Recreational drug use in the UK.

[munch]

Read post 13 Mr.Pedantic

I was responding to a specific post, which I even highlighted to you. For some reason you choose to ignore or maybe you forgot you posted it.

 

[f/1.2]

I don't think I could trust an E at £1 lol

They are grand just need about 4.

 

[f/1.2]

I was responding to a specific post, which I even highlighted to you. For some reason you choose to ignore or maybe you forgot you posted it.

For an aul fella you aren’t half childish.

As already mentioned you highlighted a post about Cannabis being safer than Alcohol which you disagreed with and you were wrong. Then you tried to be pedantic to save face. Embarrassed for you tbh.

 

[Garry Edwards]

To go back to the original question, yes - extremely common.

When I ran my own studio and did a lot of work for advertising agency, we nearly always had to put up with a "Creative Director", usually with 2 or 3 agency staff who would be there on an "awayday", adding to the cost but doing absolutely nothing, and it was 100% normal for most or all of them to use Coke, perfectly openly, and often to smoke weed too - this was before smoking was banned in workplaces. I didn't like it but couldn't afford to upset them, and it would take days for the weed smell to disappear, and other clients probably thought that I was taking drugs.

I think it's even worse now. I play in a pool league and spend my Monday evenings in various local pubs, I don't drink or use drugs but the smell of weed is always there, and there are always some players who are obviously high, I've even seen several of them using coke in plain sight, others roll joints openly and then just go outside to smoke them.

 

[pmac]

Well as normal it’s an issue no one will agree on

Have to agree with @F2.8 weed is far safer than alcohol.
Myself and most folk I know smoked it for many years and many still do.( I don’t)
Does it affect you long term? Probably , I noticed when I stopped.
But for me the difference between alcohol is
I’ve seen people drive safely( most who smoke still drive)
They are non aggressive/ hostile
It is not physically addictive
It doesn’t kill you- alcohol abuse will
And they generally just not dicks when using it.
The number of people prescribed it in the uk is growing year on year, and nearly two millions in total now.
It’s only not legal and was moved up the drug class as the company’s that do legally and have for a life time in the uk are owned by government family members or by them there self.
It’s being kept as a monopoly as they are the only few allowed to grow it and ship it abroad.

As for other drugs ,similarly you are never going to stop people taking them, maybe a more relaxed and government controlled approach would work better, Portugal seems to have turned its self around after pretty much making possession legal.

We could stop stuff being cut with crap or fentanyl being added. Which is now the biggest issue.

Regarding the comments about pills/ mdma is actually now become the opposite problem they are either cut with s*** or more often now they are extremely strong. 2-3x stronger than the 90s/2000’s.
You were lucky to get one’s back then that was 100mg now they are up to 500mg.
They have had a massive resurgence across Europe but doesn’t seem to have been as big here.

 

[Graham W]

If you get drunk you start a fight.
If you get stoned you start a band.

 

[andya700]

The end of my working life was spent in job centres and at times the stench was appalling. At one location I used to ask out loud for claimants to check the soles of their shoes because, to me at least, it smelled like something a goose would leave behind for people to walk in. Yuk!

When I was unemployed the JC was a horrible place and the stench was sickening. I pity those who worked there.

 

[onomatopoeia]

So drink driving is OK?
Operating a train with drugs in your system is OK?
Tell me where would you draw the line?

The problem is substance abuse (be it alcohol or drugs etc) doesn't just have an impact on the individual, it effects friends, family and society as a whole.

In turn (and I would have hoped this was completely bleeding obvious without me having to state it) :
No
No
I would draw the line where it is today - you can drink as much as you like today without breaking any law, but if you then drive a car with alcohol over a certain limit in your blood you will be arrested and tried. Same for other situations / drugs.

 

[pmac]

In turn (and I would have hoped this was completely bleeding obvious without me having to state it) :
No
No
I would draw the line where it is today - you can drink as much as you like today without breaking any law, but if you then drive a car with alcohol over a certain limit in your blood you will be arrested and tried. Same for other situations / drugs.

It’s actually a lot worse for drugs.
The limit for cannabis is so low that even having it in your system from smoking a joint days before would put you over and make you loose your license.
It was one of the deciding factors in me stopping year’s ago.
Anyone who regularly smokes is likely to be exceeding it.
2ug per litre is the limit and that is actually the lowest of all the drug driving limits.

 

[f/1.2]

It’s actually a lot worse for drugs.
The limit for cannabis is so low that even having it in your system from smoking a joint days before would put you over and make you loose your license.
It was one of the deciding factors in me stopping year’s ago.
Anyone who regularly smokes is likely to be exceeding it.
2ug per litre is the limit and that is actually the lowest of all the drug driving limits.

