people enjoy the taste of cocaine for fecks sake, it does have a smell, it does affect your taste buds, etc.. people take cocaine because it increases the neurotransmitter dopamine levels, i.e. the reward system, i.e. total pleasure - you don't get that from snorting salt. In small doses (cpl of beers say) it can be relaxing (yes this can heppen) and make one feel extremely pleasurable.

Second, the point is not the harm caused, but the purpose of taking it. Cocaine is taken for no other reason than its affects, and is therefore quite different from alcohol -- in most cases -- or, say, sugary food. It's a bit like when people say that more people die in motor sports than in boxing, and that this is a good argument in favour of boxing. But the purpose of motor sports is not to inflict damage to the brain, rather, it's a potential side effect. It's true that some people abuse alcohol where, like cocaine, it is used as a means of getting drunk, rather than drunkardness as a side affect, but these people are demonised and ostracised by society and there are laws and restrictions on alcohol sale and distribution to minimize this.

I'd be confident in saying that people drink exactly because of the affect it has on them, and yes it is the point, what harm they can cause.

Do you know, both alcohol and cocaine target the same brain receptors, obv' alcohol not to the same degree - but they both enhance the same neurotransmitter.

Third, using raw figures in this case is utterly irrelevant. So many more people drink so much more alcohol than take cocaine, that saying that more people are harmed by, or more money is spent on, alcohol abuse than cocaine related issues is rather like saying that a person earning a million pounds a year should pay less tax because he currently pays hundreds of times more than a poor person.

I have touched on this, i.e. if cocaine was as widely used and abused as alcohol is, there would be far more carnage.

Finally, arguing that alcohol causes loads of damage and costs the tax payer loads of money is an argument for restricting alcohol usage, not legalizing equally or potentially more damaging drugs.

Totally agree, alcohol should also be banned if we're on the premise of damage it causes.

Why do you think it will never happen? It it was as readily available as alcohol, and was legal, and became as accepted by society, what possible argument have you for saying its usage wouldn't go up? Countries which have liberalised drug usage have invariably seen drug usage rise. Given that you admit it would be disastrous for society to see that, what justification do you have for liberalization?

It wont happen, you and I both know it wont happen. But yes indeed, any country which has decrmininalised has seen drug usage go up - but has also reduced harm - It's all about education. But I don't know of any country where cocaine is legal????

Fair enough.

But you have to admit that (1) many people seem to think that because they and/or people they know enjoy it and because (2) they and/or people they know have not died, wound up in hospital or become, and because (3) loads of people want to do it, it should therefore be legalized.

I admit that the uneducated to the facts of this whole thing may think this, I know a lot of people in the industry of substance misuse who do not think this.

Apologies if you haven't made such craven and weak arguments, but that doesn't change the fact that they have been made.

What (such craven and weak) arguments am I actually making?

Again, I have made no statement to say I'm personally in favour or against the liberalization of drugs, or in favour of tougher implementation. I'm just trying to point out the weaker arguments in favour of liberalizations. There are actually pretty good ones, but they're not based on comparisons to alcohol.

I'm personally in favour of debate about it. Prohibition has failed and for 'drugs' to be controlled by organised crime is totally irresponsible from a succession of governments.

[Carbo]

Laughable that people can enjoy cocaine?? are you on drugs or something?

Of course people enjoy the taste of cocaine for fecks sake, it does have a smell, it does affect your taste buds, etc.. people take cocaine because it increases the neurotransmitter dopamine levels, i.e. the reward system, i.e. total pleasure - you don't get that from snorting salt. In small doses (cpl of beers say) it can be relaxing (yes this can heppen) and make one feel extremely pleasurable.

No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that people can't take it an enjoy it. That's the whole point of taking it, and clearly they do. However, people don't take it because they like the taste. You do understand, don't you, that there is a difference between the flavour of alcohol and its effects? If the alcohol in wine didn't affect me, or, that is to say, if a non-alcoholic wine could be produced that tasted exactly the same as its alcoholic equivalent, people could still enjoy that drink. The same cannot be said of cocaine, which is all about the effect, as you said.

Indeed, while in our peer group, most people might go out with the express intention of getting bladdered, that's not the case all the time, and many people just enjoy alcohol for the taste. That you don't, or your friends don't, doesn't change the truth of that statement.

I'd be confident in saying that people drink exactly because of the affect it has on them, and yes it is the point, what harm they can cause.

Do you know, both alcohol and cocaine target the same brain receptors, obv' alcohol not to the same degree - but they both enhance the same neurotransmitter.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. It is true that alcohol abuse is morally equivalent to cocaine abuse, and going out for no other reason to get completely drunk is the moral equivalent of cocaine use, for the majority, drunkardness is a side effect (often, but not always, welcome) to the overall experience of the drink. For me, getting drunk is not the only reason I drink wine. Again, the same cannot be said of cocaine.

I have touched on this, i.e. if cocaine was as widely used and abused as alcohol is, there would be far more carnage.

So, why do you want to destigmatize it and make it more available? Because you want a worse society beset by cocaine fuelled "carnage". I simply don't understand your reasoning.

It wont happen, you and I both know it wont happen. But yes indeed, any country which has decrmininalised has seen drug usage go up - but has also reduced harm - It's all about education. But I don't know of any country where cocaine is legal????

Well, you keep saying "it won't happen", but don't give me any reasons why. I maintain that over a long period (a generation or two) as the drug becomes less stigmatized, and when it becomes readily available, use will go up. You can't, or certainly haven't, come up with an actual argument to counter that. You can talk about education, but we could have education as things stand. The question must be, beyond just reaffirming your point that use "wouldn't" go up, what's to stop it if all other things are equal?

What (such craven and weak) arguments am I actually making?

None. I was apologising for putting you in with people who do make "such craven and weak" arguments

I'm personally in favour of debate about it. Prohibition has failed and for 'drugs' to be controlled by organised crime is tottaly irresponsible from a succession of governments.

Let's be honest, though, we don't have "real" prohibition. Small quantities are very much tolerated. Hatton won't see any police action for being caught red handed. My problem is that we neither have proper prohibition nor proper state control or liberalization. This half way house is exactly what I'd want if i was a drug dealer.

[Bricks]

They have to ban him. How can that be good for the sport they are supposed to regulate?
Any other sport would ban him and it's far worse than anything I've seen before.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near fighters or the sport he has disgraced until he has cleaned himself up. Even Max Clifford has suggested he was taking it whilst he was fighting. Hatton's quote that "it only stays in your body for three days" suggests he has looked into it and that makes Clifford assumption look very likely. If he wasn't fighting anymore when he became a junlie then why would he care how long it stays in your body?

Therefore, if this is the case he has cheated and cociane would certainly help him shift the three stones of blubber he regularly dumped to make his fighting weight.

Someone had a thread yesterday asking why all the Hatton threads were taken down. Surely the biggest topic this year so why censor it? You will recall that in the past any question as to WHO OWNS BOXREC was also removed. Anyone starting to put 2 and 2 together?

Wake up an smell the coffee everyone.

Fascinating post.

[orbtastic]

Addiciton aside, why is one OK and the other isn't?

One is legal and one is not.

One funds drug dealers who often sell other drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine to very vulnerable people. These same people get addicted to drugs. This leads to crime in many forms.

It's not a matter of legal, it's a matter of acceptable in society.

As to legal drugs and crime - Take a look at the crime stats for alcohol in the UK, all up massively in recent years.

[Srebmun]

No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that people can't take it an enjoy it. That's the whole point of taking it, and clearly they do. However, people don't take it because they like the taste. You do understand, don't you, that there is a difference between the flavour of alcohol and its effects? If the alcohol in wine didn't affect me, or, that is to say, if a non-alcoholic wine could be produced that tasted exactly the same as its alcoholic equivalent, people could still enjoy that drink. The same cannot be said of cocaine, which is all about the effect, as you said.

Indeed, while in our peer group, most people might go out with the express intention of getting bladdered, that's not the case all the time, and many people just enjoy alcohol for the taste. That you don't, or your friends don't, doesn't change the truth of that statement.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. It is true that alcohol abuse is morally equivalent to cocaine abuse, and going out for no other reason to get completely drunk is the moral equivalent of cocaine use, for the majority, drunkardness is a side effect (often, but not always, welcome) to the overall experience of the drink. For me, getting drunk is not the only reason I drink wine. Again, the same cannot be said of cocaine.

I'm not missing the point, some people do take cocaine beause they enjoy taking cocaine, be that the taste, the activity itself and even the taste. Much like people enjoy sitting in a pub, sipping a beer, the entire mechanics of having a drink - people also do this with coke, chopping it out into little lines, dabbing a bit on their tongue for the numbing affect, the smell, the mechanics of doing it. One can have a line or 2 and not be off their tits, just like you can have a cpl of beers and not be off your tits. To say that people only take it because of it's effect is quite frankly naiive.

I know several people who take cocaine because it relaxes them - yes, relaxes them, they enjoy a cpl of lines of coke in much the same way the majority of us enjoy a beer or nice glass of Merlot.

So, why do you want to destigmatize it and make it more available? Because you want a worse society beset by cocaine fuelled "carnage". I simply don't understand your reasoning.

Where have I said this? I was making the comparison that if cocaine was used as freely as alcohol is, society would be far worse off than it is.

Well, you keep saying "it won't happen", but don't give me any reasons why. I maintain that over a long period (a generation or two) as the drug becomes less stigmatized, and when it becomes readily available, use will go up. You can't, or certainly haven't, come up with an actual argument to counter that. You can talk about education, but we could have education as things stand. The question must be, beyond just reaffirming your point that use "wouldn't" go up, what's to stop it if all other things are equal?

Why wont it happen? I as an individual do not have the answers, but I do know that if drugs were controlled by the powers that be and not in the hands of the criminal fraternity, the money wasted on the failed war on drugs could be better spent on edicating the masses. So although I haven't got the proof of argument you seek, I tend to believe in us as a race that with the right control and information available, people would make informed choices. I have faith

Let's be honest, though, we don't have "real" prohibition. Small quantities are very much tolerated. Hatton won't see any police action for being caught red handed. My problem is that we neither have proper prohibition nor proper state control or liberalization.

Thus the need for debate. Thus the fact that one is legal and one isn't and is taboo is a farce.

[Carbo]

I'm not missing the point, some people do take cocaine beause they enjoy taking cocaine, be that the taste, the activity itself and even the taste. Much like people enjoy sitting in a pub, sipping a beer, the entire mechanics of having a drink - people also do this with coke, chopping it out into little lines, dabbing a bit on their tongue for the numbing affect, the smell, the mechanics of doing it. One can have a line or 2 and not be off their tits, just like you can have a cpl of beers and not be off your tits. To say that people only take it because of it's effect is quite frankly naiive.

I know several people who take cocaine because it relaxes them - yes, relaxes them, they enjoy a cpl of lines of coke in much the same way the majority of us enjoy a beer or nice glass of Merlot.

You are missing the point.

All the pleasure and enjoyment from cocaine derives from the affect of the drug. Not all the enjoyment of alcoholic drinks derives from the drug. You can conjure as many tenuous and unrealistic examples as you like, but none of them change that fact.

Abuse of alcohol is the same, but not all alcohol intake is abusive, and the majority isn't.

So, I'll repeat again: All the pleasure and enjoyment from cocaine derives from the affect of the drug. Not all the enjoyment of alcoholic drinks derives from the drug.

Where have I said this? I was making the comparison that if cocaine was used as freely as alcohol is, society would be far worse off than it is.

Yes, but you're then arguing for legalization or liberalization, aren't you. So, one line you're saying, "if cocaine were used as much as alcohol the effects would be much worse than those currently associated with alcohol... it would be a nightmare for society... it would be carnage." Next section, you move right on to the argument in favour of liberalization.

If I said to you this: "Listen, I agree with you on everything, but the risk of having cocaine used as much as alcohol, and how that would affect society, is just too big, so it should be clamped down on," would you think that was reasonable? I'd have thought any right minded person would want to avoid "carnage" in society. Sounds to me like you've come up with a pretty good argument against legalization, even if your arguments were true.

Why wont it happen? I as an individual do not have the answers, but I do know that if drugs were controlled by the powers that be and not in the hands of the criminal fraternity, the money wasted on the failed war on drugs could be better spent on edicating the masses. So although I haven't got the proof of argument you seek, I tend to believe in us as a race that with the right control and information available, people would make informed choices. I have faith

Well, isn't it logical that if you took away all the deterrent of criminal prosecution, reduced the stigma of using, made it an acceptable part of life in the way going to the pub for a drink is, and made it available in shops, that use would go up compared to now? I think that that's just commonsense.

Thus the need for debate. Thus the fact that one is legal and one isn't and is taboo is a farce.

You're right to want a debate, but the reason that one is a taboo and one isn't is quite clear. One is a thing enjoyed by millions of people and on most occasions is done so without inebriation and because of other reasons other than the effect of the drug. The other is a drug that is only taken for the affect and the enjoyment of that. Both can be dangerous, but the vast majority of alcohol use is not abusive, and that which is, is taboo and certainly shunned by society. All drug use is by definition abusive because it is damaging the body, and potentially others for the sole aim of getting a high and enjoying yourself. Our Judeo-Christian society shuns this hedonism, and we tend to respect and reward delayed gratification. We also don't look well upon people who self harm. And drug usage, like cigarette usage and being fat, and stuff, does that. It's probably even as basic as evolutionary necessity, if you really want to get into bar-room philosophy.

That drug use is different and worse than alcohol use is not in question. Whether that's reason enough for a ban, is another question.

[ALI]

Ali - your suggested approach is the ideal one.

As I explained elsewhere, the mods are all busy people. If they see a thread with several potentially/arguably libellous statements on a five minute break from work, they don't have the time to do what you suggest.

So it comes down, regrettably.

Is it not possible that the thread in question could be temporarily removed from public viewing, edited by a mod at a convienient time for them or another mod, then returned back to the forum?

Deleting entire threads is totally uneccessary IMO. It is clearly more than just frustrating many of this forums members. Almost every forum on the internet is moderated, for free, by a select few of the said forums users. If people dont have the time to do the basic task i have outlined above, then why put themselves up for the role?

[Asterix]

Ali - your suggested approach is the ideal one.

As I explained elsewhere, the mods are all busy people. If they see a thread with several potentially/arguably libellous statements on a five minute break from work, they don't have the time to do what you suggest.

So it comes down, regrettably.

Is it not possible that the thread in question could be temporarily removed from public viewing, edited by a mod at a convienient time for them or another mod, then returned back to the forum?

Deleting entire threads is totally uneccessary IMO. It is clearly more than just frustrating many of this forums members. Almost every forum on the internet is moderated, for free, by a select few of the said forums users. If people dont have the time to do the basic task i have outlined above, then why put themselves up for the role?

The moderators agreed to move the topics, rather than delete them, yesterday, so you'll see your suggestion implemented from now on.

[Srebmun]

You are missing the point.

All the pleasure and enjoyment from cocaine derives from the affect of the drug. Not all the enjoyment of alcoholic drinks derives from the drug. You can conjure as many tenuous and unrealistic examples as you like, but none of them change that fact.

Abuse of alcohol is the same, but not all alcohol intake is abusive, and the majority isn't.

So, I'll repeat again: All the pleasure and enjoyment from cocaine derives from the affect of the drug. Not all the enjoyment of alcoholic drinks derives from the drug.

LOL, well you're wrong then if you think everyone who takes cocaine does so because of the effect it has on them. I know for a fact - the only way to prove this fact is for you to sit in on an open day at the Lifeline project with me perhaps - that some people do so because of the mechanics, even ritual, of the act of doing it, NOT the effect. You cannot say other Carbo - to do is to deny truth, unless you have the DAT statistics for substance misuse and the reasons behind every users usage.

Yes, but you're then arguing for legalization or liberalization, aren't you. So, one line you're saying, "if cocaine were used as much as alcohol the effects would be much worse than those currently associated with alcohol... it would be a nightmare for society... it would be carnage." Next section, you move right on to the argument in favour of liberalization.

If I said to you this: "Listen, I agree with you on everything, but the risk of having cocaine used as much as alcohol, and how that would affect society, is just too big, so it should be clamped down on," would you think that was reasonable? I'd have thought any right minded person would want to avoid "carnage" in society. Sounds to me like you've come up with a pretty good argument against legalization, even if your arguments were true.

*sigh* my points are based along the lines that current policy is broken and needs to be changed, very very simple. My comparison with cocaine/alcohol and the individual affect on society is thus - alcohol is used by far more people than cocaine, if cocaine was to be used and abused as much as alcohol, there would be far more carnage.

Differentiate each point, I'm not contradciting myself, seperate the subjects of both statements. Yes, we need to look at new policy and Yes, society would be more affected if there was more usage of cocaine. I'm not saying these in the same breath, which you seem to think I am. They are seperate valid points.

Well, isn't it logical that if you took away all the deterrent of criminal prosecution, reduced the stigma of using, made it an acceptable part of life in the way going to the pub for a drink is, and made it available in shops, that use would go up compared to now? I think that that's just commonsense.

Of course it's common sense, if I had the answers as an individual then I'd be a very important and probably rich man. My point is, and I'm repeating, is that current policy is broken and needs fixing, I have no idea how you would set up dispensing centres for the distribution of cocaine, weed I could probably set a plan in place, but not something as harmful as cocaine. It needs serious debate and discussion, the money that could be made from it could go into treatment and education, I don't deny the perils of cocaine, nor am I blind to the perils of alcohol and there are others far more qualified than I to come up with the solution - what is important is that it changes. If it ever does become legal, yes more people will probably try it, but there would be no need to criminalise vast ammounts of people in society and there would be far more effort geared to the eeucation surrounding it, + people would probably know what the feck they're taking as opposed to the street poop they probably get now.

You're right to want a debate, but the reason that one is a taboo and one isn't is quite clear. One is a thing enjoyed by millions of people and on most occasions is done so without inebriation and because of other reasons other than the effect of the drug. The other is a drug that is only taken for the affect and the enjoyment of that. Both can be dangerous, but the vast majority of alcohol use is not abusive, and that which is, is taboo and certainly shunned by society.

You're not stupid so I'm not inferring you are, but you do appreciate the facts surrounding the abuse caused by this thing millions of us enjoy day in and day out? your 'argument' talks about how so many millions enjoy it without any negativity surrounding it but simply (to a degeree) palm off the negatives, the cost to the NHS, the damage to families who do have an abusive or problematic drinker within, the violence associated with it, etc..

I love a drink, and don't cause anybody any harm, but alcohol is one of the biggest scourges on society, as is unregulated drug usage.

All drug use is by definition abusive because it is damaging the body, and potentially others for the sole aim of getting a high and enjoying yourself. Our Judeo-Christian society shuns this hedonism, and we tend to respect and reward delayed gratification. We also don't look well upon people who self harm. And drug usage, like cigarette usage and being fat, and stuff, does that. It's probably even as basic as evolutionary necessity, if you really want to get into bar-room philosophy.

Unfortunately I'm in work with only fleeting opportunities to post, so I'll pass on your bar-room philosophy suggestion.

That drug use is different and worse than alcohol use is not in question. Whether that's reason enough for a ban, is another question.

As I keep saying, the policy is broken, and wrong, for millenia people have used drugs recreationally, always have and always will, the war on drugs is lost.

[DavidPayne]

Carbo. You're losing this debate.

The bigger picture view places all substances that impact on a person's decision making, temporary or permanent, on a scale.

You cannot excuse alcohol. Now that fags are essentially marginalised....beer is inevitably next by a slow osmosis of cultural evolution and education alcohol will over time become demonised because of its economic burden through the anti-social and health effects its users dump on the rest of society.

Moderation will come first, as the fall of 6% in drinking last year demonstrates. Then will come health warnings on drinks and glasses, as begun by the "Drink responsibly" campaign and then it will be banned from connection with healthy pursuits and young people, as it already has begun to be.

It will mirror the demise of smoking. Up to the 60's and through them a huge percentage of people smoked. It was accepted, it didn't affect anyone, had no impact, was a social thing. People liked the smell, the taste, the feeling.

