View Full Version : Binge Drinking
In all my 22 years of drinking in pubs, I can count on my hand when I have seen '2 for 1' or 'as much as you can drink for £10' offers. So how can banning these offers will clear up Britains binge drinking culture? I have often seen happy hours but they are early in the evening and they only take off may be 30p off a pint so what's the big deal? And then they only last a few week because people weren't supporting the happy hours.
It is obvious to me that just banning offers on drink will do nothing to stop binge drinking, so how best shall we go about it?
cullbucket
24-May-05, 17:27
Binge Drinking is great as long as you can keep it for the binges... its when it takes over the life its a problem. I don't think the pubs in Thurso really encourage it, I remember when I was on the Broo, I'd just have a carry oot before hitting the pub, same result, reduced expense. At least Thurso is a good safe place to take a raxxer, every weekend you'll see someone asleep quietly in a corner of some pub, no-one will rob them or start anything, the licencees will usually get a taxi if they know who the culprit is....
If people want to get wasted, they will......
In all my 22 years of drinking in pubs, I can count on my hand when I have seen '2 for 1' or 'as much as you can drink for £10' offers. So how can banning these offers will clear up Britains binge drinking culture? I have often seen happy hours but they are early in the evening and they only take off may be 30p off a pint so what's the big deal? And then they only last a few week because people weren't supporting the happy hours.
It is obvious to me that just banning offers on drink will do nothing to stop binge drinking, so how best shall we go about it?
You introduce miserable hours, all drinks double price.
First off all binge drinking has been going on for years and trying to stamp out the happy hours will achieve nothing.If the young ones want to go out and get drunk the vast majority will have a good drink at home with ther mates before going into town so they dont spend much when they go in the only way you reduce this problem is by having a good deterent eg bigger fines.You know when think about the punishments u get for commiting crimes like breach of peace, drunkness,house breakins,assault is am absolute joke.So you go out one night get drunk cause a scene and then get into a fight and then get arrested and what happens you get a £50 fine my point is whats £50 in this day an age it doesnt even cover the police,court and administration time and all that person who has commited the crime has to do is stay in one weekend to pay the fine absolute joke
Whitewater
25-May-05, 09:42
It is difficult to know what to to do. I used to think that it was due to the fact that the pups closed at 10pm and everybody was filling up quickly to get enough for the rest of the night, but that is not the case now as you can drink as late as you want.
When WICK was dry (not that I remember it) I'm told that the problem was just as bad if not worse.
I really don't know what the answer is, I used to think it was a 'British' thing but now when I'm abroad I see exactly the same problem. Perhaps it is the pressure/fears/stress of modern life and everybody is just trying to loose themselves for a while.
It is difficult to know what to to do. I used to think that it was due to the fact that the pups closed at 10pm and everybody was filling up quickly to get enough for the rest of the night, but that is not the case now as you can drink as late as you want.
When WICK was dry (not that I remember it) I'm told that the problem was just as bad if not worse..
You could still drink whisky, from a tea cup. A Lybster Landlady would pay peoples train fares from Wick to Lybster or send botles of whisky through the post. And of course there were a number of illegal stills set up in Wick.
I really don't know what the answer is, I used to think it was a 'British' thing but now when I'm abroad I see exactly the same problem. Perhaps it is the pressure/fears/stress of modern life and everybody is just trying to loose themselves for a while.
It's been going on for hundreds of years. If you read the old Ministers Reports they were saying just the same things then as they are now. The Statistical Account for the parish of Latheron for 1840 says this near the end:
"Inns - There are not fewer than 26 public houses, for retail ing spirits, &c. in the parish, when six would have been quite sufficient for every necessary purpose."
Then came the Temperance movement.
If someone breaks the law while drunk they should be prosecuted just the same as if they were sober, otherwise the control freaks and the nanny state should leave them alone.
Alananders68
25-May-05, 11:07
There is nothing wrong with binge drinking if people are doing so merrily, the problems are when people change after having a drink, in those instances though it can be as little as a few drinks and doesn't require a binge.
The best solution is for better policing and tougher sentencing on people who become violent or commit crime whilst under the influence. How often do you read in the Groat someone in court and there defence is that they were drunk and are normally of impeccable character :roll: but isn't it there choice to have got into that state :confused . Most assaults are carried out by people who've been drinking and gone are the days when it was just a punch in the face or a square go between two able bodied men, nowadays on a Friday and Saturday night you see fights started for kicks and people getting kicked in the head, well to me if someone kicks another person in the head or hits a man when he's down then that is a coward and those actions should be treated as attempted murder, so give the police more power if you want it stopping.
I enjoy a wee dram myself and see nothing wrong with binge drinking.
Does a carry out up the river count as binge drinking?
i dont know but count me in!
cullbucket
25-May-05, 11:44
My Great Grandad had to be carried home after the Forsinard Lamb Sales every year - and that was 100 years ago. Does this count as Binge Drinking?
The word binge didn't exist them so afraid not.
Hoor of a fill however is more exact.
Alexander Rowe
25-May-05, 12:42
Binge Drinking is great fun.
The root of the problem is...Alcohol has no competition in the mind bending business. Some would say religion is competition but theres not many religious folks would admit to being out of their heads. I know a few though.
I suggest legalising cannabis as competition, or at least de-criminalising it for a trial period to see how much that effects binge drinking. Obviously more education would need to be introduced to familiarise people with that areas of their minds that go Zonk when they take a mind bending substance. :eek:
Although the youngsters on here have been having a laugh about taking fills o drink theres enough evidence of the destructiveness of alcohol to ban it and make partakers of a wee snifftery criminals if they get caught doing something that directly kills 2000 Scots every year, not to mention the havoc it spreads in its wake through families and societies.
lots of people may think that they are not binge drinkers, but if you have more than 4 drinks at the weekend and drink for 3 weekends out of 4, you are a binge drinker!
Smee, started drinking during a week, stay sober at weekends (Not binge Drinker Now)
cullbucket
26-May-05, 10:21
So far, there is 9 people who have replied that they like a good dram. Maybe we can all meet up next time I am in thurso and we can start drinking at lunchtime and see who lasts the longest....
I suggest legalising cannabis as competition, or at least de-criminalising it for a trial period to see how much that effects binge drinking. Obviously more education would need to be introduced to familiarise people with that areas of their minds that go Zonk when they take a mind bending substance. :eek:
.
So you want people to binge on cannabis instead? What difference does it make why they are out of their heads? Why they want to get that way beats me. what's the point of having a good time if you can't remember it afterwards and feel awful the next day? I think more education as to exactly what it does to your body and the long term effects MIGHT be helpful.
droopydrawers
26-May-05, 12:12
Bring back the belt I say - - its only the generation since they banned the belt that cant handle their drink - are the rest of us going to have to suffer because of their rights?
Alexander Rowe
26-May-05, 12:44
Bring back the belt I say - - its only the generation since they banned the belt that cant handle their drink - are the rest of us going to have to suffer because of their rights?
So bringing back the belt will stop people binge drinking ?
misschief
26-May-05, 12:55
I thought binge drinking was when people drank a lot of alcohol in one go. Such as being sober all week then drinking a lot at the weekend.
If this is the case and then I am a huge culprit. I don't drink for weeks at a time then if there is an occasion I drink as much as I feel like at the time. Granted it may be bad for my health but I don't smoke, I excercise regularly and I eat healthily so surely its my choice. No-one is banning binge smoking are they.
The people who get drunk and are disruptive, argumentative or violent will be that way regardless. The chances are they will be fully aware of the the effect of alcohol on them and will continue to drink regardless. As others have said if they can't do it in the pubs they will get carry outs.
In short banning binge drinking is bad
Spacemonkey
26-May-05, 12:59
Bring back the belt I say - - its only the generation since they banned the belt that cant handle their drink - are the rest of us going to have to suffer because of their rights?
So, do you think your rights are more important than their rights?
droopydrawers
26-May-05, 13:39
no - I am suggesting that my rights should always be equal to those of anyone else on this planet, drunk or not -
banning alleged binge drinking because there is a generation who have been brought up with the knowledge that they can do / say what they like , drunk or sober, without fear of any kind of punishment will affect my rights to enjoy a sunday spree, or happy hour cocktails or half price Fizz .
I agree about the belt/tawse/tweeger, call it what you want.
The problem is the youth of today has no fear of authority. Always ready with an answer of "you can't touch me, I'll get the police on to you". A good leathering by my faither in the spare room did me no harm and my soon to be born child will also get that - only if necessary mind, all you do gooders.
I was put over my faithers knee for putting bits of newspaper in the electric fire and then dropping them down the back of the couch. Do you think a quiet discussion about right and wrong would have solved that particular problem?
champagnebaby
26-May-05, 15:56
I'm in agreement with gleeber, try legalising cannabis for a while. Obviously cannabis has different affects on different people as does alcohol but i've never heard of anyone being aggressive after a smoke compared to what they get like after a drink.
And even if you binge smoked as katarina suggested you're not necessarily going to forget things and get out your head in the same way as if you were drinking. People would be more relaxed and friendly if they had a smoke rather than drinked - that's for sure.
Not sure about the stats but surely in the 60's when smoking pot was all the rage there wouldo been lower crime rates and happier people??
I'm in agreement with gleeber, try legalising cannabis for a while. Obviously cannabis has different affects on different people as does alcohol but i've never heard of anyone being aggressive after a smoke compared to what they get like after a drink.
It saddens me that people just don't seem to understand the effects cannabis has on your brain, or its potential long-term effect.
Using your logic, should we just go ahead and legalise heroin? After all, it doesn't make you aggressive like alcohol can. :roll:
Naefearjustbeer
26-May-05, 19:25
You would be as well to legalise everything and only arrest people for the illeagal things they do fund the habit. The tax the goverment can put on the new range of drugs can help fund the hospital treatment required for all the struggling addicts and the policing required to stop all the robberies and muggings that will happen. Hows that for Job creation! Or if it is legalised will it only be a habit for the wealthy
I will stick to the beer thanks and if binge drinking is classed as more than 4 units at the weekend I reckon thats me a binge drinker then.
Hi drutt your right people dont relise the effects on cannibis but when u try it as a teenager they dont relise due to there age come to think of it teenager dont relise a lot of things but then thats getting onto a different topic altogether i think the older generation are lucky that it was a smoke round the bike shed and cannibis wasnt as easy to get a hold of to what it is today
It saddens me that people just don't seem to understand the effects cannabis has on your brain, or its potential long-term effect.
Using your logic, should we just go ahead and legalise heroin? After all, it doesn't make you aggressive like alcohol can. :roll:
I dont think that type of response from yourself or Katerina is any help to the solution. Its part of the problem though.
Im perfectly aware of the dangers of cannabis. Im also aware of the dangers of prohition and uncontrolled sources for supplies of illegal drugs. Im also aware of the power of taboo and the destruction caused by illegal drugs on our societies. :(
Thats no excuse for someone to denounce the de-criminalisation of cannabis whilst sitting with a nice glass of red wine or a wee drammy in their hands. Im not assuming anything about you 2 though. ;)
One things for sure. Something radical needs to be done to control the destructive effects of alcohol on our society. Im not into banning it but a bit of competition is always good for the economy.
Why should people be forced into one form of mind altering substance for another? Millions of people seek and find alternative methods of drug induced states to escape from the drudgery of everyday life. :eek:
Why should they be persecuted at the expense of people whose own method of escape is alcohol and especially when alcohol is unquestionably the most poisonous substance being used on our soceity today?
Its unjust and I see it as a large part of the problem with binge drinking.
champagnebaby
27-May-05, 03:59
Using your logic, should we just go ahead and legalise heroin? After all, it doesn't make you aggressive like alcohol can. :roll:
Hardly - cannabis isn't as addictive as heroin or cause the same amount of destruction as heroin, you're just trying to be smart.
All i'm saying is alcohol and cannabis are both bad for you and it'd be better if we had the choice to take what ever one suited ourselves. And if you have an addictive personality then i think i'd rather be addicted to cannabis than alcohol.
Pros
Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful effects, it is no more harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis. Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes cause more deaths per year than does the use of cannabis (e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drink driving etc.). The legalisation of cannabis will remove an anomaly in the law whereby substances that are more dangerous than cannabis are legal whilst the possession and use of cannabis remains unlawful.
Cons
Unlike alcohol and tobacco, cannabis has a hallucinatory effect on the mind. This is inherently dangerous in itself. Furthermore, just like other drugs, there are many individuals addicted to cannabis who will resort to crime in order to fund their addiction. The legalisation of cannabis will lead to the drug becoming more readily available, which in turn will mean that many more people will gain access to it. This will subsequently lead to an increase in the crime rate. Initial statistics from the Netherlands shows that the decriminalisation and eventual legalisation of cannabis did led to an increase in crime in Dutch society.
Taken from http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=101 - some good points on here for both sides of the arguement
Pros
Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful effects, it is no more harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis. Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes cause more deaths per year than does the use of cannabis (e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drink driving etc.). The legalisation of cannabis will remove an anomaly in the law whereby substances that are more dangerous than cannabis are legal whilst the possession and use of cannabis remains unlawful.
Cons
Unlike alcohol and tobacco, cannabis has a hallucinatory effect on the mind. This is inherently dangerous in itself. Furthermore, just like other drugs, there are many individuals addicted to cannabis who will resort to crime in order to fund their addiction. The legalisation of cannabis will lead to the drug becoming more readily available, which in turn will mean that many more people will gain access to it. This will subsequently lead to an increase in the crime rate. Initial statistics from the Netherlands shows that the decriminalisation and eventual legalisation of cannabis did led to an increase in crime in Dutch society.
Taken from http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=101 - some good points on here for both sides of the arguement
I'll reiterate my point that long-term effects of cannabis on the brain seem to be ignored by the majority (and indeed are ignored by the website you refer to). Just because cannabis isn't addictive, doesn't make it almost harmless (far from it).
Cannabis reduces the number of behaviours a user has. A normally-functioning human being normally engages in hundreds of behaviours/actions in a day. A dog (for example), on the other hand, exhibits few behaviours (eg wag tail, bark, lie down, roll over). Even limited cannabis use can reduce behaviours markedly, and heavy cannabis use can reduce behaviours to the numbers exhibited by animals like dogs, and can include irrepressible and highly noticeable tics.
The full effect of cannabis on brain chemistry is not yet known. Effects like the suppression of motivation (which in extreme cases can mean that the cannabis user simply cannot motivate him/herself to do anything) appear in many cases to be permanent.
All i'm saying is alcohol and cannabis are both bad for you and it'd be better if we had the choice to take what ever one suited ourselves.
That's the flimsiest argument for legalisation I've ever heard.
And if you have an addictive personality then i think i'd rather be addicted to cannabis than alcohol.
Although alcohol also has potential negative effects on the brain (such as Korsakoff's Syndrome), as well as the well known effects on the body, I can assure you I'd rather be addicted to alcohol. At least the problems with alcohol addiction are recognised and treated (though standards of treatment vary).
Drutt, I'd be interested to hear why you think tobacco and alcohol should not be made illegal as we know exactly what they do and how addictive they can be.
Drutt, I'd be interested to hear why you think tobacco and alcohol should not be made illegal as we know exactly what they do and how addictive they can be.
No, I don't believe you can backtrack with a substance that's currently legal. In their favour, the effects of tobacco and alcohol are generally well-known, so people know the risks they're taking. On their head be it. (Though it's a little more complicated when the users aren't adults).
However, I see no merit in decriminalising/legalising even more drugs which we know can cause harm, especially with those drugs where the full extent of the risks are not yet known. Addiction is not, by any means, the worst effect a drug can have on you. The argument that 'they're all as bad as each other so they may as well all be legalised' is both false and unjustifiable.
So basically you're saying that you support the current double standard and would favour the status quo knowing that alcohol and tobacco are pretty much the biggest killers we have in our society today. Whereas you would not support further research into the effects of cannabis and then the decriminalisation of that and other substances once the facts are known to the population.
Tell me, how much do you think a 12 or 13 year old knows about the effects of alcohol or tobacco when they take it up? You can say that this knowledge is available to them, but when they see parents, peers & personalities smoking and drinking, do you not think that the message that alcohol and tobacco are bad is somewhat diluted by their legality?
So basically you're saying that you support the current double standard and would favour the status quo knowing that alcohol and tobacco are pretty much the biggest killers we have in our society today. Whereas you would not support further research into the effects of cannabis and then the decriminalisation of that and other substances once the facts are known to the population.
I'm just being practical. I don't see how we can prohibit substances which are currently legal, without creating a massive black market for them. Better to treat their original legalisation as ill-advised and educate people about appropriate usage (ie within recommended limits for alcohol, just giving up for tobacco).
Tell me, how much do you think a 12 or 13 year old knows about the effects of alcohol or tobacco when they take it up? You can say that this knowledge is available to them, but when they see parents, peers & personalities smoking and drinking, do you not think that the message that alcohol and tobacco are bad is somewhat diluted by their legality?
As I'd already said, the situation isn't quite as simple when the users aren't adults. I'd argue for better education to help prevent/reduce usage and for better treatment for those seeking it. Let's face it - drug education in schools is sadly lacking. We could do with addressing that, rather than punishing the millions who have the odd glass of wine (which doesn't do too much damage, other than killing some brain cells).
It's strange that people seem to be so ready to ignore the already recognised link between cannabis use and mental health problems such as paranoia, memory loss, depression and schizophrenia. Of course we should invest in more research into the use of cannabis and of course we should take the time to prove whether there is a causal link between the use of cannabis and the onset of psychosis. But until we have do you really want to risk decriminalising it?
I agree with Drutt that an outright ban on cigarettes and alcohol is not tenable – not because I think that they are good things, but because they are so ingrained into our society that passing such a law simply would not work (you only have to look back at prohibition to see that). Instead we need to change our culture until they are simply unacceptable. We've made a start with cigarettes and I hope that it won't be long before the misuse of alcohol follows.
In the mean time to argue that alcohol and nicotine are more harmful than cannabis and that cannabis should therefore be decriminalised is, apart from being unproven, simply ludicrous. Have you ever heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"? Here we are with those two wrongs already entrenched in our society to such an extent that we have no quick-fix for removing them. So what kind of fool would add a third?
Say we did decriminalise cannabis. What if further research then confirms the existing evidence that cannabis use doubles the likelihood of a susceptible person being hospitalised with schizophrenia? What if further research confirms the existing belief that the psychosis suffered by many cannabis uses is permanent? What then? Do we turn around and say "Sorry folks, we made a mistake and you can't use that stuff anymore"? Look at how difficult it is to do that with alcohol and nicotine… you think it would be any easier with cannabis?
Surely the only sensible option is to maintain the illegality of cannabis (and try to dissuade people from using the stuff) until we actually know the facts? If it turns out that cannabis is (reasonably) safe to use then that's great, knock yourselves out…
webmannie
27-May-05, 12:27
Just to get things back onto binge drinking.
I took a 'raxxer' last night, i can't even remember how i got home. It was a brilliant night, good company, good craic.
I feel rough just now, but all the stress built up over the past few weeks is gone.
I guess i'll do the same thing in a few weeks.
What's the matter with that?
What's the matter with that?
That depends. If we're talking about you as an individual then it depends on what you did whilst you were drunk. Since I don't know, and since you can't remember, I'd say that we'll have to look at the overall picture instead…
According to Home Office research (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors263.pdf) from 2003, 39% of 18- to 24-year-olds were classified as binge drinkers (those who got very drunk at least once a month). That 39% were almost 300% more likely to have committed an offence than those who drank but infrequently got drunk and they were five times more likely to have been involved in a fight, twice as likely to be involved in an argument, and five times as likely to commit criminal damage.
This all adds to the feeling that town/city centres are no-go areas for those who aren't 'out on the town' on Friday and Saturday nights. It all adds to the half-eaten kebabs strewn across the pavements, the puddles of vomit you have to dodge whilst walking to work and the smell of urine in the bus shelter in the morning. But perhaps most importantly, it all adds to the cost of policing our streets.
champagnebaby
27-May-05, 13:50
Och i'm no arguing any more, i think i'll just agree to disagree :D
I think webmannies's comments sum up the whole debate. Going out on the drink is great and people have been doing it for centuries. Cull bucket talked about his grandad getting drunk at the Halladale lamb sales 100 years ago - quite sure that this will still be happening in 100 years time, although they might be drinking some fancy beer from space by then!
The secret (well one of them, the rest i would rather keep as a secret) of drinking is have a carry out in the house first with your mates then go out to the pub. Saves on that hard slog (and expense) of getting drunk in the pub. When you do walk into the pub (back of ten always a good time) you are half cut and the crack is good. Off to Flicks and a Sandras burger for the road home.
Regarding violence, only the idiots fight. Keep your wits about you and you won't get plugged. I remember once in a pub in Thurso, a guy who shall remain namelsss got quite a doing and was lying on the floor, covered in blood saying "come at me".
How we laughed.
http://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/servlets/doc/656
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3510560.stm
http://www.alcoholinformation.isdscotland.org/alcohol_misuse/files/AlcoholStatisticsScotland2005.pdf
The pdf link makes for especially horrific reading, binge drinking is only one part of the problem.
It's strange that people seem to be so ready to ignore the already recognised link between cannabis use and mental health problems such as paranoia, memory loss, depression and schizophrenia.
This of course depends on who you listen to, after much googling, I can see that the jury is still out on many of these issues. Although these problems have proven and agreed direct links with alcohol.
I can see that the jury is still out on many of these issues.
Which surely only adds weight to the argument NOT to decriminalise cannabis… :roll:
Whereas you would not support further research into the effects of cannabis and then the decriminalisation of that and other substances once the facts are known to the population.
Research first, decriminalisation second, both of which were asked of Drutt, my position was never stated.
Which surely only adds weight to the argument NOT to decriminalise cannabis…
Only until the research has been properly carried out and agreed upon. I think the argument of "No, I don't believe you can backtrack with a substance that's currently legal." holds no water at all. Plenty of other products have been removed from the market place after a discovery of ill effects. Its too much of a double standard to take, "I can have my drug but they can't have theirs'".
So what is your point of view Zael? Legalise everything or criminalise everything?
Basically, yes.
Remove the double standard one way or another and then everyone knows where they stand.
Ha ha - so you'll have either end of the continuum but you're not saying which you'd think appropriate, huh? It's like liking fascism and communism equally much. Go on, Zael, you know you want to tell us.
Go on, go on, go on, go on...
Research first, decriminalisation second, both of which were asked of Drutt, my position was never stated.
Of course your position has been stated… the very fact that you assume that decriminalisation will follow research (in other words that the research will prove all to be rosy in the world of joints) screams your position from the highest rooftops!
Only until the research has been properly carried out and agreed upon.
I rest my case… your position is clear.
I think the argument of "No, I don't believe you can backtrack with a substance that's currently legal." holds no water at all. Plenty of other products have been removed from the market place after a discovery of ill effects. Its too much of a double standard to take, "I can have my drug but they can't have theirs'".
Not many of those products have been as large a part of our culture for as long as either alcohol or nicotine.
If smokers were simply criminalized overnight do you think they'd all stop or do you think a criminal subculture would step in to supply the now-unmet demand? How many of the illegal smokers do you think would go to see their doctor in time for their lung cancer to still be treatable if they smoke illegally? As many as do now or fewer?
What about those who still enjoy a good drink after you've banned their favourite tipple? You think that they are just going to shrug and buy a Red Bull or do you think that somebody might start shipping alcohol in from abroad in the back of a van?
Simply prohibiting alcohol has been shown not to work… first you have to get people to change the way they think until such a ban will be accepted.
And one thing is most definitely certain… decriminalising cannabis to balance the perceived inequality is an even more short-sighted notion than criminalizing alcohol and nicotine. We're in this for the long-haul and there really isn't any point in adding to the length of the journey by throwing in another substance to deal with.
the very fact that you assume that decriminalisation will follow research
I assume nothing of the sort, if the research was to show that there are enough harmful effects to make it dangerous then of couse it would retain its current status. I was simply saying that research would have to be done first before any kind of decision could be made.
My only personal concern is with tobacco, and if it was made illegal then I would find it much easier to convince myself to stop, I know all the dangers but I am still an addict and have all the problems associated with that. If I could not just nip to the shop and get 10 fags then I would have stopped years ago on one of my many previous attempts and I'm sure this would hold true for many other smokers (and for that matter drinkers).
I'm also sure that you are correct about a sub culture developing in tobacco/alcohol sales, but from a purely social point of view how much less of a health problem would this be. As I've said, I think the majority of people would simply stop and not seek out the underworld to continue their habit. jjc, drutt, would you break the law and seek out the underworld so you could have a quite tipple (or a ciggy) or would you simply stop.
I was simply saying that research would have to be done first before any kind of decision could be made.
Then you should probably try saying it a little more clearly… :roll:
Oh, and whilst you are clarifying your position, perhaps you could point out anywhere on this thread (or any other) where Drutt has said anything contrary to this. It was you, not her, who said that she would not support further research into the effects of cannabis.
I'm sure this would hold true for many other smokers (and for that matter drinkers).
It probably would, but 'many' certainly isn't all.
I'm also sure that you are correct about a sub culture developing in tobacco/alcohol sales, but from a purely social point of view how much less of a health problem would this be.
From a 'purely social point of view' the subculture would have much greater ramifications for crime and justice than it would for health… but there would still be a health problem associated with 'underground' smoking and drinking. The scale of the problem might reduce, but the seriousness for the individuals would probably increase as they became less willing to admit to their crimes in order to seek treatment.
As I've said, I think the majority of people would simply stop and not seek out the underworld to continue their habit. jjc, drutt, would you break the law and seek out the underworld so you could have a quite tipple (or a ciggy) or would you simply stop.
As I have never smoked in my life and I don't drink more than a couple of glasses of wine a month I don't think I'm all that representative… however, in 2000 (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/uksmuggling.html#_Toc495558645) the official estimate by Customs was that 20% of all cigarettes sold in the UK were illegal (with the tobacco industry estimating it as at least 30%). Considering that there were an estimated 80,000,000,000 cigarettes sold, that's more than a handful of illegal 'ciggys'.
These figures are from a time when the only reason to buy illegal cigarettes is a financial one. I really can't see there not being a flourishing trade in illegal cigarettes when they are the only ones available, can you?
Oh, and whilst you are clarifying your position, perhaps you could point out anywhere on this thread (or any other) where Drutt has said anything contrary to this. It was you, not her, who said that she would not support further research into the effects of cannabis.
Thank you for that. It's true enough, I began posting in this thread about the alarming long term consequences that cannabis would appear to threaten, based on research conducted thus far. I'd have thought it blatantly obvious that I thought continued research was vital, but I guess I'll just have to be even more obvious next time.
For the record, Zael, I think that the evidence we currently have regarding the consequences of cannabis use means that legalising it should be the last thing we ought to be considering.
As things currently stand, I'd support the availability of medicinal cannabis on prescription for pain relief purposes (for sufferers of MS etc), but they would need to be made aware of the risks posed. An adult would be able to make an informed decision about the risks vs the pain and the consequent effects on their quality of life, and make a judgement from that as to appropriate action.
My only personal concern is with tobacco, and if it was made illegal then I would find it much easier to convince myself to stop, I know all the dangers but I am still an addict and have all the problems associated with that. If I could not just nip to the shop and get 10 fags then I would have stopped years ago on one of my many previous attempts and I'm sure this would hold true for many other smokers (and for that matter drinkers).
If knowing that your smoking habit could well leave you rotting in your living room with intolerable emphysema (and will probably ultimately kill you) hasn't been enough to encourage you to stop, what makes you think that criminalising cigarettes would work?
jjc, drutt, would you break the law and seek out the underworld so you could have a quite tipple (or a ciggy) or would you simply stop.
I don't think I'm a terribly good measure of the effects of criminalisation. I've never smoked, barely have a drink, limit my caffeine intake and only take a paracetamol if I absolutely have to. Just trying to keep those brain cells alive and functioning! :D
Fair point jjc about the current level of illegal ciggy sales, but where are these being sold in the UK? Shops? that would suggest that the people buying them to smoke did not realise they were illegal. tbh any figure from the tobacco industry is a bit suspect. If they were not availbale except by going to your "dealers" abode i think the level sold would be much less. Also, customs would have no debate over the amount you can take into this country as it would be reduced to none.
jjc, drutt did not state a position, i presumed it and drutt confirmed in the next post.
Drutt, as a non-smoker you are lucky not to have the problems that nicotine addition brings, yes I know exactly how painfully I'm likely to die due to my smoking, but as the majority of other smokers will tell you, this is not enough to convince most of us to stop, a mental block, call it whatever you like, I still feel that banning tobacco altogether would force me to stop. I dont drink much myself so I dont think a ban on alcohol would bother me either.
I think that the evidence we currently have regarding the consequences of cannabis use means that legalising it should be the last thing we ought to be considering.
From what I've read the evidence is unclear for both camps, and until everyone agrees one way or the other I dont see that either side can really be taken seriously when the effects of alcohol/tobacco are so obvious and devastating to society and yet they are still on sale.
Then you should probably try saying it a little more clearly…
I apologise for not being perfectly clear first time round, but surely thats the point of a discussion, to get the full view of others in a way that is clear to all, I don't know anyone who always manages to get their view over to someone else with the first sentence/paragraph. If you need clarification on anything I say, all you have to do is ask. if you're going to start down the road of other threads and start ripping apart every word then I'll stop right here. I'd rather to and fro a little until everyone understands what I'm trying to say than have my method of discussion torn to shreds after every post. Perhaps I'm just not as intelligent as you, or have as good a grasp of the english language, so lets get that out of the way. I am doing the best I can, sorry if it takes a little longer than you're used to.
Fair point jjc about the current level of illegal ciggy sales, but where are these being sold in the UK? Shops? that would suggest that the people buying them to smoke did not realise they were illegal. tbh any figure from the tobacco industry is a bit suspect. If they were not availbale except by going to your "dealers" abode i think the level sold would be much less. Also, customs would have no debate over the amount you can take into this country as it would be reduced to none.
No, I don't think illegal cigarettes are generally being sold in shops - don't cigarette packs have text on them now indicating that tax has been paid? I can't remember - it's not as though I see cigarette packs all that often. :)
Anyway, I think that what usually happens (so I've heard ;)) is that someone's popping over to France with a van, collects orders from friends and family (dozens or even hundreds of packs each), buys a few dozen extra packs to sell in the pub, blah blah. Walk in the park as long as Customs doesn't catch you. Since it's a massive underground industry I'm assuming that most of the time Customs don't catch the perpetrators. I suspect the problem would only escalate if cigarettes were criminalised (though French retailers would be very grateful).
It's a pretty scummy act because the sheer scale of the tax evasion means that the NHS is losing out on money it should be getting from cigarette tax... money it needs to treat people dying of lung cancer.
Drutt, as a non-smoker you are lucky not to have the problems that nicotine addition brings, yes I know exactly how painfully I'm likely to die due to my smoking, but as the majority of other smokers will tell you, this is not enough to convince most of us to stop, a mental block, call it whatever you like, I still feel that banning tobacco altogether would force me to stop. I dont drink much myself so I dont think a ban on alcohol would bother me either.
I know I'm lucky to have never been addicted to anything, but that just persuades me that cannabis shouldn't be thrown into the legal pot (so to speak) as well. That suggestion makes no sense to me (just as mine makes no sense to you).
From what I've read the evidence is unclear for both camps, and until everyone agrees one way or the other I dont see that either side can really be taken seriously when the effects of alcohol/tobacco are so obvious and devastating to society and yet they are still on sale.
But then, the effects of alcohol/tobacco are so obvious and well-known that nobody could claim to have become addicted without knowing the risks. The same cannot be said for cannabis in which the effects can be a bit more insidious. What may amount to a drastic personality change in a decade doesn't seem obvious day-to-day until it's too late to turn back the clock.
As cannabis is normally mixed in with tobacco, the deleterious effects of cannabis are in most cases in addition to the harmful effects of tobacco.
Fair point jjc about the current level of illegal ciggy sales, but where are these being sold in the UK? Shops?
No idea. As I said, I don’t smoke… surprisingly, that means I’ve never bought illegal cigarettes.
drutt did not state a position, i presumed it and drutt confirmed in the next post.
She did? Where? I’ve looked back and see no post in which Drutt says she doesn’t think that there should be further research into the effects of cannabis… I suspect you’ve read what you wanted to into here posts rather than reading what she’s written.
I think that the evidence we currently have regarding the consequences of cannabis use means that legalising it should be the last thing we ought to be considering.
From what I've read the evidence is unclear for both camps
Which, and it really does seem like I’m having to labour this point, surely means that the “evidence we currently have regarding the consequences of cannabis means that legalising it should be the last thing we ought to be considering”?
if you're going to start down the road of other threads and... blah! blah! blah! yawn! blah! blah!... used to.
Oh for goodness sake! Put your handbag back in the cupboard and stop whining! :roll:
Theres nothing new in the defence of prohibition advocated by Drutt and jjc. Their concerns are the essence of the drug laws and the power of taboo is in it to the neck.
I actually have to admit that I share the same concerns myself.
But, and this is a big BUT, if the attitude shown by them was really about concerns for the welfare of others who may use cannabis if it was de-criminalised, then that attitude would carry more credence if they were to use as much energy condemning the use of alcohol in our society and calling for its immediate prohibition on the same grounds as they call for with cannabis. OOPS :eek: I forgot this little get out clause was already registered as a foundation for their argument against de-criminalising cannabis when jjc said...."Simply prohibiting alcohol has been shown not to work, first you have to get people to change the way they think until such a ban will be accepted"....Absolute tosh!
What about the millions who will die until that happens? Where are your concerns and feelings for them or their families? Why no crusade to protect them from themselves?
As well as this glaringly obvious inconsistancy in their argument they also use the negative effects of alcohol to make a case against the de-criminalasion of cannabis. "two wrongs dont make a right" one of them says but its ok for his wrong to remain right as long as the other guys wrong remains illegal. This guy likes to eat his cake and eat yours too. :confused
Thats a very convenient pulpit for someone to argue their case from. There would be no debate if I surrendered to such a moral high ground stance taken by the wine sipping cannabis prohibitionists.
I condemn their stance as hypocritical and personal, devoid of any real objective thought, selfish to the core, and, if evidence was ever needed that these two moral crusaders were part of the problem rather than a part of the solution, then, this is it.
I am neither arrogant enough nor niave enough to expect much sympathy with the views expressed by myself on this subject, but am I alone in seeing that the argument of the prohibitionists is both personal and prejudiced towards any movement in the fight against illegal drugs? Their attitudes are steeped in taboo with them thinking they are the norm and come from a position of superior moral qualities when deciding whats good or bad for society. They present half an argument which a blind man could see was a major cause of crime and funding for international terrorism.
It has nothing to do with concerns for peoples welfare otherwise they would be flying a flag of temperance if that was really their goal. In actual fact they are arrogant enough to advocate the use of alcohol.
They are on a lemmings type bandwagon which uses drugs as a scapegoat for all that is bad in our societies. Their dogma is prohibition which eats away at the fabric of our society. That is, the bits that are left after alcohol has weaved its merry way through the house first.
I realise most folks reading this will also have problems with my solution to binge drinking. I said already I share the same fears concerning the decriminalisation of cannabis but I see it as a way forward to combatting the negative side of alcohol and binge drinking. I also believe alcohol is used perfectly responsably by the majority of people and would not be crying out for its prohibition.
In fact I would defend jjc and Drutts right to their wee tipple as much as I will defend the decriminalasion of cannabis.
Well I voted for raising the legal age limit for alcohol to 21. All too often we see drink advertising directed at the younger market with alco pops etc. "Get them while they're young" seems to be the marketing strategy. By doing this at the kid's susceptible age, they are indoctrinating them and basically condemning them to a life alcohol addiction. Whether that is in terms of a physical or lifestyle addiction, it makes little difference. The same could be said of religion, get them while they're young will determine a faith that will last them a lifetime. Personally, I advocate that like alcohol, religious instruction should only be given until 21 and above, but that is another thread.
It is my belief that if people were introduced to alcohol at an age when peer pressure is not so dominant in one's life then less people will be dragged into a life of binge drinking and alcohol addiction. This will have implications for allsorts of areas in our lives including divorce rates, public order, child abuse etc. It is a known fact that alcohol is a major player in all those aspects of human life.
Chronic drunken disorder does not exist in the US because in my opinion they still retain the 21 age limit.
The solution to binge drinking is staring at us in the face.
… if they were to use as much energy condemning the use of alcohol in our society and calling for its immediate prohibition on the same grounds as they call for with cannabis. OOPS :eek: I forgot this little get out clause was already registered as a foundation for their argument against de-criminalising cannabis when jjc said...."Simply prohibiting alcohol has been shown not to work, first you have to get people to change the way they think until such a ban will be accepted"....Absolute tosh!
Sorry, but simply calling it ‘absolute tosh’ really doesn’t make it actual tosh… if, as you say, what I said were ‘absolute tosh’ then the National Prohibitions Act of the 1920s would still be in effect. Instead the US saw a 24% increase in major crimes (such as murder) between 1920 and 1921 and the prohibition period saw a 561% increase in the number of federal convicts. New York alone had more than a half dozen organized gangs supplying bootleg alcohol.
Still, perhaps you’re right and prohibition was a resounding success… so I'm sure you can explain why the Blaine Act was passed in 1933?
What about the millions who will die until that happens? Where are your concerns and feelings for them or their families?
My concerns and feelings for them and their families is manifested in my unwillingness to leap into a ham-fisted, ill-thought-out ban on alcohol which, if the results of prohibition in the US are anything to go by, would actually result in their numbers increasing.
I’d be more inclined to question the ‘concerns and feelings’ of somebody who blindly calls for such a ban without first considering the whole situation.
As well as this glaringly obvious inconsistancy in their argument they also use the negative effects of alcohol to make a case against the de-criminalasion of cannabis. "two wrongs dont make a right" one of them says but its ok for his wrong to remain right as long as the other guys wrong remains illegal. This guy likes to eat his cake and eat yours too.
Sorry Gleeber, but I haven’t said that “its okay for [alchohol] to remain right”. In fact, if you look back you’ll see that I said ”We’ve made a start with cigarettes and I hope that it won’t be long before the misuse of alcohol follows”.
What I haven’t said, and will never say, is that cannabis should be legalised because alcohol is. If you’re looking for an argument that is full of glaringly obvious ‘inconsistancy’, that’s it!
I condemn their stance as hypocritical and personal, devoid of any real objective thought, selfish to the core, and, if evidence was ever needed that these two moral crusaders were part of the problem rather than a part of the solution, then, this is it.
Yet again, that you say it doesn’t make it true. I have nothing to gain from the continued prohibition of cannabis. I have nothing to gain from the decriminalisation of cannabis. I have nothing to gain here and, as such, my objection to decriminalisation is not personal. Sorry to disappoint, but if you’d spent even one second doing some of that ‘objective thinking’ you talk about you would have realised that.
am I alone in seeing that the argument of the prohibitionists is both personal and prejudiced towards any movement in the fight against illegal drugs?
Okay, you’ve got me interested… how do you think that decriminalising cannabis is going to help in the fight against illegal drugs? I mean the only logical answer that I can see is that the number of drugs that are illegal will be reduced by one… please Gleeber, share your wisdom?
They present half an argument which a blind man could see was a major cause of crime and funding for international terrorism.
Ha ha ha! Oh, that’s good… you’re now arguing that we should decriminalise cannabis because of international terrorism? Have you been taking lessons from Messrs Blair and Bush?
It has nothing to do with concerns for peoples welfare otherwise they would be flying a flag of temperance if that was really their goal. In actual fact they are arrogant enough to advocate the use of alcohol.
I’ll say it again… ”We’ve made a start with cigarettes and I hope that it won’t be long before the misuse of alcohol follows”.
They are on a lemmings type bandwagon which uses drugs as a scapegoat for all that is bad in our societies.
I’ve got a box of straws in the kitchen Gleeber… you seem to be running out of your own, would you like to borrow a few? I cannot think of a more idiotic statement than saying that I believe drugs are responsible for ‘all that is bad in society. Wherever did you get that ridiculous idea? :lol:
Their dogma is prohibition which eats away at the fabric of our society.
“ If it turns out that cannabis is (reasonably) safe to use then that's great, knock yourselves out…” – JJC – Fri May 27th, 2005-05-29
What’s the matter Gleeber, having a few problems with memory loss? :roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.