Safe Speed Forums

The US have been dusting Columbian crops for years with exactly this plan in mind. It has failed miserably.

Accept that drugs exist, and people want to take them, then start adressing the issue from there.

_________________
Carl Prescott

As an aside, you really should all read the reasons why the drugs that are illegal now, were banned in the first place, it's quite an eye opener:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

_________________
Carl Prescott

Perhaps because they come from other sources too. I'm sure if the global political will exitsed and enough collective effort was applied then they could be 'dusted' out of existence.



Nope, I'd like to address the source issue first if you don't mind, the rest will simply fall out of their non-availability.

Rigpig, it'd need a huge amount of political will, resources and time to achieve the destruction of all plant derived drugs. The size of the areas needed to be covered are immense and the need to continue carpet bombing these areas with herbicides for a period of time after the initial onslaught would all have to be factored in. This is also discounting the other drugs that aren't necessarily grown, but manufactured in labs from non-plant derived raw materials. There is also the increase in smaller scale, intensive farming, often indoors (hydroponics) that couldn't be covered by the global plane-spraying.

Unfortunately Carls point about people taking drugs is also very difficult to address (from a prohibition point of view at least). Drugs are just another form of escapism, people will always need escapism of one form or another, drugs aren't going to go away in a hurry (sorry, been reading to much "Brave New World" and taking too much soma ).

Just had another thought, if anyone hears that Rigpigs idea is going to happen, buy shares in Monsanto. They're going to be raking it in with the amount of herbicides they'll have to produce!

It can be interesting to look back into the past. I am a big fan of Sherlock Holmes. Look what he got up to - all the hard drugs he took for recreational purposes which of course were legal in Victorian times. One could argue that he was a supremely intelligent person who knew the risks of what he was doing and acted accordingly. Motor vehicles hadn't been invented either.
Snuff, for instance, was a drug of choice for many middle-class people, gin was another but for the poor.
I have never taken soft or hard drugs so I don't know what I am missing. I didn't like cigarettes so never took them up after a trial period. Alcohol - I used to drink a maximum of 4 pts a night on occasion, now I am teetotal. But I became addicted to prescribed tranquillisers for 15 years. Withdrawal took 2 years of hell ending in 1988 whilst holding down a difficult job and bringing up a family. I don't recommend the succession of panic attacks to anyone.
I don't mind what drugs people take in the comfort of their home as long as I don't become the recipient of their behaviour out on the street or the road.
And it's not funny like it is in cartoons when someone is splatted all over the road or the railway line. I'm lucky I've never had to see such things and I don't envy the BiB (including the BTP) who have to go out with the black bags and hose down the road or track.

Why do you want drugs dusted out of existence or made otherwise unavailable? The average human being quite enjoys being in an 'enhanced' state on occasion, whether it be from a cup of tea, a drink, a toke or a sniff, and as long as no-one else gets harmed, I don't see why these substances are so morally reprehensible. I'm sorry, but if the only way I had to enjoy myself was to pray regularly, work hard and go on runs, I'd be cracking up before a fortnight was over.

I'm going to make my first post tossing my hat in with the 'Prohibition is the issue' group, simply because to my mind, it is prohibition causing the lion's share of the problems rather than the existence of the substances themselves.

As for the prescription debate, it's not entirely outre to suggest that an addict pay for their medication - you can pretty much *guarantee* it would be cheaper than what they'd pay on the street. One of the surprising outcomes of the pilot programme where pure heroin was prescribed was the ability of the addicts to lead completely normal lives, and in some cases hold down some pretty high-powered jobs. I also wonder whether the police time saved by not booking every single possession charge would free up some public funds to subsidise the treatment for those suffering serious economic hardship, thus leaving the allocation for granny's medication alone.

Of course there are idiots who will take advantage of the system and binge, but I guess in an ideal world, that is what the police and the law are there for, to prevent these people from having an impact on society as a whole. The number of otherwise utterly sensible recreational users i've encountered over the last few years tells me that the wronguns are the exception rather than the rule.

But this isn't really about road safety, is it?

As far as that is concerned, if someone has rendered themselves unfit to drive, then they should not be driving - which is why I agree with that plank of the SafeSpeed campaign (I'm yet to be convinced about a 90mph+ NSL though ).