Driving stoned was a weird experience wasn’t for me.

I do remember one time me and my mate had got seriously hungry and decided to go to the shop. We went to get into his car and the drivers door just fell right off in his hand was hilarious. The shop was only around the corner but for some reason we decided to drive anyway. As we left the car park at the front of his, he seen a balloon and grabbed it out the space were the car door should have been. It was pink and said Congrats it’s a girl on it. He tied it to the side of the car and off we went.

We drove around the corner and raided the local shop of all of its Lucizade and crisps and as we were leaving 2 peelers came into the shop. We set outside for ages waiting for them to leave before getting in the car. They were taking too long so eventually we just jumped in the car. As soon as we did out stepped P.C Plod. They just shook their heads and were like ffs lads.

Was like something out of Cheech and Chong.

The same mate used to work in a large factory and sometimes we would smoke all day and he would head on into work to do night shift. One time he was in a bit of a bad way so another mate dropped him to work. He the phoned me about 6 a.m to come get him but I had been up since about 2 smoking but had no option to go get him. It took me nearly an hour to do a 15 minute journey at one point on the motorway I realised I was only doing about 20mph.

Eventually got there and parked up and went to find him but it was impossible there was thousands of people working there. I got lost inside the building and ended up joining a meeting on the shop floor and volounteered to do some overtime. It was an airplane factory and they gave me a rivet gun and put me to work. I worked in sales and had never touched a rivet gun before. I stayed until lunch, had my lunch and came home where my mate who was furious was waiting for me. I never drove stoned again.

 

[Deleted member 99689]

As a non-smoking, moderate drinker, I am in favour of legalising and taxing all recreational drugs, none of which I use or have used.

I'd make them available only through currently licenced premises and I strongly suggest offering substantial rewards for turning in unlicenced vendors. History shows that banning anything simply puts the burden on the taxpayer, whether through the enforcement of laws or the provision of medical care. I think it's much better to tax and regulate.

As a non-smoking, moderate drinker, I am in favour of legalising and taxing all recreational drugs, none of which I use or have used.

I'd make them available only through currently licenced premises and I strongly suggest offering substantial rewards for turning in unlicenced vendors. History shows that banning anything simply puts the burden on the taxpayer, whether through the enforcement of laws or the provision of medical care. I think it's much better to tax and regulate.

I have deleted my post because I will not take part in a discussion with people who openly advocate the use of illegal substances. They clearly have not seen or dealt with the problems cause by drugs and their misuse I have and will have no truck with them.

In other words I will not take part in an intellectual battle with unarmed opponents.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You poor misguided soul.

That's your opinion, which I happen to consider wrong.

We know what happens when governments attempt to suppress drugs of any type: chaos. The Chinese tried it with opium and that didn't end well for China. The USA tried it with alcohol and that led to a boom in criminality. Various South American countries have tried it with cocaine and look at the mess decades of open warfare, between the drug gangs and the governments, has led to. You complain about British drug gangs. While the trade is illegal, you create the environment that supports them.

It's always best to control and tax addictive substances. If you ban them, only the criminals will produce and distribute them. If you licence them and charge reasonable taxes, you can influence the quality of the drugs, with luck reducing medical emergencies. You can also influence to some degree the behaviour of the users, while gradually creating a better balance of risk.

This is no magic bullet. Drunks and addicts will always be a threat, especially where driving is concerned. What legalisation can do is reduce the risks and that is, quite frankly, the only alternative to the current mess.

 

[F1.2]

NOT for me thanks, Never have and never will.

 

[munch]

That's your opinion, which I happen to consider wrong.

We know what happens when governments attempt to suppress drugs of any type: chaos. The Chinese tried it with opium and that didn't end well for China. The USA tried it with alcohol and that led to a boom in criminality. Various South American countries have tried it with cocaine and look at the mess decades of open warfare, between the drug gangs and the governments, has led to. You complain about British drug gangs. While the trade is illegal, you create the environment that supports them.

I don't think you can say that the UK is suppressing the drug trade. Clearly it is more like a game of chase me.

It's always best to control and tax addictive substances. If you ban them, only the criminals will produce and distribute them. If you licence them and charge reasonable taxes, you can influence the quality of the drugs, with luck reducing medical emergencies. You can also influence to some degree the behaviour of the users, while gradually creating a better balance of risk.

