‘She wanted to get high, she didn’t want to die’ - Martha Fernback's mother calls for changes to drug laws

Anne-Marie Cockburn, mother of Martha Fernback, with a picture of her daughter outside Oxford Coroner’s Court yesterday

Anne-Marie Cockburn, mother of Martha Fernback, with a picture of her daughter outside Oxford Coroner’s Court yesterday

First published in News
Last updated
Oxford Mail: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter covering Didcot and Wallingford. Call me on 01865 425425

THE mother of a teenager who died after taking Ecstasy is demanding a meeting with the Home Secretary to campaign for “recreational drugs” to be legalised and regulated.

Anne-Marie Cockburn, 43, spoke yesterday following the inquest into the death of her 15-year-old daughter Martha Fernback and said she wanted to meet Theresa May, and other leading politicians, to discuss possible changes to drugs laws.

Martha, from Summertown, died after collapsing at Hinksey Park in South Oxford on July 20 last year.

Oxfordshire Coroner’s Court was told the Cherwell School pupil died following a cardiac arrest two hours after taking 0.5g of crystallised MDMA, known as Ecstasy.

The court heard the drug Martha took was 91 per cent pure – compared to the average street-level purity of 58 per cent.

Pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt, who carried out a post mortem examination, said the cause of death was MDMA toxicity.

He added: “It was a hot day and I cannot discount that this and dehydration could have contributed to the fatal outcome.”

Oxford Mail:

Anne-Marie Cockburn pictured after the inquest 

A friend, who cannot be identified because of her age, told the hearing in a written statement she met Martha that morning.

She said: “We walked and talked and she said to me ‘I think I am going to take it today’.

“I knew she was referring to MDMA as she had texted me and said ‘I think I am going to take it’.

“I knew she had taken it before because I had been with her three times when she had taken the stuff.”

The friend said after Martha took the drug as they walked through the city centre, she noticed Martha was sweating as they headed to Hinksey Park, off Abingdon Road, to meet other friends and they all sat on a bench.

According to the friend’s statement, Martha said she wanted to go swimming at the nearby open air pool to cool down and as she stood up she fell, banging her head on the ground, causing it to bleed.

The friend added: “We moved her back to the bench and she lay down and I could see her lips were going blue and she went really pale.”

Martha was taken by ambulance to hospital where she was pronounced dead an hour after first collapsing.

The inquest heard the person who had supplied the drugs has since been prosecuted.

Oxfordshire coroner Darren Salter recorded a verdict of accidental death.
He said: “It is a terrible loss and I think we can only say that it may at least serve as a warning to young people who may take, or may think of taking MDMA.”

In a statement released after the inquest (see panel), Miss Cockburn said she was calling for strict regulation of recreational drugs, which she described as “the most popular” drugs.

Martha’s father Sean Fernback, 50, also attended the inquest.
Crime Prevention Minister Norman Baker said: “All drug-related deaths are tragic and my sympathy goes to Martha’s mother.

“The UK’s approach on drugs remains clear: we must prevent drug use in our communities, help dependent individuals through treatment and wider recovery support, while ensuring law enforcement protects society by stopping the supply.

“It is encouraging that drug use has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1996.

“However, we do not assume that we have nothing to learn from others, which is why we are conducting an international study to examine the approaches other countries are taking on drugs.”

THE STATEMENT

MISS Cockburn issued a statement following the inquest, which said: “It has been 328 days since my precious girl was safely by my side.

“Martha wanted to get high, she didn’t want to die – no parent wants either, but one of those is preferable to the other.

“I wish Martha was sitting her GCSE’s alongside her friends at school right now.

Oxford Mail:

Martha Fernback

“I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger.

“I would like to meet with Theresa May, Norman Baker and Yvette Cooper to start a sensible dialogue for change, from prohibition to strict and responsible regulation of recreational drugs.

“This will help to safeguard our children and lead to a safer society for us all by putting doctors and pharmacists, not dealers, in control of drugs.”
Miss Cockburn, 43, a marketing consultant, is being backed by Bristol-based drug policy think tank Transform.

She has also written a book called 5,742 Days – the number of days Martha lived.

Since Martha’s death, Miss Cockburn has set up a website, called whatmarthadidnext.org

• Our top stories:

Motorcyclist seriously injured in crash with car near Dorchester

Oxford Mail: Ambulance stock image

11:44am Tuesday 30th September 2014

A MOTORCYCLIST has been taken to hospital with serious injuries after a crash with a BMW.

Dismal start troubles Appleton

Oxford Mail:

9:00am Tuesday 30th September 2014

Oxford United’s position in the table is now a concern for head coach Michael Appleton, who has acknow-ledged it is taking longer than expected to improve results.

Derek Measor's wife says his death tore her world apart as killer driver avoids jail

Oxford Mail:

9:00am Tuesday 30th September 2014

A WIDOW whose husband was killed while cycling yesterday told a court it was the worst day of her life.

Girls get some coaching from a top GB runner

Oxford Mail:

8:30am Tuesday 30th September 2014

PUPILS at d’Overbroecks College pulled on their running shoes yesterday as 2002 Commonwealth Games 400m relay silver medallist Lesley Owusu gave them advice on how to succeed in both sport and life.

Rethink on late-night drink levy

Oxford Mail:

8:30am Tuesday 30th September 2014

BARS and clubs in Oxford could soon be charged for serving alcohol after midnight.

Russell’s taste of honey is the bees Leys

Oxford Mail:

8:30am Tuesday 30th September 2014

THERE are some unusual visitors in Blackbird Leys creating a bit of a buzz.

Comments (71)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:50am Fri 13 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger"
Whilst the natural emotion, to lash out blindly when tragedy strikes, is perfectly understandable, this remark is profoundly unhelpful and I fear the poor lady will have come to regret it already.
"I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger" Whilst the natural emotion, to lash out blindly when tragedy strikes, is perfectly understandable, this remark is profoundly unhelpful and I fear the poor lady will have come to regret it already. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -6

11:35am Fri 13 Jun 14

xenarthra says...

This is a very tragic death, and the mother must be devastated. But the idea that our society would be improved if the government started handing out psychedelic drugs to our children strikes me as profoundly misguided. Doctors and pharmacists are there to make people better, not to screw up people's minds. The best that can come from this sad death is if it deters other children in Oxford from ever experimenting with drugs in the first place. Trying to make drugs safer misses the point that they are fundamentally unsafe. Regulation might help to reduce their side-effects, but its the drugs' primary effects that trouble me more.
This is a very tragic death, and the mother must be devastated. But the idea that our society would be improved if the government started handing out psychedelic drugs to our children strikes me as profoundly misguided. Doctors and pharmacists are there to make people better, not to screw up people's minds. The best that can come from this sad death is if it deters other children in Oxford from ever experimenting with drugs in the first place. Trying to make drugs safer misses the point that they are fundamentally unsafe. Regulation might help to reduce their side-effects, but its the drugs' primary effects that trouble me more. xenarthra
  • Score: 14

12:13pm Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger"
Whilst the natural emotion, to lash out blindly when tragedy strikes, is perfectly understandable, this remark is profoundly unhelpful and I fear the poor lady will have come to regret it already.
Do you actually think before you type LP? Banning everything dangerous, and everything you don't understand, is lashing out blindly. This kind of knee-jerkery has taken us no further forward in dealing with recreational drugs in the last fifty years, and in handing regulation over to criminal gangs, puts our (mainly) young people at risk.

I cannot highly enough commend this lady's dignified and brave stand against a set of laws which fly in the face of any common sense. It's a pity none of our politicians, including the supposedly 'anti-establishment' ones have the courage to challenge the hugely damaging orthodoxy.

Xenathra, of course drugs are unsafe. So is alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing. The best strategy surely is to make unsafe things like this regulated and governed to reasonably mitigate risks. I wouldn't expect a doctor to hand out drugs any more than I'd expect them to hand out white cider, but this does mean we ban cider.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: "I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger" Whilst the natural emotion, to lash out blindly when tragedy strikes, is perfectly understandable, this remark is profoundly unhelpful and I fear the poor lady will have come to regret it already.[/p][/quote]Do you actually think before you type LP? Banning everything dangerous, and everything you don't understand, is lashing out blindly. This kind of knee-jerkery has taken us no further forward in dealing with recreational drugs in the last fifty years, and in handing regulation over to criminal gangs, puts our (mainly) young people at risk. I cannot highly enough commend this lady's dignified and brave stand against a set of laws which fly in the face of any common sense. It's a pity none of our politicians, including the supposedly 'anti-establishment' ones have the courage to challenge the hugely damaging orthodoxy. Xenathra, of course drugs are unsafe. So is alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing. The best strategy surely is to make unsafe things like this regulated and governed to reasonably mitigate risks. I wouldn't expect a doctor to hand out drugs any more than I'd expect them to hand out white cider, but this does mean we ban cider. King Joke
  • Score: 3

12:47pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

King Joke wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger"
Whilst the natural emotion, to lash out blindly when tragedy strikes, is perfectly understandable, this remark is profoundly unhelpful and I fear the poor lady will have come to regret it already.
Do you actually think before you type LP? Banning everything dangerous, and everything you don't understand, is lashing out blindly. This kind of knee-jerkery has taken us no further forward in dealing with recreational drugs in the last fifty years, and in handing regulation over to criminal gangs, puts our (mainly) young people at risk.

I cannot highly enough commend this lady's dignified and brave stand against a set of laws which fly in the face of any common sense. It's a pity none of our politicians, including the supposedly 'anti-establishment' ones have the courage to challenge the hugely damaging orthodoxy.

Xenathra, of course drugs are unsafe. So is alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing. The best strategy surely is to make unsafe things like this regulated and governed to reasonably mitigate risks. I wouldn't expect a doctor to hand out drugs any more than I'd expect them to hand out white cider, but this does mean we ban cider.
I have no idea what you're talking about. How many ways are there of saying "if you buy unknown garbage from some seedy creature and consume it, something horrible is perfectly likely to happen to you"?
I doubt if any "education" is required for such a proposition and most of us will have absorbed it long before we reached teenage. To suggest that her plight came from inadequate teaching is offensive, isn't it?
How would you propose to "regulate" something like MDMA which intermittently kills people and is of absolutely no therapeutic value?
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: "I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger" Whilst the natural emotion, to lash out blindly when tragedy strikes, is perfectly understandable, this remark is profoundly unhelpful and I fear the poor lady will have come to regret it already.[/p][/quote]Do you actually think before you type LP? Banning everything dangerous, and everything you don't understand, is lashing out blindly. This kind of knee-jerkery has taken us no further forward in dealing with recreational drugs in the last fifty years, and in handing regulation over to criminal gangs, puts our (mainly) young people at risk. I cannot highly enough commend this lady's dignified and brave stand against a set of laws which fly in the face of any common sense. It's a pity none of our politicians, including the supposedly 'anti-establishment' ones have the courage to challenge the hugely damaging orthodoxy. Xenathra, of course drugs are unsafe. So is alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing. The best strategy surely is to make unsafe things like this regulated and governed to reasonably mitigate risks. I wouldn't expect a doctor to hand out drugs any more than I'd expect them to hand out white cider, but this does mean we ban cider.[/p][/quote]I have no idea what you're talking about. How many ways are there of saying "if you buy unknown garbage from some seedy creature and consume it, something horrible is perfectly likely to happen to you"? I doubt if any "education" is required for such a proposition and most of us will have absorbed it long before we reached teenage. To suggest that her plight came from inadequate teaching is offensive, isn't it? How would you propose to "regulate" something like MDMA which intermittently kills people and is of absolutely no therapeutic value? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 10

1:19pm Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

I don't know what you're talking about, as I didn't mention education or teaching at all, so I am not being offensive. Somebody is but not me!

You are right that you shouldn't by substances from unregulated criminal suppliers, and you back my point up completely, because we need to put them out of business by allowing a legalised and regulated alternative. Taxing them would be an added bonus.

Since you ask, I propose to regulate MDMA (inter alia) in the way we regulate other harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco, through measures like restricting sale and consumption, and assuring quality.
I don't know what you're talking about, as I didn't mention education or teaching at all, so I am not being offensive. Somebody is but not me! You are right that you shouldn't by substances from unregulated criminal suppliers, and you back my point up completely, because we need to put them out of business by allowing a legalised and regulated alternative. Taxing them would be an added bonus. Since you ask, I propose to regulate MDMA (inter alia) in the way we regulate other harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco, through measures like restricting sale and consumption, and assuring quality. King Joke
  • Score: 3

1:19pm Fri 13 Jun 14

cubist says...

so why not take the "seedy creature" out of the picture.
so why not take the "seedy creature" out of the picture. cubist
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

Yes - if you mean by regulating them out of business.
Yes - if you mean by regulating them out of business. King Joke
  • Score: -2

1:32pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

King Joke wrote:
I don't know what you're talking about, as I didn't mention education or teaching at all, so I am not being offensive. Somebody is but not me!

You are right that you shouldn't by substances from unregulated criminal suppliers, and you back my point up completely, because we need to put them out of business by allowing a legalised and regulated alternative. Taxing them would be an added bonus.

Since you ask, I propose to regulate MDMA (inter alia) in the way we regulate other harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco, through measures like restricting sale and consumption, and assuring quality.
Ms Cockburn did speak of education, did she not and I was quoting her. She also said " Martha wanted to get high, she didn’t want to die" which is very sad because it sounds like the rubbish some people came out with in the 1960's, though I'm sure it was not meant as such.
I repeat -how do you "regulate" MDMA out of periodically killing people?
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: I don't know what you're talking about, as I didn't mention education or teaching at all, so I am not being offensive. Somebody is but not me! You are right that you shouldn't by substances from unregulated criminal suppliers, and you back my point up completely, because we need to put them out of business by allowing a legalised and regulated alternative. Taxing them would be an added bonus. Since you ask, I propose to regulate MDMA (inter alia) in the way we regulate other harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco, through measures like restricting sale and consumption, and assuring quality.[/p][/quote]Ms Cockburn did speak of education, did she not and I was quoting her. She also said " Martha wanted to get high, she didn’t want to die" which is very sad because it sounds like the rubbish some people came out with in the 1960's, though I'm sure it was not meant as such. I repeat -how do you "regulate" MDMA out of periodically killing people? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

I did not mention education, Ms Cockburn did. If you think she is being offensive you're entitled to your opinion.

Wanting to get high may seem sad and 'rubbish' but it's a perfectly ordinary human response to the world around them. People have been ingesting bits of plants, or the fermented produce of bits of plants, for thousands of years. I think the ancient Egyptians brewed a beer of sorts.

Like I say I'd regulate MDMA out of killing people in the same way we regulate alcohol out of killing people. It would sadly not prevent all deaths, as we can't prevent all deaths through alcohol. Clearly however as this sad case proves, the current policy of prohibition isn't preventing them either, as prohibition of alcohol didn't prevent them in the US in the 1930s. The rise in organised crime which this latter prohibition produced is exactly what we're supporting in the present day.
I did not mention education, Ms Cockburn did. If you think she is being offensive you're entitled to your opinion. Wanting to get high may seem sad and 'rubbish' but it's a perfectly ordinary human response to the world around them. People have been ingesting bits of plants, or the fermented produce of bits of plants, for thousands of years. I think the ancient Egyptians brewed a beer of sorts. Like I say I'd regulate MDMA out of killing people in the same way we regulate alcohol out of killing people. It would sadly not prevent all deaths, as we can't prevent all deaths through alcohol. Clearly however as this sad case proves, the current policy of prohibition isn't preventing them either, as prohibition of alcohol didn't prevent them in the US in the 1930s. The rise in organised crime which this latter prohibition produced is exactly what we're supporting in the present day. King Joke
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Fri 13 Jun 14

xenarthra says...

King Joke wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger"
Whilst the natural emotion, to lash out blindly when tragedy strikes, is perfectly understandable, this remark is profoundly unhelpful and I fear the poor lady will have come to regret it already.
Do you actually think before you type LP? Banning everything dangerous, and everything you don't understand, is lashing out blindly. This kind of knee-jerkery has taken us no further forward in dealing with recreational drugs in the last fifty years, and in handing regulation over to criminal gangs, puts our (mainly) young people at risk.

I cannot highly enough commend this lady's dignified and brave stand against a set of laws which fly in the face of any common sense. It's a pity none of our politicians, including the supposedly 'anti-establishment' ones have the courage to challenge the hugely damaging orthodoxy.

Xenathra, of course drugs are unsafe. So is alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing. The best strategy surely is to make unsafe things like this regulated and governed to reasonably mitigate risks. I wouldn't expect a doctor to hand out drugs any more than I'd expect them to hand out white cider, but this does mean we ban cider.
Your comparison with alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing is a straw man. These things are all currently legal. Drugs are currently illegal. My argument that drugs should REMAIN illegal does not fail if I don't also argue for a CHANGE in the law concerning alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing. Changing laws has impacts that are quite different from maintaining existing laws.

This is quite apart from the fact that the risks and benefits from alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing are all quite different from each other, and from mind-altering drugs; you are comparing apples with oranges.

A better comparison would be changing the law to allow the wearing of seatbelts to be optional, because some people prefer not to wear them, and requiring car manufacturers to develop better airbags. I haven't heard many people campaigning for that one.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: "I wish the drug education she received had enabled her to make a more fully informed decision, instead of leaving her so vulnerable and in danger" Whilst the natural emotion, to lash out blindly when tragedy strikes, is perfectly understandable, this remark is profoundly unhelpful and I fear the poor lady will have come to regret it already.[/p][/quote]Do you actually think before you type LP? Banning everything dangerous, and everything you don't understand, is lashing out blindly. This kind of knee-jerkery has taken us no further forward in dealing with recreational drugs in the last fifty years, and in handing regulation over to criminal gangs, puts our (mainly) young people at risk. I cannot highly enough commend this lady's dignified and brave stand against a set of laws which fly in the face of any common sense. It's a pity none of our politicians, including the supposedly 'anti-establishment' ones have the courage to challenge the hugely damaging orthodoxy. Xenathra, of course drugs are unsafe. So is alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing. The best strategy surely is to make unsafe things like this regulated and governed to reasonably mitigate risks. I wouldn't expect a doctor to hand out drugs any more than I'd expect them to hand out white cider, but this does mean we ban cider.[/p][/quote]Your comparison with alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing is a straw man. These things are all currently legal. Drugs are currently illegal. My argument that drugs should REMAIN illegal does not fail if I don't also argue for a CHANGE in the law concerning alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing. Changing laws has impacts that are quite different from maintaining existing laws. This is quite apart from the fact that the risks and benefits from alcohol, tobacco and rock-climbing are all quite different from each other, and from mind-altering drugs; you are comparing apples with oranges. A better comparison would be changing the law to allow the wearing of seatbelts to be optional, because some people prefer not to wear them, and requiring car manufacturers to develop better airbags. I haven't heard many people campaigning for that one. xenarthra
  • Score: 1

2:08pm Fri 13 Jun 14

cowley bob says...

RIP Martha.Kids will be kids,no matter how much we try to protect them.They will experiment(sex/drugs
)The best we can do is (not told you so)is help after the event,be a good citizen after theevent !
RIP Martha.Kids will be kids,no matter how much we try to protect them.They will experiment(sex/drugs )The best we can do is (not told you so)is help after the event,be a good citizen after theevent ! cowley bob
  • Score: 12

2:23pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"Like I say I'd regulate MDMA out of killing people in the same way we regulate alcohol out of killing people. It would sadly not prevent all deaths, as we can't prevent all deaths through alcohol"
It's not going to work. Alcohol kills through poisoning and thus is predictable. Take weight duration and quantity of alcohol and you'll get the point of expiry correct within normal statistical parameters. Tobacco-not relevant; a one - off smoke will not kill. No predictability for MDMA so, completely Russian Roulette. What I'm saying is that you can tell the inebriate he'll die if he drinks 2 more whiskies and be correct, even if he doesn't listen. No one could have told this lass she'd die, because 100 others had probably done the same thing as she and survived.
"Like I say I'd regulate MDMA out of killing people in the same way we regulate alcohol out of killing people. It would sadly not prevent all deaths, as we can't prevent all deaths through alcohol" It's not going to work. Alcohol kills through poisoning and thus is predictable. Take weight duration and quantity of alcohol and you'll get the point of expiry correct within normal statistical parameters. Tobacco-not relevant; a one - off smoke will not kill. No predictability for MDMA so, completely Russian Roulette. What I'm saying is that you can tell the inebriate he'll die if he drinks 2 more whiskies and be correct, even if he doesn't listen. No one could have told this lass she'd die, because 100 others had probably done the same thing as she and survived. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

3:08pm Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

LP: Most things, when studied properly and supplied in a regulated manner, will be more predictable, it will certainly be safer than the current free-for-all.

Xenathra: you distinguish between legal and illegal dangers. I would respond that it is the arbitrary distinction between some things being illegal and others legal is spectacularly unhelpful. It causes more harm than if more things were legal and properly controlled.

Wearing (front) seat belts is an interesting one (rear seat belts of course save the lives of the front seat pax who would otherwise be killed by those sitting behind them). In theory front seat non-wearers are only harming themselves, however just like drug and alcohol casualties it is the loved ones they leave behind whom you need to consider.

The question we should ask is - is there an evidence base which tells that people desperately want to drive around seat-belt-less? My guess is probably not, as people have got used to wearing them. Conversely, there is a clear desire to take recreational substances, as evidenced when you go down the pub. This desire will not go away, so we should frame the law in a way which allows people to take the substances in a less harmful way. Abolition simply does not work as a means of protecting people as we can all see.
LP: Most things, when studied properly and supplied in a regulated manner, will be more predictable, it will certainly be safer than the current free-for-all. Xenathra: you distinguish between legal and illegal dangers. I would respond that it is the arbitrary distinction between some things being illegal and others legal is spectacularly unhelpful. It causes more harm than if more things were legal and properly controlled. Wearing (front) seat belts is an interesting one (rear seat belts of course save the lives of the front seat pax who would otherwise be killed by those sitting behind them). In theory front seat non-wearers are only harming themselves, however just like drug and alcohol casualties it is the loved ones they leave behind whom you need to consider. The question we should ask is - is there an evidence base which tells that people desperately want to drive around seat-belt-less? My guess is probably not, as people have got used to wearing them. Conversely, there is a clear desire to take recreational substances, as evidenced when you go down the pub. This desire will not go away, so we should frame the law in a way which allows people to take the substances in a less harmful way. Abolition simply does not work as a means of protecting people as we can all see. King Joke
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"LP: Most things, when studied properly and supplied in a regulated manner, will be more predictable, it will certainly be safer than the current free-for-all"
What I have quoted is correct. If you want to be the pharmacist who provides an "innocent" package of MDMA to the deceased and then has interesting conversations with the police, the Daily Mail/Guardian, deceased's relatives, well good on you. I don't think Boots pays enough salary for most to do that.
And by the way, the bit about Don Vito getting a job at Tesco was irony. What do YOU think they might do? How did Howard Marks control his mules? Not by talking nicely to them, do believe me.
I'm sorry that you find that everyone goes down your local pub to get sloshed. Maybe you should try more salubrious premises.
The present system is not perfect but it is better than the alternatives.
"LP: Most things, when studied properly and supplied in a regulated manner, will be more predictable, it will certainly be safer than the current free-for-all" What I have quoted is correct. If you want to be the pharmacist who provides an "innocent" package of MDMA to the deceased and then has interesting conversations with the police, the Daily Mail/Guardian, deceased's relatives, well good on you. I don't think Boots pays enough salary for most to do that. And by the way, the bit about Don Vito getting a job at Tesco was irony. What do YOU think they might do? How did Howard Marks control his mules? Not by talking nicely to them, do believe me. I'm sorry that you find that everyone goes down your local pub to get sloshed. Maybe you should try more salubrious premises. The present system is not perfect but it is better than the alternatives. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

THe point is that without the correct controls in place we don't know what kids are taking. A bit of MDMA sure, but with doubtless a lot of other impurities from the production process too, and possibly other stuff added deliberately because they're cheaper than the main ingredient.

I doubt Tesco would want to get involved in a legal drugs market but head shops, tobacconists and off-licences might. I'd guess anything intraveinous (intravenous?) would have to come from a pharmacist as they did until the 60s.

Legalisation would cut Mr Marks and his ilk out of the market.

I certainly do not go to the pub to get 'sloshed', but along with many others I do enjoy mild intoxication in a convivial atmosphere. Speaking personallly three pints of something strong-ish is quite enough intoxication but we're all different. It is patronising to assume that people taking other substances which are currently arbitrarily illegal are always out to get 'out of it'.

Given your fondness for the current system it wouldn't surprise me if you are doing quite well out of it...
THe point is that without the correct controls in place we don't know what kids are taking. A bit of MDMA sure, but with doubtless a lot of other impurities from the production process too, and possibly other stuff added deliberately because they're cheaper than the main ingredient. I doubt Tesco would want to get involved in a legal drugs market but head shops, tobacconists and off-licences might. I'd guess anything intraveinous (intravenous?) would have to come from a pharmacist as they did until the 60s. Legalisation would cut Mr Marks and his ilk out of the market. I certainly do not go to the pub to get 'sloshed', but along with many others I do enjoy mild intoxication in a convivial atmosphere. Speaking personallly three pints of something strong-ish is quite enough intoxication but we're all different. It is patronising to assume that people taking other substances which are currently arbitrarily illegal are always out to get 'out of it'. Given your fondness for the current system it wouldn't surprise me if you are doing quite well out of it... King Joke
  • Score: -1

4:30pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"Legalisation would cut Mr Marks and his ilk out of the market"
His next market might well be kidnap and he'd not be kidnapping a load of clowns who take drugs though, would he, but people like you and me? Or he might become "legit" like Jack Kennedy's rum-runner father, who became a fascist.
Still I suspect he'd carry on. The State would be a little bit nosey about where .the cash to buy drugs came from. A dealer only needs to know his customer is aware he'll be crippled if he doesn't pay.
"Given your fondness for the current system it wouldn't surprise me if you are doing quite well out of it..." Silly and unworthy of you.
"Legalisation would cut Mr Marks and his ilk out of the market" His next market might well be kidnap and he'd not be kidnapping a load of clowns who take drugs though, would he, but people like you and me? Or he might become "legit" like Jack Kennedy's rum-runner father, who became a fascist. Still I suspect he'd carry on. The State would be a little bit nosey about where .the cash to buy drugs came from. A dealer only needs to know his customer is aware he'll be crippled if he doesn't pay. "Given your fondness for the current system it wouldn't surprise me if you are doing quite well out of it..." Silly and unworthy of you. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

4:40pm Fri 13 Jun 14

King Joke says...

Isn't it funny how distilleries and tobacco companies manage to stay in business without recourse to small-scale civil wars in central America and south Asia. Doubtless they are no angels but in all likelihood don't stoop that low. A legit narcotics trade would clean up its act through a combination of government action, in producer and consumer countries, and consumer pressure.

The current system is so poor at preventing hurt at point of production, distribution or consumption, it's hard to think how it could be done any worse.
Isn't it funny how distilleries and tobacco companies manage to stay in business without recourse to small-scale civil wars in central America and south Asia. Doubtless they are no angels but in all likelihood don't stoop that low. A legit narcotics trade would clean up its act through a combination of government action, in producer and consumer countries, and consumer pressure. The current system is so poor at preventing hurt at point of production, distribution or consumption, it's hard to think how it could be done any worse. King Joke
  • Score: -1

5:38pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

King Joke wrote:
Isn't it funny how distilleries and tobacco companies manage to stay in business without recourse to small-scale civil wars in central America and south Asia. Doubtless they are no angels but in all likelihood don't stoop that low. A legit narcotics trade would clean up its act through a combination of government action, in producer and consumer countries, and consumer pressure.

The current system is so poor at preventing hurt at point of production, distribution or consumption, it's hard to think how it could be done any worse.
Oh perfect. Who, apart from the Taliban, would HMG pay for the poppies? I don't think you've thought this through KJ, have you?
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: Isn't it funny how distilleries and tobacco companies manage to stay in business without recourse to small-scale civil wars in central America and south Asia. Doubtless they are no angels but in all likelihood don't stoop that low. A legit narcotics trade would clean up its act through a combination of government action, in producer and consumer countries, and consumer pressure. The current system is so poor at preventing hurt at point of production, distribution or consumption, it's hard to think how it could be done any worse.[/p][/quote]Oh perfect. Who, apart from the Taliban, would HMG pay for the poppies? I don't think you've thought this through KJ, have you? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

6:22pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Major Rhode-Werks says...

Alcohol and tobacco are legalised but it doesnt stop people buying counterfeit stuff which is cheaper and probably more dangerous so legalising drugs wouldn't stop cheaper blackmarket drugs being sold. Executing these scum of the earth drug dealers may, however, make it more difficult for kids to get addicted in the first place.
Alcohol and tobacco are legalised but it doesnt stop people buying counterfeit stuff which is cheaper and probably more dangerous so legalising drugs wouldn't stop cheaper blackmarket drugs being sold. Executing these scum of the earth drug dealers may, however, make it more difficult for kids to get addicted in the first place. Major Rhode-Werks
  • Score: 13

6:51pm Fri 13 Jun 14

xenarthra says...

King Joke wrote:
THe point is that without the correct controls in place we don't know what kids are taking. A bit of MDMA sure, but with doubtless a lot of other impurities from the production process too, and possibly other stuff added deliberately because they're cheaper than the main ingredient.

I doubt Tesco would want to get involved in a legal drugs market but head shops, tobacconists and off-licences might. I'd guess anything intraveinous (intravenous?) would have to come from a pharmacist as they did until the 60s.

Legalisation would cut Mr Marks and his ilk out of the market.

I certainly do not go to the pub to get 'sloshed', but along with many others I do enjoy mild intoxication in a convivial atmosphere. Speaking personallly three pints of something strong-ish is quite enough intoxication but we're all different. It is patronising to assume that people taking other substances which are currently arbitrarily illegal are always out to get 'out of it'.

Given your fondness for the current system it wouldn't surprise me if you are doing quite well out of it...
If you looked into the story of this girl, you would see that the MDMA that killed her was extremely pure. Impurities had nothing to do with her death. it was the drug itself that killed her.

You say that the arbitrary distinction between some things being illegal and others legal is spectacularly unhelpful. I fail to see this. Even if it is unhelpful, this observation does not take us very far.

You might prefer to live in a world where all laws are completely consistent and orderly, but life and history aren't like that. We have to start from where we are today, and at present alcohol is legal and MDMA is not.

Making alcohol illegal would clearly be a stupid thing to try. It does not follow from this, however, that keeping MDMA illegal is similarly stupid, as you seem to be implying.

These drugs mess with people's minds. You should be looking at why people want to take them in the first place. Side effects are a consideration, but it's the primary effects that are more dangerous to society.

Society as a whole would probably be improved if alcohol and smoking were banned too. And no, I am not teetotal, but weighing the damage that alcohol does to people's lives against the pleasure it provides to me and others, I think I would be pleased to see it banned. But this is not a practicable policy for alcohol, so it would be stupid to try to impose such a ban. I wouldn't be surprised if tobacco were criminalised in this country within my lifetime though.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: THe point is that without the correct controls in place we don't know what kids are taking. A bit of MDMA sure, but with doubtless a lot of other impurities from the production process too, and possibly other stuff added deliberately because they're cheaper than the main ingredient. I doubt Tesco would want to get involved in a legal drugs market but head shops, tobacconists and off-licences might. I'd guess anything intraveinous (intravenous?) would have to come from a pharmacist as they did until the 60s. Legalisation would cut Mr Marks and his ilk out of the market. I certainly do not go to the pub to get 'sloshed', but along with many others I do enjoy mild intoxication in a convivial atmosphere. Speaking personallly three pints of something strong-ish is quite enough intoxication but we're all different. It is patronising to assume that people taking other substances which are currently arbitrarily illegal are always out to get 'out of it'. Given your fondness for the current system it wouldn't surprise me if you are doing quite well out of it...[/p][/quote]If you looked into the story of this girl, you would see that the MDMA that killed her was extremely pure. Impurities had nothing to do with her death. it was the drug itself that killed her. You say that the arbitrary distinction between some things being illegal and others legal is spectacularly unhelpful. I fail to see this. Even if it is unhelpful, this observation does not take us very far. You might prefer to live in a world where all laws are completely consistent and orderly, but life and history aren't like that. We have to start from where we are today, and at present alcohol is legal and MDMA is not. Making alcohol illegal would clearly be a stupid thing to try. It does not follow from this, however, that keeping MDMA illegal is similarly stupid, as you seem to be implying. These drugs mess with people's minds. You should be looking at why people want to take them in the first place. Side effects are a consideration, but it's the primary effects that are more dangerous to society. Society as a whole would probably be improved if alcohol and smoking were banned too. And no, I am not teetotal, but weighing the damage that alcohol does to people's lives against the pleasure it provides to me and others, I think I would be pleased to see it banned. But this is not a practicable policy for alcohol, so it would be stupid to try to impose such a ban. I wouldn't be surprised if tobacco were criminalised in this country within my lifetime though. xenarthra
  • Score: 3

9:10pm Fri 13 Jun 14

FreddyF says...

xenarthra wrote:
This is a very tragic death, and the mother must be devastated. But the idea that our society would be improved if the government started handing out psychedelic drugs to our children strikes me as profoundly misguided. Doctors and pharmacists are there to make people better, not to screw up people's minds. The best that can come from this sad death is if it deters other children in Oxford from ever experimenting with drugs in the first place. Trying to make drugs safer misses the point that they are fundamentally unsafe. Regulation might help to reduce their side-effects, but its the drugs' primary effects that trouble me more.
Regulation does not mean "handing out psychedelic drugs to our children" and more than regulating gas and electricity means handing out power tools and blow torches to children. What a ridiculous suggestion.

Drugs are not fundamentally more unsafe than many of the legal drugs we have today. The only difference is the level of media coverage. From statistics from the 1990s, when there were less other things ecstasy could be other than MDMA, an ecstasy user has a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying due to their use. Compare to 1 in 1000 for alcohol use. This takes into account the number of people taking it.

Also, 500mg is a heck of a lot for a 15 year old girl to take. She looks quite slim from the pictures. 150mg of pure MDMA is about as much as a fully grown adult would take in one go. There is no way she would take 500mg all at once if she had any idea of its potency at that dose.
[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote: This is a very tragic death, and the mother must be devastated. But the idea that our society would be improved if the government started handing out psychedelic drugs to our children strikes me as profoundly misguided. Doctors and pharmacists are there to make people better, not to screw up people's minds. The best that can come from this sad death is if it deters other children in Oxford from ever experimenting with drugs in the first place. Trying to make drugs safer misses the point that they are fundamentally unsafe. Regulation might help to reduce their side-effects, but its the drugs' primary effects that trouble me more.[/p][/quote]Regulation does not mean "handing out psychedelic drugs to our children" and more than regulating gas and electricity means handing out power tools and blow torches to children. What a ridiculous suggestion. Drugs are not fundamentally more unsafe than many of the legal drugs we have today. The only difference is the level of media coverage. From statistics from the 1990s, when there were less other things ecstasy could be other than MDMA, an ecstasy user has a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying due to their use. Compare to 1 in 1000 for alcohol use. This takes into account the number of people taking it. Also, 500mg is a heck of a lot for a 15 year old girl to take. She looks quite slim from the pictures. 150mg of pure MDMA is about as much as a fully grown adult would take in one go. There is no way she would take 500mg all at once if she had any idea of its potency at that dose. FreddyF
  • Score: 0

6:05am Sat 14 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"an ecstasy user has a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying (spontaneously) due to their use. Compare to 1 in 1000 for(excessive) alcohol use"
Make the stuff available at the Quicky Mart. More people take it. More die. Advantage of this?
"Alcohol and tobacco are legalised but it doesnt stop people buying counterfeit stuff which is cheaper and probably more dangerous so legalising drugs wouldn't stop cheaper blackmarket drugs being sold"
They're not "counterfeit" They're the same stuff without the insane levels of UK tax. But you're right. The State wouldn't be able to keep its greasy paws off the legalized filthy powders to crank up even more tax, so it would remain more efficient to import them quietly
"an ecstasy user has a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying (spontaneously) due to their use. Compare to 1 in 1000 for(excessive) alcohol use" Make the stuff available at the Quicky Mart. More people take it. More die. Advantage of this? "Alcohol and tobacco are legalised but it doesnt stop people buying counterfeit stuff which is cheaper and probably more dangerous so legalising drugs wouldn't stop cheaper blackmarket drugs being sold" They're not "counterfeit" They're the same stuff without the insane levels of UK tax. But you're right. The State wouldn't be able to keep its greasy paws off the legalized filthy powders to crank up even more tax, so it would remain more efficient to import them quietly Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

9:40am Sat 14 Jun 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

It's certainly a sad story, a beautiful young lady died before she'd had a chance to start living her life.
The fact is though, there have been warnings about drug misuse for years, and as a result many millions of people haven't taken them, some though choose to ignore the warnings, unfortunately Martha was one of them, and nothing can change that.
It's certainly a sad story, a beautiful young lady died before she'd had a chance to start living her life. The fact is though, there have been warnings about drug misuse for years, and as a result many millions of people haven't taken them, some though choose to ignore the warnings, unfortunately Martha was one of them, and nothing can change that. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 12

1:38am Sun 15 Jun 14

deedee444 says...

There but for the grace of God.................
...... we.ve all(well nearly all) taken illegal substances ,I guess she was just one of the unlucky ones,that is no age to die,i really feel for the parents....RIP.
There but for the grace of God................. ...... we.ve all(well nearly all) taken illegal substances ,I guess she was just one of the unlucky ones,that is no age to die,i really feel for the parents....RIP. deedee444
  • Score: -4

9:18am Sun 15 Jun 14

Major Rhode-Werks says...

"Alcohol and tobacco are legalised but it doesnt stop people buying counterfeit stuff which is cheaper and probably more dangerous so legalising drugs wouldn't stop cheaper blackmarket drugs being sold"
They're not "counterfeit" They're the same stuff without the insane levels of UK tax. But you're right. The State wouldn't be able to keep its greasy paws off the legalized filthy powders to crank up even more tax, so it would remain more efficient to import them quietly

Lord P: I wasn't actually talking about the real stuff which is smuggled in to avoid tax. I probably didn't make it clear, but I was talking about the counterfeit cigarettes which contain sawdust and the like, and counterfeit wine which, I believe, often contains anti-freeze plus various spirits that contain God knows what.
"Alcohol and tobacco are legalised but it doesnt stop people buying counterfeit stuff which is cheaper and probably more dangerous so legalising drugs wouldn't stop cheaper blackmarket drugs being sold" They're not "counterfeit" They're the same stuff without the insane levels of UK tax. But you're right. The State wouldn't be able to keep its greasy paws off the legalized filthy powders to crank up even more tax, so it would remain more efficient to import them quietly Lord P: I wasn't actually talking about the real stuff which is smuggled in to avoid tax. I probably didn't make it clear, but I was talking about the counterfeit cigarettes which contain sawdust and the like, and counterfeit wine which, I believe, often contains anti-freeze plus various spirits that contain God knows what. Major Rhode-Werks
  • Score: 0

10:34am Sun 15 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

I fear you've been caught by HMRC's black propaganda.
So great is the difference now between alcohol and tobacco duties in UK and almost the rest of the world that making up HMRC's confections of boot polish and spit in wine bottles (wow! That'd really fool the public) would just be a waste of time when all you've got to do is take the bottles and cans off the shelf at Lidl's in Calais, bring them across the channel in your transit and sell them to acquaintances. Perfectly acceptable form of trade as the majority of Britons who benefit from it would agree.
I fear you've been caught by HMRC's black propaganda. So great is the difference now between alcohol and tobacco duties in UK and almost the rest of the world that making up HMRC's confections of boot polish and spit in wine bottles (wow! That'd really fool the public) would just be a waste of time when all you've got to do is take the bottles and cans off the shelf at Lidl's in Calais, bring them across the channel in your transit and sell them to acquaintances. Perfectly acceptable form of trade as the majority of Britons who benefit from it would agree. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 4

3:41pm Sun 15 Jun 14

H.J.Harris says...

One part of the "kicks" from taking drugs is the illicit nature of the action. I really can't see that legalising will have the desired effects. Drug dealers will find it all too easy to convince young drug users that legal highs are "kids' stuff" and the poison they peddle are the "real thing".
One part of the "kicks" from taking drugs is the illicit nature of the action. I really can't see that legalising will have the desired effects. Drug dealers will find it all too easy to convince young drug users that legal highs are "kids' stuff" and the poison they peddle are the "real thing". H.J.Harris
  • Score: 7

4:19pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

In practical terms, since most heroin addicts are incapable of looking after themselves I'd be interested to know whether "Chinese Walls" are envisaged by the "regulators", where the State Opium Emporium sells to Mr & Mrs Junkie who bring with them their neglected child "Spliff" and is then forbidden to tell Social Services about the transaction.
In practical terms, since most heroin addicts are incapable of looking after themselves I'd be interested to know whether "Chinese Walls" are envisaged by the "regulators", where the State Opium Emporium sells to Mr & Mrs Junkie who bring with them their neglected child "Spliff" and is then forbidden to tell Social Services about the transaction. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

8:11am Mon 16 Jun 14

paddy173 says...

If someone is caught selling drugs why not prosecute them under Laws that protect people. Premises that serve food are supposed to adhere to them and know what is in the products they sell. Employers are supposed to provide risk assessments and method statements to pritect their employees.

So if some scumbag is caught selling/distributing
/importing/transport
ing etc, so called recreational drugs charge them under the current raft of laws that concern H&S. the fine is upto £20000 and or 6 months in prison (per offence) in Magistrates court and unlimited in Crown.
Start making prison a real deterrent build a horrible prison on a remote Island and remove all priviledges/visitati
on rights for the entire length of the sentence. Impose a system in this prison that prevents networking between the criminals.
Before someone quotes Human Rights, think about the sentence that this lady is serving.
If someone is caught selling drugs why not prosecute them under Laws that protect people. Premises that serve food are supposed to adhere to them and know what is in the products they sell. Employers are supposed to provide risk assessments and method statements to pritect their employees. So if some scumbag is caught selling/distributing /importing/transport ing etc, so called recreational drugs charge them under the current raft of laws that concern H&S. the fine is upto £20000 and or 6 months in prison (per offence) in Magistrates court and unlimited in Crown. Start making prison a real deterrent build a horrible prison on a remote Island and remove all priviledges/visitati on rights for the entire length of the sentence. Impose a system in this prison that prevents networking between the criminals. Before someone quotes Human Rights, think about the sentence that this lady is serving. paddy173
  • Score: 4

8:13am Mon 16 Jun 14

paddy173 says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
I fear you've been caught by HMRC's black propaganda. So great is the difference now between alcohol and tobacco duties in UK and almost the rest of the world that making up HMRC's confections of boot polish and spit in wine bottles (wow! That'd really fool the public) would just be a waste of time when all you've got to do is take the bottles and cans off the shelf at Lidl's in Calais, bring them across the channel in your transit and sell them to acquaintances. Perfectly acceptable form of trade as the majority of Britons who benefit from it would agree.
Other Types of Van are also available
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: I fear you've been caught by HMRC's black propaganda. So great is the difference now between alcohol and tobacco duties in UK and almost the rest of the world that making up HMRC's confections of boot polish and spit in wine bottles (wow! That'd really fool the public) would just be a waste of time when all you've got to do is take the bottles and cans off the shelf at Lidl's in Calais, bring them across the channel in your transit and sell them to acquaintances. Perfectly acceptable form of trade as the majority of Britons who benefit from it would agree.[/p][/quote]Other Types of Van are also available paddy173
  • Score: 1

1:33pm Mon 16 Jun 14

huffer12 says...

Don't get me wrong, I am sad that this young girl has died. However, this wasn't the first time she had played with fire and at some point you get burnt. Why is the person that supplied the drug "scum" yet no one seems to think that she is culpable in her own actions? No one forced her to take the drug.

As for education - my children attend Cherwell School and they regularly have lessons in the issues around drug use, and as a Parent surely that is partly your responsibility?
Don't get me wrong, I am sad that this young girl has died. However, this wasn't the first time she had played with fire and at some point you get burnt. Why is the person that supplied the drug "scum" yet no one seems to think that she is culpable in her own actions? No one forced her to take the drug. As for education - my children attend Cherwell School and they regularly have lessons in the issues around drug use, and as a Parent surely that is partly your responsibility? huffer12
  • Score: 7

2:03pm Mon 16 Jun 14

robbo81 says...

You're above arguments are all flawed and stupid. You can legalise and control anything. MDMA characteristically makes the body overheat, the common cause of death is the fact that the user doesn't realise they are overheating and usually suffers a fatal heart attack. After the death of Leah Betts there was a lot of publicity toward clubbers advising them to avoid alcohol and drink water every hour but don't over do it either.

The purer the MDMA the harder the hit and the more likely you are to overheat. The younger you are and the less developed both tolerance and the body is, the more severe the reaction. So you could control the substance by moderating who is allowed it (eg over 21s) and the purity of it.

Your above arguments fail where you witter on about alcohol, - isn't this just the same thing? Give a litre of 80% spirit to a 14 year old and I'd say there's a high chance they'll die. Give a 4% 300ml tinny to a 14 year old and they'll get a buzz but life will go on.

That is why there is greater taxation on alcohol over certain percentages, bans on spirits being above certain levels etc.

I don't necessarily agree with the legalisation of harder drugs such as MDMA/Cocaine as I think they'll lead to counterfeits, other sorts of crime. But I do think cannabis and 'softer' drugs should be legalised - as KJ noted kids and adults alike will always want to get their rocks off. It's what we do. So why make them turn to the unknown?!

as an aside how many of you armchair keyboard warriors have taken a class A or B drug in the past 12 months? keen to know where your fountains of knowledge have developed? perhaps you're all youth workers or have seen it all before in the penal system.

Any how. All credit to this woman, who despite going through a horrific time of her life is still trying to make the best of this situation and make change for the better.
You're above arguments are all flawed and stupid. You can legalise and control anything. MDMA characteristically makes the body overheat, the common cause of death is the fact that the user doesn't realise they are overheating and usually suffers a fatal heart attack. After the death of Leah Betts there was a lot of publicity toward clubbers advising them to avoid alcohol and drink water every hour but don't over do it either. The purer the MDMA the harder the hit and the more likely you are to overheat. The younger you are and the less developed both tolerance and the body is, the more severe the reaction. So you could control the substance by moderating who is allowed it (eg over 21s) and the purity of it. Your above arguments fail where you witter on about alcohol, - isn't this just the same thing? Give a litre of 80% spirit to a 14 year old and I'd say there's a high chance they'll die. Give a 4% 300ml tinny to a 14 year old and they'll get a buzz but life will go on. That is why there is greater taxation on alcohol over certain percentages, bans on spirits being above certain levels etc. I don't necessarily agree with the legalisation of harder drugs such as MDMA/Cocaine as I think they'll lead to counterfeits, other sorts of crime. But I do think cannabis and 'softer' drugs should be legalised - as KJ noted kids and adults alike will always want to get their rocks off. It's what we do. So why make them turn to the unknown?! as an aside how many of you armchair keyboard warriors have taken a class A or B drug in the past 12 months? keen to know where your fountains of knowledge have developed? perhaps you're all youth workers or have seen it all before in the penal system. Any how. All credit to this woman, who despite going through a horrific time of her life is still trying to make the best of this situation and make change for the better. robbo81
  • Score: -1

3:15pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"as an aside how many of you armchair keyboard warriors have taken a class A or B drug in the past 12 months? keen to know where your fountains of knowledge have developed? perhaps you're all youth workers or have seen it all before in the penal system"
Not in the last 12 months but like most people I'm guessing I've had pethidine for pain relief and it was very good-for just that. it hasn't got magic qualities ;it'll do nothing well save pain relief.
Again, like most of the population I've encountered cocaine people, full of aggression, eyes fixed, pretty horrible stuff. And opiate abusers? Loads-dozing around the place, unwashed, scabby. In my professional life as well and I can't say I've ever heard a psychiatrist voice the "legalize" orthodoxy.

"Give a litre of 80% spirit to a 14 year old and I'd say there's a high chance they'll die" Well they won't will they, because 80 ABV is totally unpalatable. But powder is just powder and it's anyone's guess about the heat thing and why, oh why, with its track record of incompetence, would the State want to get into peddling drugs?
And you're (sic) argument for state control /regulation is flawed and stupid. Have you even given a moment's thought as to the State peddling drugs to parents and its assuming responsibility (as it constantly purports to do) for their children?
"kids and adults alike will always want to get their rocks off. It's what we do" that really sounds like the feeble sentiment of the 1960's-much the same as the heading of this article, sadly.
"as an aside how many of you armchair keyboard warriors have taken a class A or B drug in the past 12 months? keen to know where your fountains of knowledge have developed? perhaps you're all youth workers or have seen it all before in the penal system" Not in the last 12 months but like most people I'm guessing I've had pethidine for pain relief and it was very good-for just that. it hasn't got magic qualities ;it'll do nothing well save pain relief. Again, like most of the population I've encountered cocaine people, full of aggression, eyes fixed, pretty horrible stuff. And opiate abusers? Loads-dozing around the place, unwashed, scabby. In my professional life as well and I can't say I've ever heard a psychiatrist voice the "legalize" orthodoxy. "Give a litre of 80% spirit to a 14 year old and I'd say there's a high chance they'll die" Well they won't will they, because 80 ABV is totally unpalatable. But powder is just powder and it's anyone's guess about the heat thing and why, oh why, with its track record of incompetence, would the State want to get into peddling drugs? And you're (sic) argument for state control /regulation is flawed and stupid. Have you even given a moment's thought as to the State peddling drugs to parents and its assuming responsibility (as it constantly purports to do) for their children? "kids and adults alike will always want to get their rocks off. It's what we do" that really sounds like the feeble sentiment of the 1960's-much the same as the heading of this article, sadly. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

3:17pm Mon 16 Jun 14

King Joke says...

So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.
So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for. King Joke
  • Score: 1

3:31pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

King Joke wrote:
So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.
Why would anything work "well" in this area? The stuff is just a nuisance a diversion, something we'd be better off without. And if that's the message the State manages to get across, well then it's the best anyone can hope for
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.[/p][/quote]Why would anything work "well" in this area? The stuff is just a nuisance a diversion, something we'd be better off without. And if that's the message the State manages to get across, well then it's the best anyone can hope for Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

4:35pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Floflo says...

King Joke wrote:
So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.
I too have come to similar conclusions. Most of the problems associated with illegal drugs come from their legal status. The legal status of drugs has little to do with the risk they pose. If any message is given by the state through the legal status of drugs it's that the state approach is all about politics and very little to do with harm reduction.

Prohibition puts control in the hands of organised gangs, it results in varying quality and fakes. Perhaps even worse is that there's a whole new industry in new analogues which are much more dangerous than tried and tested drugs.

I don't think for a moment that the legal status of drugs restricts supply. Especially as you can go on line and get anything delivered to your door. The supply of drugs needs to be controlled and the best way to do that is within the law.

Personally I think tobacco needs greater controls, yet it should remain legal. Tobacco kills a third of users however consenting adults should be free to take it. Once tobacco is under tighter controls I suggest MDMA could be controlled in a similar way - no marketing, age limits, restricted supply, punitive tax, state support for users.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.[/p][/quote]I too have come to similar conclusions. Most of the problems associated with illegal drugs come from their legal status. The legal status of drugs has little to do with the risk they pose. If any message is given by the state through the legal status of drugs it's that the state approach is all about politics and very little to do with harm reduction. Prohibition puts control in the hands of organised gangs, it results in varying quality and fakes. Perhaps even worse is that there's a whole new industry in new analogues which are much more dangerous than tried and tested drugs. I don't think for a moment that the legal status of drugs restricts supply. Especially as you can go on line and get anything delivered to your door. The supply of drugs needs to be controlled and the best way to do that is within the law. Personally I think tobacco needs greater controls, yet it should remain legal. Tobacco kills a third of users however consenting adults should be free to take it. Once tobacco is under tighter controls I suggest MDMA could be controlled in a similar way - no marketing, age limits, restricted supply, punitive tax, state support for users. Floflo
  • Score: -1

5:00pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"- no marketing, age limits, restricted supply, punitive tax, state support for users" Well the "users" will buy it through the informal channels, won't they? They will, quite rightly, feel they don't want to be "punitived" by a State which already bleeds us dry for tax- and then patronised by "drug workers" paid for out of punitive tax.
As a taxpayer would you relish the first "the State flogged me cannabis. Now I'm psychotic. I want megabucks in compo." Case?
because , believe me, that's what you'd get when the ambulance chasers sniffed out a new "market opportunity"
"- no marketing, age limits, restricted supply, punitive tax, state support for users" Well the "users" will buy it through the informal channels, won't they? They will, quite rightly, feel they don't want to be "punitived" by a State which already bleeds us dry for tax- and then patronised by "drug workers" paid for out of punitive tax. As a taxpayer would you relish the first "the State flogged me cannabis. Now I'm psychotic. I want megabucks in compo." Case? because , believe me, that's what you'd get when the ambulance chasers sniffed out a new "market opportunity" Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 2

6:11pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Floflo says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"- no marketing, age limits, restricted supply, punitive tax, state support for users" Well the "users" will buy it through the informal channels, won't they? They will, quite rightly, feel they don't want to be "punitived" by a State which already bleeds us dry for tax- and then patronised by "drug workers" paid for out of punitive tax.
As a taxpayer would you relish the first "the State flogged me cannabis. Now I'm psychotic. I want megabucks in compo." Case?
because , believe me, that's what you'd get when the ambulance chasers sniffed out a new "market opportunity"
You may prefer profits to be in the hands of organised crime but I don't think this helps anyone.

Taxing a good doesn't mean that the government sells it as you suggest. I'm not suggesting that the state gets directly involved in the supply. In this case tax should be used is a tool to control the price.

I expect a black market will continue to exist. No system can every be perfect, but by any measure the current system has failed.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: "- no marketing, age limits, restricted supply, punitive tax, state support for users" Well the "users" will buy it through the informal channels, won't they? They will, quite rightly, feel they don't want to be "punitived" by a State which already bleeds us dry for tax- and then patronised by "drug workers" paid for out of punitive tax. As a taxpayer would you relish the first "the State flogged me cannabis. Now I'm psychotic. I want megabucks in compo." Case? because , believe me, that's what you'd get when the ambulance chasers sniffed out a new "market opportunity"[/p][/quote]You may prefer profits to be in the hands of organised crime but I don't think this helps anyone. Taxing a good doesn't mean that the government sells it as you suggest. I'm not suggesting that the state gets directly involved in the supply. In this case tax should be used is a tool to control the price. I expect a black market will continue to exist. No system can every be perfect, but by any measure the current system has failed. Floflo
  • Score: -1

6:18pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

If the sale of the drug is State-authorised the so are its consequences. Ask any ambulance chaser. I don't "prefer" the cash to go to organised crime. I wish that people had the wit not to buy the disgusting stuff but the fact that, as far as I know, no politician has suggested the State open this can of worms is to the credit of politicians. They have much more sense than the "legalisers"
If the sale of the drug is State-authorised the so are its consequences. Ask any ambulance chaser. I don't "prefer" the cash to go to organised crime. I wish that people had the wit not to buy the disgusting stuff but the fact that, as far as I know, no politician has suggested the State open this can of worms is to the credit of politicians. They have much more sense than the "legalisers" Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

6:45pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Floflo says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
If the sale of the drug is State-authorised the so are its consequences. Ask any ambulance chaser. I don't "prefer" the cash to go to organised crime. I wish that people had the wit not to buy the disgusting stuff but the fact that, as far as I know, no politician has suggested the State open this can of worms is to the credit of politicians. They have much more sense than the "legalisers"
You can wish all you like but this 'can of worms' is not going to go away. Many politicians and senior police many realise this and are openly calling for reform. The legal status of drugs does not stop anyone who want to find them getting hold of them. The sensible approach is to realise this is bring our laws up to date.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: If the sale of the drug is State-authorised the so are its consequences. Ask any ambulance chaser. I don't "prefer" the cash to go to organised crime. I wish that people had the wit not to buy the disgusting stuff but the fact that, as far as I know, no politician has suggested the State open this can of worms is to the credit of politicians. They have much more sense than the "legalisers"[/p][/quote]You can wish all you like but this 'can of worms' is not going to go away. Many politicians and senior police many realise this and are openly calling for reform. The legal status of drugs does not stop anyone who want to find them getting hold of them. The sensible approach is to realise this is bring our laws up to date. Floflo
  • Score: -1

6:56pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Who? That'd be a daring one to put in the manifesto. The same State which couldn't even get the equipment right for our soldiers abroad, trusted with a key to the morphia cupboard? What a nightmare.
Who? That'd be a daring one to put in the manifesto. The same State which couldn't even get the equipment right for our soldiers abroad, trusted with a key to the morphia cupboard? What a nightmare. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

11:52pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

King Joke wrote:
So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.
Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90%
Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine).
Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low

(Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.[/p][/quote]Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90% Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine). Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low (Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging) Dr Martin
  • Score: 3

7:42am Tue 17 Jun 14

King Joke says...

There is every chance that, were some substances legalised, use might stay at 10% but with fewer deaths and injuries resulting from use, or it might even rise but with a similar fall in ill-effects.

To echo what others have said, wishing the problem away is incredibly naive. People will always seek intoxication in the same way they will always seek thrills, danger, s*xual pleasure, self esteem, ambition and so on. It's how we manage these things where possible in everyone's best interests that is so important.
There is every chance that, were some substances legalised, use might stay at 10% but with fewer deaths and injuries resulting from use, or it might even rise but with a similar fall in ill-effects. To echo what others have said, wishing the problem away is incredibly naive. People will always seek intoxication in the same way they will always seek thrills, danger, s*xual pleasure, self esteem, ambition and so on. It's how we manage these things where possible in everyone's best interests that is so important. King Joke
  • Score: 0

7:56am Tue 17 Jun 14

Floflo says...

Dr Martin wrote:
King Joke wrote:
So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.
Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90%
Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine).
Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low

(Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)
Similar usage patterns, and trends can be see in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised around ten years ago.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.[/p][/quote]Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90% Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine). Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low (Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)[/p][/quote]Similar usage patterns, and trends can be see in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised around ten years ago. Floflo
  • Score: -1

10:02am Tue 17 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Floflo wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
King Joke wrote:
So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.
Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90%
Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine).
Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low

(Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)
Similar usage patterns, and trends can be see in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised around ten years ago.
The McCann Saga strongly suggests to me that the Portuguese Police wouldn't have the faintest idea whether people were drugging themselves or not.
Anyway, yesterday you said ". Many politicians and senior police many realise this and are openly calling for reform"
I asked who they were. You've not replied
And is it such a big deal? Every now and then a youngster foolishly takes the "latest" draincleaner and passes away. The numbers of 30 year old wizened junkies who meet their fate won't change. A massive regulations industry? To what purpose?
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.[/p][/quote]Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90% Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine). Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low (Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)[/p][/quote]Similar usage patterns, and trends can be see in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised around ten years ago.[/p][/quote]The McCann Saga strongly suggests to me that the Portuguese Police wouldn't have the faintest idea whether people were drugging themselves or not. Anyway, yesterday you said ". Many politicians and senior police many realise this and are openly calling for reform" I asked who they were. You've not replied And is it such a big deal? Every now and then a youngster foolishly takes the "latest" draincleaner and passes away. The numbers of 30 year old wizened junkies who meet their fate won't change. A massive regulations industry? To what purpose? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

10:52am Tue 17 Jun 14

King Joke says...

A massive regulations industry that saves lives and makes the drain-cleaners' business model less viable sounds good to me.
A massive regulations industry that saves lives and makes the drain-cleaners' business model less viable sounds good to me. King Joke
  • Score: -1

12:36pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

King Joke wrote:
A massive regulations industry that saves lives and makes the drain-cleaners' business model less viable sounds good to me.
Well, you pay for it. Leave me out. I expect the drain cleaner people will become "chairs" or even "tables" of the resulting quangos-and foolish young people will still perish.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: A massive regulations industry that saves lives and makes the drain-cleaners' business model less viable sounds good to me.[/p][/quote]Well, you pay for it. Leave me out. I expect the drain cleaner people will become "chairs" or even "tables" of the resulting quangos-and foolish young people will still perish. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

12:59pm Tue 17 Jun 14

King Joke says...

The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.
The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework. King Joke
  • Score: -1

1:08pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Floflo says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Floflo wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
King Joke wrote:
So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.
Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90%
Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine).
Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low

(Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)
Similar usage patterns, and trends can be see in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised around ten years ago.
The McCann Saga strongly suggests to me that the Portuguese Police wouldn't have the faintest idea whether people were drugging themselves or not.
Anyway, yesterday you said ". Many politicians and senior police many realise this and are openly calling for reform"
I asked who they were. You've not replied
And is it such a big deal? Every now and then a youngster foolishly takes the "latest" draincleaner and passes away. The numbers of 30 year old wizened junkies who meet their fate won't change. A massive regulations industry? To what purpose?
5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned. If you are interested you should really look this up yourself, there are plenty other examples.

It is tragic that young people are taking novel drugs - however its because the tried and tested drugs are illegal that people look to alternatives. For example you can buy synthetic cannabis legally - and these largely untested legal substances kill people. This is far more dangerous than cannabis but outdated laws turns people to 'legal highs'.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.[/p][/quote]Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90% Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine). Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low (Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)[/p][/quote]Similar usage patterns, and trends can be see in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised around ten years ago.[/p][/quote]The McCann Saga strongly suggests to me that the Portuguese Police wouldn't have the faintest idea whether people were drugging themselves or not. Anyway, yesterday you said ". Many politicians and senior police many realise this and are openly calling for reform" I asked who they were. You've not replied And is it such a big deal? Every now and then a youngster foolishly takes the "latest" draincleaner and passes away. The numbers of 30 year old wizened junkies who meet their fate won't change. A massive regulations industry? To what purpose?[/p][/quote]5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned. If you are interested you should really look this up yourself, there are plenty other examples. It is tragic that young people are taking novel drugs - however its because the tried and tested drugs are illegal that people look to alternatives. For example you can buy synthetic cannabis legally - and these largely untested legal substances kill people. This is far more dangerous than cannabis but outdated laws turns people to 'legal highs'. Floflo
  • Score: -1

1:23pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

King Joke wrote:
The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.
Well, not a "King Joke" but a little titter for that one. Like the Japanese soldiers for whom the war never ended you'll always believe in taxation, the Big Competent Benevolent State. What would it take, beyond the history of your country since 1944, to persuade you that the BCBS is a complete chimera?
"5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned". Who he? Any relation to Dick? What does Snowy think?
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.[/p][/quote]Well, not a "King Joke" but a little titter for that one. Like the Japanese soldiers for whom the war never ended you'll always believe in taxation, the Big Competent Benevolent State. What would it take, beyond the history of your country since 1944, to persuade you that the BCBS is a complete chimera? "5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned". Who he? Any relation to Dick? What does Snowy think? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Tue 17 Jun 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
King Joke wrote:
The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.
Well, not a "King Joke" but a little titter for that one. Like the Japanese soldiers for whom the war never ended you'll always believe in taxation, the Big Competent Benevolent State. What would it take, beyond the history of your country since 1944, to persuade you that the BCBS is a complete chimera?
"5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned". Who he? Any relation to Dick? What does Snowy think?
No he's the Chief Constable of Durham - do try to keep up Lord P. Anyone would think you'd been at the Ajax again........
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.[/p][/quote]Well, not a "King Joke" but a little titter for that one. Like the Japanese soldiers for whom the war never ended you'll always believe in taxation, the Big Competent Benevolent State. What would it take, beyond the history of your country since 1944, to persuade you that the BCBS is a complete chimera? "5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned". Who he? Any relation to Dick? What does Snowy think?[/p][/quote]No he's the Chief Constable of Durham - do try to keep up Lord P. Anyone would think you'd been at the Ajax again........ locodogz
  • Score: -2

2:08pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Floflo wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
King Joke wrote:
So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.
Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90%
Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine).
Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low

(Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)
Similar usage patterns, and trends can be see in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised around ten years ago.
In regards to Portugal's drug laws (not as rosy as some people seem to think)

"the number of adults in Portugal who have at some point taken illegal drugs is rising"
http://www.spiegel.d
e/international/euro
pe/evaluating-drug-d
ecriminalization-in-
portugal-12-years-la
ter-a-891060-2.html
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: So we've heard how our suggestions wouldn't work, now please outline the advantages of the current system and who it is working well for.[/p][/quote]Prohibition has restricted illicit drug use to 10% of the population, it has deterred the other 90% Illicit drug use, has fallen or stabilised (exception of powder cocaine). Heroin and crack users have fallen to a 12 year low (Just to add it is nice to be able to comment on a story In the Oxford Mail with out the obvious vote rigging)[/p][/quote]Similar usage patterns, and trends can be see in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised around ten years ago.[/p][/quote]In regards to Portugal's drug laws (not as rosy as some people seem to think) "the number of adults in Portugal who have at some point taken illegal drugs is rising" http://www.spiegel.d e/international/euro pe/evaluating-drug-d ecriminalization-in- portugal-12-years-la ter-a-891060-2.html Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

2:13pm Tue 17 Jun 14

King Joke says...

So the state has has no role to play, but absolute prohibition is the correct approach? Is there not just a little contradiction in this position?
So the state has has no role to play, but absolute prohibition is the correct approach? Is there not just a little contradiction in this position? King Joke
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

locodogz wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
King Joke wrote:
The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.
Well, not a "King Joke" but a little titter for that one. Like the Japanese soldiers for whom the war never ended you'll always believe in taxation, the Big Competent Benevolent State. What would it take, beyond the history of your country since 1944, to persuade you that the BCBS is a complete chimera?
"5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned". Who he? Any relation to Dick? What does Snowy think?
No he's the Chief Constable of Durham - do try to keep up Lord P. Anyone would think you'd been at the Ajax again........
You're kidding, someone as famous as the Chief Constable of Durham-wow. that's really big time. I'll bet Chief Wiggum thinks regulation is a cracking idea too
[quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.[/p][/quote]Well, not a "King Joke" but a little titter for that one. Like the Japanese soldiers for whom the war never ended you'll always believe in taxation, the Big Competent Benevolent State. What would it take, beyond the history of your country since 1944, to persuade you that the BCBS is a complete chimera? "5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned". Who he? Any relation to Dick? What does Snowy think?[/p][/quote]No he's the Chief Constable of Durham - do try to keep up Lord P. Anyone would think you'd been at the Ajax again........[/p][/quote]You're kidding, someone as famous as the Chief Constable of Durham-wow. that's really big time. I'll bet Chief Wiggum thinks regulation is a cracking idea too Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Tue 17 Jun 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
locodogz wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
King Joke wrote:
The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.
Well, not a "King Joke" but a little titter for that one. Like the Japanese soldiers for whom the war never ended you'll always believe in taxation, the Big Competent Benevolent State. What would it take, beyond the history of your country since 1944, to persuade you that the BCBS is a complete chimera?
"5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned". Who he? Any relation to Dick? What does Snowy think?
No he's the Chief Constable of Durham - do try to keep up Lord P. Anyone would think you'd been at the Ajax again........
You're kidding, someone as famous as the Chief Constable of Durham-wow. that's really big time. I'll bet Chief Wiggum thinks regulation is a cracking idea too
Tsk Lord P - is that all you've got?

Back under your rock methinks.......
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: The tax raised would more than pay for the regulatory framework.[/p][/quote]Well, not a "King Joke" but a little titter for that one. Like the Japanese soldiers for whom the war never ended you'll always believe in taxation, the Big Competent Benevolent State. What would it take, beyond the history of your country since 1944, to persuade you that the BCBS is a complete chimera? "5 seconds looking up the question you asked and Mike Barton was returned". Who he? Any relation to Dick? What does Snowy think?[/p][/quote]No he's the Chief Constable of Durham - do try to keep up Lord P. Anyone would think you'd been at the Ajax again........[/p][/quote]You're kidding, someone as famous as the Chief Constable of Durham-wow. that's really big time. I'll bet Chief Wiggum thinks regulation is a cracking idea too[/p][/quote]Tsk Lord P - is that all you've got? Back under your rock methinks....... locodogz
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Tue 17 Jun 14

King Joke says...

Durham may be a small force but you don't rise through the ranks in the Bill by being a bleeding heart liberal. If people who have worked with the sharp end of the current system are trying to tell us we need a different approach then maybe we should listen?
Durham may be a small force but you don't rise through the ranks in the Bill by being a bleeding heart liberal. If people who have worked with the sharp end of the current system are trying to tell us we need a different approach then maybe we should listen? King Joke
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

King Joke wrote:
Durham may be a small force but you don't rise through the ranks in the Bill by being a bleeding heart liberal. If people who have worked with the sharp end of the current system are trying to tell us we need a different approach then maybe we should listen?
Frankly, as an appeal to authority the Chief Constable of Durham is right up there with the Skibereen Eagle, which, for all I know is still watching Kaiser Wilhelm. The Chief Constable of Thames Valley, the Commissioner of the Met, yes they're big guns but if the CC of a remote Northern police force is your best, then, to quote the rather childish stuff . Is he the best you can do?
"Back under your rock methinks......."
What's the point of this kind of puerile stuff? Isn't it what adolescents do on "social networks" Are you an adolescent? If not, try acting your age.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: Durham may be a small force but you don't rise through the ranks in the Bill by being a bleeding heart liberal. If people who have worked with the sharp end of the current system are trying to tell us we need a different approach then maybe we should listen?[/p][/quote]Frankly, as an appeal to authority the Chief Constable of Durham is right up there with the Skibereen Eagle, which, for all I know is still watching Kaiser Wilhelm. The Chief Constable of Thames Valley, the Commissioner of the Met, yes they're big guns but if the CC of a remote Northern police force is your best, then, to quote the rather childish stuff . Is he the best you can do? "Back under your rock methinks......." What's the point of this kind of puerile stuff? Isn't it what adolescents do on "social networks" Are you an adolescent? If not, try acting your age. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Tue 17 Jun 14

robbo81 says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"as an aside how many of you armchair keyboard warriors have taken a class A or B drug in the past 12 months? keen to know where your fountains of knowledge have developed? perhaps you're all youth workers or have seen it all before in the penal system"
Not in the last 12 months but like most people I'm guessing I've had pethidine for pain relief and it was very good-for just that. it hasn't got magic qualities ;it'll do nothing well save pain relief.
Again, like most of the population I've encountered cocaine people, full of aggression, eyes fixed, pretty horrible stuff. And opiate abusers? Loads-dozing around the place, unwashed, scabby. In my professional life as well and I can't say I've ever heard a psychiatrist voice the "legalize" orthodoxy.

"Give a litre of 80% spirit to a 14 year old and I'd say there's a high chance they'll die" Well they won't will they, because 80 ABV is totally unpalatable. But powder is just powder and it's anyone's guess about the heat thing and why, oh why, with its track record of incompetence, would the State want to get into peddling drugs?
And you're (sic) argument for state control /regulation is flawed and stupid. Have you even given a moment's thought as to the State peddling drugs to parents and its assuming responsibility (as it constantly purports to do) for their children?
"kids and adults alike will always want to get their rocks off. It's what we do" that really sounds like the feeble sentiment of the 1960's-much the same as the heading of this article, sadly.
LP you're such an idiot with a single tunnelled vision.

Yes 80% ABV will be unpalatable but gourmet taste of drink was not the comparison I was drawing. It is the fact that alcohol is currently legal but the state monitor it. Hence overproof booze generally not being available as it kills.

Plenty of health specialists have advocated legalizing drugs and the fact that you have carefully edited my argument to cut the part where i mention that i am unsure if legalising very strong drugs is a good thing further proves what an idiot you are.

and to randomly state that all people who use cocaine are aggressive and horrible yet you don't use it, so where does this first hand experience emanate? again your vast experience of opiate users but again with unfounded proof.

Now as for the state, it's been pretty successful in Holland for a fair while. I believe area's of Portugal have made it work too. Recently the state of Colorado have had success with it. And finally your comment on the 60s hippy. I'm 32. I have used a variety of substances in my time on this planet. I am not ashamed of that. I currently own a house, many formal qualifications, a very well paid job. I made the choices to take what I took as I always said I wouldn't be someone like you, critical of everyone else without ever actually experiencing what they are critical of. An armchair expert/troll on every issue ever posted. You seem to be so good at judging what the country needs I'd make the assumption that you're a member of the council if not an MP?! but that would mean you have a job so you wouldn't have the time to be on here all day spouting complete tripe.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: "as an aside how many of you armchair keyboard warriors have taken a class A or B drug in the past 12 months? keen to know where your fountains of knowledge have developed? perhaps you're all youth workers or have seen it all before in the penal system" Not in the last 12 months but like most people I'm guessing I've had pethidine for pain relief and it was very good-for just that. it hasn't got magic qualities ;it'll do nothing well save pain relief. Again, like most of the population I've encountered cocaine people, full of aggression, eyes fixed, pretty horrible stuff. And opiate abusers? Loads-dozing around the place, unwashed, scabby. In my professional life as well and I can't say I've ever heard a psychiatrist voice the "legalize" orthodoxy. "Give a litre of 80% spirit to a 14 year old and I'd say there's a high chance they'll die" Well they won't will they, because 80 ABV is totally unpalatable. But powder is just powder and it's anyone's guess about the heat thing and why, oh why, with its track record of incompetence, would the State want to get into peddling drugs? And you're (sic) argument for state control /regulation is flawed and stupid. Have you even given a moment's thought as to the State peddling drugs to parents and its assuming responsibility (as it constantly purports to do) for their children? "kids and adults alike will always want to get their rocks off. It's what we do" that really sounds like the feeble sentiment of the 1960's-much the same as the heading of this article, sadly.[/p][/quote]LP you're such an idiot with a single tunnelled vision. Yes 80% ABV will be unpalatable but gourmet taste of drink was not the comparison I was drawing. It is the fact that alcohol is currently legal but the state monitor it. Hence overproof booze generally not being available as it kills. Plenty of health specialists have advocated legalizing drugs and the fact that you have carefully edited my argument to cut the part where i mention that i am unsure if legalising very strong drugs is a good thing further proves what an idiot you are. and to randomly state that all people who use cocaine are aggressive and horrible yet you don't use it, so where does this first hand experience emanate? again your vast experience of opiate users but again with unfounded proof. Now as for the state, it's been pretty successful in Holland for a fair while. I believe area's of Portugal have made it work too. Recently the state of Colorado have had success with it. And finally your comment on the 60s hippy. I'm 32. I have used a variety of substances in my time on this planet. I am not ashamed of that. I currently own a house, many formal qualifications, a very well paid job. I made the choices to take what I took as I always said I wouldn't be someone like you, critical of everyone else without ever actually experiencing what they are critical of. An armchair expert/troll on every issue ever posted. You seem to be so good at judging what the country needs I'd make the assumption that you're a member of the council if not an MP?! but that would mean you have a job so you wouldn't have the time to be on here all day spouting complete tripe. robbo81
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

robbo81 wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"as an aside how many of you armchair keyboard warriors have taken a class A or B drug in the past 12 months? keen to know where your fountains of knowledge have developed? perhaps you're all youth workers or have seen it all before in the penal system"
Not in the last 12 months but like most people I'm guessing I've had pethidine for pain relief and it was very good-for just that. it hasn't got magic qualities ;it'll do nothing well save pain relief.
Again, like most of the population I've encountered cocaine people, full of aggression, eyes fixed, pretty horrible stuff. And opiate abusers? Loads-dozing around the place, unwashed, scabby. In my professional life as well and I can't say I've ever heard a psychiatrist voice the "legalize" orthodoxy.

"Give a litre of 80% spirit to a 14 year old and I'd say there's a high chance they'll die" Well they won't will they, because 80 ABV is totally unpalatable. But powder is just powder and it's anyone's guess about the heat thing and why, oh why, with its track record of incompetence, would the State want to get into peddling drugs?
And you're (sic) argument for state control /regulation is flawed and stupid. Have you even given a moment's thought as to the State peddling drugs to parents and its assuming responsibility (as it constantly purports to do) for their children?
"kids and adults alike will always want to get their rocks off. It's what we do" that really sounds like the feeble sentiment of the 1960's-much the same as the heading of this article, sadly.
LP you're such an idiot with a single tunnelled vision.

Yes 80% ABV will be unpalatable but gourmet taste of drink was not the comparison I was drawing. It is the fact that alcohol is currently legal but the state monitor it. Hence overproof booze generally not being available as it kills.

Plenty of health specialists have advocated legalizing drugs and the fact that you have carefully edited my argument to cut the part where i mention that i am unsure if legalising very strong drugs is a good thing further proves what an idiot you are.

and to randomly state that all people who use cocaine are aggressive and horrible yet you don't use it, so where does this first hand experience emanate? again your vast experience of opiate users but again with unfounded proof.

Now as for the state, it's been pretty successful in Holland for a fair while. I believe area's of Portugal have made it work too. Recently the state of Colorado have had success with it. And finally your comment on the 60s hippy. I'm 32. I have used a variety of substances in my time on this planet. I am not ashamed of that. I currently own a house, many formal qualifications, a very well paid job. I made the choices to take what I took as I always said I wouldn't be someone like you, critical of everyone else without ever actually experiencing what they are critical of. An armchair expert/troll on every issue ever posted. You seem to be so good at judging what the country needs I'd make the assumption that you're a member of the council if not an MP?! but that would mean you have a job so you wouldn't have the time to be on here all day spouting complete tripe.
There may be some kind of argument for removing some restrictions. I can give you one quite strong one. The cannabis law, like the knife law, gives the police the choice of who to nick. Lots of people have cannabis with them and lots of people have a penknife or what not in the car. But if you're my age, you're not going to be stopped. You at 32 might be if you're known to them , as your little gem "variety of substances" suggests.
All the ad hominem stuff , all the "idiot" stuff, suggest you've either no argument or no confidence in your position.
This arises out of a youngster experimenting with stuff and coming to grief. It's in the nature of youngsters to experiment; they do come to grief. We can't wave a magic wand and make it better. The current position is at least logical "This stuff is rubbish. It's only associated with bad people and losers" "The State doesn't condone it".
[quote][p][bold]robbo81[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: "as an aside how many of you armchair keyboard warriors have taken a class A or B drug in the past 12 months? keen to know where your fountains of knowledge have developed? perhaps you're all youth workers or have seen it all before in the penal system" Not in the last 12 months but like most people I'm guessing I've had pethidine for pain relief and it was very good-for just that. it hasn't got magic qualities ;it'll do nothing well save pain relief. Again, like most of the population I've encountered cocaine people, full of aggression, eyes fixed, pretty horrible stuff. And opiate abusers? Loads-dozing around the place, unwashed, scabby. In my professional life as well and I can't say I've ever heard a psychiatrist voice the "legalize" orthodoxy. "Give a litre of 80% spirit to a 14 year old and I'd say there's a high chance they'll die" Well they won't will they, because 80 ABV is totally unpalatable. But powder is just powder and it's anyone's guess about the heat thing and why, oh why, with its track record of incompetence, would the State want to get into peddling drugs? And you're (sic) argument for state control /regulation is flawed and stupid. Have you even given a moment's thought as to the State peddling drugs to parents and its assuming responsibility (as it constantly purports to do) for their children? "kids and adults alike will always want to get their rocks off. It's what we do" that really sounds like the feeble sentiment of the 1960's-much the same as the heading of this article, sadly.[/p][/quote]LP you're such an idiot with a single tunnelled vision. Yes 80% ABV will be unpalatable but gourmet taste of drink was not the comparison I was drawing. It is the fact that alcohol is currently legal but the state monitor it. Hence overproof booze generally not being available as it kills. Plenty of health specialists have advocated legalizing drugs and the fact that you have carefully edited my argument to cut the part where i mention that i am unsure if legalising very strong drugs is a good thing further proves what an idiot you are. and to randomly state that all people who use cocaine are aggressive and horrible yet you don't use it, so where does this first hand experience emanate? again your vast experience of opiate users but again with unfounded proof. Now as for the state, it's been pretty successful in Holland for a fair while. I believe area's of Portugal have made it work too. Recently the state of Colorado have had success with it. And finally your comment on the 60s hippy. I'm 32. I have used a variety of substances in my time on this planet. I am not ashamed of that. I currently own a house, many formal qualifications, a very well paid job. I made the choices to take what I took as I always said I wouldn't be someone like you, critical of everyone else without ever actually experiencing what they are critical of. An armchair expert/troll on every issue ever posted. You seem to be so good at judging what the country needs I'd make the assumption that you're a member of the council if not an MP?! but that would mean you have a job so you wouldn't have the time to be on here all day spouting complete tripe.[/p][/quote]There may be some kind of argument for removing some restrictions. I can give you one quite strong one. The cannabis law, like the knife law, gives the police the choice of who to nick. Lots of people have cannabis with them and lots of people have a penknife or what not in the car. But if you're my age, you're not going to be stopped. You at 32 might be if you're known to them , as your little gem "variety of substances" suggests. All the ad hominem stuff , all the "idiot" stuff, suggest you've either no argument or no confidence in your position. This arises out of a youngster experimenting with stuff and coming to grief. It's in the nature of youngsters to experiment; they do come to grief. We can't wave a magic wand and make it better. The current position is at least logical "This stuff is rubbish. It's only associated with bad people and losers" "The State doesn't condone it". Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

10:00am Wed 18 Jun 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
King Joke wrote:
Durham may be a small force but you don't rise through the ranks in the Bill by being a bleeding heart liberal. If people who have worked with the sharp end of the current system are trying to tell us we need a different approach then maybe we should listen?
Frankly, as an appeal to authority the Chief Constable of Durham is right up there with the Skibereen Eagle, which, for all I know is still watching Kaiser Wilhelm. The Chief Constable of Thames Valley, the Commissioner of the Met, yes they're big guns but if the CC of a remote Northern police force is your best, then, to quote the rather childish stuff . Is he the best you can do?
"Back under your rock methinks......."
What's the point of this kind of puerile stuff? Isn't it what adolescents do on "social networks" Are you an adolescent? If not, try acting your age.
Oh dear Lord P – if you will seek to promote an air of intelligence by the use of obscure historical allegory – you really must try to get it right – lest you end up looking a tad foolish? It was the Czar of Russia – not the Kaiser – that the Skibereen Eagle was famously keeping its eye on. Whoops.

Much as it would be easy (and indeed tempting I confess) to pursue other flaws in your numerous posts – I am reminded that the article above is about the tragic death of a young girl and her mother’s assertion that we, maybe, need a debate on how as a society we approach the issue of drug use as a whole – and therefore not entirely sure this is an appropriate forum in which to do so. Martha RIP.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: Durham may be a small force but you don't rise through the ranks in the Bill by being a bleeding heart liberal. If people who have worked with the sharp end of the current system are trying to tell us we need a different approach then maybe we should listen?[/p][/quote]Frankly, as an appeal to authority the Chief Constable of Durham is right up there with the Skibereen Eagle, which, for all I know is still watching Kaiser Wilhelm. The Chief Constable of Thames Valley, the Commissioner of the Met, yes they're big guns but if the CC of a remote Northern police force is your best, then, to quote the rather childish stuff . Is he the best you can do? "Back under your rock methinks......." What's the point of this kind of puerile stuff? Isn't it what adolescents do on "social networks" Are you an adolescent? If not, try acting your age.[/p][/quote]Oh dear Lord P – if you will seek to promote an air of intelligence by the use of obscure historical allegory – you really must try to get it right – lest you end up looking a tad foolish? It was the Czar of Russia – not the Kaiser – that the Skibereen Eagle was famously keeping its eye on. Whoops. Much as it would be easy (and indeed tempting I confess) to pursue other flaws in your numerous posts – I am reminded that the article above is about the tragic death of a young girl and her mother’s assertion that we, maybe, need a debate on how as a society we approach the issue of drug use as a whole – and therefore not entirely sure this is an appropriate forum in which to do so. Martha RIP. locodogz
  • Score: 0

10:23am Wed 18 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

No it wasn't. It was the German Kaiser. There would be no "debate" There are simply single issue fanatics like you-presumably, though your stuff is generically just about taking a pop at everyone for its own sake- who'd bore on about regulation and those who know it'd not work but equally find it more than tedious to get all the "how many more people must die" stuff that single issue fanatics always trot out-your second paragraph is a fine example of the art. In the anonymity of these exchanges the argument could be developed but I'm not sure you'd enjoy that., being of the "I'm very clever; I'm always finding fault with my interlocutors" mind set.
No it wasn't. It was the German Kaiser. There would be no "debate" There are simply single issue fanatics like you-presumably, though your stuff is generically just about taking a pop at everyone for its own sake- who'd bore on about regulation and those who know it'd not work but equally find it more than tedious to get all the "how many more people must die" stuff that single issue fanatics always trot out-your second paragraph is a fine example of the art. In the anonymity of these exchanges the argument could be developed but I'm not sure you'd enjoy that., being of the "I'm very clever; I'm always finding fault with my interlocutors" mind set. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

10:30am Wed 18 Jun 14

King Joke says...

It takes one to know one LP - a debate about how to reduce harm through drug use has given you an opportunity to rail against governments, taxes and quangos. The fact these things might save lives in this area (let's keep it to the terms of reference) doesn't seem to bother you. If that isn't single-issue then I don't know what is.
It takes one to know one LP - a debate about how to reduce harm through drug use has given you an opportunity to rail against governments, taxes and quangos. The fact these things might save lives in this area (let's keep it to the terms of reference) doesn't seem to bother you. If that isn't single-issue then I don't know what is. King Joke
  • Score: 0

10:51am Wed 18 Jun 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
No it wasn't. It was the German Kaiser. There would be no "debate" There are simply single issue fanatics like you-presumably, though your stuff is generically just about taking a pop at everyone for its own sake- who'd bore on about regulation and those who know it'd not work but equally find it more than tedious to get all the "how many more people must die" stuff that single issue fanatics always trot out-your second paragraph is a fine example of the art. In the anonymity of these exchanges the argument could be developed but I'm not sure you'd enjoy that., being of the "I'm very clever; I'm always finding fault with my interlocutors" mind set.
You might want to let the Eagle know that it's website is wrong

http://www.skibberee
neagle.ie/?page_id=1
540

I know you'll consider that your civic duty.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: No it wasn't. It was the German Kaiser. There would be no "debate" There are simply single issue fanatics like you-presumably, though your stuff is generically just about taking a pop at everyone for its own sake- who'd bore on about regulation and those who know it'd not work but equally find it more than tedious to get all the "how many more people must die" stuff that single issue fanatics always trot out-your second paragraph is a fine example of the art. In the anonymity of these exchanges the argument could be developed but I'm not sure you'd enjoy that., being of the "I'm very clever; I'm always finding fault with my interlocutors" mind set.[/p][/quote]You might want to let the Eagle know that it's website is wrong http://www.skibberee neagle.ie/?page_id=1 540 I know you'll consider that your civic duty. locodogz
  • Score: 0

11:09am Wed 18 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

It must seem unlikely to even you that a British newspaper should "warn off" the Head of State of a friendly country but I cannot see that anything is gained from going on. I hope that Mr Haig will not accede to Ms. Cockburn's "demand" and you presumably hope he does.
It must seem unlikely to even you that a British newspaper should "warn off" the Head of State of a friendly country but I cannot see that anything is gained from going on. I hope that Mr Haig will not accede to Ms. Cockburn's "demand" and you presumably hope he does. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Wed 18 Jun 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
It must seem unlikely to even you that a British newspaper should "warn off" the Head of State of a friendly country but I cannot see that anything is gained from going on. I hope that Mr Haig will not accede to Ms. Cockburn's "demand" and you presumably hope he does.
So gracious......is that your way of admitting you were wrong then? Or are you just completely in denial - it is the Skibereen Eagle's own website after all?

Re your final assumption - no I'm not sure I hope Mr Hague does - but I am in favour of debate and I do feel that the opinion of a Chief Constable does have some merit in this area (which was where I took issue with your rather snooty dismissal of Mike Barton).
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: It must seem unlikely to even you that a British newspaper should "warn off" the Head of State of a friendly country but I cannot see that anything is gained from going on. I hope that Mr Haig will not accede to Ms. Cockburn's "demand" and you presumably hope he does.[/p][/quote]So gracious......is that your way of admitting you were wrong then? Or are you just completely in denial - it is the Skibereen Eagle's own website after all? Re your final assumption - no I'm not sure I hope Mr Hague does - but I am in favour of debate and I do feel that the opinion of a Chief Constable does have some merit in this area (which was where I took issue with your rather snooty dismissal of Mike Barton). locodogz
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 18 Jun 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
It must seem unlikely to even you that a British newspaper should "warn off" the Head of State of a friendly country but I cannot see that anything is gained from going on. I hope that Mr Haig will not accede to Ms. Cockburn's "demand" and you presumably hope he does.
Although I must thank you that I can now truthfully say that you don't know your Kaiser from your Tzar, olé!

Toodlepip
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: It must seem unlikely to even you that a British newspaper should "warn off" the Head of State of a friendly country but I cannot see that anything is gained from going on. I hope that Mr Haig will not accede to Ms. Cockburn's "demand" and you presumably hope he does.[/p][/quote]Although I must thank you that I can now truthfully say that you don't know your Kaiser from your Tzar, olé! Toodlepip locodogz
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 18 Jun 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
It must seem unlikely to even you that a British newspaper should "warn off" the Head of State of a friendly country but I cannot see that anything is gained from going on. I hope that Mr Haig will not accede to Ms. Cockburn's "demand" and you presumably hope he does.
Although I must thank you that I can now truthfully say that you don't know your Kaiser from your Tzar, olé!

Toodlepip
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: It must seem unlikely to even you that a British newspaper should "warn off" the Head of State of a friendly country but I cannot see that anything is gained from going on. I hope that Mr Haig will not accede to Ms. Cockburn's "demand" and you presumably hope he does.[/p][/quote]Although I must thank you that I can now truthfully say that you don't know your Kaiser from your Tzar, olé! Toodlepip locodogz
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Floflo says...

King Joke wrote:
It takes one to know one LP - a debate about how to reduce harm through drug use has given you an opportunity to rail against governments, taxes and quangos. The fact these things might save lives in this area (let's keep it to the terms of reference) doesn't seem to bother you. If that isn't single-issue then I don't know what is.
One thing I don't understand about LP position is his apparent willingness to let the state have so such a huge control over what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes.

I would have though his apparent mistrust for the government would lead him to be uncomfortable with the state being able to lock people away for what is untimely a personal decision.

If his POV was about public health then surely you would insist that tobacco was banned? MDMA kills less than 1 in a million. Smoking kills around a half to a third of users.

Why jail an MDMA user while allowing people to smoke? I presume he would like to ban anything he doesn't enjoy himself or understand?
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: It takes one to know one LP - a debate about how to reduce harm through drug use has given you an opportunity to rail against governments, taxes and quangos. The fact these things might save lives in this area (let's keep it to the terms of reference) doesn't seem to bother you. If that isn't single-issue then I don't know what is.[/p][/quote]One thing I don't understand about LP position is his apparent willingness to let the state have so such a huge control over what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes. I would have though his apparent mistrust for the government would lead him to be uncomfortable with the state being able to lock people away for what is untimely a personal decision. If his POV was about public health then surely you would insist that tobacco was banned? MDMA kills less than 1 in a million. Smoking kills around a half to a third of users. Why jail an MDMA user while allowing people to smoke? I presume he would like to ban anything he doesn't enjoy himself or understand? Floflo
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

state have so such a huge control over what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes. I'm sure you regretted this when you pressed the button. People get up to lots of nasty things in "the privacy" etc and you'd be the first to shout if someone said interfering with children was OK if done in private.

I would have though his apparent mistrust for the government would lead him to be uncomfortable with the state being able to lock people away for what is untimely a personal decision. People get banged up for supply not possession. Supply is a pretty public business

If his POV was about public health then surely you would insist that tobacco was banned? MDMA kills less than 1 in a million. Smoking kills around a half to a third of users. Not at 20 minutes' notice and wholly unpredictably it don't.

Why jail an MDMA user while allowing people to smoke?
They don't get gaol for possession. They might die though. Their choice, as you say
I presume he would like to ban anything he doesn't enjoy himself or understand?. No, that's socialist authoritarianism. I detest socialism and am comfortable with the legal position a propos drugs of addiction on the basis that no one has come up with a better alternative and the law is imposed in a reasonably proportionate manner
state have so such a huge control over what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes. I'm sure you regretted this when you pressed the button. People get up to lots of nasty things in "the privacy" etc and you'd be the first to shout if someone said interfering with children was OK if done in private. I would have though his apparent mistrust for the government would lead him to be uncomfortable with the state being able to lock people away for what is untimely a personal decision. People get banged up for supply not possession. Supply is a pretty public business If his POV was about public health then surely you would insist that tobacco was banned? MDMA kills less than 1 in a million. Smoking kills around a half to a third of users. Not at 20 minutes' notice and wholly unpredictably it don't. Why jail an MDMA user while allowing people to smoke? They don't get gaol for possession. They might die though. Their choice, as you say I presume he would like to ban anything he doesn't enjoy himself or understand?. No, that's socialist authoritarianism. I detest socialism and am comfortable with the legal position a propos drugs of addiction on the basis that no one has come up with a better alternative and the law is imposed in a reasonably proportionate manner Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Floflo says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
state have so such a huge control over what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes. I'm sure you regretted this when you pressed the button. People get up to lots of nasty things in "the privacy" etc and you'd be the first to shout if someone said interfering with children was OK if done in private.

I would have though his apparent mistrust for the government would lead him to be uncomfortable with the state being able to lock people away for what is untimely a personal decision. People get banged up for supply not possession. Supply is a pretty public business

If his POV was about public health then surely you would insist that tobacco was banned? MDMA kills less than 1 in a million. Smoking kills around a half to a third of users. Not at 20 minutes' notice and wholly unpredictably it don't.

Why jail an MDMA user while allowing people to smoke?
They don't get gaol for possession. They might die though. Their choice, as you say
I presume he would like to ban anything he doesn't enjoy himself or understand?. No, that's socialist authoritarianism. I detest socialism and am comfortable with the legal position a propos drugs of addiction on the basis that no one has come up with a better alternative and the law is imposed in a reasonably proportionate manner
Given the context of our conversation you should take it for granted we are talking about consenting adults.

Your point of view really is authoritarianism when you are comfortable delegating control to the state over what an individual is legally allowed to do to their own body.

If your problem with MDMA is that a dose can kills a small proportion of users you should also go about banning alcohol. Relatively regularly people, especially young people, die from overdosing on alcohol, that's despite the strength and quality of the substance being controlled. Caffeine should be next on your list - that's also a killer.

If your concern is the remote possibility of death from one dose then I expect that you support reform in the laws around cannabis?
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: state have so such a huge control over what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes. I'm sure you regretted this when you pressed the button. People get up to lots of nasty things in "the privacy" etc and you'd be the first to shout if someone said interfering with children was OK if done in private. I would have though his apparent mistrust for the government would lead him to be uncomfortable with the state being able to lock people away for what is untimely a personal decision. People get banged up for supply not possession. Supply is a pretty public business If his POV was about public health then surely you would insist that tobacco was banned? MDMA kills less than 1 in a million. Smoking kills around a half to a third of users. Not at 20 minutes' notice and wholly unpredictably it don't. Why jail an MDMA user while allowing people to smoke? They don't get gaol for possession. They might die though. Their choice, as you say I presume he would like to ban anything he doesn't enjoy himself or understand?. No, that's socialist authoritarianism. I detest socialism and am comfortable with the legal position a propos drugs of addiction on the basis that no one has come up with a better alternative and the law is imposed in a reasonably proportionate manner[/p][/quote]Given the context of our conversation you should take it for granted we are talking about consenting adults. Your point of view really is authoritarianism when you are comfortable delegating control to the state over what an individual is legally allowed to do to their own body. If your problem with MDMA is that a dose can kills a small proportion of users you should also go about banning alcohol. Relatively regularly people, especially young people, die from overdosing on alcohol, that's despite the strength and quality of the substance being controlled. Caffeine should be next on your list - that's also a killer. If your concern is the remote possibility of death from one dose then I expect that you support reform in the laws around cannabis? Floflo
  • Score: 0

5:47am Thu 19 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

I don't support any changes. What we have works well enough and we'll be 2 decades absorbing the changes in the criminal law made in the last 18 years, even if the politicos could be persuaded to stop now.
I won't impugn the intentions of those who seek everlasting change but no, I have no desire to have the State say to my grandchildren that all these vile powders and leaves and other bits of perverted and pointless chemistry are hunky dory.
In passing it was exactly the novel legislation that you so crave that lately said that if what "you wanted to do with your own body" was to be a teacher from Merthyr and nail your scrotum to a board, well you couldn't. No, I'd not have bothered because if you're that stupid, frankly who gives a toss?
I don't support any changes. What we have works well enough and we'll be 2 decades absorbing the changes in the criminal law made in the last 18 years, even if the politicos could be persuaded to stop now. I won't impugn the intentions of those who seek everlasting change but no, I have no desire to have the State say to my grandchildren that all these vile powders and leaves and other bits of perverted and pointless chemistry are hunky dory. In passing it was exactly the novel legislation that you so crave that lately said that if what "you wanted to do with your own body" was to be a teacher from Merthyr and nail your scrotum to a board, well you couldn't. No, I'd not have bothered because if you're that stupid, frankly who gives a toss? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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