Family glad of legal high drugs review

Swindon Advertiser: From left, Chris Scott’s girlfriend Rebecca Ball, sister Danielle, mother Wendy, son Logan, father Mike and, From left, Chris Scott’s girlfriend Rebecca Ball, sister Danielle, mother Wendy, son Logan, father Mike and,

THE family of Chris Scott, who died in July after consuming a legal high, have welcomed a full-scale Government review into the industry – but say more action is needed.

Chris, 23, may have been unaware of the dangers of alpha-methyltriptamine, commonly known as AMT, when he tried it last summer.

And now following a number of deaths relating to legal highs, the Home Office are leading a review to clamp down on their use, which is due to report next spring.

Mike, 48, Chris’ dad, said it was a step forward, but is urging action.

“I don’t understand why it is going to take them until spring to get it sorted,” he said. “With all the deaths that there have been over the last year, they must have enough evidence to know what is dangerous.”

Mike added he would prefer the American system, where all drugs are automatically banned if they have a similar composition to illegal substances.

“It should be that approach everywhere,” he said. “That is normal practice for prescription drugs, and they are all tested before they go on the market.

“Legal highs are working the other way round. They go straight onto the market and worry about the consequences afterwards.

“People here have been very inventive. If there is just a single molecule difference it is considered a different drug.

“It seems the UK is one of the biggest importers of this stuff. The law here makes it easy for them to get around the loopholes, and we need to get on top of our laws to stop this happening.”

Mike said he felt encouraged by the announcement, and the move had been a long time coming.

“It is good to see that something is finally happening,” he said. “They are not just going for one thing, they are going for the whole lot.

“I would like them to ban the name legal highs. That would instantly stop a lot of people being able to find it and then move into drugs as a whole. The label is so misleading, and it opens these drugs up to the masses.

“It used to be that if you wanted to find drugs you had to know the right person, but now anyone can get their hands on them. It doesn’t matter what is in them or what they might do to each individual person, people will think they are all the same.

“The police cannot crack down on something that is legal, so this is is a positive step forward.”

Norman Baker, crime prevention minister, said: “The coalition government is determined to clamp down on the reckless trade in so-called ‘legal highs’, which has tragically already claimed the lives of far too many young people in our country.

“Despite being marketed as legal alternatives to banned drugs, users cannot be sure of what they contain and the impact they will have on their health. Nor can they even be sure that they are legal.

“Our review will consider how current legislation can be better tailored to enable the police and law enforcement officers to combat this dangerous trade and ensure those involved in breaking the law are brought to justice.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:15am Mon 16 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Whilst this is very sad, the fact remain that he mad a conscious decision to play Russian Roulette with his life for the sake of a temporary "high". Making it illegal wont make any difference, someone "in the know" could spend the day obtaining every drug there is from somewhere in Swindon with no problem. Every major pub and club has a "dealer" lurking somewhere ready to sell there wares, so making this one substance illegal is no more than a token gesture. But then with "legal" drugs killing and injuring and ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands every year, this is but a drop in the ocean.
Whilst this is very sad, the fact remain that he mad a conscious decision to play Russian Roulette with his life for the sake of a temporary "high". Making it illegal wont make any difference, someone "in the know" could spend the day obtaining every drug there is from somewhere in Swindon with no problem. Every major pub and club has a "dealer" lurking somewhere ready to sell there wares, so making this one substance illegal is no more than a token gesture. But then with "legal" drugs killing and injuring and ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands every year, this is but a drop in the ocean. house on the hill

9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13

EmmBee says...

What makes it even sadder is that some of the photos of him I have seen have him in a hospital gown, presumably when his baby was born. Such a shame his son won't grow up knowing his father. What a waste.
What makes it even sadder is that some of the photos of him I have seen have him in a hospital gown, presumably when his baby was born. Such a shame his son won't grow up knowing his father. What a waste. EmmBee

9:36am Mon 16 Dec 13

JJR_06/63 says...

EmmBee wrote:
What makes it even sadder is that some of the photos of him I have seen have him in a hospital gown, presumably when his baby was born. Such a shame his son won't grow up knowing his father. What a waste.
He actually had three children.

Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.
[quote][p][bold]EmmBee[/bold] wrote: What makes it even sadder is that some of the photos of him I have seen have him in a hospital gown, presumably when his baby was born. Such a shame his son won't grow up knowing his father. What a waste.[/p][/quote]He actually had three children. Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it. JJR_06/63

10:44am Mon 16 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

JJR_06/63 wrote:
EmmBee wrote:
What makes it even sadder is that some of the photos of him I have seen have him in a hospital gown, presumably when his baby was born. Such a shame his son won't grow up knowing his father. What a waste.
He actually had three children.

Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.
Then we will always read sad stories like this and just because someone has always done something doesn't mean they always will. Society and human nature do change over time, but no it wont be anytime soon. Even if you dont take "drugs" you can still be the victim of others who do which is even sadder. I am just glad I have never felt the need to take the risk.
[quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EmmBee[/bold] wrote: What makes it even sadder is that some of the photos of him I have seen have him in a hospital gown, presumably when his baby was born. Such a shame his son won't grow up knowing his father. What a waste.[/p][/quote]He actually had three children. Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/p][/quote]Then we will always read sad stories like this and just because someone has always done something doesn't mean they always will. Society and human nature do change over time, but no it wont be anytime soon. Even if you dont take "drugs" you can still be the victim of others who do which is even sadder. I am just glad I have never felt the need to take the risk. house on the hill

11:10am Mon 16 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
[quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing. Hmmmf

11:29am Mon 16 Dec 13

TechnoDon says...

lets make alcohol illegal too, its very dangerous.
lets make alcohol illegal too, its very dangerous. TechnoDon

12:00pm Mon 16 Dec 13

benzss says...

Hmmmf wrote:
JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.[/p][/quote]Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body? benzss

12:28pm Mon 16 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

benzss wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?
So breaking the law is ok then I take it? Let us know when you are going out and we can send the boys round to burgle your house than as breaking the law is ok if you choose to do it!

And as with so many people these days, its all about rights and nothing for the responsibility that goes with those rights. So presumably under your world, if someone took illegal drugs and became ill its their choice so they should be left to fend for themselves and not given help? I bet not! You want your cake and eat it like so many other double standards people in the world today.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.[/p][/quote]Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?[/p][/quote]So breaking the law is ok then I take it? Let us know when you are going out and we can send the boys round to burgle your house than as breaking the law is ok if you choose to do it! And as with so many people these days, its all about rights and nothing for the responsibility that goes with those rights. So presumably under your world, if someone took illegal drugs and became ill its their choice so they should be left to fend for themselves and not given help? I bet not! You want your cake and eat it like so many other double standards people in the world today. house on the hill

12:31pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Hmmmf wrote:
JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
In reality, it's actually the majority who take - or have taken - drugs. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, sugar... they're all drugs.

According to government figures, around 25% of people in the UK have used cannabis at least once and around 10% of people under 50 have used cocaine at least once.

JJR_06/63 does have a valid point - 'human beings', in general, have always taken drugs in just about every culture/nation you care to name (in some form or another).

It doesn't even really seem to make much difference if those drugs are legal or illegal. Although I do agree with you that current sentencing in the UK largely means that so-called 'illegal' drugs aren't really considered an issue... only last week we read in the Adver of the Class A drug dealer who was let off and allowed to walk free by the usual suspect in our local courtrooms.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.[/p][/quote]In reality, it's actually the majority who take - or have taken - drugs. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, sugar... they're all drugs. According to government figures, around 25% of people in the UK have used cannabis at least once and around 10% of people under 50 have used cocaine at least once. JJR_06/63 does have a valid point - 'human beings', in general, have always taken drugs in just about every culture/nation you care to name (in some form or another). It doesn't even really seem to make much difference if those drugs are legal or illegal. Although I do agree with you that current sentencing in the UK largely means that so-called 'illegal' drugs aren't really considered an issue... only last week we read in the Adver of the Class A drug dealer who was let off and allowed to walk free by the usual suspect in our local courtrooms. Ringer

12:58pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

benzss wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?
You may suggest what you wish, benzss.

But it becomes 'something to do with me' when 7% of benefit claimants are what the DWP refers to as 'PDUs' (problem drug users, long-term unemployed/unemploya
ble) and I, along with other taxpayers, have to foot the bill to feed, clothe, and house them.

It becomes something to do with me when a high proportion of acquisitive crime is drug-related (and no, 'decriminalising' drugs won't reduce the need for druggies to acquire money to purchase their next 'fix'). Why should I and other taxpayers have to be victims because 'another person freely chooses' to do illegal drugs?

It becomes something to do with me, as a road user and pedestrian, when drug-drivers, who are twice as likely to have a collision on the road than those who freely choose not to take illegal drugs, climb behind the wheel? (Dalhousie University study, qv).

It becomes something to do with me when taxpayers are obliged to foot the healthcare bill not just for the immediate and obvious effects of illicit drug-taking, but also the longer term complications from such squalid practices as druggies sharing needles.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.[/p][/quote]Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?[/p][/quote]You may suggest what you wish, benzss. But it becomes 'something to do with me' when 7% of benefit claimants are what the DWP refers to as 'PDUs' (problem drug users, long-term unemployed/unemploya ble) and I, along with other taxpayers, have to foot the bill to feed, clothe, and house them. It becomes something to do with me when a high proportion of acquisitive crime is drug-related (and no, 'decriminalising' drugs won't reduce the need for druggies to acquire money to purchase their next 'fix'). Why should I and other taxpayers have to be victims because 'another person freely chooses' to do illegal drugs? It becomes something to do with me, as a road user and pedestrian, when drug-drivers, who are twice as likely to have a collision on the road than those who freely choose not to take illegal drugs, climb behind the wheel? (Dalhousie University study, qv). It becomes something to do with me when taxpayers are obliged to foot the healthcare bill not just for the immediate and obvious effects of illicit drug-taking, but also the longer term complications from such squalid practices as druggies sharing needles. Hmmmf

9:20am Tue 17 Dec 13

benzss says...

house on the hill wrote:
benzss wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?
So breaking the law is ok then I take it? Let us know when you are going out and we can send the boys round to burgle your house than as breaking the law is ok if you choose to do it!

And as with so many people these days, its all about rights and nothing for the responsibility that goes with those rights. So presumably under your world, if someone took illegal drugs and became ill its their choice so they should be left to fend for themselves and not given help? I bet not! You want your cake and eat it like so many other double standards people in the world today.
The law is not a barometer for morality, and is more than capable of being quite wrong. In that sense, yes, I think that breaking the law can be 'ok' and is oftentimes a moral duty.

In my world, the problems caused by drug taking would be seen as externalities of a freely-chosen practice among people and dealt with in that manner, instead of using, as we do now, the hammer of the law to resolve every problem as if it were a nail.

In that sense, I see drug taking as no different to any other higher-risk pursuit. People do things and sometimes they get hurt - plus ca change, really.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.[/p][/quote]Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?[/p][/quote]So breaking the law is ok then I take it? Let us know when you are going out and we can send the boys round to burgle your house than as breaking the law is ok if you choose to do it! And as with so many people these days, its all about rights and nothing for the responsibility that goes with those rights. So presumably under your world, if someone took illegal drugs and became ill its their choice so they should be left to fend for themselves and not given help? I bet not! You want your cake and eat it like so many other double standards people in the world today.[/p][/quote]The law is not a barometer for morality, and is more than capable of being quite wrong. In that sense, yes, I think that breaking the law can be 'ok' and is oftentimes a moral duty. In my world, the problems caused by drug taking would be seen as externalities of a freely-chosen practice among people and dealt with in that manner, instead of using, as we do now, the hammer of the law to resolve every problem as if it were a nail. In that sense, I see drug taking as no different to any other higher-risk pursuit. People do things and sometimes they get hurt - plus ca change, really. benzss

9:30am Tue 17 Dec 13

benzss says...

Hmmmf wrote:
benzss wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?
You may suggest what you wish, benzss.