Certainly drugs that have been proven to dangerously reduce co-ordination such as alcohol and downers, plus those that have hallucinogenic effects should be ruled out - but how do you deal with stimulants, and which of those do you consider should be proscribed, from caffeine and guarana through ephedrine, dexedrine and amphetamine - and at what point do these have a negative effect on driving ability?

Due to my family background and having been involved in a couple of accidents in my first year of driving (1997), I personally don't drive if I've had anything stronger than a few cups of tea, and generally have a few choice words to say to those who take such risks - but I realise this wouldn't work for everyone.

Tc.

Think you may find in Western world culture - it was result of discovering more about the properties and effects of these drugs via scientific research - rather than purely religious reasoning.

These drugs have a medicinal usefulness - but no recreational value.

We need to look at why people feel this need to escape into a drug induced state in the first place. We certainly should not be encouraging them to use them by suggesting usage is safe because we deem it a "legal activity" .

There is a fall-out in costs to society - and addiction leads to danger to self and others. There is no such thing as "moderation" when one is addicted or dependent. I saw for myself what happened when an otherwise rational and bubbly personality such as the Wild developed a taste for a morphine based painkiller. When deprived - she was on the tiles....literally...

As a result - gather this is in her medical history and there are medicines they dare not prescribe her as a result.

Fortunately - she is rarely ill...

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Because even though...


And might even do so responsibly, the problem is..



You say this almost as if it's incidental, but it is the main problem. If the idiots didn't exist and cause problems for sopciety as a whole, I'd have no qualms about drugs.



Well we do like to discuss other matters too



Perhaps when global terrorism ceases to become an issue (one way or another), certain governments might begin throwing greater weight behind the destruction of the illicit drugs trade.

I can never accept why anyone would wish to take a drug in the first place.

Sure - I have the odd beer, odd dram of whiskey and odd drink of wine - but this does not make me crave more almost immediately and even on the rare occasion (and it is very rare) that I drink more than good for me... apart from a headache - not craving more booze. It takes time.

Drugs - craving is more immediate and addiction is thus inevitable consequence.

No one forces people to take these drugs. Thier own choice - so why should I be expected to fund their habit on the NHS? Then scrape them up after drug induced car accident or get myself beaten to a pulp in one of their "cold turkey withdrawal" frenzies?

We need to address why they want to try them and make sure that they learn sufficient not to want to. Also - if we remove all drugs from their reach ansd make it very difficult to get mits on them ...

Personally - I'd nuke the crops...and ensure plant is only cultivated in secure conditions for proper medicinal use.

I do not go along with encouraging people to ruin their lives for an ephemeral buzz which they then live to regret.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Because... (replace the beer with spliff, pill, line)





Not necessarily true, nicotine is probably one of the most addictive drugs, yet it takes several cigarettes to get hooked. The majority of drugs are just like alcohol as far as addictiveness (is this a word) is concerned.



No one forces people to drink alcohol... ...their own choice... ...like alcoholism, drink driving etc...? Why should I have to deal with the consequences of drinking? Although I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately prohibition doesn't work.



The subsequent radioactivity would cause more problems than the drug use in the first place.



Like drinking too much and getting a hangover.

Nope - but they staggered under hansom cabs. But Sherlock was not real my dear Watson.




Snuff was proven to be life threatening. Lot of deaths to smog and snuff in those days.

As for the gin...liver disease.



As said .. tried a joint once and was sick for days. Never been a smoker as such and have never been inclined to try out any drugs either.



can empathise mate... we saw Wildy in some very wild states at times. She was not adduicted nor even dependent - but the tolerance had affected her badly at the time.




But that's exactly the problem. They go out - to a club - take more stuff and have a few drinks. Not that many registered addicts stay at home fixing up in their slippers, cardigans, smoking jackets, dressing gowns... whatever whilst watching the footy on telly

(Only way to watch footy on telly is with a six-pack, a take-away and NO wimmin present! )






You're right... it is not funny. That's the job though... and I am admit to being squeamish.

Maybe the reason I have never wished to try these drugs is also cos I hate needles....

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Actually, I think it had a lot more to do originally with American industrialists buying legislation that prevented their Chinese and Mexican labourers from indulging, thus being able to work them harder. The banning of hemp also had a lot to do with William Randolph Hearst (the American industrialist to end 'em all) wanting to preserve his monopoly on paper products.

