Horror crash in Italy, a banned driver who was under the influence of Marijuana ran into a group of cyclists, killing eight and injuring four others. Report here -
www.cyclingnews.com/news/eight-cyclists-killed-in-accident-in-italy
|
|
Horrendous - I was thinking of that bad accident near Rhyl a few of Christmases ago seeing a group riding out on Anglesey today..
|
terrible reading
really terrible
nothing more to add :-(
|
From the report.....It is understood that Elketani emerged without serious injury from the crash....
he was the driver, is anyone else wondering about the possibility of this changing at some point?
Yet again drugs, i seeth with hatred at those responsible for promoting and profit from this vile trade, and those idiots that use the filth.
Tragic and so avoidable.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Sun 5 Dec 10 at 22:43
|
>> Yet again drugs, i seeth with hatred at those responsible for promoting and profit from
>> this vile trade, and those idiots that use the filth.
I disagree with drug driving as much as drink driving, but I don't see any difference in the moral culpability of those that profit from or use marijuana and those that do the same from alcohol.
I think the problem is people who decide to drive under the influence either drink or drugs, rather than the drink or drugs themselves.
It is, I would suggest, just an accident of history that booze is legal and marijuana.
If it was invented today, alcohol would surely be outlawed, as its negative impacts on society must be at least as bad, if not much worse, than marijuana.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sun 5 Dec 10 at 23:01
|
steelspark it was this day in 1933 that prohibition was lifted
why do you think that was?
|
>> steelspark it was this day in 1933 that prohibition was lifted
>> why do you think that was?
To reduce the amount of organised crime profiting from it, but also because it was widely unpopular, giving that drinking alcohol is so entrenched in society.
But just because alcohol is so entrenched, doesn't make it less damaging than marijuana.
|
>> I disagree with drug driving as much as drink driving, but I don't see any
>> difference in the moral culpability of those that profit from or use marijuana and those
>> that do the same from alcohol.
>>
>> It is, I would suggest, just an accident of history that booze is legal and
>> marijuana.
>>
>> If it was invented today, alcohol would surely be outlawed, as its negative impacts on
>> society must be at least as bad, if not much worse, than marijuana.
>>
The difference being the Government get their cut of alcohol sales...ban alcohol, ban tobacco, ban petrol, they'll find something to tax.
ANYTHING which affects your judgement should be banned whilst driving but taxes must be maintained whether or not Napoleon is alive.
|
>> ANYTHING which affects your judgement should be banned whilst driving
Lets see, you woud have to ban stress, depression, euphoria, car heaters, radios, young ladies walking along the street, etc etc.
Look the guy was a scroat, and scroats do what scroats do.
|
>> The difference being the Government get their cut of alcohol sales...ban alcohol, ban tobacco, ban
>> petrol, they'll find something to tax.
>>
>> ANYTHING which affects your judgement should be banned whilst driving but taxes must be maintained
>> whether or not Napoleon is alive.
Yes. I don't think that alcohol should be banned, just that I don't think there is any justification to demonise marijuana more than drink, just because drink happens to be legal.
|
...just that I don't think there is any justification to demonise marijuana more than drink...
One difference is you can't get drunk standing next to someone who is intoxicated.
|
>> ...just that I don't think there is any justification to demonise marijuana more than drink...
>>
>> One difference is you can't get drunk standing next to someone who is intoxicated.
Sure. I didn't include passive smoking of marijuana, but that is not inherent in marijuana usage is it?
You probably also won't get your teeth kicked in standing next to someone who is smoking marijuana :)
|
|
They should legalise the lot.
|
They certainly should PU.
A crazed idiot is a crazed idiot. Some crazed idiots take drugs, some don't.
Hysterical anti-drug propaganda, which comes from all directions, including of course the powers that be, actually feathers the nests of drug barons and ensures high levels of petty and not-so-petty crime, by helping to maintain total prohibition and keeping prices, and paranoia levels, high (and where it matters sometimes, quality often unpredictable which, with opiates, presents a potentially deadly threat to the unwary).
|
>> They should legalise the lot.
>>
Could not agree more. The only concern is that revenue generation from organised crime will have to be replaced from an alternative criminal activity. I say organised crime, because low level crime to fund the end user habit would decrease.
Presumably new activities would be involved, eg export and distribution of legally obtained 'illegal' drugs. But even this may have an upside in generating foreign exchange benefits to the UK economy:)
|
|
I agree with PU. The whol lot should be legitimised. However, I also think that there should be rather severe penalties for being under the influence of (whatever) and doing naughtiness. Being "under the influence" should not be treated as an excuse for said naughtiness.
|
|
That would be part of my package - Richard Brunstrom proposed this and also proposed an automated needle exchange scheme - you could hear the "kill the witch" chants in the streets apparently.
|
Pugugly said:
>> They should legalise the lot.
In many respects I agree but I can see a couple of problems. Firstly drugs such as heroine are very powerful, and have dangerous side effects, such as death if taken in too high a dosage. My late mother died in effect from a paralysed lower bowel, which was quite likely due to regular ingestion of prescription morphine. It is a known side effect. Secondly, how do you keep them away from children? Alcohol is bad enough. And lastly, many of these drugs are not particularly nice, being highly addictive. Even cannabis has negatives, such as demotivation when taken regularly. Do we want to encourage their use? (Or to answer my own question, maybe the current policy is not exactly discouraging their use, whilst criminalising users.)
|
>> Sure. I didn't include passive smoking of marijuana, but that is not inherent in marijuana
>> usage is it?
>>
Only because its not legalised, I already report to my Control team if I come across someone smoking drugs in the train as it can affect me - the same would be true if they legalised it as you'd end up having to walk past them on the street as you do smokers already.
I remain to be convinced that legalising drugs is a good idea, and the argument that it should be done simply because alcohol is already legal is, tbh, a pretty good argument to get alcohol banned rather than get drugs legalised!
|
...as it can affect me...
I've left one or two gig venues involuntarily under the influence of dope.
The Nashville in West Kensington, London, is one example.
|
>> >> Sure. I didn't include passive smoking of marijuana, but that is not inherent in
>> marijuana
>>
>> Only because its not legalised, I already report to my Control team if I come
>> across someone smoking drugs in the train as it can affect me - the same
>> would be true if they legalised it as you'd end up having to walk past
>> them on the street as you do smokers already.
I suppose so, but that is more of a choice about how it is consumed. The same with heroin, in theory.
>> I remain to be convinced that legalising drugs is a good idea, and the argument
>> that it should be done simply because alcohol is already legal is, tbh, a pretty
>> good argument to get alcohol banned rather than get drugs legalised!
Well, it is at least a poor argument that "because X is legal, Y should be too".
However, legalising cannabis was not my original point. My question, in response to GB's comments relating to the initial drug driving story, was whether it is right to demonise cannabis producers and users, but not alcohol producers and users - simply because one is legal and one isn't (especially because that legality is arguably an accident of history).
|
|
In an ideal world there would be no need any substances to misuse - however we're not in the real world. The drug war is lost - millions if not billions are poured into to it to little or no avail. It leads to petty and organised crime. So legitimise it, control it and tax it.
|
>> In an ideal world there would be no need any substances to misuse
Hm. I'm not sure that would *be* an ideal world.
|
When portugal legalised everything in 2001, there was all sorts of opposition.
It would become a drug tourist hot spot.
There would be a burden on healthcare.
It'd be bad for the economy, drug use would go up.
Fast forward 9 years, hardly any average joe knows portugal legalised drugs all that time ago. Extensive reports show it's been a major success in terms of crime rates, healthcare requirements and the like. Although, maybe not the economy but from what we know that's nothing to do with stoners :-)
EDIT: the opposition largely died a death very quickly after legalisation.
Last edited by: Skoda on Mon 6 Dec 10 at 12:29
|
>> EDIT: the opposition largely died a death very quickly after legalisation.
I heard that most of them ODed on heroin, and the rest died after climbing into the tiger enclosure while tripping on magic mushrooms.
|
|
It saved money on tiger food for a while.
|
>> ANYTHING which affects your judgement should be banned whilst driving
As far as I know, within quite reasonable limits, it is.
|
We can't even control the legal use of alcohol, what on earth makes some of you think that legalising other drugs will make them easier to control... From what I can see legalising it will increase use causing more problems than we have now and lowering the standard of living even more for those of us who don't over-indulge, but are directly affected by the PFD's that use them...
And I dread to think where the criminal fraternity will go next when their current source of cash dries up...
Sorry, but I still remain to be convinced legalising drugs is the right way to go, evidence of alcohol misuse is a convincing enough argument for me that its totally the wrong way...
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 6 Dec 10 at 19:54
|
>> We can't even control the legal use of alcohol, what on earth makes some of
>> you think that legalising other drugs will make them easier to control...
The point is that a huge amount of crime is caused ancilliary to "drugs". Much of this would disappear were all drugs legitimised. As for crime committed "under the influence", we already have to deal with that - although I don't think it's huge in comparison.
The law is there to prevent misbehaviour - it can't control everything, but it's what we rely on for everything. For many things, I don't think that the punishment is half enough.
|
So junkies need to steal to get enough money to pay their dealer for a tenner wrap.
Why will they not need to steal to buy the wrap from their High St drug shop?
|
For those of you that think that the consumption of cannabis ought to be legalised...have a look at the figures for the amount of people it sends to psychiatric wards...or sometimes who commit suicide.
There is a section of society that its'usage has traditionally been associated with, have a look at how many of them, as a percentage are in psychiatric hospitals or are under close psychiatric care. There might well be other reasons for some of the figures, but cannabis plays its' part.
I have seen someone, from afar, damn nearly go off the rails with fatal consequences through its' misuse, purely because it will find a flaw if there is one.
There's a good reason why its' downgrading to a Class C drug, was put back up to a Class B.
|
Its a bit chicken and egg though isn't it?
Perhaps people who are likely to end up in psychiatric wards or who are disposed to suicide are exactly the people who find difficulty in dealing with life and who find the mind altering effect of cannabis so attractive.
The good reason why it was put back up to Class B was because that was politically expedient.
|
But if you legalise it the usage isn't going to stay the same as it is now, because you'll get masses of people who wouldn't normally have bothered start to try it as it would be easy to get hold of... So all you'll do is see the same as we are seeing with alcohol abuse added to with a massive increase in drug abuse...
I feel that the numbers abusing drugs would rocket with its legalisation and make alcohol abuse look like a walk in the park, both from the crime aspect and the effect on the NHS.
No thanks...
|
>> But if you legalise it the usage isn't going to stay the same as it
>> is now, because you'll get masses of people who wouldn't normally have bothered start to
>> try it as it would be easy to get hold of... So all you'll do
>> is see the same as we are seeing with alcohol abuse added to with a
>> massive increase in drug abuse...
>>
>> I feel that the numbers abusing drugs would rocket with its legalisation and make alcohol
>> abuse look like a walk in the park, both from the crime aspect and the
>> effect on the NHS.
>>
>> No thanks...
If you read up on the decriminalisation that Portugal introduced (which Skoda mentioned above), it doesn't seem to have resulted in the kind of problems you suggest, in fact the opposite in some regards.
www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 6 Dec 10 at 21:32
|
>> If you read up on the decriminalisation that Portugal introduced (which Skoda mentioned above), it
>> doesn't seem to have resulted in the kind of problems you suggest, in fact the
>> opposite in some regards.
I note that in the last but one paragraph someone else is not convinced...
In addition you are assuming that the reaction of the British is likely to be the same as the Portugese, as that article did when comparing Portugal with the USA, but we have different behavior patterns to them so whose to say it will be?
Also, just out of interest, I noted at the top that it mentioned that this was the decriminalizing of "personal" use of drugs with the offer of therapy... So what happens if the person refuses therapy and what happens to those who supply?
Last edited by: hobby on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 10:44
|
>> For those of you that think that the consumption of cannabis ought to be legalised...have
>> a look at the figures for the amount of people it sends to psychiatric wards...or
>> sometimes who commit suicide.
>> I have seen someone, from afar, damn nearly go off the rails with fatal consequences
>> through its' misuse, purely because it will find a flaw if there is one.
Off on a tangent - the biggest problem with cannabis/marijuana is that you don't know what you are getting. Could be a mild whack, could be some serious hallucinogenic stuff. No %ABV stickers or XXmg Tar warnings.
So you are risking doing the drug equivalent of necking a half-pint of mild OR a bottle of vodka every time you light up. And you just don't know what it is going to be this time.
|
|
And that is another argument for leagalizing it - it would control the quality and strength....
|
It is utterly ridiculous to prohibit people from taking any substance. If they want to, they will find a way of doing it.
Prohibition simply creates, out of nothing, a whole new area of crime with the misery and trouble, and the profit, that result. Only the powers that be, and 'organised crime', want it, along of course with intellectually fragile puritanical types who believe any old carp they see in the tabloids. No one else does.
No one is forced to take drugs. Most sane people who have tried them only try them again if the experience has been pleasant. Most people can tell more or less immediately if they don't like something, or if it seems to make them stupid or uncoordinated or whatever.
The public discourse on these matters has been 90 per cent moronic, lying drivel for as long as I can remember. That is why I tried all the main drugs that I could lay my hands on fifty years ago. I didn't become an addict (except to tobacco) or get hepatitis. I don't recommend people to smoke, drink, inject or sniff anything. There may be long term health costs after all. But I certainly think they have the right to do it if they want. It is no one else's damn business unless they then misbehave and do harm. That becomes society's or the family's business.
There has been a certain amount of rather dodgy experting on drug effects here, some of it misguided and ignorant. But there's nothing surprising about that. A fish rots from the head down.
|
Sorry that some of us don't agree with your views, AC, I should know by now that you and Zero are always right and those of us who don't agree are wrong!! :-)
BTW I take it that comment about the fish relates to those who have taken the stuff and the effects its had on them... ;-)
|
>> There has been a certain amount of rather dodgy experting on drug effects here, >>some of it misguided and ignorant. But there's nothing surprising about that. A fish >>rots from the head down.
>>
No idea if any of that was aimed at me..but if so...my main judgement on the subject matter has come from an ex-girlfriend I lived with for 7 years who is a senior psychiatric nurse..and...having had to travel 300 miles at very short notice to visit someone who'd been Sectioned for their own safety as direct result of their mental state and severe depression brought on by excessive use of cannabis, the same person who once they'd moved on from that phase of their life, changed their mates and stopped taking substances, is now as right as rain. I'm not going in to details on here...but it was a close run thing...and that person will tell you it was the cannabis that sent them off the rails.
|
Lots of evidence suggests anything other than very infrequent use of cannabis sends you crackers.
This doesn't suit the 'legalise it, it's not as harmful as booze' lobby.
Taking cannabis does appear to 'cross the line' for some users, leading to experimentation with cocaine and heroin, which most people accept is harmful.
A drinker who starts on beer but goes on to experiment with spirits is generally not in such a risky position.
|
"Lots of evidence suggests anything other than very infrequent use of cannabis sends you crackers."
No there isn't. If it did a large proportion of the population would be mad. There is some evidence that taking of the stronger varieties can cause psychotic behaviour in some people. There is very little hard evidence for the gateway theory that cannabis users progress to other drugs, certainly there is no more evidence to support a link to hard drug use by consumers of cannabis than there is by consumers of alcohol.
All objective analysis point to the the view that alcohol is a more harmful drug than cannabis. I realise that does not in itself make an argument for legalising cannabis but making it illegal does not seem to have worked. It is freely available virtually everywhere and anyone who wants to use it can. All it has done is to criminalise a large number of people and create a market for drug dealers.
|
Westpig,
I've absolutely no reason to doubt what you say about the effects of cannabis.
I spent ten years of my life dealing with the affairs of the mentally ill and I'm sure recreational drugs had their part in some of the cases I managed. Cannot recall specific diagnoses for E/cocaine/weed etc but the term Korsakoff's syndrome sticks with me; a product of addiction to alcohol.
How far can we control people's intake of any potentially harmful substance by imposing penalties for consumption/possession oe even supply? Would we be better off regulating, educating and taxing but letting people accept the consequences of their own (adult) life decisions??
|
>> There has been a certain amount of rather dodgy experting on drug effects here, >>some of it misguided and ignorant. But there's nothing surprising about that. A fish >>rots from the head down.
>>
No idea if any of that was aimed at me..
It wasn't Westpig.
I wouldn't claim that any intoxicant was totally harmless, and we all know that individuals who are fragile or unstable, perhaps owing to a temporary situation, can make things worse by trying to distract themselves from their troubles by taking a lot of something that doesn't really suit them. A lot of the danger people allege in the case of cannabis is the result of that sort of thing.
Heroin in ignorant hands can be lethal, not when it is adulterated but when it isn't.
|
Westpig said:
>> For those of you that think that the consumption of cannabis ought to be legalised...have
>> a look at the figures for the amount of people it sends to psychiatric wards...or
>> sometimes who commit suicide.
As far as I know the connection between cannabis use and psychiatric illness is weak. Research suggests that a small number of users might develop schizophrenia, but it is unclear if the cannabis triggers a latent susceptibility to the illness, or causes it. And the number is tiny. Please correct me if you find a source.
As for it causing people to commit suicide, I doubt that. I speak as someone who regularly consumed the stuff, albeit 20 odd years ago. And I knew many who did likewise. I have never seen anyone clearly damaged by it. Whereas I have seen alcoholics. I happen to be against its use, but not for the reasons you give. There are real side effects of regular cannabis use. It damages short term and long term memory, and as far as I know the damage can be permanent. It also demotivates people, which is not surprising as the same would be true if you were continually drunk. And of course if you smoke it, the smoke is far more damaging than cigarette smoke, in part because it is inhaled directly into the lungs, with no filter, and in part because it contains lots of nasty particulates. Lastly, regular use induces paranoia, and an unbalanced mental state.
To be honest regular use of cannabis is akin to regular over indulgence in alcohol. You need to be in a bad state to commit either sin, and it is hardly going to help you, and most likely it will damage you. In other words, drugs of any kind will be abused by certain kinds of people, or people in certains kinds of states, maybe when they are down, things are going bad, and it is seen as a crutch.
>> There's a good reason why its' downgrading to a Class C drug, was put back
>> up to a Class B.
Yes, political. Ignorant politicians too scared of the truth, and too eager to pander to the tabloids, and the crasser elements of the media. The scientific advisers said it should be a class C drug.
|
gmac said:
>> ANYTHING which affects your judgement should be banned whilst driving but taxes must be maintained whether or not Napoleon is alive.
The last accident I had was after I had just visited my mother who was very ill in hospital. I was in no state to drive, and it was lucky that it was very minor. I did not realise at the time, but if you are emotionally unbalanced, after an argument, or bad news for example, then you might not be fit to drive. They should tell you that in the theory part of the driving test.
|
>> >> Yet again drugs, i seeth with hatred at those responsible for promoting and profit
>> from
>> >> this vile trade, and those idiots that use the filth.
>>
>> I disagree with drug driving as much as drink driving, but I don't see any
>> difference in the moral culpability of those that profit from or use marijuana and those
>> that do the same from alcohol.
>>
>> I think the problem is people who decide to drive under the influence either drink
>> or drugs, rather than the drink or drugs themselves.
>>
>> It is, I would suggest, just an accident of history that booze is legal and
>> marijuana.
>>
>> If it was invented today, alcohol would surely be outlawed, as its negative impacts on
>> society must be at least as bad, if not much worse, than marijuana.
I agree completely with that. The issue is not that he was using the drug, but that he was under the influence while driving. I recall in London standing on the pavement, and seeing a car glide by. The driver had what looked like a cannabis spliff in one hand, and eyes that were dilated which is often indicative of drug use. Lunatic.
A key problem with illegal drugs is that their distribution is controlled by drug gangs, and the profits can be huge.
|
|
I know of someone who worked in a mental health unit for teenagers. Almost all in there were there due to drug use. I'll leave it there.
|
I base my views mostly on the dozens of drugs defendants I've seen go through court.
This tells me that extensive cannabis use does addle the brain.
Others may pontificate on the gateway theory, but all I can tell you is many drugs users have convictions for possessing and dealing a wide variety of drugs.
Cannabis is illegal which tends to bring users - who might otherwise be law-abiding - into contact with criminals.
It may be stating the obvious, but the criminal's behaviour tends to prevail, so you end up with an extra criminal, not one fewer.
Legalising cannabis could break that criminal connection, but there would still be the problem of addicts who have no resources who will steal to get their drugs.
|
>> Legalising cannabis could break that criminal connection, but there would still be the problem of
>> addicts who have no resources who will steal to get their drugs.
Possibly, but the results of decriminalisation in Portugal, seems to suggest that you end up with fewer addicts, not more.
I don't think that the illegal status of drugs prevents people from taking the risk of buying them, but it does mean that the ones caught do then move into the downward spiral of the having a criminal record.
I consider myself to be law-abiding but thought nothing of buying a range of drugs when I was younger. I suppose could easily have been caught and that might have had a big impact on my career and the path I may have taken.
|
Drugged and Banned Driver Kills Eight - R.P.