But it becomes 'something to do with me' when 7% of benefit claimants are what the DWP refers to as 'PDUs' (problem drug users, long-term unemployed/unemploya

ble) and I, along with other taxpayers, have to foot the bill to feed, clothe, and house them.

It becomes something to do with me when a high proportion of acquisitive crime is drug-related (and no, 'decriminalising' drugs won't reduce the need for druggies to acquire money to purchase their next 'fix'). Why should I and other taxpayers have to be victims because 'another person freely chooses' to do illegal drugs?

It becomes something to do with me, as a road user and pedestrian, when drug-drivers, who are twice as likely to have a collision on the road than those who freely choose not to take illegal drugs, climb behind the wheel? (Dalhousie University study, qv).

It becomes something to do with me when taxpayers are obliged to foot the healthcare bill not just for the immediate and obvious effects of illicit drug-taking, but also the longer term complications from such squalid practices as druggies sharing needles.
Such cognitive dissonance.

What do you think it tells you about the way we currently deal with drug use that those problems still apparently exist?

Do you think draconian criminalisation of drug use actually reduces harm to addicts or those around them?

And, anyway, you know what? It still has nothing to do with you.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.[/p][/quote]Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?[/p][/quote]You may suggest what you wish, benzss. But it becomes 'something to do with me' when 7% of benefit claimants are what the DWP refers to as 'PDUs' (problem drug users, long-term unemployed/unemploya ble) and I, along with other taxpayers, have to foot the bill to feed, clothe, and house them. It becomes something to do with me when a high proportion of acquisitive crime is drug-related (and no, 'decriminalising' drugs won't reduce the need for druggies to acquire money to purchase their next 'fix'). Why should I and other taxpayers have to be victims because 'another person freely chooses' to do illegal drugs? It becomes something to do with me, as a road user and pedestrian, when drug-drivers, who are twice as likely to have a collision on the road than those who freely choose not to take illegal drugs, climb behind the wheel? (Dalhousie University study, qv). It becomes something to do with me when taxpayers are obliged to foot the healthcare bill not just for the immediate and obvious effects of illicit drug-taking, but also the longer term complications from such squalid practices as druggies sharing needles.[/p][/quote]Such cognitive dissonance. What do you think it tells you about the way we currently deal with drug use that those problems still apparently exist? Do you think draconian criminalisation of drug use actually reduces harm to addicts or those around them? And, anyway, you know what? It still has nothing to do with you. benzss

10:13pm Tue 17 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

benzss wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
benzss wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?
So breaking the law is ok then I take it? Let us know when you are going out and we can send the boys round to burgle your house than as breaking the law is ok if you choose to do it!

And as with so many people these days, its all about rights and nothing for the responsibility that goes with those rights. So presumably under your world, if someone took illegal drugs and became ill its their choice so they should be left to fend for themselves and not given help? I bet not! You want your cake and eat it like so many other double standards people in the world today.
The law is not a barometer for morality, and is more than capable of being quite wrong. In that sense, yes, I think that breaking the law can be 'ok' and is oftentimes a moral duty.

In my world, the problems caused by drug taking would be seen as externalities of a freely-chosen practice among people and dealt with in that manner, instead of using, as we do now, the hammer of the law to resolve every problem as if it were a nail.

In that sense, I see drug taking as no different to any other higher-risk pursuit. People do things and sometimes they get hurt - plus ca change, really.
So people throwing knives at you would be ok then because its their choice and a high risk pursuit? The problem with drugs both legal and illegal is the hurt to innocent victims, I wonder how your opinion would change were your spouse or child murdered by someone after a "quick fix" or you sat at the beside of a loved one who had freely taken some "bad" drugs and watch them die in front of you. Laws are not a pick and mix, we don't get to choose which ones we like and which ones we are not going to bother with and your attitude is arrogant and selfish in the extreme that you know better than everyone else even the law makers. I just hope you never come across someone who has the same contempt for the law that says you cant stab someone in the neck.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.[/p][/quote]Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?[/p][/quote]So breaking the law is ok then I take it? Let us know when you are going out and we can send the boys round to burgle your house than as breaking the law is ok if you choose to do it! And as with so many people these days, its all about rights and nothing for the responsibility that goes with those rights. So presumably under your world, if someone took illegal drugs and became ill its their choice so they should be left to fend for themselves and not given help? I bet not! You want your cake and eat it like so many other double standards people in the world today.[/p][/quote]The law is not a barometer for morality, and is more than capable of being quite wrong. In that sense, yes, I think that breaking the law can be 'ok' and is oftentimes a moral duty. In my world, the problems caused by drug taking would be seen as externalities of a freely-chosen practice among people and dealt with in that manner, instead of using, as we do now, the hammer of the law to resolve every problem as if it were a nail. In that sense, I see drug taking as no different to any other higher-risk pursuit. People do things and sometimes they get hurt - plus ca change, really.[/p][/quote]So people throwing knives at you would be ok then because its their choice and a high risk pursuit? The problem with drugs both legal and illegal is the hurt to innocent victims, I wonder how your opinion would change were your spouse or child murdered by someone after a "quick fix" or you sat at the beside of a loved one who had freely taken some "bad" drugs and watch them die in front of you. Laws are not a pick and mix, we don't get to choose which ones we like and which ones we are not going to bother with and your attitude is arrogant and selfish in the extreme that you know better than everyone else even the law makers. I just hope you never come across someone who has the same contempt for the law that says you cant stab someone in the neck. house on the hill

9:20am Wed 18 Dec 13

PaulD says...

It's legal to swallow broken glass, however it's not advisable.
It's legal to swallow broken glass, however it's not advisable. PaulD

10:03am Wed 18 Dec 13

benzss says...

house on the hill wrote:
benzss wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
benzss wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
JJR_06/63 wrote:
A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.

There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.
Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?
So breaking the law is ok then I take it? Let us know when you are going out and we can send the boys round to burgle your house than as breaking the law is ok if you choose to do it!

And as with so many people these days, its all about rights and nothing for the responsibility that goes with those rights. So presumably under your world, if someone took illegal drugs and became ill its their choice so they should be left to fend for themselves and not given help? I bet not! You want your cake and eat it like so many other double standards people in the world today.
The law is not a barometer for morality, and is more than capable of being quite wrong. In that sense, yes, I think that breaking the law can be 'ok' and is oftentimes a moral duty.

In my world, the problems caused by drug taking would be seen as externalities of a freely-chosen practice among people and dealt with in that manner, instead of using, as we do now, the hammer of the law to resolve every problem as if it were a nail.

In that sense, I see drug taking as no different to any other higher-risk pursuit. People do things and sometimes they get hurt - plus ca change, really.
So people throwing knives at you would be ok then because its their choice and a high risk pursuit? The problem with drugs both legal and illegal is the hurt to innocent victims, I wonder how your opinion would change were your spouse or child murdered by someone after a "quick fix" or you sat at the beside of a loved one who had freely taken some "bad" drugs and watch them die in front of you. Laws are not a pick and mix, we don't get to choose which ones we like and which ones we are not going to bother with and your attitude is arrogant and selfish in the extreme that you know better than everyone else even the law makers. I just hope you never come across someone who has the same contempt for the law that says you cant stab someone in the neck.
"Laws are not a pick and mix, we don't get to choose which ones we like and which ones we are not going to bother with and your attitude is arrogant and selfish in the extreme that you know better than everyone else even the law makers"

Look, genius, whether or not a law is prosecuted properly by the state has no bearing on the moral legitimacy of the action. It is my considered opinion that lawmakers are incorrect on a whole raft of issues, and the laws they create are often morally repugnant.

It's not just drug laws either. The laws curtailing civil liberties in this country ought to make even the most dense of people feel physically sick.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJR_06/63[/bold] wrote: A TINY PERCENTAGE OF Human beings have always taken drugs and always will do. No amount of 'wars' on them or tweaks to legislation will stop it.[/quote] There, fixed it for you. Some people in that tiny percentage might think twice if they lived in any of the 32 countries where there are capital drug laws which are actually enforced. But you're right about the legislation, it's not worth the paper it's printed on unless the judiciary grow a pair and apply deterrent sentencing.[/p][/quote]Might I suggest it is nothing to do with you what another person freely chooses to do with their body?[/p][/quote]So breaking the law is ok then I take it? Let us know when you are going out and we can send the boys round to burgle your house than as breaking the law is ok if you choose to do it! And as with so many people these days, its all about rights and nothing for the responsibility that goes with those rights. So presumably under your world, if someone took illegal drugs and became ill its their choice so they should be left to fend for themselves and not given help? I bet not! You want your cake and eat it like so many other double standards people in the world today.[/p][/quote]The law is not a barometer for morality, and is more than capable of being quite wrong. In that sense, yes, I think that breaking the law can be 'ok' and is oftentimes a moral duty. In my world, the problems caused by drug taking would be seen as externalities of a freely-chosen practice among people and dealt with in that manner, instead of using, as we do now, the hammer of the law to resolve every problem as if it were a nail. In that sense, I see drug taking as no different to any other higher-risk pursuit. People do things and sometimes they get hurt - plus ca change, really.[/p][/quote]So people throwing knives at you would be ok then because its their choice and a high risk pursuit? The problem with drugs both legal and illegal is the hurt to innocent victims, I wonder how your opinion would change were your spouse or child murdered by someone after a "quick fix" or you sat at the beside of a loved one who had freely taken some "bad" drugs and watch them die in front of you. Laws are not a pick and mix, we don't get to choose which ones we like and which ones we are not going to bother with and your attitude is arrogant and selfish in the extreme that you know better than everyone else even the law makers. I just hope you never come across someone who has the same contempt for the law that says you cant stab someone in the neck.[/p][/quote]"Laws are not a pick and mix, we don't get to choose which ones we like and which ones we are not going to bother with and your attitude is arrogant and selfish in the extreme that you know better than everyone else even the law makers" Look, genius, whether or not a law is prosecuted properly by the state has no bearing on the moral legitimacy of the action. It is my considered opinion that lawmakers are incorrect on a whole raft of issues, and the laws they create are often morally repugnant. It's not just drug laws either. The laws curtailing civil liberties in this country ought to make even the most dense of people feel physically sick. benzss

12:42pm Wed 18 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

So you would do away with all cctv cameras, identity cards, passports and just basically have a free for all then? Get rid of the security forces, allow who ever wants to to walk in and out of the country? legalise all drugs, knives, get rid of speed limits etc. And you have the nerve to call other people stupid!
So you would do away with all cctv cameras, identity cards, passports and just basically have a free for all then? Get rid of the security forces, allow who ever wants to to walk in and out of the country? legalise all drugs, knives, get rid of speed limits etc. And you have the nerve to call other people stupid! house on the hill

2:04pm Wed 18 Dec 13

benzss says...

house on the hill wrote:
So you would do away with all cctv cameras, identity cards, passports and just basically have a free for all then? Get rid of the security forces, allow who ever wants to to walk in and out of the country? legalise all drugs, knives, get rid of speed limits etc. And you have the nerve to call other people stupid!
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Straw_man_f
allacy

I can do that true.

So you want a totalitarian dictatorship where the self-appointed moral guardians of society impart their vision of the world on all and sundry? What's your name, HITLER ,LOL

Hey that was fun, I see why you do it now
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: So you would do away with all cctv cameras, identity cards, passports and just basically have a free for all then? Get rid of the security forces, allow who ever wants to to walk in and out of the country? legalise all drugs, knives, get rid of speed limits etc. And you have the nerve to call other people stupid![/p][/quote]http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Straw_man_f allacy I can do that true. So you want a totalitarian dictatorship where the self-appointed moral guardians of society impart their vision of the world on all and sundry? What's your name, HITLER ,LOL Hey that was fun, I see why you do it now benzss

12:00pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Forget legal highs, it's even basically legal to be involved in the Class A *illegal* drugs trade in Swindon these days:

http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
10885658.No_jail_for
_brother_in_drug_ent
erprise/
Forget legal highs, it's even basically legal to be involved in the Class A *illegal* drugs trade in Swindon these days: http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 10885658.No_jail_for _brother_in_drug_ent erprise/ Ringer

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree