The Green Party policy is to legalise all drugs. Starmer said it was ‘disgusting’. Polanski said it’s a public health matter. Is it irresponsible populism or a credible approach to the problems that prohibition brings? As the Greens rise in popularity, will this be a badge of honour or a millstone for them?
I raise it a a topic because it’s often mentioned in recent AW comments about the Greens, without addressing these questions.
https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/cannabis-labour-green-drug-policy-b2924913.html
We’ve discussed this topic quite sensibly* on the blog before:
heroin
drugs
* well, in part. You can’t expect us to take it completely seriously, or without sidetracking…
I think legalise small amounts of cannabis for personal use. Everything else stays illegal. Ban vapes except on prescription too.
Micro doses of hallucinogenics seem harmless enough though I don’t know much about them. Certainly not my thing anyway.
I took huge amounts of hallucinogenics in days of yore and look how ‘normal’ I turned out. I have no particularly strong views on this one way or the other, I do know that the so called “War on Drugs” has been and continues to be a complete and utter failure with huge sums of money, time and effort poured into the always doomed to fail attempt to control substance abuse. Maybe it’s time to try a different approach.
Given the medical recognition of psychedelics, I think they are not such bad things, given the right person, and suitable drug, set and setting. Anything to make people more open, aware of the infinite complexity and beauty of life, and to be less egotistical. But then I would say that š
Set and setting are essential. I only experienced one bad trip and that was due to an unforeseen and unavoidable intrusion into the set and setting. I wouldn’t indulge now despite there being no shortage of mushrooms here in Wales. It’s been many years since I dropped Acid or MDMA and I don’t think it ever did me any lasting harm. It certainly gave me many memorable evenings and that’s the thing about drug taking it’s very moreish because of the simple truth that until it gets out of hand it’s decidedly good fun.
Agreed. John Waters has a chapter on tripping on his 70th birthday in his autobiography. He said it was fun, but nostalgia.
How about we donāt ban vapes?
People enjoy doing something. It doesnāt harm anyone else let them do it
Thereās too much banning generally going on, just because personally itās not your thing. I donāt agree with the Greens much but on this topic I do
I am on board with this idea. I know that the whiff can be unpleasant but it dissipates very quickly. Itās like someone walking past with too much aftershave/perfume or indeed BO. Much as Iād sometimes like them to stand outside, it wouldnāt be reasonable to require them to do that.
I generally don’t like banning stuff but young people buy them from dodgy shops and suck who knows what into their lungs. Madness.
If only licensed people could sell them, that problem could be dealt with.
Because the enforcement just isn’t there for vapes, like it is with newsagent-tobacconists and supermarket tobacco counters.
I used vaping to quit smoking a habit I had aquirred from years of smoking joints. I bought a refillable vape and over the course of four months I gradually reduced the amount of nicotine in the vaping liquid to zero. Then I recycled the part of the vape containing a battery and threw the rest of the paraphernalia into the bin. I’ve never smoked or vaped since or felt any desire to do so. I am quite a disciplined person though I admit. Once I set my mind to achieving an outcome I will stubbornly stick at it until I succeed. That’s probably why I’m still painting at the age of seventy despite all evidence making it quite nakedly clear that it’s a futile pursuit.
Maybe the Greens are proposing the moon to get a concession in cannabis. Not that legalisation is necessarily without problems, and Iāve long been liberal on drugs. If youāve indulged in the past few years, you might note itās much stronger. This has led to clinical addiction ( I routinely see patients who smoke 7g – what we used to call āa quarterā, daily). And itās 20% THC, no CBD. This is not the ādoingsā of 45 years ago. It pongs far too much, and I dislike the synthetic smell. Regulation – necessary – and taxation – inevitable – will mean the illegal market would continue, with all the gangsterism. My solution? Legalise home grown. While some might want to grow extra strong puff, and will have some tricks, most will be happy with a tickle. And it would be a āGreenā solution.
Legalising spice, crack, and heroin? Fucking stupid.
This is pretty much how I see it, too. Popping down the road to buy an eighth of Leb in the old days was pretty harmless. Puffing on a skunk rocket is a fast route to mental meltdown.
And skunk rockets smellable at 8am in market towns. I find it sad to see people drinking early in the day. Itās also desperate if they are getting stoned.
The last weed I smoked was Skunk and it was far too strong. It was then I decided enough was enough and quit. That must have been sixteen years ago. I’d been smoking weed and hash since I was fourteen and thought quitting would be difficult but as it turned out it wasn’t.
Slightly more recently for me, maybe 14 years, and I hadnāt smoked dope for a long time before that. We were in Amsterdam and I bought a pre-rolled joint, having already given up tobacco, for old timeās sake. I asked for something ānot too strongā, but either the bloke behind the counter was taking the piss or ānot too strongā means āgive me something that will render me incapable of locomotion while my mind racesā. Iām glad we went back to our rented flat before I sparked up as there is no way I would have made it up the stairs in that state. It was not a relaxing or pleasant experience.
Exactly. This is not the amiable herb of our past.
No. The last time I partook was in maybe 1996. Rather like your story. Met a mate in Amsterdam, had a mellow smoke in a coffee shop, mate fell over, we got chucked out, never done it since.
Aside from the ethical considerations (date rape drugs available, perhaps in pubs, really?), there are immense practical problems with this policy. Can we really imaging the business secretary taking trips to Mexico to deal with the cartels to try and get a steady supply of cocaine for the UK? Or heading to Afghanistan to talk to the Taliban about poppy production to secure enough heroin for the UK market? I agree there needs to be more of a public health approach rather than outright prohibition – Scotlandās safe shooting galleries and clean needle exchanges seem sensible – but I donāt think weāll ever see recreational drugs fully legalised.
There’s a lot to be said for the argument that it is the potential profits – given the substances’ illegality – that motivates the organised crime behind the serious Class ‘A’s.
However, if it means that @fentonsteve avoids ordering DVD boxed sets while stupified, there’s a lot to be said for keeping them illegal.
I was just coming here to say that. I already spend far too much on entertainment media, and the strongest I’m on is PG Tips and antihistamines.
Here’s Spacemen 3 with the news:
It seems to me that weed is tolerated already. In most towns I visit I often catch a whiff of the distinctive odour and see people openly smoking without apparent fear of sanction.
The public consumption of weed often seems a bit ālook at me, Iām a badassā, IMHO. I see too many āroadmenā and their wannabes in trouble for stabbing people. There seems be be a lack of peace, love, and understanding in the problematic consumers. But the same is true for alcohol.
YouGov polled the opinion of the public on this policy last year. 4% of the electorate think hard drugs should be legal. 83% think the opposite. It is both a bad idea and bad politics.
If the Greens are still doing well by the time of the next election I would imagine theyāll water it down. It would be electoral suicide not to.
I’m sure most of us know people who have taken drugs and don’t view any of them as a criminal.
I certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone to take drugs, but I really don’t get why people who take even heroin or cocaine should be punished for it. I find it hard to believe that 83% think they should.
Source here, from Jan 2025: https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/51415-how-do-mps-views-on-drugs-policy-compare-to-the-british-publics
Third chart down, under āWith regard to hard drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine, which of these statements comes closest to your own view?ā
83% criminalised option
7% decriminalised option
4% legalised option
None of which means that the 83% think that everyone who takes hard drugs is a criminal and/or should be punished, just that they think hard drugs should remain illegal.
Well cannabis is legal here, I have 2 ādispensariesā within a 5 minute walk of my house. They sell a huge range of stuff. I have never really smoked anything, but I use edibles with a small amount of THC (and CBN) to help me sleep.
Trudeauās government legalized it, I think taking the view that as everybody was doing it anyway then the government may as well get their cut. The country has not fallen apart since. My view has changed on soft drugs, I think alcohol is probably far worse in general than pot, and actually for a while that was harder to find here than cannabis. Only recently has it become possible in Ontario to buy alcohol (beer and wine only) in supermarkets or gas stations. Before that it was only available in government run stores, that remains the case for hard liquor
Not sure about legalizing hard drugs, but if it helped control the quality of the illegal fentanyl that is prevalent in many parts of the city here with people often overdosing then that could help possibly. Parts of downtown in the ānationās capitalā are becoming virtual no go areas. Ottawaās murder rate is pretty low, but much of it is gang related and due to the supply of these drugs. These problems are also prevalent in the very big cities of Toronto and (especially) Vancouver with much higher murder rates and fatal overdoses
I’m undecided about hard drugs, I don’t know enough, but with regard to cannabis/marijuana the priority should be to try to curb its consumption among adolescents and I can’t see how the present situation is ever going to make any headway whatsoever in that direction when they are pretty much the target market of its producers and distributors. Regulation as with alcohol seems a far more logical path.
Thanks for all the comments above. I note in particular the benign view of psychedelics, often from personal experience, and the (well-reported) risks from skunk cannabis compared to what was smoked in the past.
I don’t really get the government trips to Mexican and Afghan cartels and drug barons. The Green Party policy doesn’t seem to be endorsement and promotion of drug taking, but rather recognition that it occurs, and wanting to medicalise and regulate, rather then criminalise. Let Diageo and other big alcohol companies do the commerce, just make sure it’s regulated at point of sale.
There’s a world of difference between recreational drug use and the hard drug use which appears to be about obliterating trauma from the memory, not about having a good time all the time. Addressing the causes is better than locking people up.
Alternatively, don’t invest in social welfare, and accept that people will turn to whatever else there is, however destructive it is to themselves and others.
And being guided by, rather then seeking to educate public opinion is a recipe for the tabloidisation of UK public life that was followed so assiduously and catastrophically by too many politicians scared of the Daily Mail over the last decade and a half.
Top marks fir Spacemen 3,BTW!
Good luck educating 83% of voters to reverse their view on this topic between now and the next election.
When youāre done with them you can then move on to the rest of the planet, given that no other country has implemented the proposed policy.
Me? I’m not going to do anything, am I? However I’m sure Zac and the others would take your offer of good luck with thanks, recognising it’s not an easy sell. Doesn’t mean to say it isn’t the right thing to try to do. Breaking the taboo that all other Parties have toed the line on till now may help to open the debate and get people thinking afresh about what really works.
As for other countries, it looks to me as if Portugal went for a very similar therapeutic approach to the problems caused by drug use that the Green Party are proposing.
Portugal has not legalised all drugs. Theyāve decriminalised them in small quantities, which is an entirely different policy.
The debate on drugs isnāt ātabooā. Itās been discussed passionately and at length across my lifetime. There are a lot of people in the country who have unfortunately experienced the impact of hard drugs directly, and thereby formed their own views.
A therapeutic approach can work wonders in some cases, and be a negative in others. But – again – the question in the OP isnāt āshould we take a therapeutic approach to drug treatmentā, itās will a policy of legalising all drugs be a millstone to the Green Party? To which the obvious answer based, on all available data, is that it almost certainly will from an electoral perspective.
I had the misfortune to spend several years sharing a house with two people who were addicted to hard drugs. They certainly didnāt take them for the purpose of āobliterating traumaā, they took them because they felt good and were physically addictive. The youngest started at 13.
If the Greens somehow succeeded in legalising drugs in this county, I would move abroad. And if hard drugs had been legal 20 years ago I would almost certainly be down two brothers at this stage. Because what ultimately worked for us wasnāt eyebrow-furrowed understanding and wishful thinking, it was a combination of tough love, dogged resilience and – ultimately – getting them as far away as possible from the daily opportunity to take drugs. Something that would have been all but impossible under the policy merrily being waved around above.
Thank you for your clarity.
They may have legalised them for locals in Portugal, but for tourists, no. Similar in Germany, Malta, and mainland Spain. Christiana has closed “Pusher St”, too. In all, you may well be sold rubbish, and you can’t consume in public anyway. I am aware of this, so have not found out the hard way. Whereas in the USA (depending on the state) and Canada, I believe the tourist can legally buy “refreshments” for a “sundowner”. I’d like to have the option, but I hate to see tourists making cnuts of themselves by overdoing it. I’m sure a balance can be found.
I think anyone who is old enough can buy in Canada, age varies according to province, 19 here, but 21 across the river in Quebec (where strangely the drinking age is lower, at 18). You canāt take anything legally across the border though even to a US state where it is also legal
Hi again, Bingo. I briefly acknowledged your deeply-expressed thoughts above, but wanted to give them the respect of a bit of time to reflect on them before responding.
There’s been a lot of heat and not much light shed on the Green Party drugs policy in recent days and weeks, which is why I wanted the original post to try to address sensibly what they are proposing. This is the relevant section of their 2024 GE manifesto. Excuse the length of the quote:
“Elected Greens will push for the establishment
of a National Commission to agree an
evidence-based approach to reform of the UKās
counterproductive drug laws.
Neither prohibition nor the policing of low-level
drug offences, especially cannabis possession,
have reduced use and consequently have had no
impact on the size of the criminal market or the
profits made by organised crime.
Elected Greens will therefore push to
decriminalise personal possession of drugs,
diverting people from the criminal justice system
towards support with addiction, housing and
employment, from health workers focused on
drug harm reduction This would free up hundreds
of thousands of hours of police time, which could
instead be invested in tackling other priorities
which benefit wider society”
More recently, in October 25, Caroline Lucas was interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire on the topic. It mentions the 83% opposition to drug legalisation.
Polanski did call for the legalisation of all drugs, but I think the two references above suggest that, in combination with regulation, it’s more akin to decriminalisation focused on the use/abuse than on the marketing and commercialisation of a newly legal sector. Despite the accusations by rival political parties and the media, I don’t see the Green Party welcoming drug supermarkets into the high street.
The focus is on how to reduce drug consumption by public health policies, rather than by criminalising users. By putting it on a par with alcohol and tobacco, it doesn’t suggest the problem of drug abuse is going to go away (alcoholism and smoking diseases still an issue with a legal market). But it recognises that as there are social drinkers and functional smokers, similarly, there are adults who use illegal drugs recreationally. The intense labelling of alcohol and tobacco products and the reducing rates of their consumption in the UK suggest this is a more successful approach.
Part of the policy semse to be trying to reduce the easy availability of hard and soft drugs through street dealership – you would be able to get them through regulated outlets as an adult, though with the discouragement from public health campaigns and social stigma.
When I said that politicians toe the line on the taboo, I didn’t mean that drugs hadn’t been discussed, just that no political party until now had dared to propose a policy that would try to address the problem without the stigma of criminalisation.
There WERE two questions in the OP – is it (the therapeutic approach) credible or irresponsible as a policy, and is it a badge of honour or a millstone. Right now, you are right, it seems to be a millstone, but I was as much interested in whether it’s credible or irresponsible.
Talking about a drugs policy for a whole country, I think there are inevitably going to be assumptions, generalisations and knowledge gaps, as well as many areas of personal experience that inform and guide the approach to the subject. I’m no expert on the topic. I’ve seen people on the periphery of student scenes, where there was clearly mental health and/or addictive personality issues. Those wouldn’t change whether drugs were available from illegal dealers or from regulated providers. It’s often a tragedy that has to be addressed no matter the legal status.
I’m in no position to question those who’ve had to deal with addiction in those they love, and respect and admiration for the patience, determination and strength involved are far more appropriate. I don’t know that legalisation & regulation would make any difference to that awful challenge, but it would at least enable it to be pursued openly without criminalisation.
I apologise if I somewhat trivialised the subject with the OP title, and part of my words in the first comment. I don’t think the policy is being waved around merrily. My understanding moreover of the Green Party approach is that far from wishful thinking, they want an expert-led approach to drug use management and reduction.
I hope you regard this as a sober and respectful response to your criticisms. I do enjoy and benefit from the care you put into your expressions on this forum.
One point to make re de-criminalisation. Possession of even Class A drugs in the UK is to all intents and purposes de-criminalised now. People are generally only charged for possesion if they are also suspected of dealing, drug driving or a related violent offence.
Meanwhile, n terms of reflection, it appears that a number of the socially conservative Muslim voters who supported th4 Greens on Thursday hafe been somewhat alarmed when subsequently informed about the Green approach to drugs, prostitution, and so on. We have been down this road before, when the Lib Dems hoovered up lots of Muslim Labour voters post the Iraq war, only to discover that many of their new supporters weren’t quite so keen on the rest of the liberal programme.
Thanks for this comment and the two separate parts to it. It sounds from your first paragraph that the Green Party policy would just be making official the de facto approach to drug use. Whether this would be seen as condoning drug use (which is think is not their intention), is another matter. These days, government comms and to be as important as policy, if not more than.
Your second paragraph highlights the problem of the current electoral system in that single Parties have to have determined policies on all subjects that matter to their members, and those voting for them to form solitary governments, have to decide if there are enough of their policies they they agree with even if there are some aspects they don’t like. This must be even more there case when you’re voting against the Party you least want to win in your constituency/ nationally.
Thanks, Sal, I appreciate that.
Apologies for my obvious irritation yesterday. Being honest, it was triggered by thread title and the assertion that listening to (in this case overwhelming) public opinion is a form of ātabloidisationā.
The reality is that I have no idea what the best solution to the drug problem is at a national level. Iām sure Iāve read all the same reports and arguments you have, and once upon a time I was far closer to the Green side of the argument than I am now. Itās a subject Iāve thought about at length, and I donāt have answers, only opinions.
In our case, it certainly wasnāt a trauma response. Older brother was a risk taker and a thrill seeker from birth – still is, he just learned to channel it to more fruitful benefit. Younger brother went along for the ride. We were living in a small town on the connection to the newly opened Eurostar. Over the space of couple of years it became a key smuggling route and a shit ton of drugs washed in, with predictable effect. Risk appetite met opportunity.
Unfortunately, sometimes experiencing these things first hand, rather than at a theoretical level, forces you to shed your own delusions. It certainly did in my case. My parents were always very liberal about drugs – they were open about their hard drug use at university and they made it clear that weād be permitted to try soft drugs at home. And when that rapidly went tits up, we all tried desperately to source the pain/trauma that was causing the behaviour.
There are three important things I came to learn about hard drug addicts, or at least the ones I was dealing with. The first is that you canāt help them until theyāre ready to be helped, or until they finally bottom out. The second is that while youāre waiting for that moment to arrive, they will abuse every kindness extended to them. The third is that once theyāre using the āwhyā becomes an illusion you can tie yourself in knots searching for, because it provides the helpful illusion that you, as a horrified onlooker, have more agency than you do.
There were times when a therapeutic approach could (and indeed did) help my brothers. There were other times when it would not have helped at all, and during which attempts to āhelpā only made things worse. Iām sure there are people out there for whom drug therapy was a magic bullet, but Iām sceptical it can be a magic bullet for everyone, all the time. And particularly sceptical that once someone is addicted to – say – legally obtained crack, they can simply be magicked back to normality by the right scheme.
Equally, I recognise that nothing about the scenario we went through would have been improved by prison. In fact, that was always part of the fear – that theyād vanish into the system before the situation turned around. That they didnāt is largely due to the fact they were two middle class kids who got second, third and fourth chances. That fact is not lost on me, which is why I can at least conceptually understand an argument for decriminalisation.
I suppose what I was trying to convey to you, and what probably got lost in my irritation, is this. The 96% of people who donāt want drugs to be legalised may not be in need of education. And listening to them may not be a form of tabloidisation or a surrender to the Daily Mail.
Some of them, at least, will have arrived at their own views legitimately, having access to all the same information and thinking available to you, but with the dubious benefit of bitter experience on top. Because there is the theory of drug prevention, all of which reads beautifully and makes sense on the page, and then thereās living in and around it, which is neither beautiful nor at times comprehensible. And thatās an education I wouldnāt wish on anybody.
As I say, I donāt know what the answer is. And I do rather like Zack Polanski. I find his apparent excess of certainty concerning though – if you want to liberalise drug policy and see what happens then fair enough, but why not start by decriminalising cannabis and go from there? Why jump straight to a policy that has been implemented nowhere and is supported by no one? In an area with quite this much on the line? Thereās a certain arrogance about that, in my view. All of that said, Iām conscious that Iām responding to hearsay in the OP – I will go and read the partyās formal policy position when I get a minute, and Iām sure itās more nuanced than legalising all drugs. At least I hope it is.
Thank YOU again, Bingo, for your full and reflective response. What your, and Freddy’s (below) experience reveals for those of us like me lucky not to have family members with drug dependencies and the consequent problems, is that you will always have far greater, hard-won knowledge about the realities and consequences of hard drug addiction, and that it would be a shameful government that did not take account of and pay attention to such voices in their development of policy.
My thread title was a tabloid effort of drawing attention, sparked by my own irritation at what I saw as the trivialisation and vilification of the Green Party in some recent AW comments (and by Starmer). I had hoped it would be belied and countered by the text of the OP, intended to draw out the considered reflections of the AW community*. It was naĆÆve of me, and I’m sorry for the offence.
Re tabloidisation and public opinion, yes of course my approach is a generalisation and doesn’t take into account the (uncounted) number of that 83** whose views are informed and not reactive or surrendered to the Daily Mail. However, I hold that if you sincerely believe a policy is right, and guided by expert knowledge, the fact that the public is against you is for sure a challenge, but not to principle. Democracy means listening to the public voice, but for me that’s best when it’s demonstratably the well- informed public voice. Give me the Irish approach to abortion with citizens assemblies over the British approach to EU membership.
The actual Green Party policy (at the last GE) is as I quoted in italics above, and shows some nuance: a National Commission to agree an evidence-based approach to reform of the UKās counterproductive drug laws. Decriminalisation of personal use.However, I’m sure the formal position is longer and more detailed than that.
Finally, thank you in particular for taking the effort to explain the background to your brothers’ experience and the three hard-won lessons. The first two have become part of the general picture of drug addiction – that it becomes all there is, all else is subsumed, until the addict is ready to stop. The third is particularly profound and heart breaking.
* which it has, as it so often does – thanks to all.
** Incidentally, from your YouGov link above, the 83% position seems to be for criminalisation of use, not just sale, which suggests the majority do see drug users as criminals.
@salwarpe
No need to apologise for your O.P title as far as Iām concerned.
It doesnāt greatly matter, but you canāt really extrapolate directly from the poll response above that people see drugs users as criminals.
Itās possible to see someone break a law that you believe in and not regard them as a criminal. I believe in road speed laws, but I donāt consider everyone who drives above the speed limit to be a criminal.
Most people I know have taken/do take drugs. I donāt regard them as criminals either, just people who have broken the law – the two arenāt quite the same thing (or at least I donāt interpret them to be).
If you want to know whether the public consider hard drug users to be criminals youād really need to poll that specific question.
Well, I can. The poll asks people if they think drug use should be treated as a criminal issue, to which the answer is overwhelming yes (or yes & health issue).
It is an interesting question – if you break the law, are you a criminal? Technically I would have thought yes, but the interpretation I read from what you are saying is that criminality is an identity, something which is owned, something cultural. You are the lawyer, not me, so I would recognize your greater knowledge. The first site on the subject claims habitual law breaking to be the marker for criminality.
If you drive above the speed limit once, that could be regarded as an accident or a one-off. If you repeatedly do it either you are a criminal or if it’s a common (and accepted) occurrence, then the law is possibly wrong and should be changed. Presumably most people think the law on drug use is not wrong, therefore they regard drug consumption as rightfully illegal and therefore criminal. It’s certainly habitual.
Thinking about it, I actually don’t understand why people who want drug consumption to be illegal wouldn’t regard those who take it to be criminals. After all, that seems to be the whole stigma behind the Green Party’s approach.
Ketamine is currently the biggest illegal drug problem. There is no real “therapeutic” substitute for it.
The issue with hard drugs is that addicts will risk everything for their fix: relationships, financial ruin, prison, ill-health, injury, death and more. The effect on communities is profound.
The public may be against legalisation but would benefit enormously from a public health approach.
I agree – but again, there are downsides. We were risk-reduction oriented when I worked in Edinburgh with heroin addicts (which i did for 6 years). The emerging PH approach in Kensington, Philadelphia looks more like “enabling” fentanyl habits , there not being a methadone equivalent to stabilise people. San Francisco and Vancouver are also “messy”. Not everyone is happy about the injection rooms in glasgow. the My clinical pals and I find talking about bladder incontinence in relation to ket, and neurological damage regarding nitrous oxide does seem to focus minds wonderfully. Maybe it depends how deep into the habit, and the kind of substance it is.
@tiggerlion
Agree with everything you have said in your post, especially the second paragraph.
On Friday I had a lovely trip to a previously unvisited magistrates court to watch my son, as he said āget away with it.ā
āItā being a couple of coercive control charges and an assault charge against (another) ex girlfriend who decided not to turn up for his trial so no evidence was offered and the prosecution withdrew. My son has previous convictions, all as a result of ketamine ((and alcohol) riddled nights out where he doesnāt know what heās doing. Itās no excuse. I loathe his behaviour and attitude. I think maybe deep down he may( though attachment issues, ADHD and lack of executive function may come into play) too but not enough to make him want to stop. Meanwhile, his nose is collapsing, 75% of his septum has gone, his bladder has shrunk to the size of god knows what so clots are constantly forming and he is in agony and not far off needing surgery and a bag. Not enough to want to stop though.
Forgot to mention to mention, he did get Ā£200 court costs plus an extra 40 hours community service on top of his current 150 hours, for twatting a police officer whoād responded to the ex girlfriendās 999 call.
Iām against legalising drugs.
I am so sorry to hear all of this, Freddy, sounds absolutely brutal. I know this has been going on for some time, and I can only hope that each step takes you a little closer to turning a corner.
Blimey Freddy all the best vibes flowing your way. I’m against it too. My younger brother took his own life at age 22 having tried to quit heroin twice – the third time he fell back into it he couldn’t see any other way out. Anyone who thinks legalising it is way off beam. I’m with Tig, it should be actively treated as a health issue whilst the purveyors of it should be hunted down like dogs.
I am in absolute lock step with the above comments Freddy and my sincere condolences Twang. I too find myself in agreement with Tigg and indeed with you Twang about how to deal with those that profit from it.
@twang
@pencilsqueezer
@bingo-little
Thank you all for your supportive words, it really does help.
Twang..,I canāt imagine how that feels and how you coped with that. We are not there yet but I canāt pretend that havenāt been times when Iāve feared the worst.
My son has recently said that he does want to stop . Itās the first time he has said it. So thatās a positive. But on a Friday when heās just been paid, he still meets his drug dealer before starting his evening adventures so he is still planning it. We know it will be hard for him to stop ( we donāt of course because weāre not addictedā¦) but itās easy for us on the outside to see what the first steps should be. The trouble is, block one or two dealers is fine but as others have said , itās so easy to get hold of stuff. Literally he can be out of our house (in leafy sweet suburbia) for two minutes and heās sorted for pretty much anything.
I canāt tell you how much I hate the world and life he has dragged us into.
It can’t be easy to take the positive from all that, Fred, but it sounds like possibly the beginning of something. We’re here for you.
Thanks @fentonsteve
Thanks @freddy-steady. Yes it was awful. The worst was I’d taken him to his last rehab and put my business card in his wallet and said ” any problems at all, phone and I’ll come”. The police found it at 3am and rang me so I had to call my Dad and tell him.
He did it because he felt alone but at his funeral this ragbag band of South Manchester youth turned up, white faced and shaky, and asked if they could come in. Of course we welcomed them. They were lovely, and devastated. The last thing he was was alone but who knows how you’d deal with that situation.
@twang
Christ. Thatās awful. Iām so sorry that you all had to go through that.
My son only says heās lonely when heās taken industrial quantities of Ket. It wears off quickly (part of the problem) but when it does he has no memories of how he was or what he said.
Weāre in South Manchester too. Plenty of white faced , shaky folk here too. Not sure Iād have been as benevolent as you.
Thanks for sharing and your words.
Thanks Fred
If they legalise the really hard dangerous stuff, it may be prudent to tax it vigorously so that only billionaires can afford it. Give it a couple of years and the world may be a better place.
The criminal gangs already in the drug business would love that, @Leedsboy.
Rather like the thriving trade in dodgy pubs and the larger construction sites etc. for cheap smuggled fags and baccy. Only much more toxic.
Every family has a story. Mine has two. One was an uncle with a brother who died in a car crash aged 17. Another had a serious car crash and was never the same again. If alcohol had been illegal it wouldn’t have helped. You can make your own moonshine. You can get rat arsed anyway. At the same time illegal drugs are easily obtained.
I’m inclined to think that it’s easier (or just as easy) for teens to get street drugs than it is to get alcohol, currently.
Probably. In my experience (and l have used the services) you can phone for pretty much any drug and it will be delivered withing 15 minutes. Maybe not Heroin.
There was a TV documentary (BBC?) some years back where a former addict told a researcher that if taken to a random decent-sized UK town that he’d never been to before, he could find a source of heroin that same day.
Anywhere at all in the UK. They tried it and he succeeded.
Not just the towns and cities. When I lived in a chocolate box village in Surrey, I knew a police photographer who assured me everything was available there if you knew who to ask.
On a non judgmental note, Iāve never understood how anyone can inject themselves with illegal substances of dubious origin. Like almost everyone here, Iām old enough to remember when even a small amount of dope was considered a big deal if caught, let alone coke or heroin. Besides being dangerous, expensive and illegal, if I was ever tempted to try anything, I was discouraged by a colleague having his first coke induced heart attack just after his 40th birthday, followed by his second when he didnāt stop snorting coke. Heās still around and still working but has a huge number of pills to take for the rest of his life. I wonder if he thinks it was worth it?
Iāve posted this on here before, but many years ago I worked with a guy who had previously put on shows in Todmorden. One night the turn was a down on her luck Nico. The problem was that Nico wouldnāt come out of her dressing room unless she got some smack. āHeroin? This is Todmorden. You canāt even get draw around here.ā āPhone around. Ask anyone who might know someone who knows someone. Thereās always heroin.ā And sure enough there was.
As an electoral strategy, you do wonder what theyāve been smoking.
A slightly lateral viewpoint. We are in a largely unreported epidemic of online gambling addiction. This is down to a very wealthy industry ruthlessly targeting and exploiting its “customers”.
Now, imagine the same people being allowed to sell cocaine or skunk.
And that’s why I’m against legalisation of drugs.