Marijuana Consumption Drops in U.K. Despite Liberalized Laws

mkpdavies · 18-10-2006, 01:56 PM

http://www.jointogether.org/news/hea...ion-drops.html

Quote:

Use of marijuana in England and Wales has fallen in the three years since penalties on the drug were eased, the Independent reported Oct. 14. The trend defied predictions that use of the drug would rise as a result of the change.

Marijuana was downgraded from a Class B drug to a Class C drug in 2004. Britain's Home Office reported that use of most Class A drugs has remained flat since then, but that cocaine use has risen.

In 2006, 8.7 percent of residents of England and Wales were marijuana users, the Home Office reported, the lowest level in 10 years. The downward trend also applied to 16- to 24-year-olds. Still, marijuana remains the most popular illicit drug in the U.K.

Quote:

"The fact that cannabis has been linked with triggering mental conditions could have changed people's attitude towards the drug. Another possible explanation is the rise in binge drinking, which some people may be doing instead of taking cannabis."

How accurate are these figures though? How can they possibly know who is using what. Most people are hardly going to boast about it (some do of course).

I'm all for letting people do what they want to themselves, as long as they don't hurt others. I'd like to see some more research on the long term effects of heavy use of cannabis mind, as I know a few people who have become very paranoid. Mind they probably say that about me since I became aware of the EU.

Also, it's a bit simplistic to just say people have started using it less because of the legislation. It may have just gone out of fashion and something else has taken it's place. Maybe people no longer feel the buzz of doing something naught and illegal (giving the government the finger), so have moved on to something more naughty (Charlie?).

Soddball · 18-10-2006, 02:12 PM

Isn't the drug of choice cocaine now?

Aardvark · 18-10-2006, 02:21 PM

Main drugs of choice are tannin, caffeine, nicotine and alcohol - I believe in that order.

There has been serious talk amongst the chattering classes of classifying nicotine and alcohol (there must be a non-alcoholic Chardonnay on the market).

Nobody really knows the figures - 97% of statistics are made up! :roll:

Karen · 23-10-2006, 11:06 AM

The reason that canniabis has been 'downgraded' is because if you were to see a job advert for dealers it would say 'we particularly welocme white applicants who are currently under represented in our woirk force.' This lenience appeases the denizens of dorps such as Brixton who may riot to defend their livelihood. As this is new Labour, as suggested above, the statistics can be fixed bcause no-one knows if it is illegal because no-one knows how much is sold. As a UKIP member I would like to point out that anyone wanting to trade in teh stuff that it is sold by the 2 Drams (1/8oz) and the fine for selling it by the dram is now greater than for posession. There's modern EU logic for you. O...and it is dangerous causing later psychosis and is even harmful from a smoking point of view containing high levels of tar. 8)

Zak64 · 25-10-2006, 11:39 PM

Karen wrote

Quote:

and it is dangerous causing later psychosis

Evidence please !

And please don't bleat out the same old Daily Wail line about cannabis use leading to heroin use. Oxford University did some research on this a few years back and found that only 4% of cannabis users went on to try heroin. Note the word 'try', try does not mean 'become addicted to'.

I have also heard (and I accept that this is apocrypha) from Dutch people that most Dutch teenagers and younger people see cannabis as uncool and tend not to smoke it much. I have met Dutch dope smokers in the UK who have reported that their peers have been almost scornfull of their cannabis consumption. Other Dutch people I have met have said that they were amazed to meet so many dope smokers when they came to live in England. So it seems that legalisation/decriminalisation does seem to take the 'coolness' out of it.

Basically the big danger with cannabis as I see it is not so much the media vaunted psychosis it's use allegedly causes, but the psychotic criminality of (sometimes armed) gangs defending their turf and profits.

It's prohibition all over again. Pity politicians can't see that.

Still, at least the mafia are still making good profits. So that's all right then ! :roll:

Westcountryman · 25-10-2006, 11:44 PM

did you even bother with google?

Of course Cannabis has health risks. And IMO, you're stupid if you smoke it.

cookie65 · 25-10-2006, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Use of marijuana in England and Wales has fallen in the three years since penalties on the drug were eased, the Independent reported

Quote:

In 2006, 8.7 percent of residents of England and Wales were marijuana users, the Home Office reported

Oh good, Liebour have made a real difference, they have improved the lives of the population through their liberalisation of drug laws. Please can they apply the same principles to Acid, Coke and Heroin. It is the obvious solution to our drug problem.
If its legal it will become uncool just like alcohol(

), and Fags.

And well done for the meticulous research: the Indy and the Home office, I trust their research much more than official sources.
Hang on is the home office not an official source? .When have you ever seen somebody who is not paid by the government or a quango carrying the Indy.

Zak64 · 26-10-2006, 12:00 AM

I didn't say it dosen't have health risks.

My main point is, aside from the libertarian argument, that the criminality associated with it's illegality causes far more harm to society than the substance itself.

Same with heroin. Given access to pharmacological grade heroin and clean needles one would be far better off from a pathophysiological point of view spending twenty years (or whatever) as a heroin addict than an alcoholic. There is no significant health risk associated with heroin use, as outlined, other than the fact that one is addicted. You cannot say the same of alcohol. Heroin is a far less toxic drug.

Still, if you want to see criminal gangs controling an eight billion per annum drugs market in the UK, then you just go ahead and keep advocating the current failed prohibitionist approach.

Westcountryman · 26-10-2006, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zak Zzygote

I didn't say it dosen't have health risks.

My main point is, aside from the libertarian argument, that the criminality associated with it's illegality causes far more harm to society than the substance itself.

Same with heroin. Given access to pharmacological grade heroin and clean needles one would be far better off from a pathophysiological point of view spending twenty years (or whatever) as a heroin addict than an alcoholic. There is no significant health risk associated with heroin use, as outlined, other than the fact that one is addicted. You cannot say the same of alcohol. Heroin is a far less toxic drug.

Still, if you want to see criminal gangs controling an eight billion per annum drugs market in the UK, then you just go ahead and keep advocating the current failed prohibitionist approach.

You'll never see Heroin legalised as it just doesn't fit the socio-political context or structure of the UK. No Party is going to adopt the policy without being murdered in the polls. And actually, it's far easier to die of a heroin overdose than that of alcohol. Also, if prohibition policies were applied more correctly and efficiently, they'd be far more effective. It should be damn near impossible to get drugs into prison, for example.

Zak64 · 26-10-2006, 08:52 PM

I am not in favour of legalising heroin. I agree it would be electoral suicide for any party. I do believe the public understand that black market heroin addiction is an enourmously damaging social problem due to the crime it engenders. If it was explained properly I do not think the public would be afraid of it.

I am in favour of a licensing system whereby addicts get heroin from a chemist or other legal source so they do not have to commit crime, theft, burglary, prostitution, ID fraud etc. Therefore the average Joe on the street is far less likely to be mugged, robbed, have his car radio, sat-nav stolen, or whatever. Should an addict be caught selling their dosage onto the street then they would be in deep dark s*** up to their eyebrows.

I would also keep the current criminal penalties for black market supply. This would immediately cut the ground out from under the drug importing gangs feet. Their economic imperative would dissapear overnight. There would be a hugely restricted market for black market heroin, and they would still face severe criminal sanctions if caught. I also believe that detection would be more likely, as it would be easier for the authorities to detect them. I am not so naive as to belive the black market would dissapear entirely. But I believe it's social impact would be hugely reduced. Anyone getting into trouble with black market heroin would also have an escape route via licensing.

As to heroin not fitting the socio-political context; I say 'wake up and smell the coffee'. When heroin was moved from a licensing system to a prohibition system in the early 1970s there were some 2000 addict in the country. We now have some 350,000. All of these addicts and the dealers who make massive black market market profits supplying the market have voted against prohibitionist logic with their wallets. Or more probably someone elses !

Incidently, an overdose is an overdose. It does not matter if you overdose on heroin, alcohol or paracetamol. It's still an overdose. Some overdose kill, some don't. Also an overdose does not have to be a single dramatic event. It's toxic effect can cause death or serious pathology over many years.

I lost my cousin James to a heroin overdose in 1990. He mixed heroin with alcohol. A very bad move as both are central nervous system depressents, both act to depress resperation. Also he scored heroin of an abnormally pure quality, to which he was unacustomed. That is why I advocate what I do. If drug dealers had not have had an economic imperative to supply him it may well not have happened.

I believe it is time to look beyond the failed prohibitionist rhetoric of the Daily Wail and the 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' rhetoric of politicians and start dealing with the reality of drug use in Britain today.

23-10-2006, 11:06 AM	#4 (permalink)
Karen Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Maldon Posts: 302	The reason that canniabis has been 'downgraded' is because if you were to see a job advert for dealers it would say 'we particularly welocme white applicants who are currently under represented in our woirk force.' This lenience appeases the denizens of dorps such as Brixton who may riot to defend their livelihood. As this is new Labour, as suggested above, the statistics can be fixed bcause no-one knows if it is illegal because no-one knows how much is sold. As a UKIP member I would like to point out that anyone wanting to trade in teh stuff that it is sold by the 2 Drams (1/8oz) and the fine for selling it by the dram is now greater than for posession. There's modern EU logic for you. O...and it is dangerous causing later psychosis and is even harmful from a smoking point of view containing high levels of tar. 8) __________________ Lady Di, Hitler and Communism are dead. Forward to Independence!

25-10-2006, 11:44 PM	#6 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	did you even bother with google? Of course Cannabis has health risks. And IMO, you're stupid if you smoke it. __________________ Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

18-10-2006, 02:12 PM	#2 (permalink)
Soddball Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 272	Isn't the drug of choice cocaine now?

18-10-2006, 02:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,253	Main drugs of choice are tannin, caffeine, nicotine and alcohol - I believe in that order. There has been serious talk amongst the chattering classes of classifying nicotine and alcohol (there must be a non-alcoholic Chardonnay on the market). Nobody really knows the figures - 97% of statistics are made up! :roll:

26-10-2006, 12:00 AM	#8 (permalink)
Zak64 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Little Poland On Sea (Bournemouth) Posts: 818	I didn't say it dosen't have health risks. My main point is, aside from the libertarian argument, that the criminality associated with it's illegality causes far more harm to society than the substance itself. Same with heroin. Given access to pharmacological grade heroin and clean needles one would be far better off from a pathophysiological point of view spending twenty years (or whatever) as a heroin addict than an alcoholic. There is no significant health risk associated with heroin use, as outlined, other than the fact that one is addicted. You cannot say the same of alcohol. Heroin is a far less toxic drug. Still, if you want to see criminal gangs controling an eight billion per annum drugs market in the UK, then you just go ahead and keep advocating the current failed prohibitionist approach.

26-10-2006, 08:52 PM	#10 (permalink)
Zak64 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Little Poland On Sea (Bournemouth) Posts: 818	I am not in favour of legalising heroin. I agree it would be electoral suicide for any party. I do believe the public understand that black market heroin addiction is an enourmously damaging social problem due to the crime it engenders. If it was explained properly I do not think the public would be afraid of it. I am in favour of a licensing system whereby addicts get heroin from a chemist or other legal source so they do not have to commit crime, theft, burglary, prostitution, ID fraud etc. Therefore the average Joe on the street is far less likely to be mugged, robbed, have his car radio, sat-nav stolen, or whatever. Should an addict be caught selling their dosage onto the street then they would be in deep dark s*** up to their eyebrows. I would also keep the current criminal penalties for black market supply. This would immediately cut the ground out from under the drug importing gangs feet. Their economic imperative would dissapear overnight. There would be a hugely restricted market for black market heroin, and they would still face severe criminal sanctions if caught. I also believe that detection would be more likely, as it would be easier for the authorities to detect them. I am not so naive as to belive the black market would dissapear entirely. But I believe it's social impact would be hugely reduced. Anyone getting into trouble with black market heroin would also have an escape route via licensing. As to heroin not fitting the socio-political context; I say 'wake up and smell the coffee'. When heroin was moved from a licensing system to a prohibition system in the early 1970s there were some 2000 addict in the country. We now have some 350,000. All of these addicts and the dealers who make massive black market market profits supplying the market have voted against prohibitionist logic with their wallets. Or more probably someone elses ! Incidently, an overdose is an overdose. It does not matter if you overdose on heroin, alcohol or paracetamol. It's still an overdose. Some overdose kill, some don't. Also an overdose does not have to be a single dramatic event. It's toxic effect can cause death or serious pathology over many years. I lost my cousin James to a heroin overdose in 1990. He mixed heroin with alcohol. A very bad move as both are central nervous system depressents, both act to depress resperation. Also he scored heroin of an abnormally pure quality, to which he was unacustomed. That is why I advocate what I do. If drug dealers had not have had an economic imperative to supply him it may well not have happened. I believe it is time to look beyond the failed prohibitionist rhetoric of the Daily Wail and the 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' rhetoric of politicians and start dealing with the reality of drug use in Britain today.