British Woman Faces Death Penalty

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Let me start my bit by saying that I've never tried any of the substances under the general classification of drugs. Quite frankly I've never seen the point. The same goes for smoking. I do drink alcohol, but because I like the taste when I’m thirsty or to accompany a meal, not to get drunk. However, I do appreciate that very many people are drawn into these activities for a multitude of reasons, mainly because “everyone else does it”. That’s their choice. I’ll admit that I know very little about drugs, but that doesn’t stop me having an opinion.

To talk of certain drugs being harmless sounds irresponsible to me. It’s not long ago that we all thought of smoking as harmless and cool, but it’s clearly not. And denying that taking lower class drugs can lead to heavier drug-taking also seems illogical to me. Anyone who feels a need to take mild drugs in order to enhance their lives can’t have the self-control to avoid trying stronger, more harmful drugs. Not everyone will take this route, but just a few is too many.

The earlier suggestions of legalising some (or all?) drugs frightens me. It’s ridiculous to claim that this would remove the criminal element and therefore significantly reduce its impact. Perhaps we should legalise car theft as well so criminals are no longer interested and it stops being a problem! And on another suggestion, why should we as taxpayers provide all the drugs for the addicts to continue on their chosen course? I get a massive buzz from performing aerobatics but can't afford it much; would you be happy to pay for my adrenaline kicks?

Yes, there are large numbers of people who need to be helped out of the situation they find themselves in. Provide them with support and medication to recover from their illness, because drug addiction is an illness. But don’t pander to their every needs, and of those who blindly follow on behind them, instead we have to eliminate the desire for what is clearly wrong. Having people like the very aptly named Professor Nutt spouting on about how “recreational drugs are relatively harmless” does absolutely nothing to help the situation. When people are told, “It’s OK, it won’t harm you” they won’t hesitate to try first one thing and then another .... and another .... until it gets out of control. But when they know that they risk a heavy fine or imprisonment they’ll think twice, just as I do when wanting to drive at high speed on a deserted road.

Spike talked earlier about administering drugs to addicts so they could carry on with their lives without having to fund their addiction through crime. He said “you'd likely not spot a junkie at all if the habit was within their means”. But then he told us of his GP who was self-administering and accidently overdosed, thereby killing himself. If he wasn’t fit to administer his own drugs then surely he wasn’t fit to administer anyone else's. He wasn’t capable of doing his job because he was an addict! How many people suffered unnecessarily because of his addiction? I’ve worked with people who have been perfectly able to fund their low class drugs, but their performances the next day have been well below par. Of course it affects them, and meanwhile the rest of us suffer. I dread to think how many people are driving on our roads whilst still in the grip of their drug use.

I've just read Bellow's remark that "illegal parking affects others, drug use does not"!!! I can only assume he's so much under the influence that his mind is totally confused. If someone parks illegally, at worst it may cause a minor inconvenience. Thousands of lives have been ruined by drug use: the addicts and their familes are immediately affected, whilst countless others have been killed because of them.

The law is the only deterrent to the whole drug problem getting out of hand. It’s not working very well, but it’s better than nothing. It’s morally irresponsible to sanction drug use in any form. Making it legal won’t deter the criminal element, just as it hasn’t with smoking and alcohol. Fake substitutes will proliferate even more than now, so that the drugs become even more harmful. I totally disagree with some of the earlier comments; we do have to say NO. We have to educate our children from an early age, not just at school but also at home by setting good examples. We owe it to them and we owe it to all our futures.
 
But they do. Hypocritically at that (see the exploits of the Bullingdon Club). That they cannot read the public mood is one more aspect of their inability and reluctance to relate to the public.
I watched on TV (Jamie Oliver's programme IIRC) a young lad broach the topic of cannabis legalisation with David Cameron. DC's response was that the government knew best. Didn't listen - they never do. Not to professor Nutt, not to the public.

If the system is wrong, change it. Or campaign for it to be changed. If you can't get enough support from the public for your views about our system of government, than accept it. Again this is the beauty of democracy.

We are not in a situation where our democracy has been revoked by the ruler (e.g. Hitler) to the extent that the government can no longer be changed.

And.....get busted.

Not if you demonstrate legally and peacefully and do not cause criminal damage to private or public property. I live in Central London and we have various demonstrations here on almost weekly basis - apart from the disruption to traffic they carry-on with no violence and without any arrests being made.

I myself participated in a couple of legal demonstrations over the past few years and lived to tell the tale.

Illegal parking (to stick with your example) affects others. Drug use does not. Only the aspects created by prohibition cause drug use to impinge on the live's of others.

Sorry, this is simply not the case. Alcoholists (legal drug) impact on other people's lives through drunk driving, through massive costs to the public purse in policing and health care, through the impact on the private lives of their neighbours and family members.

At the same time, over-staying your parking in a pay-and-display bay, or parking in residents' parking bay, while there's ample free spaces around, does not impact on other people's lives.

The short answer is that some legal drug users affect other people's lives (even without committing crimes to pay for the drugs), while some don't. Some traffic offenders affect other people's lives, some don't. The effect on other people's lives is completely neutral to this discussion and does not prove the point either way.


Incidentally, had it not been for Rosa Parks willingness to knowingly break a law - where would American race relations be? Some laws are so stupid that it is almost a public duty to question them by breaking them. What else when the government will not listen?

The moral question of when should a citizen disobey an illegal law is indeed a very serious issue. As is the question of when soldiers have the legal duty to disobey orders (e.g. the Nazis).

But these cases are rare and generally reserved to core issues of gross injustice e.g. racism, or anti-constitutional laws (in countries where there's one). It is generally accepted that the right - or duty - to break a law is not applicable to issues involving simple inconveniences to one's daily life.

In short, you can not really use the Rosa Parks example as a bypass to avoid having to go through the democratic process of convincing your fellow citizens that the laws on drugs - or parking - need to be changed.
 
Knighterrant,
With all due respect, you're out of touch with what's really happening nowadays.

The prime example of why modern drugs policies are ludicrous is the subject of a drug called 'M Cat'. Up until a few years ago it was classed as a 'legal' high, but once the media discovered that young people were enjoying something legal, they declared war on it which in turn to it being 'outlawed'. Since then, it has absolutely exploded on to the 'black market'; only difference is now that instead of the authorities being able to monitor its contents, it's now being cut with all sorts to boost profits for drug dealers.
 
Knighterrant,
With all due respect, you're out of touch with what's really happening nowadays.

The prime example of why modern drugs policies are ludicrous is the subject of a drug called 'M Cat'. Up until a few years ago it was classed as a 'legal' high, but once the media discovered that young people were enjoying something legal, they declared war on it which in turn to it being 'outlawed'. Since then, it has absolutely exploded on to the 'black market'; only difference is now that instead of the authorities being able to monitor its contents, it's now being cut with all sorts to boost profits for drug dealers.
I probably am out of touch, perhaps because I don't like a lot of what I see nowdays. But are you sure that it was mephedrone being outlawed that made it so popular? I would have thought that it was the media attention that proved most effective in its rapidly increased popularity. The serious short and long-term risks are reported to be high so it would have been irresponsible for the government to sanction its use by not making it a Class B substance.

Alcohol is legal in the UK yet the black market has taken a large hold with poisonous ingredients appearing, especially in vodka-based drinks. Making drugs legal won't stop dealers going for big profits by offering inferior and dangerous products.
 
Alcohol is legal in the UK yet the black market has taken a large hold with poisonous ingredients appearing, especially in vodka-based drinks. Making drugs legal won't stop dealers going for big profits by offering inferior and dangerous products.

If certain drugs were legalised and their supply controlled (through prescription for example) then why would anyone pay a dealer for an inferior product when a better product is available free of charge ?
 
If certain drugs were legalised and their supply controlled (through prescription for example) then why would anyone pay a dealer for an inferior product when a better product is available free of charge ?
And who's going to pay for all these drugs? You may be willing to contribute to the millions that users pay in the UK every year, but I certainly won't. I know that the total social cost of drug use in the UK is well over £10 billion per year, mainly because of crime, but I don't believe that would reduce much if free drugs were provided. All that would happen is far more people become addicted and the problems increase, with a much heavier load on the NHS - that we also have to pay for.

Viagra is available on prescription but I suspect the sale of inferior products is greater than the quantities obtained from GPs. (I'll say it before anyone else does, Viagra can be classed as a hard drug!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ll admit that I know very little about drugs, but that doesn’t stop me having an opinion.

But what can that opinion possibly be worth?

We have to educate our children from an early age, not just at school but also at home by setting good examples. We owe it to them and we owe it to all our futures.

Educate yes - indoctrinate no. It's obvious which is currently used and equally obvious it doesn't work.
 
Anyone who argues we should legalise many drugs because experts such as Professor Nutt endorse their safety, would do well to remember some past quotes from “experts”:

Albert Einstein, 1932
”There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”

William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899
”Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”

Admiral William D. Leahy, on the atomic bomb, 1945
“This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.”

Pierre Pachet, Professor Physiology, Toulouse, 1872
“Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is a ridiculous fiction.”

Dr. Alfred Velpeau, surgeon professor, Paris Faculty of Medicine, 1837
“The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it today.”

And finally, but relatively recently:
Dr. W. C. Heuper, National Cancer Institute, 1954
“If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one.”
 
then why would anyone pay a dealer for an inferior product when a better product is available free of charge ?

For the same reasons they currently buy illegally manufactured or imported cigarettes and alcohol and that there's a trade in prescription drugs.

The dealers may get lower prices because there are legal alternatives in their market sector - but the risks are usually reduced too because the fact that the product is legally available appears to reduce the seriousness which which illicit supply is treated.

Anybody advocating any change in the law needs to be very wary of unintended consequences.
 
But what can that opinion possibly be worth?
I'm sorry, I didn't realise I had to be an expert to have an opinion. I bow to your superior knowledge and please direct me to your published studies backed by years of research on drugs and all the other subjects you have commented on within this forum so that I can start to learn.
 
Re post#42.
Illegal parking when unchecked causes gridlock. Not even ambulances and fire crews can get through. That is not harmless to others.
You talk of misuse of alcohol to make your point. Harmless use of alcohol is common-place though. Ditto drugs.

Ask drug users if they feel free from the threat of being busted by the DS if they protest. It is that aspect that has maintained the vile status quo this long.

Democratic process. OK, all that's stopping a more enlightened approach is the older generation and those who wilfully choose to remain ignorant but proffer an opinion anyway. So in time when these people have died/finally realise thay are a minority, the law will change - in say, another 30 years from now. So at least three genarations have to risk being criminalised doing what in 30 years will not be a crime. How is that right, fair, or morally just? Democracy is only the best of the rest. You cannot MJ, hide behind it forever pretending it delivers to all.
The last time this type of attitude was displayed it was toward homosexuality. Who dares defend that? And who will defend the folly of drug prohibition 30 years from now?
 
And who's going to pay for all these drugs? You may be willing to contribute to the millions that users pay in the UK every year, but I certainly won't. I know that the total social cost of drug use in the UK is well over £10 billion per year, mainly because of crime, but I don't believe that would reduce much if free drugs were provided. All that would happen is far more people become addicted and the problems increase, with a much heavier load on the NHS - that we also have to pay for.

Viagra is available on prescription but I suspect the sale of inferior products is greater than the quantities obtained from GPs. (I'll say it before anyone else does, Viagra can be classed as a hard drug!)

None of us know the real social cost of drug abuse and all its associated problems. And we will never know whether controlled legalisation will reduce this cost as no Government will ever have the courage to take such a step.

Viagra users will often have to pay for their prescriptions and so the tablets aren't really free. Those on a drug treatment program will qualify for free prescriptions so will have no need to pay a dealer.
 
For the same reasons they currently buy illegally manufactured or imported cigarettes and alcohol and that there's a trade in prescription drugs.

The dealers may get lower prices because there are legal alternatives in their market sector - but the risks are usually reduced too because the fact that the product is legally available appears to reduce the seriousness which which illicit supply is treated.

Anybody advocating any change in the law needs to be very wary of unintended consequences.

I don't understand your comparison since illegal alcohol / tobacco are not an alternative to something that can be obtained for free. If you legalise and control the legitimate supply then you destroy the illicit supply.

I am aware that there may well be other undesirable consequences of legalised control and I am not necessarily advocating it although I believe that there may be merit in the idea.

What I am doing is pointing out the obvious flaw in the argument that dealers will offer inferior products to undercut the legitimate supply that is free to users.
 
Let me start my bit by saying that I've never tried any of the substances under the general classification of drugs.

[sigh] yes you do... you go to the chemist [drug store] same as everyone else. You also drink alcohol, like caffeine etc etc etc.

The difference is that each country has its own idea about what prohibited drugs are.

Your views are as naive and blinkered as most of our politicians imho.
 
Democratic process. OK, all that's stopping a more enlightened approach is the older generation and those who wilfully choose to remain ignorant but proffer an opinion anyway. So in time when these people have died/finally realise thay are a minority, the law will change - in say, another 30 years from now. So at least three genarations have to risk being criminalised doing what in 30 years will not be a crime. How is that right, fair, or morally just? Democracy is only the best of the rest. You cannot MJ, hide behind it forever pretending it delivers to all.
The last time this type of attitude was displayed it was toward homosexuality. Who dares defend that? And who will defend the folly of drug prohibition 30 years from now?

Bellow, we had a similar (I believe) discussion on another forum, with regards to the democratic process behind the US foreign policies.

My view was, and still is, that any attempt to fine-tune or improve on our method of government should be done from within the democratic system, which to my mind has the capacity to accommodate for such changes, even if they do take time - and your point about homosexuality proves that laws do evolve over time through democratic process to encompass the values and morals of the people.

I personally believe in the sanctity of the democratic process - unless it results in sustained and intolerable injustice.

I believe that making exceptions in what I regard as trivial or non-urgent cases - simply amounts to bypassing the democratic process when the will or patience to follow proper procedure isn't there, or when widespread support can not be achieved - and this is a very slippery slope.

As said, this should be left to instances of extreme and substantial injustice, which, in my view, does not include the question of which type of dried plant you are allowed to smoke and where you are allowed to park.

These should be changed - if public support can be raised - through legislation. And until this happens, they remain illegal and punishable by law. This is another fundamental principle of civilised society - respect to the law. Even when it is inconvenient.
 
Last edited:
Your views are as naive and blinkered as most of our politicians imho.

Heard this repeatedly over the years since my teens from those who advocated legalisation of XXXXX.

Anybody who makes this assertion when acting as an advocate on the subject loses credibility IMO.

I'm not convinced by people who work with addicts either - they are close to the problem but not necessarily any more objective than anybody else.

I think behind all this most people see that there are upsides and downsides of any course of action - and the view of the majority is reflected in the inaction (or action) of our politicians.
 
For the same reasons they currently buy illegally manufactured or imported cigarettes and alcohol and that there's a trade in prescription drugs.

The dealers may get lower prices because there are legal alternatives in their market sector - but the risks are usually reduced too because the fact that the product is legally available appears to reduce the seriousness which which illicit supply is treated.

Anybody advocating any change in the law needs to be very wary of unintended consequences.

I beleive you may have misread the post, there is nothing cheaper than free, the reason there is a market for ciggarettes and alchahol is that it is cheaper than shop or legal outlets. I am in the camp of legalising drugs, successive governments and countries all over the world has tried banning them and it obviously does not work and the costs of policing are enormous. This woman has been caught and fessed up for a hopefully reduced sentence, but how many others got through with their £1m worth. If the policing was as good as has been reported, there would not be a drug problem, but we all know there is.
 
Heard this repeatedly over the years since my teens from those who advocated legalisation of XXXXX.

Anybody who makes this assertion when acting as an advocate on the subject loses credibility IMO.

Perhaps you're right and maybe I should have expressed myself a little better.

How about knighterrant himself admitted he doesnt know anything about drugs and then went on to confirm that statement fully by being wholly out of touch and incorrect on every level. :D

On a serious note...

I doubt that we would all agree on how to solve the issue in a brief internet discussion but perhaps what we could agree on is that we are losing the war on drugs and have been for a long time.

To me at least this is clear. Anyone disagree with this statement?

If our esteemed leaders worldwide could agree on this point then perhaps they could get together and have global discussions on how best to turn this around.

If the developed nations all had the same stance and aim then there would be a much greater chance of beating the problem.
 
[sigh] yes you do... you go to the chemist [drug store] same as everyone else. You also drink alcohol, like caffeine etc etc etc.

The difference is that each country has its own idea about what prohibited drugs are.

Your views are as naive and blinkered as most of our politicians imho.
You know as well as I do that I was referring to recreational drugs that are used for perceived beneficial effects on perception, consciousness, personality and behaviour. Generally these are prohibited and certainly I've never taken any. Indeed I've rarely taken any pharmaceutical drug such as simple asprin or prescribed antibiotics. I don't even drink much coffee or tea so I'm not caffeine dependent either. And I managed to work in Saudi Arabia for some time without feeling a need for alcohol. If that's the same as everyone else, then I'm delighted.

I'll accept that some of my views may well be blinkered, but that's probably because I've only ever seen the negative side of recreational drugs and never any real positives. Until I see PROOF that recreational drug use is beneficial in any way then I'll not be persuaded to change my view that it should NOT be legalised. I would have said the same thing had I been around during early use of tobacco if we'd had the same warnings then and it had been made illegal.

As for my naivety, you could be right there too. Perhaps I'm naive to think that the majority of this country have the sense to realise that recreational drugs are contributing to our downfall and as such should never be legalised. But I don't think so. Just because we don't all take a puff or inject before complaining about OUR laws, doesn't mean that we don't care. It's simply that we're not too high to have retained some reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_drug
 
How about knighterrant himself admitted he doesnt know anything about drugs and then went on to confirm that statement fully by being wholly out of touch and incorrect on every level. :D
I actually said I know very little, which in the relative scheme of things probably applies to most, if not all, contributors here. Can you please explain with hard facts, not just your opinions, where exactly I've been incorrect?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom