Drug dealers

[idun]

Anyone see the Journal de 20h on A2 tonight.

Two brothers from Britanny were talking about becoming drug dealers. Their butchers shop was in debt and someone suggested that they start dealing, which they did. Collecting coke from Holland and heroin too.

The customers for these drugs was M Tout le Monde, including camioneurs, not just the young, as said, people from all walks of life.

I think that what always gets me about people bringing their kids to France to evite the bad things in life, do they not realise that the bad things are everywhere and available to everyone,even in lovely Brittany.

[pachapapa]

Go to a rural Disco and pick up your weekly supply.

[NormanH]

Does nobody read my posts?

For example about Fracture?

You can have 2000 a month as a 'respectable' English person who keeps the stuff hidden,  and your kids 1000 a month just to keep an eye out [:'(]

[Braco]

The biggest waste of resources is trying to criminalise the sale and use of drugs. Legalise the lot and eventually they will have the cache of snuff.

Hugh numbers of food shops in the London area are little more than fronts for dealing. I guess that the same maybe true across the UK.

[Théière]

But we nearly all partake in the use of drugs but ours is somehow acceptable although being a bigger drain on society.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101101/Alcohol-the-worst-drug!.aspx

[Iceni]

I admit to being a regular drug taker, several glasses every night though I don't think I am addicted. Having seen both my parents die from the effects of the other freely available and legal drug of choice for most, tobacco, I am glad that I have never been a cigarette smoker.

But of course these are not proper drugs are they?

John

 

[Chancer]

Even though I had reduced my consumption to a couple of 25cl bottles of beer a night  of I knew that I was addicted, it was the fact that I could not go an evening without it unless circumstances intervened and even then the first thing I did on returning was to sink un demi.

I gave up a few days into the new year and I still sometimes wake up with a hangover [:(]

Smoking was rather easier, I did it at 21 when I just did not have the money to smoke and eat, many people though, my siblings included chose tobacco over food.

[woolybanana]

Why oh why do we get this comparison with fags and booze every time there is a discussion about pot, heroin, cocaine and other drugs. It is just a red herring because they are legal and are accepted by society at a certain, limited level.

The problem is that Western society is being undermined and destroyed by our inability to accommodate these 'newer' drugs; either we ban them properly and begin hanging the dealers from lamposts and bombing the fields and factories of the suppliers, or we legalize them and take control.

Fags and booze are controlled and need further control but the failure of the education and responsibility approach suggests they need to be very expensive and much more difficult to buy. Cigarettes are going this way but booze is still sold openly and at almost give away prices, and anti-booze education is pathetic, given the undermining influence of  the media and others. Both have to become socially unacceptable, then we shall begin to get somewhere.

Frankly the sight of youngsters spilling themselves all over the streets at weekends sickens and alarms me as does the pathetic response by politicians.

[Braco]

Woolybanana

The use of so called illegal drugs is very widespread. Control is a silly joke and has as much chance of success as prohibition did in the US. The result is that we get the criminal activity without deterring a single user.

I would be very happy to see drugs sold in supermarkets and newsagents. The net result would not be one more or less user.

Why do you think that we need control?

[Quillan]

[quote user="woolybanana"]

Why oh why do we get this comparison with fags and booze every time there is a discussion about pot, heroin, cocaine and other drugs. It is just a red herring because they are legal and are accepted by society at a certain, limited level.

The problem is that Western society is being undermined and destroyed by our inability to accommodate these 'newer' drugs; either we ban them properly and begin hanging the dealers from lamposts and bombing the fields and factories of the suppliers, or we legalize them and take control.

Fags and booze are controlled and need further control but the failure of the education and responsibility approach suggests they need to be very expensive and much more difficult to buy. Cigarettes are going this way but booze is still sold openly and at almost give away prices, and anti-booze education is pathetic, given the undermining influence of  the media and others. Both have to become socially unacceptable, then we shall begin to get somewhere.

Frankly the sight of youngsters spilling themselves all over the streets at weekends sickens and alarms me as does the pathetic response by politicians.

[/quote]

As a smoker I couldn't agree more. I find the governments attitude towards cig's a bit bizarre. If they are that dangerous simply ban them. I don't think the latest idea in the UK to wrap them in plain brown packets because children find the colours attractive to show much common sense either.

