to be a little shocked at the laissez faire attitude to drugs on here?

[ThatVikRinA22]

at risk of sounding like your mum and pulling a cats bum face

im a bit shocked. Ive seen reference to drugs and recreational drug use on here before, and while i love the diversity of mn, im always quite shocked at what seems to be a majority? view that recreational drugs are just part of life, that its ok because 'professionals' do it too, that its not the same to be seen to use cocaine at the weekend as it is to be a shoplifter or prostitute with an addiction to herioin....

is it just that no one sees the murkier side of drug use?

i suppose i see the darker side because of what i do for a living, but even before that, i would never have been tempted to try. There are the wider issues with production, trafficking, crime, gangs, and the environmental issues in production
just one such story here

my brother was a heroin addict, and i lost my sister to drugs, one way or another, i believe drug use contributed to her death. Seriously, most the crime i deal with is in some way drug related. Two weeks ago i was involved in an attempted murder over cocaine and cannabis supply.

i am not some rabid campaigner, but this is mumsnet - are most of us parents? i find it odd that people can froth about the small stuff, that people get pilloried for some really bizarre stuff on here while threads about drug use get a fairly "meh" response. (yes its a thread inspired by the coke using teachers assistant....)

why is that? genuinely interested to explore why coke use is seen as ok, and wonder what is not ok?

if its ok for the TA to use coke at the weekend, is it ok for them to smoke crack? or use heroin? doctors were mentioned on the last thread....would you undergo an operation knowing your doctor or surgeon had used coke? or smoked cannabis?

if its just part of life, where would you draw the line?
do people not realise what it takes to get that gram of coke at the pub at the weekend?

I am just reading a book on the opium trade - it was appalling the way huge profits were made out of spreading utter misery.

My DD can talk about my views anywhere, as I have said, I don't take drugs.

Queen Victoria took opium. Lots of people did.

The Opium Wars were dreadful. However, my point is that acceptable doesn't mean good and vice versa.

If, as a parent, you don't take drugs then I don't know what we are arguing about!

You can't be prosecuted for views.

I loathe drugs. I would be horrified if I found one of my DD's teachers was using them even at weekends. I am aware I may be unpleasantly surprised at some point. I may even be naive. I hate them.

I work in a high pressure sales environment. I've been surrounded by wankers snorting coke for years. I'm aware they feel fantastic when they take it. Sadly, the reality is that they are boring as hell.

It is a pity they don't see themselves as they really are.

I don't take drugs but I

1. Want them legalised
2. Have no issue with people taking them
3. Think that addiction is the issue not which drug does it to you
4. Have no problem with teachers/parents/pilots/Royals using them as long as they do their job well and not under the influence.

That is what we are arguing about

exoticfruits In a situation where a parent was prosecuted for doing drugs because their child went to the police, you would have to ask yourself if the parent was wrong for taking drugs, or if the government was wrong for criminalising them in the first place.

sorry - just reading through and in the midst of the reasoned arguments i noticed one thing that i just have to comment on further.....no cop i know uses cocaine to get through a night shift! red bull maybe. coke? only the diet kind.

did i not explain that we are randomly drug tested? i know of one cautionary tale of a bobby using coke - we were treated to her story in training, she made a dvd for the benefit of other police officers who may be tempted.

she was sacked obviously, and prosecuted. we are tested.

I have a drug addict brother and also work in a hospital so have seen the devastating effects of drugs. I cannot see the 'good' side to them but I respect people's choices to use them as they see fit.

I am though that people can be horrified over a greggs sausage roll and a fruit shoot but not bat an eyelid over a bit of dope? perhaps because the dope doesn't contain artificial sweeteners

If you like wine you do take something mind altering. I don't understand what the reason is for the distinction.

My objection to illegal drugs is less the effect on the user (devastating though that can be) than the effects of the criminality of production and supply. Wine producers don't, for example, typically operate in ruthless cartels that sponsor assassinations, social cleansing, protection rackets, extortion, corruption, the kidnap or murder of hundreds of journalists, officials, politicians and their relatives or innocent bystanders, destruction of indigenous life and culture, forced labour, forced prostitution and forced trafficking, or prop up civil wars or terrorist groups. That's without getting started on the environmental effects of drug cultivation.

Yes, you can buy alcohol or cigs illegally imported by gangs, but most people don't.

I just think that if people take coke, they shouldn't be particularly surprised if people judge them for putting getting their jollies at a middle class professional party over all of the above.

And it is not as simple as "if people have problems we can support them through rehab." The American Indian band I work with have been ravaged by drugs in combination with alcohol. It is reinforcing massive educational and DV problems in the community. They live in the arse end of nowhere where there are very few support services or employment opportunities. Anyone who can leaves the reservation. Some vulnerable groups simply do not have access to a support network that can help them if they get addicted.

People can justify 'getting their jollies' over all of the above, because they believe the responsibility for the criminal activity mentioned lies squarely on the shoulders of the higher powers who should have brought it all above ground by now, and dealt with it properly.

There are nowhere near enough support networks in place because the whole sorry mess is severely stigmatised, and without the legitimate guidance and funding that could come with legalisation and more honest communication from the government.

That just sounds like self-justification and passing the buck to me.

Can I justify not paying tax because big corporations routinely do so and claim they're not doing anything illegal just exploiting the law as it is?

It's the same argument that many of the looters employed during the riots - everyone else is doing it so what harm can I do by joining in? It's not like I started it or shot Mark Duggan...

I agree Scared that legalising might help, but it's a pathetic argument that 'it's all the government's fault'. Rightly or wrongly it's the status quo at the moment and buying the drugs funds misery around the world on a huge scale.

Dahlen and abitcoldupnorth, in this instance I am quite happy to say that yes, I do believe it is the government's fault.

That is not to say I do not profoundly respect their decisions and law-making in other areas, and am a very law-abiding citizen myself, right down to the small things like not dropping a gum wrapper.

However, I am compelled to declare wrong when I see it. And I see wrong.

ah ok.
its the governments fault.
so, i can blame the government for my sister dying.
i can blame the government for my brother being a pissed up smack head who sired a child who was born at 25 weeks with lung disease due to his and his wife long standing use of heroin and speed.

its all the governments fault, see. easy.
now i dont like this government - not a jot. but thats the worst argument ive ever ever ever heard for justifying drug abuse and use.

No, no, no.

We were talking about criminal activity. Which I do maintain is the governments fault... for making the activity criminalised in the first place.

Now what you are talking about are the personal consequences from personal choices. Which unfortunately are down to the individuals involved... and possibly/probably made a lot worse by the government's policies.

Can I just add Vicar, that I really am very, deeply sorry for what has happened to your family members. I have lost family members too, so please don't think I cannot empathise.

And I also think it is remarkable that you have obviously managed to rise above the destruction around you and do something really positive and productive with your life. I have every admiration for the police force.

However, I do not blame what happened to your family members on drugs. I blame it on your family members.

That is the honest, hard truth.

see i can agree with you on one hand, but not on the other.

my sister died because of drugs. really. that simple. she died at the wheel of a car because she did not sleep, she was on drugs, she was messed up,and she was not messed up before she took drugs. drugs did it. i blame drugs squarely for her death.

my brother was different - he was messed up way before a drug ever entered his system. i agree with you there. he took drugs to numb his pain, but the consequences of that were he inflicted his dysfunction on others, his child did not ask for his dysfunction. she will be ill all her life because of it.

but drugs killed my sister, and drugs alone.
drugs do damage. they do harm. they do untold harm that you do not see.
cocaine is seen as ok, sanitised even, because of the people that use it, not because of the drug itself.

Can I just say, personally, even though what I said earlier does make me 'pro-drugs' according to some posters, I'm against the legalisation of drugs as are majority of people I know who I've had this discussion with (bearing in mind nearly all are/were drug users).

I don't want to pay tax on my drugs.

I don't want lots of drug related tourism.

I don't think it should be acceptable to be injecting in a park or sitting in a cafe doing a line. Obviously I'm aware that these happen despite it being illegal but I think it would happen on a mass scale.

Also in my experience for the majority of recreational drug users the legality does help to control use.

I know I've over simplified the issue but I would only agree with a legalisation of drugs under very specific circumstances and if it was say a european wide thing minimum.

Vicar

I'll agree with you that drugs can and do kill. And in the case of your sister, it sounds like they did.

But that does not mean that drugs are bad because of that fact, just as cars are not bad because they can and do kill.

My position is that drugs are very powerful and dangerous. They can do great good, and they can do great harm.

My position is also that the best way to manage that danger is to educate people (with honest information), let them make their own choices, and put decent support structures in place to deal with the casualties (because there are always casualties where freedom is concerned... whether it be driving or alcohol or sex).

But I believe in giving people that freedom. Personal choice and personal responsibility. Governmental support and guidance.

omg.

so ruby you dont want to pay tax on your drugs? lets keep them illegal then but accessible? thats all that counts eh?

im struggling to find words right now, really. this is whats fucking wrong with the whole argument. cheers, you just did me a huge favour.

When I was a student (quite a few years ago now), almost everyone I knew took drugs including me. One by one we all stopped after nasty things starting happening - after the come down. This included recurrent panic attacks, paranoid delusions, halucinations days after the event, one of my friends had a heart attack. My boyfriend had a pyschotic episode whilst taking E that he never recovered from and ended up in mental institute and is still there. Drugs are completely unpredictable. They provide a totally false sense of happiness and ruin peoples lives. It's better to live a "real" life with genuine happiness than rely on the fake sensations drugs provide. I'm glad they are illegal and I hope it stays that way.

No I don't want to pay tax on my drugs. I haven't said anything about being accessible. I think the points I was actually making is I don't want them too accessible. The word you may have been looking for is affordable but thats not what I said either.

I don't want the government having anything to do with them. I think that some of the deals the government makes with pharmaceutical companies are very dubious and I would hate for them to be involved in what are currently illegal drugs.

I think our government is totally incapable of managing alcohol consumption, prices and relevant taxation in this country we don't need them trying to get involved in drugs. The government will totally cock it up by majorly taxing causing them to drive people to crime to afford it and thus completely defeat the purpose of taxation. The government if legalising drugs wouldn't be able to not bow to the public pressure of taxing them high so it would all be totally futile.