The UK government allows the sale of tobacco, it taxes it and tries to put controls on it. It still hasn't stop either underage smoking, nor the sale of illegal tobacco. There is a certain element of drug taking, that do it because is illegal. So you prescribe certain drugs to be legal, some people will seek the illegal alternatives (Nobody will allow all drugs to be legal) Alternatively there are people who won't take drugs because they know they are illegal, who may start if they were legal

This is no magic bullet. Drunks and addicts will always be a threat, especially where driving is concerned. What legalisation can do is reduce the risks and that is, quite frankly, the only alternative to the current mess.

There is a lot of debate at the moment in the Emergency Medicine world about access to drugs for Paramedics. As an example few Paramedics can administrate Ketamine. Yet if drugs were made legal Ketamine could be something that you could get over the counter.
Nitronox is a controlled drug (Often referred to as laughing gas) there is specific training for using it because there are contraindications for it use. Yet if drugs were made legal you could get the more "potent" part of it (Nitrogen) over the counter.
There are many addictive drugs that are currently legally available as a Prescription Only Medicine (POM) they are also sold illegally with no control. How would your system work if drugs became free for all? Yet Health Care Professionals (HCP's) would still need to follow clinical guidelines, for very good reasons.

 

[lindsay]

I've never understood why a human would want to take a horse tranquilliser (Ketamine) except for suicide purposes. It makes you wonder what Matthew Perry and Elon musk would be like without them, - probably hyper and perhaps make bipolar disorder more obvious and thus controllable correctly?

 

[f/1.2]

I've never understood why a human would want to take a horse tranquilliser (Ketamine) except for suicide purposes. It makes you wonder what Matthew Perry and Elon musk would be like without them, - probably hyper and perhaps make bipolar disorder more obvious and thus controllable correctly?

Ketamine is a great stabiliser if you have taken something else, massive help on a come down as is Cannabis. Ketamine is a lot more effective though.

In small doses Ketamine makes you feel very relaxed, not quite the same as being stoned but similar and much stronger. People that regularly take drugs like Cocaine and Ecstasy struggle badly with sleeping even when not taking them, Ketamine is very helpful for that.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread I had a bit of a bad experience with Ketamine once were i couldn't move at all for a few hours. We had a party the night before and one of my mates found a bag of white powder down the side of the chair. There was maybe 5 or 6 of us and we all took it thinking it was coke. We then just waited for it to kick in and nothing happened we were just standing in the kitchen and then bang my mate just hit the floor, not even a few seconds later I went and one by one we were all on the deck.

My cousin arrived. a bit later on and found us and phoned an ambulance but by the time it arrived we had all pretty much came around. We were probably lucky to be fair that there was enough of us, that what was there divided between us, didn't have a more serious effect. If I had of found it myself I would have probably taken it all and it may have been quite serious as was ridiculously strong.

 

[gman]

That's your opinion, which I happen to consider wrong.

We know what happens when governments attempt to suppress drugs of any type: chaos. The Chinese tried it with opium and that didn't end well for China. The USA tried it with alcohol and that led to a boom in criminality. Various South American countries have tried it with cocaine and look at the mess decades of open warfare, between the drug gangs and the governments, has led to. You complain about British drug gangs. While the trade is illegal, you create the environment that supports them.

It's always best to control and tax addictive substances. If you ban them, only the criminals will produce and distribute them. If you licence them and charge reasonable taxes, you can influence the quality of the drugs, with luck reducing medical emergencies. You can also influence to some degree the behaviour of the users, while gradually creating a better balance of risk.

This is no magic bullet. Drunks and addicts will always be a threat, especially where driving is concerned. What legalisation can do is reduce the risks and that is, quite frankly, the only alternative to the current mess.

I'm not sure if it's still on, but I posted last year about Trafficked with Marianna Van Zeller on Disney about the Black Market Marijuana in CA. It's worth a watch to see how legalising Cannabis has perhaps not had the desired results and the reasons why. That's not to say it couldn't work, but certainly how they have done it doesn't appear to.

Here's the original post: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...political-thread.714357/page-982#post-9555517

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I don't think you can say that the UK is suppressing the drug trade. Clearly it is more like a game of chase me.

That is exactly my point.

Attempts at suppressing the use of mood altering substances have seldom, if ever, been succesful.

The UK government allows the sale of tobacco, it taxes it and tries to put controls on it. It still hasn't stop either underage smoking, nor the sale of illegal tobacco. There is a certain element of drug taking, that do it because is illegal

The "forbidden fruit" principle. This is why suppresion simply doesn't seem to work. However, legalisation seems likely to provide more control than the current system. The use of both tobacco and alcohol has fallen in recent years and this may be due to to a greater emphasis on education involving the vendors of such products.

How would your system work if drugs became free for all? Yet Health Care Professionals (HCP's) would still need to follow clinical guidelines, for very good reasons.

I am not advocating any system, simply pointing out that the current strategy doesn't show any signs of working and suggesting that we stop banging our heads against the brick wall. The tactical implementation of a different strategy would, as always, be up to those "in the front line".

 

[munch]

Ketamine is a great stabiliser if you have taken something else, massive help on a come down as is Cannabis. Ketamine is a lot more effective though.

In small doses Ketamine makes you feel very relaxed, not quite the same as being stoned but similar and much stronger. People that regularly take drugs like Cocaine and Ecstasy struggle badly with sleeping even when not taking them, Ketamine is very helpful for that.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread I had a bit of a bad experience with Ketamine once were i couldn't move at all for a few hours. We had a party the night before and one of my mates found a bag of white powder down the side of the chair. There was maybe 5 or 6 of us and we all took it thinking it was coke. We then just waited for it to kick in and nothing happened we were just standing in the kitchen and then bang my mate just hit the floor, not even a few seconds later I went and one by one we were all on the deck.

My cousin arrived. a bit later on and found us and phoned an ambulance but by the time it arrived we had all pretty much came around. We were probably lucky to be fair that there was enough of us, that what was there divided between us, didn't have a more serious effect. If I had of found it myself I would have probably taken it all and it may have been quite serious as was ridiculously strong.

So now you are saying lets take a cocktail of drugs Get high then take something else to bring you back down. Why not just not take drugs at all,

Last year I had someone that had overdosed and was "in a coma" and after I gave him Naloxone, he got quite aggressive because I had runed his experience.

 

[munch]

That is exactly my point.

Attempts at suppressing the use of mood altering substances have seldom, if ever, been succesful.

The "forbidden fruit" principle. This is why suppresion simply doesn't seem to work. However, legalisation seems likely to provide more control than the current system. The use of both tobacco and alcohol has fallen in recent years and this may be due to to a greater emphasis on education involving the vendors of such products.

I am not advocating any system, simply pointing out that the current strategy doesn't show any signs of working and suggesting that we stop banging our heads against the brick wall. The tactical implementation of a different strategy would, as always, be up to those "in the front line".

So have I got this right, you would like to see a drugs free for all, but have no idea how it would be implemented and how it would impact on existing controls?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

So have I got this right, you would like to see a drugs free for all, but have no idea how it would be implemented and how it would impact on existing controls?

This is true.

However, lack of specialist knowledge is not a barrier to noticing an elephant in the room, even if you don't know how to persuade it to leave.

 

[f/1.2]

So now you are saying lets take a cocktail of drugs Get high then take something else to bring you back down. Why not just not take drugs at all,

Last year I had someone that had overdosed and was "in a coma" and after I gave him Naloxone, he got quite aggressive because I had runed his experience.

I didn't say that anyone should do anything. I just explained why Ketamine is so popular.

Drugs are dangerous and its a bit like roulette so they should be legalised so that there isn't the need for the black market.

Some people will always chase a high and restricting drugs just makes it more unsafe.

Alcohol kills far more people in the U.K than illegal drugs, yet you don't seem to mind that.

 

[munch]

This is true.

However, lack of specialist knowledge is not a barrier to noticing an elephant in the room, even if you don't know how to persuade it to leave.

Here's the first issue, I don't see an elephant. I see a rather large table that we have to negotiate round. We wish more than anything that it wasn't there. But it won't disappear by itself. We just might be able to make smaller tables with it, but all it just create lots of smaller obstacles.

 

[munch]

I didn't say that anyone should do anything. I just explained why Ketamine is so popular.

Drugs are dangerous and its a bit like roulette so they should be legalised so that there isn't the need for the black market.

Some people will always chase a high and restricting drugs just makes it more unsafe.

Does it? You have have already said drugs are dangerous, legalising them doesn't make them any less dangerous.
Ketamine is a good case in point. the use of legally obtained Ketamine is strictly controlled, mainly due to the contraindications of giving it. Your idea would mean that anybody could get it and use it. Whilst those who use it for what it was intended to be used for, would still be restricted in using it. The contraindications won't suddenly disappear just because you make it legal.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Here's the first issue, I don't see an elephant. I see a rather large table that we have to negotiate round.

Elephants and tables are, in this context, interchangeable.

There's something that I came across in a book on the Napoleonic Wars, which I think may help: "The Sergeant, standing in the front line on the battlefield, sees the enemies' bayonets and can make his decisions on nothing else. The General, sitting on his horse on the high hill, sees the whole battle as on a chessboard".

