Green Party

[beak]

Interesting post, much of which I would agree with - certainly regular usage or a reliance on any substance is not something I would advise to anyone... and I do accept it's a slippery slope from casual usage into that.

But much in the same way alcohol helps a lot of people to relax/destress/blow-off steam/escape, I think a lot of recreational drugs have a place in a similar way - they can enhance experiences, help with all sorts of mental health issues, help with self-confidence and relationship-building.

Most things are perfectly fine in moderation, but absolutely the reliance is the concern.

Could be a bad batch.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Could be a bad batch.

Bad batches are another argument in favour of legalisation, but that's around the point slightly.

But also while I appreciate you have had a specific experience, it's an extreme minority of cases - millions of people take recreational drugs around the world and the overwhelming majority do so without issue.

I don't think that sort of extreme example is a basis for deciding policy.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Interesting post, much of which I would agree with - certainly regular usage or a reliance on any substance is not something I would advise to anyone... and I do accept it's a slippery slope from casual usage into that.

But much in the same way alcohol helps a lot of people to relax/destress/blow-off steam/escape, I think a lot of recreational drugs have a place in a similar way - they can enhance experiences, help with all sorts of mental health issues, help with self-confidence and relationship-building.

Most things are perfectly fine in moderation, but absolutely the reliance is the concern.

A healthy productive life is what we should want for people.

So recreational drugs, in my view, don't factor into that.

We just had the Olympics, young people and the rest of us should be encouraged to be healthy.....obviously when you get into your fifties like me or older then it gets progressively harder. But it isn't a bad direction.

I take your point about escapism and dealing with the stress of life.....I don't underplay it nor how hard things can get for people. If people find it helps them then it is what it is. If it isn't affecting others then it's a personal thing.

But I think there are better ways of dealing with the stresses of life.

Your point about alcohol is of course a valid one.

If someone is knocking it back everyday then it's not ideal. But I'll include it within the same framework of it's not the direction we'd want our youth to go down.

They should be full of life and hopeful for the future. If they are regularly getting stoned or pissed in the evenings then something hasn't gone quite right.

 

[Matov]

The beauty of the Green party is that they offer a very definitive version of the UK. One in which drugs are legalised, we have open borders and car ownership is seen as something to be eradicated.

With Reform offering to be far more authoritian, not only close the borders but also deport millions of illegals. And make burning fossil fuels great again.

Love it. Finally, a real chance for people to make a definite decision about the Britain they want.

Bring it on.

 

[beak]

The beauty of the Green party is that they offer a very definitive version of the UK. One in which drugs are legalised, we have open borders and car ownership is seen as something to be eradicated.

With Reform offering to be far more authoritian, not only close the borders but also deport millions of illegals. And make burning fossil fuels great again.

Love it. Finally, a real chance for people to make a definite decision about the Britain they want.

Bring it on.

Thank the lord we have other choices.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Thank the lord we have other choices.

You think you do.

The truth is that it'll end up there.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I wonder what Wisbech could be on?

Or maybe, what he should be on.

 

[Spindle]

The greens should rename as new democrats or similar imo less fringe and more soft left labour.

Labour could be wiped out this week but the important thing is do they listen or are they not for turning.

Greens have a good local candidate in Hannah Spencer, she is already getting abuse from the rattled right.

Clearly driving a petrol car is Epstein territory, she also had the nerve to take a holiday..

You can imagine her winning with a big turnout for Labour as it was, but not now.

😎

The left wing loons you hang out with will NEVER be in government

 

[HKOwen]

I don't know - probably not all, but certainly some.

And that crystal clarity is the basis of your assessment of the success of the " war on drugs "

 

[PalazioVecchio]

- millions of people take recreational drugs around the world and the overwhelming majority do so without issue.

what you do to your own body is your own business. However it becomes my business when you are impinging upon my welfare.

Show me any country that has benefited from having a ton of drugs consumed every day ?

- crime
- road safety
- healthcare bills
- destroyed families

Drug dealers are the scum of the Earth.

However, i do agree that the Governmental tough approach usually fails. You need regulation, rather than banning, of soft drugs. And tax all of it.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

what you do to your own body is your own business. However it becomes my business when you are impinging upon my welfare.

Show me any country that has benefited from having a ton of drugs consumed every day ?

- crime
- road safety
- healthcare bills
- destroyed families

Drug dealers are the scum of the Earth.

However, i do agree that the Governmental tough approach usually fails. You need regulation, rather than banning, of soft drugs. And tax all of it.