Naturally after the wars (especially the second), the influence the US had on international affairs allowed widespread prohibition just to keep the Yanks happy. Most of the prohibition (and the licensing) laws in this country actually stem from the First World War period, they were simply never rescinded afterwards.



Because for many people, their lives are unfulfilling as they are - maybe they're funny looking and can't get a girlfriend... maybe they're unqualified and can't get a job... maybe they have a job, but the drudgery of doing it day in, day out is slowly driving them insane. Given the choice between suicide and an altered state, I think the altered state is the lesser of two evils.

Of course, that's just the negative side of it - certainly in many cases people are just curious.



Drinking is a legal activity that causes millions of pounds worth of damage every week, both to people and property. Certainly if I'm understanding the current media message against binge drinking, it's not being promoted as safe just because it's legal? Likewise any other drug.

I suspect that legalisation would actually eventually lead to a drop in people taking the stuff, because the 'rebel' aspect of it that appeals to teenagers is taken away.



I've long believed that most regular users of nominally recreational substances (cannabis in particular) are actually self-medicating for depression. Opiates are unusual, because morphine can cause a physical dependency with regular use - something that isn't the case with most other 'street' substances. However, psychological addiction is no less dangerous.

However these dependencies are almost always due to the person involved - the drug merely exacerbates an already existing problem.



That's cool, and I hope she's OK now - that accident sounded nasty.

Having said that, would you deny those painkilling drugs to others based on her specific reaction? Because that is the effect that prohibition has.

I do know of people who allegedly use recreational substances regularly or semi-regularly, yet have suffered no ill effects - in all other respect they are decent, law-abiding people and are amongst the nicest folks you could ever hope to meet. I'm also pretty prepared to believe that they'd cheerfully pay taxes on a legalised substance - especially if it was targeted at helping those less fortunate who have had bad times.

Tc.

But you get more of a buzz from a pint of real ale - with none of the scary bits. And no needles....and no involved....




No - with smack and crack - it's immediate addiction. These drugs have different chemical make-up --- read Physics and Maths at Uni - but got Grade A in Chemistry when those Advanced Level Uni Entry exams were REAL exams for REAL MEN! We touched on Bio-chemistry briefly in one of those 'orrid sub-subjects they made us study as freshmen at Uni too....





And you really believe making it legal and everyone chill out on heroin and whatever will?

We'd be giving a clear message to youngsters - that it would be safe. And it ain't!

We have a society which basically sees getting paralytic as the cool thing to do. That's just the reaction to relaxed drinking laws. Heaven help my lads if drugs are legal and they are dealing with spaced out drunks as well.

Legalise - and more will try it out. Investigate the reasons why they are running to hide in a drug culture and we might dissuade people from taking this stuff.




Controlled explosion....can be done. I got a darned good degree ... and am showing off



Opps... I don't do that very often...hate feeling under the weather - and my wife has a rotten cure for this.... usually cold water....and the spare room.....

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

However if you're depressed and drinking, the result is pretty much the same as if you're depressed and spliffing - I'm astonished that there haven't been more studies done on this correllation.




Smack and crack are special cases - I believe that the existence of crack is pretty much solely down to prohibition, whereby dealers of the mafioso persuasion figured out that they could get more bang for the buck *and* get people hooked quicker by cooking up the cocaine they had. Smack is a holdover from pre-WWI times, used by people who couldn't get laudanum any more.



You wouldn't - a tax on the drugs themselves could fund treatment centres - likewise, as I said, the amount of public money saved by saving police time, not having to book everyone who's got a bag of grass on them.



I've had friends that went cold-turkey from heroin abuse. None of them became violent to others, though it was disturbing for a few days seeing these people who I knew as happy and carefree shivering in the corner and crying. If there's violence involved, I wonder if it may be down to alcohol.



Very few people would use heroin as a 'chilling out' drug. However, I don't see the point in criminialising responsible use of many other substances currently categorised as Class A.



I dispute this, see above. I also think it'd turn off the younger element simply by it not being illegal - it suddenly becomes far less 'edgy' and 'cool'.



We have a society which is used to having to get as bladdered as possible prior to drinking-up time. Remove that restriction, and such behaviour might ease. Obviously it's ingrained to the point where adjustment will take some time, but I believe that such adjustment is at least possible.

Generally, the alleged recreational users that I know are very chilled out people and wouldn't harm a fly, even if they do have a drink as well.



Is this fact, or supposition?



You can't fix it - for many people the world is a sickeningly painful place to live in, and some folk simply feel there must be another dimension to life than the work/sleep/lazy weekend pattern that the middle-classes hold up as their idea of nirvana.



Hehe - know that feeling. But isn't dealing with consequences one of the prices to be paid for a degree of personal freedom

Tc.

I get my kicks from a good work out in the fresh air. There are plenty of ways these people can help themselves out of a boring existence Lots of others lead fairly hum-drum lives - but they choose not to take drugs .


But... if we legalise more will try it. Don't kid yourself that the stuff will be offered on the cheap either. They will either tax it high to cover medical costs or we all pay more tax to fund other people's habits.

This is the case in Switzerland... lot of controversy ver the needle parks as drug related crime is increasing - but then most have to buy their drugs there. They only provide a safe haven to fix up -and even though they throughtfully provide needles - old habit dies hard and they still share.



I would be paying increased taxes to pay for this and their subsequent overdoses. Als0 - as Holland, Liverpool and Switzerland have all discovered - once they use up the prescribed quota - they go out to the dealer to buy more One of the reasons why Liverpool project eventually got canned - but they will not admit to it. Swiss arre having a re-think - and their solution was to make them buy their own and they have a tax on gov sourced. It is quite steep - hence the crime wave.



Jack Straw is having a rethink on the cannabis issue. These drugs are not safe and sooner or later those addicts "holding normal jobs" will fall flat as it will get in the way of their ability. Besides - these people holding normal jobs are the one who cannot judge speed and distance and will probably be our tailgater from hell. Spot checked in our patch - first result were a bit worrying in this respect.

As for the free-up of my time.... hahahahahaha! Yer 'avin' a larf ain'tya?

Whole amazon rainforest of paper bye-product is normally on my desk at any one time.....



I meet hundreds of wrong 'uns and have done so most of my working life...



These people may feel "normal" and they are not reacting normally. They are slow to react due to the opiate nature of these drugs or in the case of ecstasy - so far high - they have no concept of speed.

I actually know what I am talking about here.... happen to be one of blokes resposnsible for road safety around here. Investigated more RTCs than miles collective have perhaps driven. over long period of time. Thus - can say speed is not sole cause in most crashes - something else was a catalyst cause - usually the impaired numpty behind the wheel - drugged, drunk, tired, ill....and the rest - careless error on part of one or more on road ....

Speed per se as sole cause? Be lying if I said they never happen - but they do not happen as often as some folks expect public to believe - eh JJ? JJ? JJ? and cam op?


[qutoe="Tc"]
Certainly drugs that have been proven to dangerously reduce co-ordination such as alcohol and downers, plus those that have hallucinogenic effects should be ruled out - but how do you deal with stimulants, and which of those do you consider should be proscribed, from caffeine and guarana through ephedrine, dexedrine and amphetamine - and at what point do these have a negative effect on driving ability?[/quote]

Stimulants do not alter brain and body co-ordination. Certainly coffee and Red Bull have never impaired anyone. Mad Doc did explain something about neurons in the brain earlier on...in basic way.



Glad to hear this. If only more would do likewise!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

We have enough problems getting the message across on this. If we add a drug problem.... worsening situation



They still drink....under age.



And this problem does not go away with the drug use and can make thing worse



She is the lead scientist for a drugs company.... she researches and designs and trials these drugs. She has two already licenced and current one has netted huge profit margins for the firm she works for.

But these drugs are not and never were intended for recrational use. Her morphine based painkillers were prescribed - but she knew how to get hold of more...

Accident was result of man being taken fatally ill and hitting her car at speed. Was not a speed per se crash... speed was just incidental result of the sudden illness.

Was very nasty though.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

The idea of working out after having spent an entire week working depresses me more than I can put into words. Always was crap at sports, so I derive very little enjoyment from physical exertion without purpose.

Guess we're just different there.

Besides, I'm always reminded of Jim Fixx, and wonder why he died of a massive heart attack having devoted his life to jogging and aerobic exercise, yet Keith Richards is still touring.




But the crap that it's cut with that causes the majority of the medical issues would cease to be a problem. Taxing any drug, prescription or recreational, is fine by me.




I'm sure a bit of applied thought would bring a better solution to bear.



Only 'cos it's election time!



Not necessarily. Once hooked, the usage tends to remain fairly constant, it does not increase dramatically. I'm talking about people who happen to be addicted to drugs, not those for whom the drug has taken over their life. There are many alcoholics out there doing the same thing.

The "cannabis use is connected to depression/mental illness" meme is I suspect a lot to do with some of those those using cannabis, or wanting to, being depressed anyway.



I've already said they shouldn't be driving under the influence. IMO if they cross that line then they're a potential danger and something should be done about it.



Just out of interest though, I do wonder what the actual reduction in paperwork would be if petty drug offences were phased out? The Brixton pilot showed great promise - obviously not everywhere is like Brixton, but it was interesting to see the immediate improvement in police/community relations when it was noticed that serious crime was being targeted rather than busting people for a bag of grass to bump up arrest quotas.



And most of the users i've met have been no trouble at all - so is it your job that has led you to theis conclusion? I'd worry about bias there because you are dealing with the worst of us on a daily basis (and, lest I be misunderstood, I take my hat off to you for doing it!).



Again, they shouldn't be driving until the effects have worn off and here I'm in complete agreement with you.



I'm very much aware that most accidents are caused by idiotic driving rather than speed - however if we weren't all in such a bleedin' rush then maybe we'd have more time to anticipate and deal with the numptys on our roads.



Aye, but the MD*A (ecstacy) 'phets *can* cause impaired judgement. Likewise it's possible to get so wired on standard 'phet that your ability to 'scan' is affected. USAF pilots hopped up on too much speed tend to fly into the ground because they get so focussed that they forget how to handle the big picture.



I browbeat my associates into following suit where I can.

Tc.

You'd be amazed at what they offer at the local gym. My wife drags me off with her... the whole family do yoga together.

I can recommend this.... few gentle stretches and a lie down... It cracks me up every time the teacher tells me not to forget to breathe...

That scene with Victor Meldrew at the yoga class and the deceased yoga teecher always comes to mind.... I cannot explain this... and right in the middle of the salute to the sun thingy - I fall over and

Then there is the hydrotherapy pool... this is sooooo relaxing

But my fave sport is... golf. Folowed by rugby.

And we find time to ride the bikes and go on fast track days...

Think we have nice busy life - and thus no reason to take any drugs for a high.... you ain't lived unless you have hurtled around track or driven on a A/bahn at a speed which Dick disapproves of....

Then of course... there is my lovely wife who provides me with endless hours of entertainment. But Ernest .. they already have a stealth tax on this sport - it's call "support your chiild at uni later on!" and "help your local school have a computer by shopping at certain stores and going to their Pupil Work Fayres!"




Well - he did go for the burn...we are talking nice gentle exercise which is good for the soul and make a hearty man out of you!

As for Keith Richards.... well he may still be touring... but he looks like he'll drop at any time. On the other hand IG (if you were to meet him) is -er .. well dammit he's admitted to being 50....but he does not look anything near. My wife can pass for a woman half her age and people pass kind comments on my good self ... like I look too young to be the consultant virology wally. I do have the odd grey hiar now - but my twins are wholly responsible for this .



Ah.. but if we tax it... we have to tax high. People will commit crimes to fund the habit. If we went down the prescription route...

Well- actual cost of producing pure heroin etc - surprisingly low. Almost comparable to paracetamol in production costs. But.. we would then be faced with either increasing prescription charges for all to pay for cost of later treatment for collapsed veins, seizures, overdoses and all the other accidents which occur with users from tolerance to addict levels.

Kid yourself not - this drug and other Class As affect the bio-chemical balance in your brain. This affects everything you do - and whilst some users may appear to hold down resonsible jobs - we must question how comptetently they do so. I had a houseman working under me and he turned to heroin as result of the pressure. For a while he coped and I never suspected anything. Then mistakes crept in and he ended up getting struck off because his error contributed indirectly to a patient's death. I ended up befroe the GMC as I had to explain why I had not noticed the problem. Fortunately, I was able to explain the situation in a way which was helpful to my houseman and to myself. I managed to get his "ban" limited to period of time to allow him to get his life back under control and allow him to return to practice medicine at a later date. As far as I am aware - guy has kicked the habit and is now a part time GP - which is probably best outcome for him.


As IG mentioned - my wife (who know everything about all drugs and effects as she is one of the lead scientists for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies inthe world) fell victim to tolerance on painkillers. It was on a par with the aftermath of the accident in pain ratio to me personally. She was a handful at the time. Come to think of it - she still is... but in the normal bubbly way.



It is a touchy subject. I am against any so-called recreational use of drugs because I know the health dangers.

I do provide needles to be distributed to addicts. They still share needles even though there is a supply of new ones. I cannot understand this and can only attribute this to habitual practice and culture.



But surely - if this had been the right thing to do - he could argue case convincingly to the electorate.



Not in my professional experience. It takes over one's life. Very few remain "constant".

Besides - these people wil be driving cars... and what happens if they require fix at the wrong time? Like when they are behind my wife? I would NEVER WANT to go through that again or want anyone else to experience this. OK - so he had a stroke followed by coronary - but this could happen to these addicts who think they are in control of the habit.



My neurologist colleagues see no reason why cannabis should not be used to treat MS, etc.

But...cannabis does not alleviate depression. It fuels it over time. Have the medical proof and reserach of this. It;s in BMJ archives... but beware.. one "expert's" view contradicts another's



And you should be thankful and greateful that Durham and N Yorks insist on retaining chaps like IG to implement road safety measures and nab these poeple. Scams cannot do this. Steve and teh JJs know this if they are honest with themselves.



Like IG - have a load of paperwork on HIV/drug cases floating around my virology umbrella. I would not class dealing heroin as a petty offence myself...nor would I class drving a car whilst under the influence of heroin as a petty offence. My wife may have been the victim of a stroke victim whose autopsy proved he was no drug user.... but there are others who are victims of drivers who drug and drive. Ultimately we all pay the price as scams appear - since they were speeding when they killed the person. Problem is .. different kind of speed caused the accident in reality.



He's a BiB - he meets more criminals than is normal.

I'm a virologist - I meet more HIV people than is normal. Of these sex and promiscuity was not the cause... shared needles... and as said - have a problem with the culture and way of addict life here.

By the way - these are nice middle class and hold down decent jobs - er you were saying?



But that's the point - they do! Just like they drink and drive, drive whilst tired and unfit....and the scams do not catch them and the KSI stats reflect 'em.

FACT- JJs! ANd no silly hearses in Kendal will change this fact of life!




Said it umpteen times - we can handle fst driing if we are alert and not impaired and ifwe apply COAST skills.



As stated - drugs affect biochemistry and the substances we all manufacture in our brains.

As yet unpublished research seems to indicate that prolonged drug use compromises the body;s abilty to manufacture these substances long term. Thus we are looking at pernamently slow reactions in these users and thus poor motor and cognitive skills.

Does not bode well for safety on the road - does it?

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I have a question for all of you presently debating the drugs issue...

Do you think that legalising, and dramatically reducing the price of any and all drugs would lead to a massive increase in their use?

I ask this because in my experience if you want drugs, they're easily available - they're even traded at the local school for God's sake! - expensive maybe, but anyone who wants them can just go out and get them. I, like the majority of folk, am not a drugs user (other than alcohol), not because I can't obtain drugs, it's just that I don't want them - not my scene.

From what I read and hear, a vast amount of the "crime" around drug use is not the drug use per se, it's the crime that addicts commit in order to finance an expensive habit - I've heard figures bandied around like 90% of all "minor" crime - housebreaking, mugging, prostitution, theft from cars etc - is "drug related". Surely, if a user can buy a consistent and pure dose of their preferred drug at something like its cost price plus a small percentage from their local chemist, they wouldn't have the need to find so much money and thus the related crime would go down.

I see added advantages in that it should drive the illegal supply trade out of business, as long as the "tax it to breaking point" lobby can be kept under control, and the massive amounts of money spent at present on the utterly ineffective "war on drugs" could be channelled into proper education and support.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev