It's more repealling some, regulating others, and enforcing more in a general way.  Drugs, and panic & overkill.


Meow-meow is an example of a drug that appeared to be very popular and then people started dying.  I still do not know what the final bodycount is for Mephadrone, and needless to say Booze and Fags are seriously lethal as well.  What I did see though is how the media could dictate law by exaggeration.  I also saw in The New Scientist there is now doubt on what killed 2 of the kids.

Booze kills far more on a weekly basis than Meow-meow.  Even juggling the figures to allow for it being just a smaller group of kids, compared to the general population, taking Meow-meow is it overkill to ban it?

I say to simply let science decide.  Rather than the media, and panicking non-qualified parents.  Mum only knows best if she liases with her GP to check things afterall.

Why is this idea important?

Well, yes.  Accuracy.  And making a few quid.


The Amsterdam model reliably shows that you can have peaceful drug culture.  Criminal Justice records also reliably show that gangsters will kill their victims and witnesses to stay out of jail.

You can't legalise, and bring in control regs for safety, if there is no safe dose.  Obviously.  Heroine is lethal, and Cocaine does you no favours either.  But booze and fags are widespread, habit forming, easy to get, and have quite the body-count.

The thing about booze is within 12 hours you're legal to drive after a few Cinzano's with yer mates etc etc.  You sober up quickly.  With old pot types ( cannabis ) it would take 24 hours maybe?  With the new, much stronger, skunks ( 400% stronger than the old stuff apparently ) you're looking at 3-4 days according to my shrink.  I smoked the old stuff, and it was drug culture that harmed me more than the drugs.

I sobered up, turned it around, and worked for the banks in the end.  I was quite happy with that.  A good happy ending to a mistake as a kid.

Then I got done by a gang tied to said drug culture as I had walked away, and had dumped someone.  Yeah. Petty, paranoid, violent,  and utter overkill.  Odds are I'd seen too much, so needing 'silencing'.  I ended up mentally ill due to the months of abuse and terror tactics.

But it was drug culture that did this to me.  I was quite capable of doing my job before said gang waded in.

The shrinks then panicked, exaggerated, used a witness not even in the same town to witness said events, and proceeded to make it up.  And obviously botched my recovery badly.  I'm still 'stuffed' ( medical term that ) now ( 9 years on ), and my health noticably got worse under NHS Psychiatry.  Girl gangs didn't exist apparently…


Part of this is obviously how unknown the effects of drugs are.  Much as the shrinks say this, that and t' other the bit they cannot take into account is how many walked away, sobered up, and were unharmed.  Myself ( before the gang thing ), Prince Harry is another good example, and Mick Jagger did rather well for himself as well.

Ozzie needs tablets, but he was pretty heavy-weight.  There is evidence of injury as well in heavy substance abuse.  We just don't know what the safe dose is due to this inability to be able to speak honestly about it.  You can't admit you walked away fine.

See the problem now?  The people who walked away unharmed can't admit it due to these failing laws, and their assumption booze is best.  You'll lose your job, get blackmailed in some cases, all-sorts of panic going on.  So the figures chanted that say 'drugs are evil' are fundamentally flawed.  Due to the masses out there who were fine, sobered up, and did not need to see a Dr.  So never showed up on said spreadsheets when they chose to sober up.

Does cannabis definitely cause psychosis?  Or only the stronger skunks?  What about if a young forming mind is involved?  Compared to an older more settled one?

Hence why science should decide.  Not guesses, and anxieties, and the local paper terrifying the local mums.  This line into 'allowing panic to happen' should never be crossed.  It's too dangerous to ignore reliable evidence.  And if more proof comes in you can justify a later legal adjustment as well.


In the case of cannabis, due to how long it takes to sober up, you can't just treat it like booze.  Driving the next day is risky.  But if there was s way to make it safer?  A weaker type of 'erb?  It's strength and chemical content that make it harmful.  So that's what you need to explore.

And if there is no safe dose then you can't legalise & regulate it obviously.  Simple eh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.