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?

If cigarettes were made illegal, do you really think their production would not fall just as equally to the same forces?

Hospitals are pretty good at sourcing their diamorphine Dahlen. It can be done.

And yes, almost every choice we make has an effect on health (positive or negative). We're still allowed to make those choices and not have them snatched out of our hands (for our own good).

Again, I'm not calling for a blanket ban. Just playing devil's advocate if you like! I have no solution. My only point was that drugs cannot be truly compared with chocolate and clothes from India. They are completely separate and really not very comparable since with the latter two, the consumer does have a choice and the majority of consumers are not addicted to them.

I'll be fucked if I know what to do about the drugs problem.

Oh no, I disagree that they cannot be compared. They can be legitimately compared to highlight certain individual points (such as the way a product is produced does not mean the product is evil).

I absolutely agree that it is not a perfect analogy, and cannot be used to highlight all the issues.

Some illicit drugs are thought to have health benefits. Not a fashionable idea I know but LSD, magic mushrooms and ecstasy have all been used to treat anxiety, depression and addiction. Some MS sufferers use cannabis to alleviate symptoms.

I think the key word in these discussions is 'abuse' . And I'd guess there is just as much abuse of prescription drugs as there is of illegal drugs.

And I like devil's advocate. Just please understand its easy to confuse it with your actual position (which you seem to keep close to your chest).

Many illicit drugs are actually masquerading as medical treatments, in hospitals near you.

Hmmm. But let's look at some of those points:

Some chocolate production involves child slavery and cruelty.
All drug production involves acts of violence, terror, war, habitat destruction, prostitution, corruption and some child trafficking.

You can buy fairtrade chocolate
You cannot buy fairtrade drugs

Drugs can be mixed with other harmful substances such as washing detergent
Chocolate can be mixed with milk powder

Drugs are extremely addictive and can cause mental health problems and cancer
Chocolate is less addictive and can cause stomach problems and fatty tissue amongst others

Drugs are mood changers and can cause a loss of control and violence
Chocolate can also change moods but has never been linked to violence

I'm sure there are more points to be compared, those are just the ones I can think of. The comparison with clothes is even more tenuous.

So as much as I think your arguments are well constructed and extremely well made, I do have to disagree with that one unfortunately.

What I've been more shocked by is the laissez-faire attitude to drinking whilst pregnant on these boards. There seems to be a real alcohol-is-always-OK culture that I'm not used to...

You're not actually disagreeing with me, because I am not saying that all the issues surrounding chocolate are the same as the issues surrounding drugs.

I'm using the analogy to highlight that a production chain creating human misery does not mean the end product is intrinsically bad.

On the rest of the points you made (such as addiction and violence) I would not even attempt to compare the two, nor have I ever in this thread.

And yes, I do keep my cards close to my chest on that one. You could say that I almost sit on the fence as I've witnessed first hand, many different types of drug abuse and what it can do to people. But I have also seen drug use in a far more relaxed way and can understand the medicinal argument.

The way drugs are produced however, is something that I cannot sit on the fence about. It's an uncomfortable truth for anyone actively taking drugs still.

"All drug production involves acts of violence, terror, war, habitat destruction, prostitution, corruption and some child trafficking."

Also, this is deeply flawed. Medical drug production (diamorphine = heroin) has none of these problems. Probably because its legal... tightly controlled, but legal.

Fair enough Scared. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the two are comparable at all really. Perhaps similar on a couple of points but not really comparable.

Pesh, good point. I drank whilst pregnant. Not much I hasten to add.
If you are merely talking health risks then I agree with you that alcohol whilst pregnant is a far bigger problem than drugs whilst preggers.

But my Guinness did have iron in it

Ah you got me there - I should have said Most

And I still think we actually agree THERhubarb, it is the difference between a comparison and an analogy.

I believe chocolate can be used as an analogy against drugs to highlight specific singular points (such as "evil production does not mean end product is evil")

I do not believe it can be used as a comparison in almost any other way... at all.

And if medical source and supply can be set up without involving human misery (under governmental guidance), then it can be done.

Scaredbutdoingit - are you involved in any campaigns to legalise drugs? While I completely disagree with your stance on this, I acknowledge your POV and can even admire it if you are actively campaigning for a change in legislation.

I've viewed the drugs 'scene' from several different angles, personal, professional, problematic use and recreational use. Not sure that's entirely relevant, but I'm not coming at this with an agenda. My current stance is based on years of experience that I've filtered through to produce an informed opinion.

I can honestly say that of the many people who claim they smoke cannabis because "it helps them sleep", "reduces anxiety" etc, it's a convenient self delusion. The truth is that if you offered those people a pill that removed the associated risks they wouldn't take it because they like the high and the act of smoking. Never mind that it's actually the restriction to blood vessels and the simple act of being addicted that is often responsible for poor sleep and anxiety in the first place.

This is not to undermine the position of people with MS, for example, who have found relief from their symptoms and I full support the principle of research into this area.

I think in the case of several drugs, however, there are no justifications for them. The products are intrinsically bad. Increased energy etc from coke does not mean it's ok in moderation because even in moderation it will damage your health. The same is not true of chocolate or alcohol.

I guess our attitude to drugs will be based on what we see around us. I have only seen non-harmful recreational use. Those people who have ended up on the negative side would, in my opinion, have found other routes to their self-destruction. Most drug users I know, or ex users, have found ways to live normal lives. I think the heroin users have the hardest time because of the terrible addictive nature of that drug. The coke users are all self-regulating and most seem to realise when they are doing too much, too often, and cut back.

Dahlen At the moment, no, although I have certainly considered it, and have not ruled it out yet.

The only reason for this is that I am highly active and invested in certain other areas for the time being, and have literally not got the personal energy to spread myself out that thinly. Drugs and the issues surrounding their legalisation do interest me, but are not my highest priority (yet).

I also like to very firmly hold a position before taking action, and believe it or not, my views have not actually been as solid as they may seem to be now, as my position flip-flopped back and forth quite a bit on the journey to arrive at where I am now, as I considered different views.

I agree with you that many people who use drugs are self-deluded (or hiding the truth) about why they really use them.

I disagree that there are no justifications for using drugs in a recreational sense. Not everyone does value health over life experience as highly as you appear to (or none of us would ever eat a Big Mac! or get drunk!)

There really also are some additional individual benefits that nobody likes talking about , and I also am loathe to talk about them too much, because if people have not done enough research to know about them, then they really shouldn't know about them.

I sincerely do not mean that in any sort of demeaning way... only that a person dictates their own self-growth. The same way that children know themselves when they are ready to know more about sex (for example), and will begin asking the appropriate questions for their individual level.

I for one, would never take (even legalised) drugs "for fun or kicks", but do have deeply personal reasons for why I would.

I also am not sure (not even close actually) to believing that just because I believe someone shouldn't take them for fun or kicks, means I should ban them from doing so.

"The products are intrinsically bad."

Also, I find this sentence extremely problematic.

If heroin is intrinsically bad, then diamorphine is intrinsically bad (because they are literally the same thing).

Its all in the user, and the reasons/method of use.

I remember talking to a "War on Drugs" American a while ago. He said anyone passing out heroin should be shot.

I explained that would harm oncology significantly in this country, and he called me a liar. Even with links provided he disbelieved there were medical uses until a better informed fellow countryman advised him.

My normal response is "If there's a War on Drugs, the bad guys are winning." Look how well Prohibition worked.

Change people's habits and life chances and you'll change their drug use.

There are many medicinal benefits to drugs just as there are medicinal benefits to alcohol and chocolate. The key here is "in moderation" but of course the dangerous thing about drugs (and I include alcohol here) is that there is this little thing of addiction that comes along and screws it up.

People can get addicted to legal painkillers. They are addictive substances and when used as such, the negatives will of course outweigh the benefits.

With illegal drug use, most people are not taking them for any health benefit so legalising them poses the moral questions that legalising alcohol posed. Are you happy to provide addicts with their source of addiction and possibly even create new addicts in the process?

That is simplistic I know. Some drugs are more addictive than others (thinking of cannabis versus heroin) but at this moment in time legal drugs are there to aid personal wellbeing. In the case of methadone it's there to ease pain and to help heroin addicts come off heroin. They are not deliberately prescribed to partygoers to want to get high.

Legalising drugs would be like legalising alcohol was. You would be supplying some highly addictive substances to possibly very vulnerable people and the consequences of that would have to be dealt with.

heroin and diamorphine are not essentially the same. If you substituted the former for the latter and gave it to the user on the street, he or she would die from a massive OD. Now granted that's something that could be changed if heroin was legal and subject to quality control, but in the current state of play that is not the case and therefore the two are not comparable. Heroin is cut with such a lot of agents that it bears no workable comparison to diamorphine and it is intrinsically bad in that form.

Until such time that illegal drugs are legalised, they are what they and that is what my stance is based on.

TheRhubarb

To the admittedly simplified question: "Are you happy to provide addicts with their source of addiction and possibly even create new addicts in the process?"

My answer is yes. Yes for the benefits that I believe decreased criminality would bring. Yes for the benefit I believe beginning to at least look at tackling the supply chain would bring. Yes because I believe freedom should not be taken away without a seriously good reason, and cost/benefit analysis, and the government has not been honest about this.

Dahlen
Heroin, as in the heroin users are trying to get to... is diamorphine.

What they actually get is not heroin (as in pure heroin, as in diamorphine), they get pure heroin cut with any number of a multitude of substances. Legitimate sourcing would stop this.

And for me, the law does not determine my moral compass. It guides it, but I do not substitute it for my own thinking and judgement.