Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
When you live in a society that provides you with instant gratification eg social media, some of the kids of these wealthy individuals go off the rails. Having worked in private care (they will go PVT as they can afford it but also it won't appear on their NHS record, more and more cases are coming through)
I don’t think “coke at middle-class dinner parties” would have become the cliche it is without it being pretty darned common. Certainly, more than a few outwardly respectable and successful people partake in such substances. (I would mention the toilets at Parliament, but “outwardly respectable”?)
It’s notable that only a few decades ago, drug war proponents talked seriously about shutting down the illegal drug trade for good. Indeed, they thought they’d put a major dent in it when they discovered “Tranquilandia”, a coke lab in the Colombian jungle with eight runways. In the event, of course, it had no noticeable effect.
Not only is the drug war now universally seen as unwinnable; it doesn’t even seem to have brought us any nearer to the goals it had. The size of the illicit market absolutely dwarfs that of other criminal ones.
I don’t pretend to know what exactly would happen were we to implement legal regulation, but what does seem indisputable is that there’d be a lot less acquisitive crime, a lot less money flowing to bad people, and a much smaller percentage of users suffering the effects of bad or unusually strong batches. Whether such benefits would compensate for the removal of the legal deterrent is, to a point, a matter of opinion.
There is a far more fundamental issue at stake here which is that adults should have the right to take whatever substances they like. Implicitly accepting that taking drugs is a "problem" is already conceding a point to the misguided prohibitionists and allowing them to frame the debate in their own perverse way.
That is academic though as county lines cannot be acceptable to anyone decent imo.
There is a far more fundamental issue at stake here which is that adults should have the right to take whatever substances they like. Implicitly accepting that taking drugs is a "problem" is already conceding a point to the misguided prohibitionists and allowing them to frame the debate in their own perverse way.
To a certain extent that is true, but when the side-effects of taking such substances can have a damaging effect on the lives of others, or cause serious problems or costs for society as whole, then it is not unreasonable for society as a whole to take action through its elected authority. Permitting unrestricted drug-taking might reduce some types of criminal behaviour, but it is almost certain to cause widespread social and economic damage to the country. In this case the cure would almost certainly be worse than the problem.
I am subject to random screening in my employment. This is for the safety of my passengers and this practice was implemented with good reason, following a nasty buffer stop collision where drugs were believed to have been a factor.
I think that this should be extended to other employments. There is drug use among medical practitioners and among teachers for example. Both groups are in positions of responsibility.
I've worked for several employers where everyone - even catering staff - were subject to random screening. I've known bar staff and cafe workers at different employers sacked after testing positive for cannabis. No excuses, they knew the rules when they took the jobs. If I was an employer, I would have a similar policy - I don't want people working for me who are under the influence of drugs (including alcohol).
There is a far more fundamental issue at stake here which is that adults should have the right to take whatever substances they like. Implicitly accepting that taking drugs is a "problem" is already conceding a point to the misguided prohibitionists and allowing them to frame the debate in their own perverse way.
The problem is that drugs have a negative effect on both behaviour and judgement, as well as health implications. This is where is ceases to become something which solely affects the one adult.
I don’t think drugs could be legalised without creating, or worsening, a whole load of problems.
I agree with you in principle that, where practicable, people should be free to do what they want, but a line has to be drawn where this places an unreasonable and unacceptable imposition on others. Hence this is simply not a “where practicable” case.
Would you be happy to travel on a train driven by someone who is under the influence of drugs, or alcohol for that matter?
To a certain extent that is true, but when the side-effects of taking such substances can have a damaging effect on the lives of others, or cause serious problems or costs for society as whole, then it is not unreasonable for society as a whole to take action through its elected authority. Permitting unrestricted drug-taking might reduce some types of criminal behaviour, but it is almost certain to cause widespread social and economic damage to the country. In this case the cure would almost certainly be worse than the problem.
I was going to say that that’s the argument that tends to be advanced against what Egg Centric says. It’s not without its merits; there’s no doubt that problem drug use can take a terrible toll on loved ones.
However, if we’re going to criminalise self-harm because it also harms others, surely gazillions of other activities should be banned? Or are we only banning the ones which involve sufficient unearned, decadent pleasure to offend some?
Also, it’s extremely simplistic to say some drugs are a problem and others aren’t. Everyone is different. Some quietly use the likes of heroin in a controlled manner and with no apparent ill effects. Others screw themselves up something terrible with booze or even video games.
When we promote the idea that use of certain drugs is always problematic, it arguably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in some cases. “I’ve started on crack now; there’s no point in trying to be in any way disciplined about my use, because it’s got me! Using it a little is just as bad as using it a lot, so as long as I don’t want to abstain completely, I might as well do it all the time…”
I was going to say that that’s the argument that tends to be advanced against what Egg Centric says. It’s not without its merits; there’s no doubt that problem drug use can take a terrible toll on loved ones.
However, if we’re going to criminalise self-harm because it also harms others, surely gazillions of other activities should be banned? Or are we only banning the ones which involve sufficient unearned, decadent pleasure to offend some?
Out of interest, what other activities might fit the category of self-harm which also harms others?
Many things impose a degree of risk and/or harm, however we do them because generally the benefits outweigh the harms. It’s hard to think what real benefits there are to drug use, other than perhaps as a sticking plaster over other problems.
There is a far more fundamental issue at stake here which is that adults should have the right to take whatever substances they like. Implicitly accepting that taking drugs is a "problem" is already conceding a point to the misguided prohibitionists and allowing them to frame the debate in their own perverse way.
That is academic though as county lines cannot be acceptable to anyone decent imo.
Out of interest, what other activities might fit the category of self-harm which also harms others?
Many things impose a degree of risk and/or harm, however we do them because generally the benefits outweigh the harms. It’s hard to think what real benefits there are to drug use, other than perhaps as a sticking plaster over other problems.
Well, there’s self-harming for a start! To most, it would presumably seem fundamentally wrong to criminalise someone for cutting themselves in an effort to relieve distress. But isn’t that exactly why many use drugs?
Other activities which have no benefit but can and do cause one harm which also affects others? Well, take your pick, really. Examples off the top of my head:
Running down stairs.
Overeating, or eating a nutritionally deficient diet or one comprising too much sugar or processed foods.
Listening to music too loudly.
Overuse of social media.
While the state does try to legislate in regard to some such things, no-one seriously suggests that people should potentially go to prison for years for harming themselves in such ways. I feel that if we weren’t all so used to drug use being such an exception to that then the idea wouldn’t be so widely accepted.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I absolutely wouldn’t, for the avoidance of doubt. There’s a world of difference between banning something in circumstances like that, and banning it all the time.
Well, there’s self-harming for a start! To most, it would presumably seem fundamentally wrong to criminalise someone for cutting themselves in an effort to relieve distress. But isn’t that exactly why many use drugs?
Other activities which have no benefit but can and do cause one harm which also affects others? Well, take your pick, really. Examples off the top of my head:
Running down stairs.
Overeating, or eating a nutritionally deficient diet or one comprising too much sugar or processed foods.
Listening to music too loudly.
Overuse of social media.
While the state does try to legislate in regard to some such things, no-one seriously suggests that people should potentially go to prison for years for harming themselves in such ways. I feel that if we weren’t all so used to drug use being such an exception to that then the idea wouldn’t be so widely accepted.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I absolutely wouldn’t, for the avoidance of doubt. There’s a world of difference between banning something in circumstances like that, and banning it all the time.
Quite so, unfortunately @Egg Centric seems to think "adults should have the right to take whatever substances they like" which means no banning whatsoever
To a certain extent that is true, but when the side-effects of taking such substances can have a damaging effect on the lives of others, or cause serious problems or costs for society as whole, then it is not unreasonable for society as a whole to take action through its elected authority. Permitting unrestricted drug-taking might reduce some types of criminal behaviour, but it is almost certain to cause widespread social and economic damage to the country. In this case the cure would almost certainly be worse than the problem.
I am subject to random screening in my employment. This is for the safety of my passengers and this practice was implemented with good reason, following a nasty buffer stop collision where drugs were believed to have been a factor.
I think that this should be extended to other employments. There is drug use among medical practitioners and among teachers for example. Both groups are in positions of responsibility.
I've worked for several employers where everyone - even catering staff - were subject to random screening. I've known bar staff and cafe workers at different employers sacked after testing positive for cannabis. No excuses, they knew the rules when they took the jobs. If I was an employer, I would have a similar policy - I don't want people working for me who are under the influence of drugs (including alcohol).
The problem is that drugs have a negative effect on both behaviour and judgement, as well as health implications. This is where is ceases to become something which solely affects the one adult.
I don’t think drugs could be legalised without creating, or worsening, a whole load of problems.
I agree with you in principle that, where practicable, people should be free to do what they want, but a line has to be drawn where this places an unreasonable and unacceptable imposition on others. Hence this is simply not a “where practicable” case.
Would you be happy to travel on a train driven by someone who is under the influence of drugs, or alcohol for that matter?
Clearly, only an imbecile would want someone operating heavy machinery under the influence of drugs. That isn't what I said. Although since you mention it, the military is quite happy with their pilots flying under the influence of amphetamines!
With respect to the negative impact on society - overwhelmingly this comes from the illegality itself, but I accept that to an extent this could argue against making some drugs illegal for sure, but (in a free society where these chemicals were legally available at a reasonable price) we'd probably start with stuff absolutely no one would take recreationally (like diphenhydramine aka benadryl - illegal in Zambia for some reason), move onto antibiotics and then likely move onto alcohol (the majority of which in this country is bought by alcoholics or problem drinkers) well before touching the vast majority of currently illegal drugs if we were minded to ban things. Some drugs such as hallucinogens may even be beneficial for mental health. Even those which do cause negative externalities tend to be much less negative than, famously, horse riding for example.
Anyone who has benefited from, for example, the understanding of the helical structure of DNA, Edison's inventions (the non stolen ones!), Coleridge's poems, etc etc has had plenty of benefit from others' drug use.
I won't be bothering to discuss this further as it will always go around in circles and it has nowt to do with trains but there's the basic facts
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Quite so, unfortunately @Egg Centric seems to think "adults should have the right to take whatever substances they like" which means no banning whatsoever
This is a perverse interpretation. I also think adults should have the right to any sexual practice they like, but that doesn't mean I think they can do it in a primary school!
Every adult currently has the right to consume as much alcohol as they like. That doesn't stop individual companies having their own policies on alcohol consumption and dismissing people who break them.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