[crossy67]

[quote user="Braco"]Hugh numbers of food shops in the London area are little more than fronts for dealing. I guess that the same maybe true across the UK.[/quote]

Dang, I always thought there was something fishy about our local Sainsburys.  And to think I always thought it was the fish counter.

As a drinker, ex smoker and many years ago tried cannabis a few times I can honestly say there is little difference in legalised and illegal drug supply, even the cost is similar for the three mentioned (if you drink decent wine).  I went to work in a local factory a few years ago and was amazed at the extent of cocaine usage, every one was on it from managers to cleaners.  Those that weren't were too stoned on pot to give a toss.

[NickP]

 Those who advocate making all drugs legal should ask the opinion of  my wife, who  many years ago was a staff nurse on duty in the A&E department of a very large London hospital. She would regularly come home covered in bruises after trying to help the idiots who indulged in the pleasures of illegal and legal substances. I wouldn't presume to tell the French what to do about their drug problems, but I know what I would do to the low life's who give away drugs outside schools in England to young children to get them "hooked".

[Braco]

Drugs readily available to any ‘adult’ that wants them will at a stroke put the low life’s (and their criminal suppliers) out of business.

 

Keeping the current system offers no benefits to people that are currently employed in hospital A&E’s.

[Gluestick]

Post scrambled!

I'll try again.

[Gluestick]

Last post scrambled: I'll try again.

[quote user="Braco"]

Drugs readily available to any ‘adult’ that wants them will

at a stroke put the low life’s (and their criminal suppliers) out of business.

[/quote]

Not this old chestnut once again!

So, the drugs barons are going to happily walk away from a multi-billion

business, which pays zero taxes and,.........er. open a corner shop, perhaps?

With respect; in your dreams!

It is estimated by credible sources (Customs and Excise for example) that circa

20%+ of ALL tobacco products sold  by retail are smuggled.

As fast as government raise taxes, on health grounds, then the smugglers step

up their efforts, 'cos it pays more!

Same with booze.

Same all over the continent.

Let's play suppose for a bit.

Government legalises possession and consumption of hitherto proscribed chemical

products.

Manufacturing pharmaceutical companies process and pack same.

Wholesalers stock them: and retailers sell them.

Well now, firstly they must all be approved and certified for sale and human

consumption: by such as the FDA in the USA and MRHA (UK) and Agence Française

de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé in France: et al

Next the manufacturer and wholesalers and retailers would need product

insurance. I wouldn't want to write that line!

"M'Lud, the claimant took the substance legally for 10 years and always

purchased it from his local supermarket, Crappo plc.

Last June attending a party he became convinced he could fly like a bird and

stepped off the 15th floor balcony and thereafter plummeted to his death. The

Claimant's estate holds the defendant wholly liable and demands for his widow

£10,000,000 in actual and consequent losses."

Next government would charge duty and lay VAT on top.

Criminal drugs dealers, with no associated oncosts and supplying a less pure

product would fill their boots!

Additionally, not all drugs would be de-criminalised.

Illicit labs would continue to develop new synthetic psychotropics, which the

"Clubbers" believed gave extra "Kick".

In order to solve the binge drinking culture and the drugs problem, one must

first accept it is a symptom of a social problem: not an alcohol or chemical

substance problem.

One of my young nieces is now suffering severe mental disorder; probably

schizophrenia, caused by a combination of extended abuse of Skunk and other

substances. Not excessive: just the usual "Recreational" drugs:

whatever that euphemism really means.

This incidence is growing rapidly and medical professionals at the front line,

as Nick illustrates, graphically, are increasingly concerned.

Abuse of drugs is probably the hidden danger which will destroy the fabric of

Western society.

De-Criminalising would implant a cachet of legitimacy and exacerbate the core problems.

The social costs would therefore be far worse, IMHO.

Furthermore, how would the habitual users pay? They would still resort to crime whether the substance of their choice and later need, was legal or proscribed.

[Théière]

Quite right Gluey, is that why you prefer PTFE to hemp, far too many builders on the sites I used to be on smoking the hemp! [:)]

[Braco]

So, the drugs barons are going to happily walk away from a multi-billion business, which pays zero taxes and,.........er. open a corner shop, perhaps?