Same can be said of smokers, drinkers and the obese.

I've never suggested any benefit to 'having a ton of drugs consumed every day' - that's a complete straw man.

Drug dealers are a product of prohibition.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Same can be said of smokers, drinkers and the obese.

I've never suggested any benefit to 'having a ton of drugs consumed every day' - that's a complete straw man.

Drug dealers are a product of prohibition.

Prohibition isn't always a negative, for example I imagine you are a supporter of the difficulty of people getting guns in the UK, ....it's possible but restricted. Just as we have prohibitions against the selling of many many products deemed negative to health that are allowed elsewhere..

The question ultimately comes down to the ethics of the state legalising and thus allowing more negative health products for its subjects/citizens.

There are a lot of vulnerable people out there, as we see every day with alcohol. Sure we have drinkers and the obese (the state can't really do anything about calorie intake), but you are talking about extending legalised vices. Does the state wish to add acceptance to even more? Who are the people who are going to front up to people who kill themselves due to greater ease of access?.....Something that would now be presented as legal and accepted, even promoted in a shop.

Whereas before it's reputation as a human vice, meant that a whole demographic wouldn't touch it....I'm one of those people....My old man would have gone nuts if he thought I was on weed or something stronger.

Not everyone is going to have negative issues with taking drugs, but obviously for those that do we have the specter of the state making money from their misery.

Never a positive.....it's a strong argument against legalisation.

It's not ideal but at least the State can hold its hands up and say that the individual (or their social and personal bubble) played the full part in their access and taking of drugs and that the State played no part and made no gain.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Prohibition isn't always a negative, for example I imagine you are a supporter of the difficulty of people getting guns in the UK, ....it's possible but restricted. Just as we have prohibitions against the selling of many many products deemed negative to health that are allowed elsewhere..

The question ultimately comes down to the ethics of the state legalising and thus allowing more negative health products for its subjects/citizens.

There are a lot of vulnerable people out there, as we see every day with alcohol. Do we wish to add to that? Who are the people who are going to front up to people who kill themselves due to greater ease of access?.....Something that would now be presented as legal and accepted, even promoted in a shop.

Whereas before it's reputation as a human vice, meant that a whole demographic wouldn't touch it....I'm one of those people....My old man would have gone nuts if he thought I was on weed or something stronger.

Not everyone is going to have negative issues with taking drugs, but obviously for those that do we have the specter of the state making money from their misery.

Never a positive.....it's a strong argument against legalisation.

It's not ideal but at least the State can hold its hands up and say that the individual (or their social and personal bubble) played the full part in their access and taking of drugs and that the State played no part and made no gain.

I thought it's pretty clear we're specifically talking prohibition of recreational drugs - of course some things should be prohibited.

Who fronts up to the families of the tens of thousands of people a year who die from drinking and smoking? If we include obesity-related illness, you're probably into hundreds of thousands a year, and the state 'made a gain' in all of them.

Does anyone make the suggestion that the state can't 'hold its hands up' over the death of someone who smoked cigarettes for 40 years? I've never really seen that play out at all - I think most people would accept that the deceased who decided to continue smoking cigarettes knew the risks and made their peace with it.

I would also argue that if the state’s chosen system produces high incarceration, enormous organised crime profits, and overdose deaths, it cannot claim moral neutrality.

I'm not at all convinced that the current system reduces harm at all.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I thought it's pretty clear we're specifically talking prohibition of recreational drugs - of course some things should be prohibited.

Who fronts up to the families of the tens of thousands of people a year who die from drinking and smoking?

Again, I'll make the point that these are increasing vices that each generation has walked into growing up. What you are talking about is extending those vices voluntarily.....increasing the load.

The state has done a lot against smoking compared to how it was 50 years ago and to a lesser extent against alcohol as well.

If we include obesity-related illness, you're probably into hundreds of thousands a year, and the state 'made a gain' in all of them.

You shouldn't include obesity because there's nothing the state can do about that outside of pure authoritarian-like cradle to grave politics.

Does anyone make the suggestion that the state can't 'hold its hands up' over the death of someone who smoked cigarettes for 40 years? I've never really seen that play out at all - I think most people would accept that the deceased who decided to continue smoking cigarettes knew the risks and made their peace with it.

You do have a point in this area.

The state made/makes money out of a vice that decreased someone's life-span.

However, it makes it very very clear in respect to smoking....quite graphically. It's also illegal to do both these before 18. Quite rightly it wants to push people away from these activities exactly because it has complicity in people's demise....Of course the individual is the main decider, but if state made bank out of their choices then its hands aren't exactly clean.

It's about why the state should extend these harms, when it didn't have to.

I would also argue that if the state’s chosen system produces high incarceration, enormous organised crime profits, and overdose deaths, it cannot claim moral neutrality.

This is another valid point.

But in most cases the individual made that choice (though I accept that edge cases exist and some people have little choice in reality). If someone drinks, smokes, eats themselves to an early grave...there is blame to be allocated, but it's mostly self inflicted.

Properly enforce or legalise?

Well, like Hitchens says, the state has never bothered to enforce an anti drugs system because it doesn't want to deal with the actual consequences of it. So....along with making money out of booze and fags it is already morally implicated.....it's just an argument of extension.

I could live with a hardcore anti recreational drugs system or I could live with full legalisation......but morally I think both do harm....but the former at least says, 'this far but no further'.

Personally for me, there is no 'moral neutral' position here, which ever position you take you are going to be fecking up lives.....it comes down to should the state make more bank from it.

Legalising drugs comes with other negative aspects for me, like acceptability......I want a certain amount of negative health pursuits to be frowned upon for the reasons I gave in earlier posts.

I think as a society we have fallen down, in my view, and seem to want to accept every human vice out there.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Again, I'll make the point that these are increasing vices that each generation has walked into growing up. What you are talking about is extending those vices voluntarily.....increasing the load.

The state has done a lot against smoking compared to how it was 50 years ago and to a lesser extent against alcohol as well.




You shouldn't include obesity because there's nothing the state can do about that outside of pure authoritarian-like cradle to grave politics.



You do have a point in this area.

The state made/makes money out of a vice that decreased someone's life-span.

However, it makes it very very clear in respect to smoking....quite graphically. It's also illegal to do both these before 18. Quite rightly it wants to push people away from these activities exactly because it has complicity in people's demise....Of course the individual is the main decider, but if state made bank out of their choices then its hands aren't exactly clean.

It's about why the state should extend these harms, when it didn't have to.




This is another valid point.

But in most cases the individual made that choice (though I accept that edge cases exist and some people have little choice in reality). If someone drinks, smokes, eats themselves to an early grave...there is blame to be allocated, but it's mostly self inflicted.

Properly enforce or legalise?

Well, like Hitchens says, the state has never bothered to enforce an anti drugs system because it doesn't want to deal with the actual consequences of it. So....along with making money out of booze and fags it is already morally implicated.....it's just an argument of extension.

I could live with a hardcore anti recreational drugs system or I could live with full legalisation......but morally I think both do harm....but the former at least says, 'this far but no further'.

Personally for me, there is no 'moral neutral' position here, which ever position you take you are going to be fecking up lives.....it comes down to should the state make more bank from it.

Legalising drugs comes with other negative aspects for me, like acceptability......I want a certain amount of negative health pursuits to be frowned upon for the reasons I gave in earlier posts.

I think as a society we have fallen down, in my view, and seem to want to accept every human vice out there.

The state has indeed managed to reduce smoking considerably over the last few decades, and they’ve done that through education rather than bans. The lesson there is that armed with appropriate information on risk and consequence, people will (on average) make reasonable decisions about what to put into their body.

I’m not for a minute suggesting recreational drugs shouldn’t be heavily regulated, and many of the regulations we apply to tobacco, such as age restrictions and advertising bans, should absolutely be applied in the same way.

People are going to find ways to f*** their lives up either way - the question for me is whether we want organised crime, or the state, to be the recipients of the associated profits - if it’s the state, we can at least aim to deal with some of the harms.

I make you right that we’re currently sat with the worst of both worlds - a policy that seems to benefit no one but the dealers.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The state has indeed managed to reduce smoking considerably over the last few decades, and they’ve done that through education rather than bans. The lesson there is that armed with appropriate information on risk and consequence, people will (on average) make reasonable decisions about what to put into their body.

I’m not for a minute suggesting recreational drugs shouldn’t be heavily regulated, and many of the regulations we apply to tobacco, such as age restrictions and advertising bans, should absolutely be applied in the same way.

People are going to find ways to f*** their lives up either way - the question for me is whether we want organised crime, or the state, to be the recipients of the associated profits - if it’s the state, we can at least aim to deal with some of the harms.

I make you right that we’re currently sat with the worst of both worlds - a policy that seems to benefit no one but the dealers.

Well yours is a point of view I can respect on the matter.

I concede that our half-way house situation is a morally compromised position that satisfies no one with the black market profiting.

Personally my nature would prefer one or the other.

Hardcore anti or full on.

I know I don't want Amsterdams with drug dens and shops.....walking down the street with that frigging weed smell everywhere....it's bad enough our way as it is.

 

[Common Sense Club]

The state has indeed managed to reduce smoking considerably over the last few decades, and they’ve done that through education rather than bans. The lesson there is that armed with appropriate information on risk and consequence, people will (on average) make reasonable decisions about what to put into their body.

I’m not for a minute suggesting recreational drugs shouldn’t be heavily regulated, and many of the regulations we apply to tobacco, such as age restrictions and advertising bans, should absolutely be applied in the same way.

People are going to find ways to f*** their lives up either way - the question for me is whether we want organised crime, or the state, to be the recipients of the associated profits - if it’s the state, we can at least aim to deal with some of the harms.

I make you right that we’re currently sat with the worst of both worlds - a policy that seems to benefit no one but the dealers.

I am no expert on addiction but my query would be what affects do drugs have on those that don't use them?
If I drink too much - and I did when I was young and nearly got killed when crossing the road because I was so blitzed - then apart from killing myself I could have also been responsible for killing or injuring the car's occupants. But I gave up drink for about a year afterwards and now hardly drink at all.

If I smoked, the danger aside to myself, is passive smoking to others, which I assume is only a problem in enclosed spaces. I never smoked but do notice that a friend that has had lung cancer still puffs away.

Are drugs any more damaging to others than smoking or drinking? Do they give you the mindset that you can take on anybody, do anything, with impunity? If you are drunk and get involved in a fight how effective are you before the alcohol defeats your ability to fight 'properly'? Do drugs give you extra confidence without the side effects of diminished ability.

Basically, are you more of a danger to others in society than drunks or smokers if you take drugs?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I am no expert on addiction but my query would be what affects do drugs have on those that don't use them?
If I drink too much - and I did when I was young and nearly got killed when crossing the road because I was so blitzed - then apart from killing myself I could have also been responsible for killing or injuring the car's occupants. But I gave up drink for about a year afterwards and now hardly drink at all.

If I smoked, the danger aside to myself, is passive smoking to others, which I assume is only a problem in enclosed spaces. I never smoked but do notice that a friend that has had lung cancer still puffs away.

Are drugs any more damaging to others than smoking or drinking? Do they give you the mindset that you can take on anybody, do anything, with impunity? If you are drunk and get involved in a fight how effective are you before the alcohol defeats your ability to fight 'properly'? Do drugs give you extra confidence without the side effects of diminished ability.

Basically, are you more of a danger to others in society than drunks or smokers if you take drugs?

I think it’s a very valid consideration and in fact is generally the main consideration when we consider prohibition - we tend to ban things which risk serious harm to others (ie guns) and we tend to regulate things which poses a risk to the individual (drinking, gambling, smoking).

‘Drugs’ is obviously a very broad category, but if we’re talking things like weed, cocaine, MDMA… I’d struggle to make an argument that they pose any danger to other people.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think it’s a very valid consideration and in fact is generally the main consideration when we consider prohibition - we tend to ban things which risk serious harm to others (ie guns) and we tend to regulate things which poses a risk to the individual (drinking, gambling, smoking).

‘Drugs’ is obviously a very broad category, but if we’re talking things like weed, cocaine, MDMA… I’d struggle to make an argument that they pose any danger to other people.

They do when mixed....and coke is all about increasing confidence, sometimes an unwarranted confidence.

Seen it myself many times.

 

[Common Sense Club]

I think it’s a very valid consideration and in fact is generally the main consideration when we consider prohibition - we tend to ban things which risk serious harm to others (ie guns) and we tend to regulate things which poses a risk to the individual (drinking, gambling, smoking).

‘Drugs’ is obviously a very broad category, but if we’re talking things like weed, cocaine, MDMA… I’d struggle to make an argument that they pose any danger to other people.

Does one drug lead to another more serious one? Is drug addiction more difficult to control/kick than alcohol or smoking? I don't know but it is the slippery slope that I worry about if drugs are legalised. We may start by legalising dope but then somebody will suggest widening the range to crack cocaine, angel dust and whatever else that satisfies the need that milder drugs no longer provide.