Binge Drinking

[Zael]

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'".

[Drutt]

So what is your point of view Zael? Legalise everything or criminalise everything?

[Zael]

Basically, yes.

Remove the double standard one way or another and then everyone knows where they stand.

[Drutt]

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...

[jjc]

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.

[jjc]

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.

[Zael]

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.

[jjc]

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…

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 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?

[Drutt]

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.

[Drutt]

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!

[Zael]

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.

[Drutt]

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.

[Rheghead]

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.

[jjc]

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!

[gleeber]

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 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.
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.

[Rheghead]

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.

[jjc]

… 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 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?

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?