But slowly they were educated to its personal, then economic, then social impact (passive smoking) and it is now extinguished as the pastime of the many and the uber cool to the past time of the disenfranchised, rain sodden loosers and teenage girls.

Alcohol will go the same way. Big brother has started that process this past decade.

[earsjohn]

All drug use is by definition abusive because it is damaging the body, and potentially others for the sole aim of getting a high and enjoying yourself. Our Judeo-Christian society shuns this hedonism, and we tend to respect and reward delayed gratification. We also don't look well upon people who self harm. And drug usage, like cigarette usage and being fat, and stuff, does that. It's probably even as basic as evolutionary necessity, if you really want to get into bar-room philosophy.

That drug use is different and worse than alcohol use is not in question. Whether that's reason enough for a ban, is another question.

All drug use is abusive? Really? Even the proven use of marijuana to relieve the effects of MS and allow its sufferers to enjoy a somewhat pain free existence?

This comes back to your earlier point - abuse of drugs is abusive, but controlled, measured use of drugs for personal, recreational reasons is no more abusive than enjoying a bottle of wine or a fine cigar.

I would argue that anything which is enjoyed by its user in a controlled and responsible manner is not necessarily abusive. Its when that control is not in place that problems occur. This is exactly the same for alcohol and other legal activities which if not carried out by a user with a measure of control can cause problems - think driving fast.

I think I'm maybe hinting at a nanny state type argument here - why should those of us who treat, say, drugs, with respect hindered in doing so by those who choose not to or are unable to control their vices and allow their use to become harmful?

[earsjohn]

Carbo. You're losing this debate.

The bigger picture view places all substances that impact on a person's decision making, temporary or permanent, on a scale.

You cannot excuse alcohol. Now that fags are essentially marginalised....beer is inevitably next by a slow osmosis of cultural evolution and education alcohol will over time become demonised because of its economic burden through the anti-social and health effects its users dump on the rest of society.

Moderation will come first, as the fall of 6% in drinking last year demonstrates. Then will come health warnings on drinks and glasses, as begun by the "Drink responsibly" campaign and then it will be banned from connection with healthy pursuits and young people, as it already has begun to be.

It will mirror the demise of smoking. Up to the 60's and through them a huge percentage of people smoked. It was accepted, it didn't affect anyone, had no impact, was a social thing. People liked the smell, the taste, the feeling.

But slowly they were educated to its personal, then economic, then social impact (passive smoking) and it is now extinguished as the pastime of the many and the uber cool to the past time of the disenfranchised, rain sodden loosers and teenage girls.

Alcohol will go the same way. Big brother has started that process this past decade.

Smoking has become increasingly antisocial as we have found out more about its impacts on us as smokers and those around us as passive smokers. In the 1960's we didn't care because we didn't know. I'd like to think that humans as a species are intelligent enough to recognise that doing things proven to increase the chances of early and painful death are things to be avoided, so increasingly we are choosing not to smoke.

Alcohol is different in that (currently at least) there are no proven long-term health effects of a single drink (as opposed to a single cigarette which does have proven effects). Alcoholism and so-called binge drinking will become marginalised as that is where the societal impacts arise. Moderate drinking is not, and never will be, antisocial.

As for the bigger picture view, the former Government famously ignored their own Scientific advisors who produced a report providing a scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ratio ... dence).svg) of dependence and harm of a number of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. One of the scientists argued that Ecstasy should be downgraded as it was statistically safer than horse riding. The bigger picture view, sadly, is based on historic precedent, taboo and access to political power and not on proven scientific fact.

[TheCobra]

Srebnum you are talking absolute tosh about people taking coke for the 'taste' hahahaha!

I like a few beers, if it didn't taste so good I wouldn't have it. Can't say the same for drugs. I agree with Carbo, people take drugs for the effects, it's simple as that. You don't do a line of coke cos it feels great going up your nose, or cos it tastes nice. People put it on their tongue for the numbing feeling yep, the effect of the drug, not the taste! WHat a bizarre debate.

[Chambers2]

If anybody can explain to me why it's moral (legal) to drink alcohol, but it's immoral (illegal) to smoke marijuana then I'll never take a drug again.


Alcochol causes alot of people to act loud, aggressive, violent and out of character. The social problems it causes are plastered all over the news regularly (police/nurse/doctors being attacked, the fighting it causes in every town), yet despite this the government allows the product to be brewed/distilled over here and it allows pubs/clubs and supermarkets to sell it at rock bottom prices....

.... now if I want to sit on my own settee, smoke a plant and keep myself to myself then the government determines that I'm a criminal. Where is the logic in that?

How many people have been arrested for being too pissed and making a nuisance of themself (or worse)?
How many people have been arrested for being too stoned and making a nuisance of themself (or worse)?
The marijuana drug laws are illogical, so why would anyone accept the rest of the drug laws at face value?

All the war on drugs has once again proved is that prohibition doesn't work. As a drug user it makes no difference to me whatsoever whether the drug is legal or not as they're all readily and freely available, the only difference is that the money I spend on them now goes to some lowlife dole dossing scumbag where as if they were legal the money would be going to the state.


ALL drugs should be legalised/decriminalised IMO

[Chambers2]

Srebnum you are talking absolute tosh about people taking coke for the 'taste' hahahaha!

I like a few beers, if it didn't taste so good I wouldn't have it. Can't say the same for drugs. I agree with Carbo, people take drugs for the effects, it's simple as that. You don't do a line of coke cos it feels great going up your nose, or cos it tastes nice. People put it on their tongue for the numbing feeling yep, the effect of the drug, not the taste! WHat a bizarre debate.

People take drugs for the same reason as people take alcohol, because they're damned damned good fun

[Carbo]

LOL, well you're wrong then if you think everyone who takes cocaine does so because of the effect it has on them. I know for a fact - the only way to prove this fact is for you to sit in on an open day at the Lifeline project with me perhaps - that some people do so because of the mechanics, even ritual, of the act of doing it, NOT the effect. You cannot say other Carbo - to do is to deny truth, unless you have the DAT statistics for substance misuse and the reasons behind every users usage.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I would suggest that the "ritual" comes from some kind of pavlovian conditioning derived from the effect in the first place.

But I'll leave it to the forum to decide whether people would be just as happy to snort finely ground baking powder than to snort cocaine if the ritual surrounding them was the same, or whether they spend all that money for a numb tongue.

*sigh* my points are based along the lines that current policy is broken and needs to be changed, very very simple. My comparison with cocaine/alcohol and the individual affect on society is thus - alcohol is used by far more people than cocaine, if cocaine was to be used and abused as much as alcohol, there would be far more carnage.

Differentiate each point, I'm not contradciting myself, seperate the subjects of both statements. Yes, we need to look at new policy and Yes, society would be more affected if there was more usage of cocaine. I'm not saying these in the same breath, which you seem to think I am. They are seperate valid points.

In general terms, agreed.

Of course it's common sense, if I had the answers as an individual then I'd be a very important and probably rich man. My point is, and I'm repeating, is that current policy is broken and needs fixing, I have no idea how you would set up dispensing centres for the distribution of cocaine, weed I could probably set a plan in place, but not something as harmful as cocaine. It needs serious debate and discussion, the money that could be made from it could go into treatment and education, I don't deny the perils of cocaine, nor am I blind to the perils of alcohol and there are others far more qualified than I to come up with the solution - what is important is that it changes. If it ever does become legal, yes more people will probably try it, but there would be no need to criminalise vast ammounts of people in society and there would be far more effort geared to the eeucation surrounding it, + people would probably know what the feck they're taking as opposed to the street poop they probably get now.

In general terms, agreed.

You're not stupid so I'm not inferring you are, but you do appreciate the facts surrounding the abuse caused by this thing millions of us enjoy day in and day out? your 'argument' talks about how so many millions enjoy it without any negativity surrounding it but simply (to a degeree) palm off the negatives, the cost to the NHS, the damage to families who do have an abusive or problematic drinker within, the violence associated with it, etc...

I love a drink, and don't cause anybody any harm, but alcohol is one of the biggest scourges on society, as is unregulated drug usage.

Agreed

Unfortunately I'm in work with only fleeting opportunities to post, so I'll pass on your bar-room philosophy suggestion.

Yes, fair enough.

As I keep saying, the policy is broken, and wrong, for millenia people have used drugs recreationally, always have and always will, the war on drugs is lost.

[/quote]
I'm not sure there's ever been a real "war on drugs" beyond the soundbites and slogans of politicians and their spinners. But I agree that the current policy is broken.

[Srebmun]

Srebnum you are talking absolute tosh about people taking coke for the 'taste' hahahaha!

I like a few beers, if it didn't taste so good I wouldn't have it. Can't say the same for drugs. I agree with Carbo, people take drugs for the effects, it's simple as that. You don't do a line of coke cos it feels great going up your nose, or cos it tastes nice. People put it on their tongue for the numbing feeling yep, the effect of the drug, not the taste! WHat a bizarre debate.

Aye (bold bit) and the more we debate it, no matter how bizarre, the better it will be.

I can't prove to you that some people enjoy the taste, but I'm not a liar and I tell you why I say what I do. My missus is a boss at a substance misuse charity where I do a small bit of voluntary work, so I speak to people and it's not always about the effect of the drug, some people love the smell of it, some people love the taste of it, some people like the effect of it. There's no one reason why people like doing something. If you can't see this then.....

I even knew a fella back in 1989 in the days of early raving, who liked nothing more than chewing on an E, if you've ever chewed on an E you'll now it's not a pleasant thing, but he loved it.

[jamesmcdonnell]

They have to ban him. How can that be good for the sport they are supposed to regulate?
Any other sport would ban him and it's far worse than anything I've seen before.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near fighters or the sport he has disgraced until he has cleaned himself up. Even Max Clifford has suggested he was taking it whilst he was fighting. Hatton's quote that "it only stays in your body for three days" suggests he has looked into it and that makes Clifford assumption look very likely. If he wasn't fighting anymore when he became a junlie then why would he care how long it stays in your body?

Therefore, if this is the case he has cheated and cociane would certainly help him shift the three stones of blubber he regularly dumped to make his fighting weight.

Someone had a thread yesterday asking why all the Hatton threads were taken down. Surely the biggest topic this year so why censor it? You will recall that in the past any question as to WHO OWNS BOXREC was also removed. Anyone starting to put 2 and 2 together?

Wake up an smell the coffee everyone.

Cocaine is a recreational drug. It's benefits as an enhancer are very dubious to say the least, as it raises the heartrate, impairs respiration, and can cause a stroke. The liklihood is that he was doing it whilst he was either out of training, or occasionally whilst in training. It's extremely unlikely he would go into the ring on it, or use it as part of his regime. Cocaine impairs your bodie's functionality, and is too short lived to be of massive benefit. The only reason it would benefit shifting weight is that it is a diuretic, and there's plehty of other substances far less harmfull that he could have taken to shift weight.

[Srebmun]

But I'll leave it to the forum to decide whether people would be just as happy to snort finely ground baking powder than to snort cocaine

The funny thing is, baking powder is what people are probably snorting.

[Chambers2]

Srebnum you are talking absolute tosh about people taking coke for the 'taste' hahahaha!

I like a few beers, if it didn't taste so good I wouldn't have it. Can't say the same for drugs. I agree with Carbo, people take drugs for the effects, it's simple as that. You don't do a line of coke cos it feels great going up your nose, or cos it tastes nice. People put it on their tongue for the numbing feeling yep, the effect of the drug, not the taste! WHat a bizarre debate.

Aye (bold bit) and the more we debate it, no matter how bizarre, the better it will be.

I can't prove to you that some people enjoy the taste, but I'm not a liar and I tell you why I say what I do. My missus is a boss at a substance misuse charity where I do a small bit of voluntary work, so I speak to people and it's not always about the effect of the drug, some people love the smell of it, some people love the taste of it, some people like the effect of it. There's no one reason why people like doing something. If you can't see this then.....

I even knew a fella back in 1989 in the days of early raving, who liked nothing more than chewing on an E, if you've ever chewed on an E you'll now it's not a pleasant thing, but he loved it.

FFS i don't reckon he'd be chewing the vile pills (I hesitate to call them ecstacy because they sure as hell don't contain any) that are about these days.

I agree, you can enjoy the taste and smell of coke.