Distance may or may not lend enchantment but it does provide a different view.

 

[f/1.2]

Does it? You have have already said drugs are dangerous, legalising them doesn't make them any less dangerous.
Ketamine is a good case in point. the use of legally obtained Ketamine is strictly controlled, mainly due to the contraindications of giving it. Your idea would mean that anybody could get it and use it. Whilst those who use it for what it was intended to be used for, would still be restricted in using it. The contraindications won't suddenly disappear just because you make it legal.

From everything I had read and experienced most drug deaths aren’t caused by the drugs themselves other than in the case of an overdose they are caused by all the crap they are cut with.

Safe drugs equals less deaths. Safe drugs means it being supplied in safe quantities with lots of education around usage. Safe drugs means more lives saved. That is my opinion anyway.

 

[Raincloud]

Never tried any of those drugs.

I know someone who has smoked cannabis since 13. She is 49 now and mentally unstable. Very aggressive. Moody.

 

[munch]

From everything I had read and experienced most drug deaths aren’t caused by the drugs themselves other than in the case of an overdose they are caused by all the crap they are cut with.

Safe drugs equals less deaths. Safe drugs means it being supplied in safe quantities with lots of education around usage. Safe drugs means more lives saved. That is my opinion anyway.

Maybe you need to read about drug deaths a bit more then.

You and me are never going to agree on this, You don't even believe Cannabis is even a drug.
My experiences of what drugs can (and do) do to people are clearly very different to yours. Maybe if you had gone to check on someone's well being and found them dead from a drug overdose you would see things differently.

 

[f/1.2]

Maybe you need to read about drug deaths a bit more then.

You and me are never going to agree on this, You don't even believe Cannabis is even a drug.
My experiences of what drugs can (and do) do to people are clearly very different to yours. Maybe if you had gone to check on someone's well being and found them dead from a drug overdose you would see things differently.

I doubt it I found a guy who hung hi self one time. I don’t start a campaign to have rope banned.

 

[gman]

I've not looked it up, but how do deaths linked to obesity compare to deaths related to illegal drug poisoning?

 

[munch]

I doubt it I found a guy who hung hi self one time. I don’t start a campaign to have rope banned.

Now you are just making silly comparisons.

 

[munch]

I've not looked it up, but how do deaths linked to obesity compare to deaths related to illegal drug poisoning?

I don't know, but if you really want to look at "self inflicted deaths" you need to include all sports deaths as well.

 

[gman]

I don't know, but if you really want to look at "self inflicted deaths" you need to include all sports deaths as well.

Why?

 

[lindsay]

I have a feeling that this thread is reaching a natural conclusion where some people just need to agree to disagree. We might lock it soon to avoid spilling into poor behaviour

 

[Mr Bump]

I have a feeling that this thread is reaching a natural conclusion where some people just need to agree to disagree. We might lock it soon to avoid spilling into poor behaviour

That's coz there a few closet drug users that just want all there cake

 

[Brendan Mulachy]

I've never understood why a human would want to take a horse tranquilliser (Ketamine) except for suicide purposes. It makes you wonder what Matthew Perry and Elon musk would be like without them, - probably hyper and perhaps make bipolar disorder more obvious and thus controllable correctly?

i was kept in an induced coma on ketamine for a couple of days whilst i recovered from dying on an operating table a couple of years back( it takes more than being dead to kill me and they eventually got me back obviously) ...god knows why kids take it for fun because my head was well and trully battered with it for about a week, granted i was taking more than you would recreationally but still i didnt enjoy it one bit, became very emotional, i could hear voices and people were talking to me in forign langauges, one doctor in particular have a full on conversation with me in french ...the only probelm is he wasnt speaking french and all i dont speak french...very strange times and not one i fancy repeating...hence why my consequent surgeries have been whilst ive been awake during the procedure

 

[Pound Coin]

I've not looked it up, but how do deaths linked to obesity compare to deaths related to illegal drug poisoning?

Probably also a good idea would be to list all causes of death, ranked. Recognising, of course, that death is 100% likely.

(difficult to link many behaviours to deaths, and there are well funded bad actors in the mix messing up the minds - like the tobacco companies did in the middle of last century.)

Also, for people to understand how obesity, unfitness, s***e food are related to death. And how advertising and news outlets with agendas skew opinion on the latter.

 

[f/1.2]

Now you are just making silly comparisons.

A bit like yourself bro.

 

[Garry Edwards]

We seem to have decended into insult mode