On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 20:54:41 UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-09-21, Smolley <s...@home.net> wrote:
I find it very strange that the consumption of illegal drugs isIt isn't allowed. That's what "illegal" means.
alloweed, especially where other (violent) crimes are caused by
someone out of their mind.
Some Class B and Class A drugs can be taken legally - recently
cannabis has been allowed on prescription [although personally I fail
to see what medical benefit there might be]
and as it happens heroin is quite often prescribed.
On 2023-09-21, Smolley <s...@home.net> wrote:
I find it very strange that the consumption of illegal drugs is alloweed, especially where other (violent) crimes are caused by someone out of their mind.It isn't allowed. That's what "illegal" means.
On 29/09/2023 08:52, Brian W wrote:the level at which driving ability is impaired. So, if you set it at zero, someone with 1 microgram per litre, well below the level at which it impacts driving ability, would be liable to receive a 12 month driving ban, plus a fine or imprisonment.
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 01:54:43 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2023 14:37, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:02:19 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2023 05:57, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 11:44:23 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2023 05:55, Brian W wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 11:22:13 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: >>>>>>>> On 23/09/2023 12:15, Brian W wrote:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 23:27:26 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 21/09/2023 12:59, Smolley wrote:
I find it very strange that the consumption of illegal drugs is alloweed,
especially where other (violent) crimes are caused by someone out of their
mind.
I draw a parallel view where paedophiles who collect images are guilty of
creating an illegal demand and are prosecuted.
Good points, well-made.Why? Road traffic laws are concerned with ensuring people can drive safely. If a person's blood-cannabis level is lower than the level which would cause impairment, why would road traffic law be engaged?
It staggers belief that the UK has a legal limit for blood-cannabis
(however measured) when driving, which is any higher than zero. >>>>>>>
I haven't suggested that it would.
That would be the inevitable consequence of what you suggest - i.e. that the legal limit for blood-cannabis should be zero. The current limit is, I understand, 2 micrograms per litre. I assume that that has been set conservatively, i.e. below
you drive with 1.9 micrograms per litre of cannabis in your blood, no penalty. 2.1 micrograms and you fall over a legal cliff edge in exactly the same way as for alcohol.
The impact of the UK's "breathalyser laws" has been (deliberately) >>>>>> completely gung-ho ever since 1967. Other European states start of[f] the
pyramid of penalties with licence endorsements. The UK bans people from
driving on the basis of a measured figure being 80 rather than 79 and >>>>>> has no provision for trivial breaches to be punished proportionately. >>>>>
Why should illegal drug laws not be enforced equally robustly?
They are. There's no zero tolerance policy on driving with a blood alcohol level - if you are below the particular level specified in the law, there's no penalty. If you are above it, you fall over a legal cliff edge. Same for illegal drugs. If
drug-above-the-specified-limit/I didn't say it should. It just happens that the means of enforcement - >>>> IF the law on illegal drugs were being properly enforced, which, of
If you are driving with a blood alcohol level of any particular substance which the law deems to be below a level which impairs your driving ability, why should road traffic law be engaged?
course, it isn't - would look similar to the the enforcement of the law >>>> on alcohol while driving. Alcohol is not an illegal drug.
That makes no logical sense. The usual penalty for simple possession of cannabis is a fine - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/possession-of-a-controlled-drug-2/
The penalty for driving with a specified drug above the specified limit includes a *mandatory* driving ban of at least 12 months - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/driving-or-attempting-to-drive-with-a-specified-
drawn there will be arbitrary effects at the margins, but on the whole the limit is set at a point where driving ability is impaired.So what?
So if you set the limit at zero, you'd be removing the driving licence from people who drove after using cannabis at any time, in circumstances where you can't be sure that their driving was impaired.
Driving licences can be removed for failing to pay child support.
I don't agree with that policy, and certainly wouldn't want it to be extended to other areas. In my view, a driving licence should only be removed when the person's actions cause risk to pedestrians or other road users.However, Parliament DOES agree with it. And that is very much that, I suggest.
Extending that to driving with an illegal drug in the bloodstream would
seem a simple and reasonable measure.
Tell me why it would not be.
Because it is punishing people for something they haven't done.
Tell me why use of totally-illegal drugs should be tolerated while the
consumption of *trivial* marginal amounts of a legal substance should
not be.
Use of illegal drugs isn't tolerated. It is a criminal offence to possess them. Where the quantity in the blood is too low to impair driving, however, road traffic law should not be engaged. With regard to alcohol, obviously wherever the line is
[FTAOD, I have, of course, never posessed or used an illegal drug.
Neither have I ever fallen foul of the breathalyser or of any threat of
disqualification.]
You surprise me. I had you down as the type that would snort a few lines of cocaine before getting behind the wheel :-)
So you would effectively be engaging road traffic law provisions for the offence of simple possession. Why would you want to do that?In order to combat the drugs trade and its market?
There are lots of areas of crime that we could seek to target. You'll be aware that shoplifting is currently on the rise - perhaps we should remove driving licences from shoplifters? Tax evaders? Where would it end?Why not?
It amounts to house arrest for many people. Cheaper than imprisonment.
On 2023-10-09, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 20:54:41 UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-09-21, Smolley <s...@home.net> wrote:
I find it very strange that the consumption of illegal drugs isIt isn't allowed. That's what "illegal" means.
alloweed, especially where other (violent) crimes are caused by
someone out of their mind.
Some Class B and Class A drugs can be taken legally - recently
cannabis has been allowed on prescription [although personally I fail
to see what medical benefit there might be]
Why do you "fail to see" the well-known and reasonably well-proven
medical benefits of cannabis?
and as it happens heroin is quite often prescribed.
Indeed. I was quite amused to discover that the pain relief options
during childbirth include inhaled nitrous oxide (available on Camden
High St), intravenous heroin (available on Camden High St) and, er,
fentanyl injected directly into the spine (only one small step down
on the pain relief scale from 'total amputation of patient's head').
On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 19:37:23 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Oct 2023 at 18:11:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-10-09, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 20:54:41 UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-09-21, Smolley <s...@home.net> wrote:
I find it very strange that the consumption of illegal drugs isIt isn't allowed. That's what "illegal" means.
alloweed, especially where other (violent) crimes are caused by
someone out of their mind.
Some Class B and Class A drugs can be taken legally - recently
cannabis has been allowed on prescription [although personally I fail
to see what medical benefit there might be]
Why do you "fail to see" the well-known and reasonably well-proven
medical benefits of cannabis?
Er because most of the people seeking prescriptions have no medical
need and just want to get high.
and as it happens heroin is quite often prescribed.
Indeed. I was quite amused to discover that the pain relief options
during childbirth include inhaled nitrous oxide (available on Camden
High St),
not up to date, has this been classified recently? Amazing how many
people need cannisters for their whipped cream machines...
intravenous heroin (available on Camden High St)
Usually just morphine, not diamorphine.
fentanyl injected directly into the spine (only one small step down
on the pain relief scale from 'total amputation of patient's head').
Eek! Overdosing on this now main cause of drug deaths in USA!
On 9 Oct 2023 at 18:11:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-10-09, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 20:54:41 UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-09-21, Smolley <s...@home.net> wrote:
I find it very strange that the consumption of illegal drugs isIt isn't allowed. That's what "illegal" means.
alloweed, especially where other (violent) crimes are caused by
someone out of their mind.
Some Class B and Class A drugs can be taken legally - recently
cannabis has been allowed on prescription [although personally I fail
to see what medical benefit there might be]
Why do you "fail to see" the well-known and reasonably well-proven
medical benefits of cannabis?
and as it happens heroin is quite often prescribed.
Indeed. I was quite amused to discover that the pain relief options
during childbirth include inhaled nitrous oxide (available on Camden
High St),
intravenous heroin (available on Camden High St)
and, er,
fentanyl injected directly into the spine (only one small step down
on the pain relief scale from 'total amputation of patient's head').
The latter (but one) option is quite a good idea if you are going to have a caesarean section while awake.
--
Roger Hayter
On 2023-10-10, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 19:37:23 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Oct 2023 at 18:11:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-10-09, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 20:54:41 UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-09-21, Smolley <s...@home.net> wrote:
I find it very strange that the consumption of illegal drugs isIt isn't allowed. That's what "illegal" means.
alloweed, especially where other (violent) crimes are caused by
someone out of their mind.
Some Class B and Class A drugs can be taken legally - recently
cannabis has been allowed on prescription [although personally I fail >>>>> to see what medical benefit there might be]
Why do you "fail to see" the well-known and reasonably well-proven
medical benefits of cannabis?
Er because most of the people seeking prescriptions have no medical
need and just want to get high.
And that means there are no medical benefits because...? People might
seek prescription for opiates because they want to get high, that
doesn't mean opiates have no beneficial medical uses.
and as it happens heroin is quite often prescribed.
Indeed. I was quite amused to discover that the pain relief options
during childbirth include inhaled nitrous oxide (available on Camden
High St),
not up to date, has this been classified recently? Amazing how many
people need cannisters for their whipped cream machines...
I think it's still going through the process. Apparently it will be
illegal "by the end of the year". But who knows if the government
will last that long?
intravenous heroin (available on Camden High St)
Usually just morphine, not diamorphine.
I can't speak to relative frequencies, but some UK hospitals certainly
offer heroin aka diamorphine. For example:
https://www.whittington.nhs.uk/default.asp?c=28720 https://www.imperial.nhs.uk/our-services/maternity-services/giving-birth/pain-relief-during-labour
https://www.uhcw.nhs.uk/download/clientfiles/files/Patient%20Information%20Leaflets/Women%20and%20Children_s/Maternity/Pain%20relief%20in%20labour.pdf
fentanyl injected directly into the spine (only one small step down
on the pain relief scale from 'total amputation of patient's head').
Eek! Overdosing on this now main cause of drug deaths in USA!
Indeed. I would not recommend unsupervised recreational use of fentanyl.
It's not quite as bad as the US cops like to make out though - you can't
drop dead just from looking at it, as they seem to claim.
On 2023-10-10, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
And that means there are no medical benefits because...? People might
seek prescription for opiates because they want to get high, that
doesn't mean opiates have no beneficial medical uses.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 50:15:56 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,922 |
| Posted today: | 1 |