 

The same as when they lost their lucrative liquor business with the ending of prohibition – they will move into another market where demand is repressed.  

With respect; in your dreams!

It is estimated by credible sources (Customs and Excise for example) that circa 20%+ of ALL tobacco products sold  by retail are smuggled.

As fast as government raise taxes, on health grounds, then the smugglers step up their efforts, 'cos it pays more!

Same with booze.

Same all over the continent.

 

 

So government interference in personal choices has had what positive result?

 

Criminal drugs dealers, with no associated oncosts and supplying a less pure product would fill their boots!

Unlikely if market prices are used.

In order to solve the binge drinking culture and the drugs problem, one must first accept it is a symptom of a social problem: not an alcohol or chemical substance problem.

 

Agree. At best a project that will take generations to achieve.  

One of my young nieces is now suffering severe mental disorder; probably schizophrenia, caused by a combination of extended abuse of Skunk and other substances. Not excessive: just the usual "Recreational" drugs: whatever that euphemism really means.

This incidence is growing rapidly and medical professionals at the front line, as Nick illustrates, graphically, are increasingly concerned.

Abuse of drugs is probably the hidden danger which will destroy the fabric of Western society.
We have a problem that is growing. Sooner or much latter people will have to accept that our current stance has not improved matters and look to the issues.
De-Criminalising would implant a cachet of legitimacy and exacerbate the core problems.

Disagree – The current illegal status confers a higher cachet among younger users.

Furthermore, how would the habitual users pay? They would still resort to crime whether the substance of their choice and later need, was legal or proscribed.

The same way that they pay for them now, except that low level dealing will not be as lucrative.

[Quillan]

I am also in support of legalising drugs and there are some very eminent people out their who also believe that this would reduce crime and health care issues. One estimation is that it could save the UK tax payer some £10bn per year in police resources, prisons and health care (Danny Kushlick). Other's like Walter Wink have come to similar conclusions. Crime would be down and so, they predict would be drug abuse treatment. On top of the money saved it is thought that it could also bring in £1.5bn in tax revenue. It is a complicated issue I agree but the argument for legalising is growing momentum. If you are interested in why this could work the do a bit of Googling, you will also find those that say its wrong. My personal attitude is if you use illegal substances you forfeit your right to health care to the point where you only get emergency life saving care. If you want to inject, inhale or whatever its up to you as long as it does not effect others.

[NickP]

Quillan wrote: My personal attitude is if you use illegal substances you forfeit your right to health care to the point where you only get emergency life saving care. If you want to inject, inhale or whatever its up to you as long as it does not effect others.

Unfortunately Q you are talking out of your rear end.  My wife and her colleagues involved in medicine don't or wont have time to ask "are you  someone who has forfeited the right to health care"? They just do what they are trained to do, and that is to help people in distress. So nothing will change in that direction, in fact their workload under your freedom of choice to use drugs, will become intolerable.

[Braco]

NickP

Sorry it is your logic that is flawed. How many potential new drug users do you think are currently not taking drugs because they are illegal or are waiting for legalisation to light up.

Agree that A&E health workers will and should always treat a patient whatever the circumstances.

[NickP]

Exactly Braco, lots of people don't take drugs because it is illegal to do so. Lots of people weigh up the options in life and decide quite wisely not to take drugs .You only have to watch the antics of the half wits and idiots who do use drugs to help you make up your mind. You carry on mate, taking your puff or what ever medication your obviously on; and when your brain starts to fall apart, remember it will be the sensible people of this world who you will go running to to help you out.

[Gluestick]

Both smoking and drinking (in moderate quantities) do not affect the short-term behaviour and health of the user.

Unfortunately, most proscribed substances do.

I have  researched this topic considerably.

Most of the expert commentators come from pure academic backgrounds: and their reference and conclusions are invariably based on peer review and analysis.

Many leading thinkers experimented with both psychotropic and hallucinogenic substances from the turn of the 20th Cent. onwards up until, probably 1920: Mescalin and later LSD were amongst them.

The core difference, I believe between academics and the type of above teenage user (basis that teenagers will experiment with most things!), is developed discrimination and maturity.

Unfortunately, and sadly, Western society presents as increasingly arrested development: and mass marketing relies on the differentation between what are called Internalised Decision Makers (Thinkers: the minority) and Externalised Decision Makers; those easily led and seduced by saturation advertising, behaviour cults and the rest.

Increasing numbers suffer from what is usually described as Addictive Behaviour: which can manifest as shopping, eating Mickey D's burgers in profusion, binge drinking and eating far too much chocolate even!

The bottom line is Western government and their delegated authorities of the police, courts and etc are unable to deal with any largescale manifestation of aberrant sociopathic behaviour: firstly on pure cost grounds; and secondly due to the reality that once one loses control of any dynamic and interactive system, it progresses too far to bring it back under control. If you like the Chernobyl Syndrome: what moderators are available have melted and the previously controlled system has gone into uncontrolled chain reaction.

This is precisely why we suffer anarchy on roads such as the M25, M11 etc: the police admitted some years back they were unable to adequately police them due to lack of resources and sheer volume of traffic.

Sadly, substances such as Angel Dust (PCP) produce almost instant personality behaviour changes; leading, often to "berserker" actions.

Drugs abusers invariably smoke and drink excessively too: which simply exacerbates any primary effects.

No matter how many fags I used to smoke, I rarely leaped out of windows 15 stories up, or saw fairies.

Same with booze: in the rugby club days, yes indeed we might have become somewhat noisy after far too may pints of toe curler, but again, rarely smashed up phone boxes, picked fights with ambulance crews and coppers or stabbed people.

Interesting to me to review Amsterdam and Holland's second thoughts: and Switzerland's too.

Personally, I would shoot every serious dealer: bang up smaller dealers and re-educate them; and incarcerate habitual users who have become social problems and burdens until they have proven they deserve their freedom, after de-tox.

Trouble is now, it's "Cool" to do drugs.

It is already a perspective mindset problem.

[Quillan]

[quote user="NickP"]

Quillan wrote: My personal attitude is if you use illegal substances you forfeit your right to health care to the point where you only get emergency life saving care. If you want to inject, inhale or whatever its up to you as long as it does not effect others.

Unfortunately Q you are talking out of your rear end.  My wife and her colleagues involved in medicine don't or wont have time to ask "are you  someone who has forfeited the right to health care"? They just do what they are trained to do, and that is to help people in distress. So nothing will change in that direction, in fact their workload under your freedom of choice to use drugs, will become intolerable.

[/quote]

Your not trying to say that hospital staff and doctors can't tell drug related health care issues from any other? Anyway, who says they would go up, is there any proof, I doubt it, just like there is no proof it would go down if drugs were legalised because nobody has really tried. What I would be interested to know is over the last 10 years has the number of people who have been admitted with drug related issues gone up or down and why. One set of research documents says it's gone up 10 fold but the reason it states for this is that neither the quality or strength is controlled. Another picks up on this and says that this is a big problem and another reason why they should be legalised. If legalised they would have to be made to certain standards and strengths to get approval, people would actually know what they are taking, even addicts. A lot of people get to hospital due to overdosing because they don't know the strength of individual doses. There are many arguments on both sides, I would like to see it tried. Certainly in countries where Cannabis has been legalised and health care of users has been monitored less people have ended up in hospital. Statistically also in the UK more people get admitted due to alcohol related health issues than drugs, ask your wife about the weekends.

You also have to look at the long term and how people get in to drugs, some because of boredom others because it's the 'forbidden fruit', the latter is how many young people get in t them. In many countries where cannabis is legal (for personal use - Australia, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Germany, India, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal and Spain) the number of users is actually going down. Who's to say the same would not happen if you did the same with other drugs. It would be an interesting experiment. Interestingly enough the laws that permit the smoking of cannabis in the countries mentioned say that to ban it is an infringement of peoples rights yet logic would say, OK but you do ban them from taking other drugs, so that excuse does not really stand. As I said knowbody can really say for sure but the 'experiment' with cannabis seems to indicate that users entering hospital has gone down, would it be the same with harder drugs, I don't know, if it did your wifes work would become a lot easier.

[Braco]

The exact opposite I think that there will be no new extra punters.

In fact when legal our children and grand children will not return from trips to Amsterdam with hash seeds to grow as a sign of rebellion.

I have no desire to take drugs even if they are offered BOGOF at Tesco’s.

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="NormanH"]Does nobody read my posts?
[/quote]Of course not - they're all about France![